I welcome the delegation and invite it to make its presentation.
Pre-Budget Analysis: Discussion with Society of St. Vincent de Paul.
Professor John Monaghan
I thank the Chairman. Over the past decade social welfare benefits have increased steadily and, as outlined in the latest figures from the Central Statistics Office survey on income and living conditions, this resulted in a significant and welcome drop in the number of people living in consistent poverty and those at risk of poverty. However, equally significantly, right through the boom years the Society of St. Vincent de Paul had to increase its spending from approximately €38 million in the early 2000s to €46 million in the mid-2000s.
We do not have numbers for 2009 but in 2008 the spend was more than €50 million, that is, €1 million per week. We were helping more and more people during that time. While wonderful things were happening and increases in social welfare rates were a sufficient response, perhaps someone can explain why we had to visit more people and spend even more money while the great reductions in poverty levels were apparently taking place.
In 2008, as I mentioned, we spent approximately €50 million, some €27 million of which went directly to families in their homes. About €6.1 million was spent on food, €3.8 million on education, €3.8 million on energy-related needs such as coal, gas, oil and electricity, and €9.4 million on general help, covering almost anything else one can think of, including rents, mortgages and medical and funeral expenses. We spent a further €23 million on services to people in need. For example, we have now constructed more than 1,000 social housing units and we are one of the biggest providers of such units in the country. Every night more than 560 people manage to get accommodation in our 14 hostels. We have 30 resource centres and more than 11 holiday homes, where we provide up to 5,000 holidays every year to older people, children and teenagers, all of which provides help directly to people in need, including those in prison, living on halting sites, migrants and asylum seekers.
One thing we have seen throughout 2009 is that there has been a large increase in calls for help, the number of which have increased by 30% in most parts of the country and last month in Dublin increased by 50%. I understand the number of calls coming to the Dublin office exceeded 1,000 over one week. As we get closer to Christmas more people will have to be employed to try to handle such calls.
More and more people are relying on the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, are struggling to survive and are extremely concerned about their position, in particular what will happen after the budget despite the publication of statistics telling them they are no longer poor. One of the saddest things is that most of the calls are coming from families with children and the most frequent requests are for food, help with utility bills, education and Christmas, and inquiries about what will happen in the new year and how the budget will affect them.
Another significant issue is the change in the profile of the people coming to us. In the Dublin area more than 25% of the people seeking help never came to us before. They are contacting us for the first time and many of those who came to us would have donated to us this time last year.
As a response to the change in the profile of the people seeking help, in particular those with large debts, we have had to set up special groups throughout the country, manned by our volunteers who have expertise in finance and dealing with other institutions, so we are able to offer support, encouragement and advice to people on how they can manage their debts and work their way through it. At the same time the local conference will help to keep food on the table and heat and light in the home.
We framed our pre-budget submission against the background of increasing misery and need. It is a fact that, whatever about perceived benefits from increases in welfare rates and the comments about the apparently beneficial effects of deflation on people's living standards, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is being called to assist more people every day. We estimate that as we get closer to Christmas this year we will be visiting in excess of 100,000 people. Last year we visited approximately 80,000 people. The problem is that the difficulties will continue well into the new year.
One reason for the increase in the numbers we are helping is the withdrawal of the Christmas bonus. There is no doubt it will have an effect on many of the people we are helping and will push more and more people towards us, which is the reason why, in the annual appeal we launched last Monday, we asked the Irish public to be as generous as it can so we can tackle the additional need. We asked people to remember us in particular during our fund-raising week from 6 to 13 December and our national church collection on 12 and 13 December. We would also like to record our thanks to members of the committee, in particular Deputies Róisín Shortall and Aengus Ó Snodaigh — who is not a member of the committee — who produced statements asking people to watch our appeal and make contributions, something for which we are very grateful.
Members should bear in mind that before budget day on 9 December, those on long-term welfare have already suffered a cut of 2% in income. Those living in social housing or those in private rented accommodation who are in receipt of rent supplement are the only people in the State who have seen their accommodation costs increase. The rest of us have had major cuts in bank interest rates. Before any changes are introduced in the budget, the people to which I referred have suffered a 4% cut in their income.
It seems to be the case that the same vulnerable group is now facing the possibility of further cuts in welfare payments, child benefit, a carbon tax and prescription charges. These families and individuals who have already suffered are being asked to take a greater proportion of the pain that might arise from this budget. That is grossly unfair.
For that reason we made the following points in our pre-budget submission: No cut in welfare rates is justified or acceptable because people on long-term benefits have already suffered a cut of 2%. With respect to the emotive issue of child benefit many of the families coming to us use it for basic necessities, such as food, fuel and accommodation costs. While we have no control over what the Minister will do, and it appears that a cut in child benefit is inevitable, we say that a straight cut is not acceptable because that will hit poor families most. We do not believe it should happen but if it does, taxation or means testing would be a better and fairer approach. Whatever happens people on low incomes and those on welfare, whether the qualified child increase or family supplement, should receive an increase in those payments to compensate.
We are also concerned about those who are just above those benefits, who work for low pay and receive nothing. Those on salaries in or around the average industrial wage should not be subject to a cut in child benefit. While the minimum wage is not part of the budget we reject any suggestion that it be cut because more and more people earning the minimum wage are coming to us for help. This is wrong. While we accept the difficulties employers face they must understand the problems their employees have in trying to live in Ireland today on the minimum wage.
If a carbon tax is introduced it needs to be borne in mind that the people we visit tend to live in the homes that leak heat most easily, burn the dirtiest fuels and are likely to pay the greatest amount on the kind of fuel they burn. Consequently a carbon tax must be imposed in a way that compensates those on low incomes.
We strongly oppose the introduction of prescription charges. We have discussed this with the Minister for Health and Children and it appears that one of the main reasons for this charge is that there is overprescribing. I was not aware that patients wrote their own prescriptions. This seems a very crude attempt to control the system. If the problem is with prescription or administration that is where it should be tackled, and not through those in receipt of the drugs. Our experience is that people who need these drugs will not fill their prescriptions. They will go without and that will cause real pain and problems.
It was argued that because of deflation those on welfare are positively well off. There is a campaign to tell people on welfare just how lucky they are and that the deflation of 6% more than compensates them. Half of that deflation is due to bank interest rates and the remaining 3% has been wiped out. Someone on long-term benefits living in social housing has lost that benefit. That person is no further on. Thankfully, energy costs have reduced and food prices have come down somewhat but from historically high figures. It seems to be forgotten that less than 18 months ago we were talking about huge increases in the cost of oil, gas, and electricity. They have now come back down but not to anything like the level they were at before. A recent OECD report showed that while we might have a 6% deflation in food costs our food is still the second dearest in Europe. For graphic evidence of that one has only to look at the number of cars streaming across the Border every weekend, and yesterday, for cheap food and other commodities. If Ireland was a nirvana of cheap food and people on social welfare had done so well why would they want to go North? Poorer families spend a significantly greater proportion of their small incomes on food and energy, compared with the rest of the population.
It was argued that welfare rates increased and that brought down poverty. The corollary of that is that if one reduces benefits and rates one will increase poverty again, particularly among children. The CSO figures last week showed that the highest rate of poverty was in single parent households and among the children within those households. Cutting welfare payments will simply push more people back into poverty.
I wish to introduce my colleagues, John Mark McCafferty, who will answer questions from members of the committee on areas such as child income support and fuel poverty, and Caroline Fahey who will talk about accommodation and asylum seekers. Audry Deane, who would normally be with us, is sadly unable to attend today because she is ill, so I will field questions on health and education and the general work of the society.
I welcome my friends from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I am sorry to hear that Ms Deane is sick because I always value my exchanges with her. I value exchanges with all the members of the society but Ms Deane and I have spoken on several occasions. The visit of this delegation today is very timely because it is 14 days to budget day and 16 days after that is Christmas. I am aware that poverty does not occur simply in the 30 days before Christmas and it is important to understand that it affects people throughout the year. That is why the exchange of views at these sessions is important.
Every Deputy in the House receives information from every group at this time. Each group acknowledges the challenge in the economy and the need for adjustments and cuts but asks that the cuts not affect it. As a public representative living in a major urban area I have a great deal of sympathy for that point of view but sometimes we have to prioritise. I know that I am out of step with some of my colleagues in saying that social welfare payments should not be cut and the vulnerable should be protected. To my surprise, IBEC said that social welfare should not be immune. I am delighted that employers are surviving and jobs being retained but employers should surely have an interest in ensuring that those workers who have lost their jobs are not in even worse trouble. There is a new group of poor people in all our communities. I can speak for Dublin and especially for Dublin South-West.
The gods have created different problems over recent days. I have great sympathy for all those affected. I listened carefully to the statements on the flooding last night in the Dáil and great praise was heaped on various organisations, including the St. Vincent de Paul. We all strongly support the society. Where we can we should continue to help, particularly now.
I wish, unusually, to be parochial for a minute. I am trying to help a project in Tallaght where I live. The west Tallaght group of St. Vincent de Paul has organised for solicitors, some sports stars and humble politicians to push a wheelbarrow from the hospital in Crumlin at 11 a.m. on 19 December in an attempt to raise funds for the needy. I am aware that the St. Vincent de Paul is trying to raise funds all over the country but I wish to make that point. That is a good initiative in Tallaght. People often give out about solicitors and politicians and others but the solicitors in Tallaght are doing that, which is good. I do not mean that in any patronising way but I hope that they will gain from that initiative.
Some of Professor Monaghan's points will always be debatable when it comes to political priorities but he is right to make them. Those of us who want to continue to represent the need for social inclusion as a priority would not disagree with him. The budget must protect the vulnerable, whatever else it does. I hope politically that the budget will stimulate recovery because people must hold on to their jobs and see hope for the future. There will be all sorts of views about that but if someone walks the streets of Dublin, not everyone will say it is a great idea. There are other views but St. Vincent de Paul made good points and I wish them well.
Professor John Monaghan
Deputies McGrath and O'Connor were not here when I said at the beginning that we thank you all for appearing at our pre-budget launch. We are grateful the committee showed such interest.
I am delighted that St. Vincent de Paul is here today. I appreciate the work the organisation has been doing in my community for many years. During our trauma in Clonmel since last Thursday, St. Vincent de Paul has been to the fore, bringing food to people over the course of the emergency. The group is always there, and those who get their help really appreciate it.
I take issue, however, with some of the points the group made. There are many different views. Someone mentioned the new poor. This group exists but they have been there for a good while, the lower paid workers, small businesspeople, small farmers and self-employed. They are perilous at present because they cannot get a penny from anywhere.
Balancing that with those who are on social welfare, I also take issue on the comments on the prescription fee. I have been in houses where the amount of drugs older people have would frighten me. Those people could be disoriented and take the wrong tablets, some of which are out of date.
It might be valid to say we are attacking this the wrong way, that we should tackle the pharmacists, but those availing of the drugs must appreciate there is a huge cost associated with them. Anything any of us get for nothing may not be appreciated. I supported that move, even though I do not agreed with many of the things the Minister for Health and Children does. It has not been decided yet but it must be appreciated.
It is the same as a doctor's visit. If I want to go to the doctor, I would have to go at 7 a.m. or 10 p.m. because the doctor is so busy. Many of those people would not be there if they had to pay for it. They go to the doctor too easily. I am a parent of a large family and my wife is a nurse and we think twice about going to the doctor because it costs me a lot of money. Often she telephones if there is a sick child and is told to come out the next evening at 4 o'clock. She is a nurse so she has a fair idea and does not go in if it is not necessary. Other people are going in as a pastime unfortunately. It is part of their weekly routine, then going to the chemist, where the pharmacist doles out the medicine. That problem must be tackled by doctors, pharmacists and people. They must appreciate this is not coming down with the rain, there is a cost associated with it.
The people who are newly unemployed and the new poor, the self-employed who cannot get a shilling from anywhere who are literally hungry, many of them would not go to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul because they are proud. I can assure the group the vast majority of them will not go. We must be cognisant and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul must keep its credibility in those cases.
We must show people that everyone has to feel a small bit of the pain. I was talking to a businessman last night who could not get people to work during the boom, he had to bring in foreign nationals. We would not do the work. We also had 100,000 people who never came off the live register for one reason or another. Those are the people we must look at. If they are disabled and cannot work, I understand that but there is abuse of the system and a rump who do not want to work. They are ripping off the other people who are working.
I have seen it in my own town where local authority workers were working in all kinds of weather. The road was closed and there was terrible hassle from residents and motorists. The lads in the local pub having a cigarette at the door were jeering them and telling them they were eejits to be out doing that work in the rain. They were the butt of jokes, with people calling them in to have a drink with them.
This must be tackled. It weakens the case of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and it will have to examine it seriously. I am not saying this as a do-gooder, I am only interested in fairness and that every person must understand, whether they are on social welfare or not. Prices have come down, the Government has been driving prices down, so there is better value than there was. Not only that but they get free buses, school buses, medical cards and all the other associated benefits that the ordinary working person who is just above the threshold will not get. There is an imbalance there and it is also a huge disincentive to people going to work. They will not take the work they will get. Some huge re-education of the whole attitudes towards that and the costs associated with it is necessary. It is a huge cost and must be dealt with.
I wish the group well with its work. It will be overrun but there is a large cohort who will not go near the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or come near me. They will not tell me their problems and are quietly facing into a miserable and hungry Christmas.
There is not much in the report I can disagree with. I have to agree with Deputy McGrath with the fact that there is over-prescribing of prescriptions. That is a huge thing that GPs will have to take on. I see it on the ground where elderly patients have more medicine than they need in their cabinets and that must be looked at.
Recently I dealt with someone who had arrears on his mortgage. I was surprised to know the Society of St. Vincent de Paul would pay out such a large sum to someone who was in arrears. I never realised that before, I thought maybe a contribution would be given but it was a large amount of arrears. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul only paid it once but a few times the same person had been in arrears.
For me it is no surprise that there has been a 50% increase in the number of people coming to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in Dublin alone. When I was growing up, in my community the Society of St. Vincent de Paul did most of its work around Christmas. Now there is a Christmas crisis every day of the week, it does not have to be December. The people who come to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are those who need help, they are not people who do not need it. They are struggling and trying to find a way out of the crisis they are in. Thank God for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or other agencies that can take these people under their wings and help them.
I agree that child benefit should not be taken away from those in need but there is a better way of analysing what child benefit is for and looking at the higher scale of people who get it. That is something that will be sorted out in the coming weeks. Child benefit is essential for people on lower wages.
Child benefit was not something people always had. Mothers when they got it used it to help them rear their children but I found that over the years many people who got child benefit needed it for other reasons. Perhaps they were in a relationship where their partner did not give them any money so the mother used it in another context during the month. That is how I saw it used.
I am concerned about the huge extent of the floods, particularly in the west. My main concern for winter is that elderly people be given as much as possible in the fuel allowance. In the case of my own mother, I found she would not have the heater on at certain times of the day. We all complained about that. There are many elderly people who are worried and over-anxious about whether they should have the heating on. We should do as much as possible to keep them well-informed that such benefits will not be cut.
My wish for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is that it would get more volunteers and that more people would come out from behind their doors and help. There is nothing more rewarding than being part of a community and being able to participate, particularly in organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. The society has been very relevant throughout the country in recent days and many people has spoken highly on radio about the community spirit in their areas. I do not think that community spirit would be evident were it not for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other organisations. If people were properly treated in a country and if wealth was properly distributed the society's days would be numbered. That would be my wish. I mean no offence by that statement.
I thank the delegation for its presentation and urge it to keep up the good work. It is beholden on us all as we approach Christmas when the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has its annual appeal that we reach out in our communities. As public representatives we should inform people of its importance and to put a few groceries aside and leave them at the Christmas tree.
I welcome the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and wish it well on its annual collection. Like most people around this table I will contribute as usual and I appreciate the work down in my area. I do not want social welfare to be cut if at all possible. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul but it would be helpful if in its presentation Professor John Monaghan had acknowledged that the social welfare budget this year is larger than ever before by a gigantic amount, because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves. That social welfare is by far the largest component of public spending shows that social welfare is a priority for the Government and remains so. It is a priority for all of us that help be given to those most in need. Given the interest burden due to all the borrowings, public spending in general has increased this year over last year. There has been no cut in the overall spending but we have to pay more of it on interest. That is the problem the Government faces in balancing the books. The Government has made it clear and we as Deputies have made it clear to Ministers that we want the most vulnerable protected at all costs.
I disagree with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul on the prescription charge. Like my colleague, Deputy McGrath, I agree with it provided it is at a very low level. I do not agree with Colm McCarthy's recommendation that the charge should be €5, the 50 cent proposed is more appropriate. The issue of child benefit has to be looked at in the context of higher earners. Of course, this depends on what is judged as higher earners. There are some people who would not consider themselves higher earners, they may have an income but, perhaps, they have a very high mortgage so there is a huge balancing act to be done.
On the issue of deflation I am in slight disagreement with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. The last general CPI figure for deflation was 6.6%, 3% of which is due to reduced interest rates. That still leaves an unprecedented drop in prices of 3.3% outside of mortgage interest. There are people on pensions and people on social welfare who have mortgages and for them the higher CPI figure is more accurate. They would also receive assistance.
I appeal to my constituents to look at the value there is in shops and supermarkets throughout the country when they consider travelling to the North. I firmly believe one can get great bargains shopping in the South that will contribute to the tax paid here. Ultimately it will help the payment of social welfare, the maintenance of benefits, public sector pay and the various services. I do not blame those who go North because they say they cannot afford to pay the prices in the South but if they look for the bargains in my constituency they will find them.
I read a report today indicating that 105,000 extra medical cards were issued this year due to the prevailing economic circumstances. That is a massive commitment by any standard by the Government to the people who need medical help. While we have to be challenged constantly by organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul who are on the ground, issues such as that should be acknowledged. There has been a response from the Government in that a huge amount of resources has been directed to social welfare and to medical card holders. It may not be as much as we want but there has been a massive increase in spending in that area for which I compliment the Government.
Who would want to make the decisions the Government has to make to protect the most vulnerable and, in so far as possible, to maintain basic payments? If there are savings at the end of the year arising from the strike action I suggest they be directed to the payment of the Christmas bonus, if that is possible. While I do not wish to play one off against the other, if the Government has the money it should be used for that purpose.
Like my colleagues I recognise the wonderful work being done by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul throughout the country. Without its work many people would find themselves in very serious trouble. However, I disagree with much of what it has said in regard to social welfare. We are looking at the best social welfare system in Europe, I say that as one who has travelled and looked at various systems. One has only to cross the Border and see that one single person gets £70 per week as against €230 per week on this side of the Border. That is just one example.
A prescription charge in the North of Ireland costs £7. It is responsible on the part of the Minister to do something on prescriptions because many people are hoarding medicine, as my colleague has outlined, and it is dangerous. There is no doubt that some of these people will poison themselves at some stage because they will take the wrong tablets. We have seen abuse of prescriptions where older people are selling prescriptions and drugs. It is unfair to come in here and say this charge should not be introduced. It should be introduced on the basis that it will concentrate the minds of the chemist and the person who is receiving the prescription.
It would be only fair if the Society of St. Vincent de Paul was to recognise that this Government has gone out of its way to ensure that social welfare payments have increased to their present levels. As a partner on behalf of the less well off, whom the society represents and I hope we all represent, it knows we cannot continue borrowing when social welfare is the largest component of the budget. It is important to bear that in mind. It is true that somebody on social welfare is better off than somebody on a €35,000 or €37,000 job, as the overall social welfare package is worth about €41,000 per annum. When I calculated the figures I could not believe it. If a person who is going out to work every morning and earning €38,000 per year is worse off than the person who is on social welfare, there is something wrong. That will have to be corrected. I am not saying that those on social welfare are well off, they are not. At the same time we have to encourage people who are in low paid jobs and we have to ensure that people are working. It is much better if people are working, even if they are taking home much less money.
There is no question that some people drawing children's allowance should not be doing so. We should introduce a cut-off income point for children's allowance, thereby ensuring that people at the lower end of the scale who really need it get it. It is a question of convincing the Minister at what income level there should be a cut-off point for entitlement to children's allowance or that, as was said, taxation is another option. People who are better off can afford to pay tax whereas those at the lower end of the scale cannot afford to be taxed.
Taxation is not an equal measure in the end. We may have to discriminate to get the best result for people on lower incomes. I recognise that social welfare recipients are in that bracket but it would be wrong for us to say to the delegates that social welfare will not have to be seriously examined. Single people are receiving substantial money in social welfare. I have observed this is the small town from which I come and even their parents say they wish they were not getting as much money because they spend it on drink. That is a fact. Perhaps we should discriminate in that respect and give the money to the people who need the it — the mothers and fathers — while ensuring young people have enough to live on. They should not be able to afford to go out drinking every night.
I apologise for my late arrival but, unfortunately, I had to deal with an individual case, the circumstances of which are part of the problem with which we are currently dealing every day. It would be much more difficult if we did not have organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and its ease of access to and genuine support for so many people.
I sat in this room with Professor Monaghan last April and I got a commitment from the Minister for Social and Family Affairs that the self-employed such as small builders and farmers, who had experienced a dramatic loss in their income because of the drop in milk prices and everything else, would be dealt with on the basis of the circumstances that apply today rather than on an historic basis. Yet today, as Christmas draws near, I am still dealing with cases where people have been told they will have to appeal their cases, rather than their current income position being the basis of consideration. It is extremely serious when an employer I met has lost everything through no fault of his own. He simply was not paid by the people to whom he had sub-contracted work because they went bust and one of them died. His ten workers get jobseeker's benefit because he had everything in order in that regard but he does not get a penny. That is a scandal. Poverty is being created among that level of people. All I could do was tell that man's wife to go to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to get some relief for their handicapped child. That is outrageous. I could highlight several other cases with which I am dealing on a continuous basis. I am addressing some cases with the help of the community welfare officers and I hope that common sense will prevail in regard to the other cases.
I listened to Senator Butler highlighting the difficulties north of the Border but I live on the Border and the only group of people I see travelling north are our people. I do not see any of the other people who we are told are so badly off, if we were to believe that, travelling south. The whole package must be taken into account in terms of the way they are treated overall. Those who need care in their homes and those in need of other supports in terms of school going children and so on get them in Northern Ireland. That is the reason there is not a rush to come down to avail of our so-called bonanza social welfare service. Everything must be checked out before one compares the realities.
I have done that.
I live very close to the Border and I can tell the Senator for certain that there is not a rush of people coming here to avail of our system. I can guarantee the Senator that much.
To be blunt, I enjoyed the case put forward for prescription charges. It is great to hear Government representatives tell us that this is a bright idea that will save the country a ransom. I am old enough to remember the 1987 election, although I was not involved in it. I was not even involved publicly in the party although I was always, without apology, a Fine Gael supporter. I was deeply involved in the Irish Farmers' Association at that time. I went into a chemist's shop in Ballybay during the 1987 election and I was handed a letter advising me the damage Fine Gael would do by implementing a proposal to introduce a nominal charge for prescriptions. That proposal was put forward by the late John Boland who was the then Minister for Health for a short term coming up to that election. It is wonderful to see how times have changed and that we are being told this is a great idea but they hung us out to dry during that period. I agree that there is a great need to curtail the cost of medicine but that can be done by using generic medicines rather than using old age pensioners and those who have medical cards.
I agree in principle with the proposal the Minister has put forward but, unfortunately, there will have to be some cuts in the level of social welfare overall because we are heading towards a position where even more people will be unemployed. However, the answer to these difficulties is the type of package being proposed by Fine Gael to try to get people back into employment. Funds are available in all sorts of areas. The credit unions never had as much money on deposit. People have money. They just need some encouragement to invest it in job creation and that type of area but there is no indication currently that is happening. We not only need cuts but some indication that there is a way out of this crisis. We must also ensure that all those who can get back into jobs are given the necessary opportunities to do so.
I wish to deal with an area I have mentioned previously to this group and to others. Living in a rural area I am conscious of the fact that when a person loses his or her partner or there is only one person living in a house, the living alone allowance is insufficient to meet that person's needs. I would have less of a problem with a cut of a nominal figure in the old age pensions if that allowance was at least balanced by some increase in the allowance for those who are living alone. If a couple living in rural Ireland need a car and have a house to heat, their circumstances do not change if one of them has to go to a nursing home or dies. The remaining person still has to use a car and heat the home. That is an issue the Government must examine, especially if it introduces carbon tax, which will increase costs.
The representatives said that the main increase has been in the Dublin area and I do not doubt that. However, they should not underestimate how much the organisation is appreciated in Monaghan and elsewhere. It is the last hope for people and gives them essential help. I have great friends who know how to raise the funds and disburse them. They give so much time to help others that it is impossible to thank them for it.
I apologise for not being here for the presentation. I compliment our guests for appearing before the committee today and making their pre-budget submission. Over the last few days a number of counties have experienced heavy flooding, including County Clare, which is my home county, Cork and Galway. Has the Society of St. Vincent de Paul recorded an increase in the number of calls from these areas? Is it in a position to answer such calls? Does it have finance to meet the demands that will be placed on it? I have been in houses that have been devastated by flood waters. The houses had never been flooded previously. In Ennis town on Sunday I visited people who had been evacuated to the West County Hotel. In fairness, the agencies responded very well to the families concerned but people told me that they do not really have confidence in the town council to upgrade their houses after the flood recedes. I believe it will fall back on agencies such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to bridge that gap. Does the society have the money for that?
Professor John Monaghan
A number of general themes were raised. I will handle two of them which I believe are important. I will deal with the last issue first and return to the prescription charges. We have received a considerable number of calls for help. Indeed, last Friday evening, members of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, as Deputy McGrath said, were helping to man motor boats and deliver food. Members might have seen the television footage from Ballinasloe. This is happening throughout the country.
The nice thing is that we have received an amazing number of offers of donations. We tell people to contact the local regional office in the first instance. In the Deputy's case it is the mid-west office located in Limerick. There is also one in Athlone for the midlands and parts of Galway, and obviously one in Cork. The regional offices know what are the problems. While one area might require duvets, another might require nappies. It is important to co-ordinate on this and we do it through the regional offices, as best we can. We are also considering setting up a freephone number and if there is a way to set up warehouses in different parts of the country where we can keep stores.
Often people will have taken stuff with them when they rushed out of their house, and they are getting by. The real problem is when they try to go back into their homes. What happens with the washing machine or the cooker that had water go through them? What happens if it is a bungalow and the beds are destroyed? At that point the real expense starts to arise. Frankly, at present the issue is where one puts the supplies until such time as people can go back into their homes. We are trying to work on that.
Do we have the funds to do it all? No, but we will do what we can. Some people have been very generous. In Athlone, for example, the credit union, on its own initiative, set up a Society of St. Vincent de Paul account into which people could donate money. Many people are doing things like that. What must be borne in mind is that ours is just a voluntary organisation. People are taking time off work to try and help with these problems and they will do so for as long as necessary. However, we are a charity and a voluntary organisation. It is really up to the State to help. Deputy McGrath will remember that there was an area in part of his constituency, Clonmel, where houses were severely damaged in the last floods. We moved in and spent a lot of money doing them up. The sad thing is that on Friday night they were gone again. The problem is that those houses cannot get insurance. There is a serious issue here for the State, given that although what we are experiencing at present might be a freak, it will become less freakish as the years pass. Clearly, there are issues about how to control floods and how to have an emergency set-up to deal with them. That is what we really need to do from a national point of view. To summarise, we have seen a huge increase in the number of calls for help, but we have also received many offers of help and we are trying to work our way through that as best we can.
We feel extremely strongly about the prescription charges. We fully accept that we need to save money on drugs. In our pre-budget submission we suggested one way of doing that, the use of generic drugs. That will save a fortune. The issue of prescribing, and this is crucial, has nothing to do with the patient. It has to do with the doctor and the pharmacy. I have never known of a patient to tell a doctor to prescribe a certain number of items. If it is the case that an older person gets too many drugs, it is the duty of the doctor and the pharmacist to ensure that does not happen. If one wishes to solve that problem, one does it where the problem lies, not through the person receiving the drugs. I cannot understand how charging somebody who needs medicine will somehow change the behaviour of the doctors who prescribe it and the chemists who dispense it.
We will not change our minds on this matter. Undoubtedly, the Government must save money on drugs. There are issues about over-prescribing, and we, too, have seen older people with too many drugs in their house. However, that is not their fault. The way to tackle this is at the source. One does not use this mechanism to do it. It is charging people who can ill afford it in order to sort out another problem. We believe that it is reprehensible.
There were other issues regarding social welfare rates. Senator Butler made the point that we need to appreciate the increase in welfare rates. We have constantly done that. Indeed, the first comment I made is that there has been a significant and very welcome reduction in poverty. This has come about because of increases in welfare rates. We recognise that. I do not wish to get party political but Deputy Crawford has a point. One of the reasons we have seen such a huge increase in the level of expenditure — Deputy Byrne is correct to point out that it has increased from €17 billion to €21 billion — is the increase in the number of people on the dole. That is also the reason the number of medical cards has increased. The answer is not to cut what people have but to try to get them back into work. With every person one gets back into work, one not only saves the dole payment but also one saves on the medical card. Furthermore, those people are now making a contribution. We agree that we need to get people back into work and we need to reduce the numbers relying on welfare.
The last point in terms of the inflation is important. Remember, percentages are just fractions. When speaking about a 6% reduction in food costs, one is talking about a 6% reduction in a very expensive commodity. Ireland is the second most expensive country in Europe. Food is still very expensive here and poor people spend a greater proportion of their income on it. Yes, there has been a reduction in the cost of food but it will not make a significant difference to families. If that were the case, why are we experiencing such an increase in calls for help? Why are we spending more money every year if one's life is so wonderful on social welfare? Clearly, it is not. We need to find a way——
I meant to raise this point earlier. I do not know anybody who has said that life on social welfare is wonderful. Certainly, nobody on this committee said it. Life on social welfare is, by and large, a misery for people. It is a life most people do not want. Who has said life on social welfare is wonderful? It is not wonderful; it is not a life we want for people. I do not want the impression to go from this meeting that some of us suggested that, because we have not. Far from it.
I agree with what Deputy Byrne said. Of course life on social welfare is by and large miserable but we must look at the reality. While I accept many of the points made by Professor Monaghan, I do not accept that people on medical cards, who are getting prescriptions, have no role in addressing prescriptions costs. He said that medics and pharmacists have that role. People who present regularly may not ask their doctor to fill out the form, but the doctor has to prescribe something if they say they have this or that complaint. It costs the doctor nothing, yet he is gaining from it. I am not saying that people are acting recklessly, but drugs are used to a frightening degree in some houses.
There is no charge for the prescription, but there should be. There should also be a charge for GP visits. If such charges applied people would not be going as often to the pharmacist or doctor. There is no point in blaming doctors and others because the public must understand that this is costing a fortune. People on low wages must pay doctors. Meanwhile, doctors' fees have not come down by one iota, but some people are getting free GP visits. There should be a charge for visits to the doctor. I advocated that to the Minister for Health and Children but she did not do it. It may come to that because we must re-educate people. I fundamentally disagree with Professor Monaghan on that. We cannot blame everyone except the patients. Patients will keep going if the service is free.
Professor John Monaghan
Does Ms Fahey want to take the question of the living alone allowance? Mr. McCafferty can answer the question concerning child benefit.
Ms Caroline Fahey
Research from the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice demonstrates that older people living alone cannot make ends meet on their small incomes. The living alone allowance of €7.70, which has not gone up in ten or 15 years, needs to be looked at now in particular. If we are prioritising groups and targeting payments, the living alone allowance seems to be one that could perhaps be increased to assist people. Despite all the talk of deflation, we are seeing groups that cannot make ends meet on their incomes. It has been demonstrated by working out exactly how much money they are bringing in and how much they are spending. There is a gap there for several groups, which cannot be ignored.
The cost of food is another point because we are spending so much money on food. Recently published figures show that the cost of providing a healthy diet for a teenage boy is 54% of the child income support. That is if one can get to a Tesco store. If one has to go to Spar it will cost much more than that — 106% of the child income support. That is why people are coming to us seeking assistance with food.
Mr. John Mark McCafferty
As regards child benefit, our main priority is to ensure that families on lowest incomes, and those who are experiencing child poverty or are at risk of it, are protected in the forthcoming budget. We believe in universal payments and there are a lot of good reasons for having them. One of them is to support the transition from welfare to work. We are also mindful of pressures on budgets. Whatever the Government decides in the budget, it must ensure that those on social welfare, family income supplement, and families on low incomes are protected in terms of child income support. As has been mentioned, CSO figures show that the categories most at risk of poverty are children and lone-parent families. It is no surprise to see that, from our figures, by far the biggest group we assist are lone-parent families and families in general.
With regard to the flooding, we have an account with Ballinasloe Credit Union and we are getting a huge response from people. We are genuinely touched by the amount of support received. We are experiencing calls from people who want to help. They are asking how they can help and what they can give. Our national office has been inundated by calls. Our receptionists are up to their eyes with calls, which is an indication of the sense of shared anxiety in the community and a shared call to action. We are asking people to continue to give through our shops. Two of our shops were flooded in recent days, in Clonmel and Bandon. To some extent therefore we have been victims of this flooding also. Locally and regionally, we are trying to assist as best we can.
When comparing the North with the Republic, it is a very different situation. I have gone to my local doctor at home and it is free because there is a national health service there. That public service is provided free at the point of delivery. There was no queue, partly because there is an adequate number of doctors. Doctors' surgeries may be full elsewhere because there are not enough doctors. I do not take for granted the fact that I went through a truly free education system. We did not have to put our hands in our pockets, apart from through the tax system.
There have been prescription charges for quite some time in the North.
Mr. John Mark McCafferty
It is a totally different scene. It is the difference between night and day. Prescription charges amount to €7 per item there for those can pay.
We are looking at 50 cent.
Mr. John Mark McCafferty
For those who cannot pay, it is free. That is the system.
Professor John Monaghan
Those are the very people whom the Deputy is proposing to hit — the ones who cannot.
We are not proposing to hit anyone. Would Professor Monaghan agree that someone who smokes 40 cigarettes a day should have free prescriptions, and not pay a 50 cent charge?
Professor John Monaghan
I do not smoke so I have little or no sympathy with smokers. However, as Mr. McCafferty said, we must compare like with like. We get these comments about comparing the North with the South. For example, families in the North do not have to worry about school transport. In addition, the school books are paid for and school lunches is provided. All those things are paid for, so we do not have to fund them from social welfare. Senator Butler said we have generous social welfare payments. They are certainly higher, but the question is what do people have to pay out of them and what are they left with? That is the real issue.
Deputy Byrne referred to mortgage payments. We have had to set up special groups who work with those people and try to do deals with the banks and building societies. In effect, today is a good time to be doing deals. They want to ensure that they do not throw people out of their homes. It will happen on occasion that mortgages will be paid, but it is somewhat unusual because normally they do not have that kind of money. He also mentioned the fuel allowance, which Mr. McCafferty is particularly concerned about. He is on the group that is dealing with the problem of fuel poverty. We are very concerned about it, although we might not have time to discuss it. Thresholds were also mentioned and it was said that if people are just over a threshold they get nothing. I quite agree with Deputy Byrne in that respect. It is so sad for those people who are just over a threshold. We have described them in the past as being those who pay for everything and qualify for nothing. We need sliding scales.
I agree with that.
Professor John Monaghan
Civil servants love cliffs — in other words one gets to a point and fall off the edge — but they do not seem to do slopes. However, we need some form of graduated release from these, or to keep them for a bit longer. That is the way to get over that problem, by doing it in a gradual sense up to and including the average industrial wage. They are the people coming to us in increasing numbers.
With regard to Deputy Crawford's point, I was under the impression that the requirement to look at last year's accounts for the self-employed had gone. This was said to us only two weeks ago when we spoke to the Minister. We raised the very point Deputy Crawford raised, namely, the difficulty of someone who is self-employed qualifying for nothing, including people on this class S stamp or whatever. She said at least we have got to a stage where it does not apply and the Department looks at what they have now.
I am still going through cases which the Minister sent back to me and told me they will have to go to appeal. All I want is clarification. It is extremely serious. I have one case of a dairy farmer with two children, one of whom is a year and half and the other is three months old. He has no income because the price of milk has dropped by one third. His first assessment was done last April based on the previous year's accounts. I asked for a reappraisal of it rather than an appeal. The person from the Department of Social and Family Affairs said there was no difference. I went to the Minister and yesterday I got a letter from her stating that the only avenue now open was an appeal. This year's drop in milk prices has not been taken into account.
I have noticed a change in approach from the Department in two cases of which I am aware. The situations described have been all too common in the past couple of years, in particular for farmers but also for construction workers. It is a huge difficulty. I can think of two construction workers in respect of whom the Department has looked at the more recent figures and position. I do not know whether that is the approach being taken across the board but it certainly should be. It is a very difficult situation.
The Society of St. Vincent de Paul can send in a written submission to the committee secretariat on any issue it believes it did not get an opportunity to speak about. I thank the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for coming in and providing us with such a comprehensive analysis of those at risk and experiencing poverty in Ireland. We were very lucky because there have been a number of votes in the Dáil but we escaped them.
Professor John Monaghan
I thank the Chairman and members.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until noon on Tuesday, 1 December 2009.