Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 have been ruled out of order.
Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare Bill, 1985: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Question again proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
I regret that you ruled my amendment to this section out of order. However, we will not oppose any measure which gives an increased income to lowly paid families. I am sure the Minister concedes — his Department have freely and openly admitted it — that the family income supplement has tragically failed in its purpose. Originally, when the scheme was introduced in November and backdated subsequently for payment from 1 September, the Government, with a great display of triumphalism, tried to ensure that the scheme would get the greatest publicity possible. They suggested that 35,000 families would benefit from the scheme and that this was their answer to those who were badly paid.
As the Minister and the Department know, by 7 February this year, only 9,300 applications had been received and, out of those, only 4,400 families had been granted the supplement. The Government should ask themselves why the scheme has failed. Do people feel that this type of supplement was not worth taking because the money offered was just a pittance? Was it because the methods of processing the applications were not efficient? I am a little sceptical regarding the figure of 9,300 applications because I know of one family who filled up an application form on two occasions. They also made two or three telephone calls to the Department and, on each occasion, they were informed that the applications had never been received. Since then, they made a third application and I hope that reaches the right destination. I wonder if there were similar cases which are not recorded in the Department.
I note that the Minister in the Departmental Estimates has revised the allocation downwards. Originally, it was envisaged that this scheme would cost the sum of £13 million but, in the light of information regarding the reduced number of applicants, it has been reduced by £2,500 million. The family income supplement was supposed to be the Government's cornerstone policy on poverty but it has failed. I should like some information from the Minister as to what plans his Department have to ensure a bigger take-up of this scheme following the increases. When the scheme was introduced in November last with a fanfare of trumpets, the impression was given that it would solve the economic problems of the poorer families. It was introduced at a time when very sensitive and delicate discussions were taking place between the two partners in Government. The scheme was welcomed particularly by Deputy Bell who was very concerned about the issue but obviously he was easily appeased once the scheme had been backdated to 1 September. I would question the sincerity of any Member of the House who would be appeased so easily by a scheme which the people have not seen fit to take up.
What plans has the Minister to ensure that the scheme is more effective? We on this side of the House would be only too pleased that every family who would be entitled to participation in the scheme would benefit from it.
The main objective of the scheme was to help maintain the poor. Deputy McCarthy lays the blame for the failure of the scheme at the feet of the Government. If there is any failure in this area I suggest that the blame rests with the social partners because what the scheme sets out to do is to subsidise people who do not receive sufficient pay for their efforts. I welcome the increases. Deputy McCarthy tells us that 4,400 people have been approved for participation in the scheme. Despite the fact that the 24th round of wage agreements is in the process of being negotiated, the social partners have failed to produce a formula that would ensure a decent wage for people who are in full employment. This is all the more regrettable when many of these people are in the employment of the State or are in the semi-State sector. As a Government and as an employer as distinct from legislators, we have no reason to be proud from that point of view. We are bolstering up a system which does not give a just return for one's labour. I agree that some incentive should be given to those who are working but is this the best possible way of doing that? The scheme raises many questions.
Regarding qualifying for the scheme. I take the point that the assessment is on the basis of gross income but I would make the distinction between this case and the case of medical cards in which respect, both here and in Britain, outgoings above a certain figure are taken into account in assessing income. This should apply also in the case of the family income supplement so that any outgoings in excess of say, £8 or £9 would be taken into account in the assessment. As I say, there is a precedent for this in the medical card system.
Perhaps the Minister would indicate the range of applicants who have applied for participation in the scheme. For instance, of the 4,000 or so who have qualified, how many are in Dublin compared with the rest of the country?
Section 4 provides for an increase in the income limit in regard to qualification for participation in the family income supplement scheme. I should like to cite one case that has been brought to my attention in this respect. It is the case of an auxiliary postman who must attend at the post office every day but who because his working hours were short by one hour in relation to the number of hours required to be worked in order to qualify for the scheme was not considered eligible for participation though his income of about £73 was way below the minimum. He has a wife and two children. Perhaps he would be receiving much more by way of unemployment benefit. This scheme like many others becomes so restrictive that many fewer than anticipated qualify for participation. The postman in question would have to be available for overtime, for the distribution of election literature and for the rush at Christmas, yet he was disqualified for participation in the scheme. In cases where people have to be available on a daily basis but who, through no fault of their own, do not work the minimum number of hours required, they should be brought within the scope of the scheme.
The up to date figures in respect of the family income supplement scheme is as follows: there have been 9,626 applications. So far 4,197 have been allowed and 3,647 have been refused while 782 are under examination. A second campaign of advertising commenced last weekend with advertisements in the newspapers. Advertisements have also appeared today in three evening papers and in the provincial papers and they will appear in the local Dublin newspapers at the weekend. There will be posters distributed to post offices, to health centres, employment exchanges and the Department's public offices.
The take-up has been slow, but that is the way with most new schemes. On balance a take-up by 5,200 families is quite reasonable and that number will increase. When a similar scheme was brought in in the UK and in Canada it was very slow in getting off the ground and even today in those two countries the claim rate is only 50 per cent of those who might have claimed. There is also the fact that the scheme will be subsumed into the proposed child benefit scheme as from April of next year. It is only payable to families where there are children and the person employed has to work in excess of 30 hours a week. The income has to be within a certain limit.
In the case of the two-child family referred to by Deputy Leonard, the proposed increase is from £71 to £76 arising out of the change that will occur in July and they may then have the prospect of qualifying. Anything less than 30 hours will not be regarded as reasonably fulltime employment. There had to be a cutoff point, otherwise workers with part-time employment would qualify.
The person is in employment five days a week.
He does not work 30 hours.
He works 29 hours.
A period of 30 hours was set out. Did the Deputy say he had two children?
Yes.
He may qualify for some other benefits.
Not in the North Eastern Health Board.
That must be a very tough health board. The scheme was particularly for people who work more than 30 hours a week in low paid employment to give the breadwinner some additional income. I have been very cautious about this scheme because one could always get an employer who would deliberately pay a breadwinner a very low wage and tell him to get the family income supplement, particularly if he had four or five children.
In the case I referred to, it is a State body that is involved.
It is the breadwinner on a low income who should be supported by the State. When we get around to it — probably in a few months' time when we may have another 6,000 or 7,000 in the scheme, we will be able to do an analysis of the areas and then I will be able to reply to the question put by Deputy Seán Walsh, who wanted to know where the families come from, whether it was Dublin or other areas.
Will the Minister state what is the average weekly amount that is paid?
I do not have that information because the figures have been growing. At the end of last December some 1,500 payments were made and now it has increased to 5,200.
There must be some information on the computer with regard to the amounts paid to the 1,500 people.
It is an average £6 a week additional payment.
That is a miserable amount. It is what I would call a token payment.
It is not a token payment to someone on low wages.
I presume it is taxable? The processing of these applications has been extremely slow. Is there a deliberate attempt on the part of the Department and the inspectors to slow down the process? I had to make many inquiries in respect of applications and they were being sent from one section to another. Applications for social welfare benefits seem to go on a merry-go-round and the people concerned do not receive their cheques on time. They judge us and the Department by results. I should like to know why there has been such a long delay in the processing of applications. Is there the necessary personnel to deal with this matter in the Department and also on the inspectors side? The application forms that were sent out were quite comprehensive and one person said to me one would need to be a barrister to fill them. With regard to the miserable amount of £6 per week, I will leave that to the people to judge. It is no wonder there were only 10,000 applications, of which only half have been processed.
Like Deputy Connolly, I am appalled at the average increase of £6 per week per family. The Minister has told us that 4,400 families were granted the supplement on 7 February and that this has increased to over 5,000. I am glad that this has happened. The Minister must realise that this scheme was primarily introduced as a result of the Government's decision to halve the food subsidies, a decision that was politically unpalatable. Many families have suffered badly as a result of that decision. As a consequence of halving the subsidies, the estimated increase in food costs for a family is £5 per week. Now the Minister tells us that families who have been successful in their application under this scheme will receive £6 and that just balances the extra cost. On the Minister's own admission 5,000 families have been successful out of an estimated 35,000. One-seventh of the families have been granted this pittance of an increase of £6 to counterbalance their increased food costs of £5 per week. Where have the other 30,000 people who would have benefited from this scheme gone to? Those people have had to bear this cruel rise and I would like to know what has happened to them. Have they emigrated or got lost?
We have a habit of selling ourselves short. I will just give one example. In a three child family at the moment, if the income of the breadwinner is under £79 a week there is an automatic entitlement to £11.50 a week, maximum supplement and as and from July a breadwinner earning £84 a week with a three child family will get the maximum supplement of £13 a week. It is a supplement to the family income generally. It is only when we have a fairly substantial number of applicants going through the system that we will be able to judge the effect and the average payment will become more meaningful in terms of analysis. There is no delay in the processing. Out of 9,626 applicants only 7 per cent or 8 per cent are actually under examination.
What is the time lag from the time one makes an application until the time it is processed? I am told it is months.
As far as I know, it is very short. We have set up a separate section in the Department. I would love to have the Deputy by my side to twist the arm of the Minister for the Public Service in getting sufficient staff for that section. I am sure the Deputy would have made a delicious partner in terms of our common cause to get sections of the Department of Social Welfare properly staffed. We got staff from the Minister by agreement but with the usual difficulties. We have a section staffed to deal with this scheme. The advertising is imaginative and good and one does not need even the qualification of a TD to fill in the application form. Anyway there are enough public representatives around to fill in anything for a person these days. The scheme is becoming well known and more and more people are applying. I have no doubt that by the middle of the year there will be 10,000 or 11,000 current claims in operation. The main thing is that the money is going to families with low incomes. That is why I am particularly anxious to build up the scheme and then transfer it over into the child benefit scheme.
From 8 February to date fewer than 1,000 people applied for benefit under that scheme. On 8 February last the applications amounted to 9,300 approximately and now there are just over 10,000 applications. My information is that it takes up to four months to process an application. I am told that the form goes to a number of regional offices when it leaves the Department. It possibly goes to Athlone, then to Tullamore, back to Portlaoise and out to the inspector and then back on the circuit again.
The Deputy thinks it is Comhairle na nOspidéal he is talking about and consultant psychiatrists.
With all due respects, the Minister has his share of them too.
Will the Deputy stay on section 4, please?
There is a delay in the processing of applications. Perhaps it is brought about by personnel problems. The Minister admitted that he was having staffing problems and that his partner in Government was not too willing to help him out. Perhaps the Minister for the Public Service has given him only a skeleton staff for this section just to enable the Minister to say he got extra staff. I have been informed that these forms are being passed from one regional office to another. I would be glad of confirmation that that is not true. If a person had to wait three months for this paltry £6 his tongue would not want to be hanging out waiting for it.
Any forms arriving in the social welfare office are forwarded direct to the section and to my knowledge there is no delay. I will certainly check up on what the Deputy has said and I will write to him. I will also send him a clatter of forms.
The forms are no good.
Despite the fact that the Deputy has twins I do not think he would qualify on income grounds.
I believe the forms are going to the regional offices in Athlone.
There is only one office in Dublin, and we keep everything in Dublin.
Do they not send them to Athlone and then from Athlone——
The Deputy is confusing me with Deputy Gemma Hussey. I do not look like Deputy Hussey.
I know I am confusing the Minister. I understand that there is a 12 week delay in the processing of these forms.
Does the Minister intend to move in relation to the parental consideration in the assessment? For a medical card application once a person goes over £8 or £9 everything else is taken into account and deducted from the gross amount. Is the Minister prepared to consider taking outgoings on rent into consideration on the same level as is done in regard to medical cards?
The Minister endeavoured to reply to my question in regard to a breakdown of the applications granted but I did not hear him. Will the Minister repeat his reply?
I do not have that information but I undertake, now that we have a sizeable number, to carry out an analysis of the payments being made on an address basis, to get a crude indication for the Deputy. I will write to the Deputy about it. With regard to taking into account other family costs such as rent I should like to tell the House that that does not apply in the case of the FIS. It is a straight income limit and within the income limit the family get it whether they are not paying rent, are paying a fixed rent of a couple of pounds or £20 per week, it is a different system to the assessment for a medical card. It is a social welfare income-related system.
Out of the total number of families granted a supplement how many qualified nationally for the back payment from 1 September? The Minister will be aware that this was the great bargaining point his colleague Deputy Bell used to satisfy his social conscience. Will the Minister tell the House how many were eligible in the Louth constituency which gave Deputy Bell a political licence to support the halving of the food subsidies?
In reply to Deputy Connolly the Minister referred to Dublin being the central base for dealing with these applications. Will the Minister agree that delays occur and that they are getting more extensive? Will he agree that the delays are being caused by virtue of the fact that the social welfare system is a complete duplication in regard to the many benefits people must avail of? The health boards carry out an investigation and the Department of Social Welfare later carry out a similar investigation. That must result in an enormous expense on the Exchequer because there is a duplication of work by two sets of officials. The whole system is being fouled up and health boards cannot get their refunds from the Department. I am sure the Minister is aware of the ongoing battle between the health boards and the Department in regard to refunds. The Department should take a hard look at this aspect and either accept responsibility for the payments or make the health boards responsible for them. If we are to get satisfaction and, above all, get the assistance to those who are in dire need of it there will have to be a dramatic change in the administration of the scheme by the Department.
There is a grave anomaly in regard to the 30 hour condition in order to qualify. Many people will not qualify if they are employed by a State-sponsored body or a Department on short time. Those people must be on call for the entire week. Those who make a full social welfare contribution and qualify for all the benefits in relation to the amount they pay should be brought into benefit. They are entitled to unemployment benefit or disability benefit if they exceed 20 hours per week. I appreciate the point the Minister made in regard to employers availing of this to overcome the payment of wages but irrespective of what scheme is implemented there will always be people shrewd enough to find a loophole to operate the scheme to their benefit. It is a matter for the officials of the Department to ensure that that does not take place. The Minister should have another look at the anomaly that exists in the case mentioned by Deputy Leonard.
Would it not have been fairer to consider the person who pays full PRSI contribution and is unable to avail of work rather than having a 30 hour minimum qualifying limit? The person who pays a full contribution should be brought into the scheme. At present once a person works in excess of 18 hours that person is compelled to pay the full PRSI. When having another look at the family income supplement scheme the Minister should consider the entire area of supplementary benefits. I heard a report at a recent meeting of the health board that a huge amount of money is not recoupable. I understood that where people were paid supplementary benefits a check was carried out with the local health board to ensure there was no duplication and to collect arrears. I understand millions of pounds are lost annually by people being paid on the double.
It is time the Department had another look at the double assessment system. An assessment is carried out for an old age pension but that is not accepted as an assessment for a medical card. It should be because an old age pensioner can have a maximum pension and an income of £6 per week and qualify for a medical card. However, there is no guarantee such a person will get a medical card because health board officials are liable to assess a person in a different way from a social welfare officer.
I should like to deal with the point raised by Deputy McCarthy in regard to the backdating of payments. Deputies will be aware that the scheme was introduced on 1 November 1984 with payments backdated to 6 September of that year for any person who claimed before 1 December. We allowed reasonable leeway in that regard. A substantial number were backdated. I will send details to the Deputy when we have the final figure.
Deputy Connaughton raised the issue of means testing multiplicity. I agree with him that there is an urgent need to rationalise the whole system of means testing. It is fair to say that it is the bane of the social welfare and health board systems. I forget how recently somebody made out the number of means tests, but one figure was something like 27 separate systems of means testing in operation. There is a very grave need to rationalise and effectively develop the social welfare system in this regard, but I throw the point to the Deputies. Just as we must rationalise the fuel scheme which is one of those ad hoc schemes which has grown up over the years, a £20 million scheme, no means test system can be rationalised unless some people who are currently getting benefit have their benefit reduced or do not get it at all and others who are not getting it will get it and should be getting it on a more equitable basis. You cannot rationalise upwards in one direction because the inherent inequity in the method of assessment will still remain. Frequently inherent injustices and inequities are inbuilt over the passage of time and the change in social circumstances in our means testing structures.
If we want to do the root and branch job in relation to our income maintenance systems, we must approach it on the basis that it will be a very difficult exercise. We have just seen the appallingly difficult exercise of trying to bring 30,000 smallholders from a rateable valuation system of assessment on to a factual assessment basis for payment and the extreme difficulty posed by that. We did not do it as an Oireachtas until we were told to do it by the courts and forced into doing it as a result, ironically, of action taken by the farmers in relation to the PLV system. There was no great saving of money in that exercise, perhaps £1 million up or down, one way or the other, nothing of great consequence. Some smallholders have received substantial increases while others have suffered substantial decreases and one way or the other a system of more equitable means testing has been introduced. Deputies are well aware of the enormous difficulty which they face particularly in the western counties on that issue.
As soon as I get the breakdown for Deputy Walsh of where these 5,500 persons currently come from I will send the details directly to him.
I thank the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
The section is opposed by Deputies McCarthy, De Rossa and Mac Giolla.
I will outline our reasons for opposing this section. Last year the Government raised from £36 to £43 the amount of weekly earnings disregarded in calculating rates of pay-related benefit and at that time they saved £2.8 million to the Exchequer. This year they carry on the exercise further and increase it from £43 to £49 and in so doing another £2.08 million will be saved to the Exchequer. These savings are being made at the expense of unfortunate people who become unemployed, disabled or sick. I am sure the Minister is aware that many of these people who become suddenly unemployed or ill will find themselves, as a result of these losses, much worse off than they are and they will find it extremely difficult to cope and will be unable to meet their commitments. That is why we oppose this section of the Bill. It is another attempt to erode the incomes of those on short term payments and it is a ploy which has been adopted consistently over two years by this Government to ensure that extra moneys are saved to the Exchequer at the expense of the recipients.
A matter raised on Second Stage to which I would like to refer concerns unemployment benefit for migrant workers. People are being deprived of their pay-related benefit. Anybody who is unfortunate enough to have to go outside the country to seek employment will have an entitlement under EC regulations, but one of those regulations is creating a considerable problem. That regulation took effect from 1 April 1973 and under it a person who works in Europe for a number of years and then comes back here will find it necessary to have one contribution here before he has any entitlement to benefit. Many such people would have pay-related and unemployment benefit entitlement by virtue of the fact that they cannot secure employment and cannot make a contribution, but they are then deprived of the benefit until they can make this contribution. That is penal and I ask the Minister to initiate some action on it.
I realise that this has emerged from the EC, but it should be rectified. I know of a young man who worked in Germany for three years, who returned here last October and has been unable to get any benefit because he cannot get a week's work which would give him his full entitlement. This is not a great incentive to people to go out and seek employment. No one wants to see the reintroduction of wholesale emigration such as we saw in the fifties, but in recent times the point has been made here and outside the House that in future greater mobility of labour will be essential, yet those who become mobile are being penalised for doing so. I ask the Minister to arrange to have the matter taken up in the European Parliament in an effort to rectify this penal legislation.
Is section 5 agreed?
No.
No. I would like to make a brief point on it. I can give Deputy O'Sullivan information on the matter he has raised. According to the EC Regulations on Migrant Workers there must be the one standard. There is no option and we must enforce the EC Regulation as such. I can supply Deputy O'Sullivan with the details of the Regulation.
Deputy McCarthy referred to the raising of the floor from £43 to £49. That applies only to any new claim after 1 April. Current claims are not in any way affected by the change. Therefore, its effect is very reduced. If the floor were adjusted on an inflation basis from 1974 onwards when it was £14, it would need to be something in the region of £79 per week. It was £14 in 1974 when the flat rate was only £6.55. It was double the flat rate. Today if it were double the flat rate it would be £79. Instead it has been kept at £49. It did not rise during the seventies. In April 1981 it was at £20 and today it is £49. I am very sensitive about this issue and assure Deputies I will keep a close eye on it. It is a very valuable supplement to benefit. Other countries, for example, the UK, have done away with PRB because they could not afford it.
In many cases it is not possible to get full contributions so I suggest that if a person were allowed to make a voluntary contribution we would then be complying with EC regulations. Take the case of a young single man who worked abroad for three years. At this stage any money which he earned has been spent. He does not qualify for supplementary welfare allowance because he lives with his parents and their income is taken into account. He has now become a burden on the household, which is most unjust. This is not an isolated case. There should be some way in which a person could make a voluntary contribution if they are not able to secure employment and thereby comply with the EC regulations.
I will write to the Deputy about that. At present it would not be possible legislatively for a person to pay a voluntary contribution.
Question put.
The Dáil divided Tá, 67; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Seamús.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West).
Question declared carried.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
We are opposing this section. This proposed increase in PRSI payments will mean that further moneys will be taken from approximately 130,000 workers.
Silence, please.
The insurance fund will be increased by £13 million as a result of this. It is a further imposition on workers, affecting their living standards. They will have to pay approximately £1 per week, which adds to their problems.
As it is now 11.30 p.m. in accordance with an Order of the House made this morning I am now putting the final question: "That amendment 12 is hereby made to the Bill, the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee and, as amended, is reported to the House and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21 March 1985.