On 25 November the Dáil ordered that the following Supplementary Estimate be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 40 - Office of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I thank the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, and her officials for attending to assist in our consideration of the Supplementary Estimate. I understand the Minister has another appointment at noon. We will, therefore, facilitate her. We will commence with an introductory statement by the Minister which will be followed by an open discussion. Is that agreed? Agreed. I ask members to keep to the point and not stray from the issues involved.
Estimates for Public Services 2003.
Vote 40 - Office of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Supplementary).
I welcome this opportunity to appear before the committee again this year. I was present on 17 June to discuss the original 2003 Estimates for my Department. At that time the total cost of my Department's services in 2003 was estimated at €10.3 billion. This sum covered both Exchequer financed and social insurance fund financed services and was the largest ever allocated to the area of social welfare.
As in previous years, the 2003 Estimates for my Department's Exchequer financed services were provided for in Vote 40 in the Revised Estimates Volume. The corresponding Estimates for social insurance fund financed services were set out in a tabular statement appended to Vote 40. This statement also included estimates of the fund's income in 2003. Following their consideration by the committee, the original 2003 Estimates for Vote 40 were voted on by the Dáil on 25 June. The 2003 Estimates for social insurance fund income and expenditure did not form part of that process.
As members will be aware, since 1997 the social insurance fund has been self-financing. Therefore, it no longer requires funds to be voted from the Exchequer. The total sum voted for Vote 40 by the Dáil was €5,527,889,000. It now transpires, as we near the end of the year, that this sum will not be adequate. Additional funding by way of a Supplementary Estimate is, therefore, required. That is the reason I am before the committee again today.
The additional sum required is estimated at €85 million which I acknowledge is a significant sum. However, in percentage terms it is relatively small, representing just a 1.5% increase on the original Estimate for Vote 40. The Revised Estimate for Vote 40, including the additional €85 million, provides for expenditure totalling €5,612,889,000. The increase in funding now being sought is required primarily to fund emerging excesses on rent supplement and child benefit which are partially offset by an emerging saving on unemployment assistance.
The additional sum being sought for rent supplement is €70 million, bringing the total spend to €331.78 million. This is the largest variant due mainly to the number of recipients being 8,000 higher than expected. The Revised Estimate provides for an average number of 58,000 recipients whereas the original Estimate provided for an average number of 50,000. The average value of supplements is also at a higher level than expected.
The additional sum being sought for child benefit is €42.5 million, bringing the total spend to €1,665.9 million. This increase is due to the average number of children being an estimated 28,000 higher than expected. The Revised Estimate provides for payments in respect of an average number of 1,056,000 children, 2.7% higher than the figure of 1,028,000 underlying the original Estimate. Following unprecedented increases in rates granted by the Government, even a comparatively small change in the number of children such as that being predicted can have significant cost implications.
The saving arising on unemployment assistance is estimated at €27.4 million and due mainly to the average number of recipients being 2,500 lower than expected. The Revised Estimate provides for an average number of 75,000 recipients whereas the original Estimate provided for an average number of 77,500. This change follows from the better than expected performance of the live register, in respect of which the outturn is now expected to be an average number of 174,000. The original Estimates for unemployment payments, unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance, were framed on the basis of an average number of 179,000.
All of the Vote 40 allocations showing variances are itemised in the Supplementary Estimate while information on the variances is given in the briefing material supplied to members. Although they do not form part of the Supplementary Estimate, variances emerging on the 2003 Estimates for the social insurance fund are also covered in the briefing material supplied. In summary, expenditure under the fund is expected to exceed the original Estimate by about €127 million and income by about €110 million. As a consequence of these changes, the projected cumulative surplus at the end of the year is reduced by €17 million to €1,480 million.
I take this opportunity to remind the committee that, despite the current difficult economic circumstances, I secured approval from the Government for the payment of a 100% Christmas bonus again this year. The original 2003 Estimates provided for the payment of a 70% bonus. The additional 30% is a factor in the additional sum being sought under Vote 40 and the emerging excess in social insurance fund expenditure. The impact on expenditure is €16 million in the case of Vote 40 and €17 million in the case of the social insurance fund.
Additional funding of €85 million is being sought for Vote 40, the reason I am before the committee. I commend the Supplementary Estimate to it.
I welcome the Minister who has had a very difficult fortnight. Listening to the radio this morning, things have not eased for her, given the wish of the Rape Crisis Centre to meet her in the next 48 hours. Regarding the Supplementary Estimate, I can now see the reason the Minister must respond to what happened but it is a pity that it is the most vulnerable in society who will be affected by the Book of Estimates announced last week.
On rent supplement, having listened to individuals, organisations and every relevant group over the past fortnight, this is probably the meanest cut of all. It will have a major effect, particularly on those depending on social welfare and rent supplement. Simply because the State has failed to provide enough housing, we are now going to penalise those affected who cannot get a local authority house and are depending on rent supplement. The new regulations proposed by the Minister will not work. I, therefore, call on her to immediately reverse the change announced in the Book of Estimates when the budget is announced next week. It will not work and will have a very negative impact. It will make the job of community welfare officers impossible.
Regarding the call of the Rape Crisis Centre to meet the Minister today, what will happen to those living in violent homes? The Minister did not cover this in her recent announcement. How does she propose to deal with a woman with three or four children who finds herself in a very serious situation in the middle of the night and has to move out of the family home into rented accommodation? There is no point in saying the community welfare officer has discretion. This must be clearly defined relative to what the Minister is proposing because we cannot have a situation where a woman and her children will be left on the road.
Returning to the Supplementary Estimate, I ask the Minister how she got the figures so wrong again. Is there nobody in her Department who can add? The same happened in the case of pre-1953 contributions. Does anybody in the Department have a degree in adding? Can none of the officials with the Minister add? What is wrong with them that they cannot do anything right? Every single scheme the Department runs is under budget or the figures are added wrongly. It should bring in a few primary schoolchildren to add them for them. How did we get it so wrong regarding the number of children? Is it——
Like Deputy Crawford?
I had better not say anything.
Deputy Ring to continue without interruption. He should not invite interruptions, which is even worse.
How were the figures so wrong? Is it because of the number returning from abroad or the number of refugees in the country? How did we assess the situation so wrongly? There was a knee-jerk reaction to what we saw last week and the amount of money that the Department had saved. I have had visitations from a number of people who are appealing, even though they are not being paid from the social welfare office but from the health boards. It is still taxpayer's money.
Regarding fraud, I compliment the Department on the amount of money it has saved. This is important because anybody who defrauds the State or those on social welfare takes money away from somebody else. While complimenting the Department, I also call on the Minister to issue a warning. A number of people have contacted me recently who believe they are not getting fair play from the Department. It is saying, particularly to those engaged in short-term work or who have applied for unemployment assistance, that there is work available for them. We just cannot do this to people and then make them go the following day to the health board to be paid by a different arm of the State. Anybody caught working and drawing social welfare must be dealt with but individuals making a genuine effort, working on a part-time basis and who only look for social welfare payments when there is no work available must be treated with dignity and not made to suffer because we are now living in hard and difficult times.
Regarding the 16 cuts announced last week and the supplement for those with special dietary needs, given the amount being saved, the Minister should look at the matter again because she is affecting the most vulnerable in society, including women and children. It is women who have to face this every single day. A small sum is being saved but this is not good enough because there are individuals with special needs. Children will go without the special food supplement they need, which is wrong.
The most appalling cut of all has to be that made in the back-to-education scheme. Whatever hopes people have, they cannot fulfil them without an education to better themselves. Those who want to go back to education will come off social welfare at some stage. This is short-sightedness on the part of the Department. It would be better to assist people, particularly lone parents, to get the education they need in order that they will then enter the workplace and make a life for themselves. When we hold abortion referendums, lone parents, in particular, are told not to worry regarding crisis pregnancies because the State will help and protect them and do everything it can for them. They are told this when the Government wants them to vote in a particular way in a referendum but the minute there is a downturn in the economy the first to be attacked are the mother and child. That is exactly what is happening now.
The cuts announced last week are wrong. Given the sum being saved, €57 million, the Minister should have stood up to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and told him to take the money from the bloodstock industry, if he wished, and that if he took it from the area of social welfare, she would not support him. I am surprised that she allowed the Minister for Finance to attack the most vulnerable in society, a matter about which I will have a lot more to say next week when the budget is announced and the Finance Bill is introduced. The Minister will have to be stronger. I hope the Department of Finance does not see her as an easy touch. I am disappointed that her officials allowed this to happen and the most vulnerable in society to be attacked. The Minister for Finance lost his place in the film "The Dirty Dozen" when he left the Department of Social Welfare. Now we have 16 cuts. I ask the Minister go back to her Department and rectify what happened last week in next week's budget. With her Department, she has taken a lot of stick over the past fortnight.
People are getting angry and are ready to come onto the streets. They have had enough because of what they see happening in the country. This is a three tier society. We have the super rich who get every tax break going in regard to stud fees and so on; the middle classes which are being squeezed left, right and centre; and the poor who are getting poorer and poorer because they are not being protected by way of increases in social welfare payments to compensate for increases in food prices, inflation, indirect taxes and charges. I hope the Minister will protect them next week through massive increases in social welfare payments. I will have more to say later.
I welcome the Minister for whom I will have some general questions as we go through the various subheads but, in general, I will not be opposing in any shape or form the Supplementary Estimate before us because the money is needed for the programmes mentioned.
It is important to focus on where we are as a society. This is one of the richest countries in the world. For the past seven years or so we have achieved phenomenal growth in the economy. We have witnessed money being thrown around like confetti, as if there was no tomorrow. In many cases this was done purely for political gain. The Minister was a member of a Government which made choices.
Choices were made to provide more than generous tax breaks for the wealthy and also to introduce the SSIA scheme which involved the State giving over €5 billion to people who had never demanded such a generous scheme. Of course, people joined because it was such a generous scheme but what about all those who have been demanding improvements in their standard of living and who have never been listened to?
It was in this context that I listened attentively when the Minister stated in the Dáil on 19 November that it was often said the success of a country could be measured by the way in which it cared for the less well-off in society. I wonder how the thousands of adults and their children who will be directly affected by the 16 savage cuts announced by the Minister last week will measure the so-called success of the economy. The majority of the cuts can be seen as an all-out assault on the poor, the disadvantaged, the homeless and the vulnerable.
It is the Minister who has responsibility under the Constitution to fight for and play her role in ensuring a proper outturn for the people concerned. There will be another opportunity to go through the 16 cuts in the budget and the Estimates but I just want to make a brief reference to three of them: the supplement paid to those with special dietary needs which is to be phased out; the crèche supplement which assists in covering the costs of emergency child care which is to be abolished immediately; and rent supplement which health boards will now refuse to a person or family who has not been renting for six months. If the vast majority affected could afford to rent in the first instance, they would not be applying for rent supplement.
On the abolition of the crèche supplement, the Minister can say that many of these items should not have been the responsibility of her Department in the first instance but should perhaps have come within the remit of another Department. The reality is that she cannot decide unilaterally to remove this measure because the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, wants €50 million from her budget without putting something else in its place. That is where the measure falls down.
There are various groups affected. For example, Tír na nÓg pre-school and Our Lady's nursery school, both of which are located on Sillogue Road, provide for 190 children under the age of four years. The supplement being provided by the State provided children of families on basic income in a deprived area with their only opportunity of accessing a pre-school facility. It benefited them enormously. Some 90% of the children attending the schools in question were entitled to the supplement. The message clearly coming across is that it will not continue.
The circumstances in which people drop out will arise again with the result that we, as a society, will miss out. If the Minister intends to proceed and take away the scheme, she should not do so until something else is put in its place to ensure such children can continue in pre-school. Otherwise, she will be denying young people in deprived areas the right to an education.
On rent supplement, the Minister has said health boards will retain discretion to make exceptions in individual cases. Community welfare officers have this discretion which they use not to pay the supplement. Where an officer deems there is abuse, he or she will not pay it. Many have come to my clinic to state the community welfare officer has refused them the supplement. In this regard, the Minister states she is providing for a greater role for local authorities; that one should go to the housing department to see if they will be in a position to help.
Most of those in receipt of rent supplement are already on a housing list. In the case of Fingal County Council there is a requirement that one cannot receive the supplement until one is on its list. In saying one should go to the housing department, the Minister is saying the local lauthority will make them homeless because it cannot give them a house because the Government has presided over a doubling of the numbers on housing lists from 27,500 to 50,000 since it took office. Is she saying discretion can be used but that technically one can be made homeless? What will this do for the thousands already on housing lists? The Minister cannot get away from the fact that until sufficient houses are built by the local authorities, rent supplement will be a feature of the housing sector. She is denying this. Whether she likes it, the supplement has become a key part of the Government's social housing policy. This should only be changed in the context of a comprehensive review. The six months proposal is an example of unco-ordinated, disjointed Government inaction.
Given the number of recipients of rent supplement, 60,000, one of the reasons the Minister is here this morning is that the cost of the measure has increased to €330 million. Having spoken to community welfare officers, not only in the last week but also for the last six months, there is abuse of the system. I do not know whether this constitutes 1%, 5% or 10% of cases but there are people in receipt of the supplement who go on holidays to the Canaries and elsewhere. Why does the Minister not tackle this? Her proposal does not tackle it. She has not even put a structure in place. Instead she has adopted a sledgehammer approach.
People have a right under the Constitution to housing. If the State through the local authorities does not provide it, rent supplement is one mechanism for so doing. The Minister is saying to the people concerned that homelessness does not matter. She is active and knows as well as I do from meeting her constituents that because of the lack of housing there are three and four member family units living with their families, sleeping in living rooms, kitchens and spare bedrooms. Do they not have a right to housing? They have a right to a house of their own but only go to the community welfare officer to be refused. The officer concerned might say, "The Minister might tell the Dáil that we have discretion but she has cut €15 million from our Estimate. As a consequence, we do not have the money." Unless those seeking a home have been renting for six months, which they cannot afford to do, the community welfare officer can refuse them rent supplement.
This is a shambles and a disgrace. The Minister has not dealt with any abuses and has taken a sledgehammer to deal with the issue. Some 17 groups have told her that she is wrong, that she should review the matter and take on the Minister for Finance. She should be doing this anyway in the context of looking after the people covered by her brief.
I welcome the Minister. The committee will endorse her request for the allocation of €85 million to meet the demands of her Department for the year. This shows the level of demand to which the Government must respond.
We seem to be in a unique situation regarding social welfare payments. In some cases the Department of Social and Family Affairs has become involved in areas that have nothing to do with its brief and for which other Departments have responsibility. It seems to have taken the place of the local authorities as regards housing and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform as regards child care. The Minister is absolutely right to get back to her main area of business - social welfare.
There are questions to be answered regarding expenditure on social welfare. Given the increases in social welfare since 1997 - €355 million in the coming year alone - something is obviously happening that is not in the best interests of those who fall within the Minister's area of responsibility. On rent subsidies, there has been a 120% increase in three years. Expenditure has increased from a figure of €151 million in 2000 to €330 million in 2003. I believe in subsidies, in supporting people in making sure they have a roof over their heads. As I have worked within the local authority system for 25 years, I know a bit about this matter but I am not happy about the figures.
I am not happy either about what Deputy Ryan said, even though I agree with him. There are people in receipt of rent supplement who are abusing the system and going on holidays. We are talking about equal opportunity. If there are anomolies and people are abusing the system, this must be sorted out. They are taking money away from those genuinely entitled to receive it. That is the bottom line.
Some Minister, whether it be the Minister for Social and Family Affairs or another, must put down a marker to establish what the problems are. I have no doubt that the Minister and her officials will do this but ask them to make sure that in all circumstances exceptional needs are dealt with. I am absolutely convinced that it is time the Department, other Departments and statutory bodies dealt with their responsibilities. Everything should not be dumped into one great pot for which there is no accountability. I do not know who reports to whom regarding the increase in spending of €330 million.
I have never seen a report in my local authority from the housing officer on the rent supplement scheme. Surely housing officers have a major part to play. Officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are not involved to any great extent. We have staff employed by the health boards and the Minister is paying. It is time a handle was put on this.
There is a vote in the Dáil. Are we suspending the sitting?
Yes. As the Minister has another appointment at 12 noon, I ask members to be brief. I say this with respect to my colleagues. We will resume immediately after the vote.
Sitting suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 11.40 a.m.
I apologise to members for the interruptions. While I do not like curtailing contributions, it would help if members were focused in their contributions.
I support the Supplementary Estimate and the Minister. In particular, I compliment her on the payment of a 100% Christmas bonus again this year which will be very much welcomed all over the country.
I note the level of expenditure on child benefit has increased significantly over the years which is appreciated by every mother in the country. Total expenditure on carer's allowance amounts to €182 million which is also to be welcomed. I hope there will be more in the future.
On supplementary social welfare payments, it is fair to say the level of expenditure on rent supplement has gone through the roof. We must return to a situation where it is more favourable for a person to accept local authority housing rather than rent supplement.
Can the Deputy say where they will find a council house?
There is another payment which is not the responsibility of the Minister - differential rent. In some cases when she grants a sizeable increase in social welfare payments, much of the increase is clawed back by the local authorities. There should be a link between the various schemes. Some believe they are better off staying on the rent subsidy scheme but that should not be the case. There should be a link between the local authorities, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure it would be more advantageous to opt for a council house.
A significant sum is allocated for old age pensions as a result of good government over the years. I compliment all concerned on the very welcome downward trend in the live register.
I do not wish to be repetitive but the Minister's role is that of protector of the weak. If she was being judged on marks out of ten, I doubt if she would reach the pass mark. She has chosen the easy option by attacking the weak and most vulnerable in society. The same track record is evident in the Department of Health and Children where the most needy and vulnerable are targeted when cuts are required. There have been cutbacks in the number of home help hours, subventions and the winter bed initiative. The Minister is learning very fast from the example of that Department. She is choosing the easy option, despite the fact that the 1% increase in the rate of VAT is starting to bite into the pockets of the poor. It is hitting them at the same level as the rich which is a sign of inequality and they are not being compensated to the same extent as the better-off.
I will refer to two of the 16 savage cuts. What does the Minister expect people to do for the six month period during which they will not get rent supplement? They will have to go to community welfare officers and make beggars of themselves. They will have to declare themselves as emergency cases which is grossly unfair to people in need. There is a need for housing.
The back-to-work education allowance has also been savagely cut. Education is a basic right if we are to have a workforce. Cutting this allowance will result in no significant saving. While €11.5 million will be saved in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, another Department will have to pick up this sum. What is the real saving? There is a social cost to this type of cut. The Minister should reconsider. These are just two of the 16 cuts announced.
I welcome the Minister and her officials. I compliment her on introducing the Supplementary Estimate. I would like her to give us some more of the details of her proposals in respect of diet supplement.
I also welcome the Minister. As one who has no responsibility, where did the Minister find the extra 28,000 children?
(Interruptions).
This is a serious issue.
It is extremely serious. The Minister put it back to me when it was mentioned before. How many children are born in the State each year?
A Deputy
Some 50,000.
This figure just beggars belief. Government officials tell farmers and others that they cannot count. I know a person who was recently assessed for social welfare purposes. He had documents showing his calves cost €100 each. However, the statement showed this to be €200. This is what happens in the Department of Social and Family Affairs when it comes to mathematics. Each year 50,000 children are born, yet 28,000 children come from nowhere. The Minister must be more realistic.
I come from a farming background while the Minister comes from a farming area. I know of a person assessed as having a weekly income of €776 who was under extreme pressure to buy groceries. The means of assessment and the differences between assessors in different areas are unbelievable. This applies to carers, farm assist and other forms of pension.
Subhead B states the cost of old age non-contributory pensions has been reduced by €3.3 million. Clearly, this relates to the means test and the fact that there are fewer people in receipt of old age non-contributory pensions. How many are involved? Would it be possible to waive the means test for this sector which is reducing in size? Many feel aggrieved because they have lost out by a small number of stamps. Those over a certain age who were brought into the PRSI net in 1988 found that they were no longer eligible. The Minister may not be able to answer this question now and I may need to table a parliamentary question.
I am conscious of the Minister's time constraints. She is welcome and I fully support the Supplementary Estimate. Some very important points have been made and I hope the Minister can address some of them. The issues involved are sensitive. While we are conscious of where the Minister is coming from, there is genuine concern. Having listened to members of the committee, I hope she can deal with some of the issues, if not today, then in the coming months.
Thank God I have been around long enough to know we would not stick to the agenda.
I thought I did a useful job in keeping some of them on the tramlines.
From the deliberations, I take it that despite everything, there will be support for the Supplementary Estimate.
Deputy Crawford is right about non-contributory pensions. The downward trend has occurred because more people are eligible to receive contributory pensions. At the same time, in some instances, women, in particular, are in receipt of non-contributory pensions because financially they may be better off receiving a non-contributory pension of their own than a qualified adult allowance. I appreciate the Deputy is suggesting that because of the smaller number we should change the means test.
Many women who may have worked in small shops or farms were never advised by their accountants or anybody else that they should have paid PRSI because they were part of the system as such. They now find themselves in limbo.
I appreciate what the Deputy is saying. This indicates the changing trends in social welfare payments. Many social assistance schemes are changing to contributory social insurance schemes.
Two or three members have insinuated that those of us on this side of the House cannot count. While I may not be able to add, subtract, multiply or divide, those beside me certainly can. Their permutations, deliberations and determination of trends have been excellent. Last week the Committee of Public Accounts discussed the reckoning of pre-1953 contributions for old age contributory pension purposes. In addition, Deputy Ring suggested we needed a degree.
I asked from where the 28,000 children had come. The Minister should tell us.
Let me deal first with the reckoning of pre-1953 contributions for old age contributory pension purposes. Sometimes one would need a crystal ball in looking at some of these issues.
There are 50,000 children born each year.
We will address that matter in a few minutes. The decision to introduce the scheme recognising pre-1953 contributions for old age contributory pension purposes is one of the best the Government has made. The Deputy would be silly not to agree as half of the beneficiaries are probably from County Mayo.
That is not the question. The point is the Department got it wrong by a sum of €113 million.
As a practising politician, I am sure the Deputy had difficulty in assessing people's contributions pre-1953. There were old records and, in many cases, none. In particular, there were many people living in the United Kingdom for whom no Department had records. We in the Department of Social and Family Affairs did our utmost to ensure those who qualified received their entitlements. As a consequence, the numbers increased hugely. We have learned from this. As I have twice indicated to the House and as the Secretary General has indicated to the Committee of Public Accounts, on the basis of not necessarily knowing every single contribution made prior to 1953, it transpired that more people were entitled to avail of the scheme. They will certainly continue to be paid. Rightly or wrongly, it was one of the best schemes ever introduced, as I am sure all would agree.
Regarding child benefit, I am delighted Deputy Crawford has not added further to my ills. Deo volente I will try to avoid doing so myself.
Is the Minister sure?
As there is usually an election whenever I am expecting, those on the other side of the House should pray hard.
That will encourage Deputy Ring to pray. I am doing my best to work within time constraints and ask the Minister to concentrate on the items to be addressed.
The birth rate is averaging about 63,000 per annum. As members will be aware, there was a backlog last year in child benefit applications. The birth rate has increased. The other reason we have an increase in expenditure is we have become so efficient in paying people so quickly that the expenditure is incurred much more quickly. This is due to the GROW project and the STM methodology of payment.
We also have a huge inflow of children into the State, as a result of people returning home from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and so on. Non-nationals are entitled to be here if they have work permits and their children have entitlements. It is very difficult to predict what exactly will happen in these circumstances. I understand that approximately 9,500 children came into the State this year, as distinct from being born here, and they were entitled to child benefit. Many of them were children of Irish parents.
It is as a consequence of such fluctuations that we had to reassess our estimates of child benefit payments. The acceleration of payments actually accounted for 20,000 of the number, which is considerable. By becoming more efficient, we are spending more. Formerly, if an application had been made in September, payment might not have begun until the following January or February. We are dealing with a once-off due to the fact that the methodology has been changed and people are being paid more quickly.
As members will appreciate, one of the difficulties is that we do not know how many may decide in January to come home - usually bringing two or three children with them. That is where the estimation problem arises. As has been said, the birth rate is now steadily increasing also. We look at the rate and other relevant trends but one can only approach the matter on the basis of estimation and approximation. We work with good statistics with regard to child benefit. I hope this answers the Deputy's question.
With great respect to the Minister and her departmental officials, the figures show a difference of 28,000 children. The Minister spoke of 63,000 births in the State - 28,000 plus 28,000 equals 56,000. Her calculation was nearly 50% out of line. What will happen next May when the ten accession countries join the European Union? Even more will be in a position to come here and bring their families. There will be chaos.
Even as matters stand, they would be entitled to payment.
My point is that we do not know what explosion in immigration may occur next May. If, already this year, even before the ten accession countries join, we have 28,000 more than expected, what will happen next year?
First, there were about 20,000 applications in the pipeline - a once-off - and payment has been made. Because of efficiencies, within a very short period, we had greater payments than anticipated on the basis of technology.
With regard to the expansion of the European Union, it is my view, with which I believe members will agree, that, in the main, most of those who come freely to this country, as they are entitled to do, are entitled to their benefits. However, people will not come to Ireland in their thousands. We do not anticipate this. People of that ilk who are here on work permits are already being paid.
The current situation is a once-off blip but with greater efficiencies I do not believe it will happen again. As I indicated in the Dáil, we now have a system in place whereby a woman can get her payment before she leaves hospital, whereas previously it would have taken three or four months to have payment made.
I do not agree.
That is an example of greater efficiency in the system. They were the only two issues raised on the Supplementary Estimate. I wish to deal with a few other issues, if I may.
That is not fair.
Does the Minister's comment relate to the Supplementary Estimate?
It does. A number of issues have been raised by members opposite. To say I am a soft touch or incompetent——
Nobody said that.
The Minister should withdraw that remark. Our debate was quite pleasant.
When leaders of certain parties use very condescending remarks, indicating that I do not know the difference between a cap on rent supplement and a cap on rent, that is fine - everybody can say whatever he or she wishes. However, when one is on this side of the House, one has to do a couple of things. I was given a job to do. My job was to ensure the less well-off were cared for but I must also have competence in ensuring the people who provide the €10.65 billion I have to spend are given value for money. That is an equal responsibility. On that basis, I have reviewed a number of schemes over the last year.
In this year's Estimates a sum €10.65 billion has been provided for, not to mention what will be provided in the budget. It is all very well to jump up and down when one only has a little information. It is better to jump up and down when one has all of the information available. As I clearly said on a number of occasions, those currently in receipt of rent supplement are not affected. Second, the regulations have not been signed.
On the basis of consultations with CWOs, whom we are meeting this afternoon, and members of my parliamentary party, Members of the House and other organisations, I will listen to what they have to say. It is incorrect to say I will back down or reverse policy. However, the methodologies have not been finalised. In that regard, I will take into consideration the views expressed sincerely by a number of Members of the House.
I am almost convinced that the Department of Finance can be right an odd time. Its greatest fear is that we will start a scheme because once a scheme is started one tends to expand it and it may go far beyond its original basis. The reason rent supplement was introduced was to look after single men. It has since been expanded. I would love to know how many single men are being supported by the scheme.
Not too many.
The scheme was a response to an emergency - that was its purpose. In practice, it has become a full-time housing initiative.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has €1.9 billion available to him this year for housing initiatives. Like other Members, I was a member of a local authority for long enough to know most of the idiosyncrasies of housing policy, in terms of how people move with a view to gaining a higher place on the list and how those in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance do not get a fair chance. Members will agree that those in receipt of rent supplement do not get a fair chance of securing permanent housing.
Yes.
We may have one situation in Deputy Ryan's area and another in north Tipperary. What does that tell us? It indicates that we do not have universality of implementation of the scheme. This cannot continue. On the basis of a number of initiatives taken by me in my Department, we have looked at the Deputy's county council area, Fingal, as well as Cork, Donegal and Offaly. There is a cohort who are not moving and need different services but nothing is happening because nobody is looking after them.
With the community welfare officer, EHO and housing officer in my Department, we have undertaken a case by case study of particular electoral areas, from which I have almost complete information. On this basis, I can see a new way of dealing with housing needs. I am sick, sore and tired of being blamed for a housing problem when there should be a coherent way of dealing with it but this can only be done if I have the information available.
Everyone will agree that there are incentives within the scheme which have led to certain situations. I am sure members of the committee have heard people down the town, in the pub, on the street or in the clinic saying, "If am such and such a person, I will get everything but if I am married with two wains and I am killed working and low-paid, I will get nothing." Such people are aggrieved because they do not receive medical care, rent supplement or anything else. They deserve to be cared for in the same way as everyone else. Those in real need, in crisis, who may or may not become homeless and in violent situations will be catered for within the regulations. I do not expect community welfare officers to make it up but to implement the regulations in the light of the background information that will be made available to them.
Will they have money to implement the regulations?
Some €335 million is available to them this year.
The Deputy mentioned the crèche supplement but people living in Dublin are the only ones who have ever heard of it. I agree that it grew from a short-term need in Dublin, for example, if someone was in hospital or detoxing. The 23 crèches in Dublin have relied on short-term measures for many years. They are engaged in good work but the way in which they have been organised is wrong. In the light of certain matters brought to my attention, for example, by some of the members of the committee, I know that there is a better way to support that type of need. It is a long-term initiative, over two years in the case of certain individuals, until their children start primary school.
The crèche supplement scheme will be dealt with as an exceptional need on the basis of the need and the exception and as a short-term measure. Those who have such exceptional needs often live in deprived areas where many addicted to drugs or other substances live. People detoxing will be supported as they have exceptional needs. Helping a crèche to stay open does not count as a child care support. Child care support is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We will deal with such matters at official and political level by examining some crèches. I understand one crèche has been relying on supplementary welfare to keep it ticking over since 1970.
It is an exceptional case.
That is not the right way to proceed. There are three crèche supplements in the North-Western Health Board, the Midland Health Board and the North-Eastern Health Board. There are 700 in the Deputy's health board. This cannot continue because it is unfair. I have no problem with meeting the real needs of the people referred to by the Deputy. They need to be and will be supported under the exceptional needs payment provisions. I will not get involved in child care. I will support those who deal with the matter in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and those who deal with drugs partnerships. I know what will happen if I start to deal with the matter of child care. I will deal with exceptional cases on the basis of need in the case of those who go into hospital or experience a crisis. It will be explained to community welfare officers when we meet them.
The other issue that has been raised is dietary supplement. The regulations in this regard have not been finalised. The supplement has not been examined since 1996. One third of one's social welfare payment should be available for food. One is entitled to a supplement if one is spending more than one third of one's social welfare income on food because one has dietary difficulties. The supplement is not necessarily based on income or disease. Certain people are receiving 40c per week, whereas others are receiving between €10 and €15.
Is it a health service?
It is. Increases in social welfare and changes or fluctuations in dietary requirements have not been considered since 1996. I do not know if coeliac bread costs more or less than it did then. This matter has not been taken into consideration. It will be taken into consideration when we examine the phased scheme. Have I told anybody how many years it will take to introduce a new phased scheme? Those availing of the supplement who may be affected by any methodology change will continue to avail of the scheme. I will not remove the supplement from a person who relies on it to purchase bread or whatever else they need. There may be a change in the way people enter the scheme but they will still be able to enter it. One should wait until one has heard the exact way in which——
The Minister does not want to listen to strong opposition or attempts to raise the issue. This is democracy at work.
I have no opposition whatsoever.
It is democracy.
The Deputy is as entitled as the members on my side of the House to express his views. I appreciate where people are coming from on these issues. Frankly, it is untrue to say my attitude, that of my departmental officials or that of those who implement decisions on my behalf is opposed to the interests of those who are less well off.
It may not be the Minister's intention to deprive the less well-off but that is the effect.
I have decided not to sign the regulations until I have listened to what people have to say. Something has to be done about schemes that are out of control in terms of expenditure. It is clear that what should be happening is not happening. We have to do something about the cause of such over-expenditure, as opposed to the short-term measures that I have to take to support the less well-off. The incentivisation of certain schemes will have to be changed. We have to examine this matter. I have heard the arguments made today on previous occasions, from organisations and my own party. It is important that we hear what people have to say about these issues.
I have to take a strong hand in examining my responsibility, which is to ensure those who are less well off are supported. The reasons certain schemes were introduced should be adhered to, not expanded. If there is a different need arising from this, we should look at it. We should not continue to add to schemes. My Department had an overrun of €70 million this year in respect of supplementary welfare allowance. I do not know if I can start building houses but I feel €70 million would be far better spent by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, than by me, if it meant permanency could be brought to the situation. I appreciate that there may be difficulties but they should be tackled in the context of what is coming up in the budget and any of the regulations I will introduce. Control measures are very important but so are needs.
I was on this side, as well as on the Government side of the House, when Opposition Deputies - I do not refer to the Members present - said I would make people homeless by capping rents. I have not made one person homeless.
The Minister has not signed the regulations yet.
I am talking about my decision to cap rents last year. What happened? The answer is that they went down. I am sure all members of the committee agree that landlords were creaming it. The fact that they were increasing their prices meant that we had to pay more. The person who may have been living in poor accommodation was caught in the middle with nobody to stand up for him or her. This has to stop. No one was made homeless as a result of the flexibility in the scheme or refused when particular difficulties arose. This is an example of the philosophy behind all of the schemes in the Department. Methodology is one thing, philosophy is another. Irrespective of whether the Deputies opposite believe the Government does not care, facts speak louder. Not one person was left homeless as a result of any changes I introduced last year. The changes benefited our clients and customers and I am determined to proceed on a similar basis when implementing the forthcoming changes.
The Minister stated nobody was made homeless.
Correct.
The Minister was correct to cap rent supplement because some landlords knew the local health board would meet any shortfall. I do not want the poor and those in need of rent supplement to be caught in the middle between the Minister, community welfare officers and landlords. I will be crucified for expressing support for the capping of rent supplement but it is necessary because landlords have cleaned up.
There is no point in my colleagues from the Government parties pretending there is not a major housing crisis. The Minister spoke eloquently in defence of the measures she will have to introduce. Her job is to deal with the less well-off, while the county councils must deal with housing, an issue for another day in another forum. The county councils have failed in this task because the number seeking housing is increasing every day. There is a shortfall in public housing and, in some cases, reasonably priced private housing. The high price of land and property has forced many who would never have been on housing lists onto council waiting lists.
It is important we protect the less well-off and the living standards of those in receipt of social welfare payments when social welfare rates are increased in the budget next week. This will require the Minister and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to address the problems facing local authorities. While I accept local authorities must raise revenue, they should be prevented from trying again to take a significant percentage of the increases in social welfare rates. I hope a directive such as that issued last year forbidding local authorities from taking more than a certain proportion of the increases is issued again this year. It was only when I questioned the actions of local authorities that it emerged that they had cleaned out thousands of people because staff had not been informed of the directive. In a number of cases rent increases were reversed when I referred to the directive. Many have been affected by this problem.
The Department is excellent in two areas, appointing consultants and promoting the Minister through public relations and photographs. When it is sending out public relations material early in the new year, will the Minister spell out simply and precisely to those receiving increases in social welfare payments that local authorities may not increase rents by more than a percentage of the increases? We will debate this matter again.
I await changes to the proposals on dietary supplement.
We look forward to the regulations.
The Minister is correct to review dietary supplement because people have been complaining to me for years that the scheme does not cover their costs. Schemes are established to help and sometimes people avail of them because they cannot live on their social welfare payments, which is wrong.
We do not do enough for those entitled to family income supplement, namely, people earning low incomes. The Department achieved a saving of €3 million this year because many in employment do not want to accept a social welfare payment. Those on low incomes should be automatically given a tax credit at the end of the year instead of having to apply for family income supplement. Some find it embarrassing to inform their employer that they are applying for a social welfare supplement. The Minister should examine this issue.
The Minister has spoken a great deal of sense this morning which members of the committee, regardless of our politicaldifferences, have acknowledged. She issued a fair challenge to us to admit what we already know, namely, that there are problems with schemes.
I cannot resist asking a question.
I know what the Minister is about to say.
By how much did I reduce the budget for consultancy work?
It was reduced by about €2 million.
The actual figure is 70%. As such, the Deputy will not need to table parliamentary questions on the matter next year. I have received just €2.8 million this year for consultancy work.
I am delighted to hear that and glad the Minister is listed as head of the Department.
May I interject?
It is a vital moment in the debate.
The committee wishes to present to the Minister the first two copies of a report we compiled without help from consultants.
Is there no photograph?
The Minister is confusing me with Deputy Cassidy. The report lists 15 priority areas which members want her to address and makes 15 recommendations. Although some of our proposals may have financial implications, we hope she will look favourably on them. We will send a copy to the Minister for Finance because we are long enough in the game to know the Minister will need every assistance from that quarter. The Minister for Health and Children will also receive a copy.
Many of those in the press may not be aware of the work members do behind closed doors in private session. Deliberations on the report which was compiled without the use of consultants were time-consuming and involved 12 full meetings lasting between 25 and 30 hours. I hope its six chapters and considerable background information will prove useful to the Minister and her officials.
We do not want it to collect dust.
I will dust it every morning.
I understand the Social Welfare Bill will be referred to the select committee on Wednesday, 10 December, and that Report Stage will be taken on Wednesday, 17 December. This means the select committee will need to consider the Bill on either Thursday, 11 December, or Friday, 12 December. As the former date would suit members best, I suggest we meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 11 December.
What will happen if, like today, several votes are called during our meeting? Perhaps we should meet an hour before the Dáil sits.
We will meet at 9.30 a.m., a happy medium.
We should complete our consideration of the Bill on one day.
We deserve a photograph after all the work the committee has done. We have a press launch at 2 p.m. in the auditorium at which members will answer questions. I am aware that they have other issues to attend to but ask everyone to be there. I expect the launch to finish by 2.45 p.m.
The Bill will be available on Friday week. While I am not pre-empting the Whips, it is proposed to take Second Stage on 9 and 10 December and all other Stages from 11 December.
We will begin at 9.30 a.m. on 11 December. I will see members at 2 p.m. I thank the Minister and her officials for attending the meeting. I thank everyone for his or her help and co-operation.