Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1994

Vol. 439 No. 6

Social Welfare Bill, 1994: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Leonard

I congratulate the Minister on the steady progress he has made in his Department in removing anomalies and streamlining payments and in his approach to alleviating hardship on the long term unemployed. The employment provisions under the various headings are to be commended. The Minister has struck a balance and ensured that the system is efficient and updated while at the same time he has dealt effectively with abuses in the system. The rule of thumb used by most public representatives in assessing Departments is the number of representations they receive regarding qualification for schemes, payment systems and so on. Eight or ten years ago a large proportion of the work of TDs consisted of dealing with requests relating to social welfare and many of the problems were not resolved for some time. Fewer queries are received and they are dealt with without delay.

The Bill places emphasis on the continuance of secondary social welfare benefits. In preparing the Bill the Minister concentrated on getting people back to work. The Bill provides incentives for employers in labour intensive industries, such as the footwear and textile industries which encountered serious problems not alone in competing against Third World imports but in terms of VAT and the British devaluation in 1992-93. Incentives are also being introduced for service industries which provide much needed jobs. Any assistance for such industries is welcome. The textile and footwear industries are major employers who work on tight margins.

I welcome the reduction in the employer's share of PRSI from 12.2 per cent to 9 per cent for employees earning up to £173 per week. The exemption from the health contribution and the employment and training levy for employees and the self-employed on low incomes is welcome, as is the removal of liability from employers of medical card holders to pay levies on behalf of their employees. That was a bone of contention among employers in recent years.

The new PRSI exemption scheme will greatly benefit employers in my area. Those who take on additional staff from the live register between 6 April 1994 and 5 April 1996 will not have to pay the employers' share of PRSI in respect of these employees. This is a welcome improvement. The last PRSI exemption scheme was very successful, generating 4,250 jobs over a two year period. The benefit of the exemption to an employer will be considerable, amounting to £1,268 per year in respect of a new employee with earnings of £200 a week. In addition, employers' PRSI has been reduced from 12.2 per cent to 9 per cent in all sectors of employment where the employee earns up to £173 per week. This measure will be of great assistance to labour intensive industries such as the clothing industry.

I welcome the improvements in the means test for the carer's allowance which will be of greater benefit to the hundreds of women in my constituency who provide full-time care and attention for elderly and incapacitated relatives. For the first time the first £100 of their husband's weekly earnings will be disregarded for the purposes of the means test. The initial means of the carer which is also disregarded is being increased from £2 to £6 per week. This means that a full time carer whose spouse earns £160 per week and who would not previously have been entitled to any payment will now receive a carer's allowance of £34 per week. I hope the Minister will continue to concentrate on this area, the spiralling costs of maintaining elderly people in institutional care and the difficulty in obtaining places for them.

As a member of a health board, I am very aware of the difficultues in this area. A carer's allowance can mean the difference between a person remaining in his environment or being admitted to an institution. In recent years the emphasis at health board level has been on community care and the development of services such as home help, district nurses and therapists. The health boards are providing every assistance for the development of these services. The day centres managed by voluntary staff which have been opened in many counties provide the elderly with meals and minor treatment.

I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for the funding he has provided in this area in recent years. I am sure the level of funding allocated to my consituency was the same as that allocated to other constituencies. While the funding was not very large — it may only have been £5,000, £10,000 or £15,000, which looks small in 1994 terms — it was a real bonanza for those people who required additional equipment, needed improvements carried out or required cooking facilities. The Minister should continue to provide assistance for voluntary organisations and the many women who have more than enough work to do at home but who cook for them. This service is of great benefit to elderly people.

The Minister should discuss with the Minister for the Environment the possibility of providing additional funding for the housing and for the elderly scheme. This scheme has enabled many people who lived in houses which did not have a proper water supply, etc. to remain in their environment. In addition to the funding given by the Minister an additional allocation in this area would be of great benefit.

During the debate on the budget the Minister said that widows aged between 60 and 65 years will be eligible for all the free schemes, including the free travel pass, to which their late husbands were entitled. I welcome this improvement as previously women had to endure large cutbacks in social welfare when their husbands died.

Mr. Gilmore

One of the things which has amazed me during my five years in this House is the way which very important legislation often receives little attention outside the House when it is being debated. I have always been amazed that the two most important Bills passed by this House every year — the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill — receive little or no public attention. The Finance Bill affects every citizen in terms of taxation while the Social Welfare Bill, major legislation, governs how one third of the population of this State will live over the next year in terms of the incomes they will receive. The incomes of the unemployed, widows, pensioners, orphans, etc. are decided in the Social Welfare Bill. Yet if people going into or coming out of an employment exchange were asked what is happening in the Dáil today I doubt if many of those from whom one would get a printable reply would know that what is being discussed here today is the amount of money they will get for the next year.

Why is this the case? The public is hardly to blame. How could people know what is being debated in the House today if someone does not tell them? Perhaps Members of the House are to blame. Perhaps the matters of concern to the poor are not sexy enough to merit the kind of media attention which, for example, the residential property tax this year or the rod licence a few years ago, received. It is interesting to note that only one of the morning papers, The Irish Times, had coverage of yesterday's debate on this Bill. The only other coverage of the debate of which I am aware was a piece in “Oireachtas Report”.

This contrasts starkly with the publicity given to consideration of the incomes of other sectors of society. For example, the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, a central element of which related to the pay of those in employment, was given a great launch and received a great deal of attention. Anyone in employment will know what this programme is all about. When farm prices are being debated in the European Union they receive widespread coverage. Yet when the miserable subsistence payments given to the poorest people in our society are under consideration unfortunately they do not receive the same kind of attention. This gives rise to problems for those of us who in the course of our daily and weekly work meet people whose payments and incomes are decided in this House — we repeatedly come across who do not know the basis on which their incomes are decided.

Next autumn people will draw our attention to some individual problem they have with social welfare such as a recent case reported in the social affairs column of The Irish Times which highlighted the case of a couple. The woman tried to obtain a part-time job; she thought she could earn up to £45 per week but discovered that the rules had been changed last year and what had been a weekly allowance became a daily allowance. That resulted in the couple losing £22.50 a week.

Changes in the law, all of which are the subject of debate in this House, do not come to the attention of that huge segment of the population for whom this legislation is probably the most important this House will pass in the next 12 months. It simply does not come to their attention until it is too late and they find themselves on the receiving end of these changes. They go to their employment exchange, they are given information that greatly distresses them and then go to a social services advice centre or perhaps their TD to obtain clarification. Eventually some of them may end up in the appeals system, simply because the ground rules changed and people were not informed. One of the disturbing features of this Social Welfare Bill is the taxation of unemployment benefit. This will not come to the attention of many people until it actually takes place.

There are a number of aspects of the social welfare system that I would like to address. My colleague, Deputy De Rossa, addressed the essential elements of the Bill. I strongly support the comments he made, particularly his criticism of the way in which the Government is giving the impression it is making great improvements for people on social welfare while the reality is quite different.

I wish to raise a matter that has not received much attention, the way in which cohabiting couples are treated differently by the social welfare and taxation systems. People in cohabiting relationships are suffering serious discrimination because the social welfare system treats them as a married couple while the taxation system regards them as single people. The time has come to eliminate that discrimination.

I recently became aware of a case of a man who has been separated from his wife for many years. He is in a low paid job in the public service and he pays maintenance for a child from his marriage. He established a stable relationship with another woman and they have one child and are expecting another. They purchased a house under the shared ownership scheme. They have a stable permanent relationship but up to the time this man began living with his present partner, he benefited from a tax allowance as a single parent. As soon as he began cohabiting he was no longer entitled to the single parent's tax allowance, the Revenue assessed him as a single person and he received single person's tax allowances. His partner, however, experienced a somewhat different approach in the social welfare system. She naturally was not entitled to the lone parent's allowance once she began living with her partner. She applied for unemployment assistance but did not qualify for that either because her means were assessed as her partner's income. In other words, the social welfare system treats this couple as a married couple but the taxation system only allows them the single person's allowance. The mortgage relief they receive for the house is calculated on the basis of a single person.

This represents a two-handed approach by two arms of the State. When paying this couple the State assesses them as a married couple, but when it takes money from them in the form of taxation, they are regarded as single people. This problem will have to be addressed because there are many other such cases. I know of a couple in similar circumstances where the man participated in a FÁS social employment scheme. This couple were living together and he claimed his partner as a dependent under the social welfare system. Once he took up the FÁS scheme he discovered that FÁS had its own rules regarding what constituted a married person and he ended up actually losing money. This problem must be addressed because we cannot continue to have the social welfare and taxation systems treating people in different ways. The Minister for Social Welfare should in some way co-ordinate with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, either through the mechanism of the Social Welfare Bill or the Finance Bill or both. Cohabiting couples must be treated the same by both systems. The State cannot have it both ways; it cannot treat the same people differently for different purpose. This matter is urgent because many people are now caught in this situation.

I agree also with some of the comments made earlier by Deputy Bell on the way means are calculated for the purposes of unemployment assistance for people in various forms of casual employment. I came across a case this week of a person who has been unemployed for three years. At some stage during 1993 the type of irregular work he was doing was defined by the Department of Social Welfare as constituting self-employment He is now getting a few hours work per week but is losing substantially in his payments from the Department of Social Welfare because of the way in which his means are assessed.

This area will have to be addressed urgently because the simple way in which employment was defined in the past and the days of the regular 39 to 40 hour week job no longer exists. If the Government is serious about encouraging people to take up employment opportunities, we must have a social welfare system which will enable people who obtain one or two days' work on an irregular basis to take up such employment without losing benefits or being designated as self-employed. A third area I want to address, one which probably requires some co-ordinated approach——

Dr. Woods

I will be looking at that but, no matter which way it is done, somebody loses out.

Mr. Gilmore

That is the one about which I have just spoken?

Dr. Woods

The one about the woman who thought she could earn up to £45. We will be examining that anyway.

Mr. Gilmore

I am glad to hear that. Perhaps it is in the nature of the business in which we engage, but I have not come across too many people gaining from it, all the people from whom I hear are losing.

Dr. Woods

Relative to one another, that is the point.

Mr. Gilmore

The third issue I want to take up is the construction industry. This issue requires the attention of the Ministers for Social Welfare and Finance and perhaps the Minister for Enterprise and Employment in so far as it relates to employment conditions as there are now circumstances prevailing within the building industry in which people who were formerly employed under the normal P45 basis are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Increasingly in the construction industry people who want to work on a building site are being forced to work on what is known as the C45 and lose very substantially on their various social welfare entitlements, security of employment, in relation to pension and sick pay cover; entitlements to holiday pay and, very often, on the employment conditions normally applicable to a building site. My understanding is that the C45 system was intended to deal with the problems of the black economy within the construction industry but, unfortunately, what was intended to address abuses within the industry has become a regular feature. This means that a building worker turning up at a building site looking for a job will be told that the only way he will get one is by being defined in some way as a subcontractor of one kind or another, taking employment under the C45 system. The people working in the construction industry are becoming more agitated about this problem. I am aware that the trade unions representing building workers and various committees of building workers are actively seeking changes in this system which is being abused.

There has been a great deal of talk over the years about the treatment of women; we have heard much about the Government being pro-women. The test of its sincerity is whether it is prepared to pay women money awarded to them under the various equality arrangements within the EC. It is scandalous that the Government is effectively forcing women individually to go through tortuous and-expensive legal processes to extract payments to which they were entitled in the first place from the Department of Social Welfare. Before expecting any more women to have to resort to court to establish their entitlements under EC law, the Minister should make an announcement and award those women their due payments. If he does not all the rhetoric emanating from the Government vis-à-vis its commitment to women and women's rights will be perceived as nothing more than a sham.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

I compliment the Minister for Social Welfare who, since 1987, during the period when he was in charge of the Social Welfare portfolio — even when the public finances were extremely tight — showed his concern and care for the less well off in society. In the case of each budget to which his Department made an input we could be happy in the knowledge that he listened attentively, discussed problems with the less well off, learned from them, took their advice and implemented increases in each of those budgets, particularly between 1987 and 1989. He took additional innovative steps last year, one in relation to the family income supplement, resulting in a dramatic 25 per cent take-up of the FIS scheme this year over and above last year. This means 9,600 families are now in receipt of the family income supplement in addition to 30,000 children benefiting.

It is clear the Minister realised there was a problem in some areas of employment, that it was possible for someone to be working for less than they would receive on the dole and that improvements were necessary. This has meant that, again this year, there have been further adjustments in the weekly income thresholds, taking account of the tax measures announced in the budget, giving a £10 increase at each threshold point, resulting in the awarding of an additional £6 per week in weekly payments. That is a most welcome development.

Another matter on which I should like to compliment the Minister — one on which I have particularly strong feelings — is the proposed adjustment in the carer's allowance, particularly bearing in mind that so many people look after elderly relatives in their own homes. The Minister proposes to disregard earnings of £100 per week, in other words, a person can earn up to £100 per week which will be disregarded as income for means test purposes. This will mean an additional 500 carers will be catered for under the provisions of this scheme in addition to the 350 already in receipt of this allowance.

In line with the practice in which the Minister engages, that of going out among people working in the welfare area, perhaps he will examine the overall position relating to care before next year's budget because many people in nursing homes might not necessarily have to be accommodated there if the carer's allowance was made available on a better basis.

People with relatives in nursing homes paid on average between £150 and £170 per week. The welcome subvention which was made available was taken up by private nursing homes who dramatically raised their charges by between £30 and £50 per week. I am sure there is a substantial number of people who could be looked after at home. The elderly would be far happier being lovingly cared for by their families. I am not saying anything against nursing homes or the level of care they provide but, where the infirmity allows, some people could be cared for at home.

The return to work scheme is innovative. There may be difficulty regarding the enterprise allowance scheme and the employee incentive scheme which are operated by FÁS. Eligibility under those schemes is limited to the amount of time spent on the live register. Both these schemes are under review and for a two-month period the Departments of Social Welfare and Enterprise and Employment will evaluate the effectiveness of the schemes and see if they overlap. Were the schemes to cease those aged between 18 and 22 years would be in no man's land as far as obtaining allowances or aid to start up in business is concerned. In order to qualify for the enterprise allowance scheme one must be signing on for 13 weeks. The allowance payable is £40 for a single person and £65 for a married person. People with a dependent spouse and children in receipt of unemployment assistance or benefit would receive about £120 or £140 per week. Many of them opted for the enterprise allowance scheme at a rate of £65 a week. They were willing to take a reduction and put their entrepreneurial skills to work.

In Cork an average of 25 people per month take up this allowance. That would realise 300 jobs over a 12-month period, which is not to be scoffed at. If this scheme were suspended it might affect those who were made redundant. Many unemployed people have expertise, experience, skill and knowledge and would be likely to start up their own business. Their initiative, drive and energy could be lost if the enterprise allowance scheme is not continued.

The return to work scheme pertains particularly to those over 25 years of age and unless we rectify the position somebody aged 18 who has a good idea will not receive aid. I know the Minister will not allow that to happen. The budget for the enterprise allowance scheme is under £5 million of which less than £1 million has been allocated for the Cork-Kerry region. Perhaps it would be worth reviewing the anomaly that exists.

I commend the Minister for his entrepreneurial spirit in dealing with the social welfare portfolio. No doubt he will listen attentively and learn from people. He always had the happy knack of finding money where other Departments could not and I would recommend him to continue on that road.

Mr. McCormack

There are some improvements we would like to see made to this Bill. If we keep on reminding the Minister perhaps we will see a big improvement in the implementation of social welfare regulations. Applicants for social welfare benefit go through unnecessary harassment when they are being assessed. I fail to understand why a system cannot be devised where each person would be assessed as to their income and the information held on file. If they applied for other State benefits — pensions, medical cards, etc. — the one assessment could suffice. If a person applies for unemployment benefit they must be assessed by social welfare officers and the same applies if they apply six months later for, say, a medical card or under other schemes. Frequently this entails a number of visits to the applicant in trying to establish his or her income. This is particularly the case with farmers or people deriving a small income from agriculture or land use.

Last week I met somebody who had applied for unemployment assistance, having worked for a number of months, but he did not qualify because of the regulation regarding the number of stamps required. This man wants to work and will work at every opportunity. Even if he goes on unemployment assistance he will take the first job he gets and is constantly seeking work. When that work does not pay him much more then he would get on unemployment assistance he will take whatever he can find. Three weeks ago he was laid off from temporary work on the buildings, applied for unemployment assistance and was again assessed. He has 20 ewes and four cows on a small piece of land which he inherited a few years ago. Following assessment, the social welfare officer arrived at the conclusion that because he has an income of £42.85 from farming and his wife is working part-time he does not qualify for unemployment assistance. How can a social welfare officer estimate that a farmer or land owner with 20 ewes and four cows has an income of £42.85 per week? It baffles me. If that was the income from this type of farming this country would be a great place in which to live.

When a file has been opened on a person who has been assessed I cannot understand that it does not remain there as the guideline to the person's circumstances. I agree that perhaps every couple of years that information should be updated so that the Department of Social Welfare would be aware of the person's circumstances. If after six months that man applies to the Western Health Board for a medical card the same assessment process will have to take place regarding his eligibility. If the assessment is correct in the first instance I cannot understand the reason it is not sufficient.

I compliment the Minister on aspects of his budget speech and on some of the regulations. Encouraged by the success of previously bringing those matters to the attention of the Minister I continue to raise the matter of young unemployed people in households. I have four teenage children. When a young person in a household applies for unemployment assistance, because of the benefit of living at home, they are refused. This matter bears repeating because it is very important for the whole structure of the family. If a person aged 18 to 20 years living at home, one of whose parents is working in a reasonable job, applies for social welfare assistance he or she is refused on the grounds of benefit derived from board and lodging. If they move out, as happens frequently in Galway city, to a flat or rented acommodation and apply for unemployment assistance they will receive the full rate. If the following week, they go the health board and say that they are in receipt of unemployment assistance and living in flat costing in the region of £50, £60 or £70 per week they will get a rent subsidy allowance. What the health boards or the Department of Health spend is apparently no skin off the nose of the Department of Social Welfare. The attitude of Government Department is that each Department must balance its own budget.

Young people living at home who were refused unemployment assistance are now costing the State more than if they had got three quarters or half the unemployment assistance rate. Most of them would be happy with some deduction in the rate of unemployment assistance and to continue living in the family home. Not alone is this counter-productive and costing the State more in the long term, it is also causing the break-up of families. When young people, who want to be independent, cannot obtain unemployment assistance while living at home they will move out of the family home. When they do, particularly in urban areas, they are competing with young married couples who are legitimately seeking rented accommodation, they are driving up the price of rented accommodation and putting more people on the housing waiting list. This problem will be solved by the Department of the Environment. As long as the Departments of Health and Social Welfare balance their budgets the Department of the Environment can balance its budget and supply houses or flats to those now being driven on to the housing waiting list due to the demand for private rented accommodation. I do not apologise for raising this matter and bringing it to the attention of the Minister.

If young people live at home they will be helped and encouraged by their parents to seek gainful employment. As a parent I would certainly help and I am sure other parents would do likewise. The pressure to help would not be so great if those people were not living at home. We are creating a further breakdown in society in encouraging unstable relationships which is a serious matter. I appeal to the Minister and his officials to treat young people living at home who apply for unemployment assistance or for social welfare as they would if they were living in private rented accommodation. It will benefit everybody in the long run.

I acknowledge that the Minister has made a breakthrough with regard to qualification for the carer's allowance. I have raised this with him on every occasion since it was introduced in the budget three or four years ago. From July the carer's allowance will be over £60. The allowance at last gave recognition to the work of caring for old and infirm people in their homes rather than in institutions. When it was introduced I suggested that it would be wonderful if people could qualify easily but unfortunately out of the estimated 60,000 to 100,000 carers only 5,000 qualified for the allowance.

I acknowledge that some of the anomalies have been addressed in this Bill. The wife of a small farmer who cared for two bedridden old people, one doubly incontinent, was refused the carer's allowance because her husband's income was assessed at over £119 per week which when halved gave her an income of about £59 per week, which put her 9p over the limit. The Minister rectified this anomaly in the budget; where one spouse is the carer, the first £100 of joint income will be disregarded. This is significant and something we have been pressing for. The first £100 of that income of £119 will be disregarded, giving a joint income of £19. Of the wife's income of £9.50, the first £6 will be disregarded from 28 July. That carer will now have an estimated income of £3, which qualifies her for the carer's allowance less £3.

The case of single carers has not been catered for and we will highlight it throughout the year. Many single people have left jobs to care for parents and sometimes they have missed marriage opportunities in order to devote their lives to caring for their parents. Where there is an income these people have not been catered for which regard to qualifying for the carer's allowance.

If I spent all my time talking about the carer's allowance I would be happy with my contribution to the budget debate and to the debate on this Bill in the knowledge that I am getting somewhere. A campaign has been conducted by carers to highlight their grievances. One will not see carers protesting outside the gates of Leinster House or at public meetings or at the constituency clinics simply because caring is a full-time job and they devote all their time to the job. They are dedicated people and I would welcome further concessions by the Minister to bring the other 60,000 or 70,000 carers into eligibility for the allowance. In some cases carers just want recognition. It is a psychological blow to a person applying for the carer's allowance to be told that he cannot qualify. It makes a person feel that his contribution is being totally ignored by the State and the Department of Social Welfare.

I urge the Minister to keep up the good work in easing the qualification requirements for the carer's allowance. I am sure he will understand if I press him on this issue during the year. When he takes a positive step to improve the lot of carers I will acknowledge it as I have done today.

Mr. Flood

I associate myself with the remarks of previous speakers complimenting the Minister on his continued ability to ensure that those who are in need of social welfare payments are continually defended. Anyone recognising the financial difficulties and the problems with which we have had to grapple can only look back at the tenure of office of Deputy Woods as being one where those in need have always had their rights defended by the Minister. The Bill continues along that road and it is undoubtedly one of the reasons the Minister has proved to be the most popular holder of that portfolio in modern times. He has ensured that social welfare increases have kept pace with or exceeded inflation.

I compliment the Minister on his continued support of voluntary organisations. It is his policy, prior to the preparation of the Estimates, to consult with voluntary organisations to hear their views and to take account of the points made, and then in so far as is possible to incorporate their requirements in the proposals he brings to Cabinet each year. The Minister's approach is highly regarded by voluntary organisations. The grant available through the Department which the Minister has defended year in and year out and has increased, where possible, has proved to be of tremendous benefit to local voluntary organisations carrying out work in communities where needs are greatest. I am pleased that this year the Minister has taken account of representations he has received from men's organisations. The Minister has responded by providing financial assistance for self-development courses for men. This is welcome and I am sure we will see its benefits in the years to come.

The Minister made provision in the Estimate for a direct contribution to job creation by reducing employers' PRSI contributions from 12.2 per cent to 9 per cent for employees earning £173 per week or less. Employers have called for measures to cut their costs and the Minister has responded. The cost structure in labour intensive industries has made it difficult for them to compete with Third World imports. The Government has taken decisions which will greatly reduce the cost of production in those industries. Employers, workers and trade unions in labour intensive industries have a duty to create additional jobs. Costs have been cut through the Minister's action and it is now up to industry to keep faith with us by expanding their businesses. The reduction in costs should be of tremendous benefit and I hope we will see increased employment in this sector. These industries have experienced problems with costs and cheap imports.

The clothing and footwear industries were substantial employers but they have suffered badly as a result of imports. It should now be possible for these industries to become more competitive and to seek to displace imports as well as developing export markets. That would make a significant contribution to genuine job creation.

I appeal to the large multiples to buy locally produced goods instead of travelling to far flung fields. It is not always possible to maintain continuity of supply and quality control when buying in from abroad. There may be short term gains but it may not be in their long term interests. It is far better that multiples contribute to the development of indigenous industries by buying home produced products and entering into discussions with producers so that Irish industry can provide what is required. There is room for a partnership between industry and the multiples.

I congratulate the Minister on his continued support for the family supplement, which is available to certain categories of workers. In the past the Minister expressed disappointment that all those entitled to avail of the scheme did not take it up and he arranged for a campaign to bring it to the attention of those who might be entitled to such a supplement. The figures show that 9,600 families are receiving family income supplement which is benefiting over 30,000 children. This is a very important supplement and I support the Minister's efforts to ensure that all those who qualify for it are in a position to take it up.

The Minister recently agreed to meet with the British-Irish parliamentary group, of which I am a member, to discuss various social security matters that affect Irish citizens in the United Kingdom. I think I speak for everybody on the committee when I express appreciation to the Minister for having taken the trouble to meet with us at short notice and tease out the topics of interest to us. The Minister is concerned about aspects of proposed legislation in the United Kingdom which might affect Irish citizens who reside in the UK or here. He has given a commitment to take up with his counterpart in the UK various aspects of the proposed legislation in an effort to ensure that no Irish citizen is unduly affected and the same applies to UK citizens living here.

I urge him to continue with the programme of modernisation in his Department. The Department has undergone an extraordinary change in terms of computerisation, user friendliness and its ability to respond efficiently to queries raised by individuals. Everything has changed dramatically in the Department. I hope the Minister will continue to improve the systems to make them more easily understandable to those who need help of one kind or another. Very often, a person's first contact with the Department of Social Welfare arises in traumatic circumstances, for example, a person may have lost his or her job, have become a widow or a widower or have some disability. It is important that the individual gets a sympathetic hearing. They need to be assured of receiving accurate information quickly. For years the Department's capital programme tended to be the Cinderella but the Minister must be complimented on the development of user friendly offices throughout the country. Obviously the capital works cost a great deal of money.

The offices are to the credit of those who designed them, the Office of Public Works and the Department of Social Welfare. I compliment the Minister for proceeding with the new social welfare office in Tallaght which is currently under construction. This is an important development and complements other major projects which have either been completed or are under way in that area. When that office is opened the people of Tallaght will have a facility to be proud of. It should be able to provide an outstanding service for those who have a reason to deal with the Department.

Reference has been made to the role played by community welfare officers in serving the community. There is a difficulty in terms of what exactly these officers can do. We often receive complaints from individuals at our clinics that community welfare officers tend to vary their approach in dealing with applicants for assistance. The Minister will have to address this matter in consultation with the Department of Health to ensure that an even-handed approach is adopted and people do not have cause for concern. In addition, there is a need for improved facilities to ensure that people can be assisted quickly. There are grounds for complaint in this regard.

There is a need for flexibility in the payment of social welfare benefits. There are cases where a person entitled to a pension for one reason or another did not apply at the appropriate time. I understand that when this happens the payment is only backdated three months. I ask the Minister to consider taking the right to make a decision in individual cases rather than allowing an officer in his Department to decide that because the application was not made on time the payment can only be backdated three months. There is a need for flexibility. After all, one may take it when a person reaches retirement age they will act in an honest manner. They should not be penalised for not making an application on time.

As someone who has taken a keen interest in the settlement of the travelling community, I ask the Minister to review the requirment that travellers living in the Dublin region sign on in Castle Street. This matter is a source of concern and it was highlighted by travellers on a television programme last night. It is not right that travellers should be singled out and told that they have to sign on in a particular centre in Dublin. Irrespective of whether there are administrative difficulties with identification, travellers should be treated in the same way as every other citizen who has to sign on. The Minister should investigate this matter immediately and ensure that this practice — which borders on discrimination — is brought to an end forth-with. If it is convenient for members of the travelling community to sign on in Castle Street, that is fair enough, but they should be entitled to sign on at any centre.

In increasing social welfare payments in line with or above the rate of inflation and tackling the problem of moneylending the Minister has made a considerable contribution to the development of a caring Department of Social Welfare. He began the attack on the problem of illegal moneylending in 1989 and has increased the number of pilot projects each year since then. I understand that in Cork and other areas this horrific practice is on the decline. This is a tremendous achievement, particularly for those who had to hand over their social welfare books to illegal moneylenders, an ugly practice which is not in accordance with the law.

Mr. Deenihan

I wish to share my time with Deputy Boylan.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Deenihan

The Minister must be flattered by the compliment he is receiving from his back benches. This augurs well for the future.

Dr. Woods

I was also complimented by Deputies on the opposite side of the House.

Mr. Flood

The compliments were richly deserved.

Mr. Deenihan

I am not afraid to give credit where it is due.

Dr. Woods

Sportsmanship.

Mr. Deenihan

People who play sport tend to be magnanimous. The Minister has impressed many people. The Department of Social Welfare is now more accessible and user friendly and the Minister is to be complimented on this. However, there are some things about the Department of Social Welfare that I find objectionable, particularly the manner in which some of the officers of the Department pursue people. I do not blame the officers themselves; they are being instructed to pursue and harass people in receipt of benefits. A review of the means of about 3,600 old age pensioners is being carried out in a pilot scheme, beginning with 600 bachelors over 75 years of age on the western seaboard who mostly live in isolated places, who are vulnerable and who are just living out their last days and expect to be left in peace. If the Minister wants to make savings there are other areas where he could do so rather than targeting this section of the community. I am disappointed about that. The methods used are reminiscent of imperial times. The Minister should do away with this new form of surveillance the officials of his Department are being told to employ. It is no credit to the social welfare system.

I would have expected more, in this Year of the Family, than an increase in child benefit from £20 to £25 for the third child and an increase of just £2 for each subsequent child. The fact that we have the third lowest rate of child benefit in Europe puts this increase into perspective. This will not benefit the large number of families who depend on child benefit, sometimes to put bread on the table. In many cases child benefit is the housewife's only source of income, particularly if she does not work outside the home. This increase will just about keep pace with inflation and will not make the lot of Irish families any easier. In the light of the commitment given in the Programme for Government that there would be substantial increases in child benefit, I am disappointed. Like many other things, this commitment was also forgotten.

The reduction in PRSI payable by employers in respect of employees earning up to £173 a week is welcome, but it will not have the impact it was designed to have. I have received correspondence already from one factory in Killarney, Pretty Polly, which is finding it difficult to survive because of the decline in the hosiery trade throughout Europe and the cost factor of employing people in Killarney compared with their plant in England where the social cost of employing a worker is £20 less. The exemption in this Bill will not have much impact. Perhaps the Minister could review it and increase it by at least £200 next year. That may make an impact. The benefit to the tourism industry will be neutralised by taxation on unemployment benefit.

I welcome the provisions in the budget relating to the carer's allowance which will bring an extra 500 people into the scheme and bring the numbers nationwide to about 5,000. However, only a very small percentage of carers receive a carer's allowance. I accept that this is an attempt to bring more carers into the system. Nevertheless many carers are saving the State money by looking after people in their homes and keeping them out of old people's homes and geriatric units in hospitals. The carer's allowance raised people's hopes when it was first introduced but it has been a major let down because, although people expected to qualify rather easily, that did not happen.

The home help scheme is an integral part of the community care service. The money that is paid to these people, who are the unsung heroes of the community, is derisory. In one health board area it is £1 an hour. In the Southern Health Board area it is £1.40 an hour, and in the Eastern Health Board area it is about £3 an hour, which is not too bad. It is an insult to these people to offer them that amount of money. Often the home help is the only contact old people have with the outside world. The home help brings their food, their papers and their letters, and it is an insult to them that health boards will only offer them £1.40. The scheme will collapse if people are not treated properly. I hear no talk of these people. In all the national agreements they are ignored as if they did not matter, but they are most important people doing vital work in the community. They are the backbone of the community health programme and they are being ignored.

I thank the Minister for reversing his decision to means test widows' contributory pensions. It was a wise political move because that proposal incurred the wrath of many widows. Nine of the infamous dirty dozen cuts, on which the Labour Party won many seats in the last election are still in place. Very little progress has been made on reversing the dirty dozen cuts. The Labour Party is now in power and has fooled the people on that issue as well as on many others. When the dirty dozen cuts were introduced, members of the Labour Party singled out the then Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy McCreevey, for special attention in his constituency but that is all forgotten about. Deputy Stagg, who instigated the campaign against Deputy McCreevy, is sitting pretty alongside him as a Minister of State and has conveniently forgotten about the dirty dozen.

The proposed tax on unemployment benefit will be a hot potato and a land mine for this Government when its consequences sink home. Last Saturday night I met 20 women in Waterville who work part-time in the tourism industry, all of whom will be affected by this provision. They represent thousands of other women througout the country who are working on a seasonal basis in the tourism industry and, in many cases, whose husbands are earning lower incomes. Their benefits will now be taxed. This provision will have an adverse effect on up to 75,000 people who will incur an average loss in income of £400 per annum. The Government estimates that in a full year this measure will yield approximately £30 million. Figures from the Central Statistics Office show that about 75,000 people were receiving unemployment benefit in 1992 and 1993. This measure will result in a decrease of approximately £8 per week and will have major implications for those affected. Those people will not bother to work or will force employers to employ them in the black market. It will create a major problem for employers who are anxious to keep their affairs above board and for employees who will not be rewarded for their efforts.

The Minister will be inundated with representations on this matter, especially from those in the tourism industry. For example, Kerry Co-operative let go approximately 350 people from their Listowel factory during the winter and those people will be badly affected by this measure. It will also dismantle the benefits to PRSI workers, part of the systematic dismantling of our social insurance system. The taxation of unemployment benefit will cripple those on short-time work, in seasonal work and those working for half a week and receiving unemployment benefit for the remainder of the week. Employees in a factory in Listowel have been on short-time work for the past year and that factory would be closed if those employees were not able to draw unemployment benefit while out of work.

Will the Minister consider the provision under which those paying social insurance in the United Kingdom have to make one contribution here on taking up residence to qualify for unemployment benefit? That is an unfair provision and one to which Deputy Allen referred at length in his contribution. As members of the European Union we should all operate under the same social framework and this provision should not apply.

Dr. Woods

That is a European Union law and we raised the matter at EU level. I acknowledge the Deputy's point.

Mr. Deenihan

We should keep lobbying to get rid of the anomaly.

I acknowledge the Minister's good work in streamlining the system, but I appeal to him to advise his officials to be less harsh when dealing with old people in particular.

Mr. Boylan

I join with the general good wishes which Members expressed to the Minister. There has been a change in the attitude of personnel in his Department since he took up office. Nevertheless, the scrutiny to which people are subject when they apply for social welfare benefits is rather annoying; it is as if they are not trusted. That attitude should change. It is not their fault that they are dependent on the social welfare system. Of the 300,000 unemployed, 90 per cent would prefer to work and if they cannot find work it is not their fault. The proposed tax on unemployment benefit is outrageous.

Now that the Minister has addressed some of the problems, will he ask his officials how they come up with the astronomical incomes for small farmers? He should give a pilot farm with ten cows and some calves to one of those officials to see how much money he or she will earn in a year. If he or she receives an income similar to that which they have been coming up with for small farmers I will be the first to applaud them. Small farmers are on the poverty line and the incomes the officials have come up with are incorrect. There are many hidden costs in farming and I am sure the Minister knows that those figures are unwarranted. Small farmers are always just £2 or £3 above the income limit for any benefits the Minister introduces. Will the Minister consider the manner in which those farmers' incomes are assessed?

The carer's allowance is very welcome. Caring is a vocation and means that those involved are on call 24-hours each day. Carers and home helps should be generously compensated for their work. Many old and infirm people are extremely lonely, their only contact being with the person caring for them or the home help who comes to visit them. Carers and home helps are saving the State a great deal of money. If they were not carrying out such work those being cared for would have to be placed in institutions, which provide excellent facilities but are extremely costly.

The question of taking care of our itinerants has been bandied about for a long time. Everybody is concerned but nobody is doing anything. I am one of the few Deputies who can say that the county council of which I am a member has established a halting site for itinerants in our county town. That has been a successful development but the site is overcrowded because neighbouring counties have not provided similar facilities. The Minister should insist on each local authority providing a halting site within its own area so that everybody can take care of their people and not have them making a nuisance of themselves by moving around the country. Many barricades have been erected to prevent those unfortunate people locating in an area for a short time. There should be a proper halting site. I draw those two points to the attention of the Minister and his officials. If he addresses them I will be the first to congratulate him in 12 months' time.

Mr. Ferris

I would like to share my time with Deputy Callely. I remind Deputy Deenihan that he has not counted the changes in the items he referred to as the dirty dozen.

Mr. Deenihan

I have counted them very carefully.

Mr. Ferris

It is politically inopportune for the Opposition to mention any changes——

Mr. Deenihan

The Deputy's party is not very good at counting as evidenced by the National Development Plan.

Mr. Ferris

Deputy Deenihan should calculate his sums properly in respect of the dirty dozen——

Mr. Deenihan

In the past Deputy Ferris counted on jobs being created in Clonmel, but they never transpired.

Mr. Ferris

I listened to Deputy Deenihan put untruths on the record and I want to set the record straight. He said that the Labour Party had forgotten about its commitment to increases in child benefit. If he compares this Social Welfare Bill with that of last year he will see there has been a move towards looking after large families in receipt of low incomes. The Opposition calls for increased expenditure and then criticises it when it is made. The Bill addresses people in receipt of low pay, those depending on social welfare benefits, particularly large families, by providing increases in child benefit. We are proud of our work in this area and we have an ongoing commitment to cater for low income families by ensuring their income is higher than the cost of living increase they would normally expect to receive. Under the Bill the number of people who will receive the projected rise in the cost of living will increase by approximately one million people. That measure extends increased income in the form of family income supplement, increased invalidity pension and so on to many people.

Many people may not understand the changes in respect of invalidity pension. Under the social welfare code there are different contributions for invalidity and old age pensions. I know of people who opted to switch from invalidity pension to old age pension but were told they did not have sufficient contributions to qualify. The Bill proposes that invalidity pensioners who do not have the required maximum contributions automatically get the old age pension at the age of 66. That type of change is necessary for people who worked as long as possible and had made the relevant contributions but still did not have the maximum to qualify for a contributory old age pension. I am pleased about that measure because I received hundreds of representations in that regard during the years. The Minister is aware that I criticised him, advised him and worked with him as spokesperson on social welfare for my party. I agree with the points made by Deputy Boylan. Unfortunately, there is a perception in rural areas that people with three or four cows and a few sheep should not be entitled to assistance from the State and that they would be happier coping with their small farm. However, that involves means testing, one of the most odious forms of testing.

Officials in the Department believe they have an obligation to intensively investigate people who do not have sufficient contributions to qualify for benefit. The greatest number of complaints Deputies receive are about means testing. Recently, I had a complaint from a person who told me he was asked awful questions in front of another person about when he was last employed, if he had an opportunity to avail of work and other questions. It is essential when such investigations — which are separate from means testing which takes place in one's home — take place in a public area or in an office in which there is a lack of privacy that we should be sensitive about people's feelings. We should ensure that our officials adopt a user friendly policy on this matter as they act on our behalf. It is essential that they understand people's sensitivities. I do not condone people who are not entitled to social welfare benefit drawing it or attempting to draw it, but a balance must be struck. Many people find it difficult to make ends meet and if they do not receive assistance from the State who else can they turn to except moneylenders and others who make excessive demands on them? The Bill addresses real areas of need and the Minister and the Government must be complimented on it.

I am concerned about the concept of the abolition of pay related benefit. The abolition of the pay related element of the contribution is compensated by index linking benefit and this will be of benefit in cases where families suffer trauma through illness or loss of employment. The Minister has balanced the decision by increasing the rates to a level higher than the amount of pay related contributions that would be added to the normal social welfare benefits. There have been criticisms of the decision to tax unemployment benefit on the basis that is a benefit. All parties and the trade union movement have indicated that income from all sources should be considered for tax purposes, which may appear severe. I understand income will not be taxed at source. The facilities within the Department to join the tax and social welfare codes have not yet been perfected. Benefit will not be taxed at the source of payment. There will be an opportunity at the end of the year for a working spouse or a working spouse and an unemployed or sick spouse to put their incomes and their allowances together and receive whatever refunds are due. Social welfare incomes will be paid on the basis that they are tax free as is the case in regard to the income of a contributory old age or widowed pensioner. All contributory pensioners when finalising their tax affairs at the end of the tax year have an opportunity to disclose to Revenue officials other sources of income.

I welcome the proposal to treat wid-owers in the same way as widows. It is welcome that payment will not be subject to a cap of £12,000 or £16,000. The benefit arises from the concept of contributions and representations have been made in this regard from Government and Opposition parties and people dealing with the underprivileged. In the past the lone parent's allowance was subject to a cap. Lone parents are more anxious than most to get back into the workplace and I am glad that their allowance is now subjected to a less stringent means test. At present there is no incentive for lone parents to get back into the workforce but under the Bill the Minister is assisting them and ensuring they get back to work.

I am concerned that when improvements are made in the social welfare code, within months of an increase being made local authorities claw back the money under the different rent scheme and in some cases people end up worse off. We should work closely with local authorities to ensure that people who receive increases are not penalised.

Under the present system when the main breadwinner who was entitled to free electricity, free telephone rental and so on, dies, the spouse automatically loses those benefits if she has not reached the age of 66. Under the Bill the Minister is extending these benefits to widows who reach the age of 60. I know of women widowed at Christmas who will be excluded from these benefits because it is stipulated that only people widowed since budget day will benefit from the new measure. In these circumstances there will be two different categories of widows, some will receive benefits such as free telephone, free fuel, free electricity and so on while others whose husbands died before budget day will be treated differently. When improvements are made in schemes there is the possibility that anomalies will be created in other areas. I ask the Minister to consider this matter.

On the carer's allowance, I know of people who had been caring for their neighbours but because the person being cared for lost their benefits the carer opted not to care for them. If a woman's husband went to work for FÁS that woman was no longer eligible for the allowance. The Minister has addressed some of the anomalies in this area by abolishing means testing for carers whose spouses are working or employed by FÁS.

There are many good provisions in the Bill, but it is important that the Minister address the anomalies in the social welfare code. The Labour Party will continue to ensure that these anomalies are ironed out so that we have a user friendly service aimed at those most in need.

Mr. Callely

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Woods, on his caring and compassionate attitude to the social welfare service. He has outstanding knowledge of the social welfare system and he should keep up the good work.

Since Fianna Fáil came to office we have sought to protect and improve the position of those dependent on social welfare. I compliment the Minister on the progress made despite the financial constraints. It is estimated that expenditure on social welfare in 1994 will be in excess of £3.8 billion. This is possible by virtue of good management of our economy and control of our public finances. I wholeheartedly support the Fianna Fáil philosophy that the poor, disadvantaged and old have a special claim on the resources of the community and that they must be protected. We are committed to social progress, as demonstrated in the Social Welfare Bill.

Under the Bill all social welfare payments are being increased by at least 3 per cent. People on disability and unemployment benefit will receive an increase of 10 per cent while short-time unemployed and supplementary welfare recipients will receive an increase of 6 per cent. There is an increase of £10.20 per week in the personal rate of invalidity pensioners aged over 66 years. A sum of £27.5 million is provided for the survivor's pension which will benefit more than 9,000 widowed men and their families, a major improvement in social welfare legislation. The weekly income thresholds for family income supplement are being increased and there are improvements in the lone parent's allowance. A new earning disregard is being introduced for people in receipt of carer's allowance, home help income is exempted from means tests for certain social welfare recipients and adult dependant allowance is being extended for six months after death. These are just some of the improvements in the Bill.

I welcome the provisions to support labour intensive industries. These include a reduction in employers' PRSI from 12.2 per cent to 9 per cent for employees earning up to £173 per week, the two year exemption scheme, the exemption of health contributions and training levies and the withdrawal of liability on employers of medical card holders to pay levies.

I compliment the Minister on ensuring a more friendly approach by the staff of the Department of Social Welfare. The officials with whom I have had contact in the past in my constituency work have been most helpful and friendly and I have received positive reports in this regard from my constituents. I wish to highlight the benefit of the social welfare leaflets issued by the Department from time to time.

I ask the Minister to address a number of issues, one of which relates to people who made contributions prior to 1954 and who are unable to obtain benefit because those contributions are disregarded. The Minister should address the anomalies in this area. While I appreciate there is an EU regulation on the one stamp rule, this is an issue on which we should make strong representations to our EU colleagues. I hope progress will be made in this regard. Consideration should also be given to the question of equal treatment payments and arrears of certain payments, a matter which will come before the courts. I would appreciate the Minister addressing the inequities in this area.

My views on the carer's allowance are on record. The Departments of Social Welfare and Health should work together in this area in which there is great potential.

The social welfare bill of £3.8 billion is a huge burden on the State. I think all Members would agree that there is a black economy and abuse of the social welfare system. Special consideration has to be given to these issues.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá áthas orm go bhfuilim anseo arís imbliana chun labhairt ar an mBille Leasa Shóis-ialaigh seo. Tá súil agam go mbeimid go léir anseo an bhliain seo chugainn chun labhairt arís agus ár dtuairimí a léiriú.

Tá súil agam go mbeidh breis airgid ag an Aire an bhliain seo chugainn freisin mar ní bhíonn, agus ní bheidh choíche, go leor airgid aige mar tá a lán airgid ag teastáil do na daoine atá ag braith ar an Roinn.

What can one say in this debate that is new? I had intended being very positive in my remarks but Deputy Ferris reminded me of something. He claimed that the Labour Party had put the Minister on the right road, after which Deputy Callely claimed Fianna Fáil was keeping the entire system——

Mr. Ferris

There are two parties in Government. The trouble is Fine Gael is not in Government.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

And it will not be for a long time to come.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): This explains why the National Development Plan has gone astray. East is east and west is west and Labour and Fianna Fáil will never meet.

Mr. Callely

We will talk about the National Development Plan any time.

Mr. Ferris

All the Deputy is doing is criticising.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Browne without interruption, please.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am amazed that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, is being disorderly. This is shocking.

Mr. Kavanagh

We are bringing in the big guns again.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am glad the Minister does not have to be named and is leaving quietly.

In his speech the Minister said that a general 3 per cent increase is being given in all weekly social welfare and health board payments with effect from July. This will be of benefit to 822,000 people and their 627,000 dependents, approximately 1.5 million people. He said that the increase will more than maintain the real income position of those who depend on social welfare, given the current very low rate of inflation and the anticipated rate of 2.5 per cent for the year. Deputy Ferris said that this was a marvellous improvement. That is my last negative comment.

Mr. Ferris

Fine Gael is always complaining about over expenditure.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I would not have made any negative comments if Deputy Ferris had not antagonised me.

Mr. Ferris

The Deputy should check with Deputy Yates before he makes——

Dr. Woods

The inflation rate is 1.5 per cent but is projected to increases to 2.5 per cent.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): If one takes 2.5 per cent from 3 per cent one gets 0.5 per cent. One can imagine people who receive that increase having great spending money at the World Cup.

Reference has been made to the one week stamp. Only yesterday I rang an employment exchange in Holland in an effort to help an Irish citizen who, having worked for three months in Belgium, could not get unemployment benefit as he had not worked a week in Holland. This had not been explained to him.

Mr. Callely

Has the Deputy changed his constituency?

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I readily accept that this problem has been caused by an EU regulation, which I regard as very stupid. I know from his remarks that the Minister has tried to deal with this problem and I would encourage him to continue his efforts in this regard. It is unfair that a person who has worked and paid stamps in a European country should have to try to get one week's work so as to qualify for benefit. If he could get a week's work he could probably stay working and would not require unemployment benefit.

I refer to the criteria governing eligibilty for unemployment assistance as it relates to people living at home. It is stupid that people can be told their board and lodgings at home are worth, say, £30 to them, yet they will get a rent allowance and full unemployment assistance if they move out of home and get a flat. The costings of this system should be worked out by the Department and a figure set for board and lodgings. I have never understood how board and lodgings can be estimated at £39 in one case and at a different figure in another case. The Minister should ascertain the number of people living in flats who are receiving full unemployment assistance and a rent allowance. The State could make enormous savings if these people were allowed to stay at home and and a reasonable amount was deducted for board and lodgings. I have never understood how this system works.

I want to refer to the Department's investigation unit, two aspects of whose work I find strange. The people working in this unit examine the books in employment exchanges to see when people signed off. They then visit the employers and they spend a long time going through their books. If they find that one day does not correspond in both books the person involved will receive a letter telling him that on an unspecified day between 3 and 20 May he worked and claimed unemployment benefit. If the investigation unit knows the specific date it should give it. It is not worth this unit's while chasing honest people who go to the bother of signing off on the one or two days a week they are working. I think the problem arises when the employer enters a wrong date in his books which does not correspond with the date in the employment exchanges books. Even though the person involved may be very honest he will automatically be accused of working on a day he was signing on. I have examples of such cases. The deployment of staff on this work is both indefensible and costly and the staff could be better employed in other work.

I want to refer to the position of wives who can earn, I think, £60 per week and who are barely over the limit. I cannot understand why the hammer should be brought to bear on people who are £2 over the limit and why they should be treated as though they were chancing their arm. Mercy and judgement should come into play in such cases. Why would anyone risk losing an allowance of £35 for the sake of £2? I know a person who has been asked to pay a refund of £7,000 merely because his wife, who works a few hours in a rather difficult job, in her innocence was £2 or £3 over the limit each time? The system should not be so black and white. Obviously consideration has to be given to a person's intentions in such cases, but it is indefensible that a person who is £1 over the limit should have to suffer the entire consequences. No one would dream of breaking the rules in order to get an extra £1 or £2 per week.

I welcome the changes made in regard to old age pensioners living alone, that they will now be allowed to keep certain allowances such as free telephone rental. This represents a breath of fresh air in the Department of Social Welfare. I do not understand, however, why the Department give free fuel allowances of only £5 per week to old age pensioners who live alone. If a pensioner's relative spends a night in his or her home, the free fuel allowance will be taken off them. Houses have been examined by Department officials to see if there were any adjoining doors between apartments where old people live in separate accommodation. In one case, because there was a door between the two sections of the house, the old person was not deemed eligible for the free fuel allowance. Why is the Department acting in such a mean fashion by requiring old people to live alone in order to qualify for these allowances.

I hope that in the debate on the Social Welfare Bill next year the Minister will say to me that he listened to the points I raised. He has made some improvements, namely, the free telephone rental, but I hope that a person will not be required to live alone to qualify for the free fuel allowance. If these people are entitled to a free fuel allowance what difference does it make whether or not they are living alone? Is it not better that three or four people would get the benefit from this free fuel?

I welcome in particular the allowance made for widows, which shows an element of care. It would not do for us in Opposition to say that a measure was perfect but it is sad——

Mr. Kavanagh

That is not like the Deputy.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny):——that a widow who has all the allowances and who may be younger than 60 years of age will be worse off financially when her husband dies. She will experience all the additional pressures that her husband's death entails but without the benefit of the allowances that she had previously. I realise there is a cost factor involved in this but whether a widow is 32, 42 or 52 she suffers a great sense of loss in addition to the difficulties of rearing a family. I would encourage the Minister to reduce the age limit to below 60 because it affects so many people. I met a woman last week who told me she felt humiliated that the allowances to which she was entitled when her husband was alive disappeared when he died. His death was a great loss but she had the additional burden of being treated as a second class citizen on his death.

I welcome the extension of the free travel scheme. One of the issues I raised when I first came into this House was free travel for companions of those with a free travel pass. I raised this matter also with the health board. There is little point giving a pass to some people if they are unable to avail of it on their own. I welcome any extension of the free travel scheme.

The carer's allowance has been much debated in this House. I thank the Minister for increasing the qualification allowance by ignoring the first £100. That will bring more people into the scheme although the figures that have been given appear to indicate that not many people have been brought into the scheme. This scheme can save costs, particularly in regard to hospital beds and it is unfortunate that more people cannot be brought into the scheme.

The home help scheme has been referred to by most Members this afternoon. We cannot continue with a scheme that basically involves slave labour. Offering a person £1 or £2 an hour is nothing more than that. We should seriously consider how we treat these people who do not engage in this work for the money they might earn; they do it because they are kind. Who would work for £2 an hour if they were seriously trying to make money? We are cashing in on the generosity and kindness of people who care for the elderly in particular, many of whom would end up in hospital but for the visits of these home helps. Paying such a low salary is difficult to defend.

I am happy the Minister realises that is fearr rith maith ná droch-sheasamh, a good run is better than a bad stand, because he retreated quickly in regard to the widows. He was right to do this because it would have had unfortunate consequences.

Dr. Woods

I advanced.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister advanced and he got away quickly. Eamon Coghlan would have been only trotting after him when he discovered than an assessment would be done on the means of widows. The Minister took the right action and he should not be concerned about it. For the sake of widows I am glad he took such action because the principle involved has serious consequences for everybody.

I do not wish to adopt a major stand on behalf of the farming community who at the moment are receiving so much publicity one would imagine they were all millionaires. I am, however, aware of a case of a farmer with 15 acres whose income was assessed on those acres. I inquired from the Department of Social Welfare what it thought the bigger farmers were earning. It can be unrealistic to assess a farmer's means on a per acre basis. If one were to travel down the country and observe some of the fields that are presently flooded, and if one calculated a theoretical income based on expert opinion from Teagasc, An Foras Talúntais — and the Minister worked for some of those institutions so he should understand the theory——

Dr. Woods

I did, yes.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny):——a person with 150 acres could be a millionaire on the basis of the figures that could be produced under ideal conditions.

Dr. Woods

One would have to get a pilot farm for the social welfare officers.

Mr. Ferris

They will refuse to work. A set aside.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): They will starve to death and they should not be published to that extent. Our party leader, Deputy Bruton, obtained certain information from the London Irish Centre. If Irish people in London find themselves in difficulty as a result of new homelessness legislation that is to be introduced there, I hope the Minister will make contact with the UK Government in this regard. I realise people who emigrate to England can obtain a house or a flat almost on arrival but the London Irish Centre would not be concerned about this legislation if it did not pose certain difficulties for our emigrants.

Dr. Woods

We are fair to them also.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Our people cannot obtain housing too easily. If the Minister was living in Carlow and looking for a house at present he would experience great difficulty but I will not go into that.

I thank the Minister for the measures he has introduced but there is much more to be done. This is a difficult area because a great deal of resources are needed to provide for small increases but I would not like the Minister to think that I was completely happy with the Bill.

Mr. Ferris

He is happy but he cannot say it.

Mr. Allen

Deputy Ferris should not be too happy. Where is the Deputy's Minister?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I now call Deputy Liam Kavanagh. I must call the Minister at 6.30 p.m. so the Deputy has ten minutes available to him.

Mr. Kavanagh

I wish to join in the good wishes that have been afforded to the Minister and his Minister of State in bringing about considerable changes in this area in such a short period of time. Before the last general election it was well known that the Labour Party was critical of the Department of Social Welfare and the dirty dozen cuts that were implemented.

I am glad to say that these cuts have been almost entirely abolished through welcome action by the Minister and the Minister of State over the past year. Some of our colleagues on the Opposition benches would like to give the impression that these changes have not been made. However, they have been effected, thus honouring a commitment in the general election. I am very glad that such was the response of the Minister and his Department. Most reasonable, fair-minded people would agree that the Minister went as far as he could to reverse those unfair cuts.

I am Chairman of the Social Affairs Committee of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary body. We had a meeting recently of three Members of the British Parliament and five Members of this House with the Minister for Social Welfare. He readily agreed to talk about problems which had arisen vis-à-vis our emigrants living in Britain and those returning here who experienced difficulties in claiming benefits and as a result of fluctuations in our respective currencies. The financial crisis of the winter of 1992 led to severe cutbacks for people residing here deriving their benefits from the British Department of Health and Social Security. The Minister enlightened our committee on the steps taken to ensure that such fluctuations would not have a detrimental impact on low incomes, particularly those of pensioners.

I was amazed at the reaction of our British counterparts on that committee to the huge range of benefits provided by our Department of Social Welfare for beneficiaries. We are inclined to regard legislative moves in Britain as progressive and tend to adopt them in many areas. Many of the British Labour Members of Parliament at that meeting were almost stunned by the amount of material and information the Department of Social Welfare was able to provide, demonstrating the advances we have made over and above their welfare state which has been lauded worldwide.

The free social welfare schemes operated here are so far ahead of those applicable in Britain that the latter pale into insignificance. In Britain the free travel concession is applicable to a very narrow range of areas. If one lives in London one can avail of London Transport at given times but, if one lives in an area where there is private transport only available, one cannot use it. Certainly one could not travel free from London to, say, Glasgow to visit a relative or travel on business from one part of Britain to another. They found our system an interesting concept. I pointed out that one of the additional benefits of free travel in this country is the promotion of the tourism industry in that people of pensionable age can avail of attractive offers.

Our living alone allowance attracted very favourable comment by those British Members of Parliament, in addition to our free telephone rental allowance and free fuel allowance which are almost unheard of in Britain, although their citizens do reap some benefits in those areas. This led them to question our capability to afford such allowances. Nonetheless it demonstrated the social conscience successive Governments have shown regarding older citizens dependent on social welfare benefits.

The Minister was very forthcoming with regard to the report we will be bringing before the plenary session of the British-Irish Interparliamentary body at the end of April next. I hope he will accept an invitation to meet the whole body on that occasion because I can assure him his fame has spread well beyond these shores.

There are one or two areas in which we can look forward to continued improvements implemented by the Department. My colleague, Deputy Ferris, mentioned taking the benefits of social welfare into another area, that of the Department of the Environment. I refer to the operation of the differential rents scheme by local authorities. I do not know whether things in my county move at a faster pace but differential rents have already been revised by Wicklow County Council, whereas the social welfare benefits will accrue somewhat later. I dealt with two cases yesterday, one of single parent, whose differential rent had been increased by £4 per week and another case of an unemployed man, with a wife and five children, whose differential rent had been increased by £9 per week. It is time the Ministers for Social Welfare and the Environment got together and requested local authorities to demonstrate the types of changes they are effecting and the regulations they operate vis-à-vis the differential rents scheme. For example, it would be of great benefit if their escalation were confined, say, to something like 10 per cent of the value of the increase in social welfare benefit. With the enormous pressure for funds at local authority level one has the impression that service charges, commercial and industrial rates and rents from local authority houses are being increased without regard to ability to pay. Perhaps the Minister could meet his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, who I predict would be willing to examine the type of changes taking place at local level. People receive an increase in social welfare benefit but find it wiped out months before it accrues in their pension books.

I welcome the fact that people over 75 years of age and no longer living alone will retain their entitlement to telephone allowance. While it is not a costly benefit it means so much to people who must depend on relatives living with them on reaching that age. The taking away of such benefit was an anomaly which is being abolished.

I should like to compliment the Minister also on the various grants allocated to various bodies such as the Women's Refuge, the Organisation for Homeless Boys, the Irish Wheelchair Association and the ICTU Centres for the Unemployed. This money is of great benefit to those who give their time to these centres. Many of them are unemployed. I thank the Minister for meeting with the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body and I hope that his meeting with the Minister for the Environment, which I have suggested, will be held as a matter of urgency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to reply.

Mr. Allen

On a point of order, why has the Minister of State not addressed the House on some of the issues raised? She has continually misinformed——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. I have called the Minister.

Mr. Allen

She has not come into the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has 15 minutes.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I do not think the Minister of State——

Mr. Allen

She has run away; she is not here.

Dr. Woods

——would have any difficulty in replying.

Mr. Allen

She is not available.

Dr. Woods

I would like to reply——

Mr. Allen

Even in the Sunday Tribbune last Sunday——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to desist. The Minister without interruption.

Dr. Woods

In reply to Deputy Kavanagh, I will meet with the Minister for the Environment and pursue the matter. A number of Deputies raised the question of Irish emigrants in the UK in light of the recent statements by the British Secretary of State for Social Security that he proposes to introduce a residence test for people seeking certain social welfare payments. He proposes to introduce a habitual residence test which will be applied in determining entitlement to income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. We discussed this earlier in the House and pursued it in the meantime. I will travel to the UK tomorrow and have discussions with the British Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Lilley, regarding the proposal. I am concerned about the effect of such a change on Irish emigrants and on the rights of Irish people living in Britain.

In the course of the meeting I hope to clarify the proposed measures and their effects on Irish people. I will raise the compatibility of the proposals with established practice whereby Irish and British people are not treated as foreigners under the respective residence and work arrangements in each country and whether the proposals comply with EU law. Under the Irish social welfare arrangements, British and Irish citizens have access to social welfare payments on an equal basis. There were more than 4,000 non-Irish people most of whom are British, drawing unemployment payments at the beginning of this month. In addition 12,500 people in receipt of British pensions who live here also benefit under one or more free schemes such as free travel or telephone rental. It is important to maintain this good working relationship which is a long established feature of the Irish and British systems and which was referred to in the parliamentary group mentioned by Deputy Kavanagh.

A number of Deputies raised the question of employers having an incentive to create jobs. We are happy to see the package of £89 million in PRSI measures in the Bill. Two-thirds of all employers will benefit from this package. It is up to them to give a return in terms of retaining jobs and creating new ones. It is an investment by Government on behalf of taxpayers. If it were matched by one new job in each of the 80,000 companies which will benefit, the effect on the unemployment figures would be dramatic. Deputies welcomed the incentive. We should not underestimate its importance, the size of its impact or what it means as regards the social insurance fund. It is only because the fund is in such a strong position at present that we were able to do this. I am glad the Small Firms Association welcomed this package of measures today.

Deputy Allen asked me to make a statement on the equal treatment provisions and to clarify the matter. A number of Deputies, including Deputies De Rossa, Gilmore, Martin, Bradford and Quill, sought clarification. As I explained on several occasions, court proceedings were initiated seeking retrospective payments in a number of cases, some going back as far as 1985. In the absence of implementing measures settlements were made in such cases. Deputies will be aware of the provisions of retrospective legislation which, in general terms, entitled married women to the payments they would otherwise have received if the directive had been implemented on time. These provisions addressed the problems arising from the delay in implementing the directive in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. All the entitlements due under the retrospective legislation have now been paid.

Mr. Allen

How much?

Dr. Woods

The Deputy asked for a clear statement. Let me make that statement and let everybody listen to it.

Mr. Allen

The Minister should answer the real question.

Dr. Woods

I am putting it clearly on the record. The Deputy should control himself.

Mr. Allen

I am totally controlled. The Minister is digging a bigger hole for himself.

Dr. Woods

Since the introduction of the retrospective legislation legal proceedings have been initiated in 60 cases involving 5,000 plaintiffs. These proceedings are being defended by my Department and, ultimately, the matter will be determined by the courts. A number of cases will come for hearing in the High Court in the next few months. My Department will not make settlements in any of these cases. This means these proceedings will determine whether women affected by the delay have any legal entitlements over and above those provided for in the retrospective legislation. If the courts decide no such entitlement exists this will finalise the matter. If they decide they have an entitlement the necessary payments will be made to all those involved in accordance with the decision of the court. The court cases are pending and will be defended. That will settle the matter once and for all.

Mr. Allen

What about the settlements made? Why not disclose the information?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is in possession and must be allowed continue without interruption.

Mr. Allen

It is selective answering.

Dr. Woods

My Department does not require married women to take proceedings to secure their legal entitlements. The legal entitlements are provided for in the retrospective legislation and all payments have been made in full. The decisions of the European Court do not create any additional entitlements as these decisions were made in advance of implementing measures. The retrospective legislation brought into force in June 1992 put in place implementing measures which made good the default.

Deputy Quill asked me to address the question of transitional payments which were made to cushion families against the loss of increases for dependants suffered by men on the introduction of the new dependency arrangements in November 1986. If these payments had not been made, the weekly income of certain families dependent on social welfare would have been reduced. Married women did not suffer any loss of payment when equal treatment came into force, the complete opposite was the case. Married women received a higher personal rate of payment and qualified for increases for dependants. There is no justification for making transitional payments in these circumstances. What Deputy Quill and others are seeking also involves making double payments in certain circumstances. This means paying some couples two personal rates of payment, two adult dependant increases and double increases for children. As Deputies will be aware, this is a very complex issue. Many arguments can be made in defence of the claims for payments in addition to those provided for in the retrospective legislation. The point I want to emphasise here today is that all legal entitlements have been paid. The claims currently being proceeded with will be determined by the courts and if this gives rise to additional entitlements, all those involved will be paid in accordance with the decision of the court.

Mr. Allen

Will the Minister tell the House about the settlements made?

Dr. Woods

I have put it all on the record, the Deputy could not have a clearer statement.

Mr. Allen

That is rubbish.

Dr. Woods

A number of Deputies——

Mr. Allen

The Minister is keeping information from people who are entitled to it. He is side-stepping issues again but they will catch up with him.

Dr. Woods

This is a very clear, straightforward statement and anyone who reads it——

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Woods

A number of Deputies raised issues about what this Bill does for families. The increases in child benefit, including those of last year, as mentioned by Deputy Ferris, total £63 million. As a result, a family on long term unemployment assistance in the latter part of this year with three children will receive £153.45 per week; a family with five children will receive £192.35 per week and a family with seven children will receive £231.25 per week.

Mr. Finucane

It does not work, Minister.

Dr. Woods

One cannot have it both ways. The Deputy cannot say we are not looking after families.

Mr. Allen

Where is the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, today to answer the questions about the dirty dozen?

Mr. Ferris

Those questions were answered when the Deputy was not here.

Dr. Woods

If we exclude child benefit, the figures are £137.20 for a family with three children, £163.60 for a family with five children and £190 for a family with seven children. In effect, the family income supplement is required to maintain that balance. Several Deputies asked about the family income supplement which has increased substantially. It appears that the message is getting across and that the Revenue Commissioners are co-operating in regard to the tax free allowance.

Mr. Allen

On a point of order, where is the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare who lied through her teeth to the media about the "dirty dozen"?

Mr. D. Wallace

Do not interrupt the Minister.

Dr. Woods

I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Allen

Once a year the Minister of State answers to the House on the Social Welfare Bill and she has run away.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask Deputy Allen to respect the Chair. As it is now 6.45 p.m. I am required, in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day to put the question.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 83; Níl, 39.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bhamjee, Moosajee.
• Bhreathnach, Niamh.
• Bree, Declan.
• Brennan, Matt.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burton, Joan.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Costello, Joe.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Eithne.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Flood, Chris.
• Foley, Denis.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gallagher, Pat.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Hughes, Séamus.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Derek.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Penrose, William.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Níl

• Ahearn, Theresa.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connor, John.
• Crawford, Seymour.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Dukes, Alan M.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harney, Mary.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kenny, Enda.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGrath, Paul.
• McManus, Liz.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Sargent, Trevor.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Browne(Carlow-Kilkenny).

Question declared carried.