There is a large number of amendments submitted but all of them have been ruled out of order for good and cogent reasons, except amendment No. 24 in the name of Deputy Allen.
Social Welfare Bill, 1993: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 14, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(5) The provisions of the Data Protection Act, 1988, shall apply in full to any information obtained under this section.
"(6) Section 31 of the Act of 1988 is hereby repealed.".
I contend that in this Bill, the Minister is attempting to sneak through a provision which will allow him to allocate and issue personal social service numbers, a proposal which is basically a resurrection of one announced in 1989. I believe this proposal will have very serious privacy implications for everybody. I contend the Minister must now make a comprehensive statement on these proposals, informing the House exactly what he is about, because the Bill and explanatory memorandum are very limited in this respect.
I accept fully that there are advantages for the State in such a system. However, a balance must be struck between the State's objectives and the safeguarding of the privacy of the individual. In the absence of adequate data protection legislation I believe the privacy of the individual is very much in danger. The Data Protection Act provides a general framework for data use but is insufficient in providing protection for the privacy of the individual. In the absence of a detailed study of all issues and of legislation to contain and confine the use of personal information, these proposals must be opposed by my party. A detailed study should include comparative examination of the systems in place in other countries and involve the widest possible consultation with all of those who have an interest in this problem.
I might remind the House that other countries have had very bad experiences with which I will not bore the House at present, brought about by the absence of adequate safeguards. I contend that the mistakes which have occurred in other countries must not be repeated here.
I call on the Minister to withdraw these proposals until such time as there has been a full debate on their implications and, more importantly, pending the publication and sanction of appropriate legislation to safeguard the privacy of the individual.
I spoke with the Assistant Commissioner for Data Protection on Thursday week last. I also pulled the latest report of the Commissioner, that of 1991, from the Library. Dealing with threats to privacy, he stated that his general concern was also increased by specific developments in the Department of Social Welfare. On student information, the report states:
Firstly, regulations made under the Social Welfare Act, 1991, required inter alia universities and similar third level educational establishments to supply the Minister for Social Welfare with the names of all students registering with them. Since this information has always been regarded as confidential, and could not be disclosed under the Data Protection Act except in the limited circumstances set out in section 8 (which permits but does not compel the disclosure of personal data) the Social Welfare Act 1991 has the effect of reducing the level of protection granted by the Act.
As Commissioner, I feel it my duty to question, in principle, legislation of this kind. Any proposal to introduce legislation likely to have privacy implications should, in my view, be submitted to me for comment before any decisions is taken in relation to it.
In relation to this, I would ask the Minister whether he has had consultations with the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner and, if so, what their reaction was. The report continues:
This would avoid a clash with the principles of data protection and would allow for an informed debate on the issues involved, where necessary.
Legislation cannot be justified merely on the grounds that its purpose is to prevent tax evasion or social welfare fraud. As I have already stated, a balance with privacy must be achieved. As soon as I became aware of what was proposed, I took the matter up with the Department of Social Welfare. I am happy to say that they agreed, at my request, to take specific steps to ensure that all the principles of data protection would be followed in applying the provisions of the Social Welfare Act.
Since the publication of this annual report of the Data Protection Commissioner in 1991 I would ask the Minister what steps have been taken to increase the protection of the individual. Would the Minister also spell out in detail here the implications of the proposal contained in section 23? I will reserve further comment until I hear the Minister's views.
Section 23, to which amendment No. 24 refers, provides for the allocation and issue of personal social services numbers, formerly known as the Revenue and Social Insurance numbers. This number will become the unique identifier of all social welfare payments, thereby enabling my Department to exercise control over the various schemes.
Section 23 (2) requires a claimant or beneficiary to provide such information, as may be prescribed, to enable a personal social services number to be allocated and issued while subsection (3) requires a claimant for any social welfare payment to furnish his personal social services number and that of his dependants, if any.
The Department of Social Welfare has taken over the task of issuing Revenue and Social Insurance numbers and a person must have a number before he can receive a payment. Indeed, people are quite happy to have a number. If people want to use it for any other purpose that is a matter for themselves. It should also be remembered that the same number is used by the Department of Social Welfare and the Revenue Commissioners.
The provisions of section 23 of the Bill, as is the case with all legislation enacted by the Oireachtas, are already subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act. There is no need, therefore, for the proposed subsection (5).
In so far as section 31 of the 1988 Act is concerned this provision was enacted to provide for the transfer of information between my Department and the Revenue Commissioners and for similar transfers between my Department, other Departments and specified bodies for the purposes of the administration of social welfare schemes. The transfer of information of this nature is essential to operate the schemes and ensure that there are adequate controls in operation.
I am aware that the vast majority of people receiving payments are bona fide and I have often made this point in the House. I am also aware that fraud and abuse of my Department's schemes occur and I want the message to go out loud and clear that those who defraud the system will not be tolerated; in other words, we must have a system which is self-checking and correcting, which at present is the case.
Like any large spending organisation my Department must have effective control measures in operation to protect the Exchequer and, ultimately, the taxpayer. That is the least the ordinary taxpayer can expect. Within my Department the efficient delivery of social welfare services and the control of fraud and abuse of the system are two sides of the same coin. The need to control fraud and abuse has been given added emphasis in recent years with good effect. Additional staff, costing £1 million, were assigned in 1991 and 1992 for this purpose. Control activities within the Department were restructured to achieve greater effectiveness. Overall savings of £84 million were achieved last year and the targeted savings this year amount to an additional £27 million.
The detection of fraud and abuse forms an integral part of the work of my Department with some 530 officers, about 13 per cent of the staff, involved specifically in control work. All officers involved in the processing and payment of social welfare entitlements have a control function which involves the prevention and detection of abuse of the schemes and the elimination of fraud. Specific control units operating at local, regional and national level within my Department seek and identify specific forms of abuse and devise appropriate counteractive measures. Included in their work are inspections of employers in relation to their PRSI obligations, investigation of concurrent working and claiming social welfare benefits and reviewing claimants' means for assistance payments.
I want to make it clear that all resources available to my Department are dedicated to the task of stamping out fraud and abuse and that the full rigours of the law will be applied where abuse is detected. The penalties have been significantly increased in recent years, including fines of up to £10,000 or up to three years' imprisonment or both. The proposed repeal of section 31 of the 1988 Act would hinder my efforts in controlling fraud and abuse within the system. I am, therefore, opposing the amendment.
To respond to the points made by Deputy Allen, the staff of the Department familiarised themselves with the provisions of the Data Protection Act. In relation to the personal social services number I should stress that all we are doing is providing a convenient reference number for those who use our social services, such as PRSI contributors. With this number they will be able to check the benefits to which they are entitled.
It was proposed earlier that I should have wider powers but I have dropped this proposal as, before I could be given wider powers, the legislation would have to be well thought-out and discussed with the Data Protection Commissioner. As I said, I have now dropped this proposal but it is both necessary and essential that we have such a personal social services number. It is a modern way of doing business. Nowadays everybody uses a plastic card, this card is useful and it is one which people are happy to have. Hundreds of thousands have been issued already and they will continue to be issued to all who use our social welfare services. If they wish to use them for other purposes that is a matter for themselves. We will use these numbers only in respect of our normal activities with which the House is familiar and provided for in legislation.
Again, this is a matter of concern to many Deputies. I am sure there is as much concern on the Minister's side of the House as there is on this side about this matter. We are not talking here about a person who, by choice, goes to a bank to obtain a banker's card, a cheque card, a Visa card or a Barclay card, have their name entered in a computer bank and uses this card for identification purposes, to withdraw cash and so on. In this instance the Department will oblige each person who goes to them for assistance, on the basis of their entitlements because of contributions made or the circumstances in which they find themselves, to have this number. It strikes me that social welfare claimants are being treated differently from other sections of our population.
Everybody will be given a number; there is one for everybody.
In the audience.
The section states: "the Minister may allocate and issue a personal social services number to a person in such manner as he deems fit". Therefore, everybody will not be given a personal identification number tomorrow. For instance, the self-employed will not receive a personal identification card from the Minister tomorrow. Those entitled to headage payments whose tax affairs are not in order will not be required to produce a personal social services number identification card in order to qualify for payment. Distinctions are being made between those who have to get assistance from the Department of Social Welfare because of unemployment or illness and those who do not have to. Second a claimant or beneficiary under the Social Welfare Acts shall be required to furnish to an officer of the Minister such information as may be prescribed which is necessary for the allocation and issue of a personal social services number under subsection (1). What sort of information will be required? When will it be prescribed? We are being asked to agree to a section which effectively leads to an invasion of the privacy of a person who does not have sufficient money to survive. We are being asked to agree to this without knowing what precise information will be required and who, and how it will be decided. We also do not know at what level of seniority the decision will be made as to who qualifies for a card. I presume that if someone does not produce his card he will not get his benefit or assistance payments. Who decides whether the Department is entitled to seek such information from the claimant? There are so many holes in this section that it seems to me to be a slap-dash approach to what the Minister claims to be an attack on fraud.
Deputy, do not mix up the two — it was the amendment I was talking about.
In the course of his contribution on this amendment the Minister referred to savings of £84 million in 1991-92. Will he clarify what he means by savings, because in the same breath he spoke about fraud? Is he claiming that fraud of £84 million was discovered in the system in 1991-92? I may have misunderstood but in the same breath he spoke about fraud and savings of £27 million this year. Is he claiming that fraud of this amount was discovered? We had a debate earlier on the distinction between over-payment and fruad and will he define what he means by the following terms; fraud, savings and over-payments? Could he break down the total and give us a figure under each of those headings? It is unfair and inaccurate to propose what I argue is essentially an invasion of the privacy of hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of spurious figures.
I have to differ with my Opposition colleagues on this point. The introduction of a personal social services number is a good idea and my party support it. I note the Minister has withdrawn previous measures which we would have had difficulty with because the Data Protection Commissioner indicated he had problems and reservations about earlier proposals. We should be committed to the elimination of fraud in the system. There appears to be considerable concern among the population at large about the real or perceived extent of fraud in the social welfare system. It is very important that the maximum resources go to people who are truly in need and any effort the Minister will make to root out fraud will be supported by myself and my party.
During the course of the Second Stage debate I mentioned that the Minister for Social Welfare has requested Craig Gardner to report on the extent of fraud in the social welfare system. The report has not been published. It would be of general interest to Members and to others who have an interest in social welfare to have the facts. If there is massive abuse — and the practitioners I have spoken to feel that the incidence of abuse can be as high as one in five: not that all of the claim would be published but part of it would be — we have to provide more resources for the detection of abuse if we are to continue to provide a caring service for those who are genuinely in need. I believe that the personal social services number will go a long way to cleaning up the system and streamlining the procedures which the Department has at its disposal. As long as civil liberties are protected and the Data Protection Commissioner is satisfied that the Data Protection Act, 1988, is being complied with I could not support this amendment, and I would be happy to support the Government on this issue.
The problem is that the Data Protection Commissioner is not satisfied with the proposals. Together with everybody else in this House I totally support any move by the Minister to eliminate fraud and bring about efficiency in the service. Like Deputy De Rossa, I did not like the fact that the Minister lumped together efficiency, effectiveness, rationalisation, cutbacks and fraud in one breath. Will the Minister give us a breakdown of the £90 million and quantify exactly the level of fraud that has been detected?
That is what happens in practice.
Fraud takes place in many sectors of society but why are we continually focusing on the social welfare sector? A stigma is being developed about social welfare recipients. I know a lot about this because in my constituency there is high unemployment and people are made to feel bad because they are unemployed. Earlier we raised the point that people are intimidated and degraded at times by the medical referee system. Under the guise of controlling fraud, the Minister is proposing to invade the privacy of the individual. This is akin to a garda kicking down every door on a street when investigating an incident in order to find the culprit.
Will the Minister clarify why the term "personal social services number" is used? If there is an exchange of information between the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare at present why is the present PRSI number not retained? Whether the Department of Finance, through the Revenue Commissioners, or his Department allocate the number is academic once there is an interchange of information between the Departments.
What is involved is the thin edge of the wedge, because under the guise of a personal social services number people will be obliged to produce this number in the first instance for social welfare and subsequently for education, health and housing services. Eventually there will be an exchange of information between all these agencies and this will seriously impact on the rights of the individual. For example, if a person applies for an infectious diseases grant will he have to produce his personal social services number and, as a result, if he subsequently applies to the Department of Education for a job will the Department check through his past to find out some of the most private details of his life? All those provisions empower the Minister to develop this matter at some future date. The Commissioner was quite specific in his statement and it is not acceptable that the Minister should come into the House and say that he included extra provisions in the Bill, but withdrew them at the request of the Data Protection Commissioner.
I did not say I included extra provisions in the Bill, I said that proposals had been discussed earlier. None of them was included in the Bill.
I apologise, they were proposals and they were withdrawn. I will withdraw the part of my amendment which states that section 31 of the Act of 1988 is hereby repealed if the Minister accepts the first part so that the Data Protection Commissioner can make a clearcut statement on the position and that further legislation to protect the rights of individuals may be introduced. That is a reasonable request. We would all go home happy knowing that the privacy of the individual is protected. I am aware it is not the Minister's responsibility to introduce legislation in that regard, but further legislation relating to data protection is necessary.
Essentially, the debate concludes with the second contribution of the proposer. However, if the Minister wishes to respond briefly, he may.
I am aware of that procedure but it has not been followed here today.
That was on Committee Stage.
Normally it is left to the proposer of the amendment to have the final say, but I would like Deputy Allen to go home to Cork happy.
That is the purpose of the exercise.
I will clarify some of the issues for him. We are not introducing an identity card. The person's photograph will not be on the card and it will not be compulsory to carry it. It will be necessary only for specified social welfare and revenue purposes. That is what links it directly to the Data Protection Act, 1988. This card will be issued for specific social welfare and revenue purposes. Section 2 (1) (c) states that the data shall be kept only for one or more specified and lawful purposes and shall not be used or disclosed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or purposes. That is the direct link to the Data Protection Act, 1988. The purposes are specified and they are lawful.
What section is the Minister referring to?
Section 2 of the Data Protection Act, 1988 which deals with the protection of individuals with regard to personal data. The Data Protection Commissioner is happy with the purpose for which we are taking this action because it is consistent with the data protection legislation. The person's name, RSI number, date of birth and sex will be coded on to the card.
Will it say "homosexual"?
I do not know, we will have to wait and see. It was about the universal use of a card that the Data Protection Commissioner spoke. In his view the legislation introduced to cover the use of the RSI number or card should be limited to revenue, social insurance and related matters. I assure Deputies that the introduction of this card is consistent with that and that it will be used specifically for those purposes.
We have been issuing cards for years. At present people have a dark pink card which crumbles when it gets damp. We are now introducing a modern plastic card which can be used in the same way as other plastic cards. It can be updated when necessary and is convenient for the customer. It will facilitate the increasing incidence of electronic fund transfers and it specifically relates to the service we provide.
If we wished to go outside the specifics of our work, legislation would be required. It would have to be brought before this House and debated in its widest context. We are merely modernising our own system and on that basis I hope Deputy Allen will accept the assurances I have given. I cannot accept his amendments but I assure him that he can rest at ease in his bed in Cork. I would not like him to be concerned about the matter. I do not wish to be involved in anything beyond my own specific portfolio.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I want to address particular aspect of a Committee Stage amendment which was not reached because of time constraints. In future we must make arrangements whereby the Social Welfare Bill can be examined in detail.
At this stage we should be debating what is in the Bill.
I intend to come to that. I want to make a general point in regard to the time available. While we on the Opposition benches were reasonably helpful to the Minister in regard to a time frame within which various sections might be dealt with, that did not overcome the difficulty whereby most of the sections were not debated.
I am concerned about the failure of the Bill to deal adequately with the provision of circulars issued by the Department to Members of the House. I raised this matter a number of times with the Minister. Indeed, I raised it today at Question Time specifically in relation to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. I tabled an amendment which sought to oblige the Minister to place in the Library any circulars or codes of practice he might issue to community welfare officers. The Minister indicated that he thought those circulars would be too technical for Deputies to understand. I do not know who drafted the Minister's reply but he should have a word with them about its implications. The job of this House is to deal with legislation, we do so reasonably well and in a commonsense way given that the vast majority of Deputies are lay people. I take exception to the implication in the Minister's reply with regard to the reason for circulars, which are for the eyes only of community welfare officers, not being sent out. I also take exception to the fact that I received a letter from the Department telling me that Circulars 14/92 and 18/92 are for issue only to community welfare officers. I was elected to this House and I am entitled to see those circulars as is anybody employed by the Eastern Health Board or by the Departments of Health and Social Welfare.
The Minister said that if I knew of any individual cases in which he might be able to help he would be prepared to deal with them. My purpose in raising this issue repeatedly in recent months is not only to ensure that the problems of particular individuals, who may have the good fortune to come to my advice centres, are sorted out but because a large number of people affected by Circulars 14/92 and 18/92 will not be considered because they did not go to a TD or did not have a TD to represent them who has the ear of the Minister.
I knew this matter was coming up today and I specifically made an inquiry of people in the health board as to how these circulars are being implemented. I was informed that these circulars are being operated now and things have not really changed. For instance after the first circular was issued the client was told that if he or she allowed the electricity bill to mount up to two bills they would be paid. Special circumstances have now come into play such as sickness, death, funerals, fire or junior and leaving certificate fees. The bottom line is that there is no automatic entitlement to supplementary welfare allowance in this instance — I am talking about ESB bills — for people on long term social welfare. Christmas and very cold winters are not considered either. Community welfare officers consider that the so-called clarification of Circular 14/92 leaves them in the same position. All I am asking is that the Minister says today he will issue a further circular cancelling Circulars 14/92 and 18/92 so that the position will revert to that which existed prior to July of last year.
The Minister said he is introducing a new code of practice and new guidelines and I have no problem with that. I hope we will have an opportunity in this House to debate those guidelines and have an input to them. Nevertheless, that is a separate issue. In the period between now and the time at which the Minister issues the new code of practice people will continue to suffer as a result of the application of those circulars. The Minister pointed out that he has allocated an extra £11.5 millon or £12 million — the figure seems to vary——
The figure is £12.5 million.
I applaud the introduction of the increase in the supplementary welfare allowance scheme and I hope it goes a long way in helping those who avail of the scheme. However, people are being denied assistance. This scheme is supposed to be the last resort, the safety net for people who cannot get unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. However, because of the operation of these two circulars people are being denied assistance. It would not cost a fortune to cancel the circulars.
I would remind the Minister of the opening paragraph of the Combat Poverty Agency report of 1991 which states: "As the scheme of last resort in the Social Welfare System, the supplementary welfare allowance scheme has a critical role to play in preventing people falling into poverty." That is the purpose of the scheme, but it is being undermined by the existence of these two circulars. The fact that the Minister has already announced he intends to withdraw the circulars means the worst is over as far as he and the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, is concerned. All I am asking is that he issues a further circular today or tomorrow cancelling these two circulars so that people who are in need will get immediate assistance rather than having to wait perhaps weeks — no one knows how long they may have to wait because the Minister has refused to tell us. I was told three weeks ago that the new code would be introduced shortly and that the circulars would be withdrawn but we are still waiting. There are people who need help and I appeal to the Minister to take action. It is not acceptable for the Minister to give smart alec replies and make imputations about why I am raising this matter. I am raising it because there are people in need of help. By cancelling the circulars a number of people — albeit small — will be helped, and I appeal to the Minister to do so immediately.
Fine Gael agreed to the Minister's request to complete Committee Stage of this Bill in one day but it is the last time we will agree to this arrangement. In future we will vote against such a proposal because the exercise today was unsatisfactory. We are dealing with a budget of more than £3 billion in an area affecting more than one million people and we had very little time to consider Committee Stage. A number of us are newcomers to this brief and while the Minister has officials, programme managers and advisers, many of us do not have such resources and must come to grips with complex and detailed legislation and regulations.
I do not like the patronising and smart alec responses from the Minister to questions which are of legitimate concern to us. If that practice continues, the future relationship will be very bad. Because the Opposition is badly resourced we are dependent on voluntary people, committed to the cause of social justice, to carry out research for us.
In relation to the circulars, I do not accept the almost secret society manner in which the Department of Social Welfare acts in dealing with people who are victims of society, economic failure and illness. To have legislation and regulations circumvented by circulars is unacceptable. Legislators serving the people who elect us are not informed of these circulars — Circular 14/92 is a typical example.
I left this House today — I have been here since 10.30 a.m. —to ask somebody to make a telephone call arising from a comment made by the Minister and I was informed that community welfare officers are continuing to exercise the conditions set out in the circulars. To say that guidelines will be introduced in the near future is not good enough for me or for the people seriously affected by these circulars. The Minister may be able to wait but those people cannot. I am not trying to over-dramatise the situation, but this weekend again, loan sharks and moneylenders will be pressuring people to the point of suicide and still the Minister can only say that he will issue new guidelines. The opinion of the legal advisers of the EHB is that Circular 14/92 is illegal in that it limits by circular the entitlement given to people by the original legislation.
The Minister says that the supplementary welfare allowance has increased to £12 million. That is because extra money is being paid out due to inefficiency and delays in the Department in processing legitimate claims, because of the strictures relating to appeals and fresh appeals and because of cases where people with successful appeals are dragged before medical referee again a few months later and the whole round starts again. Another reason for the increase in the supplementary welfare allowance relates to the increase in rent supplements because of the housing crisis. People cannot get places from the local authorities and are going into rented accommodation. The rent supplement is going directly to the landlords. The increases in social welfare have been well matched by the cutbacks in the other schemes in operation.
We as legislators try to do our best, but we need co-operation and consideration in relation to the legislation that comes before us. I would ask the Minister immediately to withdraw these repressive circulars which are demoralising people and driving them into despair. If the Minister wishes to issue new guidelines in the future he can do that but in the meantime he should withdraw the circulars that are badly affecting so many people.
I will not repeat what has been said but I agree with the comments made about those circulars. I am concerned that people are suffering immediately as a result of the circulars. This is the first time I have been involved in taking a Bill through the House like this. I noticed that Second Stage was over-long but that Committee Stage, which perhaps is more important, is not long enough. It is on Committee Stage that Opposition Deputies may be able to make constructive contributions. Today we were very constrained in time.
I had tabled an amendment requesting the Minister to review the concept of child benefit and the notion of a child dependant allowance, and to introduce a system of age grading. At the moment, neither the child benefit nor the child dependant allowance takes account of the greater cost of rearing older children. That is a big failure in our child support systems. A great deal of research has been done on the varying costs to parents as children move through the different developmental stages. The Combat Poverty Agency has given figures based on research into the different costs of rearing children. I am sure the Minister has been acquainted with the figures they produced, and which were very well costed, as the Combat Poverty Agency made a submission to the Minister in relation to the budget. This is one area in which we could enhance our child income support system to make it more realistic so that it would meet the adequacy criteria which is very important.
The Commission on the Status of Women in their report also dealt extensively with the proposal that child income support by way of child benefit payments and the child dependant's allowance should be age graded. I would impress that on the Minister. I am sorry that my amendment was ruled out of order because technically it would have involved a charge on the Exchequer. My amendment really just asked the Minister to review and accept the concept. I would be grateful if he would do so.
This has been a full and comprehensive debate. Deputies have said that they could do with more time and I suppose they could, but we had an election, we have had Estimates, the budget and now the Social Welfare Bill. In financial terms we are facing into an extremely difficult year having regard to the number of unemployed people for whom we have to cater. We are a relatively small country. I listened this morning to a man on the radio saying that we should have various benefits because they have them in Germany and France. I am sure we should, but Germany and France have very big populations and they do not have the shape of population we have. We have considerable difficulty in catering for the number of dependants we have, to whom workers have to contribute. We are paying 1.5 million people through the insurance as well as the assistance schemes. People have said that from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the population are on the poverty line or close to it, but we are paying a higher proportion of the population than that, because we are paying those on insurance schemes as well as those on assistance schemes. To have paid a general increase which keeps everybody ahead of inflation is an achievement. The latest indication is that inflation will be below 3 per cent and we have given increases of 3.5 per cent. We are maintaining our position against inflation and are doing somewhat more than that. We are improving some of the basic schemes. Naturally I would like to do more and I will be pressing to get more from the national cake but we have to recognise that in this Bill and in associated measures we are providing £180 million extra. That is a substantial allocation on the part of the Government. One can argue about individual elements of the social welfare code, and people will argue, because they are concerned to get more in a particular area.
The pre-budget forum was very helpful in that people on different rates saw the problems of others and recognised the reality. That probably brought more tolerance in relation to the allocation of resources. People were very helpful in that regard. I pay tribute to the different organisations who participated in the forum.
A number of issues have taken a great deal of time in this Bill. One issue relates to the question of internal technical communications. I cannot say to an organisation, whether it be my own Department or the health boards under the Department of Health, that all the communications have to be made available publicly. Perhaps that is how they should be. Once that happens more people are involved and in terms of internal communication one cannot send any short notes to anybody.
A question has been raised about Circular 14/92 and that which superseded it, Circular 18/92. I have given a commitment that they will be withdrawn and that the code of practice will not only be brought into operation but will be made available here on the table of the House. I will examine other areas where the entitlements of certain people may be affected. I do not want to get into a situation where people cannot have ordinary working circulars. I shall look at that aspect of it because frequently the circulars relate to the interpretation of entitlements.
As we do not have very much time at our disposal and I do not want to delay the House unduly at this stage, I would like to thank the Deputies, and particularly the spokespersons. I did not think I was patronising in any way. When Deputies have a go at me I too will have a go at them. We may as well be clear about that at this stage. Some people said I was too nice before but I will not be that nice any more.
No more Mr. Nice.
I have here a copy of the summary of the Craig Gardner report which Deputies may wish to examine afterwards. I could give a breakdown of fraud, abuse, unwarranted claiming and so on but it is all tied up in terminology. When you look at the beginning of the year and see the amount of money being spent and see that certain things are happening, specific action has to be taken to deal with them. Very little fraud is involved in pensions. Something which does occur is that increased incomes are not declared and when the person dies the money is handed on to someone else but quite an amount of that money has been recovered. It is difficult to explain fraud. Some people admit to fraud while some cases involving fraud are taken to court. As Minister, my most recent experience is of individuals saying: "I accept this fraud has occurred, it should not have happened but please do not drag me through the courts". That is the other side of the coin. That brings me back to the point about having a facility for dealing with it without having to take people to court.
I look forward to future debates and discussions. I want to be as open as possible, bearing in mind that we are limited by resources. Some very worthwhile measures are contained in this Bill, including a number of technical adjustments in the pensions area. We have now had some experience of the Pensions Act, 1990, and the Pensions Board wish to make some adjustments.
I thank the House for the consideration it has given to the Bill. I thank the spokespersons for their contributions which, as always on social welfare, were interesting, lively and well-informed. I think it is better to leave the legal people outside because it is the knowledge of the spokespersons that is important.
Members of the press were in touch with me yesterday pointing out that I had indicated that they were not present when we were discussing these matters. They made the point — which I accept — that they were listening in and were watching it on television and were fully in touch. I accept that absolutely. I should say the same applies to Deputies and I would ask the members of the press to remember that when they are writing about us the next time. They were not slow to inform me they were actually listening to the debate and were watching it on television. Perhaps it proved a point.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Deputy De Rossa rose.
That concludes the debate.
As there are a few minutes left may I ask the Minister one question? There will be no speeches.
It will have to be very short.
May I ask the Minister when he proposes to end the appalling practice of requiring all travellers to sign-on, on the same day, at the same time? It is an appallingly discriminatory practice.
I am tempted to say as soon as we have the electronic fund transfers operating totally. It is really a separate issue and one we would have to discuss and consider separately. I have noted the Deputy's point.
That concludes the debate.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 32.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bree, Declan.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffat, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuiv, Éamon.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Spring, Dick.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connor, John.
- Cox, Pat.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Currie, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- McManus, Liz.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Browne (Wexford) and D. McDowell; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Keogh.
Question declared carried.