On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister and his officials. We are meeting to resume consideration of the 2010 further Revised Estimates, Vote 38. The Minister will resume his response to Deputy Shortall's questions as we agreed on 16 June and he will then deal with Deputy Crawford's questions. I remind everyone that the meeting should finish at 11 a.m. so we can commence consideration of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010.
Vote 38 — Department of Social Protection (Revised) (Resumed)
The first question Deputy Shortall asked related to the research capacity in the Department of Social Protection and she also asked what effect the transfer of staff to Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs would have. The Family Support Agency, the social inclusion division into which Combat Poverty Agency has been subsumed, and responsibility for family policy, including some 19 and a half staff in total, have transferred to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. That 19 and a half staff do not include the Family Support Agency, which transferred as an agency, lock, stock and barrel.
In my Department we still have three assistant secretaries, eight principal officers and 19 assistant principal officers and their associated staff in the planning division of the Department. We have lost 18 and a half staff, who transferred with the social inclusion division, and one person from the planning division. There is no reason we should require any extra outside consultancy work. First, we have virtually got all our planning staff intact. Second, we would have access, where required, to any information from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Most Departments do not like to lose sections. I was strongly in favour of the family resource centres, the community development projects, the partnership programmes and so on all being located in one Department. I am also strongly in favour of the equality function, particularly provision for the Traveller community, all being located in one Department, namely, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. That is rational and it should not affect the running of the Department in any way.
The Minister referred to the planning section, and having experienced people in planning. What about social research specifically, and are there people with research expertise left within his Department?
We have lost one person from the planning division, the rest of those people were in the social inclusion unit. We have access to research. A good deal of research, including social research, is carried out in universities throughout the country and in the ESRI. Many people are engaged in research. From my experience in the Department, one has to distil research findings into possible policy implementation. It is one thing to get the information and another thing to draw up policies that are implementable that use research as their basis.
I am not sure I accept that. I am just asking the Minister if he has any research capacity within his Department now?
We have one economist, one senior statistician, one statistician and various other qualified people. In terms of schemes, backgrounds to schemes and back-up, I am impressed with the information I have been given in the Department. Before I came to this Department, I focused on the translation of raw research into operable schemes. Everything in my new Department has to operate in the context of a scheme.
I will ask the Minister the question just one more time. Does he have any researchers in his Department?
I do not know if we have any researchers as such. We have one economist and one senior statistician but I find that when I need research information, there are plenty of research agencies throughout this State that can give me any amount of social research.
I am not arguing about any of that. I asked the Minister a straightforward question.
No, not to my knowledge.
The Minister does not have any researcher in his Department.
I am a bit of a researcher myself.
The Minister is not a researcher.
I can do research. We can all do research. We all get ideas. I go to places like Fettercairn and I do research by finding out what people have to say to me. I know it might be a bit——
This line of questioning is going down a cul-de-sac.
To my knowledge, we do not have——
I asked the Minister a perfectly straightforward question. Does he have research capacity within his Department? Has he any researchers?
People who do just full-time research?
Does the Minister have any researchers, professional researchers?
There are people with a master's degree in public administration in the Department, but I do not know whether the Deputy would consider those people researchers.
No, they are not.
Okay. Well then, we do not have researchers.
Thank you, Minister. That was the question I asked.
The Deputy's view of how she would run a Department and my view on that would be slightly different.
I did not express any view on how the Minister should run a Department; I asked him a straightforward question to which I just wanted a straight answer.
I am interested in academic research but I often find that academic research does not provide the required translation into practical action. As a politician, I support the need for research, but we all enter politics on the basis that we have views we want to implement. We try to get background research to validate those views but I did not stand for political election to go into a Department and not try to implement the policies I thought were right. I get a good deal of information from talking to people and some of that information runs contrary to academic theory. However, such academic theory changes dramatically over time in that it goes this way one time and that way another other time. It is important to do what one believes is right at the end of the day and I will stand over the decisions I make. I believe in meeting people working at the coalface because they often give me very practical hands-on information, which at times is contrary to the theories of researchers, with many of whom I would not agree.
The Deputy asked a question about the transfer of the FÁS functions. Policy responsibility for the employment services and community services of FÁS is being transferred from the Minister for Education and Skills. FÁS will continue to provide these services but will do so under the auspices of my Department. This is a matter related to the Bill that we will discuss later today.
In respect of the FÁS staff who are not currently civil servants, how will this arrangement operate? Will they be on secondment from FÁS or what will be the administrative arrangement in respect of the status of those workers?
My understanding is that we will make a service level agreement with FÁS. It will be somewhat equivalent to the Department whose administration lies with the Minister of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs. After the summer recess we will bring forward further legislative proposals to enable the full transfer of FÁS's employment and community services to my Department and the integration of related FÁS staffing and other administrative resources. In the meantime, however, there is no major difficulty in running it as an agency answerable to my Department for certain services.
Will the people in those sections that come within the remit of the Minister's Department physically move from their offices? The Minister will be aware of the idea about which we have spoken at length at this committee, namely, that social welfare offices should become a one-stop-shop for people who are unemployed.
Yes.
Will FÁS staff now be located within social welfare offices?
It will not happen overnight.
No, I did not ask if it would happen overnight. Is that the intention?
Yes, that is the idea in the future.
Has that been agreed with those staff?
No. We have set it as a policy objective and then we have to get agreements along the line. The Croke Park agreement has now been agreed. We know the Labour Party had no view on that, but we had a very strong view on it, namely, that we needed the flexibilities provided for to bring about change. Within the terms of the Croke Park agreement, we will deal with the staff of FÁS to bring about these changes, but that will take time, negotiation and agreement. However, one has to know where one is going before one starts the negotiation in this respect.
I wish to make a few points as a member of the committee. First, I do not believe it is very wise for people to engage in mud-slinging. If the Minister wants to start scoring political points, I am quite happy to get involved in that, if that is the way he wants to play it, but I do not believe it is very productive from the point of view of discussing the issues that have arisen in relation to the Estimates. I would ask the Minister to desist from making comments like the one he made a few moments ago. Second, we have very limited time available and many questions were asked last week to which we are still awaiting answers. Perhaps we could keep the discussion a little tighter.
We might let the Minister proceed and then if members have comments, we will take them when he has finished.
The Minister should be allowed speak in the same manner as any Dáil Deputy is allowed to speak. He should not be subject to any criticism for the fact that he has spoken on a certain issue at any stage.
The Chair is certainly not restricting the Minister.
Thank you, Chairman.
If that is the way he wants to play it, I will do that.
The Deputy said he should not say that. We can all give our views on issues in this forum and in the Oireachtas.
I said that if he wants to score political points, we will do that.
The Deputy is not slow to make her point and I am entitled to make my point. It is a political chamber.
I remind members that we have half an hour. The Minister has to deal with questions from Deputies Róisín Shortall, Joe Carey, Catherine Byrne and Seymour Crawford.
Questions were asked about activation by Deputies Shortall, Carey and Byrne. I very much agree with what the Deputies said regarding the need to activate people and give them an opportunity to work. We will discuss this matter in the context of the Bill later today. We should examine the total pot of money when combining the money for social welfare and the money for activation. It is nearly €5 billion, that is €4.3 billion as well as approximately €0.5 billion. Where the challenge arises is that people on schemes cost more than people on social welfare, so one must make up the difference. There are obviously budgetary constraints but I am confident that I will be able to arrive at a way of giving many more people a chance to go on schemes and be active and provide the community services we need. That is very relevant in the context of the Bill. We should be able to examine this total pot of money and get much better use of it from the perspective of services to the community and from the perspective of the unemployed who every day beat down doors seeking work.
When does the Minister envisage that happening? When will participants be able to join the workforce in community employment schemes? Will there be new community employment schemes or will there be new places on them so it will be a win-win situation for the community and the person participating in the proposed scheme?
We are transferring the powers of the community services programme and the rural social scheme to the Department. The FÁS aspect is a two-step legislative process. It is slightly more complicated because it is a separate agency. Presuming the Oireachtas approves the Bill, by mid-July I hope to have total integration within the Department of the community services programme and the rural social scheme. I will then examine if it is necessary to tweak the rules of the schemes to make them open to a wider group of people. Having them in the Department with a much wider remit, I can do that.
In the first stage, it would probably be easier to increase the numbers in those schemes than on FÁS schemes, where there are more complications relating to budgetary issues, structures and so forth. In terms of the community services programme, there were a number of projects that I believe, from when I was in the Department previously, we can get going fairly quickly. In the case of the rural social scheme, I know there are waiting lists, and all of the Leader companies have said time and again that they could take on more people. What I must examine in the rural social scheme is whether I should extend it to include people other than farmers. We also notice, and Deputies Crawford and Joe Carey will be familiar with this, that many farmers who were working in construction or paid employment went on to jobseeker's benefit. When that runs out they go on to farm assist, so a great deal of the increase in the farm assist relates to lack of employment even though it is not considered to refer to the live register. We also have a much wider group of people so I will examine how I can proceed as quickly as possible.
Would the Minister change the eligibility criteria as well? One must wait for a year to be eligible for a community employment, CE, scheme. One must be in receipt of a payment. Could the Minister envisage a situation where one would not have to wait for that period but could be automatically eligible and able to work? That is stifling the system. People who wish to make a contribution cannot do so, and there is utter frustration with that.
There are a number of issues involved, and we can also tease them out later today. Approximately 60% of unemployed people become re-employed within three months. After that, it comes down very rapidly. In others words, let us say 100 people sign on. It is down to approximately 40% after three or four months. Then the rate of decrease slows down dramatically. That is where we should focus the gate. In other words, we should target people that cross-over between jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's allowance to get them activated. That is a good time to do it, for a number of reasons. One is that one is not picking up people who will get commercial employment anyway, which is the majority in the first three months. Second, one is halting the slide into long-term unemployment and, third, one knows the people's means so one is targeting it at those with low income, which is very important as well. With jobseeker's benefit, because it is a benefit, one has no knowledge of the family's income.
I presume the figures quoted by the Minister are not up to date. One could see how 60% would be back in employment within three months in a situation where there are jobs available. In the current climate, however, those figures certainly would not apply.
They do.
From when do they date?
From the present. There is a huge turnover. I get a print-out every week of who comes off and who goes on. Obviously, when talking about people leaving, one must take into account that people go from jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's allowance so one must watch the figures carefully. However, the statistics I am given are that 60% get re-employed within three months.
Are 60% of unemployed people being re-employed currently?
Yes. In October 2009 and March 2010, 70,000 people left the live register for work. There is a huge churn all the time.
I appreciate that. I just would not have thought it was that high in the present climate. With regard to the community employment and rural social schemes, is it the intention to merge them or will the Minister keep them as two distinct schemes?
My thought process is in the very early stages at present. First, the important issue is to start giving people an opportunity to move fast, so I will not waste months and years changing structures first. I will change the structure as we move. There are four schemes. One, the job initiative, is a small scheme. The rural social scheme is confined to farmers at present, and we will have to consider changing that. There is an historical reason for that but when historical reasons become irrelevant, one should move on.
The community services programme is a very interesting programme in that it is based on semi-economic projects, that is, projects with an income. That is different from the rural social scheme, for example, or community employment, where one does not expect the project to have an income. It is ideal for halls, heritage centres and the like. Even some of the sports clubs now have quite an income, but they still would be unable to pay full wages. It is a very efficient model in terms of cost. One pays the minimum wage to the employer but the employer can pay whatever wage he or she wishes, so long as he or she at least pays the minimum. However, employers can pay more, for example, to somebody who comes into work on Sunday. They have much flexibility.
My thinking is that CE, which is a training scheme, would be for the first two years. One would go on to that scheme and there would be a good training model. On finishing the training phase, if one was unlikely to get commercial employment we would consider putting the person on a work scheme. The focus would be work. The person would be in a job, be it in the rural social scheme or rural and urban social scheme, or whatever we might call it, or the community services programme. Fundamentally, it would be a job where the training would be necessary for the job. There would obviously be health and safety training. One would train somebody because an extra qualification in the job they are doing would be of benefit to the employer and the employee. However, it would not be a training scheme, which is what CE is meant to be. There would be a type of graduation from training schemes to work schemes over time.
Having spoken to long-term participants in the scheme, a fair number of them appear to desire to graduate from the eternal training to what they would consider to be more of a job. When I set up the rural social scheme, it was highly significant that some of its participants did not wish to go on a training scheme because they correctly considered themselves to be highly skilled. Basically, what they wanted was a job and knowing of their high skills and ability, I decided that this was what they should be given. Certainly, one of the scheme's attractions was that there was a job option, rather than a training option.
Consequently, I do not envisage a total amalgamation. If I reconfigure it, there is a difference between a training scheme and a jobs scheme.
What overall number does the Minister envisage on the various schemes?
I cannot answer that question at this stage as obviously it is subject to budgetary negotiations. However, unemployment probably is the biggest challenge we face, given that all sorts of issues arise therefrom, including income, mortgage and money problems.
What number of places on the schemes does the current budget allow for this year?
There are approximately 25,000, on community employment, 2,600 on the rural social schemes, about 2,700 on the community services programme and about 1,800 on the jobs initiative scheme. While these are rough figures, we are talking about approximately 30,000 places.
I note that approximately 30,000 is the current number. Does this mean the Minister does not envisage any increase in numbers this year?
I do. That is what I am working towards.
What increase in numbers would the budget allow?
I must consider that and must negotiate it with the Department of Finance. Opportunities will emerge as we begin to work systematically through the system. For example, we could initiate a second round of the national employment action programme. At present, this normally is done after three or four months but it could be repeated after 12 months. Those who remained unemployed could then be told that the Department would help them to get a commercial job or into education and training and failing all that, will offer them a position on the scheme.
As always happens when one follows such a process, a certain number of people would disappear and savings would be achieved. Unfortunately, there is a small number of people who simultaneously work and draw social welfare benefits. Certainly, the Department receives anecdotal evidence of this, particularly pertaining to the self-employed sector, to the effect that people are doing house repairs or installing back kitchens. Members are familiar with the stories. Obviously, it will be good if the Department has a way of nailing such people because any savings made will be used to create more jobs in activation programmes. I am not obliged to come up with the entire cost of this. If the Department, on average, pays €12,000 to unemployed people and if the cost of putting someone on a scheme is €20,000, the challenge is to find the difference of €8,000 and not the €12,000 which is available anyway.
However, one also must consider the work they are doing and the contribution they are making to society and to their communities. Whatever form this scheme——
I agree with the Deputy and this is the reason I put great emphasis internally on work schemes, rather than on training schemes. When the emphasis is placed on training schemes, it can be an excuse for people to believe the participants on such schemes are not really working. However, in the case of work schemes, it is more clear that there is a product. Were community employment schemes, rural social schemes and the community services programme to be closed down tomorrow, there would be utter shock as the volume of basic services provided nationwide by such schemes, including tidy towns programmes, child care, care of the elderly, heritage centres and community centres, became evident. A huge volume of work is being willingly done under the auspices of such schemes, with great attachment to that work. While I set great value on this, ultimately, I also must balance my books at the end of the year. In other words, members vote me a certain amount of money, or at least I hope they will do so, and I must live within that Estimate.
The question to which I seek an answer is whether a new scheme will be created for the benefit of communities nationwide that are screaming for one and whether new places will be created for those who want to make a contribution. How many such places will be created and has enough money been provided to do so in this Vote?
I hope there will be additional places. I cannot tell the Deputy how many there will be today because I must go through a process and do not even have the transferred powers yet. However, I already am working on that issue in anticipation that the Oireachtas will approve the Bill. I agree it will be no good unless additional places are made available. I hope to move forward with a process whereby some of the additional costs will be met by separating those who genuinely are seeking work from those who are not and that the rest of the costs will be found through savings within my Department. While these issues obviously must be sorted out with the Department of Finance, I am confident I will be advertise additional places.
In addition, my experience is that even were X number of places to be made available tomorrow and were the Department to notify all the different sponsors, the ramp-up sometimes would be surprisingly slow. For example, after the establishment of the rural social scheme, it took approximately two and a half years to reach the figure of 2,600, although the numbers shot up at the end. Consequently, I hope to move on that issue in July. I intend to take the schemes as they are and to perform the minimum of tweaking on the schemes that can be done rapidly and then to start to move forward to get people off social welfare. That is what most people want, if I can do that fast. Thereafter, I can reform the schemes as I go along on a continuous basis.
My end game is that the job initiative scheme probably fits in somewhere between a work scheme and the communities services programme. We do not need four different schemes. I acknowledge that I must protect the rates of pay and the status of the existing job initiative scheme. However, I am uncertain whether four supervisors are required in every parish. Given that people are working in the same centres, a certain degree of rationalisation is required. However, I wish to rationalise in a way that reassures participants and so on. At present, however, if one leaves a job initiative scheme, one is not replaced. While I am only thinking this through now, I envisage that while one is participating in a job initiative scheme, the commitment to having one's place there is to be honoured. However, if one leaves, one might be replaced by someone participating in one of the other three schemes.
To clarify, the Minister has stated that his Department's current allocation allows him to continue with the 32,000 scheme places that are available at present.
Yes, if I get the Vote.
Moreover, as of now, no additional funding has been provided for additional places. That appears to be what the Minister is saying.
No, while I intend to create additional places within this calendar year, I must go through a process.
Yes, but no specific funding has been provided for that.
As the Deputy is aware, funding has been provided for community employment, the rural social scheme, the community service programme and so on, which will be made available to me. I then must figure out how much of that funding is spent. I must consider this in the context of the Department's total Vote. However, if one wishes to move money from one subhead to another, in other words if one finds savings and wishes to move money, one must get permission from the Department of Finance. Consequently, I must go through processes that I cannot pre-empt. Obviously however, my preference would be to create more places.
I appreciate that and I believe that all members would like to see this. However, I wish to clarify that no funding has been specified within the Minister's Vote for additional places.
No, there has not. I believe 500 additional places were allocated in FÁS, the community employment schemes or something but I am more ambitious than that.
The Minister stated that it was his intention to make savings and to redirect that money into additional places and schemes. Will the Minister be obliged to get the specific approval of the Department of Finance to so do or has he received it in advance?
No, I will be obliged to get such approval from the Department of Finance.
From where does the Minister envisage these main savings coming?
They will arise wherever they arise as the year goes on. As my Department's schemes are demand-led, I cannot state with certainty that I will save money here or there, because I cannot control the number of people who apply.
Where does the Minister envisage such savings?
By the end of this month, on receipt of the half yearly returns, the Department will have a good idea as to where possible savings might be made. Thereafter, obviously, I must convince the Department of Finance that this would work by the end of the year. I intend to work through that process. Moreover, I used to do this regularly in my previous Department.
The Minister appears to be stating that it is unlikely there will be any additional places on any of the schemes before the end of the year.
No, I have stated categorically that I intend to try to create additional places on schemes before the end of the year.
However, the Minister does not know where the money will come from.
I will work that out.
I am loath to interrupt except to note the time now is 10.50 a.m. We agreed to conclude this meeting at 11 a.m., which is ten minutes away. I am sorry for interrupting but I gently want to remind the committee of that.
Deputy Catherine Byrne raised a question on the thousands of apartments in the inner city. It is fair to say the transfer to the rental accommodation scheme was slow, and particularly slow in the beginning, but latest figures from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government show that a total of 27,240 transfers from rent supplement to local authorities have occurred since 2005 — 14,833 rent supplement recipients to RAS and a further 12,000 to other social housing options. It is important the transfer is expedited.
In addition, in consultation with the Department, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has approved a number of pilot programmes in different local authorities to increase the flow of transfers. These include allowing applicants for RAS to seek out their own properties which, subject to compliance with normal conditions and the agreement of the landlord, may be taken into the leasing programme.
One of the attractions of the RAS is it stops social segregation. One is not segregating all of the people into social housing in certain parts of the city.
Deputy Shortall asked a question about mortgage interest supplement. As she will be aware, there is a group working under Hugh Cooney, and my Department is also involved in a review of mortgage interest supplement. The main purpose of the review is to identify how mortgage interest supplement can best meet its objectives of catering for those who require assistance on a short-term basis where they are unable to meet mortgage interest payments on their sole place of residence. The review has been ongoing and its conclusions and recommendations are being finalised and will inform the interdepartmental mortgage arrears and personal debt review group. There are a number of groups out there.
The review within the Department is 15 months overdue.
That is correct.
It was supposed to issue at Easter of last year.
That is correct.
Meanwhile, people are losing their homes because of the lack of action from the Department.
I agree with Deputy Shortall about its urgency. This matter is being brought to a speedy conclusion.
When does the Minister expect to have the review completed?
The review is being finalised at present and I expect it in the next few weeks. I am certainly pressing for it. I agree with Deputy Shortall. This matter needs to be brought to conclusion. Of course, it also must be done in the context of the interdepartmental mortgage arrears and personal debt review group, and also of the Hugh Cooney group. The Hugh Cooney group was due to report approximately mid-year, and it is approximately mid-year now.
Why does it need to get caught up in all of the other reviews that are going on? There is the specific review that was undertaken in the Department. It is 15 months overdue. It relates to the operation of the scheme. We all know what the big difficulties are with it. The 30 hour rule, for example, is one of the big problems with that. Why can the Minister not deal with that within his Department? The Hugh Cooney group will deal with wider issues. The problem is that now people need help from the Department when they run into difficulties and it is not available to them.
The Hugh Cooney group is due to report approximately now. It seems to me it would be best to provide a comprehensive response to all of this issue. I agree with Deputy Shortall about the urgency. I have discussed it with my officials, who accept it is urgent. I want to see all of this matter brought to conclusion. What I envisage would seem to be much better, as long as it does not delay issues. There is not much point in having set up the Hugh Cooney group and then my Department coming out with independent separate modifications, if we can amalgamate the modifications to give a total picture.
One of the challenges we face is that the person in mortgage arrears is likely also to have other debt problems and when one winkles out of them that they have mortgage arrears, which often is the last one they let slip, one finds they have credit card debts, debts to utilities and debts to finance companies etc. My experience of talking to people with debts — MABS seems to be of the same view — is that one must take the person's total debt issues and try draw up a total debt schedule to deal with them. The mortgage interest supplement is part of that but dealing only with the mortgage part of a person's life might not deal with it.
The problem is that people are getting a blanket refusal from the Department because of the restrictive nature of the scheme. That is why we need to hear about the reform.
I do not want to pre-empt what the Cooney committee will come out with. In talking to the MABS staff, however, they speak of the idea of a total financial plan being a key to resolving debt issues. Many are shy or embarrassed about their debts and until one gets all of the facts, it is difficult to draw up a plan that resolves their debt issues. It is much better to look at this in a holistic fashion.
I agree with Deputy Shortall about the urgency. I certainly will be encouraging at all levels I can — my Department is represented on the Cooney group — that we bring all of this matter to a resolution but it is better to do it in the wider context because the majority of those with mortgage problems also have other debt problems.
When will that process conclude?
They all are due to report in the next few weeks.
Is that this side of the summer break?
I hope so, depending on what one defines as the summer break. If one defines the summer break as the end of July——
Before August.
——I hope so. I cannot be sure but I certainly will be pressing for that. I appreciate the urgency of this issue.
As we must conclude in five minutes, I ask the Minister to deal with Deputy Crawford's questions.
Deputy Crawford asked about the take-up of pensions. The figures, for the year to date, are 9,198 State pension contributory, 4,205 State pension transition and 3,142 non-contributory. There are approximately three times as many so far this year who have been awarded the State pension contributory. If one adds the State pension transition, there is another 4,000. Roughly, it is 9,000, 4,000 and 3,000.
Compared with the 2009 figures, these figures are consistent. In 2009, the figures were 21,000 contributory; 10,000 State pension transition, some of which would be transition going to contributory; and 7,800 non-contributory pensions.
I ask the question because there is much pressure being put on re-evaluation of non-contributory pensions. This causes a great deal of anxiety for older people, and so on. Would it be possible to make a greater effort to ensure that people pay towards and qualify for contributory pensions? The scheme to allow self-employed people to pay contributions was introduced on 5 April 1988. It is strange, therefore, that so many people continue to qualify for non-contributory pensions only.
One of the difficulties — I complained about this for many years and it was eventually changed — is that the approximately 8,000 people on farm assist were not allowed to pay the relevant social welfare contribution until two years ago. These people were not able to claim contributory pensions when they retired because they were in receipt of social welfare payments. The individuals to whom the Deputy refers are those who were on very low incomes and who did not pay contributions for the self-employed. However, the position was eventually changed and people such as those to whom I refer can now make the relevant contribution. One of the reasons the schemes were so attractive for farmers was that under them they could pay the A contribution and were, therefore, entitled to contributory pensions. As the Deputy is aware, that used to be one of the great selling points of these schemes.
Members referred to fuel. A committee is working on that matter and progress must be made in respect of it during the summer months, particularly because an issue of cost arises for people on foot of the carbon levy. I was also asked about the PRSI exemption, a matter in respect of which an announcement was made at the weekend.
There are other issues with which the Minister could not deal as a result of the time constraints. Perhaps he could communicate in writing with the members who raised those issues. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending.