I suggest, a Cheann Comhairle, that you wait for the Opposition to participate in the debate. I understood we were on section 3 when we finished the last day.
Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1995: Committee Stage (Resumed)
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
We have proceeded; we are now on section 4, Deputy.
Am I to understand we have moved on from section 3?
That is so.
I protest on behalf of the spokesperson for social welfare. I regard it as most unusual behaviour in the House to move ahead peremptorily without the spokesperson when other business finished quite suddenly.
I take serious exception to any impression which might be created by the Deputy's words that any sharp practice was engaged in by the Chair. The Chair proceeded immediately after the vote to deal with the next business in the House. Quite a number of Members were present at the time and the suggestion that I was involved in sharp practice by moving too quickly is something I deeply deplore. We are on section 4.
On a point of order, I have been here since 1977 and I have never seen anything of this kind in the House in that time.
I resent the assertion of the Deputy. The proceedings of this House will show and the Members of the House have witnessed how the Chair proceeded in this instance. There were many witnesses — thank God for that.
Is the Minister saying we would not wait for him if he was in that position? It is sharp practice.
It is not my argument.
Has the Minister any comment on section 4?
It would never have happened when we were in Government that some leeway would not have been given to the people involved.
I am not in the Chair.
The Chair has made his position clear.
If the Minister intends not to comment on section 4, having upstaged the spokesperson for the Opposition on section 3 in a shoddy way, I will comment on this section and deal with the comment made on this area by Deputy Shatter when the Bill was last discussed. The Deputy said when this matter was discussed prior to 1986 when the referendum was held, I as Opposition spokesperson said the loss of social welfare rights which would occur would have a devastating effect on the forthcoming referendum. Deputy Shatter pointed to that in the measures in sections 3 and 4.
In saying that, I was referring to what occurred in Britain, where Lord Campbell said that having rushed through legislation on divorce he was horrified at the effects, because insufficient preparation had been made. Deputy Shatter said he agreed the changes should be made, as is happening in this Bill some nine years later. This indicates that the Opposition proposal at the time — that social welfare matters should be clarified before a referendum was held — was correct and is now accepted by the Government.
When we spoke previously about this and the other sections, the Minister said the costs would amount to £1 million over the first five years. There is some confusion about these figures. They were not clarified the last day so I ask the Minister to be clear about the costings. He seems to know the position and have a reasonable estimate of the cost for the first five years. As I understood it, he said it would accumulate to £1 million per year; in reply to another Deputy, who said that would be the cost, he did not deny it. I ask the Minister to clarify whether after five years he expects the costings to be £1 million per year or is it an accumulation to £1 million, running at that rate after five years? In that event we could at least be clear about the costings.
The Minister said he needed more time to work out the costing by the tenth and fifteenth years. Has he found more time in the interim and has he been able to estimate the costs at those points? I find it extraordinary that the Minister, with the specialists and experts available to him in the Department of Social Welfare is not able to make these estimates at this time. I can understand he might have needed some time initially but he expected to have them by the time we spoke last on this Bill and I trust he will have them worked out at this stage.
Section 4 deals with deserted wife's benefit and two issues arise. One is that the Minister has not made any allowance or arrangement for equal treatment in this benefit. Earlier in the year he said he expected to do so at this stage and to have it done in advance of the referendum. In a press release on 19 February 1995 he stated his plans for a new lone parent's allowance, which would not involve a means test, the requirement to prove desertion being dispensed with, equal treatment between men and women for the first time in this area, and a reassurance to existing deserted wives who are working that there would not be a loss of income.
There is not equal treatment in the deserted wife's benefit; men are not treated the same as women. We are at an important juncture and are making major changes in our social welfare legislation. In conjunction with those it is time to put those matters right. They should be addressed and the Minister said he would do so at this time. Will the Minister let us know about the issue of equal treatment in deserted wife's benefit and his promised removal of the desertion clause?
I have already dealt with all these points on the earlier sections of this Bill so I will give a brief resume of what I already said. If there is any confusion about costings it is on the part of the Fianna Fáil spokespersons. I have made it clear that the cost in the fifth year will be £1 million. It is estimated——
That is the additional cost?
Of course. We are talking about extending rights to divorced persons in relation to survivor's pensions, occupational injuries benefit, FIS and prisoner's wife's allowance. The additional cost of extending these rights to divorced persons will be £1 million in the fifth year. I do not see where the confusion arises.
I not only mentioned this information and gave the detail of how we constructed the estimate on the last day that this Bill was debated, I also dealt with the issue at Question Time. Indeed, in reply to a parliamentary question from Deputy Walsh two weeks ago requesting costings for ten, 15, 25 and 30 years, I indicated that I did not have, at that point, the costing for a ten year period. It would be impossible to predict the likely costs of any element of social welfare 20 or 30 years hence.
I provided the information the last time that the estimated cost in the tenth year will be about £2 million — if we are saying that the cost will rise in the first five years to £1 million in the fifth year, one can guess that it will rise from that to £2 million in the tenth year. Obviously, that would depend on the rate of divorce, the rate of separation, the extent to which people remarrry after divorce and the extent to which women survive their former spouses, etc.
I have made that clear throughout this debate, so I cannot understand how there can be any confusion on the part of any Member, specifically Deputy Woods, who dealt with this matter in the Department of Social Welfare up to mid-December 1994 and is well aware of the position in relation to costings. I did not offer to get an estimate for a 15 year period because, to be quite honest, it would be unreal as there is no possible way that we can extend the figures concerned for a 15 year period.
Equal treatment is also an issue with which I dealt repeatedly, both at Question Time and on Second and Committee Stages of this Bill. I made it clear that, as Minister for Social Welfare, I will be introducing a unified lone parent's allowance which will be available to a parent living alone and is separated, deserted or divorced or single and caring for children. It will no longer be necessary to prove desertion, which is a very progressive development.
I did not, at any time, say that that legislation would be passed by this time, as Deputy Woods implied. I said we would be bringing forward legislation in the autumn-winter session of this House and implementing it in 1996. The Deputy will appreciate that we have yet to sort out a range of other legislation in addition to that area. The question of equal treatment of men and women has no specific bearing in relation to divorce. It should apply equally, even under the current situation where separation is the Irish form of divorce and, more particularly, demonstrates itself through desertion.
I cannot understand the confusion which those on the Opposition benches claim exists. I have clarified a number of times the issue of the lone parent's allowance and the need to provide for men as well as women caring for children.
Deputy Callely said that the costings which I provided for five years were based on the 1991 CSO figures which showed in the region of 55,000 separated persons. He estimated that there was in excess of 70,000 separated persons now, which is probably a fairly accurate assessment. However, I indicated that even if we are 50 per cent off in our calculation, the cost will still only be £1.5 million in the fifth year. In any event, there is no reason to believe that all people who separate or divorce are automatically entitled to social welfare on the second day of the divorce or separation. The statistics which I quoted in relation to the lone parent's allowance, separated people and those on deserted wife's allowance and benefit indicate that a significant proportion of those in the separated category are not in the social welfare net.
I thank the Minister for responding to my queries about the "assumption", to use his own words, which he was using, and he referred quite clearly to the 1991 CSO figures. I welcome the fact that he clarified the figures and indicated that the difference would be only a 50 per cent increase in the amount.
I also thank the Minister for forwarding to me the figures in relation to separated persons which I requested in the debate.
To continue the line of the discussion on the last occasion, the real question is to clear up any underlying threat in relation to the financial aspects of this part of the Bill. I appreciate that the figures which the Minister quoted are based on the 55,000 in the CSO figures and that he referred to the percentage who remarry, those outliving their spouse and so forth. However, could he refer to the calculations of the number of dependants in the fifth year in this category?
This issue of costings seems to be obsessing the Fianna Fáil Deputies.
It is a very important issue.
As I said, in this Bill we are providing for a situation where a couple divorce and one of the spouses remarries. Therefore, they have a former spouse and an acutual spouse when they die and the first and second spouse will qualify for a survivor's pension, whether it is a man or a woman. Both will qualify for either a contributory or a non-contributory survivor's pension provided they remain unmarried and are not cohabiting. Costs will only arise following the death of the remarried spouse. While Members are surprised at how little the social welfare changes will cost, new rights are not being bestowed. The purpose of the legislation is to protect the rights of spouses who may be divorced and whose spouse may subsequently remarry. Widow's pension will account for approximatley 90 per cent of the cost although the figure is likely to be closer to 99 per cent.
In relation to deserted wife's benefit no additional costs will arise as the person concerned will qualify for the new unified lone parent's allowance if they have children and their income is within a certain range. The State is obliged to support such a family, even if divorce is not introduced. The question of additional costs in respect of dependants does not therefore arise.
Our estimate is based on the 1991 CSO figure of 55,000 separated persons, a divorce rate of approximately 80 per cent, a remarriage rate of approximately 50 per cent and a survival rate of approximately 80 per cent. I fail to understand why Members opposite are obsessed with this issue of costs. The position is plain. It would be worthwhile, given that only a limited amount of time is available, to move on and discuss some of the real issues involved.
The Minister has said that no additional costs will arise under this section as the families concerned will qualify for benefits regardless of whether divorce is introduced. Before we move on to deal with other issues the position should be made clear.
It seems the Minister is of the opinion that not one extra marriage will break down following the introduction of divorce. That is where we differ. He is working on the assumption that the statistics will not change. Most people would contend, however, that following the introduction of divorce there is a great chance that marriages will break down. The ethos of Irish people is that marriage is for life whereas a different approach tends to be adopted in California or the United Kingdom because of the availability of divorce.
The Minister must accept that the statistics will change. It is extraordinary that he is arguing that no additional costs will arise under this section. Will he please clarify the matter?
This is not California. Although we have the sunshine we have a different ethos and have yet to attain the same standard of living. The main religion is Roman Catholicism which is adamantly against divorce. It is nonsense therefore to compare Ireland with California. It would make far more sense to compare it with a country with a similar ethos and values.
The Minister is not answering the question.
Would the Deputy please allow me to speak? Does she want me to respond to the points she raised?
We can move on once the Minister has answered the question.
The Deputy will have to listen first. The problem is that the Deputies opposite are not listening.
We cannot get an answer to the question.
The Minister should not be so arrogant.
It is difficult to believe that four grown adults cannot understand plain explanations.
Is this another lecture?
Yes, if that is what it takes.
The Minister is being arrogant. He should answer the simple question he was asked.
I am answering it.
The Minister is not answering it.
The Deputy mentioned California——
The Minister should not talk about the weather in California. He is only wasting time. He should answer the question he was asked. Will the statistics change?
Deputy Wallace has asked certain questions and the Minister is seeking to reply. Let us hear him.
The Deputy mentioned California and tried to claim that we will have a similar marriage breakdown rate following the introduction of divorce.
That is not the question I asked. Will the statistics change?
That seems to be the Deputy's thesis. Her concern is based on the misapprehension that we will have a similar divorce rate.
I hope not.
That is nonsense. People are coming to live here from America, Britain and other countries as they believe we have a stable society.
The Minister will not answer the question.
The Deputy does not want to hear the answer.
The Minister is not answering this simple question.
This is Committee Stage and Members may intervene as often as they like. They should do so in an orderly fashion.
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but we have been seeking an answer for a full week.
If the Deputy wishes to intervene again I will be delighted to call her.
The Deputy claims — I do not think she believes this — that I am suggesting not one extra marriage will break down following the introduction of divorce.
That is what the Minister said.
When we dealt with this Bill last week I explained that there had been a significant increase in marriage breakdown — I used the deserted wife's benefit as the yardstick — from about 4,000 in 1985 to 13,000 in 1995. That is a significant increase in Irish terms but a tiny increase in UK or Californian terms. I have no doubt marriage breakdown will continue and will probably occur at about the same rate. There is no reason to believe it will dramatically increase simply because a person may go to court and get a divorce instead of a separation. Divorce enables a person to remarry and currently people are in limbo in that when they separate and enter a second relationship they cannot remarry.
This Bill proposes to guarantee the social welfare rights of people who divorce. The cost is based on the current trend in separations as they appear on the books of the Department of Social Welfare, those taking up deserted wife's allowance, deserted wife's benefit and lone parent's allowance. In the fifth year the cost will have reached £1 million extra per year and in the tenth the cost will have reached £2 million. In the eleventh year there will be another slight increase in cost and so on for each year thereafter. That cost is based not on predictions of social welfare or cost of living increases but on constant figures, which is the only way it can be based. Since the figure for the fifth year, which includes the backlog of people who will apply for divorce, is £1 million and £2 million for the tenth year, that clearly indicates an expectation that marriage breakdown will continue more or less at the same rate as it has been occurring.
That is not what the Minister said on Second Stage.
It is what I said.
He said the cost is likely to increase to £1 million over the next five years.
On Second Stage I read a note, which was not included in my Second Stage speech, pointing out that by the tenth year, the figure would have reached approximately £2 million. The estimate is significantly less than £2 million but to allay the fears of Deputies opposite that I was under-estimating the cost I rounded it to £2 million. I ask Deputies to accept that what I am saying is true and accurate. Let us move on and debate the substance of the Bill rather than raising scares.
I do not think the Minister understands the question I asked.
Deputies will never move from this section.
No matter how I ask the question I cannot get an answer from the Minister. He said that in 1985 the increase in marriage breakdown was 4,000 and in 1995 it is 13,000, but he did not tell us what the position will be in the year 2000 or 2005. He said the costs will increase in the normal way and that there will be these four or five extra people.
On a point of order, will the Deputy explain what she means by "these four or five extra people"?
We dealt with this matter in detail the last day. I outlined the figures but the Minister could not understand them. Since 10 per cent of £1 million is £100,000 and one-fifth of that is £20,000, taking an average of £5,000 per person, only four people will receive payment. I will explain the position to the Minister if he does not understand it.
I understand what the Deputy is saying but it is utter nonsense.
Why will the Minister not give the figures?
Let us hear the Deputy in possession.
I can only base my figures on the minimal information the Minister is prepared to give. We asked him this question in many ways but we cannot get an answer. Based on the Minister's figure of £1 million and the fact that 90 per cent of the cost will cover the implementation of section 3, which means 10 per cent, or £100,000, covers the rest of the Bill, since the average social welfare payment is £5,000 per annum, the money will be divided between 20 people, or four people per annum. If the Minister finds it difficult to understand that it is because he realises his figures do not stand up.
The Minister said there will be no additional cost under section 4, but nobody believes that. The best thing to do is pass the section and see what the people think of it. It would help the public debate on this matter if the Minister was clear about it. I am fed up asking the question and since the Minister is not giving an answer I will leave it at that.
I said on Second Stage that one of the reasons this problem has arisen is that the Minister did not produce a financial memorandum with the explanatory memorandum. I put much blame on the Minister's shoulders for the fact that we are getting bogged down on this issue. The reason Fianna Fáil does not accept the Minister's figures on these sections is that it believes that introducing divorce will open the floodgates to divorce at will, a premise I do not accept.
It is extraordinary that I do not agree with either side. I accept the Minister's figures because I believe, as he does, that what we are talking about in terms of divorce is the right to remarry. I listened very carefully to the Minister and he said his figures allow for the fact that a number of people are waiting in the hope that the divorce referendum will be passed so that they may get divorced. It appears from what the Minister said that, if on the introduction of divorce the incidence of marriage breakdown increases, there is a cushion against that. I may be wrong but I would like the Minister to clarify that matter.
I am in favour of divorce because I see it as a right to remarry. It gives a second chance to many people who are in an impossible position. I do not accept the premise that divorce will result in a Californian culture here. The position will be no different from that in Northern Ireland where the number applying for divorce did not mushroom into a colossal figure. This is a false message. Other people may have a different point of view and I have no problem with that but I do not accept that what we are talking about is some sort of divorce culture that will create a need for enormous sums of money in relation to those sections.
I would like to clarify something that is relevant to this debate and especially to what Deputy Keogh has just said. Once divorce comes in, deserted wives or widows or widowers, even though divorced, will retain their benefits. That is the purpose of sections 3 and 4. All we are trying to establish from the Minister is how much this will cost. The Committee Stage of a Bill is the time when we should get those costings, when in every section we should be told just what the cost is estimated to be. That is done on a public service basis, not a political basis. It is just the factual situation in so far as it is known. If these issues are not raised here they will be raised outside the House. It would be preferable to be very clear about costs.
Deputy Wallace has said she finds it hard to see, particularly in regard to section 4, which relates to deserted wife's benefit, how the figures given by the Minister stand up because even a very small increase in the number of deserted wives will more than take up the amounts mentioned by the Minister. That was at year five. The Minister has told us now that at year ten he expects it to be about £2 million a year extra, which is a relatively small amount of money, and when he is asked where he sees it at year 15 he says he does not know. I find that hard to believe because there must be estimates and they should be available to the House. He has experts who, I am quite certain, are telling him that at year 15 the estimate is X and at year 20 the estimate is Y. It is inconceivable that the officials of his Department would not be able to advise the Minister on these figures and provide the House with them.
The Deputy would not believe them. He will not believe the figures he is being given now.
He is not giving any figures.
Deputy Flaherty should give us the full benefit of her intellectual comment.
If it is of the order the Minister is now putting forward we can say that this is of very little consequence. It would be hard to see why this has not been done a long time ago if the cost is as low as that.
On section 4, I would like to ask the Minister the cost of providing equal treatment for deserted spouses in a full year. This section does not provide for equal treatment. The Minister is not proposing to make provision for equal treatment here at this time but says he may do so in the future. We understood earlier in the year that this was the time when he would do so and that this matter would be cleared up in advance of the referendum. We have already equal treatment in the pensions of widows and widowers.
This is the next area to receive equal treatment and those who are seeking it outside the House believed that some movement would take place in advance of the referendum. The Minister has told us that he will not do so now but will do so later, possibly the end of the year or the beginning of next year. I ask him to give us the costings of providing equal treatment and also the cost of removing the desertion clause. Could the Minister give us those two figures on a full year basis?
I was listening in my room and despite my best efforts I could not resist coming down as we continue to go over the ground that has been gone over on quite a number of occasions. On Second Stage I said I hoped that by the end of Committee Stage this issue would have been resolved to some degree and that all sides — I was not very hopeful about Fianna Fáil — would agree the figures were correct. I was disappointed to find Deputy Keogh lining up in strange territory.
I was not lining up, I was giving my own opinion.
As it happened it left the Deputy standing on the same ground as the Fianna Fáil Party.
I can stand where I want to.
They have a very flawed pedigree and credentials in so far as the referendum process is concerned. I have doubts in relation to the input of the Fianna Fáil Party, particularly of some of the key contributors who are here today.
On a point of order, what section is the Deputy speaking to? She is talking about the Fianna Fáil Party which is not mentioned in the Bill.
We are discussing section 4.
There are basic flaws in the understanding of the issue. It seems there is a Fianna Fáil desire to find a way to present this as negatively as possible, despite its publicly stated position on the referendum.
The Deputy is completely off the wall. Would she not come back to the Bill?
It is the sun. What are the figures?
Just over £1 million.
What about section 4?
Let us hear the Deputy in possession, please.
The major costs of marriage breakdown are with us in our society already and are provided for currently by way of our social welfare system. The additional costs arising from divorce — I am sure the Minister or his Department would not claim to have calculated the figure to the final decimal point — are in the range indicated by the Minister. There is nobody in our society who is not entitled to some form of social welfare payment if he or she does not have another income. This Bill proposes to provide them with an additional topped-up entitlement. We are ensuring that their entitlement arising from their married status will not be interfered with as a result of a divorce.
There is no topping-up element.
We should accept these figures and tell the public that this measure will be provided at no great additional cost to society because sadly the major costs associated with marriage breakdown are already with us. I do not accept that the introduction of divorce will lead to Californian-style numbers in terms of marriage breakdown and others have dealt with that point adequately.
I hope that by the end of this Stage the largest Opposition party will accept also that these figures are correct. I hope there will not be an attempt during the public debate on the forthcoming divorce referendum to suggest that divorce if introduced, will entail major additional social welfare costs and that it will be accepted that the major costs resulting from the high level of marriage breakdown are already with us. We will have achieved something if we agree on that by the end of the debate, but I do not have great hopes in that regard. This would assist the cause we all claim to serve, achieving a successful referendum which will allow some people to remarry.
The Minister indicated there would be no additional cost incurred under section 4 and that the Bill proposes to put in place a structure to ensure that a spouse will not be disadvantaged in terms of his or her social welfare entitlements whether married, separated, deserted or divorced if divorce legislation is introduced. It would be helpful to Members on this side of the House if the Minister clarified this matter. Today he said that the cost involved in year five will be £1 million. When I questioned whether that figure would be an additional £1 million — as understood by most of us — he agreed it would. On Second Stage the Minister said it is likely that the cost will rise to £1 million over the next five years. We need to clarify whether the figure is the cost in year five or the cost over five years.
The Minister is recorded as participating frequently in debates. As an Opposition spokesperson speaking for The Workers' Party to the 1992 budget, he demanded that the living standards for those dependent on social welfare should be improved. In 1993 he said the only thing that will give dignity to those on social welfare is an adequate income. In 1994 he set out in a document an integrated approach which would significantly increase social welfare levels. In 1995 as Minister for Social Welfare, he referred to the levels of social welfare increases as huge amounts of money by any standard. The Minister has not adequately addressed the issue of payments for those already dependent on social welfare and new dependants. Will he indicate how he calculated the figure of £1 million and whether it will be the cost in year five or over five years?
People have told me that they are disappointed by the stance taken by the Minister in Government as opposed to that taken by him in Opposition. I am sure he is familiar with a recent newspaper article in the Star which indicated that for all he said in Opposition about living standards and the need for an adequate income and in 1992 his criticism of the then Minister for Social Welfare for giving a £3 per week social welfare increase, the £1.50 increase in benefit he gave to old age pensioners would not buy a packet of rashers.
The Deputy should speak to the section.
The Minister does not appear to be able to clarify the fundamental issue of the amount of money that will be available for those in receipt of payments and new dependants — his figures are very loose. He stated that he was working on assumptions. I wish to progress to other stages of the debate, but I want the Minister to indicate how he calculated his figures. I asked that question at the beginning of the debate and I would have welcomed an answer at that stage rather than having to return to it now. How did the Minister calculate that figure and how does his figures tally with the amounts to which he has referred? He indicated earlier that his figure may be out by 50 per cent.
I regret the Fianna Fáil Deputies contributing to this Bill seem more intent on muddying the waters than addressing the substantive issues of the Bill.
The Minister is muddying the waters.
Let us have the same order for this side of the House as obtained previously.
I have answered the same questions that have been asked by the four Deputies opposite. I do not know how many times I have answered them on Committee Stage, but I will answer them once more. I am doing so because when I finish this contribution I must leave to go abroad on Government business. The Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore will take over the debate. It will be up to him to decide what to do if the Deputies opposite persist in repeating the same questions time after time. They will consistently and persistently receive the same answers from me.
This Bill proposes to protect the rights of people who may become divorced if the Irish people decide to accept the Government proposal that the ban on divorce should be removed. The estimated cost of this measure is based on the CSO figure of 55,000 separated persons in 1991. We can do no more than make an assumption. It is assumed that approximately 75 per cent of those people may remarry, but perhaps only 50 per cent will do so. Seventy-five per cent is a high estimate but that is the predicted figure. We also predict that 50 per cent of those who avail of divorce will remarry and that 80 per cent of women will outlive their former spouses. It is not possible to accurately predict social welfare increases over the next ten or 20 years. I intend to increase social welfare rates and I am sure if Fianna Fáil was in Government it would wish to do likewise. For the purpose of calculating the cost of implementing the provisions of this Bill, we must make certain estimates. Based on our estimates the cost in the fifth year will be £1 million.
Per annum?
The cost in the fifth year will be £1 million.
What about the fourth year?
If Deputies wish they can do a simple sum and divide £1 million by five and take it that there might be a cost of £100,000 in the first year, £150,000 in the second year, £200,000 in the third year and so on. In order to give a round figure, in the fifth year the additional cost added to what is already being paid to widows, widowers, lone parents and deserted wives will be £1 million. This year we will pay out £630 million to survivors, lone parents and deserted wives. We are talking about an additional £1 million by the time we reach the fifth year.
To satisfy the curiosity of Deputies opposite, we tried to estimate the cost for the following five years and at most the cost would be £2 million in the tenth year and something in excess of that figure in the following years. The marriage breakdown rate may level off, it will not increase exponentially forever. The rates may not have levelled off in California or the United Kingdom but they have levelled off in countries with a similar ethos to us. As Deputy Keogh stated we should consider the position in Northern Ireland. I appeal to Deputies to avoid the temptation to muddy the waters on this issue. It is too serious an issue to attempt to mislead the public into believing that the figures we are putting forward are inaccurate or uncertain. They are as certain as any social welfare predictions.
The estimates I suggest are not new to the Fianna Fáil Party which was in Government until mid-December last. The Fianna Fáil Party had a Minister for Social Welfare until last December and the figures I put forward were as clear to him as they are to me. The experts who advise me advised him when he presented his memorandum to Government on 7 March 1994. I am not putting forward figures that were not known to Deputy Woods when he was Minister for Social Welfare. I appeal to Deputies opposite to stop muddying the waters and discuss the substantive issues of the Bill which are important for people outside, and perhaps inside, this House who are currently in broken or second relationships and want the right to remarry. We must bear in mind that the more people who remarry the less cost will be involved. Divorce will provide the right to remarry. We have already put in place the necessary legislation to protect people's rights in regard to property, family and so on in the case of separations. The State provides a plethora of protections for people whose marriages have broken down, but it has not yet given them the right to remarry. This Bill will protect social welfare recipients who divorce and, more importantly, it will protect their children.
Irrespective of what term we use — deserted wife's benefit, deserted spouse's benefit or lone parent's allowance — the allowance will be paid to only one person, one half of the broken family. The person caring for the children will receive an allowance which will be payable irrespective of divorce. Fianna Fáil members appear to be confused in this regard. Under section 4 we guarantee that following a divorce a person who previously qualified for a deserted wife's allowance or deserted spouse's allowance may continue to be regarded as deserted for the purpose of the social welfare code. An additional cost will not be involved.
Deputy Woods requested information on the cost of introducing equality in regard to lone parent's allowance for men and women. I do not propose to start a debate on the lone parent's allowance scheme.
I asked about deserted wife's benefit under this section.
Will the Deputy hear me out?
That was not the question.
The Deputy asked for the cost involved in introducing equality.
Under this section.
This Bill does not deal with the question of equality as I have made clear on numerous occasions. In the budget debate I outlined that I would in the autumn introduce a No. 3 Bill dealing with a unified lone parent's allowance. I stated that on Question Time a few days ago and on the Estimates and budget debates.
What about deserted people who are not lone parents?
I am attempting to answer the question asked, which was the cost of introducing equality in relation to lone parents.
No, deserted wives.
A unified lone parent's allowance, to which I am referring, refers to deserted wives, deserted husbands, separated spouses——
On a point of order, I understand that, as a Member of this House on Committee Stage of a Bill, I am entitled to ask the Minister the cost of providing equal treatment under this section, which provides that a deserted wife who becomes divorced will continue to be regarded as a deserted wife for the purposes of deserted wife's benefit. What would be the cost of including deserted men as well? That is the simple question I asked the Minister. It has been the tradition in this House that the Minister would inform Members of the cost.
If the Deputy has already asked that question I am sure it will be addressed and if it has not been asked he will have an opportunity to do so. The Minister to be allowed to continue.
I am continuing to answer the question I was asked. I do not propose to start debating the question of equality in relation to this Bill because it is not proposed to introduce equality therein. My Social Welfare (No.3) Bill to be introduced in the autumn will deal with the question of equality. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill.
This is quite extraordinary. I am asking the Minister a simple question. I am my party's spokesperson on equality and law reform and am asking the Minister the cost of introducing equal treatment of deserted spouses. I am not asking whether he does or does not want to do so or whether he intends to do so in a different way later. As I understand it, the Minister is refusing to answer that question.
The Deputy has made his point.
I have already replied to that question.
No, the Minister has not.
This is nonsense.
Finally, I have made it perfectly clear that this Bill does not deal with equality nor is not intended to do so. It provides specifically for protecting the rights already existing. The question of equality for men in relation to separation, divorce or desertion will be dealt with in a Bill to be introduced later this year. I have no intention of helping Fianna Fáil to muddy the waters on this issue by starting to debate it now.
The Minister is an absolute disgrace.
I have made it quite clear, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
On a point of order——
If it is a point of order.
——the Opposition tabled an amendment requesting equal treatment under this section which was ruled out of order because it would involve additional cost.
Correct.
We want to know what is the additional cost and we are asking the Minister to tell us. In my experience——
The Deputy should not elaborate. He has already made his point well. It is a matter for the Minister thereafter.
The amendment and a number of others were ruled out of order because of a ruling of this House that Opposition parties cannot table an amendment which would result in a charge on the Exchequer. Only the Government of the day may introduce measures resulting in a charge on the Exchequer. I have already indicated my attitude to this question, stressing that this Bill guarantees existing rights, that it is not intended to extend equality in this Bill. I will be quite happy to deal with this issue when I introduce the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill, 1995 in the autumn.
Who is muddying the waters now?
I have answered all the questions put to me and I do not think anything can be advanced by continuing to pursue this line of inquiry now.
The Minister said earlier he had promised the removal of the desertion clause from the deserted wife's benefit. I asked him what would be the cost thereof. Obviously that is important vis-à-vis the future priority to be accorded any proposals advanced and to understanding those the Minister plans to make.
I regret I have to leave now, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I believe we are entitled to a reason for the Minister having to leave this particularly important debate.
That is not a matter for the Chair.
The House is entitled to know, out of courtesy. We have had sufficient arrogance and diktat on the part of this Minister. I know there is an important meeting he will be attending in Luxembourg tomorrow but the House is entitled to know what Government business he must attend to this afternoon.
I appealed repeatedly to Fianna Fáil yesterday afternoon to allow this debate be scheduled earlier today to enable me to travel to Luxembourg to pursue the question of poverty at a meeting to be held there tomorrow morning.
That is tomorrow.
I must leave this evening in order to be there in the morning. We have not yet achieved instant transportation. It appears that Deputy Callely is viewing science fiction films too frequently. The fact is that Fianna Fáil refused to facilitate me——
That is not quite correct.
——on the grounds that Deputy Joe Walsh would not be available until 9 p.m. this evening. However, when this debate began at 5 p.m. Deputy Joe Walsh appeared miraculously.
In relation to the Minister's last remarks, we have witnessed a display of arrogance and ignorance in this House which, while perhaps not surprising, is certainly unprecedented. Deputy Joe Walsh, having been requested to ascertain whether he could return here by 9 p.m. this evening, subsequently was asked whether he could return by 5 o'clock and arrived at approximately 5.5 p.m., at which time the Minister had done a quick trick to jump on a section of this Bill, when the vote had just been completed, when the Progressive Democrats had not returned, and Members on this side were just coming back into the House. I want to keep the record clear on that.
The Minister has stoutly refused to give us information about his proposals in relation to this section, which is quite extraordinary. If that is the kind of arrogance we can expect from this Government in future, whether this House can continue to function as a democratic forum becomes questionable. It is not the prerogative of a Minister to inform the House of the information on his files, when he chooses, at some future date. Not so long ago there was a great row here about Ministers not having given information they should have had at the time, whereas this is a matter of a Minister who had information but refused point blank to provide it on Committee Stage of a Bill, which is totally unprecedented.
I ask that this be considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges because Members' privileges are being totally scorned by this Minister. If that is the manner in which questions are to be dealt with in future, we face a very serious erosion of democracy in this House. It is also a matter the Taoiseach must consider very seriously because if Ministers are to obfuscate and conceal information deliberately and knowingly, as this Minister has done, it would represent the cessation of any transparency or democracy. That point must be made. The Ceann Comhairle should formally refer this matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Whether the Deputy believes the Minister has not adequately answered points put to him is not a matter for the Chair.
I am also concerned about the manner in which this area of the Bill has been responded to in the House. I echo the sentiments expressed by my colleague, Deputy Woods. When in Opposition, Deputy De Rossa always spoke about his concern for less well off people and those in receipt of social welfare benefits. The statements made by him this year as Minister and his contributions in the past are as different as chalk from cheese. He let down many social welfare recipients who were aware of his previous statements. Some of those people have told me they believe the Minister for Social Welfare is a fraud and that he has not been open or accountable. That was evident tonight and it is right that people like myself pose these questions. The issues have been clouded but not by anyone on this side of the House. I regret this is the way the debate on this section has to conclude.
In relation to this section, the Minister referred to a Government memorandum of March 1994 and the proposals contained therein. I intended raising this matter at a later stage but since the Minister introduced it I will deal with it now.
On Second Stage, I stated that the Bill met only the basic minimum requirements for holding a referendum, that it was neither imaginative nor progressive and that it was narrow and restrictive as evidenced by the fact that the costings turned out to be so low. At the time the Bill seemed to be consistent with the Government's thinking in relation to current cutbacks in this area and it was barely adequate to meet the requirements for the projected divorce jurisdiction and impending referendum.
The Minister referred to my proposals at that time which were much more wide-ranging than those contained in the Bill. I wanted to address the issue of individual rights for women and I believed that was the time to do so. We should have begun — even on a phased basis — to resolve the position of women. However, while we were facing major changes in our legislation to meet the requirements for a divorce jurisdiction — I realise people object to the term "divorce jurisdiction" but I use it for the sake of simplicity — we should have provided for changes to support and promote the family and women who work in the home. We should have provided them with options in the social welfare code to enable them to spend some time at home and some time in the workplace. That is what was contained in the memorandum. I realise the cost of such measures would have been quite high but I wanted to see real progress made in regard to, for example, the position of young women starting out in the workforce. I wanted homemakers to receive independent payments and young women joining the workforce should have the option of time out. There has been one development in that area to date and I felt it was time to introduce equal treatment for women and to tackle all the other relevant problems, even in a phased way.
Anomalies will arise as a result of the Bill which will affect women over the age of 66. If a woman is divorced or deserted, she will receive the full rate of payment on an individual basis. That is right because we must protect those women, but what about women over the age of 66 who are regarded as adult dependants? They too have feelings, they are part of our society and have made a contribution through their work in the home and in the community over the years. Such women should have been covered by the provisions in the Bill and their rate of payment increased to at least the rate paid to widows and deserted wives. Such payments could be spread over a number of years. We have an opportunity to do that now but it is not being taken, and those of us on this side of the House cannot table amendments to that effect because they are ruled out of order by the Chair on the basis that they will impose a cost on the Exchequer.
Contrary to what Deputy Keogh believed, my thinking on this issue was much broader. I felt we should have proceeded with a divorce referendum and do what should have been done before 1986, but people took the view this would have been a great liberal jump. However, the public calculated the benefits they might lose if divorce were introduced, which would have included the deserted wife's benefit, the widow's pension and other benefits. An opportunity existed to go a little further in this Bill but it was not taken.
I intended raising this matter under section 10 which deals with the increases for adult dependants. However, that will not be necessary now since the Minister introduced it to the debate. We should take a much wider approach to this problem. I do not want to criticise what the Minister is doing although it is barely adequate. That is borne out by his statement that this will cost only £1 million in the fifth year and £2 million in the tenth.
If we were to tackle the problem more broadly, it would obviously cost more, but we should provide for that expenditure now. On equal treatment, in the context of deserted wife's benefit, there are men outside this House who want to know why they do not get equal treatment. It is extraordinary that a Minister who never stopped talking about equal treatment when he was on this side of the House now refuses to discuss it and tells us we should wait until some time in the future.
I am happy to see the Bill pass. Its measures meet the minimum requirements, but they are not generous, imaginative or progressive and they do not develop the social welfare code to meet the new situation. That is what was in the memorandum to which the Minister referred. I am not used to referring to Government memoranda in the House; it was the Minister who introduced the subject, but there was more in it than the Minister said and at least it was an effort to make progress. What is being done here is certainly the minimum and we welcome and support that.
I am sorry that some Deputies have, from time to time, almost suggested that we were not supporting this measure. The problem is that the time to debate it is so limited. On Committee Stage, the Opposition is entitled to be given the whole picture and to be told of the possibilities in regard to any section. It is in such debate that that information should be forthcoming. No Minister for Social Welfare has acted as this Minister has today. Any Minister for Social Welfare would have answered the questions put on Committee Stage and given the Opposition the information requested. Unfortunately, the replies to parliamentary questions are similarly evasive. I am sorry to have to say that that indicates a drop in the traditional standard in this House.
On equality, law reform, the divorce referendum and so on, these sections provide the minimum necessary to ensure that nobody who is in receipt of a benefit will lose, such as, deserted wife's benefit or widow's or survivor's pension.
I had hoped we were winding up on this section and I have no wish to prolong the debate on it. I sat through some of the earlier exchanges in this debate with the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, and was greatly disappointed at the level of discussion. Many of the people who will be dependent on this legislation and are looking forward to its passage through the Houses will be greatly disappointed also at the level of debate.
Simply, the Bill seeks to provide for the continuation of certain social welfare entitlements if divorce is permitted. There are many amendments to the Bill and we are still debating section 4. It is unhelpful to have a prolonged debate on any section while there are amendments, particularly those in Deputies' names, to be considered.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
How many people will be affected by this section and what will its implementation cost?
I do not have the figure, but I understand the number affected is small.
Does the Minister have a costing for it?
No. Earlier the Minister gave an overall figure and a general estimate as to what those costings are likely to be.
It is extraordinary that the Minister of State does not have the costing for a provision. The Minister advised us earlier that the costing was £1 million, 90 per cent of which would be spent on implementing section 3 and that there was no additional cost in regard to section 4. We are dealing with section 5 and I cannot believe the House is carrying on in this way. My question is simple: will there be any additional cost and what is it? We should be able to get that information on Committee Stage.
I understand the costing is very small. It is fair to say that we are dealing with estimates, and the Minister earlier gave an overall estimate of the cost of implementing the provisions of this Bill. Any Member will accept that the cost is relatively low. It is acknowledged that the cost is based on an estimate and, as the Minister indicated, even if his estimate were out by 50 per cent, the additional cost would still be relatively low. It is essential to bear in mind that we are talking about a net figure. This relates to costings arising post divorce referendum in respect of people who are in receipt of payments.
The Minister said the cost will be very small and that he only had an estimate. We are asking, what is that estimate? The Minister has a low estimate but he is not willing to give it to the House. Either the Minister can tell us what it is or he cannot. If he cannot tell us, we will move on.
I do not have a figure. The cost is so small that there is no estimate of it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 2 is in the names of Deputies Mary Wallace and Joe Walsh. I observe that amendment No. 4 is related and I suggest that we discuss them together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, to delete lines 40 and 41 and substitute the following:
"(4) A deserted wife's allowance shall, subject to this Chapter, continue to be payable to a woman unless she remarries and in such a case the benefit shall cease as and from her remarriage.".
I acknowledge that the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, is at least courteous and civil in giving us information, if he has it, and if he does not have it he says so rather than treating us with the degree of arrogance the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, displayed and which is most unfair to this House.
That is unfair, particularly the absence of the Minister.
I have been a Member of this House longer than the Minister of State and I have never been treated to such diktat, arrogance and obfuscation. It is not good enough, and I agree with Deputy Woods in seeking to have this concealment of information from the House brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. This is a technical amendment. The Minister promised clarity but failed to provide it. In the case of a second marriage we wish to ensure that the payment continues to be made to the first wife.
I do not wish to invite the somewhat intemperate tone of the earlier exchanges but I reject the allegations of arrogance, concealment and the other superlatives which were used in the last few minutes and directed at my colleague, Deputy De Rossa. Any fair-minded person would agree he was more than willing to provide information.
Nonsense.
That is untrue.
If Deputies wish to intervene they have a facility for so doing. Let us hear the Minister of State without interruption.
We want the truth.
Sections 152 (4) and 155 (4) of the Principal Act, inserted in sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, provide that deserted wife's allowance and prisoner's wife's allowance will not be payable to a woman for any period after her remarriage. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 have the same effect in that they provide that such payments will cease as and from the woman's remarriage. While the proposed amendments do not alter the substance of the Bill they are consistent with the text of an equivalent provision on deserted wife's benefit in section 4. I am prepared to accept the amendments subject to Deputies Wallace and Walsh agreeing to two technical changes. The word "benefit" in both amendments should be replaced by the word "allowance". This is necessary as the payments in question are deserted wife's allowance and prisoner's wife's allowance. The words "subject to this Chapter" should be inserted in amendment No. 4 after the words "a prisoner's wife's allowance shall". Amendment No. 2 would then read "a deserted wife's allowance shall, subject to this Chapter, continue to be payable to a woman unless she remarries and in such a case the allowance shall cease as and from her remarriage.". Amendment No. 4 would read "a prisoner's wife's allowance shall, subject to this Chapter, continue to be payable to a woman unless she remarries and in such a case the allowance shall cease as and from her remarriage". Subject to the Deputies agreeing to accept these changes I am prepared to accept amendments Nos. 2 and 4.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, to delete lines 3 and 4, and substitute the following:
"(4) A prisoner's wife's allowance shall continue to be payable to a woman unless she remarries and in such a case the benefit shall cease as and from her remarriage.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 8 is an alternative and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, paragraph (b), line 29, after "spouse" where it firstly occurs, to insert "by regular transfer of income to his or her spouse".
We would like the Minister to comment on whether an entitlement to a claim for an adult dependant with whom one is not living should be qualified by an obligation to show evidence that transfers of income have been given to that spouse. It is known that the rate of defaulters on statutory maintenance is extremely high.
The rate of default is extremely high. My amendment states that we should insert "by the regular payment of money on foot of, and in accordance with, a court order or maintenance agreement". It would elaborate on what is in the Bill.
These amendments seek to define in primary legislation the circumstances in which a person will be regarded as wholly or mainly maintaining his or her spouse or former spouse for the purposes of the family income supplement scheme. Deputy Keogh's amendment provides that the spouse being maintained would have to be in receipt of a regular payment of money on foot of a court order or maintenance agreement. This gives rise to a practical difficulty in that not all maintenance is paid on the basis of a court order or maintenance agreement.
The amendment proposed by Deputies Wallace and Walsh provides that the spouse being maintained would have to be in receipt of a regular transfer of income. The amendments are unnecessary in that section 10 (3) of the Bill contains regulatory powers to determine the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as wholly or mainly maintaining another person. These powers will apply to all social welfare payments, including family income supplement. In view of these provisions I oppose the amendments.
In view of the Minister of State's clarification we will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 6, paragraph (c), line 38, after "wife" to insert "and have been so cohabiting for a period of, or for periods amounting to, more than one year".
We noted earlier the difficulty regarding the definition of "cohabiting". I suggest that we insert "a period of time, more than one year," into this section. There is uncertainly about the matter. For example, if people are living together for a week does that mean they should be considered as man and wife for the purposes of the Bill? The desire is to have a more specific definition here which would also be helpful in defining "cohabiting".
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.