SELECT COMMITTEE ON FAMILY, COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1998

Vol. 1 No. 2

Estimates for Public Services, 1998.

Vote 40: Social, Community and Family Affairs (Revised).

Acting Chairman

The Chairman, Deputy Noel Ahern, has been delayed and I have been asked to start the meeting. I understand there may be a vote in the Dáil at 4.15 p.m. so the committee will suspend its sitting for 15 minutes at that time. Is that agreed? Agreed. I may have to leave before the meeting concludes so I will ask another member to take the Chair if the Chairman is not back.

On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his officials here this afternoon. We are meeting to consider the revised Estimates for the Department which amount to £2.8 billion in 1998. I have circulated a proposed timetable for today's meeting which I hope is acceptable to the committee. Is it agreed?

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

No. A half an hour for the Minister and no time for the Opposition is not acceptable. I propose that the Minister confines his opening statement to a quarter of an hour and gives the remaining 15 minutes to the Opposition.

Acting Chairman

I note each spokesperson will speak for approximately five minutes and the Minister will speak for 30 minutes.

Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

I do not think I will speak for that length of time but I will speak for not less than 15 minutes.

Acting Chairman

There will be no constraints but I would like every Member to have an opportunity to make a contribution. It is proposed that the meeting will finish at 5 p.m. because a debate is starting in the Dáil at 5.30 p.m. We will try to facilitate everyone to the best of our ability. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. D. Ahern

I welcome the opportunity to outline to the committee the details of the investment we are making in the area of social, community and family affairs. It is particularly appropriate that we should discuss this issue here today in the same week that the major social welfare increases, including the £5 increase for pensioners, come into effect. Members of the committee will be familiar from our previous discussions with many of the developments in this area. In my brief introductory comments, I will focus on the vision which underlies the investment we are making and highlight some of the key issues for the committee's attention. Members have already received a copy of the Estimates for my Department.

There are five basic determinants underpinning Ireland's recent strong social and economic growth. These are sound policies, social partnership, labour force growth, strong investment and Structural Funds. It is predicted by most economists that our current growth rate will continue for some time to come. Nevertheless, we are faced with a number of key challenges, including wage and price inflation. In that context, we must examine carefully the role of budgetary policies to ensure that Government investment contributes to sustainable growth and social inclusion and not to inflation and the growth of a two tier society. This will require a sea change in the approach to public resource management away from a process of incremental additions to existing activities and a targeted allocation of resources to meet key needs. The Government is addressing this change by moving to multi-annual budgeting. The Estimates package I put before the committee today represents a carefully balanced package which focuses on jobs, our older people, the community and families, in line with our commitments in An Action Plan for the Millennium.

Social expenditure is sometimes portrayed in a negative fashion as a drain on our resources. I see it as an investment in the welfare of our people, as helping people when they are sick or unemployed and as supporting older people who have made an enormous contribution to the social and economic welfare of our society. The social welfare system provides essential support to both the social and economic fabric of the country. Without it, for example, employers would be faced with much greater direct burdens of providing support to sick and retired workers. The efficient operation of the supports provided by my Department makes a major contribution to the competitiveness of our economy, in addition to the social support it provides. It is interesting to note that the recent annual competitiveness report for 1998, compiled by the National Competitiveness Council, found that our level of social insurance contributions compared favourably with most of Europe.

The Estimates for my Department for 1998 amount to almost £2,800 million pounds. This is the sum provided by the Oireachtas to fund social insurance, in so far as this is not met by social insurance contributions, social assistance payments, child benefit, employment supports, community development, new family responsibilities of the Department and administration costs. This amount represents an increase of £229 million or 9 per cent on the provisional outturn for 1997. However, because of the rapid growth in the economy and in our gross domestic product, total social affairs expenditure, including an additional £2 billion in social insurance expenditure, shows a slight decline as a proportion of GDP from 9.3 per cent in 1997 to a projected 9 per cent in 1998. Thus, the major ongoing economic and employment growth has allowed us both to increase the real level of spending on social services while, at the same time, leaving more money in the economy.

The bulk of expenditure covered by the Estimates, almost £2 billion; relates to social assistance expenditure, including support for older people, people with disabilities, carers and the unemployed. I am glad to be able to report that the proportion spent on unemployment is dropping rapidly, with unemployment down by 30,000 since we took office less than one year ago. A forecasted reduction of 22,000 on last year's average live register will result in savings of approximately £80 million. Thanks to the continued employment growth, the employment supports provided by my Department and FÁS and continued control work, the live register is well on target at present. In 1998 we will spend a further £166 million on employment support measures, including the back to work and back to education programmes and family income supplement. We must move from paying people to be unemployed to investing in employability and, as I told the committee before, employment support has increased from a mere 1 per cent of total unemployment spending in 1992 to 16 per cent today.

As Members will see from the detailed Estimates, this year's Estimate provides for the payment of £58 million to the social insurance fund. This is due to the significant buoyancy in PRSI receipts arising from extra employment and rising wages. The social solidarity between groups and generations which underpins the operation of the social welfare system is emphasised by the fact that employers, employees and the self-employment will, in addition to the Exchequer subvention, contribute PRSI contributions amounting to more than £2 million in 1998. The contributory principle of social insurance underpins social cohesion and helps reduce poverty and social exclusion.

Approximately £26 million is spent on community supports, including funding for the range of grant schemes, the Combat Poverty Agency, the National Social Service Board and the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. In 1998 my Department will spend more than £420 million on child benefit payments, I introduced new payments for twins in the Social Welfare Act, 1998. I am pleased that, for the first time, I am providing for a range of specific measures in relation to family policies, including the establishment of a family affairs unit in my Department; funding towards a national family mediation service, as provided for in the action programme; funding for marriage and child counselling and funding for a network of family and community centres.

The total administrative costs of my Department for the purposes of the Estimates will amount to £153 million or about 5 per cent of the total Estimate. This is in line with previous years. It is a tribute to the efficiency of my Department that administrative costs are kept to such a low proportion of total expenditure - a proportion which compares very favourably to private insurance companies.

The total expenditure provision in 1998 can be broken down as follows: old age pensions, 23 per cent; unemployment and employment support, 22 per cent; widows, widowers and one parent families, 18 per cent; illness, disability and caring, 14 per cent; child related payments, 9 per cent; other schemes, including community and family, 9 per cent; and administration, 5 per cent.

The Estimate before the committee clearly demonstrates this Government's commitment to establish an inclusive society where all citizens have the opportunity and the incentive to participate fully in the social and economic life of the country. I commend the Estimate to the committee.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I congratulate the Minister on the time he took, to make his speech, but that is as far as the compliments go.

I will make a number of basic points on our approach to the social affairs area. These Estimates are a shameful expression of our indifference to the plight of the less well off in our society. The Minister's speech indicates smug self-satisfaction with a situation in which there is enormous basic unfairness.

One might well ask about the Fine Gael approach. I come from a stable where everybody counts. As of now, there is unprecedented wealth in our society and the economy has never been stronger. I am not making a political point about that. After the change of Government, the economy continued at the same strength with which it was bequeathed to the present Government. In such circumstances there is a need for a new approach to poverty in our society. One may well ask if there is poverty. Of course, there is poverty and, to a degree, the huge amount of wealth in our society highlights the inequalities and depths of that poverty. The Minister, like myself, is a lawyer and will have seen what is happening in the property market in which private residences are selling for £1 million and £2 million. That is an indication of the vast wealth in our society.

Our job in the social affairs area is to look at the other side of the track, at the vast stretches of poverty. Unless we accept that in this relatively wealthy country there is also enormous poverty, we will not get beyond first base. That is what was missing from Minister's speech. The starting point should be an acceptance that there is enormous poverty in our society and it affects certain sectors, particularly the young, to a greater degree than others. We must use an occasion such as this to highlight and confront these problems and to put our heads together to find a solution.

The Minister will no doubt respond by claiming that he is making payments equal to and, in some instances, greater than were made heretofore. I accept that, but I would say in response that the amount of wealth in our society in 1998 is unprecedented. This imposes a different obligation on us. The comments I will make on these Estimates will be made from that base. I want us to adopt a fair, just and equal approach leading to social inclusion in our society.

I do not accept these Estimates, coupled with the budget of December 1997, do anything to lessen the poverty gap other than deepen the exclusion and sense of alienation on the part of the poor. These Estimates contribute further to a two tier society. It is not in the interests of those on the right side of the track to have a two tier society because they are unstable and end up with higher rates of alienation and crime. That type of division is damaging to all citizens.

Since I undertook this portfolio, I have advocated a fair play approach in all aspects of our affairs. There is no aspect of fair play in circumstances where the wealthy fat cats of our society got cuts of 50 per cent in their capital gains tax and children got 37p per week. It would be a dereliction of my duty as Opposition spokesman if I did not highlight that. The fair play approach I advocate would ensure a social dividend for all. The absence of alienation and injustice would benefit those who are well off as well as those on the opposite side of the track.

My examination of these Estimates and the comments I will make will come from that stable. I accept certain increases were granted, that the Minister allowed 37p per week for children and that there were certain increases for pensioners, although much less for pensioners who are adult dependants. Overall, the approach of this Government, particularly evidenced by the budget and this Estimate, has been to widen the gaps in our society and to do virtually nothing to alleviate poverty. I do not know how long this Government will last.

Mr. D. Ahern

A long time.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Other situations may dictate that and it is beyond the competence of this committee. While this Government is in office, whether for a week, a month or a year, I will continue to try to get the message across that it will not do any service to this country unless it is prepared to recognise the level of poverty which exists and ensures that some of the vast wealth, which thankfully is in our society, is made available to relieve poverty.

Acting Chairman

The Minister will listen to Members' submissions now and reply to them when they are concluded.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

I welcome the family policy. We should try to ensure that families are kept together and that facilities are provided to help those who need it. The family is diminishing in importance in Irish society at present.

I wish to make some general comments. Many members have spoken on previous occasions about widows. There should be a specific policy in the next budget to help widows. The Minister understands the need for this so I need not go through the reasons such a policy is necessary. The disabled should also receive special help. We talk a great deal about the unemployed, but in a booming economy in which most people can get work if they want it some people are abusing unemployment benefits. They still want to have it both ways. The widowed and disabled are two categories of people who need special help.

Politicians can give a Minister thousands of examples of where the system is wrong. However, the Minister should take another look at the dental treatment system. I am aware of a 40 year old man who had all his teeth removed under the system but who must wait until he is 65 years of age to get dentures. Dentures are provided free at that stage but not before it. There is something crazy about a system which allows a person to have their teeth extracted but does not provide dentures to replace them. Unless the Celtic tiger we hear so much about is cooked in a stew, this man will not be able to benefit because he cannot eat anything. Perhaps the Minister would examine this problem.

Mr. Foley

I compliment the Minister on his address to the committee. I agree with the points raised by Deputy Browne with regard to widows. More provision should be made for them and they should also benefit from the free travel scheme.

The Minister said that the bulk of expenditure covered by the Estimates, almost £2 billion, relates to social assistance, including support for older people. This is welcome but I hope he will consider extending the free travel scheme.

One of the early meetings of the committee discussed the self-employed and the scheme which was introduced in 1988. Under the scheme, the self-employed were obliged to have ten years' contributions in order to qualify for contributory pensions. There are many cases of people whose contributions are short by from two days to 12 months. The Minister said at the time that he would consider the problem but that the expense would be enormous. I hope he will reconsider it. He should give special consideration to the many people who have applied but who are short by up to 12 months. Many of these self-employed people started to contribute in 1988 but have now discovered they do not have enough contributions.

The Minister referred to back-to-work schemes. Will he consider extending them? They have been a major boost for the unemployed who, after many years of unemployment, get great satisfaction from participating in them. Some schemes are limited to 12 months while others are limited to three years.

I compliment the Minister who in his first budget provided exceptional measures for the weaker sections of the community. I hope he continues in that vein.

Mr. Browne (Wexford)

I welcome the allocation for support of the family. Any expenditure on families must be welcomed, especially now when there is so much pressure on family life.

The free fuel allowance has not been increased for a significant number of years. The previous Minister, Deputy De Rossa, said this scheme was being examined by a committee. In view of inflation over the years, it is time to seriously consider increasing the allowance.

I support Deputy Foley's comments on the self-employed, a matter I have discussed with the Minister on a number of occasions. Many of their contributions are only two or three weeks short for eligibility for pension rights and some are only days short of eligibility. The Minister promised earlier this year that he would consider doing something about this in the budget for 1999. Is that still his intention?

The other area of interest is the students' summer jobs scheme. It was previously a flexible scheme but, for reasons best known to the last Minister, it was tightened up last year and the flexibility disappeared. Many students were refused access to the scheme even though students over 18 years of age are not eligible for unemployment assistance. The scheme was introduced by the former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods. All Members welcomed its introduction and asked that it be applied flexibly.

When assessing eligibility for the scheme, the take home pay of parents should be taken into account. I received a number of queries on this matter from gardaí and other professionals who are not on huge wages, particularly when one takes into account what they pay in tax, PRSI and for maintaining a student in college for the year. Will the Minister restore flexibility in the scheme? In previous years any student who applied was allowed to participate but that changed last year when a tough regime was introduced.

With regard to the £80 million in savings due to the reduction in unemployment, I support other Deputies' calls that this money be allocated to the less well off. I also support the call for greater provision for widows. My mother was a widow who reared eight children and I am aware of the difficulties encountered by widows rearing families. There should be a special payment to widows and I ask the Minister to exercise compassion in this regard. I have been a Member of the Dáil for 16 years and in that time I have constantly sought special concessions for widows but they have not been forthcoming. I hope this Minister will be the first to ensure that this section of the community is better looked after.

Mr. Wade

I congratulate the Minister on his performance in office. I concur with previous speakers and echo their special appeals for widows. They are a special category of people.

I also ask for an increase in the free fuel allowance. It has not been increased for many years and all public representatives have been asked by constituents to seek such an increase. I hope the Minister will take that on board.

Mr. Moloney

I thank the Minister for his commitment and for recognising the implications of buoyancy in the economy and the extra money it will yield. On the Estimate, the Minister's opening remarks proved that, for once, the economy is taking account of the less well off. The fact that 22,000 extra people are back at work is an achievement and should be recognised as such. The extra £80 million and any further money accruing to the economy by virtue of people returning to work, should be targeted to deal with youth unemployment, which is a concern in most urban areas. The second cycle or next generation of young unemployed should be targeted in particular. An extra £166 million has gone back into employment support and that is the essence of the Celtic tiger economy; taking people from the bread line and creating jobs for them. Taking so many people off the dole creates further buoyancy by way of extra funds for the Exchequer.

Will the Minister examine the area of pension rights, particularly those deprived of pensions by two or three days? I know there must be a cut off mark but nevertheless we should devise some system whereby we can take into account those who have been so deprived. It would be worthwhile to examine that question. I welcome the £5 pension increase and, although it has been criticised by some as derisory, it is quite substantial. The Minister should be congratulated on his commitment to provide a pension of £100 per week. Most representative groups make the point that this commitment will be lived up to. It is a step in the right direction. The Minister has recognised the Celtic tiger economy and, most importantly, the fact that the extra buoyancy will help those who are less well off.

Mr. Crawford

I find as many problems with the student scheme this year as I did last year. If it was Deputy De Rossa's fault last year, the present Minister must take some responsibility for it now. I hope the scheme can be freed up to allow for more understanding.

The widow's pension issue has come to my attention in recent weeks. In one case a woman with a young family lost her husband who had been the main breadwinner but was not earning a major salary. She was also looking after her mother-in-law and as a result was receiving a carer's allowance. Her husband died tragically and some weeks later her mother-in-law died. As a result the woman is now back on the minimum pay-related widow's pension. Her situation is very serious and must be re-examined in light of the fact that she is now the sole breadwinner. As she is caring for a young family she is not able to go to work. The repercussions following the loss of these payments are quite enormous. Widows and widowers cannot be expected to depend on the same payments as someone on social welfare who has not entered into commitments that must be met following the tragic death of a spouse.

I have spoken about the carer's allowance issue on every possible opportunity since being elected to the Dáil. Thankfully, quite a lot of improvements have been made but there is one fairly significant anomaly which affects rural areas. It concerns single people on small farms who are looking after an aged parent whose income is taken into account. I have come across a number of cases where that income is £75 or £80 but the person was not granted a carer's allowance. Although they say they cannot provide the care, it means they receive nothing towards paying a carer which makes their position impossible. This anomaly provides more reasons for putting aged parents or relatives into full-time care that will cost much more in the longterm. This matter should be seriously examined because it is causing many problems.

Other speakers raised the issue of a pro rata pension for those who have not worked for the required ten years’ qualifying time. I came across a case recently where a man fell short of the required period by 12 weeks. He cannot understand why there is no leeway to allow him to have some degree of compensation for all the years he worked under a different system, which is no fault of his own. Other people who were born a few weeks later receive significant benefits.

The fuel allowance is an old hobby horse of mine. It has remained at the same level through successive Governments. It is no fault of the current Minister but it should be looked at in light of the ESB's increase, announced today. That is another example where older people must bear extra cost. By the nature of things, the elderly require more heat, whether that is provided by coal or electricity.

I raised the family income supplement issue at this committee last week. It is difficult to understand the situation concerning information relating to the self-employed tax base. Small shopkeepers, plumbers, electricians and small farmers are often forced out of business because their tax books, which are accepted by the Revenue Commissioners, are not accepted by the social welfare authorities. That is impossible to understand. People working in a bank or any other business who receive less than the agreed wage will receive the FIS, but not if they are self-employed. More and more people in this category will be forced either to give up their business or to survive in real hardship.

Mr. Brady

I pay tribute to the Minister for the improvements he has introduced during his short time in office at the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. I compliment him for the increases he has granted to the elderly, in particular, in the last budget, which was more than the previous Minister granted during the preceding three budgets. The back to work and back to education schemes the Minister has introduced are most welcome, as are the improvements to the family income supplement.

As regards the student summer jobs scheme, I have a problem with one case that has been brought to my attention in my own village. Only one person has applied for the scheme but, unfortunately, the parents are over the income limit. No one else has applied for the scheme in this rural area where there is no bus service. The Minister should examine such cases where there is only one applicant for a summer job. There are not many such cases. I will give the details of this case to the Minister later.

I want to raise the FÁS scheme to improve houses for the elderly as it applies in rural constituencies. I would like to see the Departments of Social, Community and Family Affairs, Health and Children and Environment and Local Government liaising in regard to people in rural Ireland who do not have access to basic facilities. I am aware of cases in north Meath where people do not even have electricity. It would cost them approximately £4,000 to have electricity connected to their homes. These people, most of whom are elderly, do not have access to water or sewerage services either. There are many such people in County Meath and I am sure there are also many in counties Cavan, Louth and Monaghan. They have been left behind in the wake of the Celtic tiger and I appeal to the Minister and the Ministers for Health and Children and the Environment and Local Government to come up with a programme which would assist them.

Acting Chairman

I wish to make a brief comment on subhead A.7 which outlines a huge increase in information and technology consultancy services for 1998. Are these services being provided outside of the Department? What preparations are being made to deal with the Year 2K problem which I presume will necessitate huge changes in the Department?

Mr. D. Ahern

I thank the Deputies for their comments. Deputy O'Keeffe might be taken somewhat more seriously by the public if he did not deride the way in which this Government, in its first budget, was able to achieve a very sizeable budgetary package in the area of social welfare. Deputy Brady summed the matter up succinctly when he said the Government gave old age pensioners more in this budget than they had received in the previous three. The previous Government, of which Deputy O'Keeffe was a member, gave pensioners a 2.5 per cent increase at a time when the rate of inflation was also 2.5 per cent. I appreciate the Deputy has a job to do when in Opposition.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

The Minister has only given his side of the story.

Mr. D. Ahern

The facts speak for themselves. I thank Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) for his remarks. The points he made in regard to widows and widowers were well made. To extend free schemes to all widows and widowers not currently eligible for them would entail additional expenditure in the region of £25 million and would incur a huge cost to the Exchequer. We did make some changes in this regard and provided an increase of £5 for people over 66 years of age. That provision will come into effect in the next few weeks.

The Minister for Finance, in recognition of difficulties raised by Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny), Deputy John Browne (Wexford) and others, made changes to the widowed parent bereavement allowance in the budget. The existing special bereavement allowance for widowed parents in the tax years following the tax year of bereavement is £1,500 in year one, £1,000 in year two and £500 year three. This has been increased to £5,000 in year one, £4,000 in year two, £3,000 in year three, £2,000 in year four and £1,000 in year five.

In regard to the issue of people with disabilities, which is an interdepartmental one, my Department alone introduced a range of measures which will cost £10 million in 1998 and £17.5 million on a full year basis. One of the main measures is the increase of £5 and £3 respectively which will result in 91,000 people with disabilities being brought above the rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. The new payments will range between 101 and 118 per cent of the recommended levels and that is a substantial improvement.

There has also been a significant increase in the disregard of DA recipients' wages from £36.30 to £50. I hope to be able to increase that disregard further for people in receipt of disability allowance and blind pensions in the coming years. In special recognition of the difficulties experienced by people with disabilities, I was able to dedicate an additional sum of £4.825 million from savings made in the Department to assist community and voluntary organisations working with people with disabilities and older people. The funding helped to provide a range of equipment necessary to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities, including the provision of accessible buses, motorised wheelchairs, training equipment, information systems, deafness aids, computers and special beds and hoists. A further £50,000 was made available to the Irish Council for People with Disabilities for the purchase of computer equipment for its 30 county networks. That funding was greatly welcomed.

On the question of dental treatment, perhaps Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) could furnish me with details of the case to which he referred. A number of Members raised the issue of the free fuel scheme. The scheme, which entails a payment of £5 per week for 26 weeks of the year to eligible recipients, was examined prior to the budget with a view to increasing it. However, I took the view that it would be preferable to give elderly people a £5 increase on a year-round basis although I accept that people other than old age pensioners receive the free fuel payment. It was much more costly to increase pension payments than it would have been to extend the free fuel scheme. Interestingly, the free fuel allowance has not been increased since 1985. The CPI from August 1985 to March 1998 was 8.3 per cent, so the price of fuel has not increased very much.

A Deputy referred to a possible price increase by the ESB. The Department pays for a set number of units and if the price increases, the Department still pays for the set number of units. Therefore, that argument does not stand up.

One of the main rationales behind not changing the free fuel allowance this year was that I felt it would be more appropriate to give a substantial increase to old age pensions every week of the year and not just change the free fuel allowance which is given for 26 weeks of the year. The smokeless fuel allowance, which amounts to an additional £3 per week, has been extended to Limerick, Wexford, Arklow, Drogheda and Dundalk from 19 October 1998. The total expenditure on free fuel, as per the published Estimate, is £45.2 million. The numbers in relation to the 1997 outturn are 287,000 fuel recipients and 99,000 smokeless fuel recipients. An additional 14,000 will qualify because of the extension.

The hoary old chestnut, the self-employed, is an issue which has addressed my mind quite often over the past number of months. I considered all the options carefully and they will cost a significant amount of money. That is the reality. Therefore, the Government has to make a judgment call on where this issue lies among the priorities. All Deputies will refer to the need for more investment in people with disabilities, carers, widows and old age pensioners. All of these matters must also be considered. All previous Governments, including those the members of which are sitting in Opposition here, considered this issue and found they could do nothing other than retain the ten year limit. I recognise some people feel they are losing out because they are a couple of weeks or even a few days shy of qualifying. If we were to reduce the limit to nine years, some people would still be one day or one week shy of the rule. The previous Government, in its wisdom, decided not to touch the ten year limit and refund the pension element to people who did not qualify. We are addressing this issue, but it must take its place in the list of priorities.

The student summer jobs scheme is being maintained exactly as it was last year. In this period of economic boom people might question the need for a student summer jobs scheme on the basis that there would be plenty of jobs of this nature available. We have included it with an estimate of £9.8 million. We estimate that about 16,000 students will apply under this scheme, the closing date of which is 26 June. The scheme has been publicised. We have received 15,436 applications to date, 10,348 of which have been approved, and we have issued 8,228 job certificates. The scheme is worthwhile because, apart from giving the students the experience of working for their communities, it facilitates many community groups. I do not know if any members received a copy of the sponsor book, but it shows the work which is taking place in our community, and the student summer jobs scheme assists that.

A number of members raised the issue of the carer's allowance. As I said before, the interdepartmental working group is up and running. The Carers' Association has had a number of meetings with us so it could provide an input to that review. The review is expected shortly and obviously we will examine the issues flowing from that in the budgetary context.

On FIS and the self-employed, as the committee will be aware, in the budget I was able to fulfil a commitment in Partnership 2000 to calculate FIS on a net income basis. That had been sought for a long time and we succeeded in doing that. There was no commitment in Partnership 2000 to extend FIS to the self-employed. As I said before, it would cost £30 million to extend FIS to the self-employed. It is an issue which, in the context of the entire social welfare budget, would have to take its place in the list of priorities as determined by me and the Government.

One or two Deputies referred to the back to work allowance scheme. This is an extremely beneficial scheme and is very successful. Employers, employees and the self-employed who are part of this scheme have frequently told me it is one of the best schemes available to those who are unemployed. Some 6,000 people have taken part in the scheme to date. Some 5,000 of those have ceased to be supported by the scheme in that their cycle of support has expired. Some 11,000 claims have been terminated. Most of the those would have returned to the live register in some shape or form. There was 8,900 people self-employed under the scheme and 12,100 were employed.

I think I have referred to all the matters raised by the members. If there are specific issues to which I did not respond, members can take them up with me later. Deputy Moynihan-Cronin raised the issue of outside specialised assistance. The increase of £2.5 million is due mainly to the year 2000 issue, which will cost the Department in the region of £8.5 million between this and the year 2000. It will ensure the millennium bug will not cause computer difficulties for whoever is Minister on 1 January 2000. Computers develop problems and people get paid to fix them.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

Usually too little.

Mr. D. Ahern

Of a Government spend of £12 million in preparation for the year 2000, £8.5 million over the period until the year 2000 is being spent in my Department. It is necessary to employ people from outside. The completion of the work is expected in early 1999 so the system can be tested well in advance of the year 2000. Because the Department has links with other organisations such as the Revenue Commissioners, An Post, Bank of Ireland, ESB and Telecom Éireann, we have to synchronise for the year 2000. That is why outside specialist assistance is needed; it is inevitable in this type of area.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

Does the Minster have figures for the success rate of those who took up the back to work scheme? He mentioned a figure of 12,000 returning to the live register.

Mr. D. Ahern

There is a detailed report on the back to work allowance scheme which shows the success rate. The scheme has been successful in retaining people in employment, whether they are self-employed or continue to be employed after the end of the scheme.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

The disabled and widows are not far ahead of unemployed single people. Widows should be given further assistance. Instead of an increase of 5 per cent of a small sum, we should give them an increase of £25 or £30. Sometimes widows are so upset by a death that when they get forms for normal allowances, they do not fill them in quickly enough and they miss the deadline. It may be their fault but they should be given more time. In the circumstances they are too distressed to fill in forms. I know one women who was so upset she could not look at the form. There should be leniency in cases such as this.

Mr. D. Ahern

Widows over 66 years did not get the ordinary increase, they got a substantial increase of between 6.4 and 7.4 per cent.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

Young widows have a real problem.

Mr. D. Ahern

There is a commitment in our programme to examine the bereavement allowance. We appreciate the difficulties which people have when they lose their spouse. This is a commitment which we would like to implement in the lifetime of this Government. In the last budget there was an emphasis on widows in the areas of social welfare and finance. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy made a substantial increase in the bereavement allowance.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

Is that the tax allowance?

Mr. D. Ahern

Yes.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

For many widows that does not arise.

Acting Chairman

Before I call the next speaker, many of the issues which we are covering now are in the subheads for social insurance and assistance. Does the committee agree to opening up the debate to discuss subheads B and P to T together? Agreed. Does the Minister want to make a contribution on the other two subheads before I open up the debate?

Mr. D. Ahern

No. I will wait.

Acting Chairman

I will take contributions from a number of speakers and then the Minister can reply. We have finished the administration subhead Is that agreed? Agreed. We will now take social insurance, subhead B, and social assistance, subheads P to T together.

Mr. Foley

Is there any way to reduce the ten year period for the self-employed? The beneficiaries of the carer's allowance are saving the State millions of pounds. I ask the Minister to give them a special allowance in the next budget. The State should recognise those savings by substantially increasing the carer's allowance.

Mr. Wade

I endorse Deputy Foley's comments about the carer's allowance. The Minister should look at that favourably. There are families which save this State millions of pounds by caring for their elderly relatives.

Deputy Johnny Brady mentioned people who lack basic plumbing facilities. This issue has been raised with the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Department of Health and Children. The Minister's Department should consult with the other Departments. It is a disgrace that an elderly person should not have basic toilet and shower facilities. If it was means tested it would not cost the State a great amount and it would be a one-off payment.

Mr. D. Ahern

In reference to the carer's allowance, because of the interdepartmental review, I looked at the issue of carers and they were given an increase. Carers over 66 years received £5 and those under 66 years got £3. They also received additional improvements such as free travel passes. Subsequently, we relaxed the time constraint for full-time care. This matter is high on my priority list for the next budget and following budgets, subject to the availability of finance.

Deputy Foley raised the issue of the self-employed. It is not a simple matter of making some changes this year and more next year. It is estimated that 20,000 people are in this difficulty. The previous Government decided to give refunds and some people have received them If changes were made it would be an administrative nightmare to re-jig the system. It would not be impossible but it is another consideration. The 20,000 figure is an estimate, it could be higher or lower than that but the suspicion is that it is higher, which would also leave the figures askew. I know many Deputies are affected by this issue and I have looked at it intensively, both from within and outside the Department, to see if anything could be done, but it is a difficult nut to crack.

Outside toilets are not a matter for my Department.

Mr. Wade

I know that but we are sent from one Department to another. The people concerned are old age pensioners and it is not acceptable in 1998 that people should have an outside toilet. There is also a red tape issue because these people do not qualify for a disability grant. Perhaps if the three Departments discussed this matter they could come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, gave a commitment to look at this issue.

Mr. D. Ahern

It is another cross-departmental matter but the ultimate paymaster is the Department of the Environment and Local Government, not my Department. The Deputy should take it up with that Department.

Mr. Browne (Wexford)

The money advice and budgeting service is a good scheme but not many people are aware of it. Does the Minister plan a publicity campaign? The people in the MABS office in Wexford are helpful to people who get into difficulties.

What plans does the Minister have to extend social welfare payments, such as unemployment assistance, through An Post? That system came on stream in Enniscorthy last week and those in receipt of assistance welcomed the change because they had fought for it for a long time. Are there plans to extend the programme or have discussions taken place with An Post?

In my area the delays in social welfare appeals can be six months or more - last Friday I dealt with a person who had waited six and a half months for an appeal. Are there major staff problems and does the Minister have plans to beef up that section?

Mr. D. Ahern

From my recollection, we have taken on extra staff in the appeals office. The average delay has been reduced from 22 weeks to 21 weeks and the number of appeals on hand has been reduced from over 6,000 to 5,500. In the UK the average delay is 26 weeks and in other countries processing time ranges from three months to 20 months, so our experience has been good. The difficulty always arises in relation to the collection of evidence for oral hearings. I assure the Deputy the experience is quite good here. Extra staff have been taken on and the need is recognised. Some 12,835 appeals were dealt with by the appeals office in 1997 and the average delay was 22 weeks. In the first months of 1998 it was reduced to 21 weeks because of additional staff.

Mr. Browne (Wexford)

When a person appeals and receives his acknowledgement, could the appeals office tell the person it will take about five months? This is taking up time for many Deputies - people are approaching us to ask whether the appeal will come up in the next couple of weeks, whereas the appeals office could tell people it will take a significant amount of time. Deputies and the Minister are blamed for the delay, not the appeals office.

Mr. D. Ahern

I take that point and will pass it on. I was delighted to open the MABS premises in Wexford, and in my constituency I find it helpful in assisting people who get into difficulties. In one case MABS helped a person to avoid being evicted from his house and I know of another person in Deputy Brady's constituency who was helped through the service. The publicity is ongoing and we hope to extend MABS to a further seven offices. The country is more or less covered, with the exception of some parts of Dublin.

On payments through An Post, the Department has a big administrative project to bring all smaller branch offices onto our ISTIS computer system and there is an increase in expenditure in that respect. This will eliminate all cash payments at branch offices in favour of post draft payments at post offices. I know there can be difficulties with transfers but those are normally sorted out within a week or so. The Department is continually trying to move closer to a cashless system and the branch office system is an area in which we can do this. There are 72 branch offices in the country.

Mr. Crawford

The Minister indicated there was no change in the student summer job scheme from last year, yet I know a case where two daughters in one family did not qualify for the scheme this year on a technicality, although an older girl in the same college and on the same course qualified last year.

Mr. D. Ahern

Perhaps the Deputy could give me the details. It is designed for people who are less well off.

Mr. Crawford

There was no problem with the financial qualification, it was another technicality.

Mr. D. Ahern

Any student who does not qualify for the student summer jobs scheme is entitled to apply for UA.

Acting Chairman

I think the anomaly is that people returning to college to do a diploma do not qualify for the scheme.

Mr. D. Ahern

That has always been the case - they do not qualify once they finish college.

Mr. Crawford

The sister of these girls qualified for the scheme last year. They are in an identical position this year but they did not qualify.

Another issue to which I wish to refer is the fact that people who do not pay PAYE are not entitled to claim family income supplement. The total budget for the current year is £30.1 million which compares with the Minister's estimate that, if the self-employed were included, an additional £30 million would be required. It is difficult to accept that such an amount of funding would be needed. If people are forced to re-enter the social welfare system by giving up employment or reducing their salary to qualify for payment, they automatically become eligible for medical cards, etc. However, if they are claiming FIS, their incomes may be brought up to a realistic level to ensure they can continue to claim.

I refer here to people living in rural areas. I appreciate the Minister's announcement today about the creation of additional employment in Dundalk. However, the number of people prepared to live in the Border region, the west and the midlands has declined, as have their incomes. We must consider ways to ensure these people are not forced to leave those areas and place further pressure on the housing market in Dublin. There is an urgent need to consider this entire issue.

That brings me back to the carer's allowance. It is much easier for people living outside the home to claim this allowance because they are self-employed and must pay someone to care for their parents. Will the Minister clarify the position in respect of carer's allowance? If people's incomes amount to the £75 limit accepted by social welfare officers, there is no way they can pay for someone to care for their parents. This is placing unnecessary hardship on people and it is becoming a real problem.

Mr. D. Ahern

With regard to family income supplement, many of the people to which the Deputy referred are entitled to claim unemployment assistance in the form of smallholders' dole. The estimate of £30 million is based on the fact that many people are already in receipt of this payment in addition to incomes from their farms. Smallholders' dole is an additional top-up payment.

Mr. Crawford

I was not referring only to small farmers.

Mr. D. Ahern

I accept that small shop owners are also included.

Mr. Crawford

The Minister should also consider the earnings of a small post officer holder.

Mr. D. Ahern

Again, the cost is estimated to be £30 million. I will try to provide the Deputy with a breakdown of that estimate at a later date.

Mr. Crawford

What is the position in respect of carer's allowance?

Mr. D. Ahern

I have given priority to that area. The issues raised by the Deputy are referred to time and again. As stated on previous occasions, the carer's allowance scheme was put in place almost ten years ago. The previous Government correctly recognised to need to consider it in a broader context, given that a large number of people, more than 10,000, receive carer's allowance and the issues it raises in terms of caring for the elderly. As Deputy Wade stated, it is not merely an issue of finance but also oneof facilities. If we are to encourage people toremain in care at home rather than enter institutions, adequate facilities must be available in the home to allow them to do so. That will cost a great deal of money. We must also consider the potential crossover between my Department and the Department of Health and Children in respect of carers,

These issues are being considered by the interdepartmental committee on carer's allowance within my Department and more broadly by the Departments of Finance, Health and Children and the Environment and Local Government. As already stated, money permitting, this issue is on my list of priorities.

Mr. Crawford

I do not wish to belabour the point, but many people have had their home helps withdrawn by the health boards because of lack of finance.

Mr. D. Ahern

That is not my area.

Mr. Crawford

However, it is relevant to this debate.

Mr. D. Ahern

Yes.

Mr. Crawford

People with incomes amounting to between £75 to £80 cannot obtain any assistance towards carer's allowance. Married people in full employment are allowed earn up to £150 and their spouses can claim full carer's allowance. Therefore, a major anomaly exists.

Mr. D. Ahern

Home help is excluded from the assessment in respect of carer's allowance. The situation relating to home helps is more relevant to the Department of Health and Children.

Mr. Crawford

Single people earning more than £70 per week are not entitled to carer's allowance while married people can earn up to £150 per week and their spouses are entitled to the full allowance. While this may not be a major problem, difficulties have arisen in this area in recent times.

Acting Chairman

I see no provision for sickness allowance. Does the Minister intend to introduce a provision in respect of that allowance in the next Estimates?

Mr. D. Ahern

That issue was targeted by my predecessor who envisaged that such an allowance would be introduced in the near future. Unfortunately, due to difficulties involving year 2000 compatibility, the Department's computer system would be unable to facilitate the introduction of the sickness allowance within the timescale previously envisaged. However, those people who would be eligible for sickness allowance are already in receipt of the proper amount of benefit. This matter literally involves a change of name in the allowance claimed. Therefore, no one has been placed at a disadvantage because the allowance has not yet been introduced. The Department is geared towards addressing many of the potential difficulties which will arise on 1 January 2000 in the context of computer compatibility.

Mr. Crawford

What would be the additional cost of paying all old age pensioners the £5 increase? When people were informed they would receive that increase, those with some other form of income believed it would be granted across the board and they were disappointed to learn the increase was to be granted on a pro rata basis. In other words, a person receiving a pension of £40 per week did not receive an increase. It is important, for future reference, that announcements about increases provide clear information.

Mr. D. Ahern

When I announced the £5 increase, it was made clear that it would apply to 270,000 elderly people and that there would be proportionate increases for 54,000 contributory pensioners on reduced rates. Therefore, 324,000 people have benefited from the increase. I accept that people may have misunderstood the announcement.

Mr. Crawford

What would be the difference?

Mr. D. Ahern

I cannot say offhand. I will get that information for the Deputy. It is on the assumption that it would be to establish——

Mr. Crawford

Non-contributory pensions would be the only ones——

Mr. D. Ahern

Contributory?

Mr. Crawford

Non-contributory.

Mr. D. Ahern

All those in receipt of non-contributory pensions received the £5 increase. A certain number of people did not get the full rate but received proportionate increases. Everyone else received the full increase.

Acting Chairman

I wish to inform Deputy O'Keeffe the committee decided to take the two remaining subheads together as many of the issues had been dealt with prior to taking them.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I apologise for my temporary absence, but I had some matters to raise on Question Time.

On social insurance, as a number of speakers have already raised the question of contributory OAP for the self-employed I will not go over that ground other than to remind the Minister that, like other issues, this one has not gone away. From the point of view of justice the campaign will continue. I was delighted to hear a number of members from his own side touching on the issue and urging the Minister to respond to the legitimate case made by Fine Gael. Those on the Government side of the House will be given an opportunity before the end of the month to offer similar sentiments on the Fine Gael motion to pay pro rata pensions to people who have been forced to make those payments. I invite them not only to speak in favour of that motion and repeat what they said here today but also to vote in favour of it. That is a separate issue.

The first pension became payable only since April this year. I thought it was 6 April although there is the ultimate case of a person whose birthday is on 6 April and was refused on the basis that he had entered his 56th year before the system came into operation.

On the social assistance side I will focus on the carer's allowance. This is an area in which none of us has done enough and it is in the interest of the country that more is done. I wish to raise the question of a basic non-means tested carer's respite allowance - I referred to this in my budget speech. I have in mind the order of £1,000 which would be sufficient to allow all those involved in the full-time care of the elderly or disabled to have some rest or recreation. It might enable them to take a few weeks off or get some paid help to cover for them.

There are approximately 30,000 people involved in full-time care of the old and disabled, of whom approximately only 10,000 qualify under the present restrictive carer's allowance scheme. We must strategically examine ways of improving the means tested system. As I said, there is a major case for the payment of a basic non-means tested carer's respite allowance. It is to the benefit of the State that people are encouraged to be cared for at home. I am sure everyone agrees that this involves a great deal of time and effort and wears down the carer. It is very much in the interest of the country that arrangements are made to ensure all carers have the opportunity of a break, which is the idea behind the respite allowance.

Will the Minister provide me with a costing? I understand it would not cost too much. Will he also give consideration, when the opportunity next arises to improve the carer's allowance in line with the two suggestions I made - that the means test be eased and that the basic £1,000 carer's respite allowance be paid without reference to means?

Mr. D. Ahern

I heard what the Deputy said and will not repeat what I said previously. He said Fine Gael has made a legitimate case. Obviously the case it is making now was not well made when it had its hands on the steering wheel of power. It did not see fit to do anything on this issue. I will remind the Deputy of that if and when he wishes to raise this issue again publicly in the Dáil. His party was the leading one in that Government and was unable to prioritise this issue to such an extent to get it through successfully. As I said previously, the most that Government did was give refunds of the pension element. To those people it means no further payment because even if a future Government were to provide this pension it would be an administrative nightmare due to the fact that people received payments. I am not saying it would be impossible but the ten year provision was a very definite policy statement by the Deputy's Government and was supported obviously by the Department at the time.

I will try to get a figure on the proposal in regard to the respite allowance. I think it was previously given in parliamentary questions. One of the first things done by my predecessor, Deputy De Rossa, was to consider of the overlap in supports provided by voluntary organisations as between this Department and the Department of Health and Children. He said the overlap was not conducive to provide coherent support for the voluntary sector or the orderly planning for the delivery of social services, and the confused lines of responsibility between Government agencies could be frustrating for voluntary groups. He, together with his colleague, the then Minister for Health, reviewed the whole area.

As a result of this review it was decided on respite care that the Department of Health and Children would have exclusive responsibility for the funding of organisations providing personal social services for the elderly, people with mental handicap and those with physical disabilities. This agreement took effect in early 1995, part of it being that the NSSB would be transferred to this Department. On foot of that agreement £1.5 million was transferred in 1995 from this Department to the health services to be available to the social service organisations.

I made that point because Deputy O'Keeffe raised the issue of respite care with me as Minister. Realistically, it goes to the core of the issue of carer's allowance and is the reason the previous Government set up a review to see where we are going not only on the issue of carer's allowance but of assisting carers. Before the Deputy arrived I explained that is the reason the Government is trying to co-ordinate the issue of carers' rights across the various Departments. It is estimated that £11 million will be required for the existing carer's allowance, £30 million if all 30,000 full-time carers were given £1,000 and £100 million if 100,000 part-time carers were provided for. It would be a very costly allowance, but is relevant to the Department of Health and Children, something acknowledged by my predecessor. A note from his time in office states that the basis for transferring the provision of respite care to the Department of Health and Children was that health boards had statutory responsibility for provision of personal services and were spending considerably more on respite services than was available to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs; that the introduction of the scheme in 1993 created needless duplication of services; that his Department was administering a grants scheme without being able to realistically assess the value of the applications as against each other and without being able to effectively co-ordinate with a much larger provision being made by the health boards; and that the extent of the duplication was evident by the fact that most of the organisations funded were also receiving substantial funding from health boards, had a close working link with them and in many cases were formed and staffed by professional staff from the health boards. For these reasons my predecessor decided that respite care should be the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I am glad the Estimate for the peace and reconciliation programme has been increased. I understand it is 25 per cent of the total figure for the peace programme and that the balance is supplied by the EU. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the total programme amounts to £7.2 million, that is if there is matching funding by way of a 75 per cent subvention to the Combat Poverty Agency from the EU. Will the Minister give a brief outline of what happens under that programme and how effective it is in the context of peace and reconciliation?

Mr. D. Ahern

Deputies from Border areas will confirm that after a slow start the peace and reconciliation fund has been up and running in recent years and has been very successful. I was critical - not in a political way - of the difficulties in its implementation. The Department has no direct responsibility concerning the organisation of the programme, which is done directly by the Combat Poverty Agency and ADM. The purpose of the fund is to promote reconciliation, provide opportunities for enhanced cross-Border community development, develop grass roots capacities and promote the inclusion of women and vulnerable groups. The intermediary bodies are the Combat Poverty Agency and ADM. An official of the Department is a member of the joint management committee. This membership arises only because the official is a member of the board of the Combat Poverty Agency. A condition of receipt of money laid down by the EU Commission was that the intermediaries should be independent of the parent Department. Some people have difficulty with this provision.

The level of expenditure under the programme is dependent on the capacity of the voluntary and community sector to develop proposals and structures to draw down funds. While tranches of funding were agreed for the three year period, 1995-7, no expenditure was incurred in 1995, which gave rise to some of the criticism. Effective mechanisms for drawing down EU funding were not in place until mid 1996. It was mainly for this reason that total expenditure in 1996 amounted to only £0.5 million. However, the monitoring committee for the programme has approved the transfer of the 1995 and 1996 allocations to subsequent years. Total programme expenditure in 1997 amounted to £2.9 million. The 1998 Estimate supports a total programme of £7.2 million.

Further tranches of funding, while agreed in principle, are subject to evaluation by the EU Commission. Discussions have commenced regarding the second phase of this programme. Much depends on what unfolds over the next couple of months. I am not totally privy to what is being examined, but different vehicles are being examined whereby the programme for peace and reconciliation or its successor could be delivered to Border areas and the six northern counties.

Mr. Crawford

I concur with the Minister's point regarding the difficulties in establishing the structure. However, it is now in place and I ask that it be utilised in the context of the further moneys we are likely to get, and should get, as a result of the recent peace agreement, rather than establishing a completely new structure. In the past 12 months much good work has been done and there has been a much more common sense approach to funding with realistic projects being activated.

The most important issue is that some genuine cross-Border projects are being worked on at every level in the context of peace and reconciliation. This is a major breakthrough. I welcome the increased funding to the area and ask the Minister to ensure funding is made available for the structure which has been put in place for at least a further three years. Only in recent times has it been shown that, regardless of what Government is in power, because of the troubles Border areas have suffered more than anywhere else. The mechanism has been established, there is a will to utilise it and it is very important that funding be retained to allow the staff who have been trained fulfil a real purpose in the area.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to this issue. We both live in the Border area and realise there are issues of which others further south, including some of my colleagues, are not fully aware.

Mr. D. Ahern

I thank the Deputy for his comments. I support the programme for peace and reconciliation and we can see the concrete changes which are taking place in the Border areas. There are still some people who have difficulty with the way in which issues are dealt with, but there is a much greater realisation of the difficulties in the areas. Regarding the tremendous announcement for my constituency concerning the Zerox Corporation, I will welcome the Deputy's constituents to our town to fill some of the vacancies, provided they do not take jobs from our people. For years I had to listen to a Deputy in my constituency saying that it was a forgotten territory, but now I have an opportunity to rub salt into the wound.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

There is a new item under social assistance, namely, the credit union loan guarantee scheme for back-to-work participants, the Estimate for which is £50,000. Will the Minister outline how that money will be spent and what it involves?

Mr. D. Ahern

It is spent through job facilitators, one of whom I recently met in my constituency. There are 30 job facilitators who assist people in relation to the back-to-work allowance and are able to give a small grant to people.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Is it a subbing amount by way of loan rather than a grant?

Mr. D. Ahern

Yes.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

It is an advance until a person receives his or her first pay packet.

Mr. D. Ahern

I understand that is correct. It is a contingency allocation of £50,000 to enable recipients of back-to-work allowance receive loans from credit unions at normal credit union interest rates. The £50,000 allocated will be used as collateral against any default in loans.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

That is a good idea.

Mr. D. Ahern

It was requested by a job facilitator. I thank Deputies for their comments and questions. I always look forward to coming to the committee to cross swords with one or two members. I regard it as an experience which assists me in listening to what others have to say. As public representatives, some of my colleagues have experiences which perhaps some of the officials might not have. It is helpful that we listen and learn from each other.