John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the 100% Christmas bonus. Last week, the papers reported that retail spending would increase this Christmas. People are dependent on social welfare payments. It is not that they get wealthy from them but they help keep people out of debt and away from moneylenders. It also gives them the opportunity to have a decent Christmas.

Deputy O'Dea's contribution was comprehensive and he went through most of the subheads so I will not add to that. However, there are two figures in subhead A2, administration non-pay, which I would like the Minister to explain. One is payments for agency services at an additional €21.3 million. That is a lot of money. What was the original Estimate and what additionality did the Department get for the €21.3 million? Under the same subhead, there are allocations for training and development and incidental expenses. There were savings of €6 million under training and development What had the Department intended to do and what training programmes were forgone to make that saving? It is also a substantial figure.

Members referred to savings in the carer's allowance. More and more people are presenting at our clinics seeking supports for caring for somebody, though I do not suggest everybody is eligible for the allowance. However, while many of the target Estimates have been good, there has been a saving in this area and the figure is lower than the profile figure.

Could any of that be attributed to the time it takes to process those applications rather than the number of applicants? Carer's allowance can take quite a period to be processed. Rather than saying there are fewer people on it, are the savings more attributable to other factors? The Minister knows what I am getting at and I ask her to comment on that.

As an example, the working family payment was lower than expected with 2,800 fewer people on it. There was also a smaller number in receipt of the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. This is a bugbear of mine. Does the Minister future-proof existing schemes when she is doing her Estimates and budgets? Are people falling out of some of the schemes from an eligibility point of view based on increases they might have received from the Minister or tax increases or whatever else? Does the Department use future-proofing? In our clinics we do not notice a significant reduction in people who are looking to join such schemes. When the Minister increases social welfare payments, are people falling through the cracks?