Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Mar 1988

Vol. 379 No. 3

Social Welfare Bill, 1988: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Wyse

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, before section 3, but in Part I, to insert the following new section:

"3. (1) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall not come into force until the Minister shall make an order in that behalf.

(2) The Minister shall not make an order under subsection (1) of this section at a date earlier than a date on which he has made regulations providing for the means testing of persons eligible to receive benefits under Part III of this Act.

(3) The Minister may by regulation provide for means testing of persons to determine their eligibility to receive benefits under Part III of this Act and such regulations may include provisions relating to the level of income and ownership of property and other means of such persons.".

In moving this amendment, I wish to take the opportunity to set out clearly my party's attitude to the proposed extension of PRSI to the self-employed and to farmers. First, this is not in any proper sense of the word an insurance scheme. There is a very loose link between contributions and entitlements. Benefits are automatic and not means tested and I will return to this point. In addition it is not insurance because the scheme is not properly costed on an actuarial basis. The interim report was rushed out by the National Pensions Board at the request of the Minister. We are totally dissatisfied that sufficient consideration was given to the long-term cost of the scheme. To pretend that the scheme has been scientifically and actuarially costed is a farce. Clearly, the Government have decided to fund this proposal on a pass-as-you-go basis. Even a casual awareness of the interim report from the National Pensions Board would show their preference was for an investment of the income under the scheme in the early years, when it is in surplus, to offset the cost in later years, when it will be in deficit. The Government have scandalously disregarded this recommendation.

Our central objection to the scheme arises from the fact that it will end up costing the very taxpayer the Minister pretends the scheme in some sense is designed to protect. For too long this country has indulged in putting forward half-baked, ill-thought out schemes, which appear attractive in the short term but prove disastrous from the cost point of view in the long term. This is just such a scheme and that is why we objected on Second Stage to this measure. It is quite clear that the Government are still intent on railroading this costly measure through this House. That is why we are seeking an amendment to alleviate some of the costly implications of the scheme.

The case in regard to the amendment is simple and straightforward. The present system of assistance for the self-employed is means tested, consequently, the Department of Social Welfare's figures reveal that 28 per cent of those who qualify for assistance receive less than the maximum rate of benefit of pension. This is so because the current rules have deemed the payment of full pension unnecessary in these cases. What will the Minister's proposal now mean? The answer is that everybody will qualify for the full rate of contributory pension, irrespective of means. In addition to the 28 per cent who do not qualify for the maximum rate of non-contributory pension, some applicants are refused totally any pension on the grounds that their means exceed the limits set and they are deemed to be too well off to qualify. I think that point is very important.

I think it would be worthwhile looking at the question of those who are eligible for the non-contributory pension and those who are not, those who should be eligible and those who will be eligible now. We know also that many do not apply for the non-contributory pension until after their 66th year because they chose to remain active in the labour force. All of these people, irrespective of their means and irrespective of whether they wish to apply for a pension under the current rules would automatically qualify for a full contributory pension under the Government's proposals now before the House. I must also point out there are about 200,000 people in private sector pension schemes who are already adequately provided for, and many of whom never claim or would wish to claim State pensions. These include the wealthiest self-employed people in the land.

In terms of basic social justice, is it not a farce to spread welfare benefits with the latitude of a badly focused blunderbuss, when there are so many people living in genuine poverty and dire need and who should have the first and greatest call on the State's limited resources?

Therefore the Progressive Democrats have moved an amendment to introduce a form of means testing so that everyone who is self-employed and about to be pulled into the scheme, whether they wish it or not, will not automatically qualify for a State handout. For that reason I am moving this amendment.

Mr. J. Mitchell

This amendment seems to be well intentioned in that it highlights some of the problems which arise from the scheme proposed by the Minister but, unfortunately, it goes much further than that and has implications which Deputy Wyse may not have considered.

For instance, at present a contributor is a person who gets his or her entitlements regardless of means, once he or she has the requisite contributions. If Deputy Wyse's amendment were to be accepted so far as the self-employed were concerned we would have a perversion of that definition, with obvious implications for people who are already making social insurance contributions. There could be very serious implications for these people who, for years, have contributed in the belief that, regardless of how well they prosper, there will be a pension for their widows or for themselves if they should live long enough. In my view, there is a very serious drawback in the amendment proposed by Deputy Wyse.

However, there are major problems which could arise if this amendment were accepted. There is no retirement requirement in the Minister's proposal and he does not say he will not introduce a retirement requirement, some time in the future. The National Pensions Board are considering a retirement requirement but if there is a retirement requirement for the self-employed, would it stand up in the High Court if there is no retirement requirement for the employed class? At the moment an employed contributor can continue to work beyond pension age and draw his contributory old age pension, and a widow can work and be entitled to draw her contributory widow's pension. But can we legislate to have a differential between the employed and the self-employed classes? If such a provision were challenged in the High Court, would it be upheld or shot down? My guess is that it would stand a very good chance of being upheld.

These are the kind of questions the National Pensions Board, the Minister and this House will have to consider further. If we do not have a retirement condition, there could be very serious implications as far as the handing over of farms and other businesses is concerned. At present these businesses and farms are handed over when the owners are comparatively young. I think it would be the view of the House and the public in general that businesses should be handed over to the next generation sooner rather than later. In my view the absence of any retirement condition has major drawbacks. The presence of a retirement condition would affect the existing contributory class in an adverse way. This is one of the major problems in the Minister's proposal.

I do not think it would be wise to accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Wyse because of the implications which could arise. Nevertheless, this hits a nerve in the Minister's proposal and touches on a major flaw in that system.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Social Welfare.

Mr. Bell

I wish to contribute——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bell will be called later. I am calling the Minister.

Mr. Bell

I thought the Minister was going to reply.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling the Minister at this stage.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

The effect of this amendment essentially would be to scrap the entire scheme of social insurance for the self-employed. It would impose a means test on self-employed people before they could qualify for a pension. The whole basis of a social insurance pension system is that pensions are payable as a right in return for contributions and are not subject to a means test. The whole purpose of the scheme is to enable self-employed people to join the rest of the working population in contributing towards the cost of their pensions and have the security of knowing that they are building up rights which will not be affected by other income or assets which they may have.

A self-employed person will now be able to look forward on reaching age 66 to a basic level of pension knowing that the payment will not be affected by the assets he/she will have accumulated through his/her own efforts during the course of his/her career. In the case of a widow the level of pension she will be entitled to under the Social Welfare Acts will not be affected by whatever assets she has on her husband's death. This is particularly important where a farm is concerned and the widow is left with the children, trying to make a go of the farm or the son might be trying to keep the farm going. In that case the widow will have the widow's pension as a right. If she is in a position to supplement that pension with earnings from employment or self-employment, those earnings will not serve to reduce her pension payment.

This system is clearly of advantage to the individuals concerned as in return for the payment of contributions they acquire a State guaranteed level of payment in their old age and a guaranteed income for their survivors in the event of their death. The scheme is not just of importance, however, to the individuals concerned, but also to the community as a whole. A system of non-means tested benefits encourages enterprise and thrift as the persons concerned know that such efforts will not have the effect of reducing the pension payment they can look forward to in old age or that they receive as widows.

The proposed amendment, however, would remove this basic feature of the scheme. It would leave self-employed persons effectively in the same position they are in at present, having no guarantee of a basic level of pension in their own right. On the surface it might appear to be a more efficient use of resources, resulting in targeting these resources on those on the lowest incomes. That may be what the Deputy has in mind. The amendment would be another form of taxation whereby many self-employed persons would be required to pay contributions but would never qualify for any benefits. For the bulk of self-employed persons who are in the middle income ranges, the situation would be one of complete uncertainty in that they would never be sure whether they were going to qualify for anything and whether they should make private arrangements on that basis.

That is an important element in this whole question of pensions. Those who control and operate pension funds and those who might make private pension arrangements are happy if there is a basic level of pension provided by the State with provision for them to be able to top it up through their own private arrangements. That leaves room for private insurance companies to operate in that area. The fact that the self-employed were required to pay PRSI contributions would in any event limit their scope for making such arrangements.

The proposed amendment would give rise to serious inequities as between different categories of self-employed contributors. Under the proposed scheme contributions are related to the level of income but the same pension payments are made irrespective of the actual amount of contributions paid subject, of course, to the minimum contributions laid down. Thus, persons on low incomes who on the basis of such income pay a low level of contribution will qualify for the same level of pension as persons on higher incomes paying higher contributions overall. This ensures that every contributor irrespective of means receives a basic level of pension to provide for his or her basic needs. However, if the amendment was adopted the scheme would not alone result in contributors with higher income paying more but would also result in such persons receiving less. This could not be justified.

Miss Harney

That is called equity.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy will have an opportunity to make her contribution later. In fact, she will have three days to make her point. Finally, I would like to refer to the fact that social welfare pensions are subject to income tax. Accordingly, pensioners on higher incomes will have such incomes reduced through the tax system when account is taken of the pension payments. I do not know if Deputy Wyse realised that important fact particularly when taking into account the costings. Obviously, there would be an additional saving to the scheme involved. Means-testing such persons would not alone lead to duplication of the tax system but would also serve to substitute virtually 100 per cent taxation on the pensions, for the rates of income tax considered appropriate under the tax system.

It is essential that the new arrangements be equitable as between different categories of self-employed people and as between self-employed persons and employees. What we are proposing is that the same rules as apply to employees should also apply to the self-employed and this in my view is the only fair way to proceed. If changes are to be made in the conditions for entitlement to pension — and I have already said that the National Pensions Board are examining this whole area — then any such changes should apply equitably to employers and the self-employed. Deputy Mitchell made a point in relation to a retirement clause. However, that must be considered in relation to employees and the self-employed.

In conclusion, I can see no justification for applying a means test for pension entitlement for the self-employed. The amendment, does not specify what form of means test is envisaged. Has Deputy Wyse the standard old age non-contributory pension means test in mind? If so then the result is that all pay while noone benefits, other than to the extent that the social insurance pension is somewhat higher than the non-contributory pension. Those who would have got a non-contributory pension in any event would now have to pay for it, others would pay and get nothing. It is not a fair system and I could not accept it.

In raising questions about costs Deputy Wyse made sweeping allegations to the effect that we had not done our home-work in that area in regard to them. I should like to refute those allegations absolutely. The Government, in considering the report of the National Pensions Board, took on board the actuarial studies. In addition, they had before them a report of the work of the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. McDowell

Will that report be published?

Dr. Woods

To which report is the Deputy referring?

Mr. McDowell

The report on the work of the Revenue Commissioners on which the Minister is relying.

Dr. Woods

In the course of my Second Stage speech I gave information about that report and I have no doubt that I will be asked to give more information in the course of the debate on Committee Stage. The Revenue Commissioners publish reports from time to time which I am sure are made available but the point at this stage is that the Government, when taking action on proposals, have available to them advice from the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners. We have taken that advice and we are now talking about the actual figures. The actuarial study was carried out by the National Pensions Board but when we are talking about the income anticipated we are talking about the actual figures compiled by the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. McDowell

What about the expenditure?

Dr. Woods

That is based on the actuarial study carried out by the National Pensions Board and my Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Any Member familiar with Committee Stage will know that we cannot have questions put to the Minister when he is replying because he cannot restrain his sense of courtesy and replies to them but that does not lead to the type of organised debate we usually have on Committee Stage. All Members will get an opportunity to contribute and it is better that the House should proceed to deal with Committee Stage in an orderly fashion. The Minister should be allowed proceed without interruption.

Dr. Woods

Deputies will be aware that the National Pensions Board calculated the additional costs on an actuarial basis over a 50-year period. They were the extra costs in providing contributory old age and widow's pensions to the self-employed. That was over and above the cost of continuing the present arrangements. The additional costs, according to those studies, would be at five years, £6 million; at ten years, £21 million; at 15 years, £54 million; at 20 years, £73 million; at 40 years, £99 million and at 50 years, £89 million. Those figures had not been questioned by any experts.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Is that at 6.6 per cent?

Dr. Woods

All the experts have accepted those figures as the cost over and above the original figure. It is meeting that cost that the 6.6 per cent comes in; that is the factual position based on the actuarial studies. A question was raised about the yield and I should like to tell the House that the yield in practice at 5 per cent is £50 million per annum. A whole new system of collection will be involved. Deputy Wyse said that more money would be brought in initially with the cost arising later. The whole point in averaging out over the 50 years was that initially more money would be brought in. The social insurance fund will gain substantially in the short term but ultimately the 5 per cent is intended to meet the cost in the long term averaged over 50 years. That is the position in relation to costs.

Many people have spoken about a calculation done by one economist and I hope that at this stage Deputies will leave that question aside, although I am prepared to discuss it. That a plain mistake has been made by that economist is clearly seen from his calculations on figures from the Minister for Finance. On that basis he calculated £31 million at 5 per cent and his calculation is patently wrong. If any Deputy wishes to discuss the matter later, I will show how that mistake occurred. It is mathematically wrong.

Mr. J. Mitchell

But the pensions board are wrong, too. Everyone bar the Minister is wrong.

Mr. McDowell

And he will not tell us why he is right.

Dr. Woods

One must separate the two things. The actuarial studies are one side of the coin; the other side is the income. The Revenue Commissioners calculated the income and the Minister for Finance presented these calculations in relation to the first year, particularly in connection with the budget. These are not my figures. They are those of the Revenue Commissioners — £50 million at 5 per cent.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Why did not the pensions board have those figures available to them, if that were the case?

Dr. Woods

A number of things changed in between. First, the base has been broadened by the Government. As the Deputy knows fairly well, the base actually being used at the moment includes, in addition, unearned income. The figures given by the National Pensions Board did not include unearned income. That is one very major area which we discussed on Second Stage. This brings in rent, interest and income arising from dividends. A much broader base is used in these calculations. On that basis and on the percentage set by the Government, the Revenue Commissioners gave the amount that would be brought in by year five. Two economists have been quoted fairly publicly and I am sorry they do not say that they made a mistake. That would put many people right. I was a scientist and if I had done something like that my integrity would have been questioned unless I had made the true position very clear.

Proinsias De Rossa

Economists would never stop saying sorry when they were wrong.

Dr. Woods

I suppose not.

Mr. McDowell

When the Minister was a scientist he did not do U-turns?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Minister and Deputies, please. We have had the Second Stage debate. I hope we will not have the ghosts of these two economists following us, section by section. Could we come to some agreement on this, to kill them off early on and be finished with them? If the Minister addresses his remarks to me he will get a less questioning audience than he will get by addressing them to the Deputies.

Mr. J. Mitchell

If he were more cryptic.

Dr. Woods

There are a number of matters. First, there is a wider base. Secondly, there is a higher ceiling than that used in the report and studies. Thirdly, we have the new collection system — a much wider, more efficient and very much more effective system. It was Deputy Wyse's total dismissal of the costings that led me to this. The amendment of Deputy Wyse is unwise.

Mr. Wyse

The Minister is wrong, anyway.

Dr. Woods

He still seems to give credence to some of these matters. Once you accept the Revenue Commissioners' figures of £50 million at 5 per cent, you are on the right track. There will be a review in three years and a look at any minor adjustments required. Deputy Wyse need have no fear about the imposition of any draconian measures such as are envisaged in his amendment. On these grounds, I cannot accept his amendment.

Mr. Bell

I have a couple of matters to put briefly. First, I find myself to a large extent in agreement with the Minister's sentiments. In setting up any form of pension scheme or pension entitlements, one must be guided by the advice one gets from an actuary or a financial adviser. One would want a crystal ball at this stage to see who is right and who is wrong. It was wise to incorporate in this proposal a review of the situation after three years. I suggest that the Minister might go a little further than that and, following that three year period, that there should be an annual review.

Those of us who have been involved in pension schemes will know that circumstances can change fairly dramatically from year to year, certainly from period to period. It depends on the number of people contributing to the fund, the changing pattern in population and the age groups. The numbers of people emigrating, for example, could very well have a very dramatic effect in one year on the income into the fund, or on the number of people who would retire and be drawing from the fund. Another element is the average age, which tends to increase and has been increasing over the past number of years. People are living longer now, perhaps because of the better drugs available and better health care, although there is some doubt about the latter. I see my colleague smiling about that.

Mr. D. Ahern

I am surprised at the Deputy. He was not saying that yesterday.

Mr. Bell

People are living longer and that will have an effect on the amount of money to be paid out of the fund, so one would want to have a crystal ball to be able to tie down figures. There are too many imponderables for mathematical accuracy. My reservation is based on a fear that there would be under-funding. There is no problem when a pension fund is over-funded. Higher benefits can be given as time goes on, bonuses can be added in and additional benefits. However, under-funding creates a difficulty. At some future date severe penalties have to be imposed in order to make up for the under-funding.

As I understand the amendment as explained by Deputy Wyse, to introduce a means test would effectively put paid to the scheme as it is intended under the Bill. Whether that would be a good or a bad thing is another day's argument. Means testing would introduce a further anomaly into the already complicated system of social welfare. The sector of social welfare which is dealt with by means testing raises more problems than any other sector. It is virtually impossible to take two individual sample cases and find them alike. You can very seldom come to a conclusion as to how a deciding officer, an appeals officer, or a social welfare officer has arrived at a calculation of a benefit. Also, means testing would create very long delays in administration. At the moment there is a delay of from 15 to 16 weeks in getting an examination of means for unemployment assistance, as all the Deputies will know. If you add a further sizeable category there would be a need for a substantial extra number of social welfare investigating officers. There would be all sorts of fiddles to avoid these assessments which, indeed, happens at present. If you introduce this element to the self-employed, the only people who will benefit are accountants and possibly those in the legal profession who will look for ways and means to get around this assessment. However well-intentioned the amendment may be, it would have a very serious detrimental effect on the overall proposal.

I disagree with any taxation on pensions and this is the first time I have heard a Minister for Social Welfare admit that pensions are taxed. A pension of £40 or £50 is deducted from the person's tax allowance and the remainder is taxed. This is a question for the Revenue Commissioners, but, if a person has substantial means, the adjustment would be made through the taxation system. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.

Miss Harney

A few moments ago, the Minister spoke about the scientist and the economist. It reminded me of something I heard recently: an economist and a scientist were in a field with a tin of beans which they could not open. The scientist picked up a stone and tried to open the tin but the economist said: "Let us assume we have a tin opener". Therefore, we should leave the scientist and the economist out of this debate.

I do not want to get into the actuarial problem although I read the article by Mr. Mackey from Davy, Kelleher and McCarthy and one by Paul Tansey, a well regarded economic commentator, in The Sunday Tribune, on this scheme. It is generally accepted by independent economists that the subsidy to the self-employed and the farmers will be something in the region of 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the eventual pay out. If that is the case, it is appalling.

The Minister said that, irrespective of means, everybody will get the same basic level of pension. The problem with the system of social welfare is that we try to spread a very limited amount of resources among too many people. Everybody gets the same children's allowances and that also applies to other areas. There are limited resources and we are now about to extend social welfare to a group of people who could well do without it. Regardless of the economic implications — and they are major — it is very unjust to pay the unemployed worker from my constituency, who will never get a chance to work, a rate of benefit which will be much lower than that paid to the wealthy stud owner who, by virtue of paying a small contribution each year, will get a guaranteed pension in excess of that paid to the person who has never had a chance to work. If, in relation to tax, we announced that we were introducing a new tax scheme which would ensure that everybody, regardless of their means, would pay £50 per week in taxation, everybody would scream and roar and say it was unjust. If that system is wrong in relation to the tax system, surely it is wrong in relation to social welfare, that people should be treated on the same basis regardless of their economic position?

The Minister asked what kind of means test we would suggest. I agree with a suggestion Deputy Jim Mitchell made last week. There is an urgent need to have a single, simple system of means testing people for State benefits in social welfare, housing or education grants. At present there is chaos in regard to applications for medical cards. There is a long delay in processing them because of the different criteria applied compared to social welfare. I have dealt with constituents who had to wait months before their applications were processed.

Eventually they were granted medical cards but only after a lengthy delay.

The self-employed and the farmers have been very quiet recently in regard to the proposed measure and I can understand why. As they became aware of the economic reality of what is about to be bestowed on them, they realised that it is the greatest bonanza they will ever get from any Government. Many of them, quite rightly told their union representatives to keep quiet because they regarded it as a fantastic scheme. They would be mad to reject it because, in return for three per cent of their income this year which will rise to only five per cent over a number of years, they will now get, regardless of whether they have large farms, businesses or private pensions, a fixed State pension, inflationlinked. It is no wonder they have become so quiet; the wool was pulled over the eyes of the trade union movement in relation to this issue. As soon as people hear that somebody else will pay more tax, they think it is marvellous, although they have not studied the implications. This was generally welcomed by the representatives of the PAYE sector. I can see why they felt it necessary to welcome an extension of tax to the self-employed and the farmers but they did not realise the great bonanza it is to those groups. However, they did not realise that it will be a millstone around the necks of the PAYE sector in particular because they will pay for this scheme in the months and years to come.

We must examine the social welfare system. Some years ago I sat on a joint committee which consolidated the then Social Welfare Acts. There is a need to have an all-party committee of the Oireachtas to examine social welfare. At present the scheme is grossly inequitable and very unjust. The system does not help those it is supposed to help. It tries to spread very limited resources over a large number of people. One of the areas where we can now begin to make differences is in relation to the extension of PRSI to other categories of workers.

I accept the point made by Deputy Jim Mitchell. Perhaps some people feel that once they opt in to a PRSI system they are guaranteed something which cannot be taken away from them. One cannot expect them to make contributions and then to change the rate of benefit which will be applicable after they receive contributions. However, we do that in relation to many other benefits. Recently we introduced measures in this House which will restrict disability, unemployment and other allowances. We have increased the number of contributions necessary before one is entitled to these benefits. We do make changes after people opt to pay PRSI in relation to benefits. I do not know if the courts would take a different view in regard to that than they would in regard to contributions towards a pension scheme.

Here we have a new scheme extending PRSI to two new categories of people and, before they begin to pay, surely we can make it a condition of their payment that they will only get pensions on the basis of their means being established at the time they become entitled to make an application, on retirement, old age, when they are widowed or whatever.

To do anything else would be a scandal. It would be very unjust, particularly to the group of people who never get a chance to work or to make a contribution and, therefore, to get contributory benefits of any kind from the State, but it would be equally unjust to other people who will be solely dependent on this State to survive in their old age, when they are widows or when they are retired, who will have no other separate income, no separate wealth and will have nothing to fall back on. Their benefit from the State will be their sole means of livelihood. It would be wrong for them to get the same basic rate of benefit as some of the better off people. That would be wrong and I do not think there is any need to go that far. Despite what the Minister has said and despite the justification he has tried to put forward for the introduction of this scheme in this manner, I do not think he would agree that it would be either just or equitable in any circumstance.

The Progressive Democrats believe that PRSI is a tax on work. Whilst PRSI exists, obviously no category of workers should be excluded from paying it. We believe that eventually PRSI and the tax system should be incorporated into one single rate with say, 5 per cent or 3 per cent of your contribution in tax being set aside as a social security tax and that all workers should pay it. Equally, we believe that we will have to move towards a system of means testing people for social welfare regardless of whether we want to do it. The structure of our population is such that in 20 years' time, because of the number of young people we have in our population, it will not be possible for this country to continue paying out social welfare payments along the same lines as we do at present. We will not have the workforce to sustain that level of payment of social welfare to so many categories of people. We must begin to be selective. We will have to apply some form of means testing. Economic circumstances will force that upon us even if we do not want to do it.

One of the difficulties we have had in recent years is that political promises made in the past, because they seemed right in the short term or right to deal with the particular problem that arose on a day to day basis, are the very things that caused this country to borrow so much money and to raise taxes to such a level that we have now got a total disincentive to work. We now have so many people unemployed because we have to devote so much of our resources——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but it does seem to me that she is straying very far from section 3 of this Bill. The Deputy is embarking on a Second Stage speech which is quite inappropriate for the Committee Stage of this Bill.

Miss Harney

I will end by saying that we have to be very careful when we are extending new schemes, such as the one we are about to extend in this Bill, to new categories of workers that we do not create a situation where the future taxpayers of this country will find it impossible to contribute the amount of money which will be necessary in order to meet——

An Ceann Comhairle

I think Members should confine their remarks from now on to the section and the amendment in the name of Deputy Wyse.

Miss Harney

That is what Deputy Wyse's amendment is all about. He is seeking to limit the payment of pensions to the self-employed——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am aware of that and I am aware of a lot of the extraneous matter which has been brought into the discussion.

Miss Harney

——and to have a strict means test when they are entitled to apply for benefit under this Bill.

Proinsias De Rossa

There is no way I could support the amendment proposed by Deputy Wyse of the Progressive Democrats. As the Minister said, the pension which any person receives at present is means tested in the sense that when you become eligible for a pension it then becomes available for calculation for tax purposes. A point I have frequently made in regard to pensioners who are on low incomes is that their pension is taken into account, for instance, where the husband or wife is working and the pension, therefore, is calculated for tax purposes. There is no reason that should not apply to the self-employed and to the farmers who are included in this scheme. The problem is that it has always been extremely difficult to apply the taxation system to those two categories of persons who have numerous ways of dodging the tax system. Following its implementation perhaps the side benefit of this scheme will be that it will bring them more closely under the tax system. I understand that part of the procedures will be co-ordination between the tax office and the Department of Social Welfare in relation to assessing the means on which contributions will be paid.

The injustice is based on the fact that the contribution, as it is fixed at present, is far too low and there are too many exemptions of income for assessment of contributions. The effect of the proposed amendment would be practically to eliminate any contribution from the self-employed and the farming sectors. There is no doubt it would strengthen the case they have made to date that they would prefer to make their own private arrangements for their pensions and are not anxious to make contributions to the social insurance fund. For that reason I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Dennehy

For a number of reasons I disagree with Deputy Wyse's amendment. Some of them have been referred to already but one relates to the question of means testing. I have two objections to means testing. One relates to the elderly. I boycotted the committees which were set up because I thought it was a humiliating exercise and my own political philosophy did not allow me to get involved in that area. People who contributed to the State all of their lives were put through a humiliating exercise and I disagreed with it. I disagree with any extension of it.

On the other hand Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Harney referred to the cost of administering means testing generally. One of the elements which was missing in rationalising and controlling the cost was the lack of computerisation. It was physically impossible to do manually what needed to be done. It was a quill pen effort up to a few months ago but now all employment exchanges and the social welfare offices are being fitted with computerisation. Direct linking will allow a single means test to be carried out. I am still against the philosophy of means testing the elderly and I have given my reason. Deputy Bell referred to this and, like myself, he represents the less well off sections and we are well aware of the problems that arise in this area. Very often we have to make cases which we are criticised for making but the system is there and people do not always get what they are entitled to receive. The whole matter is clouded in mystery to some extent and some politicians want to keep it that way.

My second reason for disagreeing with Deputy Wyse's amendment is that he wants to allow the better off section to opt out. Some people describe them as "fat cats" but I think that is unfair. Deputy Harney did not want to name them today but they have been named here in the past.

Miss Harney

I do not know all their names. If I did, I would name them all.

Mr. Dennehy

If we have to name them again, we will do so. I did not interrupt Deputy Harney, much as I was tempted to. The simple philosophy should be that we should all carry our share of the State's bill. I was among the one million PAYE contributors for 26 years and nobody ever gave me the opportunity of opting out. I am amazed at Deputy's Wyse's suggestion that the well-off should be treated differently from the ordinary PAYE worker who is told that he is part of the pension system. The underlying philosophy is that the weak help the strong, which is as it should be. In the insurance world they get a mean average between a good risk and a bad risk. It is being suggested that the better off should be allowed to opt out and that the taxpayer should carry the rest. I disagree because that would transfer pressure to the taxpayer.

Those of us who are members of health boards are constantly being asked to petition the Minister to stretch the rules and give a few pounds to people because of the circumstances in which they find themselves, perhaps due to the death of a breadwinner. This is because successive Governments since 1978 have failed to introduce a national pensions scheme. This charge can be levelled at all Governments who held office during that period.

Mr. Wyse

The Deputy mentioned my name and——

Mr. Dennehy

Deputy Wyse will have another opportunity to contribute. Despite the failure to take action, the Minister is now being castigated for taking up the question and doing something about it.

The point was made that we cannot continue to pay social welfare benefits at the present rates. I agree totally. This year we will have to pay £330 million of taxpayers' money to people who have not taken out their own cover and have not contributed to a pension scheme. We must avoid paying out such sums of money. We were told at the outset by Deputy Harney not to bring economists into it but she then proceeded to quote four of them. Obviously the economists will have to be consulted at some level since somebody has to work out the figures. I would accept the costings given by the Minister. It seems that one man, Massey, got the figures wrong and everybody has jumped on that bandwagon.

There are still great improvements to be made in the social welfare area. We have had two Bills in four months containing 50 sections. Some people have been in this House for years and have done nothing, yet they criticise. They say we need changes in social welfare and that is what we are getting. I intend to put in my oar and make my contribution as best I can, either directly to the Minister or in this Chamber. I will not try to negative every move that is made. We should support the Minister. To suggest that we should not adopt the Bill is unreal. I am amazed at that suggestion that we should wind back the clock ten years. I am totally opposed to the amendment.

Mr. McDowell

I will avoid making a Second Stage speech. This measure is not about exempting those who are making their own arrangements for their retirement. That is not the purpose of this amendment. That matter is dealt with in a later amendment put down by Deputy Mitchell and is a completely separate issue.

I welcome this amendment which is aimed at preventing this House from making a fundamental error in deciding to increase the amount of unfocussed redistribution which occurs through our social welfare system. One of the problems in a small economy such as ours is that we have limited resources to redistribute and most Deputies, of whatever ideological persuasion, would agree that the business of Government is to redistribute those resources primarily to those who need them most, to focus redistribution on those in need, to take from the haves and give, where just, to have nots, not to take from the have nots and haves and to give to the haves, which seems to be the end result of un-means-tested contributory pensions.

There has been great silence on the benches opposite in relation to a point made by Deputy Harney. A man may go through his entire life excluded from the economic life of the country through no fault of his own. Through social and economic circumstances and his geographical location he may never get a chance to get a good job. Not least of the reasons for his predicament is the huge burden of PRSI payments which we have put on work, which are a disincentive to employers to offer him work. Such a man is not entitled to a contributory pension but to a series of benefits which amount to two-thirds of the amount received by people who have a contributory pension. Can anybody opposite give a justification for the fact that such a man is means-tested before he receives some meagre payout from central Government whereas a person who has plenty of assets, rolling acres, large house, large car, large blocks of shares and works of art on his walls, gets an un-means-tested pension on arriving at his 66th year and can continue to operate his company or his supermarket chain? Where is the justice in giving one man two-thirds of what we will give to another man who does not need the money? It is suggested here that the tax system will take care of all that. The tax system may take care of it as it stands, but in years to come we will not have marginal rates of 58 per cent. If we follow the international trend in industrialised countries the rates will be much lower. The system will not put those people where they ought to be in relation to each other. There is no answer to Deputy Harney's claim that it is unjust to say to a man or a woman who has spent a whole life in penury that he or she will be means-tested to get £2 for every £3 paid out un-means-tested to the haves in society.

Deputy Wyse is right to suggest that Part III of this Bill which proposes to give money to the self-employed and farmers should not come into effect unless and until there is a system in place to make sure that those moneys, like all the moneys we vote in this House and which are borrowed are needed. We have to go to international bankers to get this money. We have to borrow every year to keep this tottering State on its feet. These moneys are going to have to be paid out of either borrowed money or tax. Every pound which would come to me in my 66th year as a self-employed person, if I am still in a position to earn myself a living as a barrister or whatever I might be by then, even allowing for marginal rates of taxation would be a pound not going to somebody who is in need, who is living in a fourth floor flat in Ballymun and who has never had a job in his or her life. If it is suggested that it is justice for me to receive that money and for the kind of person I have just described not to receive it, I suggest that our concept of justice is very frail indeed.

The real issue here is whether these sums are funded. If every penny that is to be spent on the self-employed and farmers was to be funded by way of contributions from the self-employed and farmers nobody would complain as it would be their own money they would be receiving back but, as has been pointed out by Deputy Harney, and which goes uncontradicted, we do not live within a system which has a social insurance fund that is fully funded — it is pay as you go. It does not pay for itself. Contributory pensions are not paying for themselves and will not, even as envisaged by the pensions board, pay for themselves. It is in that context that there are, by definition, occasions on which there will be a subsidy to recipients. Because they do not pay for themselves we must carefully examine whether we can afford to allocate extra resources, except on the basis of need.

During the course of the budget debate I said to the Taoiseach when I raised this issue with him that if he wanted to get more from the self-employed in the interests of equity, if he wanted to persuade the trade unions to be a party to his national plan, if he wanted to convince the public and create the impression that those who appeared in the past to get away with not shouldering their fair share of the burden were paying in more, he should do so and should do so honestly. I said to him not to attach to that the price tag of an unlimited flow of benefits to those people in the future which this country cannot afford. I also said to him that if he proposed something along those lines, something by way of a means test or of a levy which was not going to yield benefits, we would support him but he said to me in somewhat unparliamentary and untypical language that the Government would not and that we were a pack of frauds.

We have proposed this amendment and we have come to this House to deliver what we said we would which is Deputy Wyse's amendment proposing that these benefits should not be given out except on the basis of need and should only be given to those who can be shown to need them. I support this amendment. It is based on a basic concept of justice in a society which has limited resources. This is going to haunt Members opposite politically for decades to come. How will they be able to go to someone in Ballymum and explain to them they they will be means tested in the twilight of their days when they will have to look for old age pensions which are non-contributory while the haves in society will be able to pocket their money and be able to spend and fritter it away as pocket money and pin money and will receive £3 for every £2 which is given to those in receipt of means-tested assistance and means-tested old age pensions? That is an injustice which will haunt the people opposite and I have not heard a rational explanation for it.

Mr. D. Ahern

Earlier when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was having trouble keeping some of the Deputies in order, he made the point that on Committee Stage people could not question the speaker. I must say that I have one problem in relation to this amendment, that is, that we are now discussing the extension of PRSI under a heading which has nothing to do with PRSI. We have yet to come to the sections which deal with PRSI. This section deals with means testing. It is strange to see the Progressive Democrats doing what I would have thought was the job of Left wing Deputies. In effect the Left wing Deputies are defending the self-employed whereas the Progressive Democrats are doing the opposite.

The notion of means testing would bring much uncertainty into the system of PRSI and pensions. The idea behind someone paying into a pension fund is that at the end of the day they would know that when they retire they would receive a definite sum. Introducing a means test would do away with that. What would be the point in people contributing to a pension fund if, at the end of the day, they were to get nothing in return? I cannot accept this. The more people we can get on a definite pension rather than a means-tested pension the better. That should be our intention in this House. As I have said earlier, without such a system these people will not know whether they will receive a definite sum.

Public representatives who have had to deal with the system of means testing know the problems that can be encountered and the amount of red tape which has to be got through to ensure that people receive a very meagre pension at the end of their days. I know of a person who, as a result of a means test received a pension of £2. This is not something which should happen to people who come to the end of their days. The State should ensure that people who have made contributions should at the end of their days receive a reasonable amount of money to rely on. We are all aware of the delays which can take place in appealing the outcome of means tests and it should be pointed out that extra staff would be needed to improve this aspect. A new bureaucratic tier would be created which I do not think anyone in this House would agree with. Therefore, the whole idea of a means test is a flawed one. The purpose of this section is to bring some certainty into the area of pensions.

Deputy Harney said earlier that the self-employed were not taking up this matter as much as they had done before. That may be so in her constituency but in my own constituency last Saturday I received a deputation from the self-employed, mainly farmers but including others, too. To give some idea of the misinformation which can be put out, these people nearly fell of their chairs when I told them that after only three years their widows or orphans would receive a pension as of right. They could not understand this and had to receive confirmation of it. In one sense their meeting with me was fruitful. Obviously, they wanted me to support amendments in relation to the PRSI system and they made the point that it would amount to extra taxation. When they were told of the benefits which would accrue under this system they went away reasonably happy. Obviously, the message is not getting across to those who will benefit and who are being asked to contribute to this scheme. Benefits will start to accrue after only three years and they themselves will receive benefits after ten years. It is important to emphasise that there will be some certainty in the payment of pensions to these people. That is what a pension scheme should be all about.

Mr. J. Mitchell

On a point of order, we have already talked about this amendment for an hour and a half. At this rate of progress we will not get through too many of the amendments. Is it in order for the Minister to propose that the question be put now?

An Ceann Comhairle

I will hear the response of Deputy Wyse first. It is coming up to a stage when the question ought to be put.

Mr. Wyse

I will be very brief.

An Ceann Comhairle

After Deputy Wyse speaks I propose to put the question.

Dr. Woods

I would like to reply.

An Ceann Comhairle

Certainly.

Mr. Wyse

It is important that we get through as many sections of this Bill as possible so that we can tease out a number of anomalies in it. I thought this amendment would be misinterpreted and that is a risk we had to take. Deputy Dennehy should know better. I was surprised to hear the Deputy saying that £330 million would be paid out to people who are not contributing. Is that not what he said?

Mr. Dennehy

A proportion.

Mr. Wyse

The Deputy must remember that those unfortunate people have already been means-tested so we will still be paying out £330 million whatever way we look at it. The Deputy mentioned the shopkeeper who might go out of business and, of course, that shopkeeper will come in under the non-contributory pension. We put down this amendment specifically to safeguard the Exchequer who will be the biggest contributor to this scheme. It would not be in order to deal with abuses now but I will deal with them later.

The Bill proposes a low contribution rate of £104, that is, £2 per week for the self-employed on very low incomes. However, no such special arrangement applies for employees on low incomes. Deputy Dennehy should study the Bill. There is no concession for the working man; yet those people who in the course of the next three or four years will avail of the opportunity to claim——

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy is not comparing like with like.

Mr. Wyse

There are 1½ million people living in poverty and yet we are prepared to pay a contributory pension to the wealthiest people in this country, and the Fianna Fáil Government talk about their priority in tackling poverty. Yet, we are paying the big farmer and the big businessman. These people should make their own contribution to the less fortunate in their grouping.

Dr. Woods

Deputy Bell raised the question of an annual review and welcomed the fact that there is provision for a review at the end of three years. The Deputy suggested that there might be a desire to have an annual review. There will be an arrangement whereby there will be separate accounting each year. That can be discussed and it can be seen that we are making administrative arrangements so that the figures will be kept separately and will be accounted separately. They can be discussed in the context of the annual estimates, the budget and so on. That facility will be adequate to cover the point raised by Deputy Bell.

Deputy Harney talked about the Massey article. There was a mistake in it. It quoted the wrong figures. That is different from talking about the fact that in the long run the scheme is one to which the State will make a contribution just as it does to employees under the insurance fund. If we clear away the mistake which led to misgivings about the figure of £50 million and bear in mind that the £50 million is the Revenue Commissioners' figure and is the correct figure, the debate can go on from there.

The Deputy mentioned the wealthy stud farm owner who will contribute to the scheme in future. There are not many of them. About 250,000 people will come into the scheme and there are not too many wealthy stud farmers in that figure.

The wealthy stud farm owner might be an unwealthy stud farm owner in another ten years and might be depending on——

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Woods

That is the whole point about a national pensions scheme. People can move from one occupation to another and can be covered and people can move from one set of circumstances to another and still be covered. Deputies can be sure that quite a number of the people to whom Deputy Wyse referred were better off some time ago——

Mr. McGahon

We all were.

Dr. Woods

——and could have been contributing at that stage. Because there was no way whereby they could contribute, they did not contribute when they had the money. We are only too glad to be able to assist them when they do not have the money.

Mr. McDowell

That would be all right if the thing was self-financing, but it is not.

Dr. Woods

Deputy Harney said there should be one single means test for State benefits, for the medical card and for other things. If that is the case, we are talking about a pretty low means test. That has quite a lot of implications which should be recognised. Deputy Harney raised the question about the PD policy. She said that PRSI is a tax on work but that there must be means testing for people. We are obviously talking about means testing not just here but across the board on the insurance fund in general.

Miss Harney

Yes, for State benefits.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is talking about a very fundamental change to a very low level of means test.

Miss Harney

The Minister can set the level wherever he wants or rather wherever we can afford.

Dr. Woods

Deputies generally understand what is involved and I do not have to elaborate much further. If the level is set at anything like the present level and the present people who qualify on a means test continue to qualify, the self-employed, over the next 50 years, taking the present rate of contribution, would contribute something of the order of £2,500 million and would get nothing, or almost nothing, back because we would be talking purely about means tested pensions. That would hardly be a feasible arrangement. That would be the effect of applying the kind of means test we have at the moment. The Deputy might suggest that we should raise the means a little higher but that is a matter for another day's consideration. I warn Deputy Wyse to be careful about the means test he is talking about here because I am sure he does not plan to become involved in means tests of that order. Effectively this is doing away with insurance schemes and presumably——

Mr. McDowell

There is no insurance scheme. It is a fraud and the Minister knows it.

Dr. Woods

Therefore, why can he not say straight out that he wants to do away with the insurance on the insurance scheme and let employees as well as the self-employed know what he is talking about?

Mr. McDowell

Yes, exactly.

Dr. Woods

That is fair enough. I happen to value the scheme from my experience. Many people would have great difficulty if they had not a social insurance scheme available to them and if everything was to be means tested. I do not believe the community as a whole would want that. Deputy Harney said she wants a full review of the whole social welfare system. The Commission on Social Welfare have just done that and published the whole review.

Miss Harney

That is right and we have not even discussed it here.

Dr. Woods

The commission recommended that the base be broadened along the lines we are doing here now. The National Pensions Board likewise have recommended that——

Mr. McDowell

No, they did not. The Minister told them to widen the base and they said they would do it.

Dr. Woods

As far as the income is concerned, even paying out the money which is to be paid out under the fund by year ten the fund will still be £360 million in the black. I see Deputy McGahon smiling because he realises the people here worrying——

A Deputy

I hope the Minister is right.

Dr. Woods

Taking the self-employed aspect of it——

Mr. McDowell

If you put them into a separate fund.

Dr. Woods

They are going to be accounted separately anyway. Taking the self-employed aspect, it will still be £360 million in the black at the end of year ten even given all the circumstances we are talking about, the 5 per cent rate and so on. It is extraordinary that Deputies are becoming quite so worried now about year 40 and year 50. They do not seem to want to have to bring the self-employed in to contribute. Why are they getting so excited? A great many things could happen between now and 40 or 50 years' time.

Mr. McDowell

We could strike oil.

Mr. McGahon

Pigs could fly.

Mr. McDowell

We will all be rich.

Dr. Woods

Can the Deputy not just say he does not want the self-employed to come in and be straight about it? Deputy Dennehy said we should treat all the same, the employees and the self-employed. That is one of the things we will be doing and in future we will be looking at the two together in relation to any variations and seeing what is the best development of the scheme as a whole. He pointed out that the small shopkeepers for instance will often be in difficulty and will welcome greatly the support they will have from this scheme without having to have a means test. Deputy Wyse said we are already paying £330 million and we will still pay the means tested people. The difference, of course, is that they will make a contribution now.

Mr. McDowell

Some of them.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Woods

When they have the money they will make it. We would not expect those who have not the money to make a contribution.

Mr. Wyse

Will the small shopkeeper contribute?

Dr. Woods

Those who do will contribute when they have the income. That is one of the basic questions involved.

Mr. McDowell

Self delusion on a grand scale.

Dr. Woods

Deputy McDowell talked about unfocused redistribution. It sounds grand, but every worker out there will be shivering in his shoes when Deputy McDowell starts this unfocused redistribution. I know what he means. He means to have everybody around queueing up for a means tested pension. I would fight that tooth and nail because I know the value of the PRSI fund and the whole system of social insurance to the ordinary workers.

Mr. McDowell

It is in the red; there is no fund.

Dr. Woods

Deputy McDowell talked about those on unemployment assistance. Let us be clear at the outset. If you have 156 paid contributions and you are on unemployment assistance for the rest of your life you get credits and you are entitled.

Miss Harney

If you never worked, what is the position?

Dr. Woods

I am coming to that. To assume, especially once the self-employed system is brought in as well as the scheme for employees, that people will never in the course of a potential working life of 45 years be able to make 156 paid contributions is stretching it very far.

Mr. McDowell

There are plenty of such people.

Dr. Woods

Nonetheless I have asked the National Pensions Board to look at the question of people who could possibly be left in that situation. As I said, we are planning to look further at the question of an overall national pensions plan, but bringing the self-employed in is one of the priority steps in that plan.

The Deputy also seems to be leaving aside the fact that the haves can make their own provision for themselves and look after themselves and they too get tax relief. They get assistance from the State in that. Here they can make a contribution to the fund with everybody else when they have the money and join the rest of the population in supporting the fund generally.

I agree with Deputy Ahern that insurance brings certainty. We want to see that certainty continued and I will be against the means test as proposed by Deputy Wyse.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 80.

Tá

• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Colley, Anne.
• Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
• Harney, Mary.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kennedy, Geraldine.
• McCoy, John S.
• McDowell, Michael.
• Molloy, Robert.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Malley, Pat.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Abbott, Henry.
• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Bell, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Matthew.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary T.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Desmond, Barry.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hilliard, Colm Michael.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lynch, Michael.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Mooney, Mary.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• O'Dea, William Gerard.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stafford, John.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Swift, Brian.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wright, G.V.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Harney and Kennedy; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

All the other amendments tabled to section 3 are deemed to be out of order on grounds that they involve a potential charge on revenue.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

An Ceann Comhairle

I had hoped to get the section agreed. I note that Deputies De Rossa and McCartan are standing. I am calling Deputy De Rossa.

Proinsias De Rossa

I cannot hear too well. I want to make some points in relation to——

An Ceann Comhairle

May I have order, please? The conversation in the Lobby is intruding into the business of the Dáil and constitutes disorder. The Deputy in possession cannot hear and, as a matter of fact, neither can the Chair.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Workers' Party had tabled some amendments to this section which have been ruled out of order. However, I might comment on their intent which was to advance the dates of payment of the increases proposed in regard to unemployment benefit, disability benefit, maternity allowance, injury benefit, disablement gratuity and pension, deserted wife's benefit, and so on, to be granted under subsections (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d). The intent of our amendments was to advance the dates of payment of these increases to April. These types of amendments have been tabled by our party and by other Members in recent years. What has happened is that the effective dates of payment of these increases have been later and later each year to the point at which the payment date is as late as 28 July in respect of deserted wife's benefit, invalidity pension and retirement pension.

Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the House on the kinds of savings involved in delaying the payment of such increases for, say, a week or whatever is the period involved: perhaps he would also inform the House as to the relevant cost of paying these increases from the dates we proposed, in other words, 7 April, 4 April, 7 April and 1 April respectively. I suppose the word contrick is too strong to describe the position because most people now accept that these delays take place. Nevertheless there is a degree of double-thinking in this regard whereby, on the one hand, we provide social welfare increases but then delay their payment for weeks or months, as in this case, effectively reducing their annual value in a given year.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am always disappointed at the attitude of the parties who consider themselves to be on the left in relation to social welfare. They tend to think in a straight line regardless of the obvious anomalies, poverty traps and disincentives occasioned by the different provisions. That straight line thinking is manifest in relation to the dates of payment of social welfare increases. I contend that social welfare increases should be related to pay increases. Frequently it is the case that pay deals are agreed for longer than a year, sometimes 15 months, 18 months and longer. However, if there are more frequent increases in social welfare they can have the effect of exacerbating many of the poverty traps and worsening some of the disincentives which are a feature of the system.

I would urge those people on the left not to construe it as an attack on social welfare when people may disagree with them. I am strongly in favour of a good social welfare system. What infuriates me is that frequently what we do has the effect of being to the detriment of the poor, spreading the beneficial effects among the better off when we should be targeting the less well off in our society. We in this House should be spending our time trying to find ways of refining the system so that the resources will not be spread thinly among everyone, including those who do not need them, but spread thickly and confined to those who do need them.

Mr. D. Ahern

I should like to make a few points in relation to these amendments. I do not know if they are being taken——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I want to explain to Deputies the position in respect of these amendments. Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, have been ruled out of order because they pre-supposed expenditure and additional finance which had not been provided for in the budget. The question we are now discussing is: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill" and in respect of that any Deputy is entitled to plead any case he likes. There has not been a formal moving of any amendment because none of the amendments was in order. That is the position in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Bell

I should——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will call Deputy Bell in a moment.

Mr. D. Ahern

I now know that the amendments are not in order. I wanted to know where the money would come from and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle answered that by saying that the amendments would entail extra expenditure. As Deputy Mitchell said, these increases are coming sooner than was previously anticipated. The increases last year were supposed to be in November but the Government brought them back to July. These increases are also coming in July. I welcome this section because I believe any increase is worthwhile and it ill-behoves The Workers' Party to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Mr. Bell

I am glad that you clarified that point, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We put down amendment No. 6 to indicate our opposition to the Bill because the Government and the Minister have not increased child benefit on this occasion. I think it is three years since there has effectively been any reasonable increase in child benefit. I know there has been a national debate on the question of children's allowance, as it was formerly known, and who should benefit from it. Politically speaking, there are sections in this House who would say that children's allowance should not apply to certain categories but I should like to emphasise to the Minister — and I am sure there are many people on low incomes in his constituency — that children's allowance is very important, particularly to women in the lower income group who depend on this money. They draw it on a monthly basis and use it to purchase footwear, clothing and household goods. To the lower income earners and the lower levels of social welfare recipients it often means that they can afford to buy a decent piece of meat or provide a decent dinner for their children. I think Deputy Mitchell referred on Second Stage to that aspect as the "mince meat brigade". Because of inflation the value of children's allowance has dropped something like 25 per cent in real terms. If the allowance had kept pace with inflation that would at least have recognised the importance of this scheme.

Children's allowance has another value and it is one which may not be recognised. It generates a large amount of employment because the women who traditionally collect this benefit use it much more wisely than their male counterparts in the purchase of manufactured goods. Therefore, the money is recycled back into the economy and this helps to create employment. Because of inflation the value of the benefit is dropping rapidly and if it is not increased to a reasonable level the net result will be that in future budgets it will cease to be. On the basis of that alone, we in the Labour Party indicated on Second Stage that we would oppose the Bill. I appeal to the Minister and the Government that, when the question of social welfare is being considered again, an increase should be incorporated into a social welfare Bill under the child benefits section which would at least keep pace with inflation.

Mr. McCartan

I should like to make a number of brief comments on the section of the Bill now under consideration and to refer in part to the amendments that have been tabled by The Workers' Party. The question as to when payments and payment increases should date from is very important and it is a question which vexed the party who are now in Government when they were in Opposition. It is a question I had an opportunity to speak on at public meetings in the constituency which I share with the Minister. I listened to him voicing his dismay and at times, disgust at the practice introduced and pursued by the Coalition Government during the days in office of pushing back almost on a monthly basis the rates of increases, small though they were at the time, to the unemployed and other people on social assistance.

In addition, I listened to the commitment that on Fianna Fáil's return to Government he, as a member of that Government, would pursue a fair resolution and end to this practice and that without delay he would seek a return to the practice that pertained in this State for many decades. It was only during this decade, if my memory serves me correctly, that for the first time this very dishonest practice of deferring increases in social welfare to later in the year was introduced. It was always the practice that when an increase was due it would come in as early as was allowed when the Bills which facilitated that increase had passed through the Dáil. This is a despicable practice and a very mean one when one considers the people who depend so much on the small amounts these increases represent.

It will be interesting to learn from the Minister the scale of the cost of these increases to the Exchequer and what makes it so difficult for the Government to introduce these increases at the time they are promised? What makes it so difficult for the Minister for Social Welfare, who I know has a genuine concern, to have these increases introduced at the beginning of the financial year when they are promised and expected to be implemented? The Minister stated that publicly and I accepted his word on it. I am glad he is here in person so that I can remind him of the last meeting we had with the people of Darndale during the last election campaign when a strong indication, if not a commitment, was given that increases in social welfare would date from the time of their initial introduction, in other words, from the March-April period.

As I said on Second Stage, even the dates in the month of July are so selected as almost to run into August. It reminds me of the pricing schemes in the larger supermarkets, where everything costs £4.99 and nothing is ever priced at £5, skillful selling schemes. Here when we talk of 21, 25, 28 or 29 July, effectively we are referring to August but it is never put as bluntly as that. If it is to be the month of July why is the first week of July or the last week of June not chosen? Perhaps I would be complaining then that the Minister was dishonest by not mentioning July.

Why are increases in payments made towards the end of the month? What is the cost per week, as Deputy De Rossa has already asked? The people who wait must wait at the behest of the Government for the hand-out. The increases are worth very little. In percentage terms they may represent a significant increase, but we do not need to be reminded that a small percentage of very little is even less in real terms. Deputy Mitchell talked about relating social welfare deals to pay deals in terms of duration etc. That would be all very well if there was any relationship in value in terms of these increases.

Mr. J. Mitchell

That is the point.

Mr. McCartan

There is no relationship in value in terms of a pay deal and a social welfare deal. I think it would be very remiss of us if we did not use this annual debate to speak on behalf of the deprived and less well off in our community. It is essential that as often as possible we are in here debating, arguing and demanding on behalf of those who are so deprived and so poor that they must wait with a begging bowl, virtually, for the small amount put into it by way of the finance provisions contained in the social welfare Bills arising from the budgets on an annual basis. I would be very slow to defer a debate or discussion on what should be done for these people for a period of 18 months to two or three years, depending on the scale of the deal ironed out. We cannot speak often enough in this House about the needs of those people. We are talking about an increase on a weekly basis — to again talk about the people in Darndale — equal to the cost of the return bus fare to the welfare department in the city centre. That is the average increase in real terms in the proposals contained in this section of the Bill. It is miniscule. It does add up to millions. It would be interesting to learn the scale of those increases and why the Minister could not bring them forward to April, as has been the practice for so long, and which the Minister promised in an election speech in the constituency would be his endeavour. There must be a good reason because Deputy Woods is not a man who often stands back from a commitment he gives in public. There must be very firm reasons.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Social Welfare. Excuse me Deputy. When referring to a Deputy who is an office holder, we refer to him by his title. I ask you not to break with that tradition — the Minister for Social Welfare.

Mr. McCartan

The position must be——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Do I take it that the Deputy has not heard what I have been saying?

Mr. McCartan

No. I heard you on both the first and second occasion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy did not give the impression that he did, because he did not do as every other Deputy does on such occasions and correct the omissions.

Mr. McCartan

I apologise. I intended to do it as I carried on. I apologise profusely to the House, to the Chair and to the Minister for addressing him incorrectly and I will make my best endeavours not to repeat the error particularly in the presence of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Said with absolute sincerity.

Mr. McCartan

Absolutely. Your perception is fully correct.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McCartan should grow up and learn to respect the procedure and traditions of this great House.

Mr. McCartan

There must be very good and cogent reasons and the Minister has a duty to explain to the House why this has not happened this year. May I invite him, when responding to re-assert the commitment of the Government that in the coming year — if he is still a member of the Government then presenting the budget — an effort will be made to bring forward the payment dates of increases in social welfare? He might confirm the fact that the time-honoured payment date in the month of April has not been abandoned entirely.

Mr. Dennehy

First, I wish to refer to the changes in the date of implementation of benefits. There has been a change and last year's suggested date was certainly brought forward to July from November. When the Minister is answering Deputy De Rossa's question, I would like him to give us the figure for the cost of implementing the change and giving people the advantage of earlier benefit dates. The cost must have been astronomical and I welcomed that measure at that time. I am glad we were able to do so and I hope we will be able to continue to do so.

A number of questions were raised. The question of children's allowance came up again on this section. I wish to repeat a point I made last week because again we have had a highly emotive display with extreme cases being quoted. Today we were talking about well-off owners of stud farms. I have seen TDs — and there are not too many who qualify as millionaires — at election time going on television, waving their hands and declaring to one and all: "I do not need children's allowance." I made a suggestion last week which I will repeat. If there is any difficulty they should go to the nearest charity box and pop the money into it. I do not think it is a balanced argument to quote extreme cases. I mentioned last week that people were surveyed to find out if they could live on our salaries. It was totally out of context, as they were asking people who might use it for pocket money. Let them ask the ordinary guy who like the professional politician has no other source of income, and they will get a balanced viewpoint. Today we were given an extreme case on the question of the PRSI and I do not want to see the same input into the question of children's allowance. If we are having a debate on it, there are certain points which must be made.

Probably the section most discriminated against in our community is the professional housewife, the woman who has made a conscious decision to stay at home and rear a family. Very often the children's allowance is the only source of income that lady will have, regardless of the income coming into the house. It is certainly the only money she will get directly for her own use, which she can call her own. I would like people to remember that point when they start coming up with all sorts of cut-off points which would set up another tier of administration. That is an aside, because the points was brought up out of the blue and I did not expect it to come up on this section. I do not want to see these arguments presented in the highly emotive fashion in which they were presented today.

On the question of the changes of the rates in the Bill, the Minister is establishing a number of principles. First, he is rationalising the rates. If one looks at the rates for children's allowances, previously there were 38 different rates. This was ludicrous from the point of view of administration as well as everything else. The Minister has now equalised the rates upwards and has ended up with 19 different rates for the different groups of people. He has rationalised the system and cut the number of rates in half at a cost of £3 million. This is important. It is easy to go on an election platform and say this, that, or the other but the Minister had to come into this House and argue to find £3 million and to tell us to get rid of these 38 different rates of pay and to equalise. Obviously he equalised upwards, as I would expect. The problem with social welfare is that there are so many anomalies, different rates, means tests and so on. The Minister has got away from the across the board increase, which would have been 3 per cent this year. To the least well off he has granted an 11 per cent increase in the personal rates in some cases and 6 per cent in others. This is the kind of measure people referred to earlier but never implemented. This move is to be welcomed.

The Minister maintained payments when it has been suggested that they should be cut off. I was glad he granted the increases from the earlier date last year. We could pluck any date out of the air and decide the increases should be granted from that date but, as Deputy Mitchell said, we have to work with what we have. I was worried when the increases were granted in November but I accept that July is a reasonable date and I ask the Minister to stay with that date. All these matters should be recognised. As I said, the Minister has taken a reasonable date to pay the increases and that is to be welcomed.

Dr. Woods

The cost of the increases generally, including the new rates of social insurance benefits and social assistance payments, in a full year is £101 million. Deputy Bell asked about the cost of giving the increases in child benefit in line with inflation over the last two years. That came to £15 million. Deputy Mitchell mentioned targeting and linking to wage agreements. The Deputy recognised that a certain amount of targeting has been done and said he would like to see more. I tried this year to target our resources to those in greatest need. Section 3 deals with the new rates for social insurance benefits. There is a 3 per cent increase in the weekly personal adult and child dependant rates in both social insurance and occupational injuries benefits.

The new rates are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. These levels of increase are in line with the Government's stated policy to maintain social welfare allowances in real terms and to ensure that the position of recipients is not eroded by inflation. I would remind Deputies that in these very difficult times there is considerable pressure for reductions, never mind increases, and the Government have maintained in real terms the value of these increases. That has been done without any increase in the PRSI contribution rates. I repeat that the Government have managed to maintain the real value of the existing payments without any increase in the PRSI contribution rate. An old age pensioner with an adult dependant — where both are 66 years of age or over — will get an increase of £3 a week. That is in line with inflation, which is anticipated to be of the order of 2.5 per cent.

Deputies mentioned the date from which the increases will apply. Deputy McCartan in particular said I had indicated that I was committed to the increases being paid earlier than November, the date proposed when we came into office. As the Deputy will know, we brought this date forward from November to July and we are maintaining the July date this year, even in current difficult circumstances. The cost of bringing the increases forward from November to July last year was between £19 million and £20 million. I was asked what it would cost if we had introduced the increases from April. In the current year that would cost approximately £31 million more, a substantial additional cost.

Deputy Dennehy said that increases must be looked at as part of the package we had for social welfare recipients. An objective observer will recognise that we have got a very good package given the present circumstances, with the alleviating payments being maintained, a 3 per cent increase across the board, maintaining the July date and, at the same time, giving substantial increases to those in receipt of the lowest payments. It is the total package which the Minister for Social Welfare is concerned with. It is easy for a Deputy to pick out any part of that package and say the increase was not as large as he wished, but Deputies will recognise that we have introduced targeting to those in greatest need. The point has been mentioned repeatedly in this House, and I am sure most Deputies will support this move.

Deputy Mitchell mentioned linking social welfare increases to wage agreements. The Government's policy is to link social welfare increases to the cost of living, and ensuring that the position of those on social welfare is at least maintained. The Government have given a commitment to do this, and that is what we are doing in this Bill. Wage agreements grant different levels of payments and there may be an agreement one year but not the next. The Government's commitment is clearcut — to maintain the position of those on social welfare notwithstanding other developments, and to maintain the level of social welfare payments at least in line with inflation. That is what we have done.

Deputy McCartan also referred to what he described as the phenomenon of going back to July. Since 1984 July was the month when the increases came into effect. In 1987 it was proposed to make the increases effective from November but when we took office we made them effective from July. The same month has been chosen for the payment of the increases this year. If one goes back far enough one will discover that the policy was to make the increases effective from the January following the budget. We are continuing to pay the increases from July and, as I informed the House earlier, it is important to note that it would cost approximately £31 million extra to make the increases effective from April this year.

Deputy Dennehy said that child dependant rates had been streamlined, that the number had been reduced. That was in line with the recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare. We have managed to go a good distance in implementing those recommendations. This change involved an additional cost which the Government were prepared to meet. I hope in future to be able to get sufficient resources to go further towards meeting the general targets set by the commission. The increase in the unemployment benefit will be effective from 21 July — last year's increase was effective from 16 July.

Broadly speaking, the increases will follow from the end of the third week in July.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I do not have any wish to delay the House on this section which I support but I was glad to hear the Minister correct Deputy McCartan who spoke from the benches of The Workers' Party with the authority of an amadán in relation to social welfare. He showed how little he knows about that system. For many years, as the Minister said, increases were not paid until the beginning of the year following the budget and in some years no increases were granted. Deputy McCartan when referring to the general increases suggested that they should be brought forward from July. It should be borne in mind that in future years it may happen that increases will not be granted in social welfare. That will happen unless we refine the social welfare system and redirect the resources. I have searched in vain through the amendments for any reforming proposals from The Workers' Party so that we might give earlier and greater increases to those in need. I am not surprised at the attitude of Deputy McCartan. I suspect that he got his knowledge of the social welfare system as he browsed through the Bill on the deck of his yacht as it slunk out of Dún Laoghaire Harbour from the marina at the Royal St. George Yacht Club of which he is a member.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That remark is not entirely pertinent to the section.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is very pertinent to Deputy McCartan's understanding of the social welfare system and to where his knowledge comes from. He attacked the performance of the Coalition Government, and this Government, on social welfare but the fact is that in the last four and a half years social welfare benefits were increased substantially in real terms. I will not have Deputy McCartan, or any other member of the Royal St. George Yacht Club distorting the record.

The Bill before us is the annual attempt to amend the social welfare regime. Members have an opportunity to discuss all aspects of that code in this debate and they are afforded another opportunity in the debate on the Estimate for the Department, something which Deputy McCartan seemed to overlook in his submission. With the sincerity that becomes a member of the Royal St. George Yacht Club he said that we would not have an opportunity to debate the social welfare code if a Bill like this was not introduced annually. He seemed to think that giving us an opportunity to debate social welfare would solve all the problems. I challenge Deputy McCartan, and the party of which he is a member, who call themselves The Workers' Party, to spell out whether they agree with percentage increases across the board which give the highest increases to those with most and the least increases to those with less. Annually they support across the board bonuses at Christmas time so that those with three or four pensions get the same bonus as those on supplementary welfare or in receipt of unemployment assistance. That is what we have done and what we continue to do.

There has been a lot of talk about the decision of the Minister to bring forward the increases last year to July, which I accept, but we did not hear that he chopped the special increase for those on unemployment assistance living alone. I accept that the Minister has reintroduced that allowance this year and expanded the scheme. I congratulate him on doing that. If we are to address the question of poverty we need a workers' party who are more representative of the workers and their needs than those we have heard from the benches on my right today.

Mr. Wyse

I should like to welcome the 3 per cent increase and I appeal to the Minister, and to his officials, to contact health boards with a view to helping families who are burdened at this time of the year clothing their children for First Communion and Confirmation. Many of them sink themselves in debt at this time of the year. Health boards should be trying to help those families. There is a need for liaison between the Ministers for Social Welfare and Health to try to alleviate the problems that many poor families face.

Mr. McCartan

It is unfortunate that on any occasion I seek to discuss social welfare issues I must listen to personal insults from Deputy Mitchell. I have heard them again today but a man of the mind of Deputy Mitchell is given to repeating the same mistruths and untruths. I have no doubt that even if I correct him he will repeat them again. I do not intend to correct him today. He should get his facts right before he comes into the House and makes a personal attack on a Deputy. I will not correct the mistruths he has quoted about me today.

Mr. J. Mitchell

What mistruths or untruths? I challenge the Deputy to name them. Is the Deputy a member of the Royal St. George Yacht Club or not?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of whether he is a member of a yacht club is not pertinent to the section.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Chair is allowing a Deputy to go unchallenged when he said that I uttered a mistruth or an untruth. I challenge the Deputy to name the untruth. Is the Deputy now denying he is, or ever was, a member of the Royal St. George Yacht Club?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

His membership of any club is not of any great relevance in a debate on section 3 of the Bill.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is because the members of that club will have social welfare benefits at the same rate as those on unemployment assistance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You could make that deduction but, generally speaking, I do not think that membership of clubs is a very pertinent point to be making on Committee Stage of any legislation. I ask Deputy Mitchell to accept that, the word "untruths", has come to be acceptable here. The three letter word is the one which we do not accept and that has not been used. Perhaps Deputy McCartan, having made his point, would come to the requirements of the debate on section 3?

Mr. McCartan

As I say, this is something to which I have been subjected on many occasions by Deputy Mitchell. I expect it again and for that reason I do not make a protest but just make the point.

In relation to the question that the Deputy puts in relation to the position of The Workers' Party on social welfare, my party have very clearly put their position on the record of this House and elsewhere. In short, it is to accept and adopt the findings of the Commission on Social Welfare which his Government established and so quickly ignored after that establishment. It is a somewhat vacant plea on the part of Deputy Mitchell and anybody in the Fine Gael Party to raise a concerned voice for those on the lower end of the scale. We have time and again indicated to anybody who is prepared to listen our views with regard to the findings of the Commission on Social Welfare.

The Minister made a statement which is significant in the context of dates and increases, that there was pressure for reductions in social welfare benefits at this time. This is a worrying aspect if that is the case. The Minister suggested that what had been achieved in the context of a 3 per cent across-the-board increase was significant in these troubled times. That position has been presented to us time and time again but, in addition, he spoke of pressures that existed for actual reductions in the level of payments. These might well be achieved, and I concede that, on the basis of maintaining without any improvement, the level of increase which, in real terms, would have amounted to a reduction.

Would the Minister explain to the House the type of pressures imposed upon him in reaching his decision with regard to the level of payments and the dates upon which they would be introduced? Were they merely fiscal, Government indicated figures — for example, the departmental circular issued by the Taoiseach last June saying that each Department must introduce cutbacks? Was it intended, envisaged, or suggested that his Department should achieve these savings in expenditure by denying any real increase to those who are looking to him and his Department for preservation of their standard of living, however low?

Dr. Woods

The Deputy will be aware from his reading, which I am sure is quite extensive, that many economists and advocates of fiscal rectitude were proposing that we cut back on social welfare, as is happening across the water and in the Northern Six Counties. Of course, in these times there is pressure for reductions in expenditure. The Department of Social Welfare are spending £7 million a day, or £2,600 million a year. The social insurance fund must receive a subsidy from the general taxpayer of approximately £401 million in the year, or approximately a 30 per cent contribution towards the cost of operating the fund, while the employers and employees make up the balance. As the Deputy will be aware, none of these people, in the current circumstances, has more money readily to contribute, consequently there are and have been various kinds of pressures. Notwithstanding that general economic climate and those circumstances, this Government have maintained the basic position of those on social welfare with the objective of, at least, maintaining their status quo and targeting any additional resources that can be got towards those in greatest need. This is the right policy for the present time and it received a good deal of support in the House. I have pointed out that the 3 per cent, with the rate of inflation at 2.5 per cent, slightly more than does what we have spoken about. It is true that over the last number of years the previous Government also tried, at least, to maintain the value against the rate of inflation over the general range of increases. I am sure that social welfare recipients will be very glad to know that there is support in the House on all sides for that policy, although in present circumstances this is a costly operation particularly when there is so much unemployment. This naturally reduces the numbers contributing and increases the number of beneficiaries. This section of the Bill deals with the social insurance side and the new rates. People will say that it is only an extra £3 for two people or £1.80 and I accept Deputy McCartan's point about the cost of travel to collect unemployment benefit. I shall be giving my consideration to that cost and trying to reduce it. In circumstances where all the social insurance schemes are being maintained — and slightly more than maintained in effect — old age pensioners, widows, those on invalidity pensions and those who are dependent on the social insurance fund for benefits will be happy that the position is solidly held. The fund has the objective of maintaining its solvency, and the Government must maintain their solvency. To do that means the taxpayer putting up £401 million.

When we come to the next section which deals with assistance schemes, it will become very clear that we have done a great deal of targeting at considerable extra expense in the current year, even in the present economic climate. Notwithstanding the various economic and financial pressures and difficulties of the present time, we have maintained the position of those who are dependent on the social insurance fund. Of course, many would like to do more and I will be keeping my eye on the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. I will be attempting to achieve any of the targets possible in that area. Indeed, if anyone objectively examines the progress made to date, they will recognise that we are making considerable progress in relation to the targets set. We have taken quite a number of steps to improve the circumstances of those who depend on social welfare as set out in the report of the Commission on Social Welfare.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.