On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Ó Cuív, and his officials. We are meeting this afternoon to consider the 2010 Revised Estimate for Vote 38. As Members must be back in the Dáil Chamber for the Second Stage of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 at 3.45 p.m is it agreed that the Minister's opening statement be deemed to have been read into the record?
Vote 38 — Department of Social Protection (Revised)
No, it is not. This is nonsense and is no way to do business.
I agree.
I can give Deputies a copy of it.
Most of us have been in the Dáil Chamber all morning. I have just checked my office, but am not in it, and I have no idea what is in the statement. We only got the briefing yesterday evening but most of us were in the Chamber until quite late last night. This is not any way do to business.
I had agreed, prior to this meeting, that I was happy with it but I did not get the statement. I was in the Chamber when it came through and I have not read it.
We shall allow the Minister read it.
Gabhaim buíochas don choiste as an chuireadh a thug sé dom teacht os a chomhair inniu le Meastacháin 2010 a phlé. As the committee is aware, the 2010 Revised Estimates Volume was published last February. This has been overtaken for a number of Departments, including my own, by the various transfers of functions announced at the time of the Cabinet reshuffle in March.
The Further Revised Estimate for my Department incorporates the adjustments required following the transfer of the social inclusion division and responsibility for family policy, including the Family Support Agency, to the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs from 1 May last. The total adjustment arising over the Revised Estimate Volume is just €25 million. I would also like to reassure Members that there are no other changes in the Estimate they are examining today other than those consequent on the transfers I have mentioned.
Members will recall that the committee met on 21 April to consider the payment of a subvention from Vote 38 to the Social Insurance Fund to ensure that payments of social insurance benefits such as the State contributory pension, widow's and widower's contributory pension and jobseeker's benefit will not be interrupted. Following your consideration, the Dáil subsequently approved the payment of the subvention.
As Members will be aware, the Dáil referred the Further Revised Estimate before them to this committee earlier today. As the Estimate was only finalised in recent days, it was not possible to make available to the committee secretariat the relevant briefing until yesterday. I understand that officials from my Department brought this situation to the attention of the clerk of this committee the week before last. I regret any inconvenience this may have caused, particularly in this busy period for committee members, but the matter was not within the control of my Department.
The extent and scope of social welfare spending is such that the income and support services operated by my Department impact on the lives of almost every person in the State. We operate some 50 separate social welfare schemes and services and the needs and requirements of claimants can vary dramatically. The following figures give an indication of the scale of business. In 2009, we received 2.62 million claims and made over 83 million payment transactions and over 6.8 million telephone calls were received in headquarter sections and main local offices. In 2010, an average of almost 1.4 million people will receive a social welfare payment each week. When qualified adults and qualified children are included, a total of more than two million people will benefit from weekly payments. In addition, child benefit payments will reach over 600,000 families, with nearly 1.15 million children, every month.
Before we get into the finer detail of the many figures before Members, I would like to highlight the following overall expenditure figures. The total spending on social welfare by my Department is estimated to increase by just over half a billion in 2010, bringing overall expenditure to over €20.9 billion. This corresponds to over 38% of total gross current Government expenditure and 16.3% of gross national product. Nearly €9.6 billion will be spent on social insurance schemes, including their administration, while close to €11.4 billion will be expended on social assistance schemes and services. Overall, a little over 2.6% of all expenditure is accounted for by administration. The increase in this year's Estimates allocation reflects the increase in recipient numbers on a wide range of schemes, partially offset by the measures announced in budget 2010. However, the single biggest factor is the continuing financial impact of the increase in the live register and the economic situation generally. Expenditure on jobseeker's benefit and allowance is estimated at €4.3 billion, or almost €580 million more than in 2009.
I wish briefly to revisit the 2010 budget, which was announced last December. As was outlined then, the main objectives underpinning the Government's medium-term strategy are to assist economic growth and job creation through a restoration of competitiveness, to prevent the general Government debt rising to unsustainable levels and to restore expenditure and taxation to more sustainable levels.
Making progress to achieve these objectives required difficult decisions. As Minister for Social Protection, I am very conscious of the needs of the more than 435,000 people on the live register. I also fully understand that a wide range of other groups, such as people with disabilities, carers and pensioners, depend on the welfare budget for vital support. I assure the committee that the Government, in the context of a very tough budgetary environment, did its utmost to protect the most vulnerable people in society.
In the budget, the Government introduced welfare measures that will generate savings of €762 million in 2010. I fully appreciate that some of the measures we took in the welfare area will not be easy for people but I genuinely believe that if the Government does not take steps now to reduce overall public expenditure and restore stability to the public finances, we risk making the economic situation far worse for everyone, including welfare recipients, in the long term.
At the same time, the back to work and back to education schemes were refocused to ensure faster and earlier access to support for unemployed people trying to set up their own businesses or engage in further training or education. As one can see in the Estimates, the expenditure of €229 million in 2010 on the various employment support services operated by the Department is expected to be 29% ahead of the 2009 out-turn.
The expenditure of my Department, including associated administration costs, can be broadly divided into five main areas and I will provide a brief overview of this expenditure. Support for children and families will account for 15.6% of expenditure, or almost €3.27 billion, of which €2.26 billion will go on child benefit. It is estimated that almost €628 million will be spent on the qualified child increase while €215 million will go on family income supplement.
A wide range of supports for people of working age accounts for more than 40.4% of overall expenditure, or almost €8.5 billion. Jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit account for more than €4.3 billion while just over €1.1 billion will be spent on the one-parent family payment. Carers will receive €725 million in total.
Pensions and other supports for retired and older people account for almost 27.8% of overall expenditure, or very nearly €5.8 billion. Of this, more than half of all expenditure, or more than €3.4 billion, goes on the State contributory pension, which is the single biggest social welfare scheme, while a further €981.7 million and €1.3 billion respectively is expected to be required for the State non-contributory pension and widow or widower contributory pension for those aged 66 and over.
The main payments for persons with disabilities include invalidity pension, disability allowance and occupational injuries benefits and account for €2.2 billion, or 10.6% of overall expenditure. A range of schemes, which includes the fuel allowance and supplementary welfare allowance schemes, tackle poverty and social inclusion. A total of €227 million will be spent on the fuel allowance this year, while supplementary welfare allowance will account for just over €1.1 billion, including €510 million on the rent supplement scheme.
Turning to sources of funding, members of the select committee will be aware that the Exchequer still makes the most significant contribution to social welfare expenditure as it funds all assistance-based schemes and child benefit. However, employees, employers and the self-employed, also make a significant and valued contribution to the social welfare system through the operation of the social insurance fund. This year the income of the social insurance fund will be almost €7.1 billion but its expenditure will be almost €9.6 billion, reflecting a higher number of recipients and lower levels of employment and wages. The deficit of almost €2.6 billion will be financed in the first place from the accumulated social insurance fund surplus carried forward from 2009, with the Exchequer financing the remainder, expected to be €1.55 billion in 2010.
I hope that my opening statement has provided a good overview of the Department's planned expenditure in 2010. The schemes and services operated by the Department benefit everyone in society, either directly or indirectly, and are the key platform for the delivery of social protection in our country. I look forward to discussing the Estimates with the committee.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I will run through the areas on which I have queries about why some items are particularly high or low. There has been an almost doubling in expenditure on incidental expenses such as advertising, cleaning services, conferences and miscellaneous items. I would have thought expenditure on these would be going in the opposite direction in light of commitments given on conferences. I presume the expenditure was not on conferences and perhaps the Minister will tell us what it was for.
There was quite a drop in the back to work allowance and I presume this was because of the changes made to the scheme. There has been a significant increase in the back to education allowance. Approximately how many extra people will be facilitated by that increase? The committee recently discussed the back to education allowance with the Minister or his officials. Some of us sought changes to it. We also sought figures, which I do not think we have received, on jobseeker's benefit and the back to education allowance. Some people in receipt of jobseeker's payments could be on the back to education allowance but they are not allowed claim it until a set period of time has passed. How much would it cost the Exchequer if more were allowed to claim it, considering the people involved would receive jobseeker's benefit anyway? Does the fact that there is a definitive figure for the back to education allowance mean the Minister has closed his mind to making any changes to it, for the rest of 2010 at least?
What specific schemes are being funded through the activation family support programme and the grant towards the development and promotion of second chance education opportunities? Will the scheme to assist those unemployed for five years or more receive funding this year? If so, will it be the same amount as last year? Have we given up on schemes for those unemployed for five years or more or has the focus been moved elsewhere?
The basic supplementary welfare allowance payment has decreased by approximately €40 million. Will the Minister provide us with more information on this? There is a slight decrease in rent supplement and I presume that reflects the changes made previously. Does it reflect the changes announced last weekend? I am quite surprised by the figure for mortgage interest supplement because the increase is quite small given the number of people of whom I am aware who have difficulty paying their mortgages. I find more people are being refused the supplement. Is this why the increase is so small? A review on mortgage interest supplement is being conducted and we are still awaiting its outcome. I am aware of a person with a very arguable case not being allowed appeal a recent decision made on mortgage interest supplement. The way the measure is applied and judged is extremely unfair and is forcing people out of their homes or leading to repossessions. The moratorium is coming to an end for some people and I am concerned about the continued operation of the scheme.
I previously noted our expectation that something would be done for those who will be adversely affected by the carbon tax. We have also received a significant amount of correspondence regarding the fuel allowance and its payment on a weekly basis. A large number of people rely on oil for their home heating requirements and, as some local authorities have been told they are no longer allowed to install fireplaces in council houses, this number will increase. It is impossible to ask such people to budget €22 per week until they have saved €600 or €700 to pay for a fill of oil. They should have the option of receiving the fuel allowance twice yearly to enable them to make these big payments. This would also ensure the allowance is used for its intended purpose.
The social insurance fund cost €9.6 billion this year, including €1.5 billion from the Exchequer. Will anything remain in the fund for 2011 or will the Exchequer have to fund the entire amount?
I already raised my concerns about the texting and mobile telephone issue. Last week, I received inquiries from journalists in regard to whether a significant number of people were unable to sign on during periods when the ash cloud presented problems. Perhaps some of the names involved should be investigated.
I continue to receive complaints from builders, electricians and carpenters who pay their taxes but cannot compete with people who are receiving social welfare payments while tendering for work. It will be a long time before we will be building housing estates to which an army of inspectors can be sent but some sort of scrutiny is needed of once-off building projects because it is very unfair that legitimate operators are losing business to social welfare claimants.
I thank the Minister and his officials but express concern about the manner in which this matter has been dealt with. Like Deputy Enright and other members, I was briefed yesterday while I was working on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010. This morning we were all involved in business in the Dáil. I do not know why the matter was addressed in this unsatisfactory manner which prevents us from giving it our proper consideration.
In regard to the €25 million which the Minister claims is the main purpose of the Estimate, what functions are being transferred to the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs? I understand the research capacity in the Department of Social Protection is already limited and I wonder what specific areas of research will remain under its auspices. Will the absence of in-house research capacity inevitably result in an increase in the amount of external research that will have to be purchased? How will the change affect family policy matters in the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs and where will the staff who formerly worked in the Combat Poverty Agency be deployed?
The Minister referred in the Dáil to the FÁS functions which will transfer to his Department. I ask for more detail on the extent of these functions and the budgetary elements that will accompany them. In regard to the implications for the staff of FÁS, will the work be done on a contract basis given these staff are not civil servants? I would like to know the relationships and costs associated with the incorporation of employment support services.
The main reason for the burgeoning Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 is the huge increase in the number of people who have lost jobs. The main way to control the increase in the budget is, obviously, to get people into employment and ensure their time on social welfare is as short as possible. I ask the Minister to outline his strategy for getting people into employment or training as quickly as possible. He referred to a 29% increase in employment services. I ask for more information on this in the context of the transfer of functions from FÁS.
Does he expect to take action on the issues which this committee has investigated in regard to moving people from rent supplement to the rental accommodation scheme, RAS? He will not find it easy to remove people from welfare unless he addresses existing poverty traps in the welfare system. Rent supplement is a major poverty trap that prevents welfare dependent people from seeking work. Apart from the request to put in place a scheme to move more people to the RAS, has he considered applying the rules of this scheme to those in receipt of rent supplement so that they pay a differential rent? They would not need to occupy RAS properties because a scheme of housing support could be operated on the same basis so that they pay differential rents and thereby avoid the poverty trap.
What is the position on the mortgage interest supplement? Reforms were promised last Easter but there is still no sign of a solution to this obstacle to people who want to move from welfare to work.
What is the position on family income supplement? The increases are accounted for by an increase in income thresholds to compensate for the reduction in child benefit. I wonder at the point of that. Has an estimate been made of the percentage uptake for families whose incomes would fall into the earning brackets and are any steps being taken to improve uptake?
Does the Minister expect to take action this year on foot of the Comptroller and Auditor General's recommendations on fraud? I appreciate the Department has been snowed under this year due to the increase in the number of claims but it has completely ignored the recommendations on frequent fraud and error surveys. There is considerable leakage of public moneys because of this and I ask for the Minister's plans for the coming year.
As Deputy Enright stated in respect of the carbon levy, not only did we expect it but a number of Ministers, including the current Minister's predecessor, promised at budget time that before the carbon levy would be introduced on home heating oil, a scheme would be put in place to help low-income families. There is no such scheme and no urgency appears to be attached to it. The Government is probably hoping the fine weather will continue. There is no doubt that if we have poor weather during the summer months, as we generally do, it will result in a significant burden on low-income families dependent on home heating oil. The Minister used to pride himself on being the voice of rural Ireland but a large number of families will be badly affected unless a scheme is introduced as promised.
Another issue looks to ensure that people move from welfare to work. Why has the Minister not taken action on the PRSI promise in the budget, why is it taking so long and what is the difficulty? Why have we lost six months on the scheme?
I wish to be associated with the welcome extended to the Minister and his officials. He is the voice of rural Ireland but when he comes to urban settings — as he did in Tallaght a couple of weeks ago — he settles in just as well there. The Minister is a man for all seasons and I wish him well. He knows from conversations we have had that I share the concerns expressed by colleagues about some of the schemes.
I live in an area where there is a significant unemployment problem. Ultimately, the issue concerns the economy and jobs. I hope the focus of the Minister's Department will continue to be looking after those who find themselves unemployed in both the long term and more recently. I have used the phrase "new poor" and it is certainly evident in all our communities. People who were fairly well off a while ago suddenly face significant challenges with bills and mortgages. It is not just about not being able to go on holidays. We must be proactive in tackling such issues.
Other colleagues have indicated that the Department must examine a range of schemes. Like Deputy Shortall, my focus is the Social Welfare Bill and I look forward to making a contribution to the Second Stage debate tonight. I intend to make a number of points I feel strongly about. Whatever the political differences among parties, we represent communities and people suffering through this recession. I am not afraid in the slightest to speak up for them and offer advice on the matter.
I look forward to supporting today's Estimate and I wish the Minister well. He will hear from me again tonight.
I will go over the same ground that has already been covered. I heard the Minister state he is interested in providing places to people in receipt of social welfare payments so they can move from welfare to work. I encourage that, particularly from a community development perspective. Is there a budget for this and is it included in the Estimate? If so, when will the plans be rolled out and when will we have the details of what is proposed? Is the Minister committed to this and when will we see it in operation? Will people be able to receive social welfare payments while making a contribution to the community on a community employment scheme etc.? That is the right idea.
Community development groups throughout the country are very aware of this and have asked me when the programme will start. I encourage the Minister in this respect as it is the right way to move. I support him wholeheartedly on the matter so he might elaborate on it.
I welcome the Minister and his colleagues. Unfortunately I do not have much time to go through the Estimate but I will ask a few questions. In his contribution the Minister commented that a further €981.7 million was paid in respect of non-contributory social welfare. The Minister may not be able to tell me today, but how many new applicants per year are coming on that scheme? Are more people coming into the contributory element?
With regard to disability benefit, there are major questions being asked of people genuinely in need in the area. I completely support efforts to do away with fraud or people trying to claim disability or invalidity under fictitious circumstances but some people are depressed because of being removed from such schemes. I hope the matter will be considered sympathetically in spite of the difficulties we are experiencing.
Has the Minister considered the fuel allowance and supplementary welfare benefits in light of the massive increase in the price of oil and other fuels? Is there any mechanism to allow people to get a lump sum rather than a weekly payment? If a person has to buy a tank of oil it can be hard to get the price of it and people would pay above the odds for small amounts.
I support the comments of previous speakers on the PRSI issue. The matter has been ongoing for a long time and there has been no adjustment. With regard to allowance payments, the Minister has indicated they will fall between 2009 and 2010. Are people not getting the right information or why has there been a major decrease? The allowance keeps people on low income completely out of poverty.
I know of the Minister's commitment to get young people off social welfare and on to employment structures. Some 7,000 apprentices have been made redundant in the past couple of years because the jobs are not available to follow through the apprenticeship scheme. That has very serious consequences and not just for the individuals concerned. If they are seeking work here or anywhere else — in Australia, for example — it is much more difficult to do so without qualifications.
I will make a few observations but will try not to be too long. I agree with the comments of Deputy Shortall and other colleagues with regard to PRSI payments. The matter should be looked at quickly and something should be done.
There are issues regarding the costs of heating. There is much to read in the Estimate and it indicates that a heating supplement may be paid in cases of exceptional heating needs. What is regarded as exceptional heating needs? I have raised the matter several times of senior citizens having heating turned off in certain areas at 10 p.m. and it does not come on until 7 a.m. This leaves many elderly people having to plug in electric fires, which is madness in this day and age. It is potentially dangerous for many elderly people. Many older people do not sleep as long as others and may be up during the night. Most have to stay in bed because they cannot afford to turn on electric fires in sitting rooms. If that is what exceptional grounds are, we should consider this.
The disappointing aspect of this document is that the pension for the blind is means-tested. This is mean and unjust. For people who have one of the most significant disabilities, that is blindness, the requirement to undergo a means test for their pension is ludicrous.
I have more to say, particularly about jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's assistance. There are more than 85,000 people under the age of 25 on jobseeker's benefit, many of whom have left college and, as Deputy Crawford said, are left out in the cold with qualifications that are not taking them anywhere, particularly tradespeople. The vast majority of these young people want to work; they do not want to rely on the State. On their incomes of €100 or €200 a week, they find themselves struggling to live, even within their family homes where they must give something to their parents.
I agree with the idea of supporting and encouraging young people to return to education and improve their skills, but what I find annoying is that people are forced into training that, ultimately, is totally unsuitable for them. Its only purpose is ticking boxes; it is not the answer in terms of what young people need. They want jobs, as we all know. Giving young people training places and penalising them if they do not want to take them up is ludicrous because it does not solve the unemployment problem. We should not be putting people in training that has nothing at the end of it. If we are to provide training places, there must be something at the end of it. We cannot just send them back out into the wilderness.
I raise the issue of the means test as it relates to my experience, although it is relevant to a broad range of people. At present there are many people between the ages of 40 and 50 who find themselves out of work. They have worked since the day they left school, most of them at 14 years of age, and now they find themselves without jobs and with few prospects of finding work because, naturally enough, there are younger people out there with more qualifications.
These people have paid their taxes through the years, but they are entitled only to 15 months' jobseeker's benefit. What is there after that for them? Many of them are means tested because, in most families now, there are two people working. Many people I have met, particularly men, find themselves being means tested on their wives' incomes and they have been left with zero income. This is totally demoralising. It leads to a loss of self-esteem and puts them in an awkward position. We are talking about men who have worked all their lives, reared their families and contributed to the State but now find themselves left out in the cold. This needs to be addressed. If a man has worked all his life and paid his taxes, surely he is entitled to something, even if his wife or partner is working. This issue is becoming more prevalent, with so many men, in particular, losing their jobs.
I have a question about rent supplement. I am sorry to go on so long, Chairman. I normally do not continue speaking for this long, as you know; I am careful to keep it short. I have read the documentation provided. The expenditure on rent supplement this year will be €590 million, with 98,000 recipients. What we need to do here is to think outside the box. I mentioned this before. A one-parent family may have to pay €200 towards rent of €1,200 per month, which means that family is receiving social welfare payments of €12,000 per year.
Surely something should be done with the thousands of apartments and homes lying idle around this country. I know many young people in my area who would gladly take the key of one of the thousands of apartments in the inner city and pay €30 per week. They would not be a burden on the State in terms of rent supplement. Something needs to be done in this State to identify the young people who do not want houses for which rent supplement must be paid. They want a place of their own; they want to be able to turn the key, go in and build a home for themselves, but they are stuck. The Government has done nothing to solve the problem of rent supplement. The amount spent on rent supplement, €590 million, is an awful lot and could be spent on something better.
Finally, I want to express my concern about one-parent family payments. I have written this down to make sure it comes out right. The measures being taken today are simply cost-cutting measures and do not actually address the complex issues surrounding one-parent family payments. Reducing the qualifying age from 22 to 13 certainly has its merits, but we need to consider the bigger picture. The one-family payment is designed to help people cope with all of the demands of rearing young children and is of great help to those single parents who genuinely find themselves raising a family alone.
Bringing up a child or children without a partner can be difficult emotionally and financially, and I support the provision of social welfare payments to help those families who need financial assistance to feed and clothe their children. However, we must deal with the elephant in the room, namely, the fact there are a considerable number of young women, many of them teenagers, who see the creation of a one-parent family as a choice which can bring them financial reward. We need to tackle the mentality that considers having a baby outside a committed relationship as a ticket to social welfare payments and, in many cases, the provision of either a good house or a generous rent supplement. In no way do I wish to make life more difficult for one-parent families, but we need to eliminate the culture of dependency on social welfare and promote education for these young people. We must promote training and a greater work ethic which could help people to find employment and escape from the poverty trap and from lone parent assistance.
The entire system needs to be reformed to ensure those most in need can benefit from adequate State support. This is a cultural issue in this country and we need to do something about it. At a party two weeks ago, I overheard a conversation in the toilets that led me to write this contribution. The conversation was between two teenagers, one aged 18, who was pregnant, and the other aged 16. They were discussing who the 16 year old was going to pick, out of three fellas she knew, to be her partner to have a baby. It might be laughable, Minister, but it is a sad reflection of our society that young people aged 16 or 18 are having conversations such as this. I am emotionally disturbed by this, particularly because I do not believe a child coming out of school at 16 is capable of bringing up a baby. We need to do something about it soon.
We do not have a great deal of time. I must make that clear before the Minister begins.
I will try to answer all the questions, but if I miss a question I ask Deputies to pull me up and I will go back and deal with it. I will not do it purposely.
I thank all Deputies for their constructive comments and questions. Deputy Enright asked about subhead A3. The explanation is quite rational. I know the figures look far different from the reality, but I will explain this. The outturn for official entertainment last year was €15,000. That does not refer only to ministerial entertainment but includes the whole Department. The budget for this year is €20,000, although I am not saying we will spend it all.
Staff training and development has gone from an actual spend of €869,000 last year to a provision of over €1 million in the Estimate. Advertising, cleaning services, conferences and miscellaneous expenditure have gone from €6.3 million to €11.4 million. The explanation is that in that particular ball of wax there is a provisional miscellaneous expenditure of €4.575 million which arises from a carry-forward and was a contingency put in because of the swine flu process. It has not happened and I expect we will have a significant saving under that heading. However, it is present in the Estimate as explained.
The actual spend on advertising last year was €243,000. Again, there was provision for €500,000. Cleaning costs went from €270,000 to €250,000. Security and waste disposal costs are down. Carriage of goods is up a little. Compensation is down. There is the miscellaneous provision——
Was it for more staff if some were out because of swine flu?
It is a carry-forward of a saving from 2009 under the terms of the administrative budget and is a contingency provision for whatever is needed. I hope we need not spend it. We did not spend it last year.
Did every Department get that swine flu provision?
If it is not spent it goes back to the Exchequer.
I will not waste time. It is unusual, however.
It is there and if something unforeseen happens the money is there to deal with contingencies. Every year Government faces contingencies and it is better to have it in the budget and make the saving at the end of the year than to have no provision made. That explains the figure. There is no significant increase in the spend on advertising. It is a provision and I have dealt with it.
The Deputy's next question was about the back to education allowance. In 2009 there were 10,893 recipients; in 2010 it increased to 17,617. For the 2008-09 academic year there were 9,000. For the 2010 academic year there were 19,000, which figure goes forward into the following year, as I understand it. The people coming in for the 2010-11 year will be counted as going into 2012.
There are more people in third level education and the courses are longer and therefore the longer the commitment to the BTEA will be when people are put into the system. They will be there for some time. It explains something else. There was an increase of 5,000 in the live register last month, a figure off the top of my head. Four thousand of those were people on the back to education allowance who were signing on for the summer because they do not get the allowance during that period. I understand we have already exceeded the figure of 19,000 in the Estimate.
There was a query about why one must spend a minimum period on the scheme. The reason is to stop people signing on for a short period just to get the back to education allowance.
Will the Minister reconsider this?
I will but there is one thing I will not do. In the past there was some evidence of people taking years out of college and attending on a deferred basis because the back to education allowance was a better payment than the higher education grant. We do not want to re-create that situation. We dealt with one very important issue, namely, that a person who gets a redundancy payment can go on the back to education allowance immediately on being granted jobseeker's benefit. That dealt with the issue of people who were long-term employed suddenly finding themselves unemployed. It avoided the danger of younger people deferring college to get the better payment because one must be two years in employment before qualifying for a redundancy payment. When we discussed that I thought it was a very good way to approach the matter, ensuring that people who had been working long-term and had an entitlement to redundancy can immediately get the back to education allowance. They can then move on.
I did not ask about that although it is fine. I asked when we would get the different figures concerning people getting jobseeker's allowance versus the back to education allowance.
The basic payment is the same.
Exactly, that is my point.
There are education costs involved. We pay €500 for cost of education but there are also associated costs of providing for people who are in universities and so on. Our only objective in this is to ensure this scheme is for people who are genuinely out of work and is not usable by anybody coming into the country and signing on for a short while, or by people leaving or deferring third level education because this is a better payment. Those are the two angles, if we can look after them.
I will consider this. I am open to the idea. I would much prefer to see people in training, on a work scheme or back in education than sitting at home, available for work but not being allowed by us to work. I agree with the principle but we must ensure we do not create dead weight.
Will the Minister provide those figures?
Yes.
Regarding G6, the Deputy wanted to know what is being funded. The actuated family support programme assists local organisations and agencies — the detail is there — to implement projects addressing disadvantage in personal and socio-economic circumstances, social welfare recipients and their families, to provide progression into education——
If the written information is there, the Minister can move on.
G7 deals with employment services for the long-term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups to return to education and training and gain employment. Employment support service was a scheme to assist persons employed for five years or more. That scheme has gone and there is no Estimate for it this year. The money concerned was very small, only €2,000. That was only nominal and we need mainstream schemes.
I was asked if rent supplement reflects changes since last weekend. My understanding is it does, that those figures are built in.
The Deputy asked about mortgage supplement.
I asked why the figure was not much bigger than last year's figure.
In part, the reason is that there was an increased demand in the minimum contribution to be made by recipients, from €18 to €24. There were many issues. We expect to have extra numbers of 2,900.
Is the Minister referring to rent supplement?
I refer to mortgage interest supplement. The provision for the increase in the number of recipients is €11.6 million. We expect 2,900 more people on the scheme this year. The reduction in average payment per recipient affects 13,000 people and will save €8 million. That explains the increase of €3.23 million. One offsets the other.
Many questions were raised and I shall return to them on Supplementary Estimates. Many Deputies raised the issue of fuel allowance. My understanding is that the only barrier to providing an option of a lump sum, or two or three lump sums versus a weekly payment, concerns computer technology. I shall look at this and I understand the Deputies' point. It is a valid idea but obviously one can only do what is administratively possible with the computer systems one has. An extensive upgrading process is taking place in the Department and I shall ask my officials to consider whether we can give that option to people. In principle it makes a lot of difference.
The Deputy asked about the mobile telephone issue. I never saw anything so misreported. We put out a clarifying statement because people were getting it wrong. It is not a text system. I have been told it is a voice recognition system which is very accurate and can record a person's voice. If somebody else rings in that person's stead it will know immediately it is not the person concerned and will switch off. That gets over that problem. It is also interactive so if one puts a recording on saying, "I wish to sign on this week" and is asked in return where one is and what one is doing, what is the weather like or something, and one does not reply, the system will know immediately the person is not there. The recording will not provide the answers. That is not a possibility. A third point is that it provides a location and it will not be possible for people outside the jurisdiction to use it because we know a given person is in Ireland and we know who the person in question is.
Given the technology available, it is amazing the Department cannot collect people's PPS numbers.
The Department cannot even address the fuel allowance.
The Department cannot collect landlords' PPS numbers.
We are doing that and I will come to that point. The Deputy is dead right about landlords' PPS numbers. We must watch out for this. Our information does not tell us if a person is working in Ireland and calls from the workplace; it does not answer that question.
There is no need to get into that now.
What if there is a call on the other line?
It is not the case if one physically goes and signs on, because I have heard many stories of people saying they cannot work for me next Tuesday because they are busy and have to go to sign on. We must examine that issue.
The ash cloud issue is another matter which appears to have gained great mileage in the media. We gave that data to the journalist in question some time ago and I got the impression the journalist tried to create the story despite the fact the evidence is absolutely to the contrary.
I have figures of those who signed on 21 February, 21 March, 18 April, 16 May and 13 June, as well as the number due to sign and the number who did not sign. We can discount 21 March because it was St. Patrick's weekend and the numbers were small. On 21 February, some 151,920 people were due to sign and 3,311 or 2.2% did not turn up. On 18 April, in the same sequence of weeks in the month, some 151,060 people were due to sign on and 3,515 or 2.3% did not sign on. On 16 May, some 147,435 people were due to sign on and 3,269 or 2.2% did not turn up. On 13 June, some 152,188 people were due to sign on — this is like an election. The number of non signers were 3,809 or 2.5%. We dug a little further to find out who are these non-signers. Some 83% of the non-signers were Irish, that is, 2,917 people. Furthermore, of the other category which came out at a figure of 99, that is, the people for whom we do not have a nationality, they are predominately Irish people who are placed in this category as a result of historical categorisation. We suppose the true figure for the number of Irish people is 86%, which leaves 14%. These figures are interesting and I can make them available. Let us consider the remainder. There were 136 Poles. On the law of averages, it is more than likely these Polish people are in the country. There were some 80 people from the United Kingdom. The ash would not have stopped them from getting back. Other relevant countries include Lithuania, England, Nigeria, Latvia, Slovakia, Pakistan, Burma and Cameroons. Every country in the world is here. Some of them are not coming back to sign on because it would be too expensive and too far to come from some of the countries mentioned on this list. It seems there is no evidence in this regard. When we dug into the figures there was very strong evidence to the contrary.
Is this what the Minister examined when he dug into the figures?
Yes, absolutely. We issued a circular to local offices on the disruption of air traffic and subsequent arrangements with customers. They were advised to pay particular attention and to keep a local record of non-Irish nationals who failed to sign on. Cases warranting further investigation were to be referred to the Department's special investigation unit.
I refer to the list of countries. There are many apocryphal stories of thousands of people flying in every week to sign on. In fact, the ash cloud has proven that if one adds up all the non-Irish on the list, it only amounts to several hundred who did not come and sign on. Another issue is that there is no difference between this week and any other week in a similar sequence of months. The percentages are no different. The evidence suggests the ash cloud issue proved there is not a significant amount of people dependent on flying in on a specific day to sign on. I will make these numbers available if the committee wishes.
Are there any names on all the lists or for two weeks?
Chairman We have only ten minutes left.
We must be in the Chamber within ten minutes.
We must be back in the Dáil at 3.45 p.m. I thank the Deputies.
The interaction is useful. We had offered to put this back to next week. It is a matter for the committee if they wish to defer it. I am open to coming back to finish the debate at the appropriate time but it is a call for the committee.
Unfortunately, we have made that inquiry and we have been asked to conclude this evening.
I was not aware about next week. I was not informed.
I understand an e-mail was sent around.
We can continue if the committee wishes.
I was not aware that it was an option. I understood we had to do it today.
There was an e-mail which asked us if this suited us, but that is as much as I knew about it.
I am easy on the matter and I am not in favour of not going through the issues. Valid questions have been asked and it is the one time in the year when there is the opportunity for people to ask questions and raise issues. I am more than willing to come back. It gives us a good opportunity to go through the issues in detail.
Is there Committee Stage next week?
That meeting is due to start at 9.30 a.m. with Committee Stage at 10.30 a.m.
There is a private meeting at 9.30 a.m. with a Bills meeting at 10.15 a.m. next Thursday.
We shall try to finish today. Is that okay?
I can finish it today.
The Minister must leave any minute now to get to the Chamber.
I refer to the questions put by Deputy Enright. She asked about funding and the shortfall for the social insurance fund. The shortfall must be paid 100% by the Exchequer next year. That will increase it by €2 billion. The Deputy also raised an issue about the black economy. I have a clear view in my mind about fraud. Let us examine the possibilities for fraud in the Department. The first issue is double identity. The introduction of the card should reduce this possibility dramatically because there will be a high quality card with photo identification and chip and pin facilities and so on.
How long will it take to roll out that fully?
I have some ideas on how we can encourage the roll-out of the card. We must give priority to getting this card into as many hands as possible and as quickly as possible. The card will be a very attractive item for those who wish to use it for genuine reasons. Another possibility for fraud is the issue of not being in the country. It appears that is not as great an issue as people believe and a further issue is those who work and draw. Let us be honest. It is very easy and tempting to work and draw. This is something we can discuss in great detail when we discuss the Bill. Deputies may see what we do in a disjointed manner. For example, the Bill provides for penalties if people do not take work. We may introduce a Committee Stage amendment to transfer schemes over to the Department. I hold a particular view on those who are genuinely out of work. Some people may seek either a work scheme or a training scheme in preference to being unemployed. The advantage of such an approach is that it calls the bluff of those working full-time. If one is working full-time one cannot be on a scheme full-time. Therefore, I envisage a double win in the total picture to which I am trying to get. We make savings on people who should not claim because they are working and use those savings to provide extra activation places on training or work schemes, according to people's choice, or a combination of both, for those who are genuinely unemployed and who are fed up being at home with nothing to do and no money.
We are putting together a jigsaw. I can understand a misread if parts of the jigsaw are taken in isolation but I hope people see when the whole jigsaw is put together there is a clear policy of activation and using savings from one side which can be created by dealing with the issue of fraud whereby people are working and drawing benefits and moving to a situation whereby many people have the opportunity to avail of a little extra income and to contribute to society.
The issue of fraud is trickier. It is an historic issue. A very valid question was raised by Deputy Catherine Byrne. On the manner in which means testing operates, it is very severe on couples. When one member of a couple, which is in receipt of one income, becomes unemployed and jobseeker's benefit is finished he or she is assessed on the other partner's income. That creates problems. On the situation which we have discussed and will discuss again, the means testing for one parent families is much more benign and there is no way one can be assessed for a partner's income because, by definition, there is no partner. There is also the question of cohabitation being a grey area.
In an ideal world, I would like to be where the late Séamus Brennan wanted to go, namely, individual payments and so on. The system sometimes plays away from us. How do we get from where we are to where we would like to be in a time of fiscal challenge? One idea I have is, rather than changing the jobseeker's allowance means test, we revert to activation schemes and opportunities for work and have a more benign regime in that context once people are given the time. If people provide work for which one is paying, at least there is some return for the work.
On a point of order, are we meeting next week?
Yes.
Could we deal with this in two ways? Could we agree the Estimate and have another debate on all the other issues raised?
Is there an urgency about doing that?
I understood we would agree the Estimate.
What is the situation? The Chairman has already indicated there was no urgency about this and it was somehow the fault of the secretariat.
We can do it next week. We can live within that timeframe. If the Deputy wants to defer it due to the Bill which will come before the House next week and the two following weeks, it would be better to agree the Estimate and we can then take it at a date to be agreed by the committee. I will accommodate the committee in any way I can. I will return when the committee is not under pressure.
Is it agreed that we will return for a debate next week?
We will see at that point if we are prepared to agree the Estimate.
Is the Estimate agreed?
No, that is not what we are saying. We will adjourn this meeting and reconvene next week. When the debate is over we will consider whether we will agree the Estimate.
The only disadvantage is that it forces us to return next week at a time when people might be trying to take time to prepare for Committee Stage of the Bill, whereas if we could agree the Estimate now we could return in a situation where we are not under pressure.
It is agreed that we will come back.
I am not prepared to agree the Estimate when I have not gotten a single answer to the questions I asked.
We will answer them all.
That is why I said at the start this is no way to do business.
We have received answers to every single one.
If we do not agree the Estimate today we will have to reconvene next week. Is that agreed?
We will meet next week.
I thank the Minister and his officials for coming before the committee.
The select committee adjourned at 3.55 p.m. until 10.15 a.m. on Thursday, 24 June 2010.