Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 May 2008

Annual Output Statement 2008.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Hanafin, and her officials. As it is the Minister's first time to appear before the committee, I wish her well in her office. I am confident that both the select committee and joint committee will work with her in a true spirit of mutual co-operation. The social and family affairs portfolio includes aspects of Government policy which affect many individuals and families in a profound way. I am sure we can work together productively and efficiently to address issues of importance and thereby help to improve quality of life for citizens.

The purpose of this meeting is to consider the 2008 Revised Estimate for the Department of Social and Family Affairs, Vote 38, and the 2008 output statement. A proposed timetable has been circulated. It allows for opening statements by the Minister and Opposition spokespersons, after which there will be an open discussion by way of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed. I call on the Minister to make her opening statement.

Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh agus go raibh maith agat as an fáilte a chuir tú romham anseo. Seo an chéad uair dom anseo mar Aire Gnóthaí Sóisialacha agus Teaghlaigh agus tá an-áthas orm a bheith i bhúr measc. An rud a thug mé faoi deara ó thosaigh mé sa phost seo ná an méid duine atá ag braith ar nó ag fáil cabhrach ón Roinn agus an chaoi a thrasnaíonn an Roinn ar ghach teaghlach sa tír. I look forward to working with the Department, the Chairman and the committee.

As the Chairman observed, our income and support services impact on the lives of almost every person in the State. Each week more than 1 million people receive a social welfare payment, with more than 1.5 million individuals benefiting from those weekly payments. In addition, child benefit payments reach more than 560,000 families, comprising almost 1.2 million children, every month. Supporting families is an important objective of the Department. Families are the basic unit of society, providing the natural framework for the emotional and material support essential to the growth and well-being of their members. The scale and pace of change affecting the family in recent decades are unprecedented and represent significant challenges for society and policymakers.

I intend to ensure resources, improved services, targeted entitlements and more individually directed social supports converge to provide the foundations on which people can build better lives for themselves and their families. This is not simply a matter of increasing social welfare rates. It is also about ensuring our policies focus on enabling each individual to achieve his or her full potential. Everybody, regardless of particular abilities, can contribute in a meaningful way to society generally and, more importantly, become an integral part of his or her local community. This contribution will vary depending on individual circumstances. For some, it will be their contribution as family carers, while for others, it will be their role in the wider voluntary and community sectors. For many more, it will be their participation in education, training and employment.

In this regard, I intend to pursue a full and challenging policy agenda. This includes the following: ensuring the ambitious income support targets in the programme for Government are progressed in the coming years, with a particular focus on the needs of vulnerable groups; developing a long-term framework on pensions, following completion of the consultation process on the Green Paper on pensions; finalising a new social assistance payment for low income families with children, including lone parents; developing a national carers strategy in co-operation with relevant Departments and agencies; ensuring social welfare recipients are facilitated to participate in education, training and employment through the delivery of targeted activation services and by eliminating disincentives in the way social welfare schemes are structured or delivered; and overseeing the transfer of the community welfare service from the HSE to the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Providing a high quality service for the public will also be a priority. The high level of interaction that the Department has with the public is evident from the fact that in any given year we receive some 2 million claims and applications and 6.5 million telephone calls take place. A formidable logistical operation is required to administer some 50 separate welfare schemes and services and ensure people are paid promptly and accurately, while ensuring value for money and safeguarding the public purse from fraud or error. The Department, rightly, gives importance to the highest standards of customer service and is engaged in a multi-year programme of service enhancement using the most modern technology and work processes. My role as Minister is not simply to oversee this very substantial operation but to ensure our social and family policies meet the needs of 21st century Ireland.

The Government has worked hard to ensure the remarkable economic success in the last decade or so has resulted in benefits to all, including the more vulnerable and marginalised members of society. Basic social welfare rates have increased by nearly 142% since 1997, over three times ahead of the 47% increase in the consumer price index, or a real increase of 65%. These changes were given strategic direction by the national action plans on social inclusion which were developed and implemented in consultation with the social partners and the other relevant stakeholders.

Many of the operational and policy challenges I have mentioned so far also feature as important targets in the annual output statement which members of the committee have before them. The annual output statement is a key element of the reforms to the budget and Estimates process announced by the then Minister for Finance in the 2006 budget. The primary purpose of the statement is to enhance accountability and provide clearer evidence of the results of public spending by linking key outputs and strategic impacts to the financial and staffing resources of the Department.

The first annual output statement was presented last year. This year's statement reports on performance against the targets set for 2007, as well as identifying targets for the year ahead. It is worth emphasising that the annual output statement process is very much a work in progress, both for Departments and officials, as well as the members of the various Dáil select committees. I would welcome any feedback the committee might have on this initiative.

Before going into the finer detail of the many figures before committee members, I wish to highlight the following overall expenditure figures. Total spending on social welfare by the Department has increased by €1.5 billion, or 9.7%, from €15.4 billion in 2007 to €16.9 billion this year. This corresponds to over 29% of total gross current Government expenditure and 10% of gross national product. Nearly 15% will go on the universal child benefit scheme. Social Insurance based schemes will account for 45% of total expenditure this year. Means-tested social assistance schemes come to nearly 37%, while administration costs account for less than 3% of total expenditure. The increase in this year's Estimates' allocation reflects both the increase in recipient numbers on most schemes and the improvements in rates of payment and other conditions announced in the budget.

Budget 2008 was the first important step in implementing the various commitments in the programme for Government. There were a number of key improvements. The maximum personal rates of contributory and non-contributory pensions increased by €14 and €12 per week, respectively. This brings the maximum rate of payment for the contributory pension to €223.30 per week and the non-contributory maximum rate to €212 per week. These increases ensure progress is being made to achieve the commitment in the programme for Government to bring the basic State pension to €300 per week by 2012. There was an increase of €27 per week for contributory State pension, transition State pension and invalidity pension for qualified adults aged 66 years of age or over. This increase brings the maximum rate payable to €200 per week, thereby making further progress on the commitment in the programme for Government to increase the level of qualified adult payment for pensioner spouses to the level of the State non-contributory pension by 2009. The level of the pensioner qualified adult payment is now equivalent to over 94% of the target rate.

Budget 2008 also provided for an increase of €12 per week in the personal rate payable to recipients of the various social welfare schemes for persons of working age. This brings the level of the lowest rate of social welfare payment to €197.80 per week, thereby ensuring the value of this rate was maintained in line with the commitment in the programme for Government and the national action plan for social inclusion. A number of improvements were introduced in child income supports, including increases in child benefit rates of €6 on the lower rate and €8 on the higher rate. The rates are now €166 and €203 per month, respectively. The qualified child increase, QCI, rose by €2 to €24 per week. These enhancements, together with others, ensure child income supports remain above the level envisaged in the national action plan for social inclusion. Improvements were also made to family income supplement, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance and the widowed parent grant, while additional funding was provided for the school meals programme.

In terms of the 2008 Estimates as a whole, the annual output statement provides a high level view of expenditure from both the Exchequer and the social insurance fund by programme area. Based on the Department's high level strategic goals, expenditure is divided across seven programmes as follows: children and families; people of working age; retired and older people; people with disabilities; poverty and social inclusion; identity management and secure access to services, and operational capabilities and modernisation. I will provide a brief overview of this expenditure.

Children will account for 19% of expenditure or nearly €3.2 billion, of which €2.5 billion will go on child benefit. It is estimated that nearly €373 million will be spent on the qualified child increase, while €188 million will go on family income supplement. The single biggest programme relates to people of working age which accounts for over 32% of overall expenditure or nearly €5.5 billion. Payments for unemployed persons, jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit account for over €1.6 billion, while just over €1.08 billion will be spent on the one parent family payment. Carers will receive €536 million in total.

The retired and older people's programme area accounts for nearly 32% of overall expenditure or very nearly €5.35 billion. Of this, more than half of all expenditure or over €3 billion goes on the contributory State pension, now the single biggest social welfare scheme, while a further €964 million and €890 million, respectively, is expected to be required for the non-contributory State pension and widow's-widower's contributory pension for those aged 66 years and over. One of the key priorities for 2008 will be the completion of the consultation process on the Green Paper on pensions and the development of a long-term framework for pensions.

The main payments for persons with disabilities, including invalidity pension, disability allowance and occupational injuries benefits, account for €1.8 billion. Important outputs in this programme this year include the completion of a value for money review of the disability allowance scheme and the initiation of a European Social Fund supported pilot project on developing activation measures for people with disabilities. Preparations are also under way for the transfer of the domiciliary care allowance and blind welfare allowance schemes from the HSE to the Department next year.

The main areas of expenditure in the poverty and social inclusion programme are the fuel allowance and supplementary welfare allowance, SWA, schemes. A total of €159 million will be spent on the fuel allowance this year, while the SWA will account for almost €773 million. A particular focus of activity under this programme will be implementation of the national action plan for social inclusion 2007-16. This sets out an ambitious agenda of 153 targets and actions, with the overall goal of reducing the rate of consistent poverty by 2012 and eliminating it by 2016. The last two programmes account for a little over 1% of total expenditure, mainly on the administrative budget subheads of Vote 38. Activities under these programmes include the development of the public service card and provision of identity services for other Departments, fees to An Post for payments made at post offices, the maintenance and development of the Department's IT infrastructure and staff costs for the central support sections such as personnel and accounts.

Turning to sources of funding, members of the select committee will be aware that the Exchequer still makes the most significant contribution to social welfare expenditure in terms of resources, as it funds all assistance based schemes and child benefit. However, employees, employers and the self-employed also make a significant and valued contribution to the social welfare system through the operation of the social insurance fund. This year net Exchequer funding under Vote 38 is expected to amount to nearly €9.1 billion, while expenditure from the social insurance fund will be over €7.8 billion.

I hope my opening statement has given the committee a good overview of the Department's planned activities in 2008. The schemes and services operated by the Department benefit everyone in society, either directly or indirectly, and are the key platform for the delivery of social protection. I look forward to discussing the Estimates with the committee, bearing in mind that I may not have all the answers at the tip of my finger.

We may not have all the questions at the tips of our fingers either. I congratulate the Minister on her recent appointment and wish her well. I welcome her and her 12 officials.

Will the Minister outline the difference between the programme for Government which I assume contains the priorities of the Government and each Department's high level goals? When and by whom were the seven high level goals for the Department of Social and Family Affairs set? Were the goals set by the Minister, her predecessor, a previous Minister, or by staff in the Department? What communication took place between relevant parties in establishing the goals and the programme for Government? I have specific reasons for asking these questions. One of the commitments made in the programme for Government concerns the integration of the tax and social welfare systems to allow for more efficient data collection and money transfer mechanisms, fully integrated PPS numbers and so on. Examining the high level goals, it is not clear to me under which goal this commitment falls.

What are the Minister's intentions regarding the continuing development of a public service identity with other relevant services? In reply to a recent question she said the Department and the Revenue Commissioners were engaged in finalising a renewed memorandum of understanding covering areas of co-operation and mutual assistance. There was much discussion on the matter of rent supplement with the Minister's predecessor at meetings of this committee and during the passage of the Social Welfare Bill. Many in the Opposition are critical of the lack of communication between the Department and the Revenue Commissioners in dealing with landlords who ultimately receive the payment of rent supplement, although it is paid to the tenant. Will this important issue be included in the memorandum of understanding?

Similarly, what is the extent of communication between the Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in dealing with the quality of accommodation which qualifies for rent supplement? We have all heard of the experiences of people on local authority housing waiting lists who qualify for rent supplement. Such persons may be allocated a house, mostly on the basis of their poor accommodation, only for someone else to be placed in that poor accommodation. There are probably instances where such accommodation deserves to be closed down. The Minister mentioned the growing interdependence between the Department and Revenue, but the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should be involved too.

The commitment to the use of transition payments for those coming off welfare payments is made in the programme for Government, but under which high level goal of the Department can it be found? Does this incorporate the notion of activation? The Minister referred to the pilot project of developing activation measures for people with disabilities. The Government has a goal of people with disabilities filling 3% of the posts in all State agencies and Departments. This target has not been met in the majority of Departments. I am not sure of the position in the Department, but perhaps the Minister will answer this question. What pilot project does she have in mind to address the matter? I imagine many in the disability sector will see this activation pilot project as one which will not work and if it does not work on a pilot basis, how can it work more generally?

The Minister intends to monitor all schemes within the Department's remit to ensure poverty traps and disincentives to work are removed. Most agree on the importance of this intention. Will the Minister outline the way the Department proofs potential poverty traps? I suppose it has expertise in this area. When decisions are being made about welfare payments, how does it ensure there will be no repercussions? One change in the budget left some people on family income supplement between €2 and €3 worse off as a result of an increase, even though the increase was between €10 and €12. What schemes are being monitored?

On pensions, one of the commitments made in the programme for Government is to treat women fairly under the social welfare code. The high level goal related to this commitment is goal No. 3. As there was no reference to women in the Minister's comments on this goal, where does this commitment fit in? The role and economic contribution of spouses working on farms are related matters, but there is no mention of them in the Minister's statement.

I welcome the Minister's remarks on tackling poverty and the explanation of where money has been spent. The most recent figures from the St. Vincent de Paul Society, following the budget, indicate that there are 720,000 people living in relative poverty and 280,000 living in consistent poverty, including 100,000 children. The Minister has set out an ambitious list of 153 targets and actions with the overall goal of reducing the number living in consistent poverty by 2012 and eliminating it by 2016. The Government had a goal of eliminating child poverty by 2007, but the Minister's predecessor liked to say the goalposts had moved and the targets changed because the method of calculation had changed. Whatever way we measure it, there are still 100,000 children living in consistent poverty, approximately one child in nine. Apart from stating how money was spent, will the Minister say how she intends to tackle this problem, especially given the rising cost of basic everyday necessities?

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul spends nearly €1.82 million on basic necessities for people in need. This money is spent on food, education, fuel and electricity bills, clothing, furniture and providing financial assistance or helping people pay debts. It is a substantial amount of money for any voluntary organisation to spend. The Department runs the exceptional needs payment scheme which we will probably discuss in more detail later. Does the Minister believe that if an organisation such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is spending nearly €22 million per year on what amount to exceptional needs, there is a need for an increase in the Government exceptional needs payments, or is there a need to change the criteria for making payments?

Two years ago the former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Seamus Brennan, published a strategy for helping one parent families. There have been several press releases from the relevant Ministers since, all with the same content, but no progress has been made. When will we see changes and an action plan? Will the Minister outline her notion of activation measures based on the strategy? Will she, with a view to achieving joined-up government, outline the extent of consultation between her Department and others, including the Departments of Transport, Health and Children, and Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, in progressing this matter, as it is not one with which her Department can deal in isolation. I am sure she shares my disappointment that the strategy was not published by the end of 2007, in keeping with the commitment made in the programme for Government. This is, at least, one commitment made in the programme to be found among the Department's high level goals. When is the strategy likely to be published? Has the Department compiled all the submissions made and will it respond to relevant groups such as the Carers Association prior to finalising the strategy document to ensure substantial engagement?

The Labour Party spokesperson has ten minutes.

I probably will not need that much time, as I would prefer to ask my specific questions when we discuss the programmes. How does the Chairman intend to proceed once opening statements have been made? Will he go through the statement programme by programme and allow questions on each?

It was agreed by members that they would ask their questions after spokespersons finished their contributions. Deputy Shortall may ask questions on the programmes in her contribution.

I warmly congratulate the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on her new appointment. It is an important Department with a high level of spending and I wish her every success in her work. I wish to make three broad points at the outset. The first point is on the process itself, the second is on the customer service record within the Department and the third is on the Department's record on poverty.

One of the weaknesses of this process is the output statement's lack of specific targets, although it does contain a number of general targets. A key measurement for high level goals is the consistent poverty rate and this is set out as a target in the national action plan for social inclusion, yet nowhere in the output statement are specific targets mentioned in this regard. It is difficult to engage in an assessment of the Department's performance in the absence of specific targets.

The targets set out in other departmental strategies, such as the national action plan for social inclusion, supplementary take-up and anything that comes out of the national carers strategy, should in future be included in this output statement. We should aim for much greater precision in respect of these targets. Equally, the output statement is full of useless targets. The average number of recipients is set out as a target but while this may make sense for family income supplement and the other schemes with historically low levels of take-up which the Department claims to be going out if its way to address, it is meaningless and verging on the ridiculous when it comes to the jobseeker's payment, illness benefits and widow's allowance.

One of the flaws of this process as far as the Department is concerned is that many of the inputs relate closely to the work of other Departments. If we are to provide a seamless service and give income support to people at specific times in their lives while ensuring they can move from welfare to work, the role of FÁS and other organisations should be assessed in conjunction with the strategies set out by the Department. For example, the work of the Pensions Board is critical in regard to pension uptake. An argument could be made for including other bodies when this committee meets to discuss future output statements because the Department's work cannot be considered in isolation.

The Estimates and output statement tell us a lot about the work of the Department. More money flows through it than any other Department and it has the highest level of direct engagement with the public, with the result that customer service is a particularly important issue. We should aim for the highest possible standards of customer service. In this regard, however, I have concerns about processing times. While there are successful areas, such as free schemes and free travel, by and large the Department is lagging on its targets for customer service. The target for processing family income supplement applications was 70% within three weeks, yet the output statement reveals that only 17% were completed within that period. The target for carer's allowance and disability allowance was to process 70% of applications within nine weeks but only 34% and 20%, respectively, were completed on time. That kind of performance would not be acceptable in a private sector company and it should not be acceptable in the public service. A target of nine weeks is not particularly onerous, especially given that the Department has nearly 5,000 staff. There is significant room for improvement in customer service across all claim areas and I hope attention is focused on making these improvements in the coming year.

The modernisation of the Department should include extending opening times to one evening per week because people who are in employment or have caring responsibilities often do not have an opportunity to conduct their business until the evening. It would be helpful if the Department made a telephone service available at least one evening per week.

The Department is experiencing continuing failure on income adequacy. We have seen that the Government can make an appreciable difference by targeting particular categories of social welfare recipients and pursuing specific targets. Targeted measures for older people have resulted in greatly improved rates and brought a significant number out of the at risk of poverty category. However, while these improvements on pensions are welcome, the performance on poverty rates among lone parents, people with disabilities and, in particular, children can only be described as appalling.

One in nine Irish children and one in three lone parents experience basic deprivation. The principal objective for the coming years should be addressing this problem. As Deputy Enright noted, a considerable number of strategies and reports have been produced but nothing has been done on the ground. The Minister will know these children from her previous position as Minister for Education and Science because many of them also attend disadvantaged schools. They can be described as doubly disadvantaged in that regard.

If we are to take serious action in the context of tackling entrenched disadvantage, those children who are at such risk of poverty must be targeted. The figure of one in nine is extraordinary and we are not making progress in respect of it. I hope the Minister will deal with the issue of lone parents and their children in the coming year. I hope she will also deliver upon some of the promises made in recent years by both of her immediate predecessors.

We have moved beyond the point where further reports should be commissioned. It is time for action. Specific proposals were made in the past in respect of this matter. Most of these were welcomed. However, there was a degree of nervousness on the part of various groups campaigning in this area regarding some of the proposals put forward. The major concern is that the less palatable aspects of the proposals to which I refer will be implemented and that the kind of services designed to enable people to move out of the welfare system and into work would not be put in place. There have been huge difficulties in this regard. In theory, people are encouraged to enter the workforce. In many instances, however, they have been failed by the education system and require major encouragement and assistance to return to that system or to take up training courses in order to improve their employment prospects.

The necessary services are just not available. They may exist, in theory, but the quality of service people require in order to lift themselves out of the position they occupy is not available. This is often due to the extent of the deprivation across a range of areas. Difficulties as regards education, housing and family circumstances, etc., are part of the reason the people to whom I refer and their children are living in poverty.

The Deputy's time is exhausted.

It is interesting to note the amount of time allocated to the Minister and the previous spokesperson. Did the Chairman time the previous speakers?

We shall see about that. I wish to conclude——

The Deputy need not doubt that I timed the previous speakers.

If the Chairman does not object, I will conclude what I was saying.

I hope that in the coming year the Minister will concentrate on providing income support for the poorest children in this country and that she will take an approach to this matter that will be different to that taken by her two immediate predecessors. I refer, in particular, to targeting the children to whom I refer through the qualifying child payment. We know that it is not possible to lift these children out of poverty merely by using child benefit because it would be hugely expensive to do so. There is a cohort of children living in extreme poverty. Certain measures must be put in place in order to improve their income levels. These children need to be treated in an entirely different manner to the vast majority of their peers. I hope the Minister will take the approach I have outlined.

I ask that the Minister respond to the opening contributions of the spokespersons.

Quite a number of questions were posed. Having only been in the job for three weeks, I must admit that I will be obliged to rely heavily on my officials to provide me with the answers to them.

I thank both Deputies for their good wishes on my appointment. I had the pleasure of being shadowed by Deputy Shortall when I served as Minister of State with responsibility for children and by Deputy Enright when I was Minister for Education and Science. I look forward to working with and against them for the next year or so.

When the Minister has responded to the questions posed, will we then be discussing each programme in detail?

I shall be guided by the committee on this. Deputy Enright's opening statement comprised a series of questions.

Deputy Shortall should allow the Minister to continue.

As already stated, I shall be guided by the committee.

There is a need for this meeting to be chaired adequately and for some kind of order to be imposed.

It is the responsibility of the committee to decide. If the Deputies want me to answer the questions they asked in their opening statements, that is fine. If they want me to wait and deal with them on a programme-by-programme basis, I can do so. I have no preference.

I suggest that we proceed to discuss each of the programmes and then the Minister should be allowed to deal with the questions that were posed by the Opposition spokespersons.

Programme 1 relates to children and families. Do members wish to pose questions in respect of it? Does anyone wish to ask questions on the administration subhead?

What is the Minister's thinking in respect of child poverty? Government policy in recent years has been to concentrate on increasing child benefit, which is an expensive undertaking. We have probably reached the point — particularly when one considers child benefit and the early child care payment — where there is adequate support for families in reasonable circumstances. What are the Minister's intentions regarding the children of people who are dependent on social welfare payments? For several years, there was no increase in the qualified child allowance. Last year, an increase of €2 was granted. Does the Minister intend to target the children to whom I refer by making an additional payment over future budgets?

The Government set specific targets in respect of child benefit which were reached in recent years. It is too early to anticipate what next year's budget will contain. The Deputy will be aware that when I served as Minister of State with responsibility for children and Minister for Education and Science, I always placed a strong focus on targeting disadvantage. However, I am not in a position to indicate at this early stage, when we have not yet even commenced our consideration of the Estimates process, as to what would be the best way of targeting our resources.

In the past two weeks, I discussed some of the matters to which Deputies Shortall and Enright referred with CORI and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I also met representatives of the Senior Citizens Parliament and the National Women's Council. On Friday next, I am due to meet representatives of the National Youth Council and the Disability Federation and next week I will meet the Carers Association. The purpose of these meetings is to obtain the views of the organisations to which I refer in respect of various issues. It is too early to commit to a specific target in the context of the forthcoming budget. As the year progresses, I will be able to give further consideration to the matter.

I also welcome the Minister and congratulate her on her appointment. I understand that a survey is under way in respect of family income supplement, FIS, and that a report is expected sometime later in the year. As part of the survey, is it intended to widely advertise the availability of FIS? One of the difficulties I experience is that people are not aware that they are or may be entitled to FIS. This is despite the great efforts made by the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, and the Citizens Information Board to disseminate information relating to the supplement. Perhaps it might be possible to advertise FIS as widely as possible. When one considers the criteria and the limits that apply in respect of FIS, some families are encountering certain difficulties financially but they do not come within the threshold that would allow them to qualify for it. What is the view of the Department regarding the future of FIS?

One of the most interesting aspects of this matter is the increase in the uptake in FIS as a result of its being more widely advertised. Two matters — advertising and the improvements made to the qualifying income thresholds — have clearly led to more people participating. There are still a number of outstanding claims and dealing with those will be a priority. Some earlier questions from Deputies dealt with processing times and this is an area where there are delays for some of the applications, which we are anxious about.

The research project dealing with "who and why" people are not taking up FIS is all about identifying this problem and the barriers to access. It will consider how we can improve on it. Some 4,700 customers were identified for this project as people who may possibly have qualified but did not make a claim. Through surveys, focus groups, running through the data and consultation with the ESRI, we should be able to identify why these people did not access the project, what similar people might do in future and what is needed to support them. That will report by the end of July.

I have two questions, with the first clarifying my earlier question on FIS. The point I was trying to make was that under the budget, some part-time workers would have lost €2.40 because of claiming a reduced level of one-parent family payment. They benefited from an increase in that but the increase in the FIS threshold was lower than the increase in basic social welfare, so it was clawed back.

What is the amount of the early child care supplement paid for child care costs for children outside the country? What is the figure for last year and the expected figure this year?

The total figure?

I do not seek the total figure but the total paid for children resident outside the State.

Some 3,000 families with 5,500 children who are not resident are paid under the supplement currently.

Does the Minister have the total figures?

There are 51,500 EU households getting the payment for 91,000 children, who are all living in Ireland. Of that, 21,000 come from the UK, 23,700 come from the EU ten and about 2,700 from Romania and Bulgaria.

I welcome the Minister to the meeting and I am very glad she was appointed. I worked well with her before and I hope that will continue. I thank her officials and staff in the Department as although we might not always agree with the decisions, in terms of answering queries and getting back to Deputies, the Department of Social and Family Affairs is one of the better examples, if not the best. We sometimes get detailed replies on the day we submit queries. I am grateful for that in terms of assisting us in the work we do.

I am relatively new to social welfare issues as a new Deputy. Two of the more important commitments in the programme for Government are the €300 pension and the qualified adult payment of pensionable age. It surprises me how many women I meet who are affected by this and I am encouraged by the progress made. I look forward to the completion of equality in terms of the non-contributory pension. I ask the Minister to keep up the good work and I look forward to the time when we reach the €300 pension by the time the next election comes.

It will be a long time before Deputy Byrne will qualify for the pension. Perhaps he would like to attend tomorrow's conference on pensions, when we will discuss the longevity of people in this country and how we will sort out pension issues.

Every public representative would acknowledge the response rate by this Department to queries. I thank the Deputy for his comment on it.

With regard to the pension, the target is still €300 per week. I take on board what Deputy Shortall stated earlier, namely, that if a Government sets a target which can be achieved, it can make a real difference. Clearly, it will be done over the next few budgets as the target is 2012. Real progress must be made on the issue.

The qualified adult received a €27 increase in rate last year, which is a very substantial increase even compared with other increases given. It is now only €12 short of the target Vote. The Deputy is correct in that it is a big issue for women, and the matter was raised this morning with the National Women's Council of Ireland.

I wish to return to the issue of consistent poverty among children. I appreciate the Minister is working her way into her brief and meeting with various interest groups. A predecessor in the Minister's job published proposals on supporting lone parents, part of which referenced a new kind of payment which would be made in respect of children. This payment would be made irrespective of whether the parent was on welfare or in work, or whether there were one or two parents. It specifically targeted poor children.

Given that these are published proposals from the Department, will the Minister indicate if she expects any progress to be made on that new kind of payment this year? Is the only instrument available in those cases the qualifying child payment?

The whole document and number of proposals set out in it must be presented as a package. One or both of the Deputies raised earlier the importance of the child care element. At this early stage, it would not be right to start cherry-picking some elements of the strategy. If we start doing that we will not manage to get the other Departments on board that must do so. My intention would be to keep working towards it for the end of this year. There have been many submissions and much consultation on the matter. It puts in place a framework whereby we avoid putting lone parents into a poverty trap for as long as their child remains under 22. It involves many activation measures and co-operation with others. It is certainly a priority for me to keep motoring on that towards the end of this year.

On that issue, pilot projects were done in Coolock and Kilkenny. Have these been evaluated and will we have the opportunity to see the outcomes of the evaluation? We could see the benefits or otherwise of the process.

They were to run until the end of February. The evaluations are being developed and we will report back to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion on them so they can feed into the process. I do not have the results yet.

Is there a timeframe for that? Will that inform how the Department deals with the strategy?

On school meals, at this stage are all DEIS schools receiving funding?

There is provision for additional money this year.

How many are not in the programme at this point?

I have a feeling all urban DEIS schools are in but that is coming from wearing my previous hat rather than my current one. The provision for this year has gone up from €27 million to €31.8 million. Currently pupils from over 70% of all DEIS schools benefit from the school meals local projects scheme. My note does not specify if these are urban DEIS schools.

So 30% of DEIS schools are not yet included.

Yes, of all DEIS schools.

It is a high enough figure.

I understand all the DEIS 1 schools are included but I am open to correction.

Should there not be a target of 100% in the current year?

The amount being spent has increased substantially in recent years.

I appreciate that fully. I am simply saying all DEIS schools should be able to avail of the free meals scheme.

That certainly would be a target. DEIS schools account for 80% of the total number.

Are there any proposals to deal with the quality of the food provided under the school meals programme? I am aware the Minister's Department has guidelines for breakfast, lunch and dinner style meals but I have concerns that it can be done better in some schools than in others. This is probably the one opportunity we have to influence the food children have during the day. Many of the agencies involved, in particular the Combat Poverty Agency, are doing some work on the issue of food and health poverty because of the quality and types of food people are eating and also the rising cost of food. This is an opportunity for the Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Children, to better target the issue. It is right that the children should be given something to eat but they should be given food that is healthy and that they will eat, which is another aspect. Does the Minister have any plans to address the issue?

I note that the guidelines state food must be of suitable quality, have nutritional value and be prepared and consumed in an appropriate environment.

The Minister will be aware of how inappropriate the environment can sometimes be through no fault of the school. It is a question of the facilities they have available to produce the food they serve.

I am not sure the Department can become involved in employing chefs or getting advice——

No, but a quality issue arises. Otherwise, we are throwing money away. If a child is having a chocolate muffin and a cup of tea, that is not healthy.

I am not sure that is happening. I am sure the Deputy——

If the Minister checks the list, she will see that the word "bun" is included. I am not suggesting she should cook them herself but it is important that quality food is provided and that there are checks to ensure food is of good quality.

On the urban school meals scheme — the old scheme that accounts for approximately €1.2 million of the sum of €30 million — there was a list which also included milk but I do not believe it is that specific in respect of the remaining schemes, apart from the guidelines I have just outlined.

The focus has been on the take-up of the project. I have seen very good examples, as I am sure has the Deputy.

I have, too, but I have seen poor examples also.

In fairness, local projects are very conscious of nutritional value and include fruit and milk. I saw the best example in Athy where hot meals were served. Many schools open up the scheme to every child so as not to differentiate between those who might need it and those who might want to join what is a very nice project. I would like to see the target reached as quickly as possible.

We will proceed to programme 2 which deals with people of working age.

It has been estimated that the consistent poverty rate for people of working age is approximately 6.5%. I do not believe anybody disputes that figure. It represents approximately 30,000 people who are described as the working poor. They are in the best job they can get but still do not have enough money to make ends meet. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, in particular, has recently drawn attention to that cohort. What specific actions are being taken by the Department to assist those who find themselves in that position?

Family income supplement is one of the main supports. For those at work, the at risk of poverty rate and the consistent poverty rate showed reductions in the recent figures.

Does the Minister accept there is a need for ongoing support from her Department and FÁS to facilitate people in accessing better paid jobs? Getting them into jobs alone is not enough. We are all familiar with people who find themselves in the situation, particularly lone parents, where they are losing money by going out to work, although I accept not to the same extent as used to be the case. In that regard, does the Minister believe there is a case for bringing FÁS under the auspices of her Department? Employment support services are fragmented at local level. Is an examination taking place or is there any intention in the Department to streamline the service to make it more coherent?

Everybody is trying to get their hands on FÁS. When I was in the Department of Education and Science, we wanted to get our hands on its training budget. In this Department we want to get a handle on its employment initiatives and so on. I refer again to the earlier questions asked. Co-operation and co-ordination between this Department and a number of others are crucial for the efficient operation of schemes to enable us to meet our targets. That applies to Revenue as outlined in the programme for Government; the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in regard to rent supplement; the Department of Health and Children and the ongoing work of community welfare officers; the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and particularly FÁS in regard to lone parents and proper implementation of the strategy, as well as to training and upskilling. I have not sat down with FÁS officials but look forward to doing so because a change of attitude may be needed. There is no point telling somebody who has child care issues that he or she has to start a training programme at 8.30 a.m. The issues concerning flexibility must be teased out. There will also have to be co-operation, particularly at local level, with organisations such as the vocational education committees in training and upskilling. That does not mean, however, that the Department of Social and Family Affairs has to take over FÁS but there must be co-operation. I am aware there is such co-operation at official level. At the political level, at the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion, there is also such co-operation but I want to ensure it works well, particularly if we are to get people back into the workforce, to encourage them to take that one further step and continue with further education and training, which, as the Deputy knows, has always been an interest of mine. That is the only way to get people of working age to create a better standard of living for themselves.

On these payments — it also refers to some of the other sections — does the Minister have information on the number of fraudulent claims under each of the subheadings and the level of success in seeking repayments?

There is constant monitoring of and controls in place for all payment schemes. Last year controlled savings of €447 million were achieved and the target for this year is €511 million. Obviously, this involves claim reviews and employer inspections. Approximately 600 staff are involved in control activities. In some way, therefore, they are involved in the processing and payment of claims and investigation units at local and regional level. It is something of which we are acutely conscious.

In reaching the figure for controlled savings of €447 million last year and €511 million this year, how is the assessment made? Is there any idea of the real cost to the Department each year of fraudulent claims?

The data are based on the fraud and error surveys the Department carries out on a regular basis, taking random claims, discussing them with scheme managers and doing surveys. Officials have also targeted specific schemes in particular years. For example, in 2003 they did a fraud and error survey on the job seeker payments and one parent allowance schemes. In 2004 it was on the child benefit, family income supplement and supplementary allowance. In 2005 it was on the disability allowance, in 2006 on the PPS numbers allocation process and the illness benefit schemes. In 2007 it was the non-contributory State pension. I am not sure what is being targeted this year, or perhaps we should not say.

In terms of the targeted reviews to be carried out on different payments, the Department is falling very far short of the number it is committed to carrying out. For example there were supposed to be 125,000 job seeker payment reviews, but only 70,000 were done. This is an essential feature of the control mechanisms for any Department. If targets are set, a serious attempt should be made to try to reach them.

Last year, cumulatively, it went over target in fact, for the claims. It might have been just about on target for some, but it was well over for others.

I am talking about the reviews of the claims, rather than the targets.

Last year 341,000 claim reviews took place and 4,800 employer inspections.

I accept that but it falls short of the targets set for reviews.

I accept what the Deputy says but the target last year for the job seeker benefit was 125,000 and there were almost 71,000 reviews. However, the amount of money saved was more than the target. The target was reached financially but not in terms of the number of reviews, on that heading, but it was exceeded for the illness schemes. It might not meet the criteria on all targets, but it does on others. However, I accept what the Deputy is saying.

Just think how much more money the Department could have got back if it had reached its target. Will the Minister say whether there has been a significant increase in the number of people signing on at social welfare offices, over the past 12 months, particularly in the commuting counties around Dublin? In the event, has this had staffing implications for the Department? Have additional staff been allocated to the offices affected?

I answered a parliamentary question last week to the effect that there was pressure on some commuter towns. For example, places such as Clones and Portlaoise had shown an increase in the number of applicants. However, staff allocation has not been reviewed as regards this trend.

We shall now deal with programme 3, in respect of retired and older people. Are there any questions?

What is the likely timeframe for the conclusion of the Green Paper process? I know there is to be a conference in the next few days, but when will we see it moving forward?

I do not intend to delay the Green Paper on pensions. It is a priority for Government and for the public as well. The consultation process closes this week and more than 150 submissions have been received. There is no consensus on it. I met the Pensions Board last Monday and look forward to hearing the international perspective tomorrow as regards this. Obviously, this is not something the Department of Social and Family Affairs can do on its own. It has implications for the Department of Finance, in particular, as well. I intend to keep moving with this and try to meet the target of going to the Government with it by the end of the year.

What about the previous commitments in terms of the programme for Government and women in pensions that I asked about earlier? Will this form part of the process as it is not among the Minister's high level goals?

The women in the pensions scheme will obviously be part of that overall review. However, this is something that can be looked at separately in the context of individual budgets. The Green Paper on pensions is really the long-term strategy, both as regards the private and social welfare ends. Women in pensions is obviously a significant part of that process. However, women and their pension affairs can also be looked at in the context of individual budgets.

Deputy Shortall asked a question on the live register. Apparently, additional resources are being assigned to the eight offices that experienced an increase in demand.

I thank the Minister. On the question of pensions, this is an area in which real progress has been made in recent years. I am interested in the whole area of supplementary pensions and the target of 70%, as set by Government, has not been met yet. Will the Minister accept that the policy being pursued by Government, where there is a very heavy reliance on tax relief, is not achieving its objective in terms of reaching the goal of 70% for supplementary pensions? Are any discussions taking place between the Department and the Department of Finance, given the "rich man, poor man" approach the latter is taking? Very considerable tax relief is available for the big earners, and disproportionately they are benefiting from the tax system. People are entitled to stash away as much as they like for their pensions, and that should be encouraged, but there is no justification for giving them top rate tax relief on a very large sum of money. Will the Minister accept that, if there is to be equity in the whole pensions area, her Department needs to pull back the Department of Finance from that approach?

Another issue I want to raise is whether the 70% target coverage rate for supplementary pensions is spurious, because it has no reference to the adequacy of the pensions, per se. As we know, an enormous number of supplementary pensions are inadequate. I shall be interested to hear the Minister on those two points.

The Deputy will be pleased to know that now 61.8% of those at work, over 30 years of age, have a supplementary pension. The 70% target was for people over the age of 30. The issues in the Green Paper involve looking at adequate and appropriate pension and the tax elements as they affect higher earners. Obviously, whatever framework is devised by Government to deal with the long-term issue will take into account all of those areas the Deputy has talked about. I can reassure her that the Department of Finance is fully engaged on this in a very constructive matter with the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

I am sure the Minister does not know much about this at this juncture, but does she believe her Department has made representations to the Department of Finance as regards the tax relief scheme for pensions, given the inherent inequity involved?

It is fair to say at this stage that both Departments are working together on establishing what this framework should be. It is an overall framework that will involve all workers, so it would be pre-emptive at this stage to indicate what either Department might feel should be part of it.

I should be very disappointed if the Department of Social and Family Affairs had not raised these points with the Department of Finance.

All those issues will be covered in the Green Paper as well, so they are all central to a discussion on the framework between the two Departments.

The problem is that generally in a contest, the Department of Finance tends to win out over any other Department.

We shall now examine programme 4, people with disabilities. Are there any questions?

On the question of targets the Minister referred in her opening speech to pilot projects and developing activation measures. Will she tell the committee a little more about the pilot projects and the success rates she envisages?

The Deputy mentioned a figure of 3% in Departments. I understand that the involvement rate is 4.8% in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. At least it is giving good example. The Mullingar project has only just begun so we do not have results from it. It will continue over a six-year period.

I will be brief. Are there any plans for the Department to consider direct payments for personal assistants for wheelchair users? Many of the centres for independent living are looking for direct payments. Does the Department have any plans in that area?

Many of those people are funded under the HSE or through some of the organisations such as the Irish Wheelchair Association.

Does the Department have any role in that area?

Given that the recent EU survey showed that more than 44% of families headed by a person who is ill or disabled were at risk of poverty, it is difficult without the support of the Department to get a handle on the way in which key indicators are measured in this area. Issues such as participation rates in employment, consistent poverty rates and social welfare dependency would appear to be the key indicators. From a look at the briefing material and the Estimates it is not clear that those figures are provided. Why are the figures not contained in the brief and are they available?

Does the Deputy mean indicators for people with disabilities and their families?

Yes, indicators in terms of employment participation, poverty rates and social welfare dependency rates.

We do not have current data on a year on year measurement.

This is one of the Department's high level goals and relates to income and supports offered by the Department to people with disabilities and yet it is difficult to know what is happening in a global sense in regard to people with disabilities when it comes to the work of the Department. Has the Minister any idea what percentage of people with disabilities are in employment, what percentage are dependent on welfare and what percentage are at risk of poverty? I do not know how this area can be tackled effectively if we do not have any measurements.

I will come back to the Deputy on that issue.

We shall now examine programme 5, poverty and social inclusion. Are there any questions?

Returning to the question on rent allowance, Deputy Byrne asked me to ask a question on this issue as well. I think there are 20,000 rent allowance recipients in Dublin and approximately 58,000 nationally and the total expenditure is €392 million or more. In the Minister's discussions with the Revenue will this issue form part of an area that needs to be tackled? The response of the previous Minister for Social and Family Affairs was that it was not his problem, that it was a matter for the Revenue Commissioners to collect payment. Obviously, the more money that goes out of the Exchequer that is not followed up although tax should be paid on it means there is less money to go around. On the issue of the quality of the accommodation, has the Minister had discussions with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and-or local authorities?

The Deputy asked about the new memorandum of understanding with the Revenue Commissioners. It is planned to finalise that over the summer. It deals with the continuation, enhancement and expansion of arrangements, etc. On the issue of the rent supplement and co-operation with the Revenue, the details of rent supplement tenancies are always supplied to the Revenue Commissioners, giving details of the payment in respect of the tenancies where the landlord is resident outside the State. Details are also supplied in respect of rent supplement paid directly to non-resident landlords. The tax collection on rent supplement is the responsibility of the Revenue Commissioners. Responsibility for the standards of housing rests with the local authorities. Under the 2006 legislation, the HSE can refuse rent supplement where local authorities have notified it that the accommodation does not comply with the standards.

I know that is the position and that is where I have the problem. I appreciate the matter of the quality of the accommodation does not rest with the Minister's Department but she is paying out significant money to landlords for accommodation that is disgraceful and are hovels in some instances. We are perpetrating this cycle constantly by moving one person out and another in. I accept the sole responsibility for this matter does not rest with the Minister but if there is not joined-up Government communication on this issue, it will continue. All I can ask is that the Minister would engage with her counterpart, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, because the money is coming from her Department. There is the whole issue about whether people should be in receipt of rent supplement for that length of time. We can come back to that on another day. We cannot allow this to continue. It needs to be addressed.

In recent years I have witnessed people living in very poor standards of accommodation, especially parents with very young children. Last week I visited a young girl who has three young children and no access to a back garden. As a matter of fact she goes out onto a small space not even the width of the table. They live in the basement. Even to touch the walls in some of these places one ends up with residue on one's hands.I asked the local social welfare office, which examines these premises, when people are being taken in for rent supplement. The answer I received was that they are examined in the first instance. The girl in question has been living in the same accommodation for five years and nobody has come back to see its condition or how she is getting on. While that is repeated all over, I can only speak for the area I represent. When accommodation is rented out and particularly when rent supplement allowance is paid to landlords, there is an onus on them and on the Department, which pays out huge sums of money, to ensure the accommodation is of a certain standard.

The city council is doing its best to invite landlords to come into rental accommodation scheme. Unfortunately the response has not been as good as anticipated. These premises need to be examined on an ongoing basis to ensure young people do not live in such terrible conditions.

I accept what Deputy Byrne is saying. The State should not pay rent supplement for substandard accommodation. The evidence is that the local authorities notify the Health Service Executive that rent supplement has been terminated or refused. The Deputy is right in saying it was never the intention that people should receive rent supplement for so long. Full implementation of the rental accommodation scheme should help to support this.

Looking at the figures up to October 2007 — we do not have the up-to-date figure — it is interesting that the HSE only received 18 notifications of substandard accommodation and acted on all of them. Twelve were in respect of existing tenancies and six were in respect of cases where rent supplement had not been paid since. The HSE acts when it is made aware of cases but it is up to the local authorities to ensure the standard of the accommodation is acceptable.

I accept what the Minister has said but the problem for many young people who call to see their public representative — the Minister has been a public representative for a long time — is that they are afraid to make a complaint about where they are living because they find it difficult to find accommodation elsewhere. They are afraid to report to the local welfare office that they are living in substandard accommodation. They are being told by staff to find another place in which to live and then return to the office when they will try to do something for them. That is not good enough, particularly when young children are confined to two or three rooms 24 hours a day, without access to a back garden. In the residence in which the girl I mentioned is living with four other tenants there is no access to the back garden. It is like a forest at the back of the house; one could not get out to it. They have nowhere to hang their washing. The basic amenities people need to rear their children are not supplied in some instances. That is what I am talking about.

I share many of the Deputy's concerns. We will continue to discuss the matter with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure that Department is meeting its obligations.

I want to give the Money Advice and Budgeting Service a plug. My experience is that it has proved to be extremely effective, particularly for those living on low incomes, families who are struggling or people suffering from addiction problems and so on. I am aware the service is being reorganised. Will it be expanded? Will this fact be advertised? Is there a breakdown of the number of referrals to it? We can refer people who come to our advice centres directly to the local branch but many do not know how to access the service or are not aware of it.

The MABS provides a valuable service. There are 52 independent companies nationwide employing 230 money advice staff. The budget has been increased again this year by 23%, a significant increase. We have a breakdown of the figures in respect of the issues and clients involved for both last year and this year to date. Last year almost 12,500 new clients were seen by the MABS. Interestingly, 62% were female, which will not surprise us. Obviously, quite a number who are in employment have run into difficulties. It is also interesting that the money owed by the new clients amounted to €94.6 million. Therefore, one can see how stretched people were before they came to look for advice. More than half of that figure, 55%, was owed to banks and financial institutions; 19% to credit unions; 6% to utilities; 3% to debt collection agencies; 2% to money lenders; and 2% to local authorities. Many new clients are coming to the MABS. It is hoped that with its additional budget for this year it will be able to expand its service to meet people's needs.

We all agree that MABS provides a valuable service but in the output statement the Minister indicates the service was to be placed on a statutory footing by the end of 2007. The last time I checked it was not even included in the Government's programme. What is the position on that legislation?

It was included in the legislative programme when I was Chief Whip and then taken off the list. A commitment is made in the programme for Government to review and restructure the MABS and place it on a legislative basis but it is too early to say when that will happen. We are deciding on the best structure for it and looking at various options.

The Department has been looking at the matter for a very long time. There was a commitment to have it placed on a statutory basis by the end of 2007.

Yes, but it is not affecting the service. That is the important point.

What is the problem?

I am not sure there is a problem. It is being determined what is the best structure but that it is not on a legislative footing does not take from the fact that it is providing a valuable service.

Why was the commitment made then?

It is a commitment made in the programme for Government but it will not be done before the end of this year.

I want to return to the question of rent supplement which involves a vast amount of money — €420 million in the current year. The Committee of Public Accounts is examining the issue separately in respect of taxation and accounting for those who are getting their hands on that sum. It came to light that while the Minister's Department gathered some information on the names and addresses of landlords, when Revenue went to check, only about 50% could be identified. What is needed is the PPS number of the landlord.

Much attention has been focused on this issue. Representatives of the Department have appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts on a number of occasions in the past few months and will do so again shortly, but it is extraordinary that, as of last week, the basic form that must be filled in in providing the details of those in receipt of rent supplement and the landlord does not have a space for the landlord's PPS number to be entered. This appears to be a straightforward administrative matter. I appreciate the Department's computer system is so inadequate that it will not cater for this but I gather that changes are in the pipeline and that some action has been taken. In the meantime, why does it not change the basic form? It is only a matter of devising a new one, copying it and sending it to its various offices. There is no excuse for not having a space for the PPS number of the landlord to be entered. I do not understand the inactivity of the Department in that regard.

It sounds like a reasonable question to ask. I do not know if there are any particular reasons it cannot be done but I will certainly check it out.

There is a substantial amount of money involved——

There is a very substantial amount of money involved.

——and all Departments have an obligation to ensure people are tax compliant, especially those in receipt of public funds, yet the Department appears to be making no serious effort to capture the people concerned.

The Deputy is correct in saying there is a very substantial amount of money involved. It is one of those schemes that needs to be kept under review for a number of reasons, not least for tenants, many of whom spend far longer on the scheme than was ever anticipated. Obviously, the revenue implications are serious also. It is reasonable to ask for one's PPS number.

I ask the Minister to pursue the matter. It was raised with the Secretary General of the Department some weeks ago but I ask the Minister to pursue it and ensure it happens.

The Minister mentioned the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, which has been successful in getting around the poverty trap, but I am not sure if she is aware that within the Dublin city area the list is closed for the rest of this year. That is a disaster. People come to us all the time, including lone parents in receipt of rent supplement who cannot make ends meet. They want to work, but if they do, they will lose some of the rent supplement. Unless the rental accommodation scheme is widely available, it is a waste of time. It is scandal that in the capital city the list has been closed. Given her Department's responsibility in assisting people out of poverty, I ask the Minister to make contact with the city council and urge it to provide whatever resources are necessary to get the system up and running again.

I do not know what the reasons are in the city of Dublin. The rental accommodation scheme is the responsibility of the local authority. However, we will inquire about the matter in our discussions with the council.

Programme No. 6 relates to identity management and secure access to services. Do members have any questions on the programme?

I wish to ask about something I encountered in my last job. When somebody dies in Ireland and all their relatives live abroad, which is relatively common, the beneficiaries of the estate must pay capital acquisitions tax. However, they cannot even fill in the form unless they have a PPS number. They are referred to the Department of Social and Family Affairs to get one. It is very hard to get a PPS number for a foreigner who must pay tax in Ireland; sometimes it is almost impossible. We are aware that information and data must be protected but one of the hard aspects of administering an estate is that one must go to the Department and send out a number of forms. The beneficiaries must send in photographs or some form of identification with the forms. The system is too bureaucratic. Could a different system be introduced, whereby a temporary PPS number would be supplied to such persons?

The PPS number is a key identifier and many services depend on it. Previously, it was given out readily but obviously we must be careful both about to whom the number is given and for what purpose. We are trying to streamline the system.

Could a system of temporary PPS numbers be introduced just for foreign beneficiaries who might have no connection with the country other than a great-grandmother who died in Ireland? It is even more difficult for children.

It would take the Deputy to come up with such a specific example.

It is something to think about. It was a difficult issue when I worked in a practice. One could not deal with the Revenue Commissioners without a PPS number.

I will certainly inquire about it.

I have a question about the REACH debacle. Why was the Department unable to operate it and why has the programme now been taken over by the Department of Finance?

I am advised that the REACH board conducted a review of the project. A report issued in December 2007 made recommendations as to the organisation and governance arrangements, one of which was that responsibility for the project should be transferred to a central Department responsible for e-Government. The central Department responsible is the Department of Finance.

I am not sure if that review has been published. Is it available or could the Minister arrange to have it placed in the Oireachtas Library?

I will get back to the Deputy.

Last year there was a small number of instances where staff in the Department inappropriately accessed data relating to claimants. The Data Protection Commissioner carried out an investigation. Has the Minister received the report on that investigation and is action being taken on its recommendations?

In fairness to the Department, I am aware it acted swiftly on the very few cases that occurred. However, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner undertook an audit in late January and I understand the commissioner is finalising his report. It is not yet available.

Programme No. 7 relates to operational capabilities and modernisation. Do members have any questions?

There are a couple of matters under this programme. The first is the proposal to transfer community welfare officers to the Minister's Department. The committee will deal with that matter in the coming weeks. There are serious issues involved. The Minister might not be able to give me a reply today but can she tell me where I can find out what the thinking was in the Department behind the proposal to transfer CWOs from the HSE? Is there anything I can read that outlines the background and justification for that decision?

The second issue I wish to raise concerns the results from the social welfare appeals office. An extraordinarily high number of appeals are upheld by appeals officers. Has serious consideration been given to supplementing the Department's resources in terms of medical officers? The main problems appear to be in the illness and disability claims area. Public representatives regularly encounter people who have disabilities or illnesses, obvious even to a lay person, that prevent them from working. They have medical evidence of the illness or disability from their general practitioner but in many cases when they apply to the Department, the medical officer turns them down. They then have to go through the rigmarole of an appeal, and a high number of appeals are upheld. This indicates that there is a problem in the Department in respect of medical officers. Is any action being taken to address it?

One of the main reasons for the transfer of CWOs is the fact that they are administering the Department's money, although they are employed by the HSE. The Brennan report in April 2002 recommended the transfer as part of the health service reform programme to allow the health service to continue with its core functions. However, the Deputy will be aware that there are many issues surrounding this proposal which are being discussed.

With regard to the appeals and the numbers revised, they are very small in the overall number of applications.

I appreciate that.

One of the reasons is that one is allowed to present more medical information when one makes an appeal, and sometimes that results in the appeal being upheld. We have carried out a major review of the medical service and are recruiting more doctors in an effort to make the system more efficient.

That is good news.

I wish to make a comment. As a former employee of the Department, I have seen the change that has taken place. I worked in a number of employment exchanges and at that stage the technology was improving. Now there are smart cards, a type of credit card with a set amount of money available which people can use at various locations. They have been used in the United Kingdom to great effect, particularly for welfare payments. The Department of Social and Family Affairs is one of the leading Departments in examining new technologies and assessing how they can be used to greatest effect.

The Minister asked if we had any comments on the annual output statement. I find it effective and helpful. However, it should have in-built flexibility to deal with issues that arise in the course of the year. Although possibly not in the case of the Minister's Department, but it could happen that an issue would arise in the course of the year that was not included in the programme. Some kind of flexibility should be built in to deal with that.

We are monitoring the technology all the time and there is great potential for using the card. There is talk of it being used as a transport card as well. The Department will try to keep on top of the situation.

On behalf of the select committee, I thank the Minister and her officials for attending this meeting. The select committee will now go into private session to discuss briefly the 2008 annual output statement.

I thank the members of the committee for their patience concerning many of the issues raised. They took on board the fact that I have only been in the job for three weeks. I had the pleasure of presenting the Department of Education and Science's Estimate only a month before. I was completely on top of that brief. I thank my officials for being so helpful.

Like the Kerry football team, the Minister fielded all the questions famously. There is no doubt about it.

Barr
Roinn