Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to come back to the House next Wednesday evening, if this is in order, because I will then be able to have detailed replies on specific issues Members may wish to raise. Otherwise, my responses today would be very general.

Now that I see Professor Mirrlees in the Visitors Gallery, I would like to say that in Ireland social welfare plays an enormous stimulus role in terms of demand. Payments paid in pensions and to carers, jobseekers and almost 250,000 people who receive weekly payments relating to some kind of illness, disability or invalidity are all spent in our domestic economy and, therefore, constitute an important part of the spend in our domestic economy. The recent work by the Central Statistics Office confirms this and highlights the importance of both the public wage spend and the social welfare spend, particularly in small and large towns throughout the country. Many Seanad Members are aware of this in their own localities.

Today, I want to talk about a number of the important considerations being examined, including in the context of the forthcoming budget and the challenge that budget presents. I would emphasise that I am anxious to see that people, such as pensioners, who rely on a weekly payment for all or the bulk of their income are protected in the budget for 2013 as we did in the budget for 2012. On Monday in Sligo, the Taoiseach and I jointly opened the first office to facilitate the introduction of the new social welfare configuration. This will mean that people coming in to receive jobseeker's payment will not only apply for payment, but will be introduced to a pathway back to work. If they cannot find work in the current climate, they will be facilitated through training and education. We emphasise this is for all jobseekers, particularly those who are at risk of long-term unemployment and young people. Throughout the European Union there is a problem with regard to youth unemployment and in the context of the forthcoming Irish Presidency, I hope to be able to focus to some degree not only on employment and getting back to work, but on the supports Europe needs to put in place in the area of youth unemployment.

To return to the event in Sligo on Monday, the programme for Government gave an undertaking to introduce a better approach as to how the State engages with and supports the unemployed to get back into the workforce. The challenge set by the Government in Pathways to Work is to ensure that the creation of new jobs results in a reduction in unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, so that individuals do not become permanently disenfranchised within society and to ensure they have financial independence for themselves and their families.

The aim of the Department with the new service is to engage with every unemployed individual to ensure that their first day out of work is also their first step on the pathway back to work. Future funding of employment programmes, particularly community employment, CE, will reinforce this objective. This requires a more focused engagement with people on CE and greater targeting of places and opportunities to further the progression of unemployed people into work. Community employment is one of a number of employment schemes managed by the Department of Social Protection. Other smaller programmes similar in many respects to community employment are: the rural social scheme; the community services programme; the jobs initiative; and Tús. All of these are valuable opportunities for individuals and communities, and communities benefit from the work and services provided through these schemes.

On several occasions here, we have discussed the issue of community employment. After community employment was transferred from 1 January 2012 to my Department, I initiated a review. Last Friday, the CE financial review was laid in the Oireachtas Library. I will not go into the background of the review, as Members here are familiar with it, but will mention that community employment is the largest single labour market activation employment programme funded by the Department. The 2012 budget for CE is approximately ¤340 million. Labour support measures overall in the social protection budget amount to just under ¤1 billion. Therefore, we are spending a significant amount of money on this programme. In that context, I would welcome the insight of Senators into what expenditure and programmes under this heading they perceive to be particularly valuable and useful and how they feel those programmes could be improved.

There are 23,300 places in community employment, including places for approximately 1,400 supervisors. There are an astonishing 1,136 CE schemes providing a wide range of social services to local communities throughout the country.

I am happy to say that contrary to much of the scaremongering that went on at the time of last year's budget, there has been no reduction in the number of places available under community employment schemes. It is important to emphasise that there has been no reduction in the employment of supervisors or in the number of places. An interesting aspect of the review was that many of those involved in it sent us a great deal of financial information - Members may have local knowledge of this - and highlighted that if more places were available, they would be in a position to do more for people who are unemployed, for their own communities and for the services supported by community employment schemes.

The community employment programme is mainly targeted at people over the age of 25 who have been unemployed for a long time and are very distant from the labour market. Those who participate in community employment schemes receive specified social welfare payments for a minimum period of a year. They include people on the live register, lone parents and people with disabilities. Participants associated with long-term disadvantage, such as ex-offenders, people with drug dependencies and people from the Traveller community, are included in these categories. Community employment is a broad and flexible programme that has been used to address many social challenges at individual or societal level, for example, by organising rehabilitative programmes or supporting communities in the provision of services. To be honest, many people with drug dependencies who enter into rehabilitation programmes are on a journey that will take several years. That journey might involve getting an opportunity to go back to education before going back to work. The reality is that the chances of a person on such a programme being able to make rapid progress into employment are not great. One of the reasons community employment is experiencing such difficulties among economic commentators is that it is pitched as a labour market jobs programme. When one looks deeply into community employment, however, one notices that it has certain ring-fenced areas in addition to its labour market area. It helps people with drug issues who are rehabilitating, as I have said. It plays an important role in providing a training pathway for people interested in personal care services, including child care. It is important to mention that such pathways take a period of time.

I want to talk about some of the educational disadvantages experienced by many new entrants to community employment and how community employment has responded to them. The highest educational achievement of 53% of new entrants to community employment is the junior certificate. Some 23% of them did not progress beyond primary level education or have no record of educational achievement. Men tend to have lower educational attainment than women. Over 37,000 components of learning were completed by community employment participants in 2011. Almost 17,000 of them were accredited by FETAC under the national framework of qualifications as minor awards. Those involved in FETAC, including some Senators, will be aware that the aim of its work is to help people to attain level 5 and 6 qualifications, which they can use to get a job. Lower-level qualifications are great from the perspective of bringing people back into the education sector. Those who employ people in areas like care services and child care have made the point that level 5 and 6 qualifications are needed in many cases. The attainment of such qualifications is a great achievement for all involved. Approximately one quarter of community employment participants are between the ages of 25 and 35 and over half of all participants are over the age of 45. This programme focuses predominantly on older, low-skilled jobseekers and requires a type of environment that supports and understands the adult learner.

Community employment has had two main objectives, both of which are absolutely important: helping the long-term unemployed to gain employment; and supporting organisations in providing services to communities. This dual mandate can lead sponsors to focus too much on service provision, often to the detriment of the progression of the jobseeker. The review has gone a long way to redress this. The primary focus of this Department for community employment participants is to assist them in gaining the skills and work experience needed to enable them to enter paid employment, while at the same time supporting the provision of local services. Some 19% of those who left community employment in 2011 went into employment, including social employment, through the community employment structure, and a further 7% went onto further education. In the current economic environment, and taking into account the qualifications profile of participants, this can be considered a positive outcome. It is not as good as I would like, but it is quite positive nonetheless, particularly for the individuals and their families. The Department of Social Protection assumed responsibility for the budget of the scheme in January of this year. When I spoke in this House on a previous occasion, I mentioned that the Department is responsible for between 50 and 60 schemes. Now that we have taken over some other schemes, we are responsible for between 70 and 80 schemes, which means the job just got bigger.

The 2012 budget made changes to participant allowances and to the materials and training budget. The subsequent financial review conducted by my Department concluded that considerable savings could be secured, but additional funds would be required in 2012 to maintain the activity, employment and opportunity levels for supervisors and participants. The materials and training budget was increased by ¤9.5 million to ¤20.5 million through the transfer of funds within my Department. Sponsors were notified of their revised grants in July. A review mechanism was set up for sponsors who wanted further examination of the costs incurred in running schemes. To date, no scheme has ceased to operate as a result of the level of funds awarded. Twelve of the 1,136 schemes have availed of the review mechanism put in place by my Department. The community employment financial review has delivered on a number of levels. When I spoke to the House at the time, I gave an undertaking that no scheme would close as a result of these cost-saving measures and that has come to pass. The financial review gave the Department a greater degree of understanding, insight and learning about the operation of sponsors at a time when new staff were taking managerial responsibility for community employment. The review identified significant efficiencies that could be achieved. A key conclusion from the review is that significant savings can be achieved in the areas of insurance, audit and bank fees without affecting the viability of schemes. The savings that would not have an impact on the viability of schemes are estimated at ¤3.5 million in a full operational year. Further savings and economies, in terms of the administration of schemes, have been identified.

It is obvious that community employment schemes date back to the 1980s, when my ministerial colleague, Deputy Quinn, was instrumental in their establishment. There is a lot of administration involved in them. I do not doubt that the review has helped to identify areas where one could achieve as much administration for less money than has been the case up to now. It was realised that the pooling of some very small community employment schemes in various towns and communities, which is now happening, would lead to better resources for the areas in question. In other words, different aspects of communities, such as Meals on Wheels, the GAA, other sports clubs and Tidy Towns, are coming together under a single umbrella. That has the potential to lead to cost savings and increased effectiveness and to give the participants in community employment schemes a better profile in the community as a whole. It is seen as a positive contribution to the community. My Department is committed to reforming community employment, for example by examining the effectiveness of the full range of employment support programmes. The outcome of this review will help to determine future policy with regard to the role and appropriate scale of activation programmes. My understanding is that the review will be made available and published in the coming weeks.

The most significant development in the support provided for family and informal carers in the last decade was the publication of the national carers strategy.

I made it a priority that carers were protected in the budget, for which the various organisations which address care issues have indicated their satisfaction. I am aware that, where somebody is caring for an elderly parent or a child with an illness, carers give their families and the person who needs the care a huge amount of service and love but, of course, it also helps society. We all know that the fact people who have issues around becoming frail in old age, or children who have a recurring consistent condition or illness, can be cared for in the environs of their own home serves to limit admissions, including nursing home institutional admissions, and is of huge value. I also know how much carers put into caring. This is why the strategy has been made a priority by Government.

We have heard from the carer organisations. They sometimes feel they are unnoticed by their communities and, most of all, by the State, and that their contribution is not acknowledged in the way it should be. Caring obviously has a huge impact on carers' lives. I am very conscious of the fact that when people are looking after an elderly parent and that parent dies, the carer, having perhaps given his or her life to looking after the parent for, say, the past three, five or seven years, is left with a huge void when that comes to an end. It is not just the simple grief of bereavement because the person's whole life has been focused around that.

The Department is also assisting in terms of carer's allowance. There are currently approximately 51,000 people in receipt of carer's allowance and, of these, 20,000 are in receipt of half-rate carer's allowance and another social welfare payment. Two carers who are providing care on a part-time basis in an established pattern can, since 2005, be accommodated on the carer's allowance scheme, which can be of benefit. Carer's benefit is a payment for people who have made social insurance contributions and who have recently left the workforce or who are looking after somebody in need of full-time care and attention. Recipients can get carer's benefit for up to two years for each person being cared for. There are approximately 2,000 people in receipt of carer's benefit.

For a child up to the age of 17 who requires full-time care, a domiciliary care allowance of ¤309.50 per month is available. Where the care is full time and onerous, the parent or guardian may also qualify for a carer's allowance and approximately 40% of parents do so qualify. We also pay the respite care grant, which is paid regardless of the carer's means. People in receipt of carer's allowance or carer's benefit receive the respite care grant each June. Carers also receive free travel, which is very valuable, as well as access to the household benefits package.

With regard to training, carers were identified as a priority theme under the economic and social disadvantage category of the dormant accounts allocation for 2007 onwards. The focus of the carers measure is to provide training to assist carers in undertaking their role. The Department of Social Protection is the lead Department for this measure and the funding is being channelled through the Department's Vote. Pobal is administering the measure on behalf of the Department and is responsible for the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the programme. Applications were assessed by Pobal and 12 groups were approved for funding in December 2008, although the training which commenced in September 2009 is now coming to an end. The grants range in size from the Carers Association receiving more than ¤500,000 and Caring for Carers receiving almost ¤250,000, to small projects throughout the country.

I am very conscious of the needs of carers but there is also a wide range of other groups, such as unemployed people, parents, pensioners and people with disabilities, who depend on the welfare budget for vital support. I assure the House that the Government, in the context of the very tough budgetary environment, will continue to do its utmost to protect the most vulnerable people in Irish society. I am very pleased that organisations like the IMF, which we in this country associate with cuts more than anything else, has spoken in the recent staff reports of the significance and importance of the social welfare spend. I believe the dialogue is bearing some fruit.

I am anxious to return in a couple of days, having had an opportunity to hear the issues raised by Senators. We have made enormous progress in regard to further updating IT systems in regard to applications concerning carers, domiciliary care allowance and disability. I can provide the detail on that in due course as I know it is of particular interest to a number of Members.

To go back to the launch of the new service, by the end of the year this will have been rolled out in ten different locations. The first four are in Sligo, Kings Inn Street in the centre of Dublin, Tallaght and Arklow, and there is follow-on in a number of areas around the country, including at locations like Ballymun and Finglas in Dublin and Buncrana in Donegal. This has meant a huge transformation in the Department of Social Protection. The Department had approximately 5,500 staff but, exactly one year ago, 1,000 community welfare officers from the HSE were taken into the Department and, subsequently, we took 700 FÁS employees from its employment services into the Department, as well as 1,400 CE supervisors. We also took in the local employment services through local companies, comprising another couple of hundred staff, and the Department is also handling the citizens advice service and the Money Advice and Budgeting Service.

I advise Senators the Department has recently set up a dedicated phone line based in Dublin to serve people who want advice about their mortgage or financial situation. In the current economic crisis, we have two particular problems in this country, and I say this as much for the benefit of the troika as for the benefit of the Senators. First, we have people in their 30s and 40s who went out, did the right thing, got a mortgage to provide a home for their family and now find themselves heavily indebted. I welcome the comments made by the speakers from the Central Bank and the Department of Finance that the banks have to do more. Yes, they do have to do more. They have to cut to the chase and deal with the difficulties people are having because we will get no debt settlement without realistic, sustainable agreement between the debtor and the creditor. Both sides have to come to the table and reach an agreement.

Second, we also have a situation in regard to social welfare, where the demands on the social welfare system are growing. However, we have responded, as I said, by setting up a dedicated phone line through the Citizens Information Board and the very good website keepingyourhome.ie. If people are in trouble and want advice, they can ring the dedicated phone line. If they are reaching a deal with a bank and want financial advice, not just mortgage advice, they can arrange an appointment with one of a large panel of qualified accountants throughout the country to talk to them about the deal, so whatever agreement they reach with the bank is sustainable.

This is very important. We do not want deals being done with banks which are not sustainable because, six months later, the deal will have fallen apart and the family which made the deal will end up more dispirited and in worse difficulty than if they had not made an agreement at all.

I wish to stress to Senators that the service is now available countrywide, at local level. People can talk to staff experienced in the area as well as go to the MABS services in their locality where that is available in order to build up a sense of what it is they need to do, what they can do and what the financial institution will agree to. It is in that framework that we will be able to assist people who have difficulties with mortgages. That is one issue that the Department is addressing in the current crisis. The other issue is helping people back to work and education if they cannot find a job currently.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. She must feel a cold wind around her Department as the budget approaches. The demands on her Department will not alone be as bad as last year but on the basis of public statements from the Taoiseach down, the budget will be even worse. I do not envy the Minister her job.

I could not help but reflect on a statement made in September 2011 to the effect that, for all that we are living through difficult times, we must always maintain a threshold of decency. That was said by the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, at a pre-Dáil term meeting of the Labour Parliamentary Party. The Minister made reference to the troika and the banking regulator. It is somewhat apt that she should do so. Her Department is primarily responsible for looking after the vulnerable in society, the socially and economically disadvantaged. Many in society depend on the Department of Social Protection to put food on the table. Stark statistics emerged in recent days, which even I find hard to grasp, to the effect that 450,000 in this country find it hard to put food on the table. There was a letter from the wife of a garda who wrote about having ?cornflakes days?. What kind of society are we becoming? It all seems to be because of the imposition of austerity concepts by the troika on this country in recent years and for the immediate future. It is obvious that there is a growing volume of criticism that austerity alone does not work and that some form of growth policies must also be in place. The Government has grappled with this particular conundrum since it was first elected last year. Despite its best efforts, a range of job initiatives and various other policy initiatives, the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high. I referred to 450,000 people, of whom approximately 300,000 are hard-core cases. What is frightening and of more concern is that the queue of those who are long-term unemployed is lengthening.

That is the scenario in which the Minister is now going to have to put forward her budget proposals in the coming months. I appreciate that the money must be found somewhere but the argument is that the money could be found elsewhere rather than through attacking the poor and the vulnerable. It was interesting to hear the Minister?s impressive outline of various headings, in particular relating to community employment schemes. I applaud her for the initiatives she has taken in that regard. Great public concern was evident at the beginning of the year, which was reflected by all parties and by anyone who operates at local level and is aware of the importance of the schemes. A great deal of uncertainty surrounded the transfer of the schemes to the Department. The Minister?s promised review has taken the edge off much of the concern. The facts, as the Minister has outlined them, are impressive and heartening. I refer specifically to the fact that there has been no reduction in the number of places available on community employment schemes. That is the bottom line.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We would like support for more.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Speaking as someone who comes from a part of the country that is socially and economically disadvantaged, like many of my colleagues, I am aware that community employment schemes have proven to be a lifeline in particular for single men in isolated areas who have an opportunity through the schemes to live their lives with dignity. From that point of view there is more than just number-crunching involved in terms of what the schemes bring to the table. I am sure the troika will have views, as other European institutions did, about the way this country has operated community employment schemes in recent years. I am particularly pleased from that point of view.

The Minister outlined details on the national carers? strategy. To cut to the chase, a great deal of the discussion in recent weeks has centred on the possibility of child benefit cuts. A report compiled by an advisory group to the Minister for Social Protection which was leaked to ?The Week in Politics? in September created an awful furore in recommending a two-tier child benefit system. What is forgotten to some degree is that reductions in child benefit have already been implemented in the previous budget and will continue into the next budget. That is in isolation to any other propositions that might be forthcoming from the Minister. I accept we are speaking in somewhat of a vacuum because the Minister is putting forward her Estimates and will be doing battle around the Cabinet table in the coming months. We will have to wait until budget day before we get an indication of what will happen in the Department.

Fianna Fáil is opposed to the cuts for a number of reasons. The Minister is very much aware of them. One or two issues are of particular concern. The elimination of payments on multiple births ignores the significant costs incurred following the birth of twins, triplets or more children. I understand that approximately 1,200 families will be affected annually by such a cut. The Minister must take account of public concern expressed by all of those involved in the area. It will create a great difficultly for her. Barnardos has warned that a third cut in a row to child benefit could worsen the situation of 90,000 children living in poverty. The National Women?s Council said the payment had become an easy target for successive Governments and that any reduction would lead to further hardship. Early Childhood Ireland, which represents preschools and day care services, said such a proposal would hit poorest families hardest. The Children?s Rights Alliance said low-income families would have to be compensated in the event of a cut because of the massive impact it would have on them.

I have had some equivocation and ambiguity in my attitude previously - the same might be true of colleagues on all sides of the House - on whether one would continue with the universal payment or start tampering with it. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, said that a two-tier proposal must be considered at a time when one has to prioritise spending for families who need the most support. On the one hand one could argue that it is a logical way forward that one would target those most in need. I have never to been able to grasp why the computers cannot talk to each other in that regard. Perhaps the Minister might comment on the issue. In this high-tech age I cannot figure out why one cannot take a cut-off of people who are on an income of ¤150,000 who clearly do not need child benefit, and isolate them. Perhaps it is not worth it in the overall scheme of things to separate those one assumes do not need child benefit. The assumptions could be totally incorrect. We do not know the domestic situation in the most affluent of families. Perhaps the wife does not receive any money and as a result the money received in child benefit is badly needed for basic essentials for the children. I am not sure how the Minister will tackle the situation. On the one hand, logic would dictate that one would target those most in need but on the other hand one must question why successive Governments have shied away from diluting the universal payment concept. In that sense, I would have to come down on the approach that it is best to leave well enough alone in that regard.

I refer to the disability allowance. The Government suspended its announced cuts to this allowance pending a further review to be undertaken by the chairperson of the Commission on Social Welfare and Taxation. The most recent statistics published by the CSO last week reveal that consistent poverty experienced by people with disabilities increased from 8.8% in 2009 to 13% in 2010. The reality, of which I am sure the Minister is well aware, is that young disabled people on disability allowances are excluded from all the activation programmes announced to date from her Department. A recent survey by the ESRI found that two thirds of this group were willing to work with the correct supports but employment opportunities are limited for people with a disability. Hence the relationship between disability and a higher risk of poverty. Approximately 4% of people aged 18 to 34 have a disability.

I refer again to the programme for Government which states: "We will ensure that the quality of life of people with disabilities is enhanced. We will also facilitate people with disabilities in achieving a greater level of participation in employment, training and education." There is an issue which I do not believe to be in the Minister's mandate; rather it is HSE-related. When those with a disability or special needs achieve the age of majority at 18 years, they hope to go into adult education programmes. However, the budget for such programmes has also been cut. What will happen those young adults who already suffer from a disadvantage and must now try to get into the workforce without having any proper training? The Minister might comment on how this issue can be addressed. The programme for Government committed to the enhancement of the quality of life of people with disabilities.

The Minister was taken to task last week about a comment she made on maintaining core payments. In this debate it might be useful if she clarified what she means by core payments.

The eligibility criteria for the disability allowance have changed in the past year and the refusal rate has gone up significantly. What is the current status of rejection rates by the Department? I am sure the Minister is not satisfied with these rates. Why are they so high?

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is very welcome. The purpose of this debate is to discuss items in advance of the budget that might inform the Minister's decision making and it is on that basis I propose to deal with it. I will cover a broad range of issues.

I welcome the Minister's decisions on CE schemes; I say "Yes" to these schemes and their continuation. I have seen the richness they provide. I say "Yes" to the carer's allowance arrangements; there are no cuts to it or to the CE schemes. I say "Yes" to the measures for pensioners and the free travel scheme. These are all very strong social measures and give a great deal of dignity to the people who benefit thereby. All these groups are vulnerable.

The genesis of the welfare state was based on a system of rights and responsibilities in equal part. It is a social contract between the citizen and the State. As the Minister has often observed, it is a hand up rather than a hand out. I am not sure this is fully understood any more. In the fullness of time, when the Minister is doing information campaigns, it might be useful if the nature of the welfare state were explained to the public. She might consider that for the long run.

One of our problems is that welfare is being used to service debt. According to the Central Bank, there are 130,000 mortgages in arrears, of which 83,000 are private residential mortgages that have been in arrears for at least three months. Some 5,600 mortgages have gone into arrears in the past five months. We have a deepening mortgage crisis in Ireland, with 70% of household debt being mortgage debt. This is where the problem lies. As I see it, the anomaly in our social welfare system is that payments such as FIS, jobseeker's allowance and benefit - not just mortgage income supplement - are being used to service mortgage debt. This is due to the economic imbalance caused by the property bust and the recession. It causes a cyclical problem whereby the State increases its own debt to pay out social welfare that is being used to service private debt. It is creating a welfare system that is under an enormous burden and is not really a properly functioning system.

This is an issue for the Minister. The Personal Insolvency Bill which is to be debated in this House is understood to give too much clout to the banks. I read in the article by Kathy Sheridan in The Irish Times that the Minister stated the banks must help middle-income families who, by and large, are crippled with mortgage debt. The Minister is at the Cabinet table. How can she influence this issue in such a way that we can have a functioning banking system that will be fair to the citizens? Let us not have a veto given to banks in the Personal Insolvency Bill.

Senator Mooney described austerity as a problem - of course it is. Yet we all know why we need austerity. We must grasp every measure that will provide for and give us growth. I attended an EU meeting last weekend where I learned that if we implemented the EU services directive our country would gain 2.4% in GDP growth. I will make the same point to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton. We need to look at such measures in order to counteract the very bad news in terms of austerity and necessary cuts.

As the previous speaker remarked, nobody wants to attack the poor and vulnerable. If it were only that easy. When the opposite side was in government it had to take ¤5 from blind people. I am sure it did not want to do that.

Will the Minister address my question? How will her functioning system address the fact that welfare is being used to service banking debt? Why is there no family income upper limit for welfare in order to maintain the work incentive? Rather than means-test, surely there is a way of finding that if there are two parents and one child in a family a certain figure is the maximum welfare that can be earned, while if there is one parent with three children there is a different maximum welfare figure. That families are living entirely on welfare without incentives to work shows a flaw in the system. In the social protection committee we have learned that this applies to some 4% of families in the country, in particular families with three or four children. How is this being addressed? Children grow up in these families. We do not want anybody to get a bad lesson from the welfare system. If 4% of families have a problem let us address it.

Are the various allowances such as those for rent and fuel and jobseeker's allowance being taken into account together when they are being calculated or approved? Is there a reason the aggregate cannot form a method of arriving at an upper limit for welfare? I have put that question before to the Minister and would like to hear the answer.

My next point comes as a result of walkabouts with feedback coming from constituents. Why are people not asked to work for their welfare? It would be purposeful and meaningful work, the people concerned would be out and about and their contribution would be visible. Now that local councils and agencies are short-staffed and in need there could be a real benefit. Fr. Sean Healy has put this concept to us before. Taking into consideration the post a person had before falling out of employment, for example, an architect on ¤20 per hour, that person could work at that rate per hour to contribute a number of hours for his or her welfare. If he or she was receiving ¤20 per hour before and is now receiving ¤180 per week in welfare he or she would work nine hours. Has the Minister given any thought to that system? I am sure Fr. Sean Healy has presented it to her. I see a lot of merit there. Fr. Healy costed that scheme at approximately ¤150 million because it would create extra work to run. In addition, there would be a small reward of approximately ¤20 to ¤30 per week.

There is a debate around child benefit on whether to cut or not to cut. I believe there is good support for the Minister's proposed two-tier system. I did a walkabout in a middle-class estate. Let us not forget these are the people who are paying all the charges and facing property tax next year.

The average age of children on the estate is under five years. I spoke to 21 families, all of whom stated it would be fair to cut child benefit by ¤40 per month, provided the savings were put to good use. I was astonished by this response, especially as these are the people who will pay the property tax next year. They would love the ¤40 reduction in child benefit to be put towards their property tax. This would be a reasonable solution, given that ¤40 per month adds up to ¤480 in a year and a property tax bill of ¤500 would be significant. Psychologically, people do not mind if money taken from one area is used to ensure they do not have to pay another new bill. There is a generosity of spirit abroad and people trust that we are doing the right thing.

Child benefit is a universal tax-free payment made to all families. Since when did people come into the world equal? When did incomes become equal? Universal payments amount to unequal treatment. The key issue is deciding where would be the dividing line between those who would lose ¤40 per month and those who would keep it. We must bear in mind the squeezed middle and the wife of a Garda sergeant whose letter was cited in The Irish Timesyesterday. It is becoming abundantly obvious that the new poor are those in the middle class who do not receive social welfare payments. We must set a figure for how much disposable income families should be left with after paying for essential outgoings. Is the Minister working on this figure? Has she worked out what can reasonably considered essential outgoings?

The jobseeker's casual working payment should be calculated by the hour rather than whole days. The Minister will have heard this argument at a meeting last Friday. Is she open to the suggestion such a move would facilitate greater part-time employment? I am very concerned about the level of youth unemployment and I have examined the position in countries such as Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark. All of these countries use this type of system as it allows for greater flexibility among jobseekers. Youth unemployment stands at 8.5% in the Netherlands, 14.3% in Denmark and 30% in Ireland. Under the arrangement I propose, jobseekers would not be unavailable for full days and would be able to do more part-time work. This system reduces the disincentive to work on certain days which is created by the current social welfare rules.

The self-employed should have an option to contribute to the social insurance fund to address the possibility that their business will fold. The Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection heard a good presentation on this issue. Is the Minister open to this proposal which would provide a much needed safety net for the self-employed? Self-employed persons should be given this option, even if it is costly.

The Minister must not implement the proposal to have employers pay the cost of the first four weeks of sick leave for employees as to do so would force businesses out of this jurisdiction. We have listened to the views of representatives of ISME, the Small Firms Association and IBEC on this matter. Employers have informed me they will source employees in the North.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Employers pay the first 26 weeks of sick leave in the North. What would the employers in question do then?

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A way will be found to get around the problem. We will lose employment here.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies, the figure in the North is 28 weeks.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I am wrong, I stand corrected. The raison d'être of the Government is to create jobs and return people to work.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is also to protect vulnerable people.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister acts on the four week proposal, jobs will be lost.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Goodness, the Minister has a lot on her plate. I welcome and thank her for being willing to return to the House to answer Senators' questions. She has identified many ways by which her vision for reform and change is being implemented. I commend her for this. Senators appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with her on the choices she and her Cabinet colleagues will make in the next couple of months about the well-being and protection of citizens and residents and growth in the economy. As she is well aware and as Senators Paschal Mooney and Fidelma Healy Eames noted, we are hearing many heart-rending stories of how people in the middle and low income brackets are finding it impossible to feed their families nutritiously. One middle income woman stated: "There are weeks I can't put food on the table." A man on low income who pleaded guilty to stealing groceries in order that his children could have milk stated: "I couldn't let my children ask for a glass of milk in the morning and not get any."

There has been a considerable comment about a recent research paper on food poverty published by the Department of Social Protection - I commend the Minister for making the report public - showing that 10% of the population was in food poverty in 2010. I was so unsettled and upset by this figure that I read the paper in question to ascertain how the term "food poverty" was being defined. One of the indications of food poverty is "whether during the last fortnight, there is at least one day (i.e. from getting up or going to bed) when a person does not have a substantial meal due to lack of money". While I do not know about anyone else in this Chamber, I certainly could not be productive or energetic or learn or relate well if I did not have a substantial meal. While I know there is a difference in theory between food poverty and income poverty, in practice and in the day-to-day drudgery of not having enough to eat, one would imagine that they feel like the same thing. Are they not in reality the same?

These are the stories and questions that weigh heavily on those who govern. They must motivate all of us, especially the Minister and her colleagues, to reconsider each day the adequacy and correctness of the macroeconomic policies and choices being pursued, as well as the decisions of her own Department. The Minister, in an interview during the summer - she referred to the relevant remarks when she commenced her speech in the presence of Nobel Laureate, Sir James Mirrlees - indicated that social transfers could be viewed as a kind of Keynesian stimulus to the economy, as well as an effective mechanism for reducing poverty and that it was critical to retain demand in the economy. While I agree with these sentiments, if one were to apply a similar logic across the broad span of our macro policies which I hope the Minister will do, the Government would decide to make a substantive investment in a growth programme and pay attention to the extensive economic research which demonstrates that austerity policies in advanced countries between 1978 and 2009 were followed by economic contraction and higher unemployment. How will the circumstances of the people to whom I have referred improve if the economy does not grow?

Allied to an adequate growth programme, we need to meet our current troika commitments and obligations of fiscal discipline and the Government needs to save ¤3.5 billion in the next budget. As Social Justice Ireland points out in its budget proposals, it is not a troika requirement that we increase taxation revenue by ¤1.25 billion and reduce public expenditure by ¤2.25 billion through austerity measures. Instead, we could reverse the ratio of public expenditure reductions to tax increases or at least consider reducing public expenditure by a lesser amount and finding additional measures to increase tax.

While much current commentary notes the progressivity of the taxation system, a recent publication by the TASC entitled, Tax Injustice: Following the Tax Trail, challenges this message that is not nuanced. If the Government is committed to fairness and a progressive approach to taxation, the measures it takes should reflect the principle that the more one earns, the more one should pay. There are still a number of tax breaks or reliefs which reduce the tax bill of high earners. If we are to have a fair and progressive system, these measures should be eliminated. It is calculated, for example, that the Government could increase tax revenue by ¤700 million if the tax break for all pension contributions was at the standard rate in order that high earners would not benefit more. If the Minister or her Cabinet colleagues were to choose to implement this taxation measure alone, it would follow that she would not have to reduce her Department's budget for the social protection and well-being of the people by the ¤540 million figure she indicated to the Joint Committee on Social Protection recently.

Is that the figure the Minister proposes to extract from the social protection budget or is she considering revising the Estimate downward in light of the potentially devastating consequences for many households if their protection income is reduced any further?

I have a number of other questions in light of the process of reform the Minister has undertaken in her Department. I commend her on the establishment of Intreo, the new service she promised and has introduced that will be a single point of contact for jobseekers and employers. I know it is part of her vision for reform to move from a passive model of income support to one that engages proactively with people dependent on social welfare but given the economic context and the very high unemployment rate, the Minister is aware that many people are taking up part-time and low paid work. I listened to the Minister talk about some of the changes her Department is undertaking in light of the additional administrative burden but I point out that in respect of those with children taking up part-time and low paid work, the waiting time for family income supplement, FIS, is still approximately four to six months. A call to the family income supplement section on Tuesday confirmed, by way of a recorded message, that the waiting times for new claims for FIS is 18 weeks and for renewals it is 16 weeks. That is the official line. The reality is likely far worse as ongoing queries from the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, indicate that it is anywhere between four to six months. As the Minister knows, the delays in the FIS processing times are real crises for many families. As the Minister is committed to helping those trying to work I ask her to consider assigning resources to commit to turning around the FIS claims within a maximum period of four weeks as a matter of urgency.

On the subject of family income supplement, it has also come to my attention that the Department of Social Protection is maintaining an interpretation of the family income supplement rules that is legally incorrect and I have an ethical obligation to raise that matter. The Minister's Department changed its interpretation of the law governing FIS in 2009 under the previous Minister. That changed interpretation prevented a person who is maintaining their children from claiming FIS if they are living apart from the child and the other parent. Two claimants successfully appealed the Department's refusal to pay them FIS. I have been advised that officials from the Minister's Department have met the Social Welfare Appeals Office on this matter and that representations were made to her following the successful outcome of both appeals yet it appears her Department may be continuing to deny the supplement to those who may be legally entitled to a payment. Is the Minister in the process of rectifying that matter?

My last question is on the changes the Minister promised earlier this year regarding the one parent family payment, namely, lowering the age of the youngest child to seven years by 2014 for all lone parents regardless of when they entered the system, after which the one parent family payment ceases. The Minister indicated that changing the age of the youngest child to ten in 2013 and seven in 2014 would not go ahead unless she got a credible and bankable commitment from the Government on the delivery of a Scandinavian type system of child care by the time of this year's budget. Can she give us an update on her progress with regard to that promise?

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister back to the House. While the main function of the Department of Social Protection is the delivery of income support, it has now moved into the area of tackling unemployment through activation. It is also proactive in the control of fraud and abuse.

The Department of Social Protection is responsible for 87 million payments per year at a cost of ¤20.5 billion, which is 40% of the overall Government spend. That is a huge responsibility, and being at the helm of this Department is an onerous job for the Minister. I assure her I would not like to take it on.

Last Tuesday the members of the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection met with officials of the Department and raised all our concerns with them, many of which the Minister will hear on the floor of the House today. We had an informative meeting with the officials who outlined in detail for us the challenges of delivering a service with limited staff, streamlining the services and making changes that will deliver a more user friendly, informative and activation service to the people.

The official launch of the Intreo office in Sligo last week is testament to that. That will be a great service in that people will be able to go into a one stop shop and meet one official who will deal with all their problems. Until now, if people applied for jobseeker's allowance it would take up to 14 weeks to process in some cases and if people wanted to apply for supplementary welfare in the meantime they would have to complete all the forms again and provide all the documentation to a different person. The need for that will be eliminated with the establishment of Intreo. We have been advised by the officials, and I am taking them at their word, that the Department will be able to process applications in four days provided no major problems arise. That is a great step forward. The service launched in Sligo is up and running, as the Minister has told us, in a number of areas but it must be rolled out to other areas before the end of the year such as Ballymun, Buncrana, Dundalk, Coolock, Finglas and, I am delighted to say, Killarney.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will launch that in person.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I will hold her to that.

The Minister says repeatedly that she recognises the important role of employers in getting Ireland back to work, and with this in mind the Department will be actively working with employers in each area on getting feedback from them. It will also roll out a road show in the coming weeks, starting with Limerick, in conjunction with IBEC, to interact with and encourage employers to work with the Department. Many employers are not aware of the benefits of taking on an employee who is on the live register, such as Revenue job assist and the PRSI exemption. When one hires a person with a disability, there are employability services such as the wage subsidy scheme, employment services and employers' supports.

It has been brought to my attention that a number of employers have advertised jobs and interviewed people. An employer told me that on one occasion four people were called for interview. Two turned up and were unsuccessful, one did not bother turning up and one was taken on. The two people who turned up but did not get the job asked the employer not to forget their letter for the Department of Social Protection. The person who was taken on remained three days and then left stating it was not worth his while. We are all saying there are no jobs but that is going on. Another Senator brought that to my attention this morning and asked me to raise it. That is going on despite what people say to the contrary.

As we are discussing employers, if the Minister has not done so already I ask her to take off the agenda any proposals to get employers to pay the first four weeks of illness benefit for their employees. While that may look good to employees at the outset, my concern is that it will cost jobs in the long run. Employers are hard-pressed to pay their employees' PRSI contributions let alone their illness benefit. That might be the proverbial final straw for employers. I understand the Minister will refer to absenteeism in the workplace and in particular in the public sector but she should treat workers in the public sector the same as those in the private sector and tell them that if they take time off, they must live on social welfare only just as those in the private sector must do. That might make a difference to the absenteeism rates.

One of the most widespread complaints is about the waiting time for applications to be processed. I was delighted to hear on Tuesday that the Department is making progress in the processing time for applications and while there is still much to be done due to the high volume of applications, it is hoped that by the end of the year invalidity pension applications will be up to date. It is also working vigorously to reduce the waiting times in its other applications offices. I ask the Minister to keep the pressure on the Department to alleviate the backlog of applications and ensure a speedy response to applicants. I trust that the Intreo office will have a positive effect on reducing waiting times.

I welcome also that the social services cards are being issued. I understand that to date, 35,000 cards have been issued and are continuing to be issued daily to everyone. It is hoped that will greatly reduce any fraudulent claims.

I thank the Minister for coming into the House to take this debate. I very much welcome that she is endeavouring not to cut the core social welfare payments rates. I hope she will take on board my concerns and those of my colleagues and give them due consideration when it comes to the budget.

The Minister will be aware that at every opportunity and in committee I raise the issue of the self-employed and the reduced number of benefits for which they can make application. I ask that the same benefits be afforded to the self-employed as are afforded to PAYE workers. I am not asking for a free service but that self-employed people be allowed to pay the same contribution rate as PAYE workers and avail of the same benefits. One of the main benefits they are unable to avail of is family income supplement to help them earn a decent living. The same is the case with carer's benefit and illness benefit.

I know the advisory group that is working on this is preparing a report for the Minister. I hope that when the report is published, we will have an idea of the suggestions the group is making to help the self-employed.

When a self-employed person eventually accesses jobseeker's allowance, he or she is not given a credited contribution simply because of his or her self-employed status. People might think this is a small matter, but I think it is significant because the contribution in question is invaluable in the context of such a person's pension. This anomaly is not addressed, it will have an adverse effect on the future pension entitlements of the self-employed.

I welcome the publication of the national carers strategy, which I had always been fighting for. I respect the commitment of the Minister to the protection of the interests of carers. In that context, I would like to mention the habitual residency condition that applies to Irish people who return to this country to look after a relative. The two-year habitual residency clause is preventing such people from receiving carer's allowance. It is an insult to Irish people who are returning to their own country that they are debarred from it. I ask the Minister to examine the matter.

The Minister will be aware that I am constantly lobbying for the establishment of a central means-testing board. I appreciate that cross-departmental co­operation is needed if this is to happen. Its introduction would save a lot of money and avoid the duplication of work because information would be available to those considering applications for third level grants, social welfare payments such as the back to school allowance, social housing and medical cards. All of the work needed to test a person's means should be done in one office. It would eliminate some of the work of civil servants.

The briefing we received on the social insurance fund made for stark reading. The provisional 2011 deficit of ¤1.5 billion will double to ¤3 billion in 2019 if no action is taken to tackle the shortfall. The contributions of self-employed people would help to tackle this shortfall. Some people are signing for credits without receiving any money. They are keeping up their contributions merely to retain their pension entitlements. A small contribution of ¤1 a week would be an inexpensive means of funding a pension. Perhaps the Minister should consider the matter. These people are not getting money, but are concerned to retain their pension entitlements.

As many Senators have said, the findings of the expert group that examined the reform of child benefit found their way into the media. The Minister will appreciate that many scenarios are being bandied about. If the expert advisory group has finalised its report, perhaps the Minister will advise the House of its findings if she is in a position to do so. She mentioned that the value for money report on community employment schemes has been completed. I am delighted to hear that no scheme has closed down. There was uproar last year. Many of us attended public meetings on this issue at which people expressed their anger. We tried to transmit the message that the Minister kept reiterating, which was that no scheme would close down.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator should conclude.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Chair to bear with me for another moment while I mention two more issues. We will discuss the strategy for older people in more detail in the coming weeks. Older people who paid their taxes and PRSI throughout their lives should be able to enjoy their golden years of retirement in confidence, without having to worry about falling into poverty. That is something we really need to look at.

I could mention ten more matters, but I will conclude by referring to the school meals programme managed by the Department of Social Protection. I welcome this fantastic initiative. As Senator Zappone mentioned, it helps to ensure children get one decent meal a day. I note that it is operated through the local authorities. I ask the Minister to consider operating it through the family resource centres, which are fantastic. The hands-on approach of those involved in the centres means they know exactly who needs assistance and who does not. There is a fantastic centre in Killorglin that is already providing school meals. I am sure their efforts could be enhanced if funding could be channelled through the Department of Social Protection.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister, Deputy Burton, for her attendance. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, to the House.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Perry. I am sure he will transmit the gist of what is said here to the Minister for Social Protection, who has regrettably had to leave. The Minister, Deputy Burton, is a decent and courageous person. I do not envy her as she faces such a mammoth task. As I am nearly 70, I have lived through a couple of economic crises, but this is the worst one I can remember. I never thought I would live to see the day when 10% of Irish people were experiencing food poverty. That ties into what Senator Moloney eloquently said about the need for proper nutrition for our young people. I understand she was echoing what my colleague, Senator Zappone, had said previously. No Department is more necessary or more significant in dealing with this stark situation than the Department of Social Protection. Ultimately, the Government has a duty to protect the welfare of citizens, rather than the system, which has many faults. Senator Moloney referred to a series of anomalies and contradictions within the system. The entire system is rife with them. We need an interdepartmental review of the anomalies and Kafkaesque situations that do not actually assist the Exchequer.

I wish to make a practical suggestion. Somebody at a reasonably senior level in the Civil Service should be appointed to audit the budgetary proposals of the various organisations. I refer specifically to proposals that are supposedly budget-neutral, Exchequer-neutral or to the benefit of the Exchequer. I am dizzy from going from briefing to briefing. That is why I might not be as completely focused as I would like. I will mention some of the briefings I have been at. A number of organisations have produced documents to claim they could do a huge amount for their client base in terms that are budget-neutral or beneficial to the Exchequer. There is a suggestion that these things are not being done because of bureaucratic red tape. A couple of years ago, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, for which I have great regard, suggested that fuel allowance should be frontloaded to allow people to buy oil in bulk. It would not have been more expensive. It might have been cheaper because people would have been able to deal with oil companies that do not supply meagre amounts of oil every two weeks or every month. That suggestion was not adopted even though it would not have cost anything. It would have helped elderly people in isolated areas to have security of heating. Why was it not done? I do not understand it. There is a blockage somewhere. If we centralise the process by asking somebody with the intellectual capacity and the seniority within the Department to review these submissions, he or she might be able to say which ones would be able to eliminate anomalies, save money and benefit the people.

I will give another couple of examples. I attended a briefing yesterday that was organised by some wonderful people from the Family Support Network. Ms Sadie Grace, who champions the cause of the network, is a neighbour of mine from Seán MacDermott Street in the drug-ridden north inner city. She spoke at the briefing about the impact of departmental policies on grandparents. Tragically, it seems it is often the mother in a family who is addicted to certain substances. I do not know why. This creates a problem for her children. As soon as the grandparents move in to deal with the situation that is threatening their daughter and her children, the family is excluded from receiving payments. The Department tells the grandparents that the crisis does not exist anymore - it has been averted because they intervened. It is sheer stark madness that people who sacrifice themselves and put their well-being on the line at a time in their lives when they could have been expected to take their ease and put their feet up are penalised when they heroically intervene in the interests of their children, their grandchildren and society as a whole. We should be supporting these people instead of penalising them.

I appeal that this kind of thing be removed from the system. Similarly, if in a situation where the children are being looked after, the grandparents allow the mother to visit, that also leads to penalties but most psychologists believe that, even with a damaged parent, a connection between the child and the parent is good, particularly when it is monitored by a grandparent. Why penalise people for something that is constructive and good and it does not save money? Imagine what would happen if the grandparents were callous enough to say they would not get involved. The situation would be landed back on the institutions of the State and there would be a multiplier effect in terms of the impact on the finances. I ask that these issues be looked at and the anomalies ironed out as far as possible. I appreciate it is a big task. There should be a central examination of proposals to see if they are budget neutral and to implement them in the interests of the people. I was delighted Senator Moran raised the issue of a centralised means test.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I raised the issue of a central means test.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I said I was dizzy. I beg the Senator's pardon. I thank her for correcting me. It was just a glitch, the rhetorical equivalent of a typo. As I know her well and respect her work, it was completely inadvertent.

It is important that we do this because so many times we are told a particular policy cannot be implemented because there is not a means test in the particular Department. I have been saying for many years that should be done in co-operation with the Revenue and the Department of Social Protection as then we would have the picture and we would not have to keep doing it. In this crisis, means testing may be unpleasant but it is necessary because we have to target the resources at the people who need them most.

I turn to the issue of carers. I have the a copy of the Carers Association budget proposal for 2013, which I am sure will be brought to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Burton. To my great delight I saw that it went to the heart of what I wanted to say on neutral proposals for building a brighter future for Ireland's family carers. I compliment the Government on the fact that it has launched, for the first time, a national carers strategy. I say "Well done" to the Government. This is the theory and the ideal we are aiming for, where for the first time we commit ourselves, as a people, to recognising the vital contribution carers make to society. We have never done that before.

As I went around the country last year visiting every single county I fell in love, all over again, with this country and the wonderful people who are unacknowledged and unrecognised. These people give of themselves so wholeheartedly and generously in circumstances where there is virtually no recognition, very little in the way of financial reward, and where conditions became increasingly harsh. As people retire they are not replaced, therefore the burden becomes greater.

The strategy pledges itself to recognise that carers are the backbone of the Irish health service and are key partners and supports to the health service. One can see that. That is not just waffle. Let us face the financial facts. Family carers provide ¤4 billion worth of care each year, five times what they cost the Department of Social Protection which gets ¤878 million. It is the same with the family support network. Its budget is ¤375,000 which is literally piddling. I hope that tiny amount of money which does so much good in the most deprived areas of the capital city will not be touched.

There is the question of the half rate. It is assumed that this may be a double payment but it is not. I quote from this side of the House the late Seamus Brennan. He was a Fianna Fáil Minister and a decent man, as everyone recognised. Like the present Minister he had the welfare of the people at heart. He said this was a direct support for caring duties.

There is also the household benefits package and the free travel pass. We were told yesterday of situations where, for example, disabled people were expected to go from a hospital in Galway to a hospital in Limerick without proper transport. The HSE provides either a bus or taxi but often the timetable does not suit the appointment. Therefore, they are of no use.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's time has expired.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why take the support from them? In regard to the housing adaptation scheme, if people are to stay at home that scheme is necessary. There are many other issues but we will have an opportunity during the budget debate, which I hope we will have here, to make submissions on behalf of other people, including schools where bullying programmes and guidance councillors must be supported. We have a good Minister.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is over time.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She needs support from all sides of the House and I hope she takes some of the practical suggestions that have been made here and implements them in so far as possible.