Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Mar 1995

Vol. 449 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare Payments.

The following motion was moved by Deputy Joe Walsh on Tuesday, 28 February 1995:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for its uncaring attitude towards social welfare recipients, especially the old, widows and the majority of the unemployed without children; notes with alarm that the general increase in social welfare this year at 2.5 per cent will not keep pace with inflation and is the lowest in 30 years; and calls on the Government to give a substantial increase in the amount already provided to bring it at least up to the levels normally provided.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann endorses the radical approach taken by the Government in the 1995 budget in:

— introducing wide ranging reforms in the tax and social welfare systems to stimulate employment and thereby make significant inroads into our unacceptable levels of unemployment;

— providing the largest ever shift to resources to the social welfare area, amounting to £212 million in a full year, for all those who need assistance from youth to old age, at work or in education;

— targeting poverty directly by providing for an unprecedented increase of £7 per month in child benefit, at a cost of over £100 million in a full year;

— allocating £60 million, as a first step, to pay the legally determined entitlements of married women to equality payment

and commends the Government, in particular, for bringing forward the general inflation-linked increase in the basic rates of social welfare payments by six weeks, from the end of July as in previous years to early June and mid-June".

—(Minister for Social Welfare.)

Mr. Ellis

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I wish to refer to the background to the budget and the opportunities which were available to the Minister for Social Welfare and his Cabinet colleagues to improve the lot of people in the poverty trap. The increase of 2.5 per cent is an insult to those dependent on social welfare. This is the lowest increase in social welfare for 30 years. When the Minister for Social Welfare was in Opposition he criticised Fianna Fáil for increases of 3 per cent, 4 per cent and 5 per cent in social welfare benefits. In 1989 he said that the failure to provide adequate increases in social welfare payments was particularly cruel, and this after a 3 per cent increase in social welfare and a special increase of 9 per cent for the long term unemployed.

How can a Minister who in Opposition pilloried the then Government now say that an increase of 2.5 per cent is sufficient? How can a Government which is dominated by people who regard themselves as socialists and the voice of the needy and depressed agree to this increase? It is obvious that the Minister for Social Welfare had no clout at the Cabinet table in regard to the increases. Recently an old age pensioner told me that the Minister for Social Welfare had given her and her husband a choice between two loaves of bread or an extra pint each week. It is obvious that the Minister has failed in Government to deliver on the promises he made when in Opposition.

Many groups are suffering enormous hardship, for example, widows whose increase is not even in line with inflation. The cost of running a house is the same for a widow as it is for two old age pensioners. In many cases the cost can be higher for a widow who does not have a husband who can maintain a garden which can be used to grow food. This increase will mean that many social welfare recipients have less real income to spend. Inflation is running at approximately 3 per cent and it is likely to increase if, as predicted, bank interest rates rise. This increase in social welfare will go down in history.

Mr. Gregory

I join with my colleagues in Fianna Fáil in condemning the Government for the uncaring attitude it has adopted towards social welfare recipients, especially the old, widowed and the majority of the unemployed.The budget has widened the gap between the rich and poor in our society. The priority of the Government should have been to achieve the opposite, to redistribute wealth and resources so as to eliminate poverty.

I wish to quote the following from the response to the budget of the very reputable Justice Commission of the Conference of Religious of Ireland:

The 1995 Budget provided the Government with Ireland's best opportunity in more than 30 years to tackle the poverty, unemployment and exclusion which affect a substantial proportion of the country's population.The Government missed this opportunity. Instead of addressing the substantial failures of the present framework in developing a new approach more appropriate for the 21st century it has persisted with the failed model of recent decades. Instead of giving priority to tackling poverty, unemployment and exclusion, it has once again produced a budget which benefits the better off more than it benefits the poor. Budget 1995 has failed poor people and unemployed people. A golden opportunity has been missed. The poor have waited too long.

Later it quotes some interesting statistics arising from the budget. For example, an unemployed couple will gain £2.40 a week from the budget changes while a married couple with no children earning £24,000 a year will gain £8.87 per week. It says that the gap between social welfare recipients and all others has been widened as a result of the budget and that this is a staggering consequence, particularly as the numbers on the live register will average 266,000 in 1995.

The Justice Commission goes on to point out that couples in the £25,000-£30,000 income bracket gained most dramatically from the budget while pensioners, widows, the disabled and the unemployed got insulting increases of £1.50 per week. Social welfare recipients and old age pensioners living in Dublin will lose that miserable increase as a result of local authority rent increases: what is given to them by one arm of State will be taken away by another. This is an absolute disgrace. It shows that the poor in our society have again been ignored, seemingly as part of a deliberate political tactic, by the Labour Party in particular, to target the middle class.

We have heard constant references to the middle income group. The Labour Party in particular is bent on using resources for their own political gain and to win the middle class vote. This is disgraceful for any party in Government to do. Many aspects of the budget, including the abolition of third level fees, prove that this is its strategy.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wish to share my time with my rainbow colleagues, Deputies Flaherty, Bell, Upton and Lynch.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory?Agreed.

Mr. J. Walsh

That is certainly a rainbow.

Mr. Durkan

It is certainly a colourful introduction.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is the litany of the living saints and as Deputy Gregory quoted from the Conference of Religious of Ireland, he should also be included in that litany.

Mr. Gregory

It is not a funny subject, it is the poor who are suffering.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): This must be an excellent budget because the way the poor have been treated and the 2.5 per cent increase in overall social welfare payments is a Fianna Fáil mantra.One would imagine that while in Government Fianna Fáil dished out increases of 10 per cent and 20 per cent to the less well off. The 2.5 per cent payments were brought forward six weeks to counteract the rate of inflation. Since I became interested in politics I do not know of a Government who, after introducing a budget, could justifiably shout “hooray” about what it gave to old age pensioners and others. The normal increases have been 3 per cent or 4 per cent. In 1987 Fianna Fáil gave a 3 per cent increase in overall social welfare payments when the rate of inflation was 3.2 per cent. In 1989, when the rate of inflation was 4 per cent, it gave an increase of 3 per cent. Yet we have to listen to a mantra about the way people were treated in this budget.

Fianna Fáil is ignoring the fact that by bringing forward the payments by six weeks we will counteract any increase in the rate of inflation. It also ignores the great effort made by the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, to increase child benefit by £7 per month. People on unemployment assistance and other smallholders care for a total of 233,000 children; lone parents care for 60,000, widows and widowers for 19,000, old age pensioners for 6,000 while those on family income supplement care for 32,000. That is approximately 340,000 children who will benefit from the £7 per month increase that is being belittled by members of the Opposition who select figures to suit them. A couple with four children and in receipt of long term unemployment assistance will receive £8.86 per week or 5.2 per cent of an increase.

Quoting the 2.5 per cent increase in overall social welfare benefit as an example of the Government's performance is merely selecting the lowest common denominator in the budget. The fact that Fianna Fáil and others are using that to attack the Government must mean this was a good budget. It will get the country moving by encouraging people to work and employers to take on additional employees. The more money that is made in that way, the more there will be for the unemployed, widows and those on disability benefit. In the long term a 3 per cent or a 4 per cent increase is only a fraction of what they should get.

Miss Flaherty

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and I thank my colleagues for sharing time with me. Like others, I would not expect anybody to jump for joy at the 2.5 per cent increase in overall social welfare payments, but it compensates for an increase in the rate of inflation which is more than can be said for the increases given in recent years. Examining statistics in this way proves Mark Twain's saying that "there are lies, damn lies and statistics". Statistics can be read in hundreds of ways.

In former budgets the then Minister, Deputy Woods, may have given an increase of 4 per cent to one group, but others may not have received anything. The overall increase does not tell the full story. In the context of this budget it was a question of choices and a choice was firmly made in favour of families with children. This decision was not snatched out of the air on the basis that on the day it seemed a good idea to the Minister, but because for the past five or six years reports published by the Combat Poverty Agency, the ESRI and others highlighted that the group most at risk now — the position changes from time to time — is families on social welfare with children. It has been pointed out repeatedly that families with children, whether in low income employment or unemployed, are more at risk to poverty than any other group. The Minister prioritised that group in the budget and allocated a substantial amount of money for that purpose. There are approximately one million children in Ireland and, therefore, an increase of £1 per child would involve £1 million overall. A total of £60 million was provided in the budget for families with children.

The Minister also honoured the commitment to make social welfare equality payments to women. A total of £50 million was set aside to cover the first phase of those payments this year and much more will be required in the next two budgets. When people take account of child benefit increases, the abolition of third level fees and the equality payments, at the end of this year they will realise that this Government targeted the family and honoured legal commitments to women, and as a result many families will be better off. Others may not fare as well, but only so much can be done in a budget.

People should consider carefully the points made by my colleague, Deputy Browne, and analyse the substance behind the claims from Fianna Fáil that it was more generous when in office. Its increases often did not meet the rate of inflation. When the full package of measures provided in this year's budget has its impact, the position of families, particularly those with children, will be improved.

Mr. Bell

I wish to concentrate on one element of the budget, namely, the £60 million provision for equality payments to women. Many women fail to understand why £37 million or £38 million could be paid, not only to women but to solicitors and barristers, during the term of office of the previous Government and we can provide only £60 million over four years. We are talking about a total of £360 million and if that were paid out over the next few months, total increases under the social welfare code would be much less. However, women have a genuine crib because it is difficult to justify how a group of women can be paid in full while others are paid on a phased basis.

Perhaps the Minister would consider a solution involving an arrangement with the financial institutions over the time during which this payment would be made whereby women could be given a letter of comfort from the Department of Social Welfare which would allow them to go to a financial institution and draw the money in full. As the Government will have to pay the interest anyway, why not give women that facility. That was done before under other headings. I understand the Attorney General is considering this matter and will advise the Government. The 28-day period is timed from 10 February and will terminate some time late next week. I hope the Government decides to pay these women their just entitlements. I advised in 1984 that this money would have to be paid. At that stage it was about £18 million. It was not paid then, and it is now £360 million. It will not go away but will have to be paid and the sooner the better. I am suggesting a way that will create the least conflict and give the women their just entitlements.

Dr. Upton

None of us is ever satisfied with the amount of money paid to social welfare recipients. There is great need, and it has always been an objective of ours to increase the level of support provided. It is wide of the mark to say this Government is uncaring in its attitude to social welfare recipients. We must remember that £4,121 million is being paid out in social welfare payments this year. That represents about £4,000 per annum for each taxpayer or about £800 a week. It represents 28.4 per cent or between one quarter and one-third of current expenditure. It is an enormous commitment by the Government.In addition, this year there is an increase of £215 million in social welfare payments, and that represents of the order of £200 for each taxpayer. A number of people have mentioned the very substantial increases in child benefit. Those increases were the result of research which indicated it was the best way to use the available money. I am unable to understand how Fianna Fáil can say this is an uncaring budget and an uncaring Government in the light of those figures.

There are a few items about the motion which are noteworthy. First, it seeks to exploit concern about social welfare payments but, at the same time, it is quite vague about what can be done about it. There is nothing beyond a vague aspirational statement that substantial increases should be made. What does that mean? How would Fianna Fáil fund those substantial increases? What is the extent of them, and why has it not been specific. It is well within its capacity to spell out the extent of the changes it feels are desirable and how they would be funded. However, that is where the difficulty arises. It is one thing to create the impression that people in receipt of social welfare payments are doing badly, but I am sure many of Fianna Fáil's taxpaying supporters would recoil from the prospect of paying more tax to fund them. That is why Fianna Fáil are so vague. However, if it wants to raise this kind of sentiment, it has an obligation to spell out how it would fulfil its objectives. It is noteworthy that not only the motion but the speeches made last night by Fianna Fáil speakers were vague about what should be done and the extent to which the present social welfare inadequacies should be addressed.

Mr. J. Walsh

The Deputy should have been here listening.

Dr. Upton

I was here last night.

Mr. J. Walsh

The Government was told specifically to bring the payments up to the level recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare in 1986.

Dr. Upton

Fianna Fáil did not say what it would cost or how it would be funded. I took the trouble this morning to read through Deputy Walsh's speech. It was tough going but I got through it eventually. Listening to it would have been easier than reading it. If Fianna Fáil wishes to be taken seriously on these matters it must be quite specific.

A further factor should be considered in the context of this motion and the position Fianna Fáil took on the budget. Speaker after speaker from Fianna Fáil said that the budget should have been balanced, in other words, that the £310 million deficit should not exist. If they want money for social welfare they must also explain how they would manage this deficit. That they have failed to do, and I have no doubt that they do not intend doing so.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The Deputy will find out very shortly when there is a 1.5 per cent increase in exchange rates and the Government is blamed.

Dr. Upton

This motion is nothing more than the sentimental humbug of which we have had just about enough in Irish politics. If politics is about ideas, then we have to have proposals which will stand up to analysis. This type of sentiment is useless.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Walsh must desist from interrupting. The Chair will not be ignored.

Mr. J. Walsh

I was provoked, a Cheann Comhairle.

Dr. Upton

Fianna Fáil used to be the party of reality. It should get real now. I have no doubt that next year's budget will go even further and make the type of opportunistic motion we have here tonight even less credible and tenable.

Kathleen Lynch

As I rise I hear Deputy O'Keeffe one of my colleagues from Munster on the Opposition benches.I am loath to tell him that I do not want to be interrupted because I know that whatever he might have to say will be enlighting, as it always is. Perhaps, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, being a person of much greater experience than me, you could explain why it is that whenever I rise to my feet I draw fire from Deputy O'Keeffe. I know it is a sign of affection on his part, but it looks bad to the public.

I have been listening with some interest to Fianna Fáil in the last week and a half on the subject of the budget. As someone with an enormous interest in the area of social welfare, I find it difficult to listen to what Fianna Fáil say. Whether it feels it must put on a rowdy performance because it is in Opposition or that it does not understand the concept of opposition, I do not know. I am not very good at remembering names, but I remember things that make sense to me and I remember that an American politician once said that when one starts explaining, one is in trouble. It would appear that Fianna Fáil have learned this concept extremely well. It is not explaining, but simply attacking. How can Fianna Fáil take this stand on social welfare.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Look at our record.

Kathleen Lynch

I intend to. The Deputy has read my mind, he is totally in tune with me. It must be because he is from the same province. Fianna Fáil is the party that introduced the dirty dozen.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Go back to the 1930s.

Kathleen Lynch

Fianna Fáil's record on social issues in the 1930s is not to be lauded either. Let us not go that far back. We have had enough dirt in the last two years without dredging up Fianna Fáil's ancestry. The dirty dozen was expanded to a grocer's dozen by the time Fianna Fáil left Government. For example, in 1993 Fianna Fáil taxed disability and injury benefit; it removed long stay beds from the elderly, which saved £200 a week and, at the same time, refused to plough this money back into the community where it had now put the elderly in order that they be cared for. Not alone that, it cut the spending on home helps. This is the Fianna Fáil that is now so outraged about the poor, the unemployed and the elderly. This was the party which reduced social welfare spending as a proportion of GNP from 14.7 per cent in 1986 to 13.8 per cent in 1992. Deputy McCreevy, when Minister for Social Welfare, cut maternity benefit by £26 per week.

It was also a Fianna Fáil Minister who cut pay-related benefit, disability, injury, dental and optical benefits and decided to means test part-time workers and deserted wives. Deputy O'Keeffe should remember it was Fianna Fáil which decided to means test part-time firemen in assessing whether they were entitled to receive a call out allowance, that students should no longer be entitled to receive the dole during the summer and to tax redundancy payments.Yet, it introduced an anmesty for tax cheats.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Name them.

Kathleen Lynch

This was the party which introduced the widower's pension only under threat of action from Europe. It also allowed the report of the Commission on Social Welfare to gather dust and stubbornly refused to pay married women their social welfare equality payments.

Deputy Woods is now Fianna Fáil's Front Bench spokesperson on equality and law reform. This is cruel in the extreme as he repeatedly told married women that they could not have their equality payments because no moneys were owed. He made his civil servants disseminate misinformation on behalf of the Government: "All moneys due to you have been paid".

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

When will the Government pay it? The Deputy should answer the question.

Kathleen Lynch

Now that this money is to be paid I do not hear a word from the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on equality and law reform.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

It has not been paid in full.

Kathleen Lynch

The Deputy's party would not even admit that this money was owed, let alone pay it.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The Government should use the HP system.

An Ceann Comhairle

If Deputy O'Keeffe finds it difficult to listen to the Deputy he has a remedy — there are many exits from the Chamber.

Kathleen Lynch

The last Fianna Fáil speaker mentioned that an elderly lady had said to him that the Minister for Social Welfare had given her a choice in the budget — two sliced pans or a pint for her husband. That is 1930s politics. I do not know of any woman in that age group who would make such a choice and I do not believe that this comment was ever made. We will probably see more of this from Fianna Fáil in the future.

Democratic Left had a substantial input to the budget. For the first time we launched a concerted attack not on the symptoms but on the causes of poverty.The consensus is that poverty is most acute in families. In early 1994 Democratic Left recognised the need for a ruthless assault on family poverty. The result was our document "Ending the Poverty Trap" in which we called for substantial increases in child benefit payments with the elimination of poverty and unemployment traps by the integration of all child income support measures into a combined child benefit payment. The 35 per cent increase in child benefit is a step towards establishing a basic child income payment and tackling family poverty.

Those who deal with social welfare recipients and people living in poverty because they are not in employment recognise that people who fall into this category are not concerned solely with how the social welfare cake is distributed; they demand that the unemployment problem be tackled so that they will no longer have to listen to jargon such as "Is it in line with inflation?" Those in their 40s and early 50s have come to accept that they will not find work but not that their children will not have an opportunity to work. They are prepared to look at the budget in its totality and recognise the efforts made to create employment and help young families with mortages and other bills to pay.

It sticks in my craw to have to listen to the craven hypocrisy from Fianna Fáil on widows and the unemployed when it failed to do anything about it during its seven years in power. As soon as I sit down I will probably be subjected to an attack but I do not care for the simple reason that I believe in what I am saying and they do not. They do not understand what it is like to be unemployed and dependent on someone else.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Browne.

I support this timely motion. This House has seen three generations of parliamentarians, thoughtful and caring men and women who were democratically elected. They stood — and stand — for helping the poor and deprived in our society and this is one of the chief aims of the party I represent, Fianna Fáil.

Never before has a member of Democratic Left been in the sensitive position of Minister for Social Welfare. It comes as a shock, therefore, to discover that the plámás expressed during the years is worth nothing. The proposed social welfare changes will not cover the increasing costs of surviving. The many people who are not entitled to child benefit are in a worse position. Democratically elected Members of this House should not punish the poor with grand words.

In his budget speech last year the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, said at column 1880 of the Official Report for 26 January 1994: "Clearly the Labour Party hopes that everyone has a short memory, as clearly that party has...". It is not only the Labour Party which forgets as Deputy Rabbitte also said at column 1877: "The basic increase in welfare at 3 per cent will barely enable social welfare recipients to keep their head above water". There will be a 2.5 per cent increase this year. Is this what social welfare recipients expected?

The Democratic Left clearly outlined its priorities and choices in the publication Ending the Poverty Trap. Where is the fundamental recasting it called for? In the debate on Financial Resolution No. 8 on 10 February 1994 the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, said, column 1464 of the Official Report: “Fianna Fáil and Labour seemed to have virtually written off those on social welfare, especially the unemployed and believe that they can be re-elected without their support”.

He stated also, column 1465: "In general, the social welfare increases in the budget were minimalist...".

What about this year? Deputy De Rossa went on to say:

The general level of increases in social welfare payments were quite inadequate. The policy of increasing payments in line with inflation can only be acceptable if the basic rates are adequate, but this is not the case ...The derisory level of the increases speak for themselves.

Those statements were made by the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, last year but it is worse this year. In that speech Deputy De Rossa went on to say: "These same miserable increases are applied to many of the lowest rates such as unemployment assistance or the carer's allowance".

Mr. E. Ryan

This is the best year ever.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I do not understand how a Minister for Social Welfare can treat the unemployed and old age pensioners, who will probably be on two rather than three meals a day, in this way. In the budget debate of 10 February 1994 Deputy De Rosa stated that the budget showed no progressive reform strategy in regard to social welfare.He stated also:

In a year in which the Minister for Finance went into the budget against the most favourable fiscal background for two decades, those on social welfare had a right to expect measures to substantially improve their position. But, once again, the majority of those on welfare have been passed over, forgotten or penalised.

Having little interest in the unemployed or others on social welfare, the Government clearly hoped that the major selling point of this budget would be the changes in taxation.

That is what Deputy De Rossa said about us last year but, regrettably, the Minister is eating those words now. The one third of people on social weflare are feeling the pinch and the Minister has let them down. Since its foundation, Fianna Fáil has been a caring party and the party identified with social welfare. We always helped people put bread on the table and we gave support to those who needed it. The Minister has failed miserably in this budget.

What is less shocking is that this disregard for the disabled and the elderly is aided an abetted by an able and intelligent Labour Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn. The new Cumann na nGael, represented in Social Welfare by Minister Durkan who is from County Kildare and who spoke here so eloquently on many occasions on the need for fairness, and in Finance by Minister Higgins, has no problem in reducing pensions in either real or absolute terms. They do not care.

This budget is not radical as claimed in the Government amendment to this motion. Will the shift in resources, represented by reducation such as the bank levy of £36 million and corporation tax of £43 million, assist those without work? How can the Government claim credit for paying legally determined entitlements to married women? Recognising this does nothing for the poor, the elderly, the disabled and those out of work. Is the Minister for Social Walfare aware that the deprived in our society know the difference between a general inflation linked increase and an increase equal to the rate of inflation for 1995-96?

Old age pensioners will have two meals a day instead of three because of the miserable increase given to them in the budget. There is a threat of inflation rising beyond 3 per cent in addition to a rise in interest rates because of the Government's failure to deal with the economy. It is forgetting those who are deprived in our society.

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy cannot have it both ways.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The social welfare proposals in the budget are miserly. The amendment to the motion in the name of the Minister is cynical and is to be condemned. I am proud to support Deputy Walsh's timely motion. I am shocked and surprised at the actions of a party who claimed to care so much for those on social welfare. My party always looked after the deprived in our society and our opportunity to do that will come around shortly.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I support the motion in the name of Deputy Walsh. This Government stands condemned for its failure to adequately increase social welfare payments for the most vulnerable members of our society — old age pensioners, widows, widowers and the unemployed.

I have been a Member of this House for 12 years and this is the most uncaring attitude ever adopted by any Government during that period. Perhaps I was a little naïve but with Democratic Left in Government I expected substantial increases in social welfare payments. In 1994 Deputy De Rossa said that the miserable level of most of the increases told their own story. In 1989 he stated that the failure to provide adequate increases in social welfare payments was particularly cruel. He made that statement despite the fact that there had been a 3 per cent increase in addition to a special 9 per cent increase for the long term unemployed. Fine Gael made promises in this regard over a number of years. My constituency colleague in Wexford, Minister Yates, promised 4, 5 and 6 per cent increases in social welfare if they got back into Government but they never materialised.

Deputy Lynch referred earlier to the caring attitude of Democratic Left and what it had achieved during its short term in Government. I spent a great deal of time in Cork during the by-election campaign and promises were made then by Democratic Left in regard to what it intended to do for the less well off sections of the community in Cork. The Government jet, State cars, foreign travel, advisers and programme managers were to be a thing of the past if Democratic Left won the seat in Cork North Central. It won the seat and got into Government soon afterwards but the promises made during the by-election campaign were soon forgotten. The mercs and perks, the programme managers, advisers and drivers were all retained. Minister of State Rabbitte had to be given a ministerial car, programme managers and all the support that he felt was necessary. Deputy Lynch has a lot of explaining to do to the people of Cork, particularly with regard to the miserly 2.5 per cent increase in social welfare payments.

The 2.5 per cent in social welfare payments is the lowest in 30 years. Since 1987, Fianna Fáil led Governments have never given increases that were less than 3 per cent and often gave an increase substantially higher than that. There was a 3 per cent increase in 1987, which was regarded as one of the toughest years in the history of our finances. There was a 3 per cent increase in 1988 and 1989, a 5 per cent increase in 1990, 4 per cent in 1991 and 1992, 3.5 per cent in 1993 and 3 per cent in 1994. The only party with a caring attitude to the less well-off sections of our society — and history proves it — is the Fianna Fáil Party.

A 2.5 per cent increase in social welfare payments is an insult to people who deserve to be looked after in a more caring way by the Government. It is not even in line with inflation because all the commentators are now saying that the indications are that inflation will be in the region of 2.9 or 3 per cent this year. Perhaps it is not yet too late for the Government to take action. The Social Welfare Bill and the Finance Bill have yet to come into this House and perhaps the Government would consider increasing the social welfare payments to at least 3 per cent or even higher. To offer an old age pensioner an increase of £1.80 per week this year compared to £2.10 last year is an insult to the intelligence of our old age pensioners.It certainly does not indicate a caring attitude on the part of this Government. How can we expect old age pensioners, the unemployed, widows and widowers to live on less of an increase this year than was given to them last year? That is an insult to those people. I welcome the increase of £7 in child benefit but 240,000 pensioners will not benefit from that.

Mr. Durkan

A brilliant deduction.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): This shows this Government's failure to think clearly about the needs of the less well off.

During the lead-up to the budget the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, were saying that the finances were never in as good a state, which was due to the excellent work of the previous Fianna Fáil and Labour Government.

Mr. Durkan

Naturally.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): As the finances were sound the Government should have been in a position to do something worth-while for the weaker sections of the community. Deputies Durkan, De Rossa, Rabbitte and others who in Opposition consistently harassed the then Government for not doing enough for the poor obviously had a lapse of memory on transfer to the other side and were more concerned about the banks, big business and the well off sections of society at the expense of the poor. The bank levy has been written off and corporation tax has been reduced to 38 per cent. I am amused by the Government's concern for the banks. AIB, which announced its results last week, made £341 million profit, the highest ever in the history of the bank. This Government has taken measures to benefit the bank, while at the same time offering the poor a 2.5 per cent increase, a gross insult and one that we in Fianna Fáil would never countenance. If Members opposite are as concerned about the less well off as they were in the past they should support this motion and vote with Fianna Fáil. They should show with their feet that they are concerned about the weaker sections of society.

In the Fine Gael document, Fine Gael Priority for Government 1992-97——

Mr. Durkan

A good read.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford):——there are good ideas, if the Government had the courage to implement them. Under the heading “Caring for the Vulnerable in our Society,” it states that many Irish people feel excluded from the mainstream of life. The elderly, people with disabilities and those who care for them, victims of crime, those on waiting lists for public health care and those who must wait in line for social welfare payments all feel in different ways that they do not count. The Fine Gael Party was reflecting on Fianna Fáil in Government when this document was prepared.

Mr. Durkan

And rightly so.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): To offer those on social welfare a 2.5 increase does not say much. Obviously this document was not read when the Government was preparing the budget and the Minister of State shied away from acting on his party's recommendations during his input to the budget. It is hypocrisy of the highest order for the Fine Gael Party and the Democratic Left Party to try to justify the 2.5 per cent increase as adequate for those on social welfare. Time and again in the past three years we heard the then Opposition's hollow talk that 3 per cent or 4 per cent was not enough, but it failed at the first opportunity it had to do something about it. Last night Deputy Walsh asked that social welfare payments should at least be brought up to the level recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare to ensure that all people on social welfare would have a decent standard of living. It is unlikely that the Government has been listening to us during the past few days and I do not expect it to take fire brigade action.

We will continue to reflect the views of ordinary people for as long as the Government lasts and we can assure the people who are listening that when Fianna Fáil gets back into Government it will give substantial increases to the less well off and will ensure they have a decent standard of living. The Government's attitude does not reflect the speeches made by Fine Gael and Democratic Left in the past. When the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, got the State car, the mobile telephones, the programme managers and other perks they soon forgot about the people they purported to represent in the past, the less well off and the socially deprived.

The Minister of State, Deputy Durkan, has a very important role to play in the Department. If Democratic Left has no interest in looking after the less well off, he could be the champion of that sector and could ensure that old age pensioners, widows and widowers and the unemployed get a decent increase in next year's budget. Obviously Democratic Left has forgotten whom it represents.The Minister of State is a good constituency man and is very much aware of the hardship that the small increase in social welfare will cause to the people he represents. I ask Deputy Durkan to take up the cudgels on their behalf and not leave it to Democratic Left. Otherwise he will be dragged down with them.

Mr. Clohessy

I wish Deputy Durkan well during his period of office. As Deputy Browne has just said, perhaps in 12 months' time he will be the pioneer for social welfare recipients.

My party supports Deputy Joe Walsh's motion. The Progressive Democrats Party believes that social welfare recipients should be given the best protection that society can afford. Social welfare is a major factor in social cohesion and social solidarity ensuring that we all stand together and help one another. Given the approach of the Minister for Social Welfare's party and the constant criticism that he and his Democratic Left Party colleagues levelled at previous Governments, it is simply unbelievable that he could only provide a 2.5 per cent increase for social welfare recipients in this year's budget. Of course, that is a reflection on all three parties in Government but it is an amazing performance by the Minister for Social Welfare, given that he is Leader of the Democratic Left Party. I can just imagine the criticism that he and his party would have levelled at a Progressive Democrats Minister who was the author of this year's budget. We would be denounced as heartless and uncaring. There would be no end to the denunciation by the Democratic Left Party and of course from other socialist colleagues in the Labour Party.

After 30 years it is shameful that this Government has hit a new low in the rate of increase for the poorest members of society. This Government and Minister will be remembered forever as the 2.5 per cent Government and 2.5 per cent Minister. When the Progressive Democrats were in Government social welfare recipients received a 5 per cent increase in the 1990 budget, 4 per cent in the 1991 budget and 4 per cent in the 1992 budget. Our social welfare system is a major achievement of a modern society in that social welfare provision is strongly supported by public opinion generally. A recent European survey highlighted the almost unanimous support for a high level of social protection.

The Government comprising Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left gave a miserly increase to the weakest and most disadvantaged members of society. These parties marched the highways and byways during election campaigns and promised the sick, the handicapped and unemployed a new deal if and when they were in Government. They have had a chance to deliver and what did social welfare recipients receive? An old age pensioner under 80 years of age will get approximately 30p a day, the price of a razor blade. There are smaller increases for those on disability and unemployment benefit. The social welfare provisions in the budget will not do anything to help single parent families. The improvement in child benefit is given to all families equally, irrespective of their circumstances. It goes to the richest and poorest families alike. Where is the targeting and focusing of welfare in this policy and concern for the most disadvantaged members of society? The claim by the Government that the 2.5 per cent increase will cover the increase in the cost of living this year is unlikely to be realised. The ESRI has forecast inflation will be 2.8 per cent this year and various economists and economic commentators are generally agreed that it will be nearer 3 per cent than 2.5 per cent. In other words, this year's social welfare increase will not match inflation and that is a shame.

In the budget introduced on 8 February the Minister for Finance claimed the economy was among the best performers in Europe last year and predicted that gross national product would rise by over 5.5 per cent this year. In that context, it was reasonable to expect that the Government might afford a slight improvement in the position of people on social welfare not to mention keeping pace with inflation. As I pointed out, the increase this year will not keep pace with inflation. Not only is there no improvement, the position of particular groups could be significantly worse. Will the Minister confirm whether thousands of deserted wives who currently receive deserted wife's benefit will have their payments reduced under the proposed review and the pretence that the lone parent's allowance scheme is to be improved?

Today 1.3 million people are totally dependent on social welfare payments and many experience poverty and social exclusion on an ongoing basis. Social exclusion is not just having insufficient income. It can also be seen in areas like housing, education, health and in access to various services as legal aid. Social exclusion can lead to serious addictions such as alcoholism and drug abuse. The challenge for society and our social policy generally is to assist individuals to take care of themselves and develop their skills to perform a useful role in society.

The Progressive Democrats believe we must come up with new ways to combine welfare and work and tackle these problems. One of the welcome features of current welfare policy is the growing acceptance that the treatment of the unemployed has been inadequate and unacceptable. The long standing system of paying people dole on condition that they do not work and effectively condemning them to idleness is nothing more than a system of human setaside. Given the scale of unemployment and the fact that over 300,000 people are not engaged in full-time employment, we must find a new way to meet the legitimate needs of the unemployed, particularly the long term unemployed.For that reason the Progressive Democrats published proposals for a national community employment programme a year ago. This was to ensure that unemployed people are provided with two or three days work each week through a system of State support. That work could be in the public, community or voluntary sectors and is not too different from the social employment schemes which operated in the past.

We must go further than providing short term or part-time work. It is important that such schemes include a real element of training and certification.Ideally they should also contain an educational element. We must get away from the stop gap approach which characterised the former social welfare employment schemes and merely took somebody off the live register for six to nine months and then left them to their own devices.

If a community employment programme ensured that participants were trained, acquired real skills and were given a certificate at the end of the programme that would greatly improve their sense of worth and value and make them more employable. I welcome the proposal in the budget to provide funding for up to 38,500 places on a community employment programme launched by the previous Government in March last year.

The reality is that while there is a crisis level of unemployment we also have an enormous amount of work to be done in society. In the community and environmental fields there is no end to the work to be done such as cleaning up the countryside, towns and villages. Such valuable work would not only improve the environment but would make us more successful in attracting tourists. The assistance which the unemployed could give in the voluntary area would be a great help, for example, as home helps, providing assistance in schools and hospitals, sporting and other organisations. There are other areas where the skills and talents of the unemployed could be used for the benefit of the community. The Progressive Democrats believe that anyone who is not in full-time employment must be given an opportunity to participate in the national community employment programme where their skills will be appreciated and they can receive further training and a certificate to show that they have completed the programme and acquired particular skills.

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Mr. Durkan)

I listened to the debate last night and tonight. I was encouraged to see Fianna Fáil embark on a voyage of discovery because it was the only positive thing it had to say. The debate has centred around everything that is negative. The consensus in the Opposition seems to be that the size of the increase was insufficient.At least it was an increase and not a decrease. Compare that to what we were told a few years ago when disability benefit was cut and the pay related element removed.

A widower who never missed a day's work came to my clinic with a hurt expression on his face. He explained he had never been idle in his life. Unfortunately, he had recently been widowed and discovered he had to have an operation.The Government had removed the pay related section from his benefit. It was the first time I realised that the Government of the day was totally impervious to the needs of people in that position. He asked what he had done to deserve this. He had done everything that could have been expected of him and had worked all his life. The best the Government did when he was most vulnerable was cut what he regarded as his entitlements.

For the past two evenings the Opposition spent its time ranting and raving about the insufficiency of the most recent increases in the social welfare budget. It was reassuring to witness Fianna Fáil on its voyage of discovery claiming to have rediscovered the poor. It ran into the highways and byways, talked to various people, no doubt to its friends and supporters, and came up with the most negative comments possible on various aspects of this most recent budget. While acknowledging it is important that there be an efficient Opposition, if it is totally negative, fails to recognise important, constructive, positive budgetary proposals, it is not doing itself justice.

I would expect the Opposition spokesman on social welfare, when he contributes to withdraw the motion, apologise for having led us into fairyland, on this voyage of discovery with the suggestion that, had Fianna Fáil had its hands on the helm, things would have been different. Of course, they would have been different; there would not have been an increase of 2.5 per cent. Given its past record there is no doubt that, in order to meet arrears of equality payments, it would have cut payments to others, something it has not told us. I hope it will not assume office again for many years by which time it will have had time to reconnoitre. In the course of its voyage of discovery, if it manages to avoid the icebergs and rocks, perhaps the electorate will allow it back into power, temporarily, of course; otherwise there are sad days ahead for it.

I have listened for some time now to the half-hearted, puerile attempts by Opposition members to deride the proposed social welfare improvements. It is obvious the message has not yet got through to them that the resources provided this year for improvements in social welfare payments are the largest ever on an annual basis since the foundation of the State. The full annual cost of those improvements is £212 million compared to the £157 million provided last year. Despite the fact that the Opposition engage in peculiar practices, if it compares the £212 million with the £157 million, even it will recognise that the increase is more than one-third greater.

The reality is that Fianna Fáil is still on a learning curve leading eventually to graduation as an effective Opposition, which we hope will be sooner rather than later because, if not it will have misled very many people. We must remember that people are willing to listen and seek leadership from politicians but, if Fianna Fáil mislead them to this extent, I shall begin to worry about them.

This is a good budget, containing very positive, constructive proposals calculated to help the most vulnerable in our society. I make no apology for saying that families will be its main beneficiaries.Whether at work or dependent on social welfare they will be better off through a substantial increase in child benefit of £7 per child per month. In addition, child benefit will be paid for all 18 years old in full-time education and child dependant allowances for children aged up to 22 in similar circumstances.

The sick and disabled — this should bring something back to the minds of those in Opposition also — will receive an increase in their weekly payments to keep pace with the predicted rate of inflation this year and will be paid that increase six weeks earlier than usual. Unemployed people will receive the same increase and at the earlier date. In addition, they will benefit from the intensive placement and guidance service being introduced on a pilot basis for the long term unemployed, as well as extra places being made available this year in community employment accompanied by further improvements in the back to work allowance scheme. It must be remembered that unemployed people also have children — although one would not have thought so having listened to the Opposition the past couple of evenings — of whom there are 233,000 who will benefit substantially from improvements in child benefit.

Workers will benefit through improvements in personal taxation and reliefs introduced into the PRSI system and employers will gain from changes in business taxation and further improvements in employers PRSI contributions. In addition, pensioners will have their weekly payments increased in line with the predicted rate of inflation this year and will receive those increases six weeks earlier, something they have been seeking for a long time. Carers, who contribute so much to the disabled and incapacitated will benefit from an extension of the carer's allowance, a further improvement in the means test and a free travel companion pass for the pensioner for whom they are caring.

Bringing forward social welfare payments to June from August will increase the cost to the Exchequer, and the benefit to those concerned, in excess of 3 per cent, which was what the Fianna Fáil Leader suggested would be the right type of increase to be taken on board this year. That being the case, what was the purpose of their tabling this motion in the first instance?

Dr. O'Hanlon

I support this motion in the names of Deputies Joe Walsh and Mary Wallace and thank Deputy Walsh for allowing me share some of his time. As Deputy Walsh pointed out last evening, we seek increases in social welfare benefits in line with the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare some years ago. Having listened to Deputy Proinsias De Rossa, now Minister for Social Welfare, complain every time my party increased social welfare benefits in excess of the prevailing rate of inflation, it is of some considerable disappointment not only to people on this side to the House but to all those dependent on social welfare to discover that this will be the lowest rate of increase in 30 years.

Mr. Durkan

That is not true.

Dr. O'Hanlon

There remain memories in my constituency of Deputy Ernest Blythe who, as Minister for Finance, took a shilling from old age pensioners. The parties opposite will be fortunate if they do not go down in history as having proposed the worst budgetary measures for social welfare recipients or the second worst, in 30 years.

Proinsias De Rossa

Fianna Fáil paid less than the prevailing rate of inflation in 1989.

Dr. O'Hanlon

The Minister last evening said he was particularly pleased with the social welfare provisions — this from the Minister who, in Opposition, told us how paltry were the very significant increases implemented by Fianna Fáil. I should like him to visit my constituency and explain to old age pensioners, widows, deserted wives and those in receipt of long term unemployment assistance how he can justify such a paltry increase in the current year.

Indeed the Minister last year said:

On the one hand Deputy Walsh is criticising the Government for not spending enough while, on the other hand, Deputy McCreevy has been telling Fianna Fáil's corporate backers that the Government have spent too much and has been reckless with the national finances.

I tell everybody the Government is reckless with the country's finances, providing for a deficit of £310 million in the current year when it was handed the national finances with a surplus of £15 million. I have no problem telling anybody, corporate backers or others, about those facts. Indeed there is no conflict between that and what Deputy Joe Walsh requested here last evening, that the social welfare allowances be increased.

If one examines what the Minister and his colleagues in Government did in this budget, one discovers not alone will they spend in excess of £11 billion in the current year on day-to-day spending in addition to budgeting for a deficit of £310 million, but will reduce corporation tax from 40 per cent to 38 per cent. That expenditure has not been targeted where Fianna Fáil have always contended it should be at employment creation. That leads one to ask who will benefit. Of course, the banks will benefit.It will be clearly realised that, when it came to a choice between banks and old age pensioners, the banks won at the behest of the Minister for Social Welfare of the Democratic Left Party.

At a time when our economy is growing by 6 per cent, we should look after those needy in our society, since society always is judged by the manner in whch it cares for the less well off. I would have expected at least that people dependent on social welfare would have benefited from the increased moneys available to the Government resulting from a sound economy having been handed over by a previous Government in which Fianna Fáil were the major partners.

Last night the Minister talked about a fundamentally new approach. I would not like to tell the old age pensioners in my constituency that this idea was part of a fundamentally new approach. The Minister also made the point that the separation of the 2.5 per cent increase from other improvements gives an unbalanced and distorted picture.

Proinsias De Rossa

Somebody benefits.

Dr. O'Hanlon

He then gave three or four examples of the categories of people who will benefit. We all welcome the increase in child benefit.

Proinsias De Rossa

One million children will benefit from it.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I welcome that but the Minister, by giving four or five examples of people with large families who will benefit from this budget is singling out one part of the budget — the very thing he accuses us of doing.

Proinsias De Rossa

That is not true.

Dr. O'Hanlon

Why does the Minister not defend the part of the budget that applies to the vast majority of recipients, old age pensioners, widows and the long term unemployed? He also stated that if Fianna Fáil ever gets back into power, he was certain they would push payment back to the end of July because that is what it did in every budget; it was nearly the end of the summer before people got social welfare increases and he had brought forward the payment date.

The Minister of State, Deputy Durkan, talked about the lack of constructive speeches in the Dáil during the past two nights. One of the most constructive things the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, did was to attack the former Fianna Fáil-Labour Government — he attacked his partners in Government.He said he had brought forward the payment by six weeks. I welcome that but who made it November in the first instance. A Fine Gael-Labour Government.

Mr. Durkan

Why did the Deputy's party not change that?

Dr. O'Hanlon

It put the payment date back in the early 1980s and the former Minister for Social Welfare, Dr. Woods, brought the payment date forward by almost six months to July.

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy had an opportunity to change that and he did not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy, without interruption.

Dr. O'Hanlon

Now the Minister is making a big deal about bringing forward the payment date by six weeks and he has criticised Fianna Fáil on that matter.

The Minister made a major attack on Fine Gael and Labour, one with which I agree, on the social welfare equality payments. Last night the Minister said that Members of the House already know his views on the issue of the married women's social welfare equality payments. That issue stems from 1984 when the Equal Treatment Directive should have been implemented by the then Fine Gael-Labour Government. The Minister has made another attack and if I were Minister, I would attack him for insisting that old age pensioners will only get a 2.5 per cent increase in social welfare benefit.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Deputy did not attack Dr. Woods.

Mr. Durkan

No, he did not. Why did he not change that and make the payments?

Dr. O'Hanlon

I want to refer to the carer's allowance. While I welcome the improvements the Minister should target resources at those who care for people who are totally incapacitated. There is a good case to be made for the small number of people, mainly women, who care for incapacitated people; those carers have to stay in the house and feed elderly people three times a day. Their number is not large and I ask the Minister to consider in the Social Welfare Bill how he might improve the lot of those people who are a few pounds outside the qualifying threshold for the allowance even with the new increases.

When Deputy Woods was Minister for Social Welfare he was responsible for major improvements in every area of social welfare. When I heard the Minister of State read the list of various improvements — minor in many instances — introduced in the budget, I recognised many of them as those initiated by Deputy Woods. Last night it was disappointing that neither the Minister nor any Deputy from his side of the House paid tribute to Deputy Woods for his work during his time in office. I thank Deputy Walsh for sharing his time with me.

Proinsias De Rossa

When the Deputy decides to pay tribute to us, we will pay tribute to him.

Mr. J. Walsh

I reiterate what I said last night and condemn the Government for its uncaring attitude to social welfare recipients throughout the country, particularly the old, widows and the majority of the unemployed. I said it was alarming that there should be a sharp decline in store for social welfare recipients in this year of all years when we have plenty and that some small comfort would not be given to the least well off in our society. Can Members be satisfied with a Government which increases an old age pensioner's payment from £61 to £62.50 per week? It is scandalous.

Kathleen Lynch

An old age pensioner does not receive £61 per week.

Mr. J. Walsh

We were told by Government party speakers that this was a Government of choices, and so it was, but when it came to a choice between the banks, the middle classes and the poor, the poor were, regrettably, forgotten, which is tragic. There is no use in pretending that they have got some sort of satisfactory deal because they have not, in fact inflation will be far higher than the increases in social welfare benefits this year. It is a bitterly disappointing budget for the poorest in our society. A derogatory 2.5 per cent increase in social welfare benefits illustrates one thing clearly, the powerless and ineffective role of the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, at the Cabinet table. The Minister and his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, jettisoned their self-proclaimed cause of the underprivileged. That is the cause I heard supported so strongly for almost a decade from the Opposition benches, but, unfortunately, the Ministers have exploited the poor in a most cynical way. Only last year on the budget debate Deputy De Rossa, referred to the miserable levels of increases of 3 per cent which, nevertheless, were considerably ahead of inflation. Naturally, there were great expectations in regard to this Minister for Social Welfare because he was a friend and champion of the underprivileged.The poor looked on him as their champion. How has the Minister measured up? All I can say is that in Government and behind the closed door of Cabinet he has been found out. The Minister referred last night to dishonesty and people speaking out of both sides of their mouths. I acknowledge he has a great deal of expertise in that area and for about a decade I have listened to his phoney concerns for the poorest in society. However, when he had a great chance to do something for them, he let them down.

The budget was a huge disappointment as it did not address the real issues of poverty and unemployment. The people who can least afford it, who do not have mobile phones, State cars or powerful lobby groups, have been abandoned by the very people who purported to represent them. In a year of financial surplus the Minister snatched misery from the jaws of abundance as far as those people are concerned. This year, more than ever, those people needed a lift. This budget could have given comfort to senior citizens in a year in which there was a record surplus, growth rate and all the indicators were good. I am sure most people accept that the poorest in our society should have been looked after. It gives me no great joy this evening to have to point out how badly they have been let down and I recommend strongly that they at least get the minimum levels recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare, that is not asking a great deal. The commission's recommendation for old age pensioners was £65 and that increase would not have cost a great deal. It would not hurt the banks if they were asked this year to share a little of their profits with the less well off.

Aspirations, platitudes and sympathy are no use to those people. What they want is a few pounds to buy an extra bag of coal to provide more heating. They have heard enough cant and useless rhetoric, they need financial support, but regrettably they have been consigned to the scrap heap of society. We cannot ignore the fact that the increase for social welfare recipients is 2.5 per cent. I reject that and the amendment and call on the caring people in the Government to support our motion.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 65.

Tá

• Ahearn, Theresa.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bhamjee, Moosajee.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bhreathnach, Niamh.
• Bree, Declan.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Burton, Joan.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Lowry, Michael.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McDowell, Derek.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Crawford, Seymour.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• McManus, Liz.
• Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Penrose, William.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Upton, Pat.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Brennan, Matt.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Flood, Chris.
• Foley, Denis.
• Foxe, Tom,
• Gregory, Tony.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Hughes, Séamus.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Michael.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Sargent, Trevor.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Ferris; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.