The first amendment I observe to be in order is amendment No. 6 in the name of Deputy Joe Walsh.
Social Welfare Bill, 1995: Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"11.—Section 24B of the Principal Act (inserted by section 4 of the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1993) will be reviewed by the Minister and a report on this review will be laid before the House.".
I thank the Chair for allowing amendment No. 6 as it is difficult to have amendments allowed under a social welfare Bill. My amendment seeks a review by the Minister of fishermen, particularly crewmen on trawlers, throughout the country. The fishing industry is extremely important and is going through a development phase. Our fishing fleet is old and many of the boats are only barely seaworthy. It is a dangerous occupation because of inclement weather. Fishermen and crewmen, because of regulations and court interpretation, cannot qualify for the full social insurance benefit. As this group work hard and have a difficult and dangerous job to do the Minister should review their position and later in the year seek to redress it by allowing fishermen to opt for voluntary contributions so that they can benefit in the same way as everybody else on stamps or contributions.
The limited benefits under the present system confine fishermen to 13 weeks unemployment benefit. Due to weather conditions, highlighted this winter, 13 weeks unemployment benefit is inadequate and insufficient. At a minimum the Minister should seek to find a way to increase the 13 weeks unemployment benefit to 18 or 20 weeks. The position in Killybegs, Dingle, Castletownbere or Union Hall is that boats were tied up for months on end this winter. It is difficult for those hard working fishermen to go to their local employment exchange and qualify for unemployment assistance or dole. They are subjected to a means test and find it extremely difficult to prove their earnings as they are regarded as shareholders on the trawler.
Similarly, when they go to their community welfare officer to seek a medical card for their family they are subjected to a means test. As they are not in regular employment and do not have P60s and P45s they find it extremely difficult to convince the health boards they are entitled to medical cards and the various other benefits. In many cases they depend on the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and voluntary organisations. This is a desperate situation.
The Minister told me yesterday that if the full stamp was allowed in this case there would be an overall cost of £67 million. The reality is that of the order of £4 million was provided in the budget for social welfare. It is unfair to single out one hard working section of the population who are prepared to make their contribution and pay the full stamp.
I am aware that skippers are anxious to be helpful to their crew and staff. Having got good and conscientious workers and crewmen they want to keep them on. We are talking about a fight to maintain and retain isolated coastal communities. Those communities who depend on fishing in Killybegs, Dingle, Rosslare, Union Hall, Kinsale and Castletownbere have no other source of income or any trade to follow. They depend on fishing and are making a go of it.
An important development in recent times has been the establishment of local co-operatives in these towns and villages to develop onshore much of the potential of the fishing industry. These people do not want anything for nothing, they are prepared to make their voluntary contributions but they also want equity and fairness under the social welfare system. We are talking about the retention of vibrant rural communities who are prepared to work for themselves and who have demonstrated that they are prepared to go out to sea in harsh weather conditions. When they are forced, because of weather conditions, to tie up their boats for some considerable time they do not qualify for the benefits to which I and any fair minded person would think they are entitled. I ask that the Minister review this and present a report to the House at the earliest possible date.
I strongly support Deputy Walsh's excellent amendment. As someone who lives in a coastal county, I am aware of the difficulties encountered by share fishermen. For example, last year boats were tied up for a considerable period and fishermen were unable, through no fault of their own, to work. It would be fair and equitable to accept Deputy Walsh's amendment. The main problem with fishing is that it is very dependent on the weather which means that share fishermen and fishermen generally can spend a considerable amount of time on shore. Deputy Walsh's reasonable amendment would bring greater equity to social welfare law and I wholeheartedly support it.
The Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1993, introduced a special scheme of optional insurance for share fishermen with effect from the 1993-94 contribution year. Section 28B of the Principal Act provides for the rates of optional contributions payable and for the benefits covered by these contributions. Share fishermen can qualify for treatment benefit-disability benefit for up to 12 months in any continuous period of illness and for unemployment benefit for up to 13 weeks in any calendar year. On Committee Stage I explained that the previous Minister had intended proposing a further optional scheme under which skippers who had regarded themselves as employers could, where crew members agreed, opt to pay the equivalent of the employer contribution, thereby entitling crew members to the full range of insurance benefits.
A more fundamental review of the basis of insurability as an employee is required to deal not only with share fishermen but also with other categories of workers such a C45 workers in the construction industry. I am not unsympathetic to the plight of share fishermen who do a difficult and dangerous job and I intend to carry out a full review of the insurability of employees generally. I hope to be in a position this time next year to bring forward proposals which will deal with the complexities of this issue. On that basis I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
This is a very important amendment. On Committee Stage Deputy Walsh tried to get the Minister to take some action on share fishermen. We agree that there is a need for a review of the insurability of share fishermen and other categories of C45 workers, for example, the self-employed, contractors, carpenters, bricklayers etc. We need a basic review of the insurability of people who previously were clearly employees, who the Department of Social Welfare would wish to have kept and supported as employees. However, this was not possible as a result of the finding of the court, to which the Minister must have regard.
This ongoing problem needs to be addressed. While consideration needs to be given to the two key areas there are also other areas which need to be looked at in the full review of the insurability of employees. Share fishermen C45 workers and hotel workers and the residual effects of the court decisions which prevent them from receiving benefits they previously received have been referred to.
Share fishermen have a special problem which needs to be addressed urgently. The valuable interim scheme for share fishermen which was introduced in consultation with the representatives of fishermen provides cover for retirement, widows, orphans and survivors. It also provides cover in an exceptional way for treatment benefits which would not apply to other self-employed categories, 13 weeks unemployment benefit cover and a certain level of disability benefit. Share fishermen do very hazardous work, yet under the changes introduced as a result of the High Court decision they do not have cover for invalidity pension. On Committee Stage I asked the Minister to put down a Report Stage amendment on invalidity pension which would cost only £30,000 or £50,000 a year to introduce and would be of little consequence in terms of the overall social welfare budget.
It is very important that we do something about invalidity pension and occupational injury, the lowest cost area. Last week in Howth I met a fisherman who was involved in an accident on board a vessel out of one of the southern ports. This man who has a steel plate in his leg and had no occupational injury or invalidity cover told me that the owner of the vessel had no insurance cover and he felt that before licences were issued the owners of vessels should have insurance to cover the people working on boats. Most boats have civil liability cover but there was no cover for this boat. This man now receives a means tested payment. Deputy Walsh asked for a review as a matter of urgency and for a report to be laid before the House.
This is an urgent matter and while we accept the Minister's commitment to review it in a general way, it will be some time before the experts can devise a scheme which will meet the requirements and the financial parameters. The position of share fishermen is regarded as exceptional not only in Ireland but elsewhere, and exceptional arrangements are put in place for them. I acknowledge that exceptional arrangements have already been made for them, but in the context of the current year it is important that further steps are taken as a matter of urgency. While I accept the Minister's goodwill in saying he will carry out a general review at the end of which there will be development, I warn him of the complexity from a technical point of view of the various elements of that review and the importance in the meantime of making progress which would be particularly welcomed by share fishermen. On those grounds I ask the Minister to deal with this matter urgently rather than in the long term.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to carry out an overall review of the matter, but my amendment deals specifically with share fishermen. I am disappointed with the lack of concern and appreciation for their hazardous job and the fact that their boats are tied up for long periods of the year. Skippers do their best by painting their boats and so on, but they do that only once a year. They are in an extremely difficult position. They reside in towns in peripheral areas where there is little opportunity of securing other work. We talk a great deal about cohesion and equal treatment for people in all parts of the country. If the Minister joined his colleague, Deputy McGinley, in visiting, for example, Killybegs and Castletownbere he would see at first hand the difficulties about which we are talking. As this is an urgent matter I will press my amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 69.
Tá
- 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.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Ellis, John.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies Barrett and B. Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"11.—Progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare will be reviewed by the Minister and a report will be laid before the House.".
The Commission on Social Welfare produced its report in 1986 and it is reasonable almost ten years on that its findings be reviewed and the recommendations updated. On Second and Committee Stages I asked the Minister to pay the rates recommended by the commission but I regret to say this has not been done. As they are not exorbitant the cost involved would not be great. In some instances the recommended rates have been exceeded. Old age contributory and retirement pensions and survivor's and deserted wife's benefit are at 99 per cent of the recommended rate but in the case of supplementary welfare allowance, short term and long term unemployment assistance, unemployment and disability benefit and lone parent's allowance we still have some way to go. The rates recommended by the commission are the absolute minimum required to provide the necessities of life.
When people looked at the national finances and the state of the economy they expected to receive an above normal increase. It is unfortunate therefore that those in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance and various assistance payments, including small holder's assistance — in some instances the figures stand at 90.7 per cent and 93.8 per cent — did not have their payments increased to the rates recommended by the commission. In the case of social insurance schemes — I thank the officials of the Department of Social Welfare for supplying this information at such short notice — this would cost £16.79 million and in the case of short term and long term unemployment assistance payments £53 million, giving a total cost of £69.84 million this year and £30.11 million and £95.12 million in a full year. These are not large amounts given that the total social welfare budget is £4 billion.
In a year in which there is a balance of payments surplus for the first time in more than a quarter of a century people were entitled to think that at last their hour had come and their payments would be increased to the absolute minimum required — £66 per week in the case of the personal rate of assistance or non-contributory old age pension. This is not a substantial amount of money. Instead the rate was increased by £1.50 per week from £61 to £62.50. It would have been reasonable to expect that it would be increased to the recommended rate.
I have received booklet No. 72 from the Department of Social Welfare which recommends a strategy and a payment structure for those dependent on social welfare. We are not dealing with a small section of the population; rather we are talking about the 40 per cent or one million who are dependent on social welfare. It has been identified in a number of studies by a number of agencies that at least one third of the population are living in poverty. It is regrettable when there is cash in the kitty that they have not been given an above normal increase.
I acknowledge that both child benefit and the carer's allowance have been increased but the basic point is that one third of the population are living in poverty. As they tend to run out of money before the weekend they become distraught and find themselves at the mercy of moneylenders and various kinds of parasite. Were it not for the charity and voluntary efforts of so many organisations and others in the community, including the Samaritans, St. Vincent de Paul and Meals on Wheels, the position would be much worse in our villages, towns and cities.
Those dependent on social welfare have no hope of finding a job. A sizeable number find themselves in this category. There is no point in saying to the 250,000 in receipt of old age pensions that we will increase child benefit as only 6,365 receive this allowance. A further 92,000 are in receipt of various illness payments, including disability, invalidity and injury benefit, giving an overall total of approximately 350,000 who have no hope of obtaining work, even if they wanted it.
It is most disappointing in a year when there were such high expectations that the rates were not increased to the absolute minimum required. The Minister has said this would not be of much benefit but if that is the case why not provide them with the absolute minimum?
The family income supplement was not increased. The unfortunate people deemed by our system to have an income which is less than adequate and to whom the family income supplement applies were abandoned on this occasion. There was no increase for those receiving child dependant allowance.
There must be progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. They must be reviewed by the Minister as a matter of urgency and a report laid before the House because people living in poverty, who are now referred to in the glossy reports as "the marginalised", must be targeted and their problems highlighted. After ten years there must be a review of this whole area and the commission's recommendations on this wide-ranging topic must be brought into the 1990s. We must adopt a strategy whereby the wealth of the nation is distributed more equitably throughout the community. That can best be done by reviewing the Commission's report and recommendations and having the report laid before the House for a full debate.
I support this amendment. There is no coherent strategy on social welfare reform in the Social Welfare Bill. There is certainly no acknowledgement of the seriousness of the plight of those on social welfare or any indication that the fight against poverty has been moved further up the Minister's political agenda.
It is important to point out that the budget was prepared against a background of extremely favourable economic parameters but no effort was made in the Social Welfare Bill to acknowledge that and to use it to help the most needy in society. I make that comment in light of the minimalist increase of £1.50 per week in social welfare payments. While the Minister has provided for an increase in the child benefit scheme, he has not taken any congnisance of the plight of widows, single persons and, in particular, the elderly. By the end of this year those people will find that the rate of inflation is higher than the increases given to them by a Democratic Left Minister for Social Welfare.
There is very little change in the carer's allowance. The 2.5 per cent increase is totally inadequate. While there are one or two good provisions in the Bill I ask the Minister to look at the whole issue of carers. The Minister will be aware that one of the greatest problems in the years ahead — and which we are beginning to face already — is the need for accommodation in public hospitals for our elderly. It is almost impossible to find such accommodation. There has been a great proliferation of private nursing homes throughout the country because people do not have any other option but to send their elderly relatives to these nursing homes. It is costing them a great deal of money each week to keep their relatives in these nursing homes because the carer's allowance is not sufficient to cover the cost of caring for them at home.
In developing a policy on social welfare to cover the period up to the year 2000, and in line with what Deputy Walsh said, I ask the Minister to examine the whole area of carers. The concept of looking after our elderly relatives at home was one of which we could have been very proud in the past. Will the Minister also examine the whole area of means testing because many people would be happy to look after their elderly relatives in their own homes if an adequate amount of money was made available to them? One of the difficulties people face in this regard is the means test. There must be a serious examination of the costs involved in sending an elderly person to a private nursing home. In the case of a person entitled to a nursing home supplement, we should consider whether it would be cheaper to remove the existing imbalance in means testing. We should try to determine the percentage of people who might be able to live at home with relatives if an adequate amount of money was available to them through a fair mechanism of means testing.
Maintaining an elderly person in a hospital or private nursing home is far more costly to the State in the long term. This problem will have to be addressed sooner or later because people are now living longer. There will be a greater number of elderly in our population in the foreseeable future. It is vital, therefore, to address the problem of how to care for our elderly population in a more efficient way. Allowing them to be cared for in a homely environment is a policy worth pursing and I strongly urge the Minister to consider this.
Before leaving this topic I want to quote from a speech the Minister made last year when he was in Opposition. He stated: "It is fair to anticipate that not too many bottles of champagne will be cracked open when these increases are eventually paid". I believe those words have come back to haunt the Minister as a result of this budget and the Social Welfare Bill.
I do not believe in ghosts.
Widows, single people and the elderly will not forgive a Minister in whom they placed their trust and whom they hoped would be of assistance to them.
In 1994 the supplementary welfare allowance was increased by 6 per cent and this year the Minister will increase it by 2.5 per cent. The Minister understands that the supplementary welfare allowance is an emergency payment designed to met the exigencies of problems that arise out of the blue. It is availed of by, for example, the homeless and those who cannot care for themselves and who are incapable of managing their own affairs. It serves as a bulwark to help them cope with the extremes of poverty they may experience on a short or long term basis.
We are talking about a strategy that will apply up to the year 2000. Has the Minister considered the possibility of rationalising this scheme? Ongoing talks about bringing supplementary welfare allowance within the remit of the Department of Social Welfare took place in the Department. Has that idea gone by the wayside? Does he agree that the system whereby the scheme is administered by the health board and the Department of Social Welfare is cumbersome, is not cost effective and is not meeting the real needs of the people who should benefit from such a scheme?
A matter about which I feel strongly is the payment of rent supplement. In 1989 the total amount paid was £7 million while this year the Department will pay up to £57 million. Supplementary welfare allowance was supposed to be an emergency payment, but in reality it is an ongoing payment to landlords to keep people in private accommodation.
Is that privatisation?
Was that the intention behind the scheme? I do not think it was. From studies I have carried out, it appears that 69 per cent of all rent supplements are paid to single persons with no dependants. That raises a question not alone in terms of our housing policy but in the context of marriage breakdown and the Government's policy in that regard up to the year 2000. I accept there is an inadequate number of local authority houses, but is it the Government's intention to build one bedroom and two bedroom houses in future? If we are to believe the statistics available from the Department, we will have to change our housing policy. While three bedroom and four bedroom houses will always be needed, because of changes in society it is imperative that we ensure that one bedroom and two bedroom houses are made available.
This is all very interesting but it is not relevant to the amendment.
It is important in the overall context of what we are dealing with here.
It is not relevant to the amendment.
It is important in any review of this area. Is the Minister happy that the payment of £57 million in rent supplement is cost effective to the State?
The Deputy received a reply to that a few weeks ago by way of parliamentary question.
The Minister should seriously consider this whole area and put forward a plan to address this issue so that the country will get value for the money it pays out.
I strongly support the amendment in the name of my colleague, Deputy Joe Walsh, which requests the Minister to review progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare and to place a report before the House. A series of issues is raised in the main recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare, on some of which the Minister's predecessor had made substantial progress. One of these relates to the provision of information to social welfare recipients. For many years, particularly prior to the appointment of Deputy Woods as Minister for Social Welfare, this area was desperately neglected. As Minister, Deputy Woods had to fight with Government to obtain the necessary resources to commence a major programme for the provision of information to social welfare recipients and the development of substantial new infrastructure — I am talking here about new social welfare offices. The Minister's predecessor should be complimented on the substantial progress he made on this issue, which is referred to in the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare.
I look forward to the opening of a new facility in my constituency in Tallaght. In reply to a parliamentary question put down by me, the Minister said it is expected that office will be open in May. The availability of information to social welfare recipients, particularly in my constituency in Dublin South-West, is a major aspect in the development of social welfare services. I look forward to the opening of that and other facilities and I hope the Minister will——
This is all very interesting but it is not relevant to the amendment.
It is.
Perhaps the Minister is not familiar with the procedures.
I am very familiar with them as I have been here for 13 years.
Not in the seat in which you are now sitting. I am sure that came as a shock to the Minister, as it did to many other people, but I congratulate him on his appointment.
The amendment relates to the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. There is a section in the report about the provision of information to social welfare recipients, but information cannot be provided if we do not have the facilities, computerisation and staff, therefore this is very relevant to the amendment. The Minister's predecessor undertook a major programme to meet those recommendations and I hope this Minister will continue with that investment. I look forward to the opening of the new social welfare office in Tallaght which was planned by the Minister's predecessor and which will be a major source of information to social welfare recipients in my constituency.
I spoke on Committee Stage about housing issues and the impact of rent increases. The Minister outlined the decision taken by Dublin Corporation in this regard, which is laudable, but the problem is it was made on an ad hoc basis, and it is up to individual local authorities as to whether to implement it. I hope all local authorities will follow the example of Dublin Corporation in terms of rent increases. In so far as I can encourage my colleagues around the country to adopt its approach, I will do so. There has been much criticism in the past, and rightly so, that increases for social welfare recipients, particularly in local authority housing, were swallowed up by rent increases. I hope at some stage the Minister will develop a national policy——
I am not Minister for the Environment yet.
The Minister congratulated himself and his colleagues on Dublin Corporation on making the decision on rent increases. I hope he will persuade his colleague in the Department of the Environment to adopt such an approach and ensure this policy is put on a statutory basis so that increases for social welfare recipients in local authority housing will not be swallowed up.
On the recommendations in the report of the Commission on Social Welfare relating to one parent families, there is a problem in terms of women having to prove they have been deserted. It is traumatic for a woman to be deserted by her husband, but she then faces the difficulty of trying to prove she has been deserted. This needs to be looked at in a far more compassionate way.
The Commission on Social Welfare recommended that we discontinue the condition that the woman applying for deserted wife's benefit-allowance must prove her husband left of his own free will. Tremendous hardship is caused to women who find themselves in this situation. I am dealing with such a case where a woman claims she has been genuinely deserted, has provided as much information as she can to the Department of Social Welfare office in Sligo but has been told the information is insufficient. She has had to involve the Garda in trying to prove she has been deserted. I accept there can be cases of abuse but generally women who find themselves in this situation should not be faced with a series of hurdles to prove they have been deserted. It is a time of great personal stress for the woman and her family and I hope the Minister will agree to review and effect change in this area.
The Commission on Social Welfare recommended that the death grant should not be part of the social insurance system but should apply only to social assistance. There is a great deal of confusion about who is entitled to a death grant and this arises at a time when people are suffering the trauma of losing a family member. Entitlement to such a grant should be on a structured basis. The Minister might also look at the level of grant aid as the death grant falls far short of funeral costs.
The ability to keep people in the community where at all possible by paying a carer's allowance has been an issue since this allowance was first introduced.
I am axious to make progress on the amendments. The Deputy is covering the broad spectrum of the Commission on Social Welfare report. The amendment relates to the main rates of social welfare and I ask the Deputy to stay on the matter. Will the Deputy assist me in making progress?
Will the Chair explain the position to me?
Acting Chairman
The amendment was allowed because it arises from a Committee Stage debate but only in so far as it relates to a particular recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare on the main rates of social welfare payments.
That is not contained in this amendment.
Acting Chairman
That is what it arises from on Committee Stage and that is the background to why it was allowed. We need to make progress.
I accept the Chair's ruling but I would have thought that if the debate were to be restricted it would be because we were following precisely the particular amendment. I agree that we have a great deal of work to get through and we would like to get through as much as we can.
Deputy Walsh put forward a reasonable amendment and I ask the Minister to consider it. Perhaps at some stage during the course of this year but prior to next year's budget he will have the opportunity to make progress on some of the main recommendations, be they financial, structural or whatever.
I support the amendment tabled by Deputy Walsh. It is timely to review the progress we have made in implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare particularly because of the lack of progress on the main rates in this year's budget. It has been mentioned that the review relates particularly to the main rates.
It is disappointing that there has been no movement in this year's Social Welfare Bill towards achieving the level set by the Commission on Social Welfare. In 1995 terms the main rate would be £66.60 with the upper level rising to £79.90. In successive years the increase in the rates of social welfare has been above the basic increase and an extra increment was provided to close the gap between the existing rates and the rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. For example, while there was a general increase of 3 per cent paid last year the rates of short term unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance increased by almost 6 per cent. Additional moneys were paid to try to bridge the gap between the existing rates and the main rates. The same applied to unemployment and disability benefits although in those cases because of other changes there was an additional increase above those rates.
It is particularly important to continue to make progress along those lines whether in regard to insurance or assistance rates. If we do not continue to make progress we will find that the main target rate will be further away. Rather than bridging the gap, there is a real danger this year that the 2.5 per cent increase will be below the rate of inflation. It is particularly important that we continue to bridge the gap.
A great deal of progress has been made in recent years in meeting the target set by the Commission on Social Welfare. For example, many payments such as old age contributory pensions and retirement pensions are above the bottom of the main rate. Last year at least the priority rate was reached and exceeded for every payment. That was a substantial improvement on the previous position. The gap between that and the main rate of £66.60 was reduced very considerably and the possibility of bridging that gap was certainly opened up for this year.
What does bridging that gap mean? The rate of invalidity pension is 96.4 per cent of the recommended rate and this means the gap is relatively small. In the case of old age non contributory pension the gap is 6 per cent and 93.8 per cent of the main rate has been achieved. Going half way towards bridging those gaps this year would have made it possible to close them fully next year. In the meantime the many thousands of recipients who depend on these payments would have had a further increase above the basic inflation rate, which we have grave doubts about. All rates have reached 93.8 per cent except supplementary welfare allowance and short term unemployment assistance. They stand out like a sore thumb. Supplementary welfare allowance is the payment given to homeless people. We heard various Government Deputies speak about the homeless and how important it is to suport them yet these rates are at 90.7 per cent.
It would have cost only £3 million to go half way towards closing the gap between these two rates and the main rate. Admittedly in a full year it would cost approximately £6 million. By definition, those in receipt of these payments are in the poorest of positions yet that £6 million could not be found. Something is radically wrong. The progress made by successive Ministers over the years has been set aside. No progress was made this year, rather the levels have been frozen at the inflation rate. That should not happen in circumstances where, as Deputy Walsh pointed out, there was a surplus for the first time in 27 years. It should have been a good year for those who depend on social welfare payments but nothing was done. Somebody took their eye off the ball because for the first time in a number of years no extra increase was given above the increases which apply generally. That is why we feel there is need for an urgent review of the strategy in the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. Good progress was being made and was welcomed by Deputies on all sides. They were happy that the increases kept pace with inflation and in some cases were above it. Deputies from all sides welcomed that approach. The strategy was correct. By all means do some things that will be high profile and bring in extra votes. That is always welcome. Children are one of the priority areas and Deputies are not divided on the importance of support for children. However, the Government cannot just increase child benefit and freeze everything else. That is the problem and that is where the strategy has changed.
On Committee Stage we asked the Minister to reconsider some aspects of this but he said it was a firm decision and the route he was taking. We pointed out that there were 180,000 old age pensioners with 2,000 child dependants. The vast majority of them cannot benefit from the increase in child benefit and will only receive an increase of 2.5 per cent which is likely to be below the level of inflation. It was hoped at budget time that the increase would match the estimated inflation rate. Out of 196,000 recipients of unemployment assistance only 62,000 have children and can benefit indirectly from the increases in child benefit. There are 822,000 social welfare recipients but only 212,000 have children. In other words, 74 per cent of all recipients cannot so benefit. When the report of the Commission on Social Welfare was introduced by the then Fine Gael Minister, Gemma Hussey, she said that the first recommendation, the increase in the main rates, was the No. 1 target.
Reading what the Minister said last year one could take it that he was strongly convinced the rates should be continued and that the progress recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare on the main rates should be continued this year. However, he said he would leave it aside this year and look at it again next year. On 1 March 1994, as reported at column 1128 of the Official Report, he stated that the miserable level of most of the increases told its own story: £2.10 extra for a contributory old age pensioner and £3.40 for a pensioner with a dependant aged 66 and over. He regarded these increases as miserable and derisory. He used the word "miserable" several times and compared the increases with the cost of champagne and so on. One would have thought that this Minister would at least have had a conviction and a commitment to do something in that area. Even the basic 3 per cent would have provided a weekly increase of £2.15 for a single old age pensioner as against £1.80 weekly increase which is not the price of a pint even where the pint is not too expensive.
The basic 2.5 per cent increase in the main rates is grossly inadequate. That will become abundantly clear to everybody, especially to social welfare recipients. When old pensioners and other groups receive their payment books, they will realise the bad news in terms of the value of the increases provided in this Bill, while seeing other groups doing nicely because the economy is faring well but what does that mean to people on social welfare in so far as this Government is concerned? It means that the Government has forgotten about the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare on the main rates and will not close that gap where supplementary welfare allowance and short term unemployment assistance are 90.7 per cent of the main rate.
Deputy Walsh pointed out how costs could have been divided. Increases need not have been made in respect of all benefits but only in respect of people in the worst position. Different types of progress could have been made in terms of the main rates but no progress has been made in that regard. While we welcome other measures in the Bill, we regret that. The Minister and the Government will regret the day they decided that a 2.5 per cent increase was enough for old age pensioners. That decision was made at the Cabinet table. The Government said it was not concerned about the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare nor the impact of the increase for old age pensioners. Neither was it concerned for the majority of the unemployed and for the 74 per cent of social welfare recipients who cannot benefit from child benefit increases. Will the Minister carry out a review and examine this as a matter of great urgency to regain sight of the target of reaching the main rates as quickly as possible? I realise that may be difficult. The Minister may say he cannot achieve all objectives at once and we recognise that but it is disappointing that he did not make progress on any of the main rates. The weekly increases are of the order of £1.50 to £1.80. That is the impact of the 2.5 per cent increase and it is not enough.
On Committee Stage we discovered that at the beginning of the year there was a substantial surplus of £50 million in the social insurance fund which covers the cost of insurance based rates, in respect of which workers, their employers and the self employed pay weekly contributions. It is the first time in the history of that fund that there was a surplus in it at budget time. That fund essentially pays the basic rates of social insurance, bridges the gap to which the Commission on Social Welfare referred and should ensure that the rates increase to at least the main rates. The Minister has told us that the extra money in the fund was used to pay the equal treatment payments but those payments should have been a charge, as is the case in respect of the balance of those payments, on the Government, the Department of Finance and the Exchequer. Equal treatment payments arose as a result of a mistake made by the 1984 to 1986 Government and it should be paid for by the Government and the Exchequer, not from the social insurance fund.
Is the Deputy proposing the imposition of a surcharge?
That is what the Minister has done in respect of the local loans fund.
Is the Deputy proposing the imposition of a surcharge on the Government of the day?
Or on individuals in it?
Local authorities have such a rate.
There is a mechanism under "public administration" for the imposition of a surcharge. Money was available on the insurance side to move towards the main rate recommendations and they could have been achieved. Unfortunately, the Government lost sight of that objective, perhaps because of the change of Government and the formation of the Rainbow Coalition whose members had to learn to understand each other. It took its eye off the ball and lost the momentum developed over the years. That was revealed in the Department figures given to Deputy Walsh. The Minister discovered there was a surplus in the fund at the beginning of the year and that the Exchequer must contribute £106 million to it, an equivalent of 6 per cent of the total fund. That figure was only revealed during Committee Stage and the Minister acknowledged he had not been aware that was the position.
As the Exchequer figures were rounded up after the budget, it transpires they will include an allocation of £106 million to bolster the social insurance fund because of what happened. In his review the Minister must ensure that the fund is safeguarded for the workers it was designed to serve.
We are obliged in law to do that.
There are various ways in which that is not happening, it is much more subtle.
It would be interesting to hear them. Is the Deputy suggesting there is something illegal going on?
In the first instance, the £50 million was extracted for another purpose, related to disability, unemployment benefit and invalidity pensions.
So it is not illegal.
I did not say it was.
It is all right as long as the Deputy clarifies that.
We must remember that the worker wants someone concerned about his or her basic payment to give the matter priority, as the Commission on Social Welfare did. While within the law one can manipulate various things, beneficiaries depend on the Minister to ensure the security of their basic rates and ensure there is not too much drift from the fund. Now that we know the Exchequer will provide £106 million, the Minister for Finance will have to supplement the fund by that amount. No doubt the Minister for Finance will state there is a limit to the funds available to him. The Minister for Social Welfare must bear in mind that, within the subtlety of the future development of that fund, priority must be accorded to workers' benefits. However, that did not happen this year as there was no improvement in the basic rates.
In the review proposed by Deputy Joe Walsh the Minister should maintain a close eye on the social insurance fund and its development to enable it to cater for workers who contributed throughout their lifetime, and ensure there is no move towards means-testing benefits. At the end of the day the danger is that one's old age, invalidity pension or other direct payments would be means-tested.
The Deputy introduced tax on unemployment benefit.
A number of other matters are important with regard to the development of main rates, one relating to adult dependant allowances — 90 per cent of such recipients are women workers. As soon as an adult dependant earns in excess of £60 per week, the main beneficiary will lose the adult dependant allowance, creating many difficulties. In previous years that allowance was increased steadily until it reached £60, with a commitment during the past year to provide a sliding scale to income in excess of £60, operable from the date of implementation of this Bill, thereby obviating an immediate cut-off. The only other alternative is to increase the figure of £60 but it was agreed on both sides of the House last year that a sliding scale was preferable. It was disappointing to note that no such sliding scale was introduced in this Bill which we would have welcomed and supported.
Is this one of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare?
Yes, the proposal that adult dependant allowances be increased formed part of its recommendations — to obviate the sudden cessation of the adult dependant allowance when earnings exceeded £60. The Commission on Social Welfare recommended the removal of such anomalies as they are a component of the main rates.
Acting Chairman
I am anxious to make progress.
We are making progress. At this stage very little of the Bill remains to be debated. Perhaps the Chair would relax——
——and allow Deputy Woods to break all records at this stage.
Should we bring in sleeping bags?
No, Deputy Walsh is entitled to have his amendment discussed. I know the Minister is a sort of high flier, it may be somewhat of a nuisance to him to have to be here, being Leader of his party, he needs to attend public relations exercises and so on.
If we were listening to something interesting it would be all right.
Acting Chairman
Will Deputy Woods adhere to the amendment?
I was doing so when the Chair interrupted me.
In the three days this Bill has been discussed I have not heard one new idea from the other side of the House.
The Minister would not recognise one if he heard it.
In his review the Minister would introduce a sliding scale immediately; while I agree complexities may be involved, a reasonably simple sliding scale would have overcome the present problems. Meanwhile, no improvement is being effected in eligibility to continue to receive the adult dependant allowance, on which I am quite certain the Minister will receive representations from the trade unions and other groups representing the workers involved.
Why did the Deputy not introduce a sliding scale last year?
We had planned to introduce it in this year's Bill.
How many years was the Deputy Minister for Social Welfare?
The Minister should read what he said should be done last year. We increased the ceiling to £60 and debated what would be the best way of doing so.
The Deputy did not do so.
It was the Minister's Coalition Government that introduced the budget and this Bill. If I had remained in the Department a sliding scale would have been introduced. I know the Minister was busy doing many other things; I know he has some difficulty looking after these main rates, that some things can slip, that he is doing his best but——
The bottom line is that Deputy Woods did not introduce a sliding scale.
I know the Minister must lead his party and so on. I know that these benefits are somewhat of a nuisance to him but they are very important to their recipients and progress should have been made on them.
There are other, similar anomalies warranting attention, highlighted by the Commission on Social Welfare. A great deal of progress has been made on its main recommendations. It would be timely and valuable to produce a report on progress made to date, thereafter its main value would be to focus minds on the importance of pursuing the main rates, which is what has been lost sight of this year. That was the reason Deputy Walsh tabled his amendment, the first priority of the Commission on Social Welfare.
The Minister said a number of times: "We have heard this before, the increase is 2.5 per cent, it has been decided, and we do not propose doing any more". On Committee Stage, he said he would look at the main rates next year. The problem is the payments are so low. For example, if a widow on current payments is regarded as a single person——
Why are the rates so low? Can the Deputy tell us why he kept them so low?
The Minister will say on another day that we are now spending £4 billion on social welfare.
That is right.
So there has been enormous progress over the years.
The Deputy said the rates were very low.
In practical terms they are still too low. We are talking here about two separate issues. One is that the 2.5 per cent increase is likely to leave all the beneficiaries below the inflation rate which was tentatively estimated at budget time. The Minister knows as well as everybody else that it is likely to be exceeded by 0.1 per cent, 0.2 per cent or 0.3 per cent and, if so, people lose out. That is one side of the equation. The other side is the main rates recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare and the importance of continuing progress there. I urge the Minister to continue with the improvements which all of his predecessors have built into the main rates.
Let us look at the practicality of what has happened and the limited 2.5 per cent increase for 1995. If we compare the insurance schemes for 1994 and 1995 we find a reduction in the amount of money provided for all those schemes of £8.9 million. In other words, In 1994 the allocation to the insurance schemes was £47.5 million, in 1995 the allocation is £38.6 million. That is a reduction in 1995 of £8.9 million. The allocation to all the assistance schemes — the two groups covered in this amendment — has decreased from £49.5 to £38 million, a decrease of £11.5 million. Between insurance and assistance there is a drop of over £20 million in the money provided in this area over last year. This issue should not be allowed drift away because it comes home to people on the ground. It means that old age pensioners, widows, deserted wives, invalidity pensioners, those on short term and long term unemployment assistance — about 74 per cent of all the 850,000 direct beneficiaries — cannot benefit from the indirect child benefit improvement. In effect it means they will only get the 2.5 per cent increase and they will make no progress in relation to the recommendations of Commission on Social Welfare. Their position as the Minister said last year, in relation to a bigger increase, will be miserable. I do not know what word the Minister would use to describe this year's increase.
What word does the Deputy use?
I do not know what word to use. I accept the Minister will not be breaking out the champagne as he said last year. There is no doubt that the increase is disappointing for many people. The Minister will discover that when they get their books and the increase in their hands.
I strongly support the amendment put down by Deputy Walsh and congratulate him for giving us the opportunity to make these points in the House. People tend to miss what has happened on Committee Stage where we had an excellent discussion in a fairly short session. This is a short Bill but that is a separate question.
Deputy Walsh has given us an opportunity to highlight and tease out the issues so that when the Bill leaves the House it will be clear what has happened. Let us then celebrate the good parts in the Bill and the improvements in child benefit. We dealt with those in detail on Committee Stage following the report of the review committee on child benefit. We must recognise that what has been done to the vast majority of people who depend on social welfare has been particularly bad and will have a damaging effect on their financial standing and on their ability to meet their outgoings. It will have a disastrous effect this year.
I congratulate Deputy Walsh and his adviser. I am sure they are delighted they managed overnight to think up an amendment that would allow them to——
Waffle.
——repeat themselves on the one point they wish to make on the whole Social Welfare Bill, which we heard for hours on end last Friday and yesterday. It must have been a relief, in view of the fact that they knew their earlier amendments would be out of order, that they thought of an amendment which would be in order to allow them discuss it widely. There is some merit in the proposal contained in their amendment. The Minister indicated yesterday that he would consider a broader review of the whole social welfare system, not just looking over the commission's report. That is the proper approach.
I suggest the matters which the Deputies opposite are asking the Minister to consider be dealt with by the Select Committee on Social Affairs, which has been given extended terms of reference. As a Government member of that committee I look forward to using the powers given to us to initiate studies in many areas. Issues concerning social welfare, health and labour come within the remit of that committee. The Select Committee on Social Affairs should be engaged in the type of consideration envisaged in this amendment.
A glance over the first chapter of the report with a summary of the recommendations indicates that a substantial amount of work has been done and that substantial further moves are contained in the budget but more remains to be done. It is clear from the budget provisions and developments in recent years that we need a new agenda of social welfare issues. That is the kind of review I would like to see carried out of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare, now ten years old. We should work towards setting a new agenda for the Department of Social Welfare and use our powers in a focused way to ask the Minister to adopt the priorities we will set and what he is doing about the remaining items.
I would be more impressed regarding the sincerity with which Deputy Woods and his colleagues are pursuing the question of the minimum rates had he not so recently left office, having been involved in a greater number of budgets than any other Minister for Social Welfare in the history of the State. If it was so easy to achieve he has many more questions to answer than the Minister. There is a new generation of social welfare issues. Take for instance the commission's recommendations on child care. What is happening in this Bill and what the Minister has indicated will happen as the second phase next year is totally different and is moving towards a more radical approach than that envisaged in the commission's recommendations, which were modest in that area. This is an area the Select Committee on Social Affairs could usefully look at.
I hope that in the next century the pressure on the labour force will be significantly reduced, growth will continue and there will be a reduction in the number of people unemployed. This will enable us to consider the introduction of measures which are too costly to introduce at present. One of these measures should deal with dependency, and the Select Committee on Social Affairs could look at this issue. In many families the main recipient receives £48 or £52 per week while the needs of the other members are catered for out of the dependant allowance and the children's allowance. This gives rise to very real problems and we should consider the abolition of the dependency concept at a time when we are in a position to introduce costly reforms.
I wish to refer to support for teenagers, many of whom are in grey area and can only be guaranteed a substantial income if they become lone parents. The Bill increases the guaranteed minimum payment for teenagers living at home with their parents. Consideration should be given to supporting teenagers who are in education. We need to examine this area to ensure that our support systems encourage young people to engage in activities which will prove valuable to them in the long term and do not facilitate ways of life which lead to poverty for both them and their children.
I agree with the broad principle that all incomes should be taxed but consideration should be given to the negative impact of the previous Government's decision to tax social welfare benefit in that people who have been on social welfare for a certain period do not want to take up employment as they are not given a tax free allowance. The way the taxation of social welfare benefit is implemented is a direct disincentive to recipients to take up employment. We would be horrified if we were not given a tax free allowance.
The reason Fianna Fáil tabled this amendment was to enable it to regurgitate its one page response to the Bill. I would have been much more impressed if the Deputies opposite had a more wide-ranging debate than merely repeating the arguments already made about the rates of payment. The public have taken part in opinion polls and they know that even though there were losers in the budget there were also substantial winners.
There were winners and losers.
Absolutely, and that is the position in every budget.
That is not the way it should be. There should not be any losers.
Everybody won.
No, they did not.
The Deputies opposite have failed to accept that unlike previous budgets there have been no cutbacks and that the increases are in line with the rate of inflation while the increases for certain identified categories have been much greater. The public recognises the priorities set by the Government and accepts that the commitments made by all Government parties have been honoured in the Bill.
The best way of dealing with the issue raised in the amendment is at the Select Committee on Social Affairs which can question the Minister and officials in detail. As the Government convenor of the committee, I would support such an approach for reviewing the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare and for setting a new social welfare agenda which goes beyond the issues raised in the programme.
The Deputies opposite have regurgitated the points they made during the debate on the budget and on Second and Committee Stages of this Bill. It is clear that some of them have not even read the Bill. For example, they referred to the need to taper the adult dependant allowance but did not know that section 15 provides for this. On the recommended rates, I draw attention to the fact that the injury benefit which was ahead of the recommended rate was reduced by a Fianna Fáil Minister. Deputy Woods said there should be no losers but I would remind him of the dirty dozen cuts and the fact that Fianna Fáil never introduced increases in social welfare without cutting the rates in other areas.
Fianna Fáil has not set out any coherent strategy or put forward a single new idea on social welfare policy or how to tackle poverty. All we have had from the Deputies opposite is constant carping and complaining. However, the public recognises the paucity of Fianna Fáil's ideas in this area. Up until last year we had a Fianna Fáil Minister for Social Welfare since 1987. The electorate has finally got a break from that pain.
Deputy Flood referred to the need to abolish the concept of desertion. He does not seem to have listened to the Budget Statement, my speech on Second Stage or the numerous statements I made since then that a second Bill which will abolish the concept of desertion will be introduced later in the year. The Department is almost finished its work on that Bill. The Deputies opposite do not appear to have read the Bill or to have any ideas other than to complain about the rate of increase. They fail to acknowledge that we have had the biggest increase ever in the social welfare annual budget, 35 per cent more than last year when Deputy Woods was Minister for Social Welfare. I take Fianna Fáil crocodile tears with a grain of salt.
Deputy Woods said unemployment benefit or disability benefit should not be means tested. He was the Minister who facilitated the taxation of those benefits. When I took up office I discovered he had agreed not only to the taxation of those benefits, but the wheels were in train this year to deduct the tax at source from a person's social welfare cheque.
That is not true.
It is true. I have the facts.
That was not agreed.
I had to put proposals to the Government to have the Deputy's agreement in this regard revoked.
The Minister is misrepresenting the facts. He should read the memorandum.
Deputy Woods had agreed to the direct taxation of unemployment benefit and disability benefit from 6 April 1995.
There was no agreement in that regard.
Those are the facts and the Deputy cannot deny them.
I can show the Minister the documents. He should read the memorandum.
It is on the record and the Deputy cannot deny it.
That was introduced in 1992.
We have heard a great deal of waffle and chat but nothing new. We have been told to review the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. Of course those 65 recommendations which were put forward in 1985 should be reviewed. It is interesting to note that the commission recommended the Government of the day should move immediately on implementing a priority rate of £45 for those earning less than that amount. It took Fianna Fáil Governments from 1987 to 1994 to reach, not the recommended rates, but the priority rates the commission recommended should be implemented immediately. I do not take the Deputies' criticism seriously. They have failed to present a serious case. On the one hand, they argue that the Government is spending too much money and, on the other, they argue we are not spending enough on social welfare increases. At the same time they welcome the increases in child benefit and want it all paid. From where will all the additional money come?
That is a new tune for the Minister.
I can only come to the conclusion that they want us not to spend money in some other area. If they do not want us to spend more money, what area do they want us to cut?
The Minister made a hames of it and he should admit that.
Perhaps the Deputies would identify the areas they want cut.
That is not what they are saying on the ground.
What Fianna Fáil do not appreciate is that there is a deliberate strategy in this Bill——
There is, and the Minister stressed it yesterday.
——to tackle real poverty. That is the difference between our strategy and that of Fianna Fáil. It got a few pounds and gave a few bob here and a few bob there.
We got £4 billion.
Deputy Woods went around the country with a cheque in his pocket and pretended he was a great fellow. That has all changed now and the Department of Social Welfare is being used to tackle poverty and will continue to do so.
I do not know why the Minister is getting so excited. This is a simple amendment requiring that progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare will be reviewed by the Minister and a report will be laid before the House. I fail to understand why the Minister cannot accept that amendment. Would he be embarrassed by the report which would be published annually while he is in office, which I hope will not be for long?
The figures indicate that substantial progress was made in the past decade. Despite what the Minister stated, substantial progress was made in the past decade in reaching the target rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare and in some cases those rates were exceeded. The Minister will be aware that the supplementary welfare allowance and unemployment assistance rates are still 10 per cent below the target recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. The Bill will assist in moving them further from the target. The Minister stated that what he heard today was a regurgitation of what was said on Second and Committee Stages. In view of his response, it does not surprise me that much of what was said on those Stages had to be repeated today. He has not acknowledged one suggestion from this side of the House and even today he has signally failed to respond to the points made.
The Minister stated there was not a single new idea in the Fianna Fáil approach. It is up to the Minister to come up with the new ideas, that is the job with which he is charged. I read the Bill carefully and did not find a single new idea in it. It is a combination of tinkering with the system and tokenism, giving a few bob here and there to various targeted political groups in the electorate. The objective is not to increase the benefits payable to the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, but to top up the electoral support of the parties in Government, particularly the Minister's party.
Deputy Woods stated that there is not a sliding scale in relation to adult dependant allowance. That is true and despite what the Minister just said there will not be one as a result of this Bill. His reply was tantamount to misleading the House. When referring to section 15 on Second Stage the Minister stated:
Section 15 provides for the giving of regulatory powers to the Minister to enable an adult dependant allowance to be paid in respect of a spouse or partner who has weekly income in excess of a prescribed amount. It is my intention that the adult dependant allowance payable in these circumstances will be tapered by reference to the level of the spouse's or partner's income.
In other words, in section 15 the Minister has given himself an enabling power to introduce regulations at an indeterminate time in the future to do what Deputy Woods suggests should be done now. The Minister quoted a proposal— of which I do not have any knowledge — which he alleges was in the works at the time the previous Government fell. There was a proposal in the works at that time to introduce a sliding scale for adult dependant allowance to which the Minister did not refer. It makes perfect sense that this should be done. The cut-off point for adult dependant allowance is £60. That is inequitable and unjust and I could give the Minister numerous examples of individual cases where it operates unfairly.
If the Minister examines the taxation system he will note that there is a sliding scale of exemption limits which represent the cut-off point below which a certain income is not taxable. If it is logical and just to introduce such a measure in the taxation system, surely it is imperative that it is part of our social welfare system. The proposal would have been introduced this year if a Fianna Fáil Minister had been introducing the Social Welfare Bill. The Bill merely provides the Minister with the power to enable him introduce the regulations. There is no indication when they will be introduced or what form they will take. The net result of section 15 is that the Minister now has power, which I reckon he always had, to bring in regulations to provide a sliding scale. That is not much good to the people affected by the gross anomaly whereby if the main beneficiary's partner earns more than £60 in a week his allowance for his partner is automatically discontinued.
The Minister accused Fianna Fáil of saying not enough was being spent, and asked where the money would come from. That is a new tune for Deputy De Rossa to sing. When he was in Opposition I and other members of the Government had to listen to him during Adjournment debates and debates on legislation, and money was no object to Deputy De Rossa. The illusion was created outside this House by the Minister Deputy De Rossa and his cohorts that the 14 or 15 people around the Government table had a bottomless sack of money which they would not give to the poor because of their scrooge mentality. The reality is that money spent by any Government is taxpayers' money. The Minister, who is now asking us where we would find the money for this, that and the other, had scant regard for that when he was on this side of the House. The record proves it.
This budget will take us further from the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare on rates of payment. Will the Minister of State tell me how many people will not benefit from the increase in the child dependant allowance? It is my information that of all social welfare recipients, about 75 per cent will not benefit and will only get the 2.5 per cent increase. The Minister claimed he was increasing benefits for 75 per cent of social welfare recipients in line with inflation. Where did his figures relating to inflation come from? My information is that 2.5 per cent is a wildly optimistic estimate. If inflation exceeds 2.5 per cent, as the Minister of State knows it could, the net result will be that 75 per cent of social welfare recipients will have their benefits reduced in real terms by the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, the champion of the poor.
The overall increase in social welfare has been adverted to by the Minister as some sort of alibi for what he is doing for 75 per cent of social welfare recipients. I welcome an overall increase in social welfare expenditure. However, the money is being improperly spent. The Minister spends most of his time taking credit for a decision of the courts and claiming that he is paying married women their entitlement off his own bat rather than acknowledging that he was forced to do so by a court decision. I realise that a substantial part of the increase in the overall Social Welfare Bill consists of increases in child benefit to social welfare recipients, but child benefit is payable to everybody, including the wealthiest. The Minister's main theme when in Opposition was that overall expenditure on social welfare was too low and, more important, that expenditure on social welfare should be properly targeted at the weakest and most vulnerable in our community. This Bill does the reverse of that. There is plenty of targeting but it seems that it is the better off who are targeted at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable. It is the weakest who will have to pay for the increases which are going to the better off up to and including the wealthiest.
The Social Welfare Bill flows from social welfare announcements in the budget. If one compares its provisions with other measures in the budget, for example, the abolition of third level education fees, one will see that it is the better off who benefit, people who cannot satisfy the means test.
Not true.
The Minister of State does not seem to understand the simple fact that there is a means test for third level grants. People who do not qualify earn above the threshold, therefore, they are the better off, the people who will gain in net terms from the abolition of third level fees to the extent of £40 a week per child. Compare that with the increase of £1.50 a week for an old age pensioner or £1.60 a week for a person in receipt of unemployment assistance. On the Minister's scale of values and that of the Government whose policies the Minister of State enthusiastically supports, one beef tribunal lawyer's daughter is worth 27 old age pensioners. That is the scale of values of the Minister Deputy De Rossa, the champion of the dispossessed.
The Deputy is into sensitive territory now.
Perhaps I should not be surprised that Deputy Durkan enthusiastically supports these policies, as he does not seem to understand how third level fees are calculated and how the means test operates.
This is a narrow Bill, a combination of tinkering and tokenism. It does not iron out many of the anomalies in the social welfare system despite undoubted improvements made in various aspects of social welfare over the years. Nothing has been done about the adult dependant allowance other than enabling the Minister to perhaps do something about it at some time in the future. Unless I have misread the Bill, there is no proposal to amalgamate disabled persons maintenance allowance and unemployment assistance as recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. There is no proposal to reorganise the fuel allowance scheme which is riddled with anomalies. Those are just three examples. The Minister has announced on several occasions that he will amend the lone parent's allowance scheme to provide for a single category and abolish the concept of desertion, but that is not in the Bill. I understand the Minister will introduce further legislation at some indeterminate time in the future. Will the Minister of State give some indication of when this legislation will be brought forward, because asking the Taoiseach on the Order of Business is really the dialogue of the dumb. One learns more from the papers.
On the proposals made by the Commission on Social Welfare in regard to rates this Bill will take us further from, rather than closer to, the implementation of the recommended rates to which the Minister repeatedly said he is committed. Whatever ingenuity he brings to bear the Minister of State will not be able to disprove that contention as the figures speak for themselves.
On the question of lone parent's allowance — I understand that something will also be done about this rate —very little has been done to pursue deserters to make a contribution towards the cost of maintenance payments. Successive Governments must take responsibility for this.
Does the Deputy want me to tell him what happened previously?
The Government has been in power for three months and I see no sign of action although 14,000 deserters have walked away from their responsibilities and families. It is my understanding that of these only 183 are paying maintenance. I do not know what percentage of the 14,000 would be in a position to pay — I suspect about half — but only about 500 have been identified. Approximately £7,000 per week is being received from the 183 who have been pinned down. There is, therefore, a crock of gold which could be used for the benefit of social welfare recipients. As a first step the number of staff in the maintenance arrears section of the Department should be increased from the present figure of four.
Acting Chairman
I appreciate the Deputy may have been given bad example but he is stretching the amendment beyond its limits.
The imagination is also being stretched.
We ask the Minister and his Minister of State to ensure that the 75 per cent of social welfare recipients who cannot claim child dependant allowances will not lose out. Even at this late stage I appeal directly to the Minister of State, Deputy Durkan, who has been very vocal on behalf of the large number of social welfare recipients in his constituency, to ensure that the Bill is amended either here or in the Seanad. At a time when the Minister is committed to the implementation of the rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare and the economic climate is benign it is despicable that these recipients should lose out.
The minimum the Minister should do is accept this amendment as it would not cost the Government or the taxpayer money. It seems the only reason for not accepting it is that it would be a monument to the failure of the Minister and a source of embarrassment to him. In comparing this Bill with the proposals of the Commission on Social Welfare it seems that, as far as the Minister and Democratic Left are concerned, rhetoric on the Opposition benches is in inverse proportion to performance in Government.
Some of the points raised by Deputy O'Dea were only vaguely relevant to the amendment. He used the words "tinkering" and "tokenism" but this was farfetched. He was also critical of the Minister and myself for allegedly moving from the thrust of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare; the opposite is the case. For the first time the social welfare budget is over £4 billion while the Government's proposals are in line with the recommendations of the commission.
I compliment the Fianna Fáil spokes-person on Social Welfare, Deputy Walsh for recognising the great work that has been done within the space of three months and suggest that he tabled the amendment with tongue in cheek. One cannot change the social welfare system in that length of time but a review is being undertaken and it is the intention of the Government to improve on an ongoing basis the lot of those in receipt of social welfare payments.
Deputy O'Dea suggested that the thrust of this Bill will work to the benefit of the better off. He may have in mind a proposal that would discriminate against those who currently qualify for child benefit and so on. I detected this at an earlier stage. If so, he should state this clearly. From remarks on Second Stage it appears that the proposal might be that women above a certain income limit should not receive child benefit. If that is the case I seek clarification before Members on the opposite side of the House shed crocodile tears.
On a point of order, what the Minister of State has been quoting is the Minister's own idea and, if he wishes, I can quote what the Minister said at the select committee on 9 March 1994 when he suggested that those above a certain income limit should not receive those benefits. The Minister of State should, therefore, be careful about who he is accusing.
I am well aware of that.
I do not think so.
Before coming to the Chamber I watched on the monitor the antics of members of the Opposition. The difference is that the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, now has the responsibility to ensure that social welfare recipients receive fair play and adequate support. That is a responsible job.
He is not doing it.
The views expressed by Deputy O'Dea are at variance with those expressed this morning by his Front Bench collegue, Deputy Séamus Brennan, who has raised on more than one occasion the question of the increase in Government expenditure. He described the increase as alarming. That may well be the case but in recent days Opposition spokepersons have been calling for increased expenditure, that has been the theme and thrust of Fianna Fáil's policy in the past three months. I do not know how they can reconcile these two points of view but they have reconciled more obtuse points of view in the past and will do so again in the future. At 10.30 a.m. one of their Front Bench spokespersons raised the question of the increase in Government expenditure and now at 1.20 p.m. other spokespersons are calling for greater expenditure.
What about the banks?
They referred to the banks and other matters——
Acting Chairman
The Minister must not refer to the banks.
I am sorry, I will not.
Acting Chairman
Deputies must not interrupt the Minister of State.
£40 million here and £40 million there.
Fianna Fáil is in Opposition because of the irreconcilables its Deputies are now laying before the House.
It is because the Minister of State's party entered coalition with Democratic Left.
I wish to refer to a number of other points raised by Opposition speakers. They have hard necks to come into this House over recent days, and weep and gnash their teeth in an effort to give the impression that they are actually concerned. Do they remember what they did when they were in power? Do they remember the measures they put in place only one year ago, some of which are only now becoming obvious to certain unfortunate people? I could outline numerous cases — and I am sure other Members could do the same — of unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, found themselves out of work due to illness.
I gave an example in the House on a previous occasion of a person who had never been out of work in his life until he had to undergo major surgery. That person got a shock when he returned to work as a result of a measure that was brought in by those who are now, thankfully, sitting on the opposite side of the House. There are other problems that we have not yet had time to address comprehensively. Having recovered from the serious operation, including the additional expenditure of hospitalisation and medication, and having overcome the general concern about his health, the man I referred to returned to work after a period of four months and the first shock he received was that his tax free allowance had been slashed.
That measure has been abolished.
That measure is in operation to this day and it is a legacy handed down to those unfortunate people by the good people sitting on the opposite side of the House.
What has the Minister of State done about it?
We cannot do everything in three months.
We will be hearing that in two years time.
The Deputy's party was in Government for five years and it did not do anything about it. We will do a great deal in this area but we cannot do in three months what the people on the opposite side of the House failed to do in five years.
Promises, promises.
I recognise there was a need to ensure that there was not an abuse of the system and that certain employers and employees did not benefit to the extent that it was of a distinct disadvantage to others. However, it was the classic case of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. The measure adversely affected everybody in an indiscriminate way and it was a serious disincentive to people going back to work. There is not anything more serious for a middle aged person than to find that after all their years of working diligently and providing for their families they are suddenly penalised when they become ill. I am amused when I hear Opposition speakers talking as if they were really concerned about these people. We know how concerned they were — they expressed it by introducing the measure to which I referred.
Members opposite are nice people generally — but they tend to go off on a tangent and be a little irrational at times.
The Minister of State often goes off on a tangent.
I hope that after seven or eight years in Opposition they will recover and become normal once again. They are in danger, however, of becoming the "2.5 per cent" party because all I have heard from them since the budget was introduced is the 2.5 per cent social welfare increase. I know Deputy O'Dea is good at figures and if he takes into account the fact that social welfare payments generally will be made six weeks earlier this year, he will find that the 2.5 per cent rises above 3 per cent. As people will receive their payments six weeks earlier, they will actually receive more money than if the original increase had been 3 per cent.
I wish to refer to what was said previously by the Leader——
Acting Chairman
Perhaps the Minister will refer to the matter before the House.
I am doing my best.
We are dealing with two sections only. We are only discussing the main rates.
Deputy Woods was not in the House but it seemed as though we were discussing the beef tribunal a few minutes ago.
Members opposite should get away from this straitjacket of 2.5 per cent about which they are constantly talking. I will try to explain how the 2.5 per cent general increase becomes 3 per cent when the payments are brought forward, as has been done. Opposition Deputies should forget about the 2.5 per cent because the increase is actually more than 3 per cent. That figure was identified by the leader of the Opposition in his comments on budget day. He obviously came to the conclusion that 3 per cent was a reasonable increase. We are giving a 3 per cent increase so there should not be any difficulty. I do not understand, therefore, why other members of his party — weeks later — continue to complain about the 2.5 per cent increase.
The thrust of the Bill — which is also the thrust of the budget and will be the thrust of Government policy — is to ensure that everyone is treated equally. The 3 per cent increase is approximately what most other employees will be getting by way of their increases this year. We are attempting to introduce a balance which did not exist previously.
I wish to refer to one other matter. When my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare and myself come under attack from Deputy O'Dea over the abolition of third level fees I feel very vulnerable. People in Limerick must be different from those elsewhere because throughout my public life I met people who experience great difficulty in keeping two, three or four children in university because their incomes are barely above the eligibility limits. Those people will most benefit from the proposal that will be implemented shortly. Those who consider that a person with three children in third level education who is earning £18,000 or £19,000 is well off, are wrong. We are talking about all adults in the household and if one equates that with social welfare payments, we are talking about basic social welfare payments in terms of disposable income per individual in the household. If it is being suggested by the Opposition that such people should not get the kind of relief to which Deputy O'Dea referred, I do not agree with them.
Surely they are not the only people who qualify for third level grants. What about Minister Rabbitte's friends, the bank executives? What about the millionaires?
Acting Chairman
The Minister, without interruption.
If a person earning £19,000 per year is considered to be a millionaire, there must be a lot of millionaires here.
Deputy O'Dea referred to the failure of the Government to bring deserting husbands to justice. He obviously does not understand the way the system works, although he has been a Member of this House for almost as long as me.
I think it is longer.
I will tell the Deputy how the system works because he seems to be under the impression that the wives would benefit from bringing deserting husbands to justice.
I know how the system works.
In fact, the system can be very negative and the Deputy should know this if he has dealt with this problem. However, the general thinking on this issue — I agree with it — is that, wherever possible, erring husbands should be made in some way financially responsible for their wives and families. It is of little benefit, however, to a wife or family if the Department of Social Welfare or any Department collects money from such husbands.
This is extraordinary. Is the Minister serious?
I do not know whether Deputy O'Dea was aware of that but it would appear that he was not.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.