JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Apr 2006

Society of St. Vincent de Paul: Presentation.

Chairman

On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the delegation from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Professor John Monaghan, chair of the social justice committee; Mr. John Mark McCafferty, head of social justice and policy; and Ms Audry Deane, social justice and policy officer. Ms Deane also serves on a number of committees which impinge on the work of this committee.

The witnesses will be aware of the following advisory statement, which I am obliged to repeat. Committee members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses of the Oireachtas or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members who wish to make a declaration regarding any matter being discussed may do so now or at the beginning of their contributions. Members are also reminded that if the possibility arises of a conflict of interest, they should make a declaration of interest either now or at the start of their contributions. I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the joint committee. While it is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, the committee is not in a position to guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. I do not expect that such difficulties will arise from the important matters which the delegation from the St. Vincent de Paul Society will address.

I call Professor Monaghan to commence his presentation.

Professor John Monaghan

The committee kindly invited us to address it last year and we are delighted to return this year. We intend to discuss the last budget and our response to it. If the opportunity presents itself, we would also like to comment on the recent publication of the ESRI report on measuring consistent poverty and the assertion by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs that relative poverty is not an important measure, an opinion which we do not share. These matters have a definite impact on the families we support.

In broad terms, we welcomed budget 2006 and were delighted to see the introduction of many of the measures we sought. However, we continue to be concerned about a number of matters. If that was not the case, we would probably have no reason to attend this committee. The areas which remain of concern to us are outlined in the leaflet circulated among members. In case members suspect that our printers did a bad job, the fuzzy section on the front page of the leaflet which notes that more focus is needed to end poverty was deliberately inserted. We commend the Minister on granting the increases we sought in the adult social welfare rates and in both contributory and non-contributory pensions.

Mr. McCafferty will discuss child related payments, I will discuss other income related payments and Ms Deane will address issues of education and health. We would welcome interjections from members.

Mr. John Mark McCafferty

I would like to address the issue of child and family income supports. While Professor Monaghan gave a broad welcome to the budget's provisions on adult income supports, it is clear that it did not provide adequately for child income supports and that is a concern for us. With regard to the key payments and supports, there have been gains and successes but we also want to outline some of the deficiencies.

While we note that child benefits reached the €150 and €185 targets, this is slightly different from our interpretation of the initial draft of the child benefit programme. The targets should have been reached in budget 2003 but a change was made in the timeframe for reaching the monetary figures over the course of Sustaining Progress and budgets 2004 and 2005. Unfortunately, we are only now meeting the monetary target, which means that the payments have lost value over a period of three years. While we acknowledge the significant increases made in child benefit payments in recent years, we do not believe that the commitment was honoured according to the manner in which it was initially presented.

While we acknowledge that the issue of child benefits for asylum families is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the direct provision scheme, the joint committee should note that child benefit is a Department of Social and Family affairs payment for the welfare of a very vulnerable group of people, namely, the children of families in direct provision. Since the establishment of the HRC, those families have not been entitled to child benefit if a child was born or arrived in the State after May 2004. That and the fact that direct payments have been frozen since before 2000 are key concerns for us. The amounts available prior to 1999 were very small and designed only to assist families in modest social interactions but their value has significantly diminished in real terms in the years since. Though it does not appear in the précis presented to the committee today it appears in other analyses of ours.

Child dependant allowance is given to families where the head of the household is in receipt of a social welfare payment, usually unemployment benefit. It has been frozen for the 11th successive year. This is the only child-related payment to target families on social welfare yet its value has been eroded consistently over the past 11 years. We expected an interim arrangement in budget 2006 to bridge the gap between that payment and the second tier child income support discussed by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, and deliberated on in several policy fora. We were disappointed that there were no changes to CDA payments in budget 2006 because it was a good opportunity to develop the payment or provide for something as an interim measure. The allowance will continue to lose value, which emphasises the urgency with which the development of a second tier child payment presents itself, especially for the families we assist.

A second tier payment for all low income families, regardless of whether they are social welfare recipients or in work, is a very important measure in that it supports adults with children in entering the labour market and staying there. It does not act as a disincentive because both categories of family between the welfare and work divide can be in receipt of such a payment. We acknowledge that such things cannot happen overnight and require a level of deliberation and co-operation, which is especially necessary between the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners to ascertain the best way to roll out a new payment of this kind.

The family income supplement, FIS, is a related payment and we welcome a number of recent developments in that regard. It was increased for larger families in particular because, as Professor Monaghan mentioned, according to the ESRI report on consistent poverty, one of the groups that continue to experience consistent poverty are large families with four or more children. We welcome as a positive development the fact that family income supplement, judging by how it is now calculated and by the limits that are used, gives more money to larger families. We also publicly welcomed the recent promotion of the family income supplement payment in the national media, both written and broadcast. That promotion should be ongoing, not just a one-off, and we have advocated that in successive budgets.

While FIS is a very important and worthy payment to support low income families in work there are still problems. A second tier payment would address those problems more adequately. Families headed by adults who work less than 19 hours per week are not eligible to claim. Low income families where the head of the household is self-employed are not eligible for FIS. Also, employees wishing to claim must tell their boss that they are eligible for the payment on account of their pay being so low, necessitating a State supplement. Not many bosses are keen to hear that.

Many people do not apply for the supplement. As it is not automatic like child benefit, a person must know of it and how to go about applying for it. Like many State supports it is not transparent or straightforward to apply for. While we welcome its promotion and the increases, especially for larger families, FIS sets some fundamental challenges which a new second tier payment for children in low income families would resolve.

Under the area of child and family supports I draw the joint committee's attention to the early child care supplement. That increases the support for families across the board and was not available before budget 2006. However, we feel it is a missed opportunity because it is not very large — only €20 per week — and is targeted according to age, not need. The beauty of the second tier payment is that it is targeted according to need — according to the income of the family. It does not cater for those high income families with a certain number of children under the age of six. While we acknowledge the need for supports to facilitate payment for child care, that is a much bigger issue where there are issues of supply, with which Ms Audry Deane will deal.

Professor Monaghan

Family income supplement is extremely important for several reasons. We have become aware of the fact, pointed out in the ESRI report, that an increasing proportion of people falling into poverty are those in work on low pay. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, has quite correctly indicated that a significant number of people have moved from welfare to work. He says the figure is 250,000 and we will not argue with that. It is a welcome development but such people are still struggling and we must make sure they receive money because there is a great danger they will slip back and none of us wants that to happen. As Mr. McCafferty said, it is crucial that the advertising campaign continues. It is even more important that the application process is shortened because it is crazy at the moment.

On extra child care support, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul draws a significant distinction between child care and early childhood education. They are not the same and the way the payments were made caused great difficulty. The payments of €20 per week, €250 per quarter or €1,000 per annum might seem quite substantial. It is right to suggest that it is a significant amount of money to a family living on €185 per week, but it falls a long way short of paying for child care or education. Workers who have been paying €4,000 or €5,000 of their taxed incomes on child care each year will have to earn €2,000, in effect, to get €1,000 of their overall incomes back. The payment is of some benefit in such circumstances. The society does not feel that the payment is sufficiently targeted or is large enough. The real difficulty with it is that it will do nothing to help the families with which the society deals — lone parent families and low social welfare income families — to move from social welfare to work. That is certainly a problem.

Before I speak about some secondary benefits, I would like to give the committee an indication of the moneys spent by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul last year. I am sure some of the members are familiar with these details. The society, which is a voluntary organisation, raised and spent €34 million last year. It spent €7 million on helping people to pay their bills, which is an issue to which I will refer again in the context of the suggestion in the ESRI report that indebtedness is not a problem. The society spent €4 million on food, which is a form of expenditure that is not necessarily included in our calculations in the same way as it was in the past. It spent more than €1 million on helping people to replace their furniture. It spent almost €2.8 million on helping people to pay for heating and electricity costs. It spent more than €3 million, or €500,000 more than the previous year, on tackling educational disadvantage. I have mentioned some of the areas in which the society spent money over the past year, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, to put the rest of my remarks in context. Some big problems need to be solved.

I would like to speak about the other income-related payments which are part and parcel of the social welfare package and the whole budgetary package, some of which might not necessarily appear to be within the remit of this committee. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul believes that such matters should be considered by the committee, however. In its pre-budget submission, the society asked for increases in fuel allowances. It sounds fantastic to point out that the increase that was made, of €5 per week to €14, represents an increase of 55%. It should be borne in mind, however, that percentages are just fractions — a huge fraction of a little number is still a little number. While the increase of €5 per week is welcome, it represents less than a quarter of the price of a cylinder of gas. It will allow one to buy a new cylinder of gas just once a month. Before I came to this meeting, I received a telephone call from one of my colleagues, who had been in contact with representatives of the society based not far from Leinster House. They had said that 70% of the families they visit are in arrears to the gas company because of the extent of their gas and heating bills. Fuel poverty, which is a huge problem, will loom larger as time goes by. We are all aware that there have been huge increases in fuel costs over the past year. While we welcome the increases provided for, they fall far short of the increases needed.

It may seem strange that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is concerned about the bereavement grant, but it can be of significant benefit to people living in disadvantaged areas when funerals arise suddenly. We do not have to go too far from here to locate many of the areas to which I refer. Young people often die suddenly in such areas following drug overdoses or car accidents, for example, and their families are expected to bury them quite quickly. Many graveyards in Dublin and throughout the rest of the country expect significant down payments. Problems can arise when families on social welfare, which survive on low incomes, are asked to pay €1,000 up front. I suggest that the bereavement grant of €635, which has not been increased since 2000, should be the subject of considerable attention.

It is right that we are all worried about the environment. I refer in particular to waste management problems, such as ensuring that waste is deposited as it should be rather than inappropriately dumped where it should not be dumped. It used to be the case that a person on social welfare could apply for a waiver from waste charges. The recent move to privatise waste collection, like many other things, has led to waivers not being accepted by private companies in many areas throughout the country. It is crazy that in certain parishes, the waste on one side of the road is collected by a company that accepts waivers while the waste on the other side of the road is collected by a company that does not accept them. That anomaly clearly needs to be tackled because it affects the families with which the society deals and leads to the problem of people dumping stuff where they should not dump it because they cannot afford to pay to have their waste collected. Many of the people whom we have moved from welfare to work and now have low incomes qualify for nothing, in effect, because they are just above the low thresholds which are applied to benefits like rent supplement, medical cards, waivers for waste collection and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. They have to meet the huge increases in waste charges, the cost of electricity and transport charges, etc. The society, which makes 300,000 visits to its 9,000 members every year, has noticed that the number of people in the group which qualifies for nothing and pays for everything is increasing.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has raised the issue of secondary benefits with the Minister and will do so again when it meets him shortly. One of the biggest problems faced by the society relates to such benefits, which are crucial for many of the families with which it deals. The society recognises that such benefits can constitute poverty traps by virtue of the manner in which they are arrived at and administered. The answer is not to discontinue such benefits on the basis that people should not be given them because they constitute poverty traps, as that would be like saying that people should not be given too much food in case they look for more. We need to find a sensible way of handling matters of this nature. It is very difficult for a lone parent who receives rent supplement of €800 or €900 per month, because his or her rent is more than €1,000 per month, to take a job in the local supermarket in case it puts the rent supplement payments in danger.

The members of the joint committee might think the circumstances of such a case are not their problem, but they should be concerned. The State issues rent supplement payments of €375 million per annum because it is not building enough social housing. While social housing might not be part of this committee's remit, the knock-on effect of the State's failures in that regard certainly is. The committee should consider that much of the €375 million spent on rent supplement each year is paid to private landlords for pretty terrible accommodation. Some prosecutions were taken last year on foot of concerns about the standard of accommodation. The representatives of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, who have travelled around the country to visit the people in question, know that a great deal of money is being spent on substandard accommodation.

The problems with secondary benefits like the back to school clothing and footwear allowance and medical cards, which are needed by poorer families if they are to live properly, should be addressed by society and the Members of the Oireachtas, in particular. We need to manage the manner in which such benefits taper off when people find work. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is keen to see that people are helped to move from welfare to work. Helping people to move from reliance on the society and the State to self-sufficiency is one of the tenets of the organisation, along with offering friendship and support. The society accepts the argument that getting a job is probably one of the better ways to get out of poverty, but it is not the only way. Many people have no option other than to receive State benefits. The society also has a duty to do what it can for social justice, which is what it is trying to do today. It is a huge issue for us.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul welcomes the relaxation in the back to work and enterprise allowances. It is nice that the length of time for which people have to sit on the live register before they can become eligible for these schemes has been reduced. The society encourages the Minister to continue to make progress in that regard. Nobody will benefit if people who are able and willing to work continue to sit on the live register. It is particularly important that such people are helped to contribute to their communities and families. While the society welcomes the changes made, a considerable amount remains to be done. I ask Ms Deane to speak about the supply of child care, unless members would like to ask me some questions first.

Chairman

Perhaps Ms Deane should contribute at this point.

Ms Audry Deane

I will speak about the corrosive impact of not being able to afford to keep one's children in school, or educational disadvantage as it is called in politically correct jargon — even using that language creates a disconnection, the reality of which people in this room are aware of. If one cannot afford to get one's children into school, to buy them the books they need, to pay for additional educational services, such as after-school leisure activities, and to get them their uniforms, they will not stay in the education system until the end of the junior certificate cycle and they will not be eligible for third level education later in their lives. That is the reality for up to 30% of pupils in an increasingly sophisticated labour market and the knowledge based economy about which we love to tell everybody. Someone from a disadvantaged community has a one in three change of starting his or her adult life illiterate. Being illiterate means one cannot read bills or text. For a child, it means he or she cannot keep up in school, that he or she will disengage and that his or her life path is staring him or her in the face, namely, underachievement in a dead end job with no hope of participating in society. Our 9,000 members are well aware that all families want to do the best for their children but it has been said to many of them that September is the time of year they dread most, even more than Christmas, because of the strain put on families on low incomes or State benefits to get their children into school. They cannot do it.

I refer to the education measures included in the budget. The back to school clothing and footwear allowance was increased by €40 for both the under 12s and the over 12s but that is not enough. It takes hundreds of euro to kit out a child for school, whether it is primary or secondary. The current allowance is modest at €120 for a primary school child and €150 for a secondary school child when one adds up the cost of providing football gear, books and uniforms and it must be remembered children grow rapidly. Also, there is a great deal of bullying in schools and if a child is wearing Dunnes Stores runners, it can be very problematic. It all adds up to a constellation of events which make it difficult for children to stay in school, participate and have the necessary outcomes.

The back to school footwear and clothing allowance raises serious questions for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. We welcome the fact that the amount one is entitled to earn before losing the allowance has been increased by €64 for a lone parent and €73 for a couple but why differentiate? We all know that lone parents are more likely to be living in consistent poverty. What is the reason for the difference? Why is the Department making it more difficult? Why is means testing so complicated and challenging? If we are really interested in securing better outcomes for our children in education, we would not create this labyrinthine approach to the means test. We are means tested more than in any other country in Europe. Why is the social welfare system predicated on complicated means testing which results in people's access to various benefits changing? They may also find their benefits are being clawed back, as Professor Monaghan stated, when they move into work, which is what the welfare code should be encouraging them to do. We are unhappy that we have such a climate and that there are different income levels for various cohorts. This is not in the best interests of a good outcome for everybody.

The cost of books presents a huge problem for poor families. North of the Border children can go to school and the books are on their desks. Why is that too much of a big picture for us to envisage for our children? We are aware that the cost of school books is a source of major stress for low income families. The physiological and psychological aspects of stress are well documented. It is known that stress leads to further health inequalities, in respect of which we are aware that there is a steep social gradient, with disadvantaged persons having much poorer health outcomes, mobility and life expectancy. It all adds up. Members might say this is outside the remit of the committee but it is the Government's business to ensure the basic necessities and supports are available for low income households.

The current approach to the provision of school books is less than adequate. Some schools offer book rental schemes; others do not. The findings of our survey conducted in 2003 indicated clearly that the schools which ran book rental schemes did better; children were a little happier and the parents more comfortable but we are aware principals' agendas are very heavy. If a school is not located in a designated area, it may not be at the top of the principal's agenda because he or she has a very busy schedule to be getting on with but this issue is not high enough on the policy agenda. School books should be much more resourced. We acknowledge that DEIS, Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, has identified newly designated schools and that money has been set aside but this part of the equation has not been spoken about sufficiently when it comes to tackling educational disadvantage. A large injection of funding is needed to ensure this key barrier will be removed for low income families. Members may ask what this has to do with the committee. It has a great deal to do with it because if poor children stay in school, they are more likely to break the cycle of disadvantage for themselves and the next generation.

The school meals scheme is an under-resourced part of the social welfare code. The total amount spent on school meals is €10 million. The scheme is riddled with anomalies and there are unusual eligibility issues which have not yet been ironed out. This provision in breaking educational disadvantage should be much more properly resourced. It is often up to the members of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to develop a breakfast programme in a school. The outputs are well known from the point of view of achieving better results. In a review of the school meals scheme a robust school food programme has been recommended but we have not yet seen its delivery. We would be supportive of a much stronger approach to delivering school meals for children in disadvantaged areas.

To refer briefly to Professor Monaghan's point on secondary benefits, we acknowledge that the GP visit only card has increased access to a degree of primary care for poor families but are not convinced that it will make a difference. We are convinced that the medical card scheme must be examined more closely and that the welfare trap it creates when one moves into the world of work must be removed.

Deputy Stanton

I welcome the delegation from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I thank its members for the work they and the society is doing with the marginalised. My experience and that of my colleagues is that we call on the society's members when people are on the edge. When they have nothing else, the society's members are there for them. In that respect they are providing a very important service. I encourage them to continue providing it.

I have a number of questions. The issues committee members discuss among themselves, with many other delegations which come before us and the Minister from time to time were covered well in the submission. Child poverty is an issue about which we are all very concerned. The second tier payment was referred to. My understanding is that it is proposed to amalgamate the child dependant allowance, the family income supplement and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance and that the payment will be targeted. I also understand that part of the difficulty is that child dependant allowance is a social welfare based payment whereas family income supplement is linked to employment. It appears problems have arisen in that regard but I encourage the Minister to bring forward the proposal he has been discussing for some time because it is crucial.

Members of the society are working at the coalface. I want to raise the issue of children as carers and children working. It is a hidden issue about which it is difficult to get figures. The members of the delegation may not be able to give any information to the committee today but is this an issue they have come across? The Carers Association and others have raised it with us, particularly when it comes to education. They tell us that approximately 3,000 children are acting as carers, providing important services for family members who need full-time care and attention. Obviously, if this is happening, the life chances of the children concerned are affected in that when they attend school, they are under stress and may often have to either miss or leave school at times during the day to care for a relative who needs assistance. Also, children under the age of 18 years are not entitled to receive carer's allowance or any other support payment. Is that an issue of which the organisation is aware and one it encounters?

Many figures are given for the number of people in consistent poverty and we have had many debates on what being in consistent poverty means. I would be interested to hear Professor Monaghan's comments on the latest ESRI reports on how we measure poverty. It is important for all of us that we come up with a measure on which we can agree. While the measure of relative income poverty is used across Europe, our Government is interested in sticking with the measure of consistent poverty. Approximately 150,000 children are living in consistent poverty across the State as we speak. Targets were set for the elimination of people living in consistent poverty which are due to be met shortly, but I doubt that they will be.

Representatives of the Combat Poverty Agency attended a meeting of the committee last week and they also spoke about the budget and the impact of indirect taxation on people at the lower end of the income spectrum who experience poverty. Do members of the delegation agree with what those representatives said on this aspect? It is an issue that needs to be examined. It is said that we are a low tax economy, but while it is a low direct taxation economy, in terms of indirect taxes it a relatively high tax one. The tax burden impacts more heavily on people on low incomes because of the level of indirect taxation.

I accept Professor Monaghan's point on the dumping of waste. All of us have seen an increase in the amount of rubbish being dumped. I live in a relatively rural area and I am amazed by the volume of rubbish being dumped. Bags of rubbish are dumped on the roadside, in hedgerows and fields. I do not know whether colleagues have observed a similar pattern of waste disposal in their areas, but I am sure my area is no different from other areas. I was interested to hear Professor Monaghan's view as to the reason for this practice, namely, that people simply cannot afford to pay the waste charges and are opting to take a spin out to the country and throw a bag of rubbish into a field. Nobody seems to be responsible for clearing such waste. If a bag of rubbish is thrown into a field, one will find two or three more bags will be dumped there next week. I have seen computers, beds and all kinds of other items dumped. That is issue with which we need to grapple.

A member of the delegation stressed the increase in the incidence of the working poor. The fact that people are in employment does not mean that they are any better off. If their wages are low and if they are not aware of their entitlement to family income supplement, they may be experiencing poverty with the result that they qualify for nothing and pay for everything. This is an important issue. At Question Time and on other occasions, the Chairman and I have encouraged the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to publicise the criteria for entitlement to the family income supplement. I am glad he decided to do that at last. We must wait to see what impact it will have. However, the fact that people must apply for this benefit is a deterrent. It would be useful if entitlement to it could be linked to people's income that those who would qualify for it would automatically receive it as a top-up payment rather than having to apply for it.

It was pointed out that members of the organisation make 300,000 visits per year but I presume that does not infer they visit 300,000 families. The delegation might indicate the number of families members of the organisation visit, as I am sure many of those visits are probably multiple visits to the same family.

Ms Deane gave us a good account of the impact of education in tackling poverty. As a former teacher I can empathise with what she said and I am aware of the importance of education in breaking the cycle of poverty. It is worrying that some people cannot afford to send children to school. Ms Deane focused on primary and secondary education.

However, I wish to touch on an element that has been raised with me on many occasions, that of third level education. People find — I do not know whether colleagues have also found this to be the case — that processing the grant can take a considerable length of time. An applicant must prove that he or she needs the grant in order to be awarded it. In other words, one's income or the family income must be low for one to qualify for the grant. If there is a anomaly in an applicant's completed application, it is put to the bottom of the list. With all the toing and froing, one may have completed a year of a course before one is awarded the grant.

Does Ms Deane agree that it might be useful for the Department of Social and Family Affairs to take over the administration of the third level grants scheme given that it has much of the documentation and information on many of the applicants who have been awarded the third level grant in any event? It would eliminate a duplication of such work. The staff administering the grants could probably act as agents for the Department. It would eliminate a great deal of duplication in the work because they would already have much of the relevant information.

I agree with what Ms Deane said about the cost of school books. They are very costly. Another aspect is that a chapter or section or a chapter may be changed and a new edition of the book is published. The previous edition is then dumped and students must buy the new edition at a great cost. In many cases publishers have decided to include three years' work in one volume. In such circumstances, if one has a child in first year and another child in third year, the parents must buy two copies of the same book and invariably the book is then changed. I have been calling for many years for this practice to be changed. An unrelated aspect is that the weight of school books also poses a problem. I thank the representatives for their presentation.

Chairman

I will insist in future on members putting questions to members of the delegation as they would elicit more information. I call Professor Monaghan.

Professor Monaghan

I will try to remember and respond in order to all the questions Deputy Stanton asked. On the issue of the difficulty of family income supplement being under the remit of one Department and that of CDA and work related issues being under the remit of another, from our perspective and that of the families who need that income, we do not give a toss about it. Our attitude is that it is a problem in terms of child poverty and families in need, and it needs to be sorted out. In this day and age there is no reason for bureaucratic obstacles to be put in the way of doing that. It is nonsense to make the case that such bureaucracy is a genuine argument. It can be dealt with if people have the goodwill to say there are families in need whether they are in receipt of social welfare benefit or in employment.

Focusing on people in need who are in work is an aspect associated with the financial burden of indirect taxation. Deputy Stanton was correct in identifying that these people are experiencing difficulties. We have tended to shift away from the question of the impact of direct taxation. It is correct that direct taxation is low, but that benefits the likes of the Deputy and I, who are in reasonably good jobs and are able to benefit from the reduced level of tax reduction. If one, however, is on a very low income, the chances are that one pays little, if any, tax but one carries the can for everything else. Inflation has been concentrated in areas such as health, education, transport, fuel costs and waste charges. This situation must be addressed and we need to find a mechanism which will do so.

In terms of the issue of carers, I am not aware of — although we can ask questions about this — children leaving school to care for a vulnerable adult in the home. We have not encountered many instances of that. However, because of the move whereby both parents work, often out of necessity and often at a considerable distance from the home, our members have reported cases of older children minding their younger brothers and sisters. If a young person is in the early stages of secondary school, a consequence of such caring is that it impinges on that young person's ability to do his or her homework and make progress. We are concerned about that.

Deputy Stanton was correct in what he said about third level grants. The position is an ongoing scandal. What is involved is not rocket science. Those concerned know the people involved, the salaries are very low for qualifying families and the Department should be able to address the problem. There is an even bigger anomaly, that of the nonsense between an adjacent and a non-adjacent payment. It means, for example, that if one is 15 km or 15 miles from a college, one will get one payment, but if one is 16 km or 16 miles, one will get another payment. Why can there not be a tapered payment, that takes as a base a certain number of miles and takes account of greater distances? We are not interested in being told that would be too difficult to administer. It is not that problematic. Apart from the bureaucracy involved in delivering the grant, we appear to love provisions in legislation whereby if one has a certain benefit and one's income increases above a certain threshold, one loses it fully or loses steeply. Why can we not have a tapered system? We do not want to be told that we cannot have it because it would be difficult to administer. It should be very easy to address that aspect. I do not know whether the Chairman wants us to talk about the issue of consistent and relative poverty now or later. It is a major issue.

Chairman

Professor Monaghan may address it now if he so wishes.

Professor Monaghan

Members of the committee will be aware that over the past day or so the ESRI has come up with a new way of looking at consistent poverty. We welcome what the ESRI has done in a broad sense. Being consistently poor means having a very low income — less than €200 a week or approximately €10,000 a year. In addition, being consistently poor means suffering from various deprivation indicators such as not having two strong pairs of shoes, not having a meal and various things that most of us in this day and age would consider quite stark. The ESRI has expanded that somewhat to include things that involve participation in society. The ESRI says that if one cannot go out to visit friends one afternoon per fortnight that is an indication that one has a problem. The same applies if a person cannot buy presents, which together with the low income means they are consistently poor. We find this all the time with families who cannot buy Christmas or birthday presents. We welcome the extension of those eight indicators to 11.

Despite a conversation on the Pat Kenny programme this morning with one of the men who wrote the ESRI report, I am still bemused by it. The ESRI took out the idea of saying a person did not have a meal because he or she could not afford it, and that one was in debt. We find that strange because that would certainly characterise 99% of the people we visit. Very often, one visits them and finds the reason they have nothing in the fridge on a Tuesday night is because they have no money. The reason they cannot borrow any more is that they have borrowed as much as they can from friends and neighbours to pay for various bits and pieces. Debt is something we come across every night of the week. Therefore, we are bemused as to why those items were taken out. Apparently there are statistical reasons they were omitted.

Being in debt for normal household expenses depends very much upon the household one is talking about. I am sure Michael O'Leary imagines that his normal expenses would be somewhat different to somebody living in a local authority estate. However, we all understand what is meant by this — it means that one must earn less than €10,000 per annum, have problems paying bills and be in debt because of it.

Yesterday, I was talking to a colleague, Frances Byrne, in OPEN, One Parent Exchange Network, who made a very telling comment. She said, "This is a time of year when many families should be filled with hope and joy because the kids are going to confirmation or communion. It is a happy time but they are not happy. They are in absolute dread. The only people who are happy are the moneylenders." That is a real problem. We cannot understand the notion that consistent poverty can somehow be measured by excluding debt, despite the explanations from our colleagues in the ESRI.

I wish to sort out the numbers. In fairness to the ESRl, it said that about 8% of the population is currently living in consistent poverty. Some 8% of 4 million is 320,000 which is a number to work with. We will not argue whether it is 250,000 or 340,000 but it is still an awful lot of people. It is absolutely unacceptable that in this country, as wealthy as it is, we should even talk about 8% consistent poverty. Neither is it acceptable that the target of eliminating it by next year will not be met. We really have a problem on our hands.

I do not like disagreeing with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, who is a nice man. Nonetheless, I do not accept his comment that relative poverty is not real. Relative poverty is very real. All one has to do is join us some night in visiting people to know what it means. Relative poverty means that people may have more than €200 per week but they cannot afford to pay for school books and dread the idea of a child being invited to a party because they cannot pay for it. Such people certainly cannot contemplate taking the children away on holiday. If a washing machine breaks down such people are in deep trouble because they cannot seek another loan from the credit union. Relative poverty is an important problem. The argument that it does not really matter if one has a street with five millionaires and one person with €250,000 who is relatively poor, is rather facetious. They might be relatively poor if it costs €350,000 for a bottle of milk. In other words, it depends upon the situation in which people are living.

It is said that our standard of living is far better than Latvia's but Irish people are not living there. They are living in Wexford not Warsaw. That is where they send their children to school and must buy school books. They are living in Ringsend not Riga. That is where they are trying to pay for central heating or other expenses. They are living in Sligo not Slovenia. That is where they are trying to put money aside for a small pension or insurance. Relative poverty is very real therefore and we see it every night of the week. The Minister is mistaken if he thinks it is not real. We were concerned about the tone of his comments, although I am sure he did not mean it like that. The tone seemed to suggest that there are really only two states in Ireland — consistent poverty, that we could probably all agree was a terrible thing, and nirvana. The idea was that if one got out in that little bubble it did not matter any longer but, sadly, that is not our experience, although I wish it were. If it were, we could target the problems and solve them.

There is a huge group of people who are in work on low pay. They have been identified in the report. They are the people whom the Minister, Deputy Brennan, proudly comments upon having moved from welfare to work. He is right to be proud of that, as is the Government, but they are the very people who are in real danger of slipping back and who are still not out of the woods. We need to do something about it.

Chairman

I call Deputy Boyle. I ask members to restrict their contributions to questions.

Deputy Boyle

As I am very conscious of catching the 5 p.m. Cork train, I might have to take the answers from the record.

Chairman

Keep it to questions then. I call Deputy Boyle and Deputy Callanan together to help move it on.

Deputy Boyle

The Combat Poverty Agency said that the 2006 budget was probably the first of the eight that is substantially in favour of poorer members of our society. Budget 2005 was slightly in favour of the poor, while budget 2004 was neutral. The first five budgets from 1997 onwards were substantially in favour of the richest members of society. It would be fair to say, therefore, that we are still playing catch up. I would be interested to hear the extent to which the Society of St. Vincent de Paul believes we are still playing catch up.

As regards direct and indirect taxation, more VAT is now collected than income tax. Is any work being done to determine the proportion of income that people are paying in indirect taxes? The proportion of people on lower incomes who are paying indirect taxation needs to be brought into the public debate. I am not referring to VAT alone. If current trends continue, from my reading of them, it is also likely that excise duties — largely comprising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, which a higher proportion of poorer members of society consume — are likely to exceed corporation tax receipts next year. Indirect taxes need to be put into the mix so that people can then have an honest debate about taxation.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is making a submission on the discussion document on the new one-parent family payment. The proposed child dependant allowance is the second tier and there will be no increase in payment, which seems to undermine that payment once again. Not many people would disagree with the society's suggestions on domestic waste charges. However, the society's argument seems to concern the privatisation of utilities and the fact that private companies tend not to take social factors into account in determining pricing. I am not sure if the society is saying such utilities should only be provided publicly but that seems to be the effect of the delegation's comments. Would the delegation agree with the "polluter pays policy" to minimise waste, and that it should be structured in such a way that each household has a free allowance with charges kicking in for excess waste? That might be a better of way of overcoming the difficulties we are facing.

I would be interested to know the society's views on rent supplement being replaced by housing benefit. This would result in a direct payment to social welfare recipients who then enter the housing market anonymously rather than being stigmatised and being put at a disadvantage as rents are increased. According to the latest statistics, 40% of all rents are paid by the State through the supplementary rent allowance.

With regard to the society's statement that child support payments are not targeted, does the society have a position on refundable tax reliefs? This is a targeted mechanism, which could be applied to a range of social welfare payments.

Deputy Callanan

I welcome the society's representatives, whom I congratulate on the great work they are doing on the ground. I have been associated with its members in east Galway and they have done excellent work. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs is very innovative and he promoted a number of initiatives in the recent budget. People can now work while drawing a pension and this has a major bearing on those who, for example, draw the non-contributory widow's and widower's pension. They were in a poverty trap but at least now they can earn up to €100 a week in addition to their pension. Should the State go down that road in regard to other payments?

What percentage of the society's funding is devoted to non-nationals? I agree with the waiver on waste collection but it will cost a significant amount. Is the waiver a priority or could the money be spent in a better way to help people?

We all accept education is best way to get out of poverty but the cycle of poverty has not been broken for generations of families in a number of our poorer areas. The children do not have a good attendance record at school. What incentives can be provided for parents and children in these areas to ensure they participate in the education system and emerge from the poverty trap?

I often walk around this area at night and meet five or six people sleeping rough. This happens in every city in the State. It should not cost a significant amount to address this problem. Can it be resolved? Is the reason for it financial or is it related to alcohol and drugs?

Professor Monaghan

I will address the last question first because it is an important issue. The Deputy is correct that homelessness is a problem. Sadly, it is a stubborn problem because homelessness is not reducing, although one would imagine it should. However, there are reasons for this. First, the society is the largest supplier of hostel accommodation in the State. We have 19 hostels and, therefore, every night between 600 and 1,000 people who otherwise would be on the streets are taken off the street and I acknowledge the State's generous help in supporting them. Part of the reason homelessness continues to be a problem is many of the homeless are former patients of mental institutions that were closed as part of a Government programme. Many of the homeless suffer from problems related to drink or drugs and psychiatric illness. The scandal is that there is nowhere for them to go. In other words, there is no move-on accommodation. In many ways, it goes back to the problem we raised previously about social housing.

The Deputy asked a question about immigrants, which is related. Many people are entering the State in need of accommodation. Many of our own people need social housing as distinct from affordable housing. For example, if they were offered a house for €250 rather than €250,000 tomorrow, they still could not afford it. As a result, a large pool of people is seeking accommodation in the rented sector. That means those at the bottom pile are former patients of mental institutions or those who have become homeless for a variety of reasons, including losing a job, break-up of a marriage, drugs, alcohol and so on. They are finding it increasingly difficult to get housing. We have asked many times for this problem to be tackled through the provision of move-on accommodation where people could spend a relatively short time while they find their feet. If one does not have an address, one is prevented from doing many things — for example, one cannot claim benefits and so on. This issue is very much part of a loop.

Strangely, we do not spend an awful lot on immigrants. A series of checks were carried out last year in the Dublin area on the number of telephone calls to our head office on Cabra Road and calls from immigrants constituted 10%. In other words, we received 20,000 telephone calls during the year, of which 2,000 were made by non-nationals. Increasingly, in Dublin and other cities, they are becoming a larger constituency. They will become even more so in the years ahead because of the number moving to Ireland, the effect of the HRC provision and so on. The society is not spending much on them currently but we will in the future.

Deputy Callanan referred to the Minister and the innovations he has introduced. He is correct and we have welcomed them publicly. The pensions initiative is very welcome. The Minister has made a number of brave comments; I totally agree with his views on cohabitation and lone parents. He has been very innovative and at least he has been prepared to talk about these problems but, as I said to him, while that is great, we would like to see some action as well. We congratulate him in this regard.

Mr. McCafferty

I refer to the second tier payment and the discussion about the difficulties in merging the FIS, which is an employment-related payment, with social welfare payments. Tax credits did not exist until a few years ago. Prior to that, we had tax free allowances. Officialdom and the administrative system said tax credits could not be used and, if they were developed, could not be introduced within the timescale set down by the then Minister for Finance but, lo and behold, they were established. This demonstrated that where there is a political will, there is a way. The same applies to the second tier payment. The Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners must engage with one another to find a way to interrogate household income, individual income, P35s and so on. This issue has been outlined at the National Economic and Social Council and it is not insurmountable. It should be done properly and the administrative system should not be used as a bulwark against not doing it at all. We would like progress on this payment.

Deputy Stanton mentioned the consistent poverty members. As well as being the largest charity of social concern and action in Ireland, the society is also a member of the End Child Poverty Coalition. All the members have signed up to advocate that child poverty should be tackled by 2007, which was the original NAPS target. We will not meet that and that is why the emphasis on child income supports is crucial.

VAT is an issue because the rate is higher in Ireland than in many other EU member states. As Deputy Boyle stated, we would also welcome research on the impact of indirect taxes on household budgeting.

With regard to Deputy Stanton's question on waste, we try to balance the polluter pays principle, which is laudable, with the welfare aspects of people's budgets. It is a major issue for the people we assist. In our pre-budget submission we advocated for a certain allocation of bags, tags or bins so on one level the incentive is there, but at the same time people are protected from the vagaries of extremely high costs. It returns to the principle under FIS whereby the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government must speak with each other. The Department of Social and Family Affairs is more receptive to the issue because it has a welfare brief. I urge the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to be more receptive.

To answer Deputy Boyle, we broadly welcome the 2006 budget, particularly adult income support issues. We agree that we are only beginning to catch up from the more regressive budgets of previous years. We will closely examine the paper on lone parents produced by the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and the Taoiseach. We are particularly struck by the assumptions made regarding the services that will be available for lone parents, such as child care, training and the national employment action plan. If we are to use that system, Rolls-Royce-style supports and public services must be put in place.

We do not necessarily advocate rent supplement as a housing benefit. Arguments can be made that simply applying a housing benefit model means more money chases the already scarce resource of private sector lettings and social housing. The provision of social housing is extremely important.

Professor Monaghan

I wish to make a crucial point on rent supplement. A person in need of housing can approach his or her local community welfare officer to receive rent supplement. Deputies may not be aware of the top-up procedures, which cause us great difficulty. The rent supplement is capped and does not necessarily keep up with market requirements. I live in Leixlip and know of people who receive their entitlement under law but must use up to €200 of what they receive in social welfare payments each month to secure the accommodation they feel they need for their families. That is a crazy situation and we must find a way around it. The obvious solution is to build more social housing. All these issues are part of a network. Tackling one is like chasing the end of a snake. It disappears because the issues are tied up in so many ways. We must take a holistic approach. I am sure Ms Deane also has comments to make on this.

Mr. McCafferty

I will respond to more points before handing over to Ms Deane. A question was asked about refundable tax credits and second tier payments for children. We are not opposed to refundable tax credits. The issue is the existence, development and implementation of a second tier payment. Whether it is delivered through a refundable tax credit system or through a cash payment from the Department of Social and Family Affairs is not as important an issue.

We take on board what Deputy Callanan stated on the Minister's ideas. The paper on lone parents is an example. We welcome the ideas on simultaneously working and receiving a pension. We must consider that issue innovatively and flexibly. A substantial amount of money was given to foreign nationals, particularly when the HRC was first implemented. We welcome the changes and acknowledge that many were instigated because of EU pressure. Those who still feel the pinch of the HRC are under direct provision and outside the remit of this committee.

We acknowledge the vast improvements regarding emergency homeless services in recent years. No one should need to sleep rough or be in emergency accommodation for longer than they should be by 2010. We will push that issue. We are also keen that the recommendations of the review by Fitzpatrick Associates on integrated, preventative and youth strategies for homelessness are implemented and delivered by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The provision of social housing is crucial to that. I will hand over to Ms Deane.

Ms Deane

One solution to the issue of rough sleeping would be to spend more than 14.5% of our GDP on social expenditure. We spend a small amount of money on social services. Many people on the streets have poor mental health. This returns us to the vicious circle whereby dismantling acute settings for psychiatric conditions without increasing primary care means people will continue to fall between the cracks. One aspect of primary care which needs to be increased is the community health aspect, which represents a minute aspect of the overall health budget. Our main problem is that people fall between services which are not focused on the outcome. One Department deals with one aspect and another Department deals with a different aspect. Those Departments must ensure an outcome for the people being served. We understand it is not easy to innovate the civil service but we must begin to do so to introduce that ethos.

Deputy Callanan's other question was on incentives to stop intergenerational poverty and how to get to hard-to-reach families. The solution is prioritising expenditure to have sufficient services for children in school, such as home-school liaison officers and special needs teachers and decreasing the pupil-teacher ratio. It is a scandal that children are in classes of more than 30 pupils throughout their primary education. We should not be satisfied with that. We must prioritise investment in such long-term yielding areas.

Deputy Stanton asked a question on the minor point of school books, which is unregulated with a lot of waste and badly planned expenditure. We made many pleas to the Minister on this matter and we hope the newly reformed education disadvantage committee will deal with these concrete bread and butter issues which impact badly on parents.

Deputy Cowley

I also congratulate the Society of St. Vincent de Paul on the work it does, of which I am aware from other hats I wear. I met its clients in the past when I was a volunteer as a student. I do not want to detract from what was stated about overt, hidden and relative poverty or the fact that, as the delegation stated, the Government has not lived up to its responsibility to create a more just society for people in need. However, the effect of bad management and budgeting means that MABS plays a significant role. What are the delegation's comments on that? We all need help with budgeting, some of us are better at it than others. What effect does it play in the equation? We may go some way towards rectifying the problems, but we have a long way to go.

I was struck by the reference to the glaring need for Government to be more penny-wise than pound-foolish. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is involved in social housing. The Government's ethos seems to be to pander to the private sector. It is difficult to stay ahead of the private sector, which constantly drives up the cost of rented accommodation, some of which is in poor condition. The only way to break this vicious circle is for the Government to provide adequate housing. The private sector will always seek to make profits because that is its agenda but the Government will be screwed and taxpayer's money will be wasted. As regards the waste charges fiasco, there seems to be a rush to the bottom in terms of privatising services and the waste waiver is not what people would expect. It is the responsibility of the Government to address this issue.

It was noted that when psychiatric hospitals were emptied of their charges, many people ended up on the streets. Wet hostels are needed around the country, including counties Mayo and Galway, for chronic alcoholics. What is the delegation's opinion on that issue? Accident and emergency units are being swamped by people in need of detoxification. Psychiatric hospitals used to fill that function but no longer do so. That represents yet another problem in the system because once people are treated, they are simply put back on the street without adequate support and the cycle repeats itself. We all know the psychiatric services are starved of funds.

Deputy O’Connor

I would like to be associated with the welcome given to the delegation because it is important that the work of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is acknowledged. My first contacts with the society were made when I attended school in Drimnagh Castle many years ago. I was reared in a bygone Dublin era, when the sense of poverty was different from today. I am not afraid to discuss my generation but we now live in a different Ireland, with different kinds of poverty. Funnily enough, I am not from the area I represent, Tallaght, but went to school on Clarendon Street and lived on Stephen Street. I sometimes come into town late at night to ramble around my old streets and it is sad, as Deputy Callanan noted, to see people hiding in doorways on those streets. Tallaght is the third largest population centre in the country but few people sleep on the streets there because they take the bus to town to instead.

Members of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul do tremendous work in Tallaght and, in particular, Greenhills. Poverty can be defined in different ways and we have all visited houses in which there is a brand new DVD player but no food. I do not mean that in a disparaging way but it is important to understand the problems people face. Ms Deane made an important point on investing in education. I strongly support such an investment because of the background I bring to my politics.

A new form of poverty is emerging in terms of the international community which gives rise to different challenges. Not everybody would sympathise with that community. I apologise for repeatedly mentioning Tallaght but I am proud of living in and representing the town. One of the schools in my constituency, St. Mark's in Springfield, has hundreds of international students and we are trying to press that issue with the Department of Education and Science. What are the particular challenges that members of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul face in that regard?

The issue of lone parents' benefits has become topical. I have met many lone parents in my constituency because, apart from my normal work, I am on the board of Tallaght Welfare Society. Over the past few weeks, I have sought their opinions on this issue and have pointed out to them that the regulations are not cast in stone because the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has said he wants to hear the opinions of people. If all boats are to rise, we will have to look after the little boats. Lone parents are scared about the challenges of child care. I support the Minister, Deputy Brennan, because while there will always be debate about his decisions, he is revolutionising his Department and addressing the issue of cohabitation, with which no previous Minister dealt. It is time, in the Ireland of 2006, that inspectors and council officials stop hiding in bushes to see whether people are keeping company. Lone parents face difficulties but their lives could be improved by helping them back to work, resolving the issues of medical cards and rent subsidies and providing child care. While we are all proud of the economy, child care is the problem lying below the water line.

I strongly support the meetings of joint committees in which groups inform us of issues that have arisen on the ground. Many of us are aware of these issues but it is important to hear from organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which possibly has a better reputation in Government circles than we do. Legislators, whether from Government or Opposition benches, want to resolve these issues. I bring my life experiences to my politics and my constituency is no worse than anywhere else but we nonetheless face challenges.

Professor Monaghan

Deputy Cowley asked a question about MABS.

Deputy O’Connor

There is a MABS in Tallaght and it is great.

Professor Monaghan

Deputy O'Connor asked about the changes to lone parent benefits. The two questions are related and I will answer them together. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul wants people to move from welfare to work and Ms Deane can speak for hours about the ability of families to assist their children. The first response of my conference when approached by someone with a list of problems and debts is to put him or her in contact with MABS in Kilcock, which explains the discipline of devising a budget. We work with MABS and the local credit union to determine whether we can pay off some of the debts and clean the slate in a way that helps the individual to manage his or her money. Many people have never thought previously about budgeting because it is a difficult enough trick to exist on social welfare and the surplus is rarely enough to require a budget. Nevertheless, we try to get people to think along these lines. Deputy O'Connor is correct that some people dig holes for themselves but, for the vast majority, the problems arise because they have no culture of managing money. Although I suspect that I am older than the Deputy, I grew up in Drimnagh and am also aware of the area's past. There is no doubt that education is important. I do not want that word to be used out of context. It is not patronising. Our members try to make people aware that there are ways of doing things. For many years we ran home management programmes which involved showing people that there was a way of buying cheaply and cooking well without it costing a fortune. It is no accident that obesity levels tend to be much higher in low income rather than high income families because often people do not have the wherewithal. We have a serious job in addressing that problem. If the many facets we are trying to change, whether it be educational disadvantage or otherwise, are to be tackled, we must work in a holistic way. As I said to Deputy Callanan, it is a matter of joining all the dots.

That leads me to the point made about the suggestions for the one parent payment. From conversations we have had, the biggest increase in the people coming to us is to be found among single parents but that is the nature of society. Ten years ago it would have been found among the long-term unemployed. Their main concern is not being told that when their child reaches the age of six years, they will be brought in for interview but that there will be somewhere their children can go and be cared for. The Deputy is right in that regard. We would be very annoyed if it transpired that all there was was a bureaucratic process, whereby the parent would be told to go and find a job. How can they do this? As long as all of these aspects fall together, we will be happy to support it. While we agree with the idea of trying to encourage people to move on, there is much work to be done in the meantime.

To return to what Deputy Cowley said, it is a matter of education, training parents and, sadly, helping mothers because too often the fathers are not involved. Working with mothers we have a greater chance of success. The two questions are tied together.

Deputy O’Connor

I was born in Crumlin and my mother sent me to a school in Drimnagh because she thought it was a nice place.

Professor Monaghan

Did she? How about that?

Chairman

Deputy O'Connor is like a former Taoiseach who appears to have been born or had relations in four counties.

Deputy O’Connor

Only one in my case. I am a Dublin man. I have no country cousins.

Chairman

There used to be a debate about north and south Dublin——

Ms Deane

He used to say it was always a good socialist home.

Deputy O’Connor

A what?

Ms Deane

I am talking about the Taoiseach.

Deputy O’Connor

I was brought up in one.

Ms Deane

Good.

Deputy O’Connor

Strangely, it was not a Fianna Fáil house.

Chairman

The Deputy has gone astray.

Ms Deane

I want to return to the theme of innovation because that is what we are talking about in various ways. On the point about a lone parent being dragged in when the child reaches a certain age and put through the hoops to get a job — I will come to the child care element shortly — there are many barriers. Our experience is that lone parents are extremely keen to return to work for a variety of reasons, including being a role model for their children. Nobody would contest that point but the FÁS courses by which one is most likely to get a quality job — we are talking about quality work, not low paid work with no prospects — should not begin at 8.30 a.m. A lone parent will not be able to give their child a breakfast, get him or her to school and be in a FÁS class by that time. Innovation is required. Demands will be made of the public service to respond. It is up to the bodies involved to show they want to provide an outcomes related service. We will be meeting the Minister in a few weeks from now and will make these points to him.

To conclude on the issue of early childhood care and education, which the Chairman knows those in the ivory corners of the NESF project teams in which we both participated recently prefer to call it, the early child care supplement is not the way forward. Targeting it in a rather unusual way, whereby it is purely age related, is not the answer; it is literally one for everybody in the audience if one happens to have a child under the age of six years. It is costing a great deal of money. In the first half of 2006 alone it will cost us €265 million to implement. Incidentally, it costs €6 million to give child benefit. If we weigh needs versus universality, it is challenging.

The NESF report on early childhood care and education is the blueprint. It is the way forward in that it offers huge detail on how to tackle the major societal and economic issue, namely, providing early years care. We want the Government to commit to implementing it, even on an incremental basis. We do not understand the logic behind giving every child under the age of six years the payment because it does not represent the best value for money in what is a very challenging area.

Chairman

I am aware of that view, having listened to Ms Deane for a number of months.

Deputy Ring

I will be brief because we have to conclude the meeting. I, too, congratulate the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Professor Monaghan is the first person to come before the committee who is not afraid to call it as it is. I am sick and tired of raising the issue which I have raised constantly and I am glad to have a supporter at last. I want to record again what is happening in this country. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poor and the middle class is being squeezed. It is as simple as that. Ms Deane is correct about means testing but before I deal with that issue, I want to say that if this was such a wonderful country, why do we need the Society of St. Vincent de Paul? Why did the society have to spend €34 million — €7 million on paying people's bills and €4 million on food — if this country was so wonderful and the economy was going well?

I want the society to take up an issue which I am taking up at committee level, namely, the way those on low incomes and social welfare are means tested. They are being told there is no need for them to be on social welfare, that there is plenty of work available, that one only has to look at the many people here on work permits and so on. That is not the case. There are many inequalities and we are not far from them here in Dublin. I come from the west where there are no employment opportunities. An example is a man who came to see me, who was insulted because of the way a mother and child had been treated when they went to a welfare office. The woman in the office said she would be better off trying to lose weight rather than eating sweets. I wanted to take the complaint further but only frustrated myself and the parents. The person in the office asked them to fill a form but what she did not realise was that neither the mother nor the child could read or write. They were embarrassed standing at the counter. We must have respect for those who find themselves in circumstances where they are unemployed or on low incomes.

This morning I received a letter from a community welfare officer. I want the society's representatives to remember this case because I want them to fight it with me. It is proposed to remove community welfare officers from the system and bring them into the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I disagree with this on the basis that they will no longer have discretion in such cases. The approach of the Department can be described as black and white. A payment is either means tested or it is not and there is no discretion if income is above the threshold. To be fair to community welfare officers, they know the local scene and the problems that arise but now they will have a book from the Department. That is something we must fight and not allow to happen. Discretion should be left with community welfare officers. This area should remain under the auspices of the Health Service Executive rather than the Department. I tabled a Dáil question on the matter last week and the Minster confirmed that the move will go ahead. The Department is now talking to the workers involved. I am opposed to this move and ask the Chairman to hold a meeting on the issue shortly because what is happening is wrong.

The representatives have raised many fine issues today. I compliment the society's members who give of their time voluntarily. At times they are subjected to much criticism from people who are judgmental and say they should not be helping certain individuals. That is not the case. The society is helping those who need help. Any practising politician worth his or her salt knows exactly what is going on because when the people concerned find themselves in difficulty, they go first to the social welfare office and then the community welfare officer. When they do not get any satisfaction from that quarter, they have to go to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, sometimes as a last resort but they know the society's members will treat them with respect. They will listen, advise and help them to get them back on their feet again.

I received a letter from the Health Service Executive today about a person who is in receipt of €288. Her husband will never work again due to a serious illness. They are paying €160 a week for their rented accommodation and do not qualify for rent allowance. Of the €288 she is earning, all she has left to spend is €120. I will be advising her next Monday at my constituency clinic to give up work, to apply for carer's allowance or go back on social welfare payments because she would be better off than she is now. That is wrong.

The representatives' point about the means test is correct. Why do we have a means test when every benefit is taken from those who move above the income threshold? It is correct to say civil servants and officials, particularly those dealing with individuals on low incomes, will have to learn. It is similar to the position that applies to lone parents. A girl called to my clinic a fortnight ago. She is 19 years of age and had a baby last year. She got the points she wanted in her leaving certificate. Her means, or that of her family, which comprises three or four children, will be assessed. She wants to go on to third level education and to bring her child with her. It was decided that she does not qualify for rent supplement or assistance. Neither will she qualify for a third level grant because her father's income is slightly over the income threshold. If she is in receipt of the one-parent family payment, her income should be assessed for that benefit and not the income of her father or mother. She is not asking her parents to mind her child. She intends to bring her child with her when she goes to college and will try to get someone to mind her child. We hear much talk about educating people and taking them out of the social welfare system, yet anyone who tries to progress finds his or her income is tapered down and the person is held back by the system.

I was pleased to hear the representatives speak because it is refreshing that they are not afraid to say what they have to say. We must protect the poor and people on low incomes who are now the new poor. These people have to cope with the imposition of the stealth taxes. There were four increases in ESB charges last year. When social welfare recipients received their increases, the first letter they received — which constituents have brought to me and in respect of which I have set up matters for them — was from Mayo County Council and every other council assessing them on their increases in order that they can take €5 and €6 from them. Therefore, the ESB and the local authority have taken money from them and they also must pay all the other stealth taxes.

Something must be done about the imposition of refuse charges. Contracts for waste collection have been given to companies in the private sector. I do not blame people for not paying their waste charges because they cannot afford to pay them. A national waiver scheme must be introduced to facilitate people on low income. We all must seek the introduction of such a scheme. If it is not introduced, people will take to the streets in protest. The next imposition is that people will have to pay water charges.

I say well done to the representatives and ask them to keep up the good work. I will finish on the point on which I started, namely, that if the country was doing very well, we would not need the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Thank God it exists and its members do a good job.

Chairman

I want to take up Deputy Ring's final point. Week after week we are told by Ministers and economic commentators that we are living in the most successful economy in Europe. I was one of those people who nagged the ESRI to update and widen, rather than restrict, its basket of indicators which signify the measure of poverty. However, like the Deputy, I was astounded that it did not do that and wonder why it did not. Irrespective of that, between 8% and 10% of the population live in consistent poverty. That must be a wake up call to each and every one of us, particularly the Government which has overall responsibility, to target the measures in place. Ms Deane made the point in earlier presentations she made, as did Professor Monaghan, of the need to target the measures to assist those living in poverty. Therefore, Deputy Ring was right in what he said about if everything in the garden was rosy. The representatives' objective is to eliminate the need for their work.

Professor Monaghan

Absolutely.

Chairman

That is the known hypothesis. If life was rosy, their organisation would be taken off the map. The paradox is that never was there more a pressing need for the work of representatives, their service and the volunteers who give so willingly and freely of their time.

Deputy Ring was correct that there is a need for a national waiver scheme for waste charges. My party colleague, Deputy Gilmore, indicated that is the way he wants to proceed on this matter. For example, in County Westmeath we resisted privatisation as long as we could but we have a partly privatised service which is unusual but the council has overall control of it. The provider has a contract but the council retains control of the service. Some 18 to 20 bin tags per year are given to pensioners and social welfare recipients. This system helps the recipients in that they do not have to pay a charge and the bin tag can cover one week to three weeks' waste collection. There is, therefore, an inbuilt incentive in the system in that if a person can organise to have a waste collection every two weeks, the person can get virtually a year's service with the tags provided and not have to pay for waste collection. That is an important feature of the system. A critical issue is that private contractors are also competing and are serving other routes. I have an uncle who lives inside the area where the tags are provided and another uncle who lives outside that area and is probably a shade poorer in terms of relative poverty but he has to pay for the full service. Therefore, there is discrimination within the system. The only way to tackle that is to do so by way of a fundamental root and branch review at national level and that should be done immediately.

I have paid particular attention to poverty traps. I wrote an article about lone parents for The Irish Times in September 2004, for which I did not get widespread praise because I pointed out some of the major anomalies in the system, including that applying to cohabiting couples and that of education access. Ms Deane was right in what she about the new scheme. It will be great if the ancillary services are provided. The provision of child care would be a major service. If the new scheme merely takes young people off the scheme at six or seven years of age, it is only a penny pinching exercise. It will defeat the purpose for which my party introduced the original scheme in the 1970s under the late Frank Cluskey. I hope we will never revert to what was happening in the 1950s and 1960s in this area.

Deputy Ring was right in that there is a move to remove responsibility for the community welfare system and the supplementary welfare system from the Department of Health and Children and streamline the provision of those systems under the remit of Department of Social and Family Affairs, where all benefits are predicated on strict eligibility criteria, with no discretions applying. There are no grey areas, a black and white attitude prevails and if one does not meet the set criteria, one does not qualify. The beauty of the community welfare system, as it operates, is that it comprises officers who have built up a font of knowledge, like the representatives, of the people concerned. They know those who are vulnerable and can assist them and have discretion to do so. The community welfare officers, as I understand it, are resistant to this move. Hopefully, we have given the representatives information that may alert them to what is happening. This proposed move is taking place under the guise of streamlining the system but there is a major purpose for it, to take discretionary power from the officers and bring them into the system. As a result of this proposed move, the demand for the representatives' service will multiply by between 40% and 50%. They had better increase their 9,000 volunteers to 14,000 or 15,000. I am being straight with them; they have given us a good deal of information and I am giving them that information. I am opposed to the proposed move. I agree with Deputy Ring on this matter. We will invite the relevant officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. They have proposed this move and they now intend to talk to the unions. The Government seems to take a bull in a china shop approach to every matter.

Deputy Cowley

I concur with what the Chairman and Deputy Ring said on this matter. I also talked to some of the people concerned and the proposed move would be very much a retrograde step. From everything I know about the system, the proposed move would mean the people concerned would be treated even more harshly. There are people on the ground at least who know what is happening and who are in a position to intercede or to make matters a little easier for people. I agree with the proposal to invite in officials from the Department and ask them exactly what they propose to do.

Chairman

We will do that.

I wish to bring the debate to a conclusion. I know Deputy Carty wants to contribute. I have railed against the complexity of eligibility criteria, particularly the failure to index link eligibility criteria which immediately creates poverty traps. We have the most complex system of means testing across Europe. Some 45 to 50 schemes are subject to means testing. Of the 15 member states that form the EU bloc, and now there are ten additional states, we have the greatest level of means testing. That is a way to ensure people do not get their entitlements. It is as simple as that. Ms Medb Ruane is probably one of the best social writers we have and is a person I admire because, like the representatives, she calls a spade a spade. Sometimes people who attend a meeting of the committee couch their comments. We might as well be straight. In regard to applying for family income supplement, Ms Ruane recently stated:

You need the patience of Job, the bureaucratic skills of Bill Gates' senior management team and the literary skills of Séamus Heaney, Maeve Binchy and Samuel Beckett combined. The form is a 12-page marathon asking more probing questions than Michael McDowell in his heyday [God forbid] and requiring extensive documentation as well. It is forensically aggressive. It has 11 parts, over 55 different probes, some with multiple choice answers. It asks for up to seven separate additional documents per person mentioned. Employers have to complete a whole section which alerts them to the fact that you are having financial troubles, and warns them they will face a penalty if they answer inaccurately. There's a carrot. Meanwhile, the form explains words like "cohabiting" in case you don't get it, and suggests you call a social welfare office if you have a problem filling in the form.

Referring to the Minister, Deputy Brennan, the article continues, "He makes the Revenue Commissioners, with all their forms, look like Jedi knights in comparison".

We are talking about why only a small number of people take up the family income supplement but we should hand the matter over to Medb Ruane who could simplify it. In addition, she would not charge megabucks in consultancy fees as many people do. Sometimes we engage in semantics but here is somebody who calls it as it is. We can advertise all we like about the availability of the FIS scheme but she is absolutely right. Ms Ruane may have used some hyperbole for effect but the form contains all those sections. People attending my clinics are terrified of filling out such forms.

Stealth taxes are the biggest curse of all. Ordinary people on low incomes who must travel to work are now faced with toll charges. Deputy Ring is right in drawing attention to price rises for electricity, gas and other fuels. The price of everything is flying upwards.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul may not have studied the level of poverty that is prevalent in carers' situations. In fairness to the Minister, Deputy Brennan, he has certainly tried to tackle it. I acknowledge that but the area of carers is one where there is widespread poverty. The work of carers saves the State billions of euro. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is aware that a mother-in-law or father-in-law may be taken care of by a wife with two or three children. The husband may be out working but is not earning much. The wife may be happy with the extra income from the carer's allowance but there are outgoings involved in looking after someone who is infirm. If the husband dies, the woman will be left as a young widow in her late 30s or early 40s with three children, and she is still caring for an older relative. She will get the widow's pension but will lose the carer's allowance, although she remains working as a carer. Irish people do not throw older relatives into institutionalised care because something like that occurs — they still try to struggle on but the level of endemic poverty in that situation is frightening. Volunteers from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are sometimes asked to intercede financially in such situations. The society may not consider such cases to fall within its remit but such areas are opening up. Politicians see such problems at first hand also and, although we may work at a different level, the situation is worrying.

What are the views of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul on the prevailing social welfare rules which prevent people from getting additional payments because they are already in receipt of a social welfare payment? Has the society given any thought to how that rule contributes to hidden poverty? Irish people take pride in trying to look after elderly relatives at home. Such elderly people feel happier when they can live at home while being cared for by their loved ones, rather than going into institutionalised care. The other side of that equation is that it would cost heaven and earth to provide such institutional care. We are being penny wise but multi-euro foolish in not providing the carer's allowance in such cases. Has the Society of St. Vincent de Paul given any consideration as to why that is? Perhaps the society might address the matter in its next submission to the Minister.

First, I strongly urge that the cohabitation rule should be ended. It is time to knock that old shibboleth on the head. Second, this committee recommended to the Minister that widows or widowers should continue to receive the carer's allowance along with half the survivor's benefit, or vice versa. The work of such people should be recognised. The biggest drop in income they suffer is at the point when they are most vulnerable. To add insult to injury, widows and widowers are not entitled to the household benefits package. If they retain the carer’s allowance, however, they are so entitled. That is another area of poverty that may well be hidden. I apologise for going on about it, but the carer’s allowance is a big issue for me. Everybody who attends the committee gets scourged by me about it. It is another area in which means testing has militated against people who are supplying a free service all year round. We get it on the cheap but they have been treated disgracefully.

Professor Monaghan

As regards carers specifically, we have not done a great amount of work. Some work was done earlier, which we can discuss, but not a great amount. I wish to explain why. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul cannot become the lone ranger. We cannot beat on people's doors and say "We know you've a problem and therefore we're here to help you whether you like it or not". We must be invited in. In our experience, many people in those circumstances tend not to want it known that they have contacted us. There is still a certain stigma attached to calling the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. For that reason, we have not dealt with it. In my experience as a member of the society, I know that when we are asked to help we certainly do so. It would be fair to say, however, that they would not be a huge constituency of people with whom we are dealing. Whether they should be is something we can take up again.

I wish to revert to Deputy Ring's point on community welfare officers. We clearly do not want to get involved in interdepartmental rows. For us it is less important where the people are. We are clear, however, that wherever they are located, an element of discretion would be maintained. We are less concerned about the particular departmental heading under which they operate but we would be very concerned by that element of discretion. We know that from dealing with community welfare officers whom we know by name. We ring them if there is a problem and seek their help and guidance. That they have some discretion makes life a lot easier. That is the kernel of it.

Mr. McCafferty

In one of our pre-budget submissions a few years ago, this issue was raised by one of our members. The example involved a couple who were caring for an incapacitated child but the father died. While the widowed mother can take the larger of both payments, she is doubly disadvantaged as a carer and a widow. We asked the Department to look at providing 25% more of the larger payment, taking into account both the cash and non-cash benefits. We have done work on it based on the experience of members but we did not include it in subsequent budget submissions because that budget was so bad. That followed a period of policy retrenchment and we decided to focus on issues on which we thought we could win. Following budget 2002, we decided to get some wins and that is why it has not figured since. However, it is an issue, which has been raised by members on the ground.

We are founder members of the MABS. SVP members are on the boards of, or work in, every local MABS office. Our links to the service are clear and the society is also represented at national level in advising the MABS.

The social housing issue has come up time and time again. Unless the Government undertakes to construct 10,000 social housing units, the issues of homelessness and waiting lists will not be tackled in a meaningful way over the next 20 years.

The issues of wet hostels was raised. Our partners in De Paul Trust provide wet hostels in Dublin. Where there is a need, we are responding to it.

We are trying to highlight the problems associated with FIS, including the form and the labour market stipulations. The second tier payment is the way around all those issues. It is question of political and administrative will between the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners just as the waste issue is a question of co-ordination between the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is about a whole Government approach, which means Departments talking to each other to find solutions.

Deputy Carty

I welcome the delegation. The Chairman referred to means testing, which I wanted to raise. The system is ridiculous and it should be examined. However, the issue has been covered adequately.

I refer to the bereavement grant. Do different rates apply throughout the State?

Professor Monaghan

I do not know. My sense is "No" but I am not sure.

Deputy Carty

My local undertaker said he can get up to €2,200 in grant aid.

Chairman

From a community welfare officer.

Professor Monaghan

In that case, the State contributes €635 but another amount is hidden somewhere in a sack. A community welfare officer could know a family is in difficulty and might need to find a few bob for them. However, a problem is created if such discretion is allowed. One could find that in some areas the undertaker can make a case and get the money. The grant is still €635 and it is a problem.

Chairman

We have had a worthwhile debate and it is a tribute to the delegation. We rarely have such a focused debate. The issues raised by the representatives and the forthright manner in which they addressed them were to our benefit as well as everybody else's. It was an extremely worthwhile session. Perhaps the committee should invite the delegation to appear before the committee in September or October to ascertain how issues are being addressed in the run-up to the budget in order that we can add a little weight to its submission. We had a good attendance at the meeting, which indicates the society's presentation was worthwhile. I thank the representatives for attending at short notice and I wish them continued success with their work. The more successful Ireland becomes, the quicker the society will have a rest but that is a long way down the road based on what we have heard.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.15 p.m. and adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 May 2006.