This meeting has been convened to consider the Revised Estimates for 2004, Vote 38 - Social and Family Affairs. On behalf of the committee I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and her officials. With the agreement of the members of the committee we will operate according to the timetable circulated unless we make more brisk progress. As much of this ground has already been covered, I appeal to Members to be concise in their contributions and I ask the Minister to be concise in her replies. As she has a significant opening speech, I ask her to summarise it. I also indicate to my colleagues that it is preferable to ask questions of the Minister rather than making long speeches. I will be serious in controlling contributions today. As today is Bloomsday, Members will wish to mark the occasion in some special way and could do so by keeping their contributions to the point. Is that agreed?
Vote 38 - Social and Family Affairs (Revised).
Some of us know better.
The Deputy should not draw me. I call on the Minister to make her opening statement.
While I have circulated a script, I will briefly run through a number of issues. I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss my Department's Estimates for 2004. The total spending on social welfare included in the Revised Estimates Volume has increased by 8%, from €10.5 billion in 2003 to reach its highest ever level of €11.3 billion this year. When administrative costs are excluded, the Department will spend nearly €11 billion in supporting the elderly, children, those who are ill or have unfortunately lost their jobs and others who need our support.
Initially, I will recall the Estimates process for 2004 and then move on to the budget process. The Abridged Estimates for the Department announced last November included a number of provisions to better target resources within the social welfare code. In this context, the Department keeps all its schemes under review so that the total social welfare budget is applied to the best effect in tackling disadvantage and to continue the Government's policy of significant improvement in basic payments. Reform is ongoing and targeted and is a vital element of the evaluation of our social protection schemes. We continue to address the issue of existing schemes and future challenges in a changing social and economic environment.
The total Revised Estimates allocation for this year includes the impact of the measures announced at the time of the publication of the Abridged Estimates Volume as well as the impact of the social welfare package announced at the time of the budget in December. The measures announced in November produced savings which, in turn, were directly reinvested in a substantial budget package of €630 million. On pages 5 and 6 I have outlined the increases we have discussed in other legislation and a previous Estimate. Overall the majority of payments had €10 weekly increases, with an €11.50 per week increase in the personal rate for widows and widowers on a contributory pension along with increases in child benefit and many of the other schemes we discussed.
It is the commitment of the Government under the National Anti-Poverty Strategy and Sustaining Progress to continue to address the key issues. We are committed to address the issue of child benefit and increasing the rate of the basic State pension to €200 per week by 2007. While some members may not agree, I have delivered on many of the commitments in the past two years and look forward to progressing that in the next three years of the Government.
I have outlined the considerable increases in respite care, the disregards for the carer's allowance, the widowed parent grant, the additional funding being provided for the school meals programme following a review carried out last year, some additional funding of €1.7 million for the Family Support Agency and a special initiative to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the UN year of the family. Equated with that are the increases in family income supplement. Another important issue which has been raised on a number of occasions by the members of the committee, is the reduction in the age again this year, to address the issue of benefit and privilege and its assessment for unemployment assistance purposes and an increase in the basic unemployment assistance payment. I have increased the amount of money made available to MABS by €900,000 and increased the pension disregard for rent supplements.
The Government has progressively focused on recent budgets. According to the Combat Poverty Agency, gains of up to 4% have been delivered for low-income groups. It also notes that the 2004 budget has had a positive effect on relative income poverty which addresses and reaches the targets as set by the Government.
Independent comment on the issue from the ESRI, states that measured against a wage index budget, this budget favoured low-income groups, particularly those in the bottom half of the income distribution. These people saw gains of between 2% and 3.5% over and above a wage-indexed budget. Those are comments made about the funding provided through this budget.
We have addressed many of the concerns raised not only by all Members of the House but by many others in social and civil society. The Government is progressing towards the targets as set out in An Agreed Programme for Government and under the national anti-poverty strategy. In the comparison between the 1997 funding of €5.7 billion and this year's funding of €11.3 billion, one cannot deny there has been significant investment in the social welfare budget. People are inclined to forget that there is very low unemployment and in comparison with our EU partners, we have a very low number of elderly who are reliant on social welfare pensions.
The largest amount goes to old age pensioners, who receive 24% of total expenditure. Widows, widowers and one-parent families account for 16%. Child-related payments, mainly child benefit, take up a further 17%. Sixteen per cent goes on payments related to illness, disability and caring. Unemployment now accounts for 10% of my Department's total expenditure, while employment supports amount to a further 2%. Eleven per cent goes on a range of other supports such as free schemes, supplementary welfare allowance, bereavement grant and family supports. The remaining 4% is spent on administrative expenses such as staff pay, accommodation and IT expenses.
In presenting the Revised Estimates for my Department, I look forward to dealing with the issues and concerns raised. If I am unable to answer any questions from the members, I will certainly do my best to acquire the information for the members. Given prudent expenditure and the sustainablity of our economy, we have provided a considerable amount of the nation's resources for use by my Department. I commend the Estimates to the committee.
I thank the Minister for being concise.
I welcome the Minister and her staff. This was a bad year for people on social welfare, in spite of all the talk from the Minister and the spin-doctors in the Department. People are finding it much more difficult to manage on a day to day basis. Even with the increases in social welfare last year, the ESB has increased its charges three times in one year. The price of food increased. The most vulnerable people in society, those on low incomes, are not protected by this Government.
The Minister presented the Estimates this time last year and we heard the same speech she presented today. Last November saw the savage 16 cutbacks that attacked the family and the less well-off in society while at the same time the Government provided €15 million for Punchestown and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government spent €60 million on voting machines that nobody wanted. I compliment the Department on saving a significant sum by combating fraud. There was no need for the Minister to introduce those savage 16 cutbacks, considering the amount of money saved from fraud. Anyone who defrauds the social welfare system is taking money from those who need it. I compliment the Minister and her staff on their efforts in that regard.
I was disappointed the back to education grant and the rent and crèche supplements were discontinued for the sake of €57 million, even though at one time last year the Minister had saved €350 million as a result of combating fraud. It was not necessary to have the savage 16 cutbacks. I ask the Minister to examine these cutbacks. She was forced to re-examine the widow's pension because of pressure from this side of the House, for which I compliment her. The other cutbacks are having the same effect on a small number of people. The media did not focus on the most vulnerable in society because only 200 or 300 are affected. If a tax break affected the super-rich or the middle class, there would be nothing but RTE and other media dealing with it. The crèche supplement affected only 1,600 people and that does not seem to matter. However, it matters to those 1,600 people.
I ask the Minister to reconsider the 16 cutbacks at budget time in December. She was forced to reverse on one. The back to education allowance gave unemployed people an opportunity to get back into the educational system and to get off social welfare. One must now be unemployed for five years whereas it used to be 15 months. A person of 25 years who is unemployed for five years will need to be 30 before they can access that scheme. That is not fair. I raised the issue of the crèche supplement yesterday. It gave parents an opportunity to go back into the workplace and to be re-trained. It gave their children an opportunity to meet other children because in some council flats in Dublin, children do not have the opportunity to meet other children. Social workers said the scheme encouraged people and their children to socialise. I have some questions for the Minister. With a decrease of 14%, it seems the social insurance fund has not done well from investment this year. I ask the Minister to tell the committee why this has happened. These are professionals acting on behalf of the State and well paid for doing so. They have done a bad job investing the money from the fund.
There is a vote in the House. I am sorry to stop the Deputy in full flow.
I would like the Minister to respond to the points made about the social insurance fund. Will the lost funding will be restored through the money being invested?
The Minister mentioned carers. I compliment her on the guidelines on discretion with regard to applicants for carer's allowance. The major issue relates to those who do not qualify for carer's allowance because one of the spouses works and does not get recognition for the work. I ask the Minister to go back to her Department and work out something to give recognition to these people. They are the forgotten people who do a great job and save the State a fortune. We have discussed this matter in recent years. Given that the finance is available I ask that something be done for them. I could continue to speak on all the cutbacks but the Chair has asked me to be brief.
In regard to the forthcoming budget, I ask that the people who need it most be targeted. There is no point in giving an increase to people on low income in social housing if it is to be wiped out by increases in food prices, ESB and gas charges and so on. Those people have to be protected. We all talk about protecting the poor. The increases granted to poor people last year were eaten away within a fortnight. Following the budget in December there was a negative budget every single week where people lost the gains made. There are a few questions I wish to ask on each programme and I appeal to the Chairman for discretion.
Most certainly, Deputy. I thank the Deputy for complying with my request.
I welcome the Minister and her officials. I intend to submit a range of questions as we proceed through the subheads in the context of the Estimates. Long after the Minister has left the Department of Social and Family Affairs she will be identified with the savage 16 cuts introduced by her at the behest of her colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. In many ways she can be called the Minister for the savage 16 cuts. At that time, colleagues and I on this side told her the cuts were petty and mean, would make it more difficult for people to move from social welfare to work, would lead to increased homelessness and hardship and would hit particularly at lone parents and poorer families. Notwithstanding that advice, the Minister, her colleagues and the Government decided that was the direction to go. She said she had to save €58 million and it had to be cut from the most vulnerable in society. On the other side of the scale, the Government provided an additional €67 million for the rich and famous in the racing industry. It also spent more than €100 million on consultancy fees and spin doctors. The spin doctors may have been spinning but they were not listening to the ordinary people on the ground. I had anticipated a backlash against the Government, but not to the extent that it happened, in the context of a variety of issues. People said they were disillusioned with the Government and the Government was not listening.
The Labour Party, Deputy Ring and his colleague played a significant role in having restored unemployment benefit disability payments for lone parents, widows and widowers. The cut should not have been introduced. That was one of the 16 cuts. The Minister committed herself to a reviewing the cuts. When will we have an analysis of those cuts and their impact on society?
In the context of the miserly cuts and the savings she had to make, what is her general attitude now and that of the Government given that yesterday an additional €650 million came into the coffers, giving a total of €1.5 billion, from the tax cheats who invested their money outside the country? The Minister was well aware this money was coming in and yet she decided to proceed with the cuts.
I wish to home in on the anomalies that have arisen from a number of developments arising from the budget and other areas. I wish to link in to those participating in the JI and CE schemes. The purpose of the schemes was to encourage the unemployed to get back into work. We encouraged those on JI schemes to go into education. I have met a number of such participants who went to Maynooth and other third level colleges and got qualifications. That the gross household income limit for the retention of the secondary benefits has not increased since 1994 is having an impact. The Minister increased the rate of payment for those on JI by €20 per week, from €298.71 to €318.71. Those on the JI schemes welcomed the increase but it had a knock-on effect in that it put them outside the income limit for retention of the secondary benefits which are vitally important to these individuals for the duration of courses, over a three year period. One of the key benefits of the job initiative was the guarantee that participants would retain the secondary benefits for the duration of the programme, if their incomes did not exceed the gross household income limit. Because of the increase in the JI rate it appears all the participants in the jobs initiative are over the limit. Their incomes exceed the €317.43 through no fault of their own. I have met people during the course of their programme on the jobs initiative who, because they are trying to rear a family, have to relinquish their JI participation. That is one anomaly I wish to highlight and I hope it can be teased out during our debate. In deference to the Chair, I intend to limit my contribution to that issue. I welcome the Minister and hope we will have a fruitful discussion for the remainder of the meeting.
I thank the Deputy for that comment. He will be allowed to ask questions on any of the relevant heads to elicit information that will be of assistance.
I will be brief. I welcome the Minister and congratulate her on the good work she is doing as Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I consider her a caring Minister, who has noted where problems exist and has tried to resolve them.
I welcome the increase from €10.5 billion to €11.5 billion in the Estimates for social welfare. I also welcome the increases in pensions and child benefits, but I want to raise a number of issues that are dear to my heart. First, the increase in the respite grant by €100 to €835 might appear small but it means a great deal to many people who need it.
The carer's allowance is an issue I have raised many times. Over the years it was very difficult for people to qualify for the carer's allowance. If constituents came to my clinic to inquire about it, I would nearly tell them to forget about applying for it because of the many disregards. However, now that the first €500 of income is disregarded, it is much easier for carers to quality for the carer's allowance, and many more carers are doing so. That is the message I want to get across. I realise it is means tested, and we would all be happy if that were not the case but to do away with means testing would cost a great deal of money. However, this Minister has moved forward in that area, particularly in terms of disregarding the first €500 of income.
I know this is not the Minister's area but I hope the home-based subvention will be introduced fairly soon because a person who is being cared for at home should be allowed the choice of getting the same payment as would be available in a nursing home. Unfortunately, that is not the current position. Currently, from a financial point of view, one is better off going into a nursing home than being cared for at home. I hope this area will be examined in the future.
Another anomaly concerns the unemployed person who live at home. Such people are at a major disadvantage. Some of them put caravans at the back of their homes to try to get around this anomaly. Now that the requirement in that scheme is being reduced to the age of 26, I hope that, what we call, the benefit and privilege will eventually not be assessed in the case of anyone over the age of 21. I know it will take time to get to that position, but the Minister recognises the problem and has moved on it. I give credit to any Minister who recognises an anomaly and seeks to address it.
I refer to another area which has not been addressed but which will have to be addressed in the future. It may not be the Minister's area but it concerns the cost of refuse charges for old age pensioners. Local authorities now give waivers but throughout the country private collectors provide the service. Pensioners have to pay the full refuse charges to these private collectors and they find it difficult to do that. Where there is hardship, perhaps the cost of such charges could be provided for by way of some supplementary welfare allowance. We have to look after pensioners. Their refuse has to be collected and they can hardly afford to pay for that service.
We will go through the programmes. I thank my colleagues for their co-operation which has enabled us to spend more time dealing with the meat of the issues. The first programme is administration. Do members have any issues concerning that programme they wish to raise with the Minister?
I have two political questions for the Minister, one of which concerns community welfare officers being able to stand for public office. What is the Department's position on that? Does the Minister consider it fair that a community welfare officer can stand for public office and, if successful, can suddenly be a councillor and adjudicate on people's income?
My second question concerns information centres. What is the position concerning people who work in those centres who are elected to public office?
Do they not now come under Comhairle?
These information centres are supported by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This comes under the heading of administration. What is the Department's position on these two cases? We either have an even playing field for everybody or we do not. These are simple questions. What is the Department's position on community welfare officers standing for public office and a person being a community welfare officer and a councillor? Some people who work in information centres have been elected to public office. Will those people be able to continue to work in those centres?
Is the Deputy referring to CICs?
Yes.
CWOs are employees of the Department of Health and Children and not of my Department. I am aware that revenue collectors and any person over the grade of a CO is not entitled to be a county councillor. I need to check this out.
The Minister might come back to me on that.
It would be the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that would have to make that determination.
There was a change.
There was a change a few weeks ago.
There was a provision that people up to a certain grade could not stand for the local elections.
Yes.
Some people who work in these information centres are now representing people in public office. They will be doing those two jobs from the one office and taxpayers' money will pay for that. I accept that, as the Minister pointed out, community welfare officers are employed by the Department of Health and Children but funding for that area comes from the Departmental of Social and Family Affairs.
That is correct. Those who work in CICs are private individuals. I do not know the position regarding a conflict of interest in that respect but I will find that out for the Deputy.
The Minister might come back to me on that.
The Minister's Department was not the worst in terms of expenditure on independent consultancies. Under this programme, can the Minister outline the reason a 206% increase in such expenditure is anticipated for 2004 as against 2003? What is her general philosophy on the use of consultancies?
I have a question, although I am not sure if it comes under the heading of administration but it comes under the administration of the social welfare system. I welcome the Minister, compliment her on her excellent work during the period of her ministry and wish her well. My question concerns deciding officers and the regulations - or lack of them - under which they work. There is a lack of information and guidelines in that regard available to public representative and members of the public. I have raised this matter on the floor of the Dáil on an Adjournment debate and I am still not satisfied the guidelines are clear and are available to members of the public and to myself as a Dáil Deputy.
I refer to the a deciding officer being able to make a decision that a person has not made a genuine effort to get work. I have raised this previously at this committee. I outlined that in certain rural areas due to the lack of public transport it is difficult for people to travel from those areas to towns to seek work day after day or week after week. Where such people do so, the deciding officer can decide whether the person seeking work has complied with the regulations based on how he or she feels when he or she gets up in the morning. This is a serious discretionary power to give to any person. I would like to know for definite and, in turn, be able to inform my constituents for definite whether one should seek three, four or ten jobs in a month or to know what are the definite requirements in the guidelines in this regard. It is not appropriate that any officer, civil servant or paid public official should have the discretion to cut off a person's income at a whim. I know of instances where a person who was never employed, except on a CE or FÁS scheme, was left without any income, on the basis of a deciding officer's decision. We are told the only option for such a person is to appeal the decision in order to get back on to the social welfare system. I am unhappy with that vindictive way of operating the system. I urge the Minister to ensure this matter is addressed, either by this committee bringing forward proposals or by introducing amending legislation or regulations. The discretion available under the heading is not appropriate. It certainly does not project the caring face the Minister herself puts forward. If it cannot be addressed today, I hope it will be addressed soon.
I too welcome the Minister and her officials and strongly support what Deputy Finneran has said. I raise the issue of medical referees who visit rural areas to assess disability. People are not well treated and often little heed is taken of their doctors' or consultants' reports. This issue needs to be examined.
Deputy Carty has a valid point. A consultant, perhaps an eminent orthopaedic surgeon, a neurologist or whoever, may furnish medical evidence to an investigating or deciding officer which is then disregarded by a medical referee. I wonder whether those medical referees have the same expertise as the consultant or whether they are only general practitioners. Some weight should be given to the expertise of a consultant or surgeon. In that context, I urge the Minister to consider a social welfare appeals procedure whereby oral hearings could take place and people could bring along a medical referee or surgeon.
Expenses should be payable because the information was probably already submitted in writing but was turned down, thereby forcing people to go through the appeals procedure. In that context, discretion for the provision of the appropriate expenses should be vested in the appeals officer. He should be able to award expenses to people who, of necessity, have had to bring an expert to the proceedings. In some cases numerous consultants' reports were furnished but someone still disagreed with them. What medical expertise have the medical referees, who turn down a consultant's report furnished by an applicant? Are they general medical practitioners or have they similar expertise in orthopaedics, neurology or the particular complaint?
I am delighted Deputy Finneran supports me at last. When I raised the issue some two years ago I got little support in this committee or in the Dáil. The Deputy is right in what he said——
I spoke on it in the same terms then as I did today.
I do not remember that but the Deputy is right in what he said. I have raised the issue at this committee before and have come across many situations where people bring in three or four job rejection letters and an officer decides they have still not looked hard enough for work. I know of a person in Ballycastle who was told he would have to go 25 miles away to seek work despite the fact that he had no transport or means. The Department is falsifying the figures on unemployment. What is happening is when people——
I will not accept that.
The Minister may accept it. What they are doing is they are going on——
The Deputy will have to withdraw that remark.
I will not withdraw it.
I cannot continue on the basis of someone saying that something has been falsified.
I do not want to——
What is happening is the Department is falsifying the figure and the people are then going into the health board to get money.
Mary Coughlan There is no way I can be accused of standing over something that is incorrect.
Deputy Ring should withdraw the remark.
That statement is out of order.
I will not withdraw it.
If the Deputy wants co-operation from this side, he should withdraw the remark.
The Deputy should withdraw it.
I will not withdraw the remark.
It is difficult for me as the Minister responsible to continue on this basis.
What happens is that people refused a payment by the Department of Social Welfare go to the health board to collect a payment. It is still taxpayers' money they get from that board. All this does is allow the unemployment list show they are not unemployed, but at the same time the health board pays them taxpayers' money.
That is a different system and not an attempt to falsify figures. I ask the Deputy to withdraw his remark.
For the sake of harmony, I will. However when one Department pays out for the other, it is still taxpayers' money.
That is a different matter. We should look into those regulations. Deputy Finneran made that point. The Minister will now reply to a number of points.
The first issue was the consultancy services.
I apologise for the need to raise that.
That is all right, it is part of administration. The majority of the funding provided for consultancy is mainly for IT services. The service delivery model was €1.2 million. The committee may recall that last year we went live on the GROW project which will provide automatic delivery of child benefit. We are now progressing that to the pensions' services office, PSO, in Sligo. It has been an intricate process which needed much outside expertise. In the main that is what the money went to. We also spent on professional fees for the Oracle financial system. Our main consultancy expenditure was €1.2 million on REACH and €400,000 on GROW. Those are the three main expenditure heads for consultancy and 99.9% is for technology purposes.
Does the Department receive tenders for that in the normal way?
Yes, three tenders. The REACH project was even more difficult and it took considerable time and energy to ensure it was correct.
One other issue raised by Deputy Ring was social insurance fund investment. Perhaps we can discuss that later. The Deputy spoke about the investment account of the fund. It is managed by the Department of Finance in the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA. The estimate provided this year is an annual rate of return of €2.25 million on the expected surplus. The decrease of €5.7 million in 2004 over 2003 is due mainly to the lower rate of investment return of 2004. The estimated average rate of return projected for 2004 is 2.25%, compared with 2.9% in 2003. The decrease is due to the fall in interest rates because we do not make long-term investments of the fund. We cannot because we must be able to access the fund quickly and make substantial withdrawals. They are usually cash investments.
The other administration issue raised was the deciding officers. These officers are independent of the Minister. Their functions are outlined and provided for in social welfare legislation. All schemes have guidelines which are used by the deciding officers. The guidelines are on the website and available to everyone. For a number of reasons the issue of work has always been problematic. That is why there has to be a differential in the way people make decisions.
There are those who used to send a couple of letters and did not bother much about getting a job; they just wanted to remain on unemployment assistance. In our hearts and souls, we all know that is still going on, and on the basis that we want to interact further with people, there is not much point in making an application for a job that does not exist. People are encouraged to apply through FÁS and by answering advertisements, particularly in local newspapers. Because the issue is so problematical, we have an appeals system available to us. Two years ago, officials in my Department provided a detailed briefing to the committee on the conditionality of unemployment assistance. Every case is dealt with individually and the Department takes local circumstances into consideration. There is no way we can issue a guideline that can be administered at national level - it just would not work. Therefore, the local guidelines have been left in place. As a practising politician, I appreciate that these matters cause problems. We still have access to an appeals mechanism whereby people can give additional information or can put forward a case to a higher officer. We deal independently with issues on that basis.
I am aware that there are issues concerning medical referees. Regardless of a medical examination for UA or UB, if there is an appeal, people can bring someone with them, although many people do not take that opportunity and may not put forward their own best case on many occasions. However, a GP, consultant, politician or legal adviser can accompany the applicant. It has happened. People are entitled to be accompanied and are entitled to such support. Certain criteria apply to medical referees, however, because we are not confirming a diagnosis. That is the issue. We are examining the extent to which the incapacity at a point in time would hinder a person's ability to work. If someone comes in with a broken leg, no one will deny that fact, but the issue is their availability and incapacity for work. There is an appeals mechanism and professional medical referees are appointed. They are not dealing with a diagnosis, but with a person's ability or inability to return to work. This is where we can sometimes have difficulty in determining people's entitlements to disability benefit or to an invalidity pension, which is a long-term payment.
There has been a huge increase in the number of people claiming disability payments, which is of great concern to us all, given that many of our young population are reliant on disability allowances. We will have to ascertain whether there is something seriously wrong with the population, or what exactly is going on. If needs be, a nurse can also be present at an examination. While there is often no difficulty with the diagnosis of the ailment, the difficulty arises over people's ability to work. That is a matter of concern.
As regards the live register, if somebody applies for unemployment assistance, they are waiting on their application to be examined or they are awaiting the result of an appeal they are entitled to SWA but they still remain on the live register. Some people get mixed up about the live register, which does not just include people in receipt of payments but those signing for credit and those awaiting decisions on their payments. Therefore, the live register does not truly reflect the numbers unemployed at all - it provides a complete overview of the number of people at a certain period who are within the system.
What happens when somebody is on the live register and is getting money from the community welfare officer?
He or she is still on the live register.
No, he is not.
He is.
No.
He is included in the figures.
He is included in the figures when he makes the application but when he is told he has not been accepted, or when he appeals, he is not on the live register.
When people are waiting for their claim or awaiting an appeal on their claim, they are definitely included in the live register numbers. They are only removed from the live register when a final decision is made, and that final decision can be made at the initial application stage or after an appeal - one or the other.
I am getting information concerning inordinate delays in having appeals processed. The current delay is too long. One could wait three or four months for a hearing. What is the cause of such delays and what can the Minister do to minimise them?
I am in constant contact with the office of the chief appeals officer, which has renewed its methodology. As a result of those new methods, we have reduced the waiting time, which was an issue. Many people make appeals, each of which must be dealt with on its merits, and that can take a considerable amount of time. We will launch the information from the chief appeals officer about the work that has taken place. The number of claims received has increased considerably so we have reviewed the methodology. I hope we will be able to address that matter. We are working steadily on it to try to ensure that the delays are minimised.
I accept everything the Minister has said about the independence of the deciding officers. There is a major difference between an officer in an urban area and an officer in a rural area making a decision on someone's efforts to get a job. Somebody in west Roscommon may be 20 or 25 miles from the nearest town, with no public transport and may not have transport. Such people are solely dependent on unemployment assistance. It is neither practical nor possible for them to travel 20 miles, once or twice a week, to seek employment in neighbouring towns. Where will they get the money to do so? Even if they got a job in another town, how would they get to work? Whatever job opportunities may present themselves to people in towns and cities, deciding officers must realise that there are little or no such opportunities in rural areas, such as west Roscommon. If one is in south Roscommon, near Athlone or Ballinasloe, it is a different story because there are bus services on the national primary routes. People living in remote rural areas may not be fortunate enough to have had an education to obtain the necessary job skills. They may have been dependent on the State for years without ever having obtained a job, other than getting on a FÁS course as a result of some committee run by the local parish priest. It is inappropriate for a deciding officer to tell such people they have not made enough effort to obtain employment, even though they have made four or five written job applications. It does not send out the right message and it is unfair to people who live in such remote areas. I would like to find out from the deciding officer exactly how many jobs a person must apply for to qualify for unemployment benefit. I would either accept that explanation or I would suggest that we should change the law. No one has been able to tell me whether one must apply for three, six or more jobs to qualify. The system should be more streamlined and, although I do not wish to take away from the independence of deciding officers, we should be in a position to have a little more information about this matter. Deciding officers are experienced people and should be able to evaluate the situation based on geography and personal circumstances, such as how many jobs a person has held in his or her lifetime. Some people may not have held jobs for their entire adult lives. It would be difficult for them to start work at 41 or 42 years of age. To penalise these people in a vindictive way, to remove the only payment they receive and to inform them that they can claim supplementary welfare allowance while making an appeal is a harsh way of dealing with them. I am not satisfied that the system which is in place addresses the problems I have come across in rural areas.
This matter has been raised on a number of occasions and Members may not be aware of the facts. I am in a position to refer to this case as it was dealt with on the floor of the House. One of the factors that determined the decision was that the person involved failed to attend an appointment under the employment action plan with a FÁS placement officer. It is difficult to state the exact number of applications which must be made to establish if someone is entitled to UA. However, the person in question had contacted six people in four years. The condition was not accepted under the rules governing this matter.
Detailed guidelines are available on my Department's website with regard to how a person's eligibility is determined. The person in question has been advised to appeal the decision to a higher officer. However, such an appeal has not yet been made. That is the position as it stands. I appreciate that he feels an incorrect decision was made. The Department is more than willing to accept an appeal, even though it would be late, on the basis that the disallowance was unfair, as the man involved sees it. He may put forward any documentation he wishes in order to have the matter reassessed. I appreciate this matter is causing difficulties for the Deputy but the deciding officer saw fit not to accept the claim as it stood. I cannot tell the deciding officer to change the decision unless additional information is brought to my attention and it can then be done formally through the office.
We will move on to social assistance, subheads B to V. On carer's allowance, which comes under subhead M, the Minister has been very patient and kind in terms of listening to me bleat on about this matter so often. I have a particular concern about widows and widowers. Let us consider the case of someone whose husband is working in a relatively low paid job and who is caring for an elderly person or a young person with, for example, Down's syndrome or whatever and in receipt of carer's allowance. If the husband suddenly dies, the person will then get widow's pension which will not match his income. The latter will be lost, as will the carer's allowance because of the prohibition that one cannot receive two welfare payments from the one source. The widow might have a couple of children to look after in addition to the person for whom she is already caring. She will, therefore, be hit on the double.
The committee proposed, in line with the half-rate widow's, widower's and one-parent family payment - this caused a furore a few months ago - that half the rate of the carer's allowance would be granted to widows or widowers in such situations. This would involve a payment of only €70. I accept that the Minister would have to find more money for this but the payment to the individuals involved would only amount to €70. They would not be able to buy too many extra things with that amount of money, which would merely be a recognition that they remain at home to provide care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It would also allow them to obtain the respite care grant. The Minister has increased the latter and I thank her for that on behalf of the 150,000 carers in this country. The €835 paid out in the grant might allow a carer to pay for respite care for two weeks in order that they might have a break.
Carers' health can often end up worse than that of the people for whom they are caring because they devote so much time to what they are doing. The Minister referred to this in the Dáil yesterday and stated that she is concerned about the number of people over 65 years of age who are providing care. This is a matter about which we feel strongly. I would be prepared to forego some things I gain myself in order to remedy this problem. Perhaps that is why I am a socialist. These people are entitled to some recognition and help.
Despite the increase in the disregards, only 22,000 people are in receipt of payment while there are 150,000 carers in the country. The Minister made strong arguments about equity, fairness and access which put me and others like me on the back foot. It would cost €200 million to abolish the means test for carer's allowance. There may be other ways to proceed but let us begin by acknowledging those people who provide such an invaluable service and give so much of their time and grant them half payments. Many of them are already in receipt of social welfare pensions half payments. That is not what I would actually like to see happening but it would be a start. I acknowledge that the Minister does not have an infinite amount of money at her disposal to allow her to deal with that matter.
I refer to one other matter. As regards free schemes - dealt with under subhead P, has progress been made in respect of the all-Ireland free travel scheme? I have a particular interest in this matter and I have spoken at venues throughout the country and in the Dáil about our emigrants. Is there any way it would be possible to extend the free travel pass scheme to those emigrants who sent back more than €5 billion to this country in the past to keep everyone going? I spoke to a number of these people recently at Clover House, Ballyjamesduff, County Cavan, and they would welcome a small acknowledgement of that nature from the Department. I acknowledge that the Minister has provided some money for emigrants. I know it would not be easy to do but perhaps some sort of bilateral agreement could be reached with the British Department of Social Security to help them. Those I met expressed their joy at being able to fulfil their yearning to return to home. Ireland is now relatively wealthy and we should not forget what those people went through to ensure the country would find itself in that position.
My first point relates to child benefit and my hope that the promise made about it will be honoured this year. The child dependant allowance has been the same for the past ten years. While child benefit has been increased in the meantime, a problem has been created by not increasing the allowance. The Government will have to do something with it this year.
What will the Minister do about the discrimination against husbands and wives of claimants? They only get 70% of the payment whereas same sex couples get the full payment. That must be examined because I do not see why heterosexual couples should be discriminated against. They should get the full payment.
The time has come to extend eligibility for free schemes to all widows and widowers. It is bad enough for them to lose a partner, particularly if he or she is working. It would not cost the State a fortune. I acknowledge widows and widowers aged over 60 are eligible for the schemes but I hope the Department will do something for those under 60. How many people are involved? How much would it cost the State? If somebody has lost a partner who was bringing an income into the home, the free schemes would benefit him or her.
I refer to the back to work allowance. The Minister expects a decrease of 6,400 in the number of claimants. The new guidelines are saving the Department a great deal of money but this cutback is affecting people who want to return to the workplace. We almost had full employment in recent years
Times are changing. More people are losing jobs and they must be re-trained or re-educated before returning to the workplace. For example, somebody could work in the same place for 20 years having been trained for a specific task. He or she would need to be re-trained. The back to work scheme should be re-examined because it was good and it worked well.
People who work on short-term contracts and pay into the social insurance fund do not qualify for the Christmas bonus. They are aggravated around Christmas because they see most other social welfare claimants getting the double payment but they are not entitled to it, even though they pay PRSI and tax. This should be examined.
The Minister referred to carers in her presentation. Those who do not qualify for the allowance should be recognised. Something must be done for them.
Has the Department advertised the scheme for low income earners? It is a good scheme but many people do not know it is available. The Minister promised that she would examine the question of advertising the scheme when the budget was announced last year so that people in low paid jobs could avail of it to top up their incomes. While it may be a social welfare payment, people are entitled to it but they have not taken up the scheme. I hope it could be advertised.
Will the Minister elaborate on subhead G - the credit union loan guarantee scheme. The allocation has been increased to €70 million. Subhead K relates to deserted wives who do not have children. From 1997 onwards they were entitled to the one-parent family allowance, which is a lesser payment that the deserted wife's benefit.
That is true. Few women are in receipt of the benefit.
However, they lost financially.
Many deserted wives who have children are better off because they can work.
I refer to those without children.
A Labour Party Minister introduced that change, Proinsias De Rossa MEP. He decided to change the deserted wife's benefit and introduced the one-parent family allowance. As a consequence, women could not apply for the deserted wife's benefit. It was abolished in 1997. That was a cutback about which the Deputy forgot.
That was an anomaly.
Those who were in receipt of the benefit kept it and are still in receipt of it. No new applications were accepted after 1 January 1997 because the money was used to introduce the one-parent family allowance. Deserted wives with children are better off with this allowance. They can work and participate in CE schemes.
How many women are in the category of deserted wife with no children?
A total of 11,000 are in receipt of the benefit but I do not know how many are childless.
I will come back to this.
I refer to MABS. There is a new generation of poor in the State and these people are availing of MABS. In the past they would never even have envisaged that they would have to go to the service for assistance. A Bill relating to MABS was promised. The original Bill was withdrawn and the Minister indicated she wanted to update it. What progress has been made on this? It is important that MABS is debated.
I withdrew that legislation because I was not happy with the situation as it stood. A pilot regional support scheme was totally unsatisfactory and on that basis, I decided there were too many committees and far too much red tape and the impact of the scheme could be lost as a result. It is quite a bizarre and unusual scheme in that I pay all the money but they are all independent companies. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not satisfy myself about MABS before it was structured on a statutory basis. It was on the basis of my concerns that MABS has been reviewed and changed. A new structure has been established within MABS with a better support network for people. Regional or peer support for those with difficult problems has now been set up. Recent advertisements were placed in the newspapers and people will be appointed. When I am satisfied the full structure is correct with proper networking between the advisers with their support group and the management group, because before there were four or six groups——
Does the Minister propose to implement this without a statutory basis?
That has all been done. I want to ensure that once it is right, it can then be put on a statutory footing. I was very concerned about a growth of management committees and advisory boards and all sorts of things happening that were not fully structured into the system. This is not a reflection on the excellent people who are there. The Deputy will be aware that once it is put on a statutory footing, I will have no say and the political say in howit should be structured will be gone. I am happier now with the way things have changed. It is on that basis that the changes must be reflected in new legislation. MABS is the best thing ever. It is very important that it is supported. I gave it an additional €900,000 this year to provide more staff and supports. It would do one's heart good to listen to some of the people who have been part of that service. Their progress and the increase in their self-esteem has been tremendous.
Can the Minister guarantee that any difficulties which existed last year such as problems with the support for the back to education scheme for parents and children——
There was a problem in Dublin and I hope that will not happen again.
Will everything be in order?
Yes. I know there is a problem in one part of Dublin because there are not enough community welfare officers. The system is more or less sorted out in Dublin now.
I extend a warm welcome to the Minister and her officials. It could be called the Department of anomalies because there have been so many anomalies over the years. I pay tribute to the departmental officials. I have on occasion brought matters to their notice both in committee and in the House and many changes and improvements have been made. There have been monetary improvements for people and the service being provided by the Department has improved immensely. I am pleased to record those improvements today as one who has been critical on many occasions in the past.
Under subhead M, carer's allowance, I draw attention to an anomaly which was brought to my notice recently. I made representations on behalf of a lady in Cork who had given up her job in the United States to care for her father in Cork. The family home was unsuitable to provide the access and quality of life she desired for her father. They moved out of the family home and rented a house which was more accessible for her father. She rented out the family home and applied for the carer's allowance. Because of the income from the rented house, she did not qualify for the allowance. The point at issue is she was advised by a very helpful departmental official that if she had been working in Ireland, she would have qualified for the carer's allowance. Because she had been working in the United States, she was means tested and was debarred. I ask the Minister to investigate this case. The lady gave up a job in the United States and returned to care for her father who would otherwise be in a home or a hospital.
Family income supplement is a great benefit to people. I ask the Department to continue to highlight the availability of this assistance to many families. It is amazing the number of people who are not aware of this scheme.
I am aware the Minister has dealt with medical appeals which are an ongoing problem for people. The Minister is right to deal with those who present cases that are not genuine. However, there are very genuine cases where the medical opinions and reports of consultants have been sidelined by the Department. I spoke in the House a number of years ago and suggested that in certain cases, an extern consultant should be asked to examine those cases. Some will make the argument that we should not bring the health services into the system but there are very genuine cases. I am aware of one case in which a bus driver broke his ankle. He called to my house with his foot in plaster. He was examined by the medical referee who told him he was fit for work. He was not fit for driving a bus but he was fit to do something else. That is a ridiculous situation. It is a difficult area but where there are medical opinions and back-up, it should be examined more closely.
As far as I am aware, when people are unemployed and apply for unemployment benefit, they are being told that the jobs they are looking for should have been advertised. In some towns, including my own town, the jobs are not advertised in the newspapers but are put up as window notices. Up to now, a letter from an employer would suffice but now I am told that the jobs will have to be advertised in the public press. I ask the Minister to clarify the situation.
I am aware of a case of a family with a disabled child. The mother was receiving a carer's allowance and the husband was a labourer. He died, leaving a family of six or seven children, including the disabled child. The carer's allowance has been stopped and the mother is left now with just the widow's pension. That is most unfair.
I wish to make a comment on the Minister's speech. It is relevant to an issue which the committee discussed yesterday. She was asked to withdraw the charge on the telephone rental allowance. The Minister in her speech referred to 11% on the range of other supports such as free schemes. There is no mention there of a change for the schemes.
I will be nice to Deputy Crawford, even though I am not really in the humour to be.
I wish to raise the issue of the blind pension. I attended the meeting organised by the organisation for the blind in Monaghan. It is difficult for personnel from that organisation to evaluate cases and help them. This may not be the responsibility of the Minister and her Department but rather of the Department of Health and Children. However, it seems strange that when times were bad a few years ago, a person who could get a full week's employment there can now get employment for only three days a week. It is claimed there is not enough work for her, yet twice as many people are registered as blind or waiting to be registered in Monaghan as when she was first employed. I have had difficulty getting people into the system as quickly as they should be admitted.
I want to raise the issue of farm assist for two reasons. We have now reached the magical figure of 8,900 out of the 40,000 who were supposed to take up the farm assist scheme when it was announced. Will the Minister examine the means test with regard to it, because some of the cases I have come across in my county are ludicrous? Social welfare officers are not very happy with my comments but there must be a realistic level of understanding of the higher costs involved in some areas. A neighbour of mine, who is not involved in farming as such, gave away his silage crop for the past two years because it was of such poor quality as a result of the weather conditions in our immediate area as compared to other parts of the county. There is a massive difference in the costings on any individual farm, and that that difference is not accepted is not acceptable to me.
When the Minister announced the rural employment scheme, he spoke about the fact that he would spend €35 million on it. How much will the Department save if the 2,500 places are filled under that scheme? There is an increase in the budget this year but, if some of the people on farm assist become involved in the rural employment scheme, there must be a change.
Will the Minister re-examine the back-to-work allowance which has worked relatively well? The reduction in the estimate is sufficient proof of this. It may not be needed throughout the country. However, in my area and throughout the Border area generally, where few jobs have been created by the IDA or anyone else, jobs are being lost. There are difficulties in the area. The furniture and mushroom industries are in difficulty. While the Taoiseach referred in the Dáil yesterday to the marvellous jobs being created in Intel, which I welcome because many of my constituents work there, there are difficulties in rural areas where jobs are being lost and where the back-to-work scheme could be very useful. The back-to-education allowance is also a major issue.
I refer to two other issues, including the situation of widows who are under severe pressure. I accept the Minister has done wonders for those over the age of 60 but the people who are suffering most are widows with three or four children. People who cannot work because of family commitments should be taken into account. These people have set up a family structure, committed themselves to mortgages, car loans and so on.
The Minister gave a commitment in the Dáil that she would deal with the rural aspect of the carer's allowance because small farmers who do a few hours work on the farm are being penalised. If people did not look after their loved one at home he or she would have to go into a home. The technical aspect of the scheme is being abused by social welfare personnel and I make no apology for saying so. Common sense was used when the scheme was first introduced. I can prove my point in some cases, and I make no apology for saying so. If a farmer must do an hour's work on a farm, there is a perception that he will spend too much time travelling to the farm, which is classified as work. No effort is being made to accommodate people who are delivering full-time care to their loved ones. I beg the Minister to take immediate action in this regard. She should at least ask the people who operate the scheme to apply some common sense.
The Minister has asked us to reply to her consultation paper on carers, future long-term care, financing of care and so on. We will devote considerable time to this aspect at the next meeting. We appreciate the promise she made.
I appreciate the commitment the Minister gave in the Dáil and I will hold her to it.
The problem is that many of these schemes must be changed by primary legislation. However we will evaluate the system.
Unfortunately, there is another vótáil. Perhaps the Minister will reply to the questions when we return. Deputy Ring referred to the social insurance fund and there may be a few other questions.
The Minister will reply to questions raised.
Child benefit has been increased. This is a strategic way to address issues of child poverty and child care. As I have stated previously, the game is only at half time; the Government intends to complete its child benefit programme.
That will be difficult following what happened last weekend.
Deputy Ring should allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
I am aware of members concerns' about carers. I, and my Department, are equally concerned and in that regard are analysing the long-term care initiative. The matter was discussed yesterday in the Dáil. It is my intention to further progress the carer's allowance and respite care grant.
Deputy Callanan previously raised the issue of granting a carer's allowance without a means test. That is questionable. If a person with a very high income is capable of paying for care for a relative why should scarce resources be used in that way when they could be better spent elsewhere? The disregard for carer's allowance has been decreased and many of the rules and regulations have been also changed.
Deputy Crawford raised the ten hour working issue for people on farms. I have given the Deputy my promise to evaluate that matter this summer when I will be again evaluating the issue of carers. The Department has reassessed and reviewed the carers scheme per se. I will spend time evaluating the matter to see how we can progress even further in that regard. We have not fundamentally changed CDAs, but there are only three. The view was taken, irrespective of whether people agree, that CDAs are not a progressive way to provide support for families. In that regard, child benefit is the best way forward especially given that CDAs create a poverty trap when people move into work. I know members may not agree but there has been no change in policy in this area for a considerable number of years.
I met a number of organisations from abroad which are considering the free travel pass issue. It is our intention to progress initially the free travel scheme in Northern Ireland. I will meet, in the summer, my counterpart in Northern Ireland to see what can be done to progress this further. The Department is anxious to move forward on this matter but we must have some reciprocity on the other side. I will pursue this important matter at a political level this summer. I am aware the Commission is also examining such a scheme within the European Union. Perhaps, we can work within its ambit.
Members will be aware that this year I amended the legislation regarding same sex couples as required by the Equality Act. I have given an undertaking to evaluate all schemes within my Department. I have indicated to the Gay and Lesbian Association that its members will obtain equality. The Deputy is right to point out that an anomaly exists between same sex couples who receive payment and QAAs. It is acknowledged that that will be an issue. I have established a group to evaluate all schemes within the Department. My Department will link with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on issues such as tax, inheritance and so on. Senator Norris asked me, and I have agreed, to consider legislation he is putting together on the matter. There is a Government commitment to increase QAAs as a percentage of the single rate and I intend to pursue that matter.
What will it cost to bring QAAs up to the required percentage?
It will cost at least €500 million.
Will it cost more than that?
It will cost a great deal of money. However, the issue can be progressed over a number of years.
Has the Minister considered doing it in one stab?
To do so would mean there could be no increases in other areas. One must change things progressively or put all one's money into one basket. I do not believe that is a progressive way to deal with the issue. The IFA has been in communication with us on the issue. It is our intention to progress the matter. I will get the exact cost for the Chairman in due course.
The Christmas bonus, which costs a great deal, is paid only to those in receipt of long-term benefit. There is not enough money available to pay the bonus to those in receipt of short-term benefit. There have been many discussions on the family income supplement. I gave an undertaking to widows that we would advise them of their entitlement to family income supplement. That information has been sent out and is contained at the back of child benefit books. I hope also to progress that issue further through discussions with employers and unions. We have advertised on the matter and have tried to target those involved as best we can. I have also increased the minimum family income supplement payment by €20 and have considered disregards relating to other entitlements. We are all agreed that family income supplement is a tremendous support structure.
We previously held an extensive briefing with the committee on farm assist. Deputy Crawford will be aware, through his involvement in the farming community, that the number of full time people in small holdings has reduced considerably. Most of them work while retaining small holdings and thus their entitlement to farm assist is removed. Unfortunately, we do not have the same luxury as many of the big farmers in the south of Ireland, something of which I am sure the Chairman is aware.
I come from a dry stock area; it is very poor.
Cattle are fetching enormous prices at present, although we are not getting the right price for calves in my part of the country.
There is no profit grazing on the midlands.
There is none in my area either.
Is the Minister saying the Chairman has interests in areas other than horses?
The Chairman has a huge interest in dry stock or should have because he represents one of the counties with the greatest number of dry stock farmers.
My Department has examined means testing for farm assist. It is one of the schemes with the greatest disregard. I met members of farming organisations when they were experiencing weather difficulties and gave a commitment to change the means-test for farm assist. I have done so. I appreciate farmers are a little disappointed with the outcome but the matter remains under constant review. I have given an undertaking that if particular issues arise, I will deal with them.
It is easy to criticise the back to work allowance when one does not have all the facts. Regardless of change, the number of applicants for the back to work scheme has reduced significantly from 38,500 in 2002 to 36,200 in 2001 to 27,800 in 2002 and to 21,400 in 2003. The revised figure is 15,000. There has been a gradual decrease in the number applying to participate in the scheme which I changed two years ago and reviewed last year, particularly the back-to-work enterprise allowance which is the best way forward. I do not think the other back-to-work scheme under which the employer was paid worked particularly well. The self-employed incentive scheme was much better. A progressive review took place and we met a number of the partnerships to discuss implementation of the scheme which I agree is a very good one and which this year will progress further.
The question of employment supports for those who go back to work was raised. An allocation of €70,000 has been provided for the credit union guarantee scheme. As those who opt for self-employment find it difficult to raise capital, I have put in place a fund of €70,000 which often times is used as collateral against defaulting loans. Sometimes things just do not work out. On that basis I provided a contingency fund to enable participants in the back-to-work scheme to receive loans from the credit unions at normal credit union rates. We also have a joint interest free loan fund which is available in conjunction with the First Step organisation to provide loans for back-to-work scheme participants who cannot access capital. It is a contingency fund against defaulting loans.
Under the employment support structure, we provide aids that are beneficial, most particularly to those starting a business. I increased the level of support last year because the scheme is considered flexible. What it does is that if somebody opts for self-employment and he or she needs equipment of any sort, my Department offers support to facilitate the purchase.
On the statistics for deserted wives, pre-1997 there were 11,340 in total, of whom 6,800 had no children. Deputies raised the issue of second payments to widows and widowers as well as that of respite care.
The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuiv, is responsible for the rural employment scheme for which money from dormant accounts as well as a top-up from my Department will be used. It is very difficult to see what saving there will be but it is a more progressive way of moving people back to work.
Deputy Moynihan questions whether people need to advertise jobs in newspapers but it is acceptable to advertise in shop windows and so on. If there is a particular issue, we will address it. When issues are raised, they are evaluated following committee meetings.
Like the elephant, we have long memories.
Under subhead U, miscellaneous services, the office of the pensions ombudsman has received a considerable increase this year. Last year the Irish Deaf Society, the national association of the deaf, received a grant but this year it has received none. Was it a once-off payment?
That was a special grant, a once-off payment for a particular project - the issue of disadvantage, access to employment and social inclusion.
On the ombudsman, this will be the full year cost of the office. The ombudsman was appointed last year.
Does Deputy Ring wish to question the Minister on the issue of social insurance?
The Minister answered the question of what is happening to the investment. I hope the fund will be available for the future, given that the Minister for Finance raided it in the past, even though it is the people's money earmarked for future pension payments. I hope it will not be used to balance the books before the next general election, as it was the year before the last election. I accept that the Department is making it clear that people will have to provide for themselves in the future.
As well as the State.
I have two questions for the Minister. I referred to category claimants who were losing out on the basis of improvements in benefits. I recall the Minister for Finance giving a specific commitment in the Dáil that those in receipt of benefit would not lose out on secondary benefits. Those participating in the community employment scheme and JI participants are losing such benefits. This is a fundamental problem. Will the Minister give a commitment that the position will be reviewed? When I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter, I did not expect to have an opportunity to raise it at this committee.
It has come to my attention that persons such as deserted wives who sought to participate in a community employment or job initiative scheme were taken off the deserted wife's benefit payment and placed on the lone parent payment. The information suggests that the Department had no right to reduce the payment to which they were entitled. In the case of the individual of whom I am aware, she is entitled to back money dating from 1996, the date she applied to participate in the scheme. Who sanctioned the reduced lone parent payment to this deserted wife? How many are in this category? Will the Minister ensure the people concerned are made aware that their payment should not have been reduced and that retrospective payment will be made to them?
I can see this as a headline in the newspapers. The facts are that the then Minister, Proinsias De Rossa, removed deserted wife's benefit.
Do not mind about Proinsias De Rossa; we are talking about the current situation where deserted wives have been deprived of a payment for the past ten years.
No, they are not. That is factually incorrect. Women in receipt of deserted wife's benefit were not entitled to participate in the community employment scheme until much later in the 1990s. The lady in question wanted to participate in a community employment scheme in 1997.
She is not the only one.
In order to be entitled to participate in the community employment scheme, she was given a number of options. She decided, rightly, because of the associated benefits, that she would be better off in receipt of lone parent allowance while participating in the scheme. She then decided to receive deserted wife's benefit, of which she had been in receipt in 1996. In fact, the situation was——
She was never aware of that.
She was because we never change anyone from one scheme to another unless we discuss it with him or her first. A woman in receipt of non-contributory widow's pension is often better off, if she has children, on lone parent's allowance because access to the community employment scheme and others is disregarded. Some may choose not to do this but they still receive the information. That is the situation. In 1996 one was not entitled to participate in a community employment scheme unless one was in receipt of one-parent family allowance. The person concerned decided what was best for her and to receive deserted wife's benefit, of which she was in receipt in 1996. After 1997 the scheme was closed.
Prior to 1997——
One could not participate in the scheme.
——there was a category who received deserted wife's benefit at a particular rate of payment.
Correct.
The people about whom I am concerned query whether they signed anything to be taken off deserted wife's benefit and placed on lone parent's allowance. They have alleged that the Department changed them on the basis that they were participating in the community employment scheme. I have a letter from the Department stating the claimant in question is due payments dating back to 8 September 1996. Therefore, she should not have been taken off the benefit in question.
That is not the parliamentary question the Deputy put to me.
I have asked it in the context——
That is not the question the Deputy tabled.
The question is——
The Deputy tabled a question on policy. He did not advise me of a particular person. That is the question on which I signed off today.
I did not because I have a letter from the Department stating the woman in question should have been in receipt of the higher rate of payment all along.
There may have been a mistake——
There was no mistake.
——but the Deputy tabled a parliamentary question to me on a policy issue. The policy position as outlined in the answer to the parliamentary question he will receive at 4 p.m. is factually correct. He should stop looking towards the media.
I am not looking at them.
There are always circumstances in which mistakes can be made. If there was a particular problem and the matter has been resolved, I am sure the Department has apologised to the lady in question and that she is getting her money. In 1996-97 women in receipt of deserted wife's benefit were not entitled to participate in a community employment scheme. Most, if they wished to do so, reverted to one-parent family allowance. At the end of the community employment scheme they reverted to deserted wife's benefit. Several years later - I cannot recall the date off the top of my head - those in receipt of deserted wife's benefit were entitled to participate in community employment schemes and keep their higher benefits.
There are 8,000 widows and widowers with no children. Most in receipt of one-parent family allowance are best served on that scheme for several reasons, especially when they have children and can avail of disregards. Most especially, many like to participate in community employment and job initiative schemes and are facilitated on that basis. Job initiative schemes were affected in the same way as community employment schemes two years ago when FÁS increased the payment but it never told me it was doing so. On that basis we had to change the arrangement. There was a well attended meeting about the matter in the Deputy's constituency but I cannot be inspired about what FÁS is going to do. I have asked it, if it is considering any changes this year, to advise me first in order that I can review the schemes involved.
The greatest problem is that a threshold will eventually be crossed. It is unfair, however, if people exceed it on the basis of an increased payment. We changed the arrangements two years ago for those participating in community employment schemes, many of whom were women in the Deputy's constituency. The problem was only brought to my attention four weeks after the budget and we sorted it out.
Is the Minister saying, in the context of one part of my question, that any participant in a job initiative scheme——
That is a different question which I have not yet had time to answer.
Will anyone participating in such a scheme retain his or her secondary benefits?
The Deputy is referring to a difference matter which I have not yet had time to look at.
I am asking the Minister now. I raised it earlier.
There was a problem with the community employment scheme. The problem with the job initiative scheme is that the threshold is €16,000 per annum.
I hope the Minister will not allow the people concerned to retain their secondary benefits.
The problem with community employment schemes was sorted out two years ago. The Deputy has only now tabled a question about the job initiative scheme. The matter was not brought to my attention until today. I have not had time to look at the answers since 7 a.m. I must look at the matter.
We can discuss it again.
Those participating in the job initiative scheme receive €16,000 a year.
The fundamental question is not a policy one. How many claimants of deserted wife's benefit, either pre or post-1992, were transferred to one-parent family payments?
I do not have the numbers with me. The answer will be available at 4 p.m.
What effort will the Minister make to ensure they receive the retrospective payments to which they are entitled?
We will consider everyone with an entitlement. The Deputy is all over the place. Let us discuss deserted wife's benefit.
It suits the Minister to do so. I submitted three questions to her Department which she directed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
If it is the job initiative scheme-——
The Minister did that because it suited her. I asked specific questions.
I do not change questions. The Deputy has been a Member of the House since 1997 and knows questions are determined by-——
It is not the first time specific questions have been redirected.
I do not make that determination. It is made by the Questions Office.
That is a matter for someone else.
It is a matter for the Questions Office and the Ceann Comhairle.
The fundamental question is——
I have allowed individual matters to be discussed which are more appropriate to parliamentary questions.
I am more than prepared to speak to people privately about a matter with which I cannot deal in a parliamentary question. I have given my answer. The Deputy is talking about the job initiative scheme and deserted wife's benefit on which I have indicated the policy.
It so happens——
I have not have a chance to look at the second question yet.
——that many of the people participating in the job initiative sheme are also deserted wives. That is why they are linked. The people I represent are connected with both.
The problem with the job initiative scheme is that people are receiving €16,000 per annum on a temporary one year contract which has been extended for several years. Many married couples do not earn this amount.
That is a matter the Minister must examine.
It is not my responsibility.
I will allow no more latitude on this matter which concerns individual details and responses.
Deputy Ring raised the question of the social insurance fund. Like him, I hope it will continue to accumulate into the future.
We have had a three hour debate on the Estimate. Unfortunately, we were interrupted on a number of occasions by votes in the Dáil. That, however, is the nature of this business.
I thank the Minister and her officials for attending. We had some good exchanges and are grateful for the replies we received and the assistance provided by the officials in respect of furnishing relevant information. On a number of issues where the relevant information was not to hand, the Minister indicated that she would be prepared to furnish it. We look forward to receiving it in due course.
I thank my colleagues for their attendance and due diligence. I also thank members of the media for their attendance.