Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997

Vol. 476 No. 5

Social Welfare Bill, 1997: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 5:
In page 6, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"4.—In the case where a person who is in receipt of a Social Welfare benefit or assistance payment, and either that person or an adult dependant of that person dies, the Minister shall consider the implications of continuing the current payment in full for a period of six months during the first year of bereavement, and he shall place a report on this matter on the table of Dáil Éireann within three months.".
—(Deputy Woods.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"4.—The recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare in relation to a common basic payment or minimally adequate payment shall be reviewed in the context of the projected growth in the economy, and the Minister will consider whether the payments are adequate for the needs of pensioners and he shall place a report on this matter on the table of Dáil Éireann within 6 months.".

The Minister of State referred to this amendment in the context of an earlier amendment in relation to the updated 1986 report of the Commission on Social Welfare. It is time to examine the adequacy of these payments for the present day.

I am particularly concerned about the position of pensioners. The Minister of State said earlier that the old age contributory pension is already greater than the rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare in 1986. When it comes to discussing these matters at Cabinet, the fact that the old age contributory pension is 113 per cent of the main recommended rate is obviously given as a reason for describing the rate as adequate. It is not adequate but just 113 per cent of the updated 1986 figure. In view of the wealth of the country and projected economic growth, we need to look at the adequacy of these arrangements.

It would appear that the Government is proposing that Civil Service pensioners should not benefit from agreed productivity related pay increases.

It is a cause of concern to the groups representing these pensioners and must be addressed in conjunction with the concerns of social security pensioners. Adherence to the Maastricht criteria should ensure low interest and inflation rates and considerable economic growth across the EU. These factors must be considered when providing for increases for pensioners. It will not be adequate to work solely on the basis of the consumer price index and will be necessary to adhere to a formula which gives true and fair recognition to the growth and development of the economy by ensuring that pensions not only keep pace with inflation or the 1985 levels recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare but will reflect the increasing wealth of the country.

I have received representations from public service pensioners who are rightly concerned that they will not benefit from productivity related pay agreements. Because of this and the other reasons I have outlined, the amendment calls on the Minister to place a report before the House which will consider the adequacy of payments with regard to current developments and with a view to ensuring that future increases will not be tied to the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. For example, while measures may already have been taken to meet some of the special needs of old age pensioners, the growing wealth of the economy will enable us to meet more of them.

Funded pension schemes depend on economic growth while unfunded schemes depend on theories applied to increases in payments. A report on social security pensions is therefore needed and because of the complexity of the matter, the amendment gives the Minister six months to present it to the House.

We have already prepared such a report. Debate on the Bill enables us to consider aspects of social welfare law in detail.

The ESRI was commissioned to review the minimum adequate payment rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare, thereby fulfilling the commitment contained in the programme, A Government of Renewal. The ensuing report, entitled A Review of the Commission on Social Welfare's Minimum Adequate Income was published in December 1996. This report, and the ESRI report entitled Poverty in the 1990s, form part of substantial research being undertaken by the ESRI and sponsored by the Department of Social Welfare and the Combat Poverty Agency. It will be further discussed as part of the national anti-poverty strategy. These studies and other key reports, such as that of the expert working group on the integration of tax and social welfare and the Department's social insurance discussion document, will contribute to informing public debate on the issue of poverty and the funding of the social welfare system while also providing a basis for assessing the adequacy of the current rates of social welfare entitlements and the standard of living of social welfare recipients.

The Commission on Social Welfare recommended a priority rate of £45 per week and a main rate of £50 to £60 per week in 1985 terms, or, using the consumer price index, £61.30 or £68.10 — depending on which scale is used — to £81.70 in 1996 terms. Using the approach by the Commission on Social Welfare, the ESRI updated the main rates to a range of £68 to £96 per week. This is interesting in that it recognises the need to improve rates in line with improvements in the economy, while it also recognises the extent to which we have already reached and exceeded the guidelines laid down by the Commission on Social Welfare. The review undertaken by the ESRI was timely and correctly recognises the points raised by the Deputy.

In assessing adequacy of payments, other forms of assistance available in the form of additional cash and non-cash payments were also taken into account. The most important appeared to be entitlement to a medical card, assistance with heating and energy costs and housing subsidies. Administrative studies show that extra benefits could add up to 25 per cent to the value of the basic cash support.

On the question of the adequacy and updating of the social welfare rates, the ESRI points out:

The manner in which the rates recommended by the CSW have tended to be employed in uprating — as a target which moves upwards over time only in line with prices is clearly inconsistent with the Commission's underlying approach to adequacy. If adequacy is to be assessed against the standards of the society in question, the target will move up over time as general living standards in the community rise.

However, many questions remain to be tackled as to the nature of that relationship and how it is best incorporated into the decision-making process.

However, progress can still be made towards a more explicit process of evaluating adequacy in uprating using data currently available. Changes in consumer prices, in average take home pay and in average income per head provide three indicators to which specific reference could be made in assessing how an adequacy standard was changing over time. Using these indicators in the way suggested in the EU's Minimum Income Recommendation, to regularly and publicly review changes in what would constitute an adequate income in the Irish setting would be a major step forward, and would in itself highlight the need for more comprehensive information.

I agree with such a review process which will be considered further as part of the national anti-poverty strategy. I point out that the adequacy of the old age pension provision, both social welfare and occupational, is specifically being addressed as part of the national pensions policy initiative and a consultation document on pensions issues was issued recently as part of this process by the Department and the Pensions Board. The adequacy of pensions, social welfare and otherwise, is a matter that rightly engages the Department on a regular basis. That is the position in many other European countries and must continue to be the case. The experience we can glean from what has happened in other jurisdictions will be put to beneficial use at an early stage in terms of planning for the future while recognising the needs of our society as it envolves and the financial constraints within which we, as well as other European countries, must operate.

The points raised by Deputy Woods in his amendment are essentially covered in the ESRI report. The Government anticipated the need to move in that general direction, which it has done.

The Minister of State does not want to bring forward the type of report I mentioned, yet having listened to what he said it is evident that such a report would be valuable and helpful to Members. He mentioned the ESRI report, the Combat Poverty Agency report, the report on the integration of tax and social welfare and others. If we want to consider the issue of adequacy on its own, the Minister of State must do what he said he would do in his reply. He drew information from different reports that relate to income adequacy. All I am asking is that he arrange for the preparation of a report over six months which relates to this issue. Such a report, which need not be much longer than the note he read in reply to my amendment, would set out the issues involved for the information of Members. If we are to adopt an open approach based on freedom of information, which is the subject of a Bill before the House, we should do so in a professional way. We should change the way we do things. I mentioned the report on child benefit prepared in three months or thereabouts which very much relates to issues that arise in debates in the House and contains information on the issues involved. Such reports provide Members with the necessary information to make decisions. Often they recommend the direction that should be taken. What is wrong in preparing such reports? Why can the work of the House not be based on good research information? I do not want to draw comparisons with other countries because I would like to think we would take a more researched based approach to the issues that concern us and subsequently would present the information to Members in a readily usable form. As the Minister does not support my proposal, I have no alternative but to press my amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"4.—The Minister shall prepare a report on the position of self-employed people who became insured for the first time when social insurance was extended to the self-employed in 1988 and who were then 56 or over, including their eligibility for a pro-rata rate of old age contributory pension, and he shall place this report on the table of Dáil Éireann within six months.".

This is another of the key underlying issues that need to be addressed. There is no point in adopting a facile approach by asking why this was not addressed in the first instance. We know why it was not. The actuaries and finance people estimated it would cost in the order of £757 million or £787 million to do that at the time. Regardless of whether one agreed with that estimate or claimed it should have been £600 million, there is no denying it is a very sizeable amount. We did not know how many of the self-employed would come forward and participate in the scheme and what would happen in respect of the fund, but we know about that now. We know that the contributions have contributed a great deal of money to the fund in the interim and there does not seem to be any doubt that we could go further in respect of the scheme at this time.

We know from replies to parliamentary questions that the self-employed have contributed £587 million to the social insurance fund to date. The drawdown from that fund would be relatively small at this stage and for some time to come. It will be some years before it matches the annual income into the fund which is in the order of £92 million or £93 million. As the flow of money into the fund has been substantial and the scheme is well established and successful, we should give serious consideration as to whether people over the age of 66 — even taking the group aged 56 to 60 — could be included on a pro rata basis. The Minister will say that a move in pro rata pensions could bring in some people with previous contributions. However, people without previous contributions would be below the average because they would not make that figure. This was their problem in the first place and why they were not included. Will the Minister consider having the various elements of this issue examined and brought together in a report?

Members need to know about these issues to deal with forthcoming legislation in this area. Members are being questioned about these matters and cannot deal with them satisfactorily if they do not have the facts. Will the Minister bring forward a report on this issue to ensure Members will know where they stand when the Estimates are being prepared for the next budget in the autumn? Many people who were not previously entitled to be involved in the social security system for pensions depend on us in relation to the Bill. If a death occurs, the widow's or widower's pension comes into operation. That is of benefit but many people do not qualify for the old age pension. The Minister is aware of this issue which should be reconsidered given our knowledge now in relation to the income, its regularity, the growth in that regard and the demands which might be anticipated.

The amendment relates to an item which has engaged the attention of Members and others who have been directly affected for some time. I will not be facile, as the Deputy suggested, and refer to the fact that he did not foresee the dangers which existed when he introduced the Bill in 1988. However, they were foreseen. I recall advising people about the limitations, given the trends which were developing and the fact that many people at that time did not qualify for a contributory old age pension under the 1960 Act.

I pointed out the anomaly in that regard and said the 1988 Act was built on almost the same basis as the previous Act and coincided in terms of anomalies with it. I considered it required further review and refurbishment. That happened this year and the Minister has correctly extended pensions to people who were outside the 1988 Act despite having several years of contributions. Many people who made contributions pre 1953, which gave them a greater average number of contributions, did not receive pensions, although others did. The period during which they started work post 1953 and the period they finished work brought their average up. As long as that anomaly remained, bigger anomalies developed.

The same position applies to the self-employed. Many people correctly foresaw the institution of the Act as progressive, worthwhile and beneficial in terms of making long-term provisions. However, others foresaw that a considerable number of people over the age of 56 at that time would not benefit because they would not have the necessary ten years' contributions and would feel aggrieved as a result. The Deputy mentioned the entitlements of widows and orphans but they are covered in any event. He is aware that provision is being made for refunds of the pension element of their contributions.

This issue must be addressed in the near future. Since the principle has been established over many years, the tendency is to move in that general direction. Depending on the number of contributions, people will receive a corresponding return in terms of pension payments. There is no proposal in that regard this year. I am not certain the production of a report would be of benefit because everybody knows what it entails and where the anomalies arise. It involves addressing it to the greatest extent possible in a particular year and hoping to move it forward in subsequent years.

When I was in Opposition I recall asking about the extension of entitlements in relation to the self-employed and those with less than an average of 20 who did not qualify for a contributory old age pension. I recall that figures up £800 million a year were trotted out in reply and that I disbelieved them at the time. It is easy and usual to disbelieve matters when one is in Opposition but it happens. I am glad that the Minister and I — and I am sure the Opposition — are in agreement with the thrust of the actions taken this year, such as the improvements for people who previously did not qualify for a pension although they had a considerable number of contributions. The problem referred to in the Deputy's amendment has also been specifically addressed in that the pension element of contributions is being refunded to those who do not and will not qualify for a non-contributory pension.

What is likely to happen in future will not be influenced to a great extent by the production of a report because it has all been read and said. With the evolution of the system, that issue will be addressed at some point in the future in the same way as the issue of pro rata pensions for those who did not qualify heretofore has been addressed this year.

I disagree with the Minister of State to the extent that the report would be helpful and timely. He recognises the different elements but the facts of the current position must be brought together because we know so much more about it now and it is possible to quantify it. The Minister says refunds of pension elements are currently being effected. This concerns me because, if there is any change, those same people will not be very happy that they have accepted a refund. The sooner this issue is addressed the better, which is why I am recommending the preparation of a report now. Being aware that there are many people in the background who might not want to highlight the issue to any great extent I am being helpful to the Minister of State. It is only right the House should have that information. The numbers of participants and their contributions were not known, but the greater knowledge now available would permit a reasonable estimate of the outcome, given developments that have taken place in the interim which will also have eased the cost element.

The Minister of State will know that many of these issues now converge and ultimately will reveal a different picture. The type of report I propose would be helpful to Members and to the Select Committee in examining these issues. We might even request the Select Committee to have the Department prepare a report thereon.

Why run away from this issue? Why would the Minister of State not agree to put the facts on the table of the House for inspection? What is wrong with that kind of open, democratic, participatory system about which we hear so much in the media but which is difficult to implement in the House?

Of course the problems were foreseen but appropriate solutions could not be foreseen. In 1988 that development was a major step forward and we should now be able to see those solutions.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"4. — The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Dáil Éireann a detailed report on the implications of the extension of the Family Income Supplement to the families of persons who are self-employed.".

This is a thorny issue, one which has been resolved in Northern Ireland where they have managed to extend the family income supplement to the self-employed. Accepting that its extension will involve greater monitoring, control, checking and information than would be applicable in the case of an employee whose emoluments would be more consistent or easily quantifiable than in the case of the self-employed, we should examine this issue very carefully. Acknowledging that there are now many self-employed people who experience considerable difficulty in making an adequate family income and who, if employed by someone else, would be eligible for the family income supplement, we shall have to face up to the possibility of its extension to some if not all of them.

It is important that such issues be discussed openly, with the fullest information available, well in advance of the next budget. I accept that priorities must be struck in the preparation of any budget, that each budget represents a selection of priorities. However, if the most up-to-date information is adequate and available, those priorities will manifest themselves. The reduction in the numbers of long-term unemployed must be a priority and the family income supplement is one method by which that can be achieved.

The back-to-work scheme is much heralded as being successful. The thinking behind its initiation was to give those concerned the moneys being paid in social welfare benefits on a sliding scale over three years. Some participants, when reduced to the 50 per cent rate or less, may well find that the work in which they had been happily engaged is not sufficient to meet their family needs. We are aware that some 65 per cent, if not more, of those participating in the back-to-work scheme are self-employed.

We can be quite certain that a proportion of self-employed experience difficulty in making ends meet. We should be making preparations for their inclusion in the system.

I agree with Deputy Woods that the family income supplement should be extended to the self-employed, many of whom are involved in small firms which are merely ticking over. They are reaping a very meagre income from their activities. If they were employed, they would be entitled to that supplement. It warrants serious examination by the Minister.

The family income supplement is currently available to employees, with children, in receipt of low earnings. The Minister has implemented a number of significant improvements since 1994, including an increase of £20, £10 in 1996 and 1997, in addition to changes in the threshold levels used to determine entitlement to this supplement. Most recipients have an additional £12 per week and there is a reduction from six to three months in the minimum period the employment is expected to last; a reduction in the number of hours which must be worked in order to qualify, from 20 hours per week to 38 hours per fortnight, an extension of FIS to job sharers and an immediate increase in the rate payable on the birth of a child.

In the context of reducing disincentives to work, priority is given to FIS as a means of increasing the net return from work to families with children. Partnership 2000 contains a commitment to reform FIS to calculate entitlement on the basis of net as opposed to gross wages, as recommended in the final report of the expert working group on integrating tax and social welfare. As a first step towards meeting this commitment the Minister made provision in this year's Social Welfare Bill to determine entitlement on the basis of earnings less PRSI and superannuation contributions.

Under the current arrangements, self-employed people with children are not eligible to claim FIS. However, self-employed people whose income falls below the rate of unemployment assistance appropriate to their family circumstances, are entitled to claim unemployment assistance. The rate of unemployment assistance payable depends on their means. In assessing means, account is taken of the net income which the applicant may reasonably expect to receive in the next year.

In 1994 the extension of FIS to self-employed people with children was estimated to cost in the region of £30 million in a full year. This cost is in addition to the existing cost of providing unemployment assistance to self-employed people whose income falls below the rate of unemployment assistance appropriate to their family circumstances.

In 1995 the ESRI published a paper entitled "Supplementing Family Income" which examined the FIS scheme. The report also examined the issue of extending FIS to the self-employed although no costing was carried out. The report highlighted a number of issues which need to be examined. However, should the extension of the scheme be considered, such as the method of assessing income from self-employment, the ESRI report notes that the extension of FIS to the self-employed could run the risk of a large increase in expenditure going to groups whose living standards were not adequately reflected by their incomes. It is also worth noting that in its final report the expert working group on integrating tax and social welfare did not recommend the inclusion of the self-employed in any reform of a FIS type payment on the basis that employees are the group most typically exposed to moving between employment and unemployment and for whom work incentives are a real issue.

Given the estimated cost of such an extension of the FIS scheme and the Government's priority in achieving the commitment contained in Partnership 2000 to reform the assessment of FIS, the Minister has no plans to extend FIS to the self-employed.

Deputy Woods correctly pointed out that a high percentage of people participating in the back-to-work allowance scheme are those who become self-employed. There is a tendency to suggest they are vulnerable and will not survive. That is true of every business set up but it is probably better in the initial stages to let them feel they are in a position to paddle their own canoe, to look after their own interests, than to revert too readily to a situation where they qualify for FIS. In the event of the person qualifying for the back-to-work allowance scheme, remaining on a descending scale and finishing the scheme, and following the theory put forward by Deputy Woods, one would assume they would have the support of FIS. The idea is good in theory but I am not sure that in practice it would be beneficial either to improving the attractiveness of the back-to-work allowance scheme or the incentive to work because at that stage the person on the back-to-work scheme will have made a decision to run on their own and, if unable to do so, will qualify for unemployment assistance. In the event of succeeding they will survive economically in the marketplace to which they became accustomed during the previous three years or for the duration of that scheme.

The points raised by the two Deputies opposite are well intentioned and I understand where they are coming from. However, there are two sides to the argument. It remains to be seen to what extent that intervention subsequent to self-employment will be beneficial. There is a whole series of other areas in relation to self-employment, to which Deputy Woods referred, where there have been anomalies. For example, a person who is self-employed previously did not always gain access to unemployment assistance in the event of that becoming a necessity. That matter has been resolved to a considerable extent. On the basis of events to date and the information available to the Department, while noting the points raised it is not necessary or desirable to proceed in that fashion in the current year.

I want to be clear about the people on the back-to-work allowance scheme. I hope not many of them would find themselves in difficulty at the end of the three years but we have to accept that some will. This is the reason I mentioned the different groups and categories of people. It is easy to say the ESRI estimated a figure of £30 million as the full year cost of introducing the family income supplement for self-employed persons. I note also that the standards of living would not be adequately reflected by the incomes of the self-employed. I presume it is the same in the North. To be clear about the criteria it is necessary to do some more homework. The figure of £30 million is the equivalent of about 8,000 long-term unemployed and the figure for unemployment of £1,065 million represents in the region of 255,000 or 259,000, which will probably be reduced shortly.

The two figures do not necessarily interact.

If the figures are put in context the amount of money involved is not that large. If we examine the groups for whom FIS might be feasible it may be more reasonable than suggested. Obviously the Minister and the Government do not have a mind to tackle the issue at this stage. It seems as if the Minister of State was sent in, since the Minister is not available, to say no to everything, even on the availability of a report in three or six months' time.

When I heard the number of reports the Deputy was looking for I got a fright.

It sounds very old-fashioned. We had hoped for better, but we did not get it.

It is coming up.

It is important that this issue be addressed to see if anything can be done about it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We come to amendment No. 9. I observe that amendment No. 10 is related. I suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together, if that is satisfactory? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"5.—The Minister shall establish a register of women working full-time in the home who wish to return to the workforce, to be known as the back to work register.".

Amendment No. 10 reads:

In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"5.—That Minister shall reserve 10 per cent of the educational, training and other back to work options for women in the home whose names are included in the back to work register.".

I do not mind whether it is called a back-to-work or home-to-business register but it is important to recognise the existence of women in the home who are anxious to return to the workforce. If they are entitled to receive unemployment assistance, they qualify for inclusion on the various schemes on offer; if not, they are excluded from between 95 per cent and 98 per cent of the options available. There is no need to include them on the live register. A substantial number do not qualify for unemployment or dependency payments and do not have the money to undertake private courses. It is time they were provided with assistance in appropriate ways. The purpose of amendment No. 10 is to ensure that a proportion of the options available are reserved for them. This was done successfully in the past in the case of lone parents, although the concept met with considerable resistance at the time. This facilitated the return of many lone parents to the workforce, including the professions.

Access by women to State run employment schemes, training programmes and educational opportunities was highlighted recently in a campaign organised by the National Women's Council and the INOU. Access to these schemes is largely dependent on an attachment to the live register or receipt of a one parent family payment from the Department of Social Welfare. Concern has been expressed that the use of the live register as a mechanism for targeting job, training, educational and other developmental opportunities is indirectly discriminatory as it does not accurately reflect the true level of female unemployment.

The Minister for Social Welfare has taken a number of steps to address the issues raised. These include the active encouragement of spouses of unemployed persons to avail of their entitlement to sign on the live register where they are themselves unemployed — this would give them access to CE and other opportunities in their own right; the availability of information to all those who wish to sign on the live register in an explanatory leaflet entitled Signing on the Live Register which details the various entitlements; allowing full access to the job facilitation service to all women who wish to inquire about the various options available to them and the promotion of the spouse swap facility available under CE and job initiative schemes which allows a person to participate in lieu of his or her spouse.

As part of its enhanced programme for social inclusion, the Government aims to develop a strategy which enhances equality and counters discrimination in employment and non-employment areas. Equity in access to labour market opportunities requires that women should not be penalised in the provision of employment supports, including training.

On foot of the Minister's recommendation, the Government agreed in December 1996 that the issue of women's participation in mainstream vocational educational, training and employment programmes should be reviewed. The social partners, the National Women's Council and the INOU were invited to participate in this review. A specific commitment in this regard was also included in the programme Partnership 2000. It should be evident, therefore, that the difficulties faced by women who wish to return to the workforce are being tackled in direct and ongoing consultation with all the relevant parties.

I have met representatives of the groups concerned on a number of occasions. It is not a question of preventing women from signing on the live register. We have actively encouraged women whose spouses are unemployed to do so by the provision of information which has proved beneficial. Some women do not qualify for inclusion on the various training schemes on offer for the reasons indicated by the Deputy. Qualification for payment is governed by contribution regulations.

All these considerations have been taken into account in ascertaining how women who wish to return to the workforce can best be facilitated in gaining access to training schemes which will give them the necessary confidence and extra skills required to allow them to compete adequately in the jobs market. In recent years more than 50 per cent of the jobs created have been filled by women, reflecting their numbers in the population. This trend is likely to continue.

It is important to make the information the Minister of State has outlined available to women who find themselves in this position to ensure the maximum number sign on.

Job facilitators will be available to them and that will be a further help. I will not comment on the spouse swap programme the Minister has introduced.

I explained that.

I am sure many people would be interested in it. Presumably it means that both partners can change status, with one being dependent. That still leaves a large number of people who will not be covered. These are the people we are concerned about and they should have the support they need, with options set aside for them. It would be helpful to have a register of women so that we would know how many of those concerned, who are not included in the live register, are anxious to participate in the workforce.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 66.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Thomas.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
  • Gilmore, Éamon.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and I. Callely; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"5.—The Minister shall reserve 10 per cent. of the educational, training and other back to work options for women in the home whose names are included in the back to work register.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are cognate and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, line 8, after "S.I." to insert "No.".

These amendments are minor amendments to the text of section 6. The Bill as initiated referred to "S.I. 260 of 1972" and "S.I. 28 of 1960". These amendments would alter the references to read "S.I. No. 260 of 1972" and "S.I. No. 28 of 1960" to eliminate any possible confusion.

I agree with the amendments. I wish Ministers would be as helpful and cordial in agreeing to such minor amendments when they are put by the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, line 9, after "S.I." to insert "No.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 9, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

"8.—The Minister shall not reduce the income to the Social Insurance Fund by 1 per cent., but may reduce the training and employment levy by an equivalent amount to benefit both employees and pensioners and maintain the solvency of the fund.".

The point involved here is that by reducing the level of contribution to the social insurance fund from 5.5 per cent to 4.5 per cent there may be difficulties in future with the solvency of the fund.

Another way of achieving this is through a reduction in the levy. Previously there were two 1 per cent levies which were separate from the social insurance fund. One levy was removed some years ago, while the other levy is still used to bring in funds for a range of activities, including training and employment.

We must ensure that the social insurance fund can meet its obligations on a year by year basis. The Minister may say that the fund will meet its obligations this year because the Government will make up the deficit of, say, £133 million. This will not give rise to problems immediately but it will weaken the fund in future. Unless the contributions are increased or decreased each year having regard to the needs of the fund or the Government includes contributions from employers, employees and the self-employed at a particular rate then the fund will be weakened.

We have referred to the needs of those who depend on the fund. In some cases the rates of payment are not adequate. We have an opportunity in the Bill to increase the levels of payment. I have no objection to the Government giving money to workers or easing the burden on employers but I am concerned about the entitlements of workers who depend on the fund. We should not undermine the fund or weaken its ability to meet its obligations in future.

The fund is receiving extra money as the self-employed and some civil servants now pay the full rate. The contributions by the self-employed amount to £92-93 million a year. To date they have contributed approximately £587 million and they will draw down this money in future. It is easy to say there is plenty of money in the fund but the danger is that in future the money in the fund will not be earmarked for these workers. I am concerned that the Minister is weakening the position of the fund and reducing its solvency. I tabled this amendment as it is important to ensure that the fund is kept solvent and that workers benefit from it. I would be concerned about any move to means test the benefits from the fund. If we remove money from the fund it is inevitable that the benefits will be means-tested in the future.

I do not accept the Deputy's argument; this theory is often put forward by those in Opposition. People can have different views depending on whether they are in Opposition or Government. I do not say this to be unkind to anyone.

The fund has been affected on many occasions as a result of Government actions. The Social Welfare Act, 1990, provided for the abolition of the occupational injuries fund and the redundancy and employers' insolvency fund. The surpluses in those funds at that time, which amounted to approximately £52 million, were used to reduce the Exchequer subvention to the fund in that year. This process is not new and does not put the fund in jeopardy.

Employees' PRSI was reduced from 5.5 per cent to 4.5 per cent specifically to increase the take-home pay of workers in industrial, commercial and service employments. These sectors were targeted to promote employment and to reward work in the non-State sector. The increase in take home pay which these workers received is capped when earnings reach £23,000 per annum because of the operation of the earnings ceiling for employees' PRSI. Single and married people benefit to the same extent, unlike changes in the income tax system which are worth double to a one earner couple compared with a single person. Furthermore, a reduction in employees' PRSI is the only way of improving the net income of approximately 1,000 employees on low pay who have no dependent children and who, therefore, do not qualify for family income supplement. It is important to remember that a cut in the levies would not benefit workers on incomes below the threshold for payment of the levies which is being increased from £188 to £197 per week. A cut in the levies would benefit people in other categories such as those on very high incomes who were not targeted by this measure. For that reason a 1 per cent reduction would cost approximately two and a half times a reduction of 1 per cent in employees' PRSI. This additional cost would have to be found by reducing expenditure or the other tax improvements announced in the budget.

There has been much discussion in recent years about the potential of PRSI levels to act as a tax on employment. The Government examined this matter and took into account the advice it received. It identified the areas where it would have most benefit, the low income groups. The need to encourage those in low paid jobs to remain in employment and to encourage unemployed persons to take up employment was uppermost in the Government's mind. This is the correct approach. The points made by the Deputy have been made previously and would, if applied in the fashion suggested by him, cost considerably more than our proposals and would not necessarily have the same beneficial impact on this group.

The social insurance discussion document "Social Insurance in Ireland" which was launched last October is designed to stimulate a debate on the future of social insurance. The views of all interested parties are being invited as part of a general consultative process in the development of policy in this very important area. As Deputy Woods correctly stated, this will engage the minds of those charged with responsibility for looking after the social insurance fund in future. It will initiate debate in such a way as to enable decisions to be taken in future which will specifically target the areas most in need and ensure that the funds available to the Minister are allocated in the best way possible.

I cannot divorce myself from my own practical knowledge and experience. On that basis, I cannot accept what the Minister of State said, which is irresponsible and short-sighted. It undermines the position of workers in their own fund. It is a pre-election sweetener. Another way was open to the Minister. He could have changed a number of the thresholds in relation to people on the lowest incomes or the amounts paid by those people. Nobody would have objected to that, but the Minister did not do that. This is obviously a pre-election measure and I am concerned it will adversely affect the social insurance fund in the future.

If there was so much money available in the fund this year, why were many other measures not implemented? The budget was not a good one for widows, old age pensioners and others.

It was a sweetener beforehand.

It has not made up for the past three years. The three years, when combined, were three bad years. This was an effort to make up for a very bad period. In The Irish Times today there is an article by Vincent Browne which states: “The sad reality is that in the social welfare area, the performance of this Government does not match what was done even by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats between 1989 and 1992”.

That is tongue in cheek.

It further states:

While Proinsias De Rossa has been Minister for Social Welfare, the real increase in benefits has been a mere 64 per cent of what the real increases were while the Progressive Democrats governed with Fianna Fáil. As this claim will be disputed, I will elaborate.

I will have to write to The Irish Times.

He goes on to show how the calculations given are reached. That articles bears out what was obvious to me from the beginning and which I tried to get across to the Minister. He is not doing a good job for the people who depend on social welfare. They will outline the real position.

There was so much additional money in the social insurance fund this year the Minister felt he could take money out of it. How can the Minister do that without giving the increases people need? Why could more not have been done for widows and families? Very little was done for families in particular. The Minister of State referred to personal rates, but if the rates are combined in respect of families, it is obvious that families have done badly. The books, which I am sure will issue to them before the election in April or May, will show that, for instance, a widow with five children will get an increase in her widow's pension of only 1.9 per cent. How can the Minister give away money from the fund when such miserly increases are being given? That is the reality of what this Government is doing.

Vincent Browne would not believe that.

A widow with three children on a contributory pension gets an increase of only 2.5 per cent.

He wrote that article with tongue in cheek.

He was only corroborating what I said.

I must have a word with him.

I could point out to him that in other areas we gave 11 per cent in that period in addition to other large increases. This Bill will only partly make up for the deficits of the past two years, and the pensioners are aware of that. Unfortunately, the Minister is undermining the very fund which exists to pay for these benefits and increases.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 10, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

"10.—The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Dáil Éireann a detailed report on the implications of the extension to self-employed contributors of the benefits of Occupational Injury Benefit, health and safety benefits and Invalidity Pension.".

This amendment is an example of what I was saying in relation to amendment No. 13. I cannot put down an amendment to require the Minister to do what is stated in this amendment because that would involve a charge on the Exchequer, but I can ask him the reason he will not do it, particularly as he is giving away money from the fund. The Minister seems to think the fund is doing all the work required of it.

Serious issues arise in regard to this amendment. The media has covered accidents in Dublin and other cities involving people on contract work falling from scaffolding or having other accidents on the job. Those people now come under the self-employed area because of changes over the years. Employers hire them as contractors and subcontractors, not full-time employees. That is now an extensive practice. People on contract work contributed to the social insurance fund for many years — I know some people who made contributions up to the age of 50. They have been forced by the changes made over the years to become subcontractors and, consequently, do not have the protection of the social insurance fund. They have protection under the self-employed category but that covers them only for old age, widow or widower's pension, not occupational injury benefit or invalidity pension. These people are crying out for cover in this area, and the problem must be dealt with. That is an example of what I was talking about in regard to the fund as a whole. It is important that we address this issue in the House and that a report on the implications of the extension should be brought before it. One of the implications is that it would be a charge on the fund, that we would have reduced it by 1 per cent.

That is a contradiction.

In any event let us have the report and examine it, because it is important. There is no point in Ministers making statements about falls from scaffolds. We should not have to wait for a PR merchant to tell us this area should be covered because there has been a fuss over it. The fund should cover obvious needs, and these are controllable.

If the founding fathers of the Deputy's party realised what he was up to he would be in deep trouble. The National Pensions Board in its final report did not recommend the extension of invalidity cover to the self-employed at present. The board considered that cover for permanent incapacity in the case of the self-employed and other people who are permanently incapable of work and not eligible for an invalidity pension under social insurance should continue to be provided by schemes of social assistance under which entitlement is subject to a means test.

The improvements which I have made in introducing the new disability allowance last year and the new sickness allowance provided for in this year's Bill are broadly in keeping with the board's recommendations. The board also recommended that the question of introducing social insurance cover for invalidity for the self-employed should be reviewed not later than five years after the introduction of the new invalidity and sickness schemes and in the light of experience of their application. That adequately addresses the issues raised by Deputy Woods in that area.

In the context of the national pensions initiative, questions in relation to coverage and quality of disability cover are included in the consultation document which completed stage one of the initiative. Stage two involves the consultation process and the compilation and examination of responses to the document. The pensions board will then draw up a report including recommendations. The target date for the completion of the second stage is early autumn, and it will fully address the concerns expressed by Deputy Woods. Everybody is aware of the changing structure of the workforce and the greater number of people in contractual employment. That has been taken into account in the document to which I referred. It is not entirely true, as Deputy Woods has suggested, that people are crying out for action in this area or that there is a major emergency. There is a need that is being addressed by the consultative process already in place. That is the best way of dealing with it because, following that consultation, the Minister will be in a better position to assess how best to proceed so that the maximum benefit accrues to the people directly concerned.

If all the amendments which have been proposed were taken on board the social fund would be depleted four times over. I appreciate the difficulties faced by the Opposition in that it cannot table amendments which entail a cost to the Exchequer, but it should be noted that there are two sides to the debate. There are compelling reasons for making improvements. However, there is a cost factor which will always be ignored by the Opposition but cannot be ignored by Government.

The Minister has a brass neck to come in here and talk about the cost of improvements——

It takes one to know one.

——when he is taking £138 million out of the fund.

It would cost £500 million.

Many real needs have not been addressed——

They have been addressed.

——apart from allocating a general overall increase. The Minister mentioned that the National Pensions Board recommended a wait of five years after the introduction of the new schemes. In this respect, it is wrong. I would not wait one year. When I see an ordinary decent working man going out to work on these sites and he is not covered, I am not going to tell him he will have to be satisfied with means-tested assistance. That is what the Minister said, and it is not acceptable. It worries me that there appears to be an undermining of the fund so that people do not get the benefits they need. There will not be many accidents in the workplace, but there will be some. There are people in wheelchairs this year as a result of accidents at work who will not have the cover of an invalidity pension and will have to apply for a means-tested pension.

I have been dealing with that for the past 15 years.

I want those people to be covered. When there is money available they should be covered, and it will not cost £500 million. If the Minister were to ask his officials they would tell him it would not cost much to cover people in that situation. It might be argued that it would have to apply to people working on farms, but why should a farmer who has been invalided because of an accident on the farm not be covered too? It is farmers who make the products from which we all live. They are the most fundamental producers in the country, no matter what is said about them.

We do cover them.

We do not cover them for occupational injury, for invalidity pension. That is the problem.

We do cover them.

They are only covered for means-tested assistance. I do not like that, and I do not want it. It is not right. The Minister may get away with it for a short time but, in the long run, it is not what the workers want.

What the Deputy says is not true.

The Minister has said there is no great outcry over this——

That is not what I said either. I said the Deputy was exaggerating.

——but there is an onus on the Minister for Social Welfare to try to anticipate needs and to address them, and there would be no great cost involved.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 10, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

"10. —The Minister shall, within three months after the end of each year, lay before Dáil Éireann an annual actuarial account of the future liabilities of the Social Insurance Fund and of the projected needs of the Fund.".

I tabled this amendment because of the need to be conscious of the status of the fund. On Committee Stage the Minister stated that there would be an actuarial study every five years. That interval is too long. We should know each year where the fund stands, and that may mean having an actuarial study every three years. However, I believe we should have an annual study and that is why I have asked the Minister to lay such report before the Dáil within three months after the end of each year. We are talking about openness and accountability, and those reports should be laid on the table for discussion. That is what openness is about.

I have a distinct recollection of what openness was about when I sat over there. I remember painstakingly asking questions from time to time when the Deputy was sitting over here, and I recognise how frustrating it is for Members in Opposition to extract information in circumstances such as those that prevailed at that time. Circumstances have changed considerably since then and there is now openness. A great deal of information is available and we have no objection to giving it, within reason.

There is openness within reason.

This is an election year and people tend to quote The Irish Times, which is a fine newspaper. I must have a word with Vincent Browne about that.

He would be delighted to talk to the Minister about it.

In an election year we should not lose our reason. We should not suggest to every group that they are hard done by, that as a result of intervention by an Opposition Deputy or a Minister there will be a permanent beneficial impact on their lives and that anybody who suggests otherwise is refusing to disclose or covering up something. I do not accept that. The current Administration has done a great deal in a very short time to address the issues to which the Deputy referred, to address the needs of the people who are less well off and provide for the people who perhaps had been self-employed and need to fall back on social welfare because of the unfortunate change in their circumstances. All those matters have been carefully assessed and substantial improvements made in every area where payments are required. There have also been substantial extensions in terms of entitlements.

With the passage of time people tend to forget what happened in the past. I will be gentlemanly however and will not resurrect the ghosts of the dirty dozen. I will not refer to 1990-1 and the horrendous measures imposed on a hapless public by a Government which, it said, was doing its best at the time — I have no reason to disbelieve it. Ample time followed during which the problems could have been addressed but that was not done.

They were addressed.

They were not. I have always believed that Deputy Woods is a compassionate man and I am sure he must have had nightmares when he thought about the impact of some of the measures implemented at that time. I do not wish to go down that road, but I get annoyed when I hear calls for expenditure of up to £400 million in one day. If this debate went on for a week we would need the Exchequer of two or three other jurisdictions as well as our own to fund the inspiration of the Opposition, not to talk about addressing the problem in its entirety.

The social insurance fund consists of the PRSI contributions of employers, employees, and the self-employed. This funds social insurance payments, with the Exchequer making up any shortfall. The National Pensions Board, in its final report, Developing the National Pensions System, recommended, inter alia, that an actuarial review of the projected long-term costs of all social welfare pensions, not just SIF pensions, be carried out every five years. The first such actuarial review is currently being carried out by Irish Pensions Trust consultants in the Department and it is hoped to have it completed by mid-year. That is positive news and there is no need for an amendment in that regard. The Department is ahead of the posse.

The focus of the review is long-term pensions, contributory and non-contributory, covering old age, retirement, widow's, widower's and invalidity pensions. Non-cash benefits, free schemes paid by the Department of Social Welfare, are also to be included in the review which will cover the next 60 years. That is indicative of the recognition by the Government of the need to make adequate provision for the future. Some of us will not be around at the end of that period and those who are will be in need of the resources that are available from the respective funds at that time. Following completion and examination of the review the Minister will consider the formal legal arrangements that need to be put in place for future reviews — it would be premature to do so at this stage. Any such arrangements should refer to more than the SIF and it would be unnecessary to carry out such reviews annually. Those matters will be reviewed from time to time in accordance with necessity.

I wish the Government the best of luck with the review that will cover the next 60 years. If it sees beyond three years it will be doing very well. It was not very successful in the past and there is no reason to believe it will be in the future. There is an estimate of what might happen in given circumstances, and they are very interesting models, but we need to know on a much more frequent basis what the position is likely to be. The Minister said that a five year review would be sufficient, but it would need to be carried out more frequently. I will not press my amendment, but it is important that actuarial studies take place on a regular basis so that we know exactly what is happening with the fund and what the future needs are likely to be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 20, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

"13. —The Minister shall make every possible effort and take all steps open to him to ensure that the EU subsidised butter scheme is restored to its pre-December, 1996 level.".

The butter scheme has been halved, but that was not necessary because there has not been a drop in the level of butter consumption since 1990. The Government had to go back to 1981 to find a drop in consumption, concentrating on the years 1981-95. The review, however, covered the two years 1994-6 and there was no drop in butter consumption during that period. The press release was misleading in that it was based on the much longer period. It was a misrepresentation of the position. That was the case put to the meeting of the Council of Ministers in December when it was agreed to reduce this scheme.

We do not agree with the reduction in butter vouchers, which are paid to 900,000 people. The people who benefit most are families and, therefore, they will lose most by this measure. A family with five children who previously received 14 butter vouchers per month will now receive only seven per month. With the meagre increases in basic payments, that is unacceptable in present circumstances. It is regrettable the Government is not prepared to restore the scheme to its original level. If given an opportunity, we will do so.

The beauty of being in Opposition is that Members can safely say when they return to Government they will overturn everything. It was fortunate we got into Government to overturn some of the proposals Members of the Opposition made when they were Government.

This is not a serious issue, it is a political one. What Deputy Woods said is not true. There has been a reduction in butter consumption since the introduction of the scheme.

Not since 1990. The Minister did not have his eye on the ball.

We have our eyes firmly fixed on the ball and intend to continue doing that. The Deputy examined the position since 1991 and concluded that there has not been a great reduction in butter consumption. However, there has been a considerable reduction in butter consumption since the scheme was initiated and for the reasons I outlined on Second Stage, it was decided to reduce the butter voucher scheme. Deputy Woods said the reduction will have a negative impact on families. Any alleged loss will be more than compensated for by the substantial increase in child benefits.

In essence, the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry did not make a proper case at the Council meeting. The memorandum presented to the Council of Ministers by the Commission left it open to retain the scheme at the current level. I will leave it to the Minister of State to tell the widow with five children, who will receive an increase of only 1.9 per cent in her widow's pension, that this reduction will not impact negatively on her.

She will get a 57 per cent increase in child benefit.

This is a serious matter for the people concerned, but if the Minister and the Minister of State do not understand that, there is not much more I can do.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 21, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

15. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Dáil Éireann a detailed report on the implications of the extension to recipients of Disability Allowance the entitlement to earn up to £6,000 per year, and retain their full payment, and where their earnings are between £6,000 and £12,000 that they shall be entitled to a reduced level of payment.".

While the special arrangements for lone parents and one parent families should be extended to many other groups of people, one group stands out in this regard. As more than 80 per cent of those on disability allowance are unemployed, they should be given every assistance to get back to the workforce. That group should be given priority.

This amendment is unnecessary. The matter is not as simple as Deputy Woods appears to believe. There has been a significant improvement in benefits as a result of the transfer of the disability allowance to the Department of Social Welfare. Universal application of the guidelines has greatly improved the operation of the scheme. Obviously, teething problems will occur when transferring a scheme from one Department to another, but application of the guidelines on an equal basis, irrespective of health board or county boundaries, has ensured the benefits are displayed equally throughout the country.

The provisions specified in this amendment for the assessment of means for disability allowance are the same as those that currently apply in the case of the one parent family payment, which I introduced last January. Under these provisions, the first £6,000 of earnings are disregarded in the assessment of means, earnings in excess of this amount are assessed at 50 per cent and the payment ceases to be payable where the earnings exceed £12,000 per year.

Research by the ESRI and Combat Poverty Agency has shown that one parent families are vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion. The policy I have adopted on one parent families is reflected in the way the one parent family payment has been designed as an income support mechanism to take into account the special needs and requirements of single parents raising children and maintaining a household on their own.

The one parent family payment is also aimed at facilitating lone parents to return to the workforce by providing positive support, so that over time they can become less reliant on social welfare payments for their income needs. The new £6,000 disregard of earnings for the one parent family payment is designed to make employment a more attractive option for single parents and to simplify the method of means assessment, so that in considering employment single parents can more readily understand their position in regard to social welfare entitlement.

In so far as disability allowance is concerned, responsibility for the administration of the allowance was transferred to my Department from the Department of Health last October. In taking over this scheme, my main concern was that the transfer would be effected efficiently, with as little disturbance as possible for existing clients. However, at the same time, I introduced a number of improvements, including provision for two full personal rates where both partners are in receipt of the allowance, the payment of disability allowance for up to 13 weeks where a person goes into hospital as compared with the eight week period under the former disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme, the payment of child dependant allowances up to age 22 where the young person is in full-time education, and improved arrangements for the assessment of capital under which the first £2,000 capital is disregarded.

In the context of taking over responsibility for the administration of the scheme, I replaced the title "disabled person's maintenance allowance" with "disability allowance", following consultations with representative groups. Means for disability allowance are now generally assessed along the same lines as unemployment assistance. The benefit and privilege provisions, however, applied in the case of unemployment assistance, under which young people living at home may be assessed with parental income, is not applied in the case of disability allowance.

The Minister is making further improvements to the scheme this year, including the payment of disability allowance at half rate to people who are in part time residential care and the payment of two full personal rates where one spouse is in receipt of disability allowance and the other is in receipt of either old age pension or invalidity pension. He has also allocated 1,000 of the increased numbers provided for in the back-to-work allowance this year for a pilot scheme for people with disabilities. This represents 20 per cent of the increased numbers provided for in the scheme this year. In so far as the future development of disability allowance is concerned, my Department is in the process of undertaking a comprehensive review of the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities with a view to bringing forward proposals for a range of improvements in the scheme in the context of the 1998 budget.

Substantial improvements have already taken place which have addressed, to a great extent, the points raised by Deputy Woods in the amendment. It is generally accepted that is the case. I do not see the benefit at this stage of intervening further. However, as time passes it will be necessary to review the operation of this scheme, as is the case with a number of other schemes, to ascertain whether it is sufficiently targeting the people whom it is intended to assist or whether changes are needed. The scheme is greatly improved, which is reflected in the support for it and the general comments from those whom it directly affects.

Incentives to return to the workforce are essential and should be viewed from two vantage points. First, provision is being made in the revised scheme to encourage those who are in a position to return to the workforce to so do. Second, it must be recognised that recipients of disability allowance might not be physically capable of returning to the workforce and should not be coerced into so doing. We must find the right balance between recognising the existence of the disability and the need to protect such people and their families and the need to provide an incentive for those who are capable of returning to work to do so. That has been done very effectively in a very progressive and worthwhile package which sufficiently meets the requirements.

The provisions are very much welcomed by those on disability allowance. I accept their position has been improved, which was the whole idea behind bringing them under the auspices of the Department of Social Welfare so that they could receive the attention and support which they deserve.

I ask the Minister of State to look again at the incentive package for the next time — I know he will not do it at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 30, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

"25. —The Minister shall prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann an annual report on the operation of the assessment of the yearly value of capital and property for means assessments and the factual basis for the percentage adopted.".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 19 is out of order as it does not arise out of select committee proceedings.

Amendment No. 19 not moved.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 43, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

" (2D) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the periods specified in that subsection in respect of which payment may be made before the date on which a claim is made may, subject to such conditions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed, be extended by an officer of the Minister appointed by the Minister for this purpose.'.

(2) Section 4(4) (a) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after '203(1),' of '205(2D),'.

(3) Articles 104, 104A, 105, 107(4), 107(5), 109(1)(b) and 109(2) of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Payments Provisions) Regulations, 1994 (S.I. No. 417 of 1994), and Articles 11A(3), 11A(4), 11A(7) and 11B (inserted by Article 9 of the Social Welfare (Claims and Payments) (Amendment) Regulations, 1967 (S.I. No. 85 of 1967), of the Social Welfare (Claims and Payments) Regulations, 1952 (S.I. No. 374 of 1952), are hereby revoked.

(4) This section shall apply in respect of a claim for any benefit, assistance, family income supplement, child benefit or continued payment for qualified children under the Principal Act made on or after the 1st day of January, 1997.".

I welcome the amendment.

It is another very progressive measure which was long sought after, recommended by many people, but enacted by the present Administration.

It removes some anomalies. Is this the one about which the Ombudsman had something to say?

He said it while the Deputy was in the Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As it is now 6.45 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Social Welfare and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and agreed to.

I welcome the improvements in the Bill but——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must move on to the other business.

——it is a very poor provision at a time when there is great growth and money available. I am concerned about the future of the social insurance fund.

If I were the Deputy I would not be unduly concerned. I assure him that his concerns are well catered for within the Bill. I thank him and the other Members who contributed to the debate and the officials in the Department who worked so hard on its compilation.

Top
Share