I welcome the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his officials. We are meeting to consider the Revised Estimates for the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs which amount to £3.281 billion this year. Each member has received a copy of the proposed timetable, to which I hope we will be able to keep. Normally we call on the Minister to make an opening statement. Last year we dispensed with that practice and took the statement as read. I am flexible on this. Perhaps there is something particularly juicy which members want to have formally placed on the record. I will let the Minister make that call.
Estimates for Public Services, 2001.
Vote 40 - Social, Community and Family Affairs (Revised).
I thank the committee and the Chairman for the opportunity to appear here. My officials are Mr. Ken Duffy, Ms Catherine Kellaghan, Ms Ann McManus and Ms Ann Howard. I thank them for coming and for their preparations for this meeting. I emphasise this is the last time we will present the Estimate in punts. The next Estimate will be in euros, which is significant.
I will give a few pointers. Over the past four budgets, social welfare spending has increased by 36%, notwithstanding the fact that unemployment has fallen by 46%. Pensions have increased by 36% for a single person and 39% for a couple, the lowest social welfare rates have increased by 28% for a single person and 30% for a couple and child benefit has doubled. There will be further significant increases in the next two years.
The Estimate does not give the full figure for the spend on social welfare which is over £6 billion, of which about 25% goes to old age pensioners. Widows, widowers and one parent families account for a further 18.1 % with 15.7% going on payments related to illness, disability and caring. Unemployment, which used to be one of the larger components of the Estimate, now accounts for 9.1% of my Department's total expenditure.
Could I have a copy of the document?
I will have it circulated.
Do not forget what happened ten years ago.
I would not bet on it considering the publicity his colleagues are getting today.
Child related payments, including child benefit, account for 13.6% of total expenditure. I was about to return to unemployment when I was interrupted. Unemployment supports account for 9.1% of expenditure. Interestingly, positive employment supports have risen to 4.1% of the overall budget, quite a significant increase.
In addition to the introduction of the pensions reserve fund, we plan to examine the medium-term position of the social insurance fund. Under the Social Welfare Act, 1998, the first review must be carried out in December 2002. A competitive tendering process for this project was recently completed and the contract has been awarded to the UK Government actuary's department, an independent State owned actuarial consultancy body with extensive experience in carrying out actuarial reviews of social insurance systems both in the UK and a wide range of other countries. The actuarial review will be undertaken in the period June to October to ensure the findings will be available in advance of the next budget.
One of the most significant trends in recent years has been the dramatic fall in the live register figure. We indicated we would look at how to deal with people still on the live register. My Department asked the ESRI to undertake a study of the employability of people on the live register, the results of which were published last month. Overall the report presented a more positive picture than some might have expected. It found that the assumption that most people on the live register have severe employability problems is not, in fact, the case. However, the study also highlighted the fact that some people on the live register face multiple barriers to taking up work, including a lack of education and skills, drug addiction, literacy problems and age discrimination. The Government's employment action plan, allied to the upturn in the economy, has been very successful in reducing the number of people unemployed.
Ireland has set the agenda for poverty reduction at EU level. We are ahead of other countries in terms of our national anti-poverty strategy. Many delegations from EU partner countries as well as the applicant countries have visited us to observe how we are reviewing the strategy. In the latter part of my presentation I also refer to the EU action plan we recently lodged with the Commission.
People might think that spending on social welfare has reduced because unemployment levels have fallen. That is not the case. Spending has risen dramatically. My Department deals with many issues other than unemployment. There have been large increases in the numbers of people claiming disability allowance and one parent family payments. Given the Government's dramatic record regarding general and old age pension increases, that would also account for the very large increase in expenditure from last year to this year. I thank those who listened to me and we will endeavour to address queries as much as possible.
I thank the Minister. Do the Deputies want to continue or reply briefly to the Minister?
I have some brief remarks on the Minister's script. I had hoped to dispense with speeches to allow more time for questioning, but that has not happened. Therefore, I will take a few minutes to reply to the Minister's comments.
Be brief, please.
I welcome the Minister and his staff from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. We are engaged in a farce because we are debating expenditure subheadings that have already been agreed by the House. If we attempt to involve ourselves in policy formation, I hope that it will be policy formation for the next year.
The Government has had an unprecedented opportunity to reduce poverty. Over the past four years, despite its surplus, amounting to about £3.9 billion this year alone, it has failed miserably. The Minister referred to European strategy. On 1 June, he sent to the European Commission the draft document outlining the plans to reduce Ireland's poverty and social exclusion. Not once has this committee or the House debated that strategy. Additionally, stakeholders have had a view on the draft, but the members have not.
If one wants to point to a dramatic democratic deficit, it is in the Government's performance in informing members of this committee and the House of the important strategy which, it is hoped, will be pursued. It is an example of the consistent policy of the Government of producing reports without appropriate consultation with Members of the Dáil, undermining the democratic mandate and facilitating the kind of cynicism about politics which has been evident since the defeat in the Nice referendum.
The biggest threat to low income families and individuals is inflation. The Minister made no reference to it in his introductory remarks. He is already on the record as admitting that where inflation causes a negative effect on low income families, he will deal with it next year. The inflation in food prices is currently at 7.7%, which is eating into the meagre increases he and his colleagues agreed by way of the Social Welfare Act, which is now law. Because of inflation, low income families are finding it very difficult to make ends meet.
The Minister spoke of the substantial increases in expenditure under a number of subheadings. I will acknowledge that there have been substantial increases. However, only last week, a report in The Irish Times showed that poor people are suffering from illnesses more than any other group. Premature death is a reality for huge sections of the population living on very small incomes. There is no co-ordinating function within the Department. The Department is simply administrative and has no impact in terms of reducing poverty rates. We should hang our heads in shame regarding our failure to move people out of poverty so they can enjoy a decent standard of living. The lack of co-ordination in fighting poverty highlights the inadequacy of this Estimate.
Will Deputy Broughan be brief? Unfortunately, Deputy Hayes took up most of his time.
We are entitled to our own time, but I will be brief.
We have to get through everything and we are taking up too much time at these meetings.
The point is that the Minister, at our request, was brief.
Perhaps if the Chairman stopped interrupting we would proceed more quickly. I think our esteemed journalist, Mr. Stephen Collins, has been talking about a meltdown for the conservative parties in the next general election. Many Deputies while campaigning for the Nice treaty in the referendum, discovered a feeling of grave disquiet regarding growing inequality.
I commend the Minister for the increases he secured last year and the year before that, but there is a significant group of people in the low income bracket, 30%, who have not received the major increases in income in recent years. Under the current Administration, the 20% at the bottom still find it is a struggle to survive until their next pay day and this has been the case for a long time. This is the barometer with which we must judge the performance of the Department over the past four years.
Despite the hype of the Minister's PR and reports in the News of the World, the Irish Sunday People and the Sunday Mirror, there is a growing sense of social inequality which has not been addressed. I agree with my colleague's comments on the NAPS programme and the European poverty programme. It is very remiss of the Minister that he did not arrange for a debate in this committee and the House on the negative side effects of the Celtic tiger.
It is not only our society that has such problems. This week's Economist makes the point that many societies that have enjoyed massive economic growth have also seen the growth of massive inequality. The Opposition feels that this has not been sufficiently addressed.
The Government conducted a study with the ESRI concerning unemployment. From my own experience at Northside Partnership, for which I am a director, the four categories on whom we have tried to focus for the Dublin North-East and Dublin North-Central constituencies are people with disabilities, ex-offenders, people on addiction rehabilitation and people from the Traveller community. With regard to all four groups, the Department has not afforded us any supportive mechanism, even with regard to identifying the needs of those communities. We find ourselves at the cutting edge in the north side of Dublin regarding, for example, the 3% rule concerning disability employment, yet the Minister says there are severe employability problems, etc. Why then did he not, in his employment action plan, supply a mission statement relative to those four categories, significant groups who are still without jobs and have not shared in the current prosperity? It is difficult even for the best intentioned local groups to take on those burdens.
There is no use saying the unemployment rate is 3.5% - there are tens of thousands of people who want to work, have not been assisted and have grave difficulties. For example, almost nothing has been put in place to assist ex-offenders. Very belatedly, as the Government ends its term, there are a few placement officers in Wheatfield and Mountjoy prisons who are beginning to liaise with us. It is too little, too late. Where unemployment is concerned, the Government's policy should not be applauded as there are still many segments of the population who are unemployed. This is very evident in the Estimate.
I am glad the Minister referred to the social insurance fund. Again, the Labour Party felt that, with the major surpluses in that regard, there was scope for fundamental improvements but we have not seen them. Hopefully, the Minister's party will be out of Government and we will have an opportunity to address the real problems that have emerged over the past four years. One can have the best will in the world but, as Harold MacMillan said, events determine matters. One of the events in this country is growing inequality, which the Minister has just watched from his top floor window in Bus Áras, and he has not taken decisive action to pull the community together again.
We move on to subheads A1 to A10. Any questions?
There is a dramatic increase in subhead A7, dealing with other consultancy services. I presume that refers to information technology consultancy. The figure is up £2 million in one year. I hope that is not directly related to the promotional material the Minister is producing at present where he is seen to be beaming on us from on high. I feel sorry for the poor children in the picture, Aoife and her three friends. I hope they are not from the Billie Barrie school of dancing. Is this what the money is being spent on? There appears to have been a new promotional zeal in the Department over the past 12 months as the Government prepares for an election. The Minister seems to be beaming out at us every time we open a newspaper.
Under salaries, wages and allowances, subhead A1, would the Minister not accept that he has a general staffing problem? My colleague, Deputy Browne, highlighted in the House some weeks ago that a scheme run by the Department has only four officials involved and there is a backlog of seven to eight months. People are dying while they are waiting to get their entitlements under the early retirement pre-1953 scheme. Does the Minister accept that the rates of pay offered to staff in the Department are below what is on offer in the private sector? This is leading to a situation where people who are eligible to benefit from schemes cannot avail of them as quickly as they should. This was highlighted in the House some weeks ago.
We will take questions on the relevant section.
Will we be given a second chance to ask questions?
We have agreed a timeframe.
My colleague, Deputy Hayes, referred to consultancies. Under subhead A7, consultancies have been increased by £2 million, under subhead A9 they have also been increased by £2 million while in subhead A10 the funding has been increased by £3.3 million. That is a combined increase of £7.5 million which the Minister will spend on consultancies in the coming year.
Will he give us a detailed explanation of what he will do with that money, the number of people involved, what is so urgently in need of attention and how the Minister will find these consultants? A sum of £7.5 million is a huge amount of money and I shudder to think how many people will be producing reports or whatever within the Department if that amount of money is spent on that work alone. How much of that will be broken down into promotional work? Will there be PR consultants working with the Minister to promote his image and so forth? One cannot open a newspaper these days without seeing the Minister smiling out at us, announcing something for the 98th time at huge cost to the taxpayer.
Subhead A8 is the payment to An Post for dispensing payments to social welfare recipients. Can the Minister give a breakdown of the cost per transaction? Last year we spoke about moving towards use of the swipe card and the big difference that will make in terms of costs for the Department. If people used swipe cards instead of An Post, the cost would be reduced from approximately 50p or 60p per transaction to 3p or 4p. The Minister might have the exact figures available and outline what progress has been made in this area and whether he has encouraged people to use the swipe card.
With regard to the Minister's plans to localise lone parent's benefit, are there any ongoing staff costs in relation to that in the Estimates for 2001? Second, what is the latest position regarding An Post? We ask about this regularly in the House. Third, I commend the Minister on the work being done with regard to information. The Department has a few good public information booklets dealing with the carer's allowance and benefits for seniors. Does the Minister anticipate producing similar booklets for the Department's 46 main schemes?
With regard to subhead A8, payments for agency services, how many crèches does the Department provide locally or centrally to members of staff in the Department? The Minister is aware of Government commitments to encourage the private sector to provide crèches. How many crèches does the Department provide under subhead A8 or any other subhead dealing with administrative costs?
With regard to the last question, crèches are not dealt with in subhead A8. I will try to get information on crèches within the Department; I am not sure of it offhand. Members' questions have ranged across issues from salaries to consultancy payments for agencies. Any increase in salary costs would mainly be due to increases due under the PPF and the balance relates to restructuring agreements and staffing costs in relation to what is called the new service delivery model. That is a new way of delivering service to our customers. All these issues are taken care of in the Estimates.
With regard to consultancies, there has been an increase in consultancies. None of the funding has gone towards promoting myself as Minister. The Deputies might have a cynical view about it but that is the reality. With regard to subhead A7, consultancy services, this Government decided over a year ago to introduce the Reach project at a cost of, if memory serves, £12 million over a two year period. We also brought forward the Grow project, which is the general registration office modernisation. The cost of that is about £8 million. The majority of that £20 million will go on bringing in consultants to devise a new system whereby service to customers will be revolutionised.
We are bringing forward the public service number, the public service card and an e-broker system. Everything will be linked to a life event so that when a baby is born, the parents will not have to go to a myriad of offices to register the birth, claim child benefit, etc. They will only have to interact with the new e-broker agency. In terms of its legislative framework, the heads of the Bill were agreed by the Cabinet today.
A huge amount has been done in my Department in conjunction with consultants in developing information technology in this area. Approximately £8 million is being spent on a new service delivery model on integrating computer systems. The £2 million on other consultancies mentioned by the Deputy relates mainly to the family research project. This is being operated on a pilot basis in a number of areas throughout the country. Research on the family is also being carried out by voluntary bodies. A report on domestic violence received much publicity recently. This report was made by Dr. Kieran McKeown of MRCS and it was one of 13 projects funded by the Department.
Regarding subhead 8, the payment for agency services relates to deliveries by An Post. The figures have not changed. The Department estimates that it costs 80p per transaction with An Post. It would cost between 5p and 8p if electronic fund transfers were used. Cheques, including postage, amount to approximately 40p per transaction. There is a big variation between 80p and 5p to 8p.
Subheads A9 and A10 relate to the information society and the reach and grow projects. All the expenditure involved relates to progressing the projects. The Reach Project relates to the card every citizen will receive. It will ensure people receive a better service because they will not have to fill up multiple forms for transactions. If they go into a hospital, a social welfare office or a local authority office or apply for an agricultural or an educational grant, their basic information will be on the card. Every citizen who comes in contact with public services will have such a card. Each citizen, from the day he or she is born, is entitled to claim child benefit, etc.
The Grow Project, under subhead A10, is linked to that project. There is a dramatic increase in consultancy costs in that regard because the work on the programme is ongoing. We hope to finalise it by the first quarter of next year. It involves the total modernisation of the civil registration system which deals with certificates of birth, death and marriage. Instead of people having to queue outside the office on Lombard Street in Dublin, when the project is finished, people should be able to buy their birth certificates on demand at many outlets, including post offices. They will also be able to access the system through the Internet. This modernisation of the civil registration programme will feed into and is complementary to the Reach Project which relates to the public service number and card system. The two projects are complementary and this is the reason for the level of expenditure on consultancy.
We will move on to subheads B to V.
There is much interest in these subheads. Subhead N2 relates to supplementary welfare allowances and rent. A figure of £134 million is provided for rent supplements for the year. This is an increase from £118 million last year. How has this been estimated, given that anybody who is unable to obtain a house from a local authority can get a rent supplement from his or her local health board? I asked the Department of the Environment and Local Government recently how much the Government will spend on local authority house building programmes this year and I was told it would be £440 million. The figure of £134 million for rent supplement is a terrible indication of the extent to which the Government has failed to resolve the housing crisis and meet people's needs.
The Minister is admitting in the subhead that just over one third of the money the Government spends in a year on housing in terms of rent supplements and the building of new local authority homes lines the pockets of landlords. The subhead is open ended. Anybody who cannot obtain housing from his or her respective local authority is entitled to apply to the health board for funding for a house. If he or she is lucky enough to get a house in the private rented sector, the Department must foot the bill. This is an appalling indication that one third of the money spent by the Department and the Department of the Environment and Local Government lines the pockets of landlords. Will the Minister explain the position?
The figure for last year was £118 million. What was the difference between the amount spent and the figure in the Estimate? The Minister is providing £134 million this year, but it appears to be open ended. The figure could be £180 million by December. Will the Minister outline the position in this area.
Subhead B relates to the old age non-contributory pension. People still have huge bones of contention about the rigorous investigations they must undergo to qualify for such a pension. An old lady told me recently that she had a visit from somebody from the Department and the person concerned almost wanted to know what she had for breakfast. She felt it was intrusive and that even if she did not have a shilling, she would not go through it again. People find the process extremely intrusive and perhaps another way could be considered.
The lady to whom I referred had a small number of stamps. The Minister will recall an earlier discussion on that matter. He said a report was being prepared in the Department, which was to be ready in March or April. Many married women who are now reaching pension age may have worked for up to four years in the 1950s. They then married and stopped working to rear their families. Some of them went back to work and accumulated up to eight years worth of stamps, but when they apply for a contributory old age pension, all the stamps are counted and divided by the relevant figure, which is probably 45. For example, a person may have accumulated three years worth of stamps in the 1950s and ten years worth of stamps in the last decade, giving a total of 13 years worth of stamps. However, because the divider is 45, the average is so small that the person does not qualify for a pension. That is unfair. Many of those who have accumulated ten years of quite low contributions, about £225 per annum, such as the self-employed who came into the social insurance system in 1988, qualify for the full contributory pension at the end of ten years. Someone may have accumulated 13 years of full stamps, but not qualify for a full pension despite a rigorous test.
There is a report on this matter.
Yes. It was promised that we would have the report by now, but that has not happened. The Minister knows what I think about child benefit. Why are third and fourth children worth more than the first and second? It is grossly unfair and reminds me of the child dependant allowance, for which there are three rates, £13.20, £15.20 and £17, depending on the amount earned by the child's parents. If one is unemployed, one's child is worth £13.20 per week, whereas if one is a widow, one's child is worth £15.20 and if one receives invalidity payment, one's child is worth £17. These figures cannot be justified. The only reason the Minister will not change them is because the bulk of recipients receive £13.20 and he wants to spread his largesse over a big number of people and across all sectors of social welfare rather than paying the parents of all children.
All children should be treated equally. It is outrageous that there should be a difference of £4 per week, or £200 per year, depending on the social welfare payment received by the parents of the child. The Minister has told me before that there used to be 30 different payments and that it has been reduced to just three. He should be as brave, pioneering and revolutionary as he claims to be by doing something about the three different payments.
There have been very small increases in family income supplement payments. The Minister must look again at the self-employed and review why they do not qualify for the family income supplement. It is ridiculous that two householders, side by side, may each earn £200 per week and the PAYE worker will qualify for the supplement, while the self-employed person with the exact same circumstances and with accounts stamped to verify income will not receive it as they will not be trusted. The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs does not trust the ability of the Department of Finance to do its work properly. In effect, it is presumed that if the Revenue Commissioners did their work properly, they would find that the self-employed earn a great deal more. Family income supplement is not paid as a result. Now that money is available, the Government should spread it around and treat people fairly.
Carers receive an allowance of £88.50 per week, which is about 50p per hour. It is time we did something worthwhile for carers instead of tinkering at the edges all the time. Carers should be given decent recognition for the job they do, as £88.50 is insufficient and should be increased significantly. This is a chance for the Minister to prove that he is revolutionary, forward-thinking and that he cares about those who care.
Subhead U4 deals with the money advice service. I tried to ask a question about this recently in relation to the new savings scheme, but the question was referred to the Minister for Finance. Criticism has rightly been made by many people including my colleague, a former Minister, Eithne Fitzgerald, of the £1 million, spent by Deputy McCreevy, on the better-off sections of the community. Each of us could set up a special savings account if we wished. Did the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs have any input into the scheme before it was announced by the Minister for Finance in his typically cavalier way?
What scheme?
The special savings scheme. What benefit will accrue from the scheme to those on social welfare, given that they do not earn enough to participate? Did the Minister have any input into the formation of the scheme?
Subhead P relates to free schemes. There are a number of private bus operators in my constituency and they have erected their own stops. Three operators are waiting for the privatisation of Dublin Bus and the tendering of routes. Has thought been given to free schemes when travel services are privatised? One of my constituents, who receives an invalidity pension, hopped on one of these buses and was told his card did not cover the £3 fare, which he had to pay.
The Minister for Health and Children seemed to be trying to take over the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs' portfolio yesterday when he made a statement about carers, saying that a carer's payment would be introduced.
At last.
I wondered if it is the brief of the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and if the Minister for Health and Children should be told to keep out of this Department. I agree with Deputy McGrath that carer's allowance should be looked at to see if something fundamental can be done. I know the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs said he will try to bring it up to the average industrial wage, but a wealthy society like this should deal with the issue of carers for once and for all.
I read with interest the Minister's comments a few days ago regarding the one-parent family payment. He said he would do the devil and all in relation to fathers and that new systems would be set up to track them down to ensure they meet their responsibilities. I wonder what the Minister's thinking is as regards the growth of one-parent families. Perhaps the Minister for Finance should emulate the new Government in the United Kingdom which seems to have a more family-focused approach than the Government here.
Subhead M deals with carer's allowance, but I will not complain about the amounts involved. Will the Minister have another look at the definition of "full-time medical care"? I have heard of a case of an 88 year old woman who stays with her daughter as she cannot live alone. She insists on spending an hour or two each day in her own home to chat with neighbours, a good form of therapy which might be recommended by any psychologist or psychiatrist. Her daughter is not entitled to carer's allowance because of the daily trip home, despite the fact that the elderly woman needs her daughter's care. That she wants to go home from time to time should not be used against her claim.
Another case I heard of was of someone caring for a woman living ten yards away who had had a hip operation. As the patient did not stay with the carer, the carer's allowance was not awarded. The woman has since had to go back to hospital. The carer was providing meals and general assistance, so I helped her to appeal the decision. This is clearly a case where it is as full-time as one can get, but it was turned down. The rules are being implemented too strictly or else they are being ignored. If somebody is providing full-time care and they decide to go to the shop, the pub or elsewhere during the day and the officer calls, the officer should not have the right to decide they are not providing full-time care. A little common sense needs to be applied.
On the carer's allowance, I agree with Deputy Browne. I came across a similar case and when I approached the Minister, it was sorted out. I am sure if Deputy Browne approached the Minister, he would certainly try to sort it out. There is no question about it. The people I represent are happy enough with the amount of carer's allowance of which they are in receipt. The means test was increased considerably on the last occasion and I would like the Minister to add at least another £50 to it. At present the income limit for carer's allowance is £250. For someone looking after someone full-time, the income limit should be increased to at least £350 for a carer to qualify for the carer's allowance. It is an excellent scheme.
A scheme which the Minister brought in concerned those paying contributions since 1987. Those people qualified for half the contributory pension even though they had not paid the required amount. That was a very good move. Maybe the Minister could do a little better and give them a further increase to three-quarters of the pension. He is giving them half the pension because they did not have the full contributions.
In relation to subhead N, the back to school clothing and footwear scheme, the sum is slightly over £10 million. Why is the amount for this year the same as that for last year? Surely there would be an increase in the number of applicants who could claim. I know there has not been an increase in the rate payable and this is an important small benefit for low income families around September. Will the Minister explain why the figure is the same for both years?
We all recognise there have been increases in child benefit. Is the Minister aware that in the week the new child benefit rates kicked in, most of the child service providers in the Dublin area increased the charge to parents? The average cost of keeping a child in a crèche in this city is £125 per week. The child benefit payment is substantially lower than that. This was used by the Government as an argument for increasing child benefit. Is the Minister aware that a large number of child service providers in the city of Dublin used the opportunity of the increase in child benefit, which came in on 1 June, to push up costs on parents? Is there anything the Government can do about that? As long as the supply of child care place is out of kilter with the demand, prices will increase every time the Government attempts moves in that direction.
What would be the cost of bringing the non-contributory pension rate of old age pensions up to the full contributory rate? I understand there are 89,000 recipients of the non-contributory pension. If one was to increase the rate to the contributory pension rate for those 89,000 recipients, what would be the cost to the Exchequer?
The Minister increased the bereavement grant from £100 to £500 which was good because the £100 was a disgrace. Will he consider index linking the grant so it does keep falling behind until we are in power and increase it further?
The Deputy's party was in power long enough and it never touched it. In one fell swoop, we increased it by 500%.
Minister, about 20 different questions were asked. Will you confine yourself to a 30 second speech?
I cannot do justice to some of the questions asked, but I will do my best. In regard to the supplementary welfare allowance and the increase in the basic payments, particularly the rent supplement, the numbers of people have not increased significantly over recent years but the amounts of money have. There has been an increase in the rent supplement because there has been an increase in rents and in the number of asylum seekers resident in the Dublin area, in particular. I do not accept what Deputy Hayes said. The inference of his suggestion is that we should stop paying people rent supplement and that we should do something else. As has always been the case, we have a combination of local authority houses and rent supplement to allow people to get houses, apartments or flats in the private sector. It is a bit facetious and simplistic to say that all this is doing is putting money into landlords' pockets as if the public was not getting something for it. If the people in receipt of rent supplement did not get it, they would be on the street. It is a bit simplistic to say that.
Deputy McGrath referred to averaging the stamp contributions of people, particularly women, who would have lost out over their careers. I have already indicated many times that it is one area about which we should do something. There has been an examination of that issue. One of the first recommendations of the interim report on the examination of the averaging of stamp contributions was the proposal to give credit for pre-1953 stamps. The Chairman, as I have said many times, was one of the few people who really pushed this issue.
To answer Deputy Browne's query on the number of staff, although I do not have the exact figure, the number is way in excess of what he suggested. When I went to the Department of Finance with the estimate of how many people would qualify for the pre-1953 changes, I was told it would be somewhere in the region of 3,000. That was the basis on which we went to the Department of Finance with the figure, that is, that 3,000 would qualify. The figure the last time I was told, which is some time ago, was 15,000 and rising fast. I am delighted because a far higher proportion of females are qualifying for this pre-1953 pension. These people would have worked in the earlier part of their lives prior to 1953 and probably for a while after that. They would have then stopped work and gone into the home to mind children and lost out——
What about——
I am trying to explain the position. The Deputy complained about the great change made by the Government. The change was made because the Government was overwhelmed by the popularity of this measure.
I complained because in the Dáil the Minister told me I was wrong. He admitted he did not know the figure. He now has the neck to tell this committee he does not have the figure but that I am still wrong. Is that not the case?
I will get the figure. The figure placed by the Deputy on the public record is wrong.
I will put it on the public record again. Four people are dealing with the applications while there might be ten in the office. What is the figure? Chairman, the Minister said I am wrong, will you ask him for the figure?
The Minister will get you the answer to that.
The Minister is still contradicting me. He has no figure. Anybody could win arguments on that basis.
The Deputy should calm himself.
If only four people are involved they are doing marvellous work.
The Minister can play tricks but I am concerned with the numbers dealing with applications.
The Estimate for child benefit is being increased from just over £500 million to £760 million, an increase of 51% in one year. It is indicative of the Government's decision to put a great deal of money into child benefit, not only for this year but for the following two years. Deputy McGrath asked about the third and subsequent child and the two different rates. I have told him before that I and my predecessors of all political persuasions——
That is called a cross party view.
All the research shows that large families are more inclined to be in poverty. That is why there are two different rates. Last year the increases were £8 and £10; this year they are £25 and £30, which is very significant. That is borne out in the Estimate. I will not go over the debate on CDAs, which has been repeated many times. All the advice is to free the CDAs because they act as a disincentive to work whereas child benefit is by far the most fair and equitable way to deliver money to mainly mothers.
Deputy Hayes raised the cost of child care. It will not be solved overnight. The Government decided as a matter of strategy to allocate funding of £1 billion to child benefit over three years, massively increasing it, as can be seen from the Estimate. This year the increase was 51% and equal funding will be allocated in the forthcoming budget in December and in the following year. That is on the demand side to assist those with child rearing responsibilities to decide what they wish to do.
A number of suggestions were made to the Government on solving the child care issue. Most submissions recommended that it should be done by taxation but they forgot or ignored the fact that a sizeable proportion of people do not pay tax, mostly on the bottom end of the scale, including those on social welfare and very low income. To tackle the issue on the tax side is not the way to proceed. The fairest way - it has been accepted by most people, especially the Combat Poverty Agency - is to deliver money through the way I have outlined.
Apart from giving people money in terms of their child care responsibilities we also said we needed to embark on building the supply of child care places.
The Government is acting out of fear.
No.
There is not even a crèche in the Minister's Department.
The Deputy would be the first to attend the opening of a new crèche facility funded by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In the national development plan——
It has taken the Government four years to get this right.
The Government has said that over the period of the national development plan, which is a six year period——
Tell that to young parents who face a 40% increase in child care costs this year. The Minister will not address that.
——we will deliver a figure of £50 million per year. Last year we decided to front load the money and £104 million is being made available for an increase in child care places.
How many crèches has the Minister's Department?
The Deputy has a simplistic view on this issue.
The Minister should lead by example.
Deputy McGrath will be pleased to note that in the not too distant future we will make a big effort to provide information to as many people as possible on the availability of family income supplement. I have indicated many times over the past few years that I have no plans to extend it to the self-employed and that is still my position.
I appreciate Deputies' comments on the carer's allowance. The increase in the allowance again indicates the huge increase in funding in just one year. In recent years a similar cumulative increase will be noted. The increase this year is £30 million or 38%, from £78 million to £108 million. I have repeatedly said the numbers in receipt of the allowance have increased from 9,000 four years ago to 22,000 at the end of this year.
A number of Deputies, including Deputy Brennan, raised the issue of the means disregard. We have dramatically raised the disregard and I have gone on record indicating my intention to bring it up to the level of the average industrial wage, which is a very significant figure. Recent newspaper reports are correct in that the Minister for Health and Children and I, apart from dealing with the year to year issues of caring for the elderly, are looking at the more long-term difficulties that will arise following the increase in the size of the old age population. We are examining how to care for the elderly, at home or in hospitals and nursing homes. An examination by our Department is under way. Despite this the taxpayers' money going into the carer's allowance is very significant.
The increase is very significant and what has been done on the means disregard is marvellous. Can anything be done about the principle of two social welfare payments in terms of the widow or the unemployed person not qualifying for even a reduced carer's allowance? That is a more pressing issue than the means disregard.
I accept it is an issue. It has always been a social welfare principle, with one exception, that one cannot receive two social welfare payments. The carer's allowance more properly should have been catered for by another Department but because of the initiative of my predecessor, Deputy Woods, it was brought forward--.
That is not the case. The Minister is always trying to emulate the Blairites in the UK.
No, I am not.
Is it not the case the Blairites resolved this problem four years ago and the Minister could also have done so at the time? I agree with the Chairman. Why should this shibboleth be allowed to continue? There is no question the English have an additional increment whereby if one is in receipt of a social welfare payment, one can also receive the invalid carer's payment.
I do not intend to try to emulate the Blairites. I was wondering when the Deputy mentioned conservative parties earlier whether he was also referring to the Labour Party. I do not endeavour to emulate——
I am waiting, Chairman.
I visited the UK a year ago to examine its one parent family scheme, about which Deputy Broughan asked earlier. I would not take the British route in regard to this scheme. It is compulsory to obey the Department of Social Security or claimants will lose their entitlement. I would not go in that direction.
The special savings account is a separate issue. The Department and I were consulted about it.
The Minister was completely ignored. The Minister for Finance dismissed him.
It is an excellent scheme and it was poverty proofed. Any accusations made by the Deputy's erstwhile colleagues that they are never to return are untrue.
What is the Minister's view on the administration of the carer's allowance for full-time carers?
A number of budgets ago, I relaxed eligibility for receipt of the full-time carer's allowance to allow people to take up training courses, do their normal daily duties or take up additional work. Because the scheme is based on the application and certification of the doctor regarding the requirement of the person being cared for, it is hard to police ultimately whether a carer is providing the necessary attention. If carer's allowance is being paid, it must be ensured that the person being cared for is in receipt of care. It is for that reason that this condition is applied not only for carer's allowance but also carer's benefit.
Should an 80 year old woman who likes to return to her own house for two hours a week and talk to her neighbours while she is living with her daughter be disqualified?
How does the Department know where she goes?
One day an official called to see her and decided the woman was not receiving full-time care and attention because she was not in her daughter's house.
There is a system of appeal but the Deputy should bring the issue to my attention, as Deputy Brennan mentioned earlier. As I have said many times, and it sticks in the craw of the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Durkan, who was a junior Minister in the Department, I have no influence in the decision making process within my Department in regard to individual cases.
As long as the Minister's rules are implemented.
We can point the way forward and address the difficulties that exist, as Deputy Brennan did when he approached me regarding the relaxation of the close proximity rule for carers. Before I took up office, carers had to live under the same roof as those in need of care and I changed that. Ultimately, as a result of representations from Deputy Brennan, we went even further once we received consent from the Department of Finance.
I am aware of another case which was covered by the Minister's regulations but the person involved did not get the carer's allowance. I will supply the details to the Minister.
I am surprised at the Deputy's comments and I wonder if he is missing some vital information. If he makes the Minister aware of the case, he can look into it.
Sometimes when community welfare offices call——
Do they check up on carers?
They do.
How would they know anything otherwise? The difficulty is that instead of coming to the conclusion that the person is missing, they concoct various conspiracy theories as to where the person is. One official disputed the number of cattle a claimant had. When the official was asked why she was disputing the claim she said she could see 25 cattle in the field next to the house but these cattle belonged to the neighbour. However, the official knew everything.
Will the Minister continue to respond to the issues raised as we are running out of time?
Deputy Hayes raised the footwear allowance. I made dramatic changes to that in recent years but I will get the relevant information for the Deputy.
Legislation is proposed regarding MABS. Will a scheme be established for people on low incomes which could be rewarding on the assumption that such people are not able to take up the special savings accounts?
Everyone is entitled to set up an account. Those on low incomes can also save.
Could the Minister not have made an input to establish a scheme which would have been targeted at people on low incomes?
I reiterate that the special savings scheme was designed for the specific purpose to try to take some of the heat out of the economy in terms of consumer spending and to encourage young people, in particular, to save. The issue of whether people on lower incomes could participate in the scheme was examined and it was concluded that it would perhaps not be as lucrative for them in comparison to those with a good deal of money to save but it would be available to them. The scheme was poverty proofed by the Government.
Are there any questions on social insurance?
There is a healthy surplus in this section. There has been no subvention from the Exchequer since 1997. Is £19 million the return on the cumulative amount in the account? The investment portfolio is managed by the Department of Finance. What is the return? What is the cumulative amount? The sum was £54 million in 1998, £265 million in 1999 and £341 million in 2000.
The increased income from investments, arising as a result of the fund having a larger surplus in 2001 than in 2000, was attributable to a figure of £19 million. Do I take it the Deputy is referring to this amount?
Is that the total return?
No. It merely represents increased investment.
What was the return on the money held on deposit?
I am informed it was approximately 4% of the overall figure. I do not have the cumulative figure in my possession.
Is that money reinvested in the account on a year by year basis?
Yes.
Will the Minister consider index-linking the bereavement grant?
We could consider that matter from a budgetary point of view. I would be concerned that, in the same way allegations were made in respect of increases in child care costs, there would be a cumulative increase in the cost of funerals each year. We have not witnessed an increase in funeral costs that could be attributed to the increase in the grant from £100 to £500.
There were nearly 100,000 recipients of disability allowance and invalidity pension in the last calendar year. The Minister introduced a worthwhile scheme for people on invalidity pension to allow them to avail of CE. However, it appears the system is being developed on an ad hoc basis. For example, the initial intake of people finished their time on the scheme and they are not sure of their rights. Are these people allowed to work ten or 20 hours in some form of sheltered employment? Is it time the Department established a policy in this area? This relates to my initial point about unemployment and the fact that there are tens of thousands of people who would like to work, at least on a part-time basis, while continuing on benefit.
The Minister must be given credit for allowing people on invalidity pension to work and I understand he is introducing a scheme for those on disability allowance. What are the conditions under which people may avail of these schemes? A number of people in my constituency are no longer on CE but they wish to take up the sort of part-time jobs their disabilities would not prevent them from doing. What is the position in respect of these individuals? The Minister has been pushing the boat out in this area but is it not time he put in place a policy to link in with the employment action plan? Does the Department expect others to take the lead in this regard?
The House passed the Carer's Leave Bill some weeks ago. I note the Minister is still intent on providing for a small number of people in the current calendar year. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Tom Kitt, would not accept that people who are already on carer's benefit should be fully protected when the carer's leave legislation comes into force. Would it be possible to reconsider the position in this regard?
With regard to allowing people on disability allowance to work and retain their benefits, we increased from £50 to £75 per week - I can claim some credit in this regard - the amount of money a person on disability allowance could earn in employment. That has been quite successful and I have considered increasing the amount even further. However, there are a number of issues involved because the more we increase the amount in question, the more knock-on effects there could be elsewhere. We will continue to monitor the position from budget to budget.
As the Deputy is aware, the rules of behaviour provide that, in certain circumstances, people may do some rehabilitative work and continue to claim invalidity pension. However, I am not sure whether the Deputy was referring to such situations.
He inquired whether people on invalidity pension could also take part in a CE scheme. That would benefit some people but, as with the widows and those on invalidity pensions to whom I referred earlier, not all. It is difficult to get the balance right.
I do not know if the Deputy was invited, but a conference was held in the Davenport Hotel last week which dealt with people on disability and their training and employment opportunities. The conference comes at the end of a process which links in with a review of disability allowance payments and general disability payments within my Department. We might be able to consider the issues to which Deputy Broughan refers within the context of that review.
What was the Deputy's point in relation to carer's benefit?
Either the Minister, Deputy Ahern, or the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Tom Kitt, indicated a number of weeks ago that only 215 people have taken up the benefit. The Minister introduced the Carer's Leave Bill almost two years ago but the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, for reasons of their own did not introduce complementary legislation. This meant that there was no protective legislation covering workers who took time off to care for relatives. The people who have taken up the benefit may have reached agreement with their employers, but they may also find themselves in a vulnerable position.
The Estimate for 2001 provides for an average of 1,000 recipients at an average weekly value of £96. The provisional outturn for 2000 was extremely low, but it has now been increased to £5.4 million. We estimate that this year there will be a fairly dramatic increase in the numbers, up to 1,000, in receipt of the benefit.
Does the Minister wish to make any closing comments?
I thank Members for their contributions. We will endeavour to provide replies to questions in respect of which we did not have information in our possession today.
I thank the Minister and his officials for their input to this meeting. Everyone present has ideas about what way next year's session should proceed. Perhaps we should try to reform the process in order that we might comment on the Estimates in terms of the effect they would have in the following year. It would be interesting if the Minister put forward his views on different issues and we could then discuss these in terms of the next budget. We should move away from the position where we look back at what has gone before and proceed to discuss the Estimates in real terms. This could mean that the Minister, if he is still in office, might not be able to spring any surprises in December, but it would be better for the country if we proceeded in the way I have outlined.
I recall asking Deputy Broughan to produce an alternative budget but, for some reason, he did not do so.
If the Minister appoints a number of civil servants to assist us, we will do so with no difficulty.
We may have an alternative budget if an election is called in September. I thank the Minister and his officials and the Chairman for the expeditious way we have discussed this Estimate.
I thank the Minister for, as usual, providing brief replies to questions and I also thank his staff for their assistance.
To be fair, we had grand ideas about producing an alternative budget but the more we examined it, the greater the work involved became. We generated some ideas and we will do likewise this year.
The committee must prioritise what it does.
That was not a problem. Costing the issues was our difficulty. We would need half the Minister's officials to help us on that.
I will come in and assist the committee some day.
The committee will have some ideas for the Minister again. I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance.