I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Mary Hanafin, and her officials. I ask members to note that we must vacate the room by 2 p.m. I ask members to be concise.
Vote 38 — Department of Social and Family Affairs (Supplementary).
We will be to the point.
The proposed timetable for the meeting will allow for an opening statement by the Minister and Opposition spokespersons followed by a discussion of the Supplementary Estimate by way of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the committee. I was previously before the committee on 27 May 2008 to present the original Estimate for the Department at which time the total cost of the Department's services in 2008 was estimated to be almost €16.94 billion. This was broken down at just over €9 billion on Vote 38 and nearly €7.9 billion on the Social Insurance Fund. It is now estimated that social welfare expenditure will outturn this year at €17.86 billion, an increase of almost €920 million, or 5.4%. This excess over the Estimate comprises €300 million on the Vote and €540 million on the fund. The Supplementary Estimate relates only to the Vote. The excess expenditure arising on the social insurance schemes can be met from the cumulative surplus in the Social Insurance Fund. The Supplementary Estimate of €380 million on Vote 38 is mainly accounted for by the unfortunate rapid increase in the live register, the payment of a 100% Christmas bonus and a greater than anticipated number of claimants on certain schemes such as carer's allowance and disability allowance. The higher number of people on the live register accounts for the increase in expenditure not just on the jobseeker's allowance but also the supplementary welfare allowance and the fuel allowance. The original estimates for jobseeker's allowance and benefit were based on an average live register figure of 170,000 for the year. At the end of November the live register stood at 268,586 and the average for the year to date was 221,200. The impact on jobseeker's allowance has been to increase the Estimate required from €1.02 billion to €1.2 billion, an increase of €183 million. This higher estimate will provide for an additional 13,100 recipients, bringing the total for the year to around 97,200 recipients.
We are committed to providing a quality customer service to all our customers. This includes ensuring that all applications for jobseeker's benefit are dealt with as speedily as possible. I have visited a number of local offices around the country and have seen at first hand the enormous effort staff make to deal with the increasing claim loads as quickly and effectively as possible. During the year the Department has taken several initiatives in response to the increase in claims for jobseeker's payments. These included the allocation, in the summer, of an additional 31 posts, the working of additional overtime in local offices and the extension of contracts of temporary staff recruited in a number of offices.
The Government recently approved proposals to appoint an additional 115 staff to 48 social welfare local offices around the country, to help deal with the increasing number of people applying for social welfare services. These staff will be at clerical officer and staff officer level and are being sourced from redeployment within my Department and from other Departments. A temporary section has been established in Dublin, with 18 deciding officers, to specifically help tackle the backlog of claims from offices around the country. It is expected that the additional staff being assigned to local offices will help speed up the processing of jobseeker's payments and we will continue to keep the processing times of all our offices under review.
The Government is committed to helping the most vulnerable in society in these difficult economic times. For anyone who loses his or her job, the experience is very distressing. We want to be there to support them in getting their entitlements and then to offer whatever supports are possible to help them back into employment or training opportunities as quickly as possible. We will continue to assign additional facilitators to local offices and the Department is working with FÁS and other agencies to maximise the employment and training supports available to people who lose their jobs.
In the supplementary welfare allowance scheme the additional sum being sought is €110 million. This consists of €35 million for basic weekly payments, €53 million for rent supplements, €12 million for mortgage interest, €5 million for exceptional and urgent needs payments, €3 million for the back to school clothing and footwear allowance and €2 million for the overall administration of the scheme by the community welfare service. The additional Estimate is being driven by an increase in the average number of recipients across all the supplementary welfare schemes, including an increase of 24,000 to 31,000 on basic weekly payments, 58,000 to 70,280 on rent supplements, 3,000 to 6,700 on mortgage interest supplement and 194,500 to 207,080 on back to school clothing and footwear allowance.
The additional sum being sought on the free schemes is €38 million, consisting of €18 million for fuel allowance, €11 million for the telephone allowance, €6 million for free travel, €2 million for the electricity allowance and €1 million for the free television licence. The rise in fuel allowance payments is a consequence of an increase in the eligible recipients of the jobseeker's allowance and disability allowance. The increase for free travel is mainly to compensate for the increase in fares by travel operators. The increase for the electricity allowance is as a result of electricity price increase in August 2008.
An additional sum of €60 million is being sought for the carer's allowance. This is as a result of the estimated average number of recipients for the year increasing from some 36,190 to 41,900. Closely allied to this is an increase of more than 5,000 in the number of claimants for the respite care grant, resulting in an increase of €10 million in the Estimate for the grant. An additional €20 million is being sought for the disability allowance, to cater for an increase in average numbers for the year, from 91,300 to 93,000.
As the committee will be aware, the Government decided to pay a 100% Christmas bonus again this year. The original Estimate provided for a 70% bonus. The bonus is paid to a wide range of people including widows and widowers, pensioners, one parent families and long term unemployed people, who rely largely on their social welfare payments for financial support. The additional cost on the Vote will amount to nearly €28 million. In this budgetary situation, the payment of this additional money to social welfare customers is a clear sign that helping those most in need of support remains the key priority for the Government. We all recognise that there are significant pressures for families and individuals around Christmas time, and this funding will go some way towards meeting their needs. This will be the ninth year in which the Government has provided a 100% Christmas bonus.
I expect that the excess expenditure I have highlighted will be offset to some extent by savings arising in certain areas, including administration. Savings of around €27 million are expected to arise on the Department's administrative budget including on consultancy and e-Government projects, payments to doctors for medical certificates and reports, agency fees and payments to An Post for the encashment of various payments and pay. Some of these savings are attributable to measures taken earlier this year to reprioritise and control public expenditure. There will also be expected savings in grants paid by the Department to agencies under its aegis, including €3.2 million to the Family Support Agency and €1.7 million to the Citizens Information Board. There are also savings on some schemes, including €19 million on pre-retirement allowance, €17 million on one parent family payment and €10 million on family income supplement. These savings are mainly due to lower than expected average number of recipients.
I will comment briefly on the current position of the social insurance fund. Expenditure on social insurance schemes is expected to be approximately €8.4 billion this year, which is an increase of €540 million or 6.9% over the original Estimate. The current economic situation is also beginning to impact on income to the fund which is mainly derived from contributions by employees, employers and the self-employed. It is estimated that total fund income will come to a little more than €8 billion this year, which is a shortfall of more than €313.5 million on the original Estimate. The resultant deficit of fund expenditure over income will be met from the accumulated surplus in the fund which stood at €3.6 billion at the beginning of this year. I commend the Supplementary Estimate of €380 million to the committee.
I welcome the Minister and her officials. I will ask my questions now instead of coming back to them. I accept the Estimate is needed. We could spend all day quibbling over the amounts and there is probably not much point in doing that. Can the Minister explain why the numbers on the carer's allowance, respite care grant and disability allowance were considerably greater than the Minister estimated? On what does she base her estimation of the numbers of people eligible for these allowances? When she makes her overall budget decisions she must have some notion of the number of people she will deal with. I would have thought the changes on that would have been a little bigger than she might have anticipated. Earlier in the year there was some degree of a crack down on the disability allowance. People told me more people were having their claims examined or appealed. Were there any savings on that?
Is the Minister satisfied that what she has provided for mortgage interest relief will be enough to deal with it to the end of 2008? I know from a question that there was an increase from the end of 2007 to November 2008 of more than 80% in the people seeking that assistance. Will the extra €12 million go towards meeting that? Will the Minister be concerned with this area for the coming year? It is generally accepted that people will call for it more and more.
There was to have been a saving of €13 million between July and October in child benefit according to information given in a priority question in the Dáil a few weeks ago. I am surprised not to see that mentioned in the Minister's speech or in the Estimate we received. Some €25 million extra was to be saved between July and September and another €4 million next year. Can the Minister explain in terms of the subheads she has listed in the second half of the index how that €25 million is made up?
I thank the Minister for her presentation. It was appropriate in preparing for the discussion of the Estimate that we had an earlier session with members of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul who were frank with us about the extent of the poverty with which they were trying to cope. It brought home to all of us just how difficult the problem was in the community and how many were struggling with the current economic difficulties and would be struggling with the budget cuts when they took effect in the new year. The spin the Government and its representatives were putting on the matter prior to the budget, in which it was claiming it would be protecting the poor and the vulnerable, did not turn out to be accurate. Regrettably, it seems it is the poor and the vulnerable who are being made to pay the price for the Government's incompetence. It is important to stress this point because there were choices available to the Government with regard to where it could make cuts. I have listed a number of areas in which savings could have been made, particularly in terms of tax relief for landlords and business generally and on pensions for the very wealthy, to name but a few. There is also the issue of stamp duty for businesses. If a fair approach had been taken to the budget, with everybody playing his or her part, the Government would have been able to protect the vulnerable. Instead, unfortunately, it chose to hit those on low and middle incomes rather than ensuring the individuals who had done best out of the boom would pay a share. By and large, they have been very much protected and have had to endure little or no pain in the new economic reality.
I spoke earlier to the representatives of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul about the fact that social partnership had failed the poor. It has not delivered in protecting them and improving their standard of living. Deputy Enright made this point also. The fact that the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion did not meet at all between February and November indicates that tackling poverty is given little or no priority by the Government. There is a need for a body, at a senior level, to take the issue of poverty seriously and set out a plan for tackling it in an orderly manner. In this way we would see incremental improvements, to at least protect people's incomes in difficult times, and it would be a recognition of the level of poverty experienced. Unfortunately, there is no such body.
There is a need for us to be honest and frank about the scale of poverty experienced. That means the Government must accept the research done, or at least commission its own research, and agree on some baseline figures with regard to what people actually need on which to live. I have put this to the Minister before with regard to the living alone allowance. I asked her if she accepted the research done by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, with which we are all familiar. It is impossible to argue with it. It has taken a detailed look at what categories need to survive, listed all the items, including standard costs, overheads and small incidentals that are essential in life, and come up with a figure for each category. It is important that the Minister indicate to us whether she accepts this research. It does not mean she has to provide that level of income, but if we could get agreement on what people need to survive, it would at least be a starting point. There could be an agreement, on a cross-party basis, that over a certain period, irrespective of who was in government, we could move to a point at which we were meeting basic needs.
Has the Minister familiarised herself with the work of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice? Does she accept the figures with which it is coming up? If not, could she tell us where she thinks it has made mistakes? I strongly urge her to at least approach this issue in an up-front and frank manner when she would have the agreement of Members on this side, about which there is no question. Rather than leaving the possibility of an increase or the extent of that increase to the whim of the Minister of the day, let us approach this issue in a concerted manner. I respect the work of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice which it is impossible to argue with. That is the reason I ask the Minister to consider accepting the figures, or at least engaging on them.
There is a significant number who will be adversely affected by the budget cuts in the coming months — or from Christmas Day, for part-time workers. There is no doubt there will be significant hardship as a result of these cuts, particularly for those affected by unemployment, in respect of which existing entitlements are being cut. The period in which people can claim jobseeker's benefit is being reduced. I ask the Minister to explain the implications of this, not just for those on reduced income. Because the qualifying period is being reduced, those affected will only have an entitlement to jobseeker's benefit for nine months. What are the implications for the people concerned in seeking places as part of the back to work or back to education initiative? It was previously the case, as far as I know, that one had to be in receipt of a payment for 12 months. Because of the reduced entitlements arising from the budget, the people concerned will only receive a payment for nine months, after which, if their partner is working or has any income, they will not receive jobseeker's allowance. They will be signing on for credits. Will they be able to avail of the back to education allowance in these circumstances? It does not make sense for them to be precluded. Perhaps the Minister might clarify the matter for us. Will she also clarify how the people concerned will be affected with regard to their qualification for participation in the community employment scheme? As matters stand, they will be precluded. It does not make any sense because the thrust of policy should be to encourage and support people away from welfare payments back to work, if possible.
On providing a route out of unemployment and back into employment, what is the justification for the cutting of 500 places in the back to education programme? It does not make sense. From an economic point of view, the focus must be on preventing the new unemployed becoming long-term unemployed. Some of these measures seem to entrench unemployment and make it longer term by making it much more difficult for people to get out of it. What is the Minister's strategy in that regard? The Society of St. Vincent de Paul stated today and the Combat Poverty Agency yesterday that serious hardship will be caused to children as a result of the proposed cuts, particularly in child benefit and early child care supplement, on top of which we have all the education cuts.
I note what the Minister said about the 115 extra staff in local social welfare offices, but she is completely underestimating the level of demand for services. I cited earlier an example of a person who had been on jobseeker's benefit whose period of claim ended in mid-November. He must now undergo a means test for jobseeker's allowance. He finished his claim in mid-November but the Department is not able to provide a means test for him until 9 January. There is a delay of almost two months between his claim ending and the Department being in a position to consider a new claim from him. That is unacceptable.
It is particularly highlighted over the Christmas period when people will be left without an adequate income because of an inadequate level of staffing in the Department. Can the Minister tell us, other than the 150 extra staff, whether she has any proposals to increase staffing further? I know from speaking to people in offices around the country that they are under considerable pressure. Great stress is caused to staff and this is showing up in departmental sick leave figures. Staff should be looked after and should not be put under undue pressure. However, the people who find themselves unemployed and dependent on the Department should not have to wait weeks, in some cases months, to have their claims treated. Serious issues have arisen in the past week in the pigmeat industry and there are great difficulties there for those who have been laid off because of the Department's inability to meet the demand that is there.
I have other questions. The Minister had to look for this Supplementary Estimate. I know this year there are very changed economic circumstances but are there issues with regard to capacity in the Department to estimate the level of demand that exists? Clearly, that was the case this year and an additional €380 million is now required. The Minister's budget Estimate was based on an unemployment rate of approximately 7.3% next year. A number of commentators have suggested that we may face a rate of 10% unemployment next year. Is the Minister satisfied that her Department is adequately in touch with what is happening, and is sufficiently up to date to identify the scale of the problem? One must wonder about that given that we are doing this work now.
On rent supplement, there will be very severe difficulties caused for the poorest of the poor. By that, I mean people who are in receipt of a social welfare payment and in private rented accommodation. These people were awarded an increase of €6.50 per week in the budget and then faced a clawback of €5 in rent supplement. They will experience a real decline in their incomes. An increase of €1.50, even with very low inflation, will not enable people to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living. There will be real difficulties. Is it the Minister's intention to introduce any reforms in rent supplement? I spoke to her before about areas where savings could be made if the rent supplement issue were tackled. There is no point in the Minister saying to us that this is a temporary measure. It is a key part of the housing strategy and, unfortunately, increasing numbers of people are reliant on rent supplement. If the Minister were to reform that area there is potential for making savings. As an example, at present the Department has no system in place whereby tax is paid on rent supplement paid to non-resident landlords. There is potential there for making savings of €200,000. Will the Minister do anything about that? I shall leave it at that and may come back with further points.
I will not come back to the Deputy. Ten minutes is allowed but she had 15. She can raise her points some other day.
I very much welcome the Supplementary Estimate and I congratulate the Minister and her Department on finding the extra resources to provide increases in areas where they are most needed. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul spoke with the committee earlier this morning. This measure recognises the requirement, particularly in the present climate, to ensure that those who are most vulnerable get as much support as possible.
I very much welcome the increase in the fuel allowance from 70% to 100%. That is crucial. As we have seen over the past couple of weeks, the weather has deteriorated and it is essential that we continue to maintain that payment. I very much welcome the Supplementary Estimate. One cannot spend what is not coming in but in this case the Minister has ensured that the surpluses that were found will go to the right place.
My question relates to waiting times. The Minister will be aware of the current situation in the pig industry. I hope those companies will be re-opened but there is great concern. Many staff are based in County Offaly. I talked to the Department's local area offices in Edenderry and Mullingar. Extra staff were assigned to Mullingar. One has just arrived but training is involved. If things do not get back up and running, there is a real concern to have payments issue before Christmas. Can anything be done? It is likely that officials with more experience are needed to deal with the situation. Unemployment in the Offaly and Westmeath areas was quite high, in any event, so officials were already under pressure. If the factory does not re-open they will be under severe pressure. Hundreds of people will need some sort of income before Christmas. Can attention be given to this if the problem arises? I hope it does not.
I wish to be associated with the welcome extended to the Minister and her staff. I wish her well. Like Deputy Brady I congratulate her on the progress we are making. A figure of €17.86 billion is clearly a very significant amount of State funding and it is important that we continue to support the Minister in ensuring that kind of money is made available.
In her speech on the Supplementary Estimate the Minister showed very clearly where the money is required. As other colleagues said, it is good that we should support the increase in the different schemes. As we speak, the Christmas tree at the front of this building is being lit, which reminds us that Christmas is 15 days away. Even across the table, many of us are pleased that the Minister was able to dig in her heels and ensure that the 100% Christmas bonus was paid again this year. We all know from our communities that this is greatly appreciated. It is very important that it continue into the future as a key part of the Minister's policy.
We are all aware that the challenging economic situation is creating a situation where more and more people are becoming unemployed. I made the point on the radio last night that I do not represent communities which are immediately affected by the meat scare that Deputy Enright referred to. It causes a shudder that people in good jobs, who last Friday were looking forward to Christmas, are suddenly in a more difficult and challenging position. I can speak as someone who was made redundant at three different periods of my life. I know what it is like to go home and tell the family this. I know there are people looking forward to getting rid of me——
A Deputy
In Tallaght.
——as well and that is fair enough. That is all right. If that happens to me at least I am experienced enough to take the challenge. It is a challenge. Anyone who has been unemployed can testify to that.
I am always keen to stress to the Department the importance of looking after the client and the customer. It is difficult to sign on for benefit both in the good and bad times and it is important we support the Minister in that regard. I believe all Deputies would agree that when we contact the Department of Social and Family Affairs with queries, or if we need information, the quality of service of the Department is above any other. I say that with all due respect to the Minister's previous portfolios. The Department responds to our queries and requests for help and it is important we continue that relationship.
If I may be parochial, I recognise the Minister has visited several centres throughout the country. There is a first class social welfare office in Tallaght and I am proud of the work it does. If the Minister ever has a spare hour I would be happy to bring her to Tallaght to see it. She would see the good work carried out there similar to that of other centres.
Some people are vulnerable and losing their jobs and it is very important to continue to apply pressure to ensure such people receive a good hearing when they approach a social welfare office, whether in Tallaght, Ballymun, Drumcondra, Kerry, Offaly, Laois, Tipperary, Dún Laoghaire, or anywhere else in the country. It is important such people receive a welcome and that services are provided, because it is a time at which people need a good response. I recognise there have been delays and difficulties with which the Minister has dealt.
The Minister continues to enjoy my support in dealing with those matters. It is a difficult time for all and especially a difficult time to be the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. However, she has much support to carry out the job. It will always be difficult and we must always remind the Minister to do her best to ensure that as much State money as possible is made available to those who genuinely need it.
Can the Chairman explain to what timetable we are working?
I call Deputy Mattie McGrath.
On a point of order, what is the format to which the Chairman is working? I have the format which was circulated. Will the Chairman answer the question asked?
There is a timetable and we must conclude the meeting in the time allocated. There was an agreement on the timing at the beginning of the meeting.
Perhaps if the Chairman was not so fixated on finishing the meeting he might realise that a format has been agreed to which he is not adhering. Can the Chairman explain what format he is following?
I call Deputy McGrath and I will take no invitation from Deputy Shortall.
The format we agreed does not allow for that.
The Minister will respond after Deputy McGrath. That is how I am running the meeting.
There is no provision for members of the committee on the Government side to make contributions at this stage.
I will allow everyone to make a contribution.
That is not the way a Supplementary Estimate meeting works and the Chairman should know it.
I call Deputy McGrath.
The Chairman is bringing the committee into disrepute by his behaviour.
I am amazed at the Deputy.
The Chairman may be, but that is what he is doing.
I apologise for being late and I do not know what format was agreed. I will abide by the Chair at all times. I am involved in another committee meeting next door, which is why I was not here earlier.
I welcome the Minister and her officials. I thank them and extend the message to staff working in offices throughout the country that in these very challenging times we appreciate the work they do. I speak for south Tipperary. The staff there are very friendly and helpful. It is not easy to work under such pressures. I appeal to those in negotiations today on behalf of the pig processors and the Government to try to resolve the issues to allow people certainty for work and so on, and again I thank them for their work. I also thank the Minister.
The Minister increased the Estimates provision for the job seeker's allowance. There was an increase of 16,900 people signing on in November. On what is the Supplementary Estimate based? How many people does the Minister foresee claiming the job seeker's allowance next year? Given the figures for November and December, is the figure of 13,100 realistic?
I thank the Deputies for their contribution. I would rather not be here seeking a Supplementary Estimate. When I was the Minister for Education and Science I was in a similar position each year, seeking a Supplementary Estimate. One is glad to spend extra money on education. Unfortunately, with this Department the need for additional funding shows the necessary demand. There has not been a Supplementary Estimate for this Vote for at least five years. It is a sign of the times and shows the need among people, which I accept.
Job losses are foremost in people's minds at this time of year, especially in light of developments in the pig industry. Deputy Carey asked about the figures for the month of December, the figures for next year and the provision for these. The Department of Finance sets the average number for the following year. That has been set and we must keep it under review. However, we anticipate the money provided will be of help for this December. When examining the figures for November and December, it is always significant to note the number of people who have come off the live register also. These people work part-time in shops and so on for the month of December. There will be a concern about unemployment levels in the new year.
I refer to the meat processing factories. In past cases where we have known of a factory running into difficulties, the Department has sent in a team of people into the factory. They received a list of the PPS numbers of the employees and began work immediately. I hope it will not come to that in this instance. The Government is very keen to get the processing industry up and running very quickly. We will try to get people on-site to provide support very quickly.
The companies did not have sufficient notice and could not facilitate the Department to address it. That was the reason for the queues.
I hope it will not happen but if it does we are keen to get a team on board. There is severe pressure on processing times. However, there is full Government support and staffing will be kept under review. The 115 additional staff are travelling throughout the country. As the Deputy mentioned, experienced staff are necessary at this stage to meet the demand.
The new temporary unit with deciding officers could be very effective in that regard. It will consider claims from throughout the country. The unit has 18 staff based in Townsend Street and it will try to clear the backlog as much as possible. We will keep the matter under close review and we are considering the level of public service numbers in other Departments, and the possibility of transferring in those who are under-utilised in other Departments. I could not say at this stage we are satisfied that we have enough staff. However, the special unit of 115 people will help to put a sizable dent in the number of claims. We will try to ensure people receive their entitlements with the full support of the Government.
Deputy Enright asked about the carer's, respite and disability allowances. There has been an increase in the numbers of people seeking these allowances and the 100% Christmas bonus is also built in. As members are aware, only 70% is provided for at the beginning of the year. The original estimate for the disability allowance was 91,300. It now appears the figure will be 93,000, which is not a substantial difference, but it involves a good deal of money. There was a change in demand for respite care allowances, which increased by approximately 5,000 people. When one is dealing with such numbers it can be difficult to gauge the exact requirement. It is not as if the figure is out by 10,000 or 20,000.
I do not ask the question in a critical way, but how is the figure estimated? What level of liaison is in place with the HSE to account for the number of people with a medical need and to make those grants available? I am trying to establish how one decides upon or gauges the figure. That is the reason I asked.
It is always more difficult to predict exactly in the case of a demand-led scheme. One can base the estimate on previous years. There are probably many people who were not in the system heretofore. The half-rate carers system is still bedding down into the system and is something for which more and more people are applying.
The Deputy received the figures on savings in child benefit in response to a parliamentary question, and it is anticipated we will still have those savings. To balance that, we have been clearing the arrears of child benefit applications, many of which were from non-nationals. We are paying out more on child benefit because the arrears are being cleared and that is why it does not show up in this. We anticipate the savings and are adamant about continuing to make savings. We are targeting people and sending our letters, and will be so doing more and more.
There are approximately 7,000 applications for child benefit arrears still to be cleared, and back money is also received once the application is approved. That is why it is not showing up. The savings we have outlined from July are €25 million. They have come from administration, money for the job seekers scheme being collected once a week——
It is once a week. Do people have to physically turn up once a week now?
Yes, if one is a new claimant. One goes once a week to the post office but signs on only once a month.
Existing claimants do not have to do that.
No, only new claimants.
It is said that people are flying in and flying out. I do not have any proof of it and have not seen it. People are not saying it in a racist manner but have a limited degree of knowledge of the situation. Are checks done at airports or is there a facility to do them? I would be happy to establish that it is not true. It may be even more important than establishing that it is true. It is talked about as an issue and we need to be able to prove it one way or the other. If it is an issue we need to deal with it and if not we need to be able to put it to bed.
I know exactly where the Deputy is coming from. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence and chit chat on this issue. The information from our offices implies that compelling people to collect payments on a weekly basis has cut down on levels of fraud.
The Department of Social and Family Affairs has also been involved in joint exercises with the Garda, the Revenue Commissioners and customs on border and road checks. I found this interesting as I did not think the Department would also be involved. The checks do not extend to airports.
It needs to be examined. Will the Minister to discuss the matter with the Garda? I know it is difficult, given the entitlement to freedom of movement within the EU. I do not know if the Government has access to flight information but we should examine it as part of the drive against fraud and try to ascertain if it is problem. If the anecdotal information is accurate it could be a sizeable problem.
The difficulties we are being told about have been an issue since before the summer and could affect people currently claiming the benefit.
The Department has two officers on the Garda National Immigration Bureau working on the matter and there have been significant savings as a result. We are working through that process. It is something on which I want to keep a close eye.
Some Deputies raised the issue of the mortgage interest supplement and there has been an increase in the numbers of people receiving it. We anticipated the number to be 3,000 but it is now closer to 7,000. We know that will be an issue in the next year and the increase concerns those benefitting from it.
I spoke recently to several community welfare officers on what they are seeing coming through and the suggestions they had because, as I indicated earlier, we are doing a review to see how we are meeting the need. The same is true of rent supplement. The Deputy had a suggestion on landlords who are abroad. We need to make sure we meet the needs of the relevant people at the right time. We also need control measures.
That is something I intend to work on. We are working on the mortgage interest supplement at the moment.
There is a Committee of Public Accounts report which makes several recommendations relevant to the Department.
I am aware of that but the way things are turning at the moment those on the ground are seeing things that they might not have seen before, that can impact on people.
On the issue of poverty and I research, I welcome the work done by the Vincentian partnership. They have used a particular methodology; other people used a different one. It has good, stark figures. The EU SILK report, which referred to the previous year, discussed the decline in persistent poverty. Until the end of last year we were doing very well in reaching our targets and this must be maintained. It becomes more difficult as people are losing their jobs but we have managed to maintain our payments at the same level as they were before.
These are extraordinary and very difficult times. We have the national anti-poverty strategy and Government aims on eliminating consistent poverty and reducing it by between 2% and 4%. There are questions on how we will keep on top of this given the current unemployment situation. It will be the major challenge for the Government. We will use the research available and there is also the very valuable research from the Vincentians.
The Deputy raised the issue of children and quoted the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. We targeted the funding for the qualified child this year and to the areas where we recognised most need. That is why we added €2 extra for the qualified child.
The back to work allowance will bear a limited impact of the changes because the qualifying period for that was two years. I do not anticipate significant changes in that allowance. My Department officials have already met to discuss the back to education scheme to ensure people are not disadvantaged. The Deputy asked about a person who goes on credits. A person who does not receive jobseeker's allowance or other social welfare payments and is signing on for credits could qualify for the cost of education allowance but would not receive the full education allowance.
It has always been the case that a person had to be in receipt of the payment when they transferred on to the back to education scheme. An allowance was made for a gap period and we will allow that period to be overlooked to ensure those who may have qualified in the past are not now disadvantaged.
I will see to it that the impact of any change is not very severe. There are now more facilitators available and I will get them to work on encouraging people to enter third level. If people are involved in the national employment action plan they can also access it and it is for nine months. I met officials on the matter to ensure people do not suffer as a result of the changes.
Can I clarify that matter? The current requirement is that people must be in receipt of a payment for 12 months. As a result of the budget changes some people will not be able to get a payment for nine months.
The people who will not get it for nine months are those with a limited work record. The back to education allowance is targeted at those who have been in receipt of social welfare for some time. It was always targeted at such people. We will look at this group of people to see if they may have gone on to the scheme in the past and would not now. We are looking at the time difference between finishing nine months and starting a course, and allowing that to be accounted for. One does not automatically have to transfer from one payment to another.
People who were previously entitled to the allowance, through no fault of their own, will be excluded from such entitlement because the Minister has changed the rules.
We aim to make sure they are not excluded by getting them to work with facilitators and by making provision — a sunset clause is not the correct term for it — for that gap period to be overlooked. We will keep a close eye on that to make sure——
Is the Minister saying the requirement that a person must be in receipt of a payment for 12 months still stands?
Yes, but we aim to get the facilitators to work with those people to ascertain if they are people who have previously benefited.
That does not make any sense.
It does in terms of the back to education scheme.
It may be an unintended consequence of the budget changes, but the Minister should deal with that.
It will not be an unintended consequence.
It will be, unless the Minister changes the rules.
I intend to ensure there is an increase in the number of people going back to education. I am not singling out the Deputy but the Labour Party generally has confused the back to education allowance with the places on the Department of Education and Science back to education initiative. There is no cut in the back to education allowance and no limit on the number of people who can benefit from it.
The Society of St. Vincent de Paul referred to the cut in this respect this morning.
Deputy Gilmore and I argued this issue on "Prime Time" one night and I explained it to him after the programme. There is a general misunderstanding about it among the Labour Party, although I know Deputy Shortall understands it well.
There has been a 24% increase in the number of people who have taken up the back to education allowance. We will continue to try to target more people in that regard. My Department works closely with FÁS, the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Education and Science and the Department of the Taoiseach to co-ordinate the number of places available, taking account of the spare places that become available in PLCs, ITs, extra FÁS places and so on.
The Department of Education and Science back to education initiative comprises part-time courses largely run in the evening. There has been a cut in that respect. Many of the people participating in it may be in receipt of other welfare payments, but that cut does not impact on the back to education allowance or the amount of money available to people on it.
Given that there will be many exceptions to qualifying for the back to education allowance, it would be more simple, in administrative terms, for the Minister to change the rule. An exception applies to people in receipt of statutory redundancy and those covered under employment action plan areas and, from what the Minister said, an exception will apply to those people who have been penalised as a result of the changes in the budget. This overly bureaucratic or over-regulated way of operating the scheme will cause complications.
The scheme is not working effectively in that the Minister has relied on qualification for it extending to those in receipt of statutory redundancy and those covered in employment action plan areas as a means of justifying the 12 months provision. However, the number in those categories who have taken it up is minuscule. While we are all aware of the benefits of the scheme, the number of people at third level who have taken it up has decreased. I accept that the number of people at second level who have taken it up has increased, but neither level is exclusive in terms of which is more important. It depends on what stage one is at in one's life as to which is more valuable. The Minister will have to re-examine this allowance, particularly in light of the budget changes. It would be a good start if she at least changed the provision to nine months rather than having different types of exceptions for a small number of people.
I am examining several issues. I am particularly focusing on young people who opt out of education early, sign on for benefit at 18 years and are given the full allowance.
The Minister reverts to that aspect when we raise this issue. We are not raising the issue of those people, but the Minister keeps returning to it.
I am also entitled to raise the issues I am examining.
The Minister should just answer the questions we asked her.
These people are a particular group.
We would like her to answer the questions we asked her.
This is a particular group. It is all very well to pooh-pooh the idea that people who get statutory redundancy qualify for the allowance. Unfortunately, an increasing number of people are getting statutory redundancy who might be glad to take up the option of the back to education allowance.
Only 215 people got it in the last year if I recall correctly.
We are not talking about the last year but about now.
I asked the Minister about the last year.
Five minutes ago Deputies asked about people who are likely to get statutory redundancy and they are the people we would like to be able to benefit from the allowance.
We are talking about the 2008 Estimate.
However, five minutes ago the Deputy also spoke about people who have got statutory redundancy. We do not pooh-pooh the idea that in the past this was an allowance that was available to those people that was not taken up. The fact that it is available means there might be far more people who would like to take it up in the future.
I do not pooh-pooh it. I would not even use that phrase.
That an increasing number of people take up the allowance is significant. In terms of determining what is available in other Departments and the number of places available, we may be able to ensure the allowance is targeted at the people who can benefit most from it. We must always ensure this area is not open to abuse from school leavers. We must keep that in mind. I am open, however, to changes to it to facilitate people in a way that supports them in getting back to work. That is what we are currently examining.
The obvious way to do that is to reduce the period in question to nine months. The Minister is excluding people, in an entirely arbitrary manner, because of the budget changes. The people who would have qualified last year will not qualify next year because of the changes the Minister introduced. I accept it may be an unintended consequence of the budget cuts but the Minister should at least recognise it. There is no justification for telling people that they will not have a second chance at education.
The pressure will be great, but it is hoped that all those people will be interviewed every three months to see——
The success rate in placing people is abysmal.
The success rate in placing people in education and training has improved.
They will not be able to qualify for the back to education allowance. The Minister is saying they can go back to education but they will not get a payment.
They will if they are covered under the national employment action plan.
In the past year the numbers who qualified by that route were extremely small. In terms of the people who got redundancy and those covered under the national employment action plan, the total was 210 or 215. We must be realistic about this. In the coming months not all people who lose their jobs will get statutory redundancy. The people working in small business — shops and so on — will not get statutory redundancy and will then be caught under the new nine months rule or the 12 months rule. Will the Minister examine the measure realistically from the perspective of the people who want to get back into education?
I understand we will be able to work towards a position where people who might have taken up the allowance in the past would not be disadvantaged. I am open to ensuring that the increasing number of people who need education can benefit from it and if that involves changing some of the rules, getting more people involved in the national employment action plan or whatever, I am open to doing that.
All we are asking of the Minister is to consider changing the rules.
I have been telling the Deputies that for the past three months.
No, she has not.
She has not changed it, except in a negative way.
Our time is nearly exhausted and I want to allow the Minister to continue. Any other questions can be put through the Chair. The Minister can continue.
I have completed my contribution.
I asked the Minister about people participating in community employment. Does the same principle apply to people who only get a payment for nine months?
I will have to get back to the Deputy on that. I do not know off hand.
I have other questions. The Minister said in her opening statement that the €380 million was a Supplementary Estimate for the allowances being paid. In respect of benefit payments, some €450 million additional funding comes from the social insurance fund. Is it possible to get a breakdown of that figure? Could the Minister provide that to us in the same manner in which she provided the breakdown of the €380 million figure? It would be interesting to have that.
The big increases would be on——
I do not necessarily want it now. The Minister might send me a note on it.
Yes. I can do that.
She might also send it to the other members.
The Minister referred to preserving the Christmas bonus. Why is it that people in receipt of jobseeker's benefit do not get a Christmas bonus? It is difficult for people to understand.
The additional cost to extend it to people in receipt of that benefit would be €32 million. It is also targeted at people on long-term payments.
I know, but they still have to survive on a social welfare payment. There does not appear to be any justification for this. The people concerned still have the same additional expenses with their families at Christmas.
I accept there are pressures but the payment has always been for persons with a long-term dependency.
Is there a rationale for this?
Those with a long-term dependency are more likely to be less well off than people who have more recently received social welfare payments, particularly those on benefit and who might have other means. I know it is difficult at Christmas and one would like to give it to everybody but at a cost of up to €33 million it is just not possible to extend it.
The distinction being drawn between people on benefit——
That has always been the way.
——and those in receipt of other payments does not seem right. Has the Minister set any target times for processing claims? I accept this is a new situation and that there has been a sudden huge increase in numbers.
The average time in some offices was only three weeks for benefit claimants and six weeks for allowance claimants but that has started to lengthen. In the case of allowance claimants, it is more difficult because of the means testing. That is particularly the case when one is dealing with numbers of non-nationals, as one has to obtain the relevant information. That is one of the difficulties. It is hard to say what we would set as the ideal time other than to try to clear the backlog as quickly as possible.
It is a little unfair to say it is due to non-nationals and difficulty in obtaining information.
It is means tested.
The Department cannot even arrange an appointment for a means test within a two month period. The problem is on the Department's side.
In fairness, that is not the case in all offices. Certainly, some are very efficient. Perhaps they do not have the same demand but they are efficient.
I mentioned a case where there was a two month wait for an appointment for means testing. Does the Minister consider this acceptable? If not, what is she doing to reduce waiting times?
I have indicated there will be additional staff. There is Government support for the provision of additional staff should they be needed.
I am simply asking if the Minister is setting target times.
The Deputy has asked if I have set targets. We do not have specific targets but are reviewing processing times in all offices. We regularly publish these times. The bottom line is we hope to have the work done as quickly as possible. We will try to secure the additional staff to do this.
When the Department gets additional staff from other Departments, what is the training period for them?
They are trained in-house in the individual offices. In some cases staff are released from other duties——
How long does it take to train a member of staff to deal with the public?
The office might get the new person to do a job that would not necessarily involve processing work. I have seen them work side by side in offices but do not know how long it takes to train staff.
The select committee has completed its consideration of the Supplementary Estimate.