Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 1998

Vol. 487 No. 7

Social Welfare Bill, 1998: Second Stage.

Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am glad, as Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, of the opportunity to introduce my first Bill in this House. The primary purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the various social welfare improvements provided for in the 1998 budget last December which require legislative changes. It is the first major legislation to come before the House in fulfilment of the commitments given in the Government's programme, An Action Programme for the Millennium, to address the issues of social exclusion, marginalisation and poverty in our community. This includes delivering on certain key commitments in Partnership 2000.

The Bill provides for substantial real increases in the value of all social welfare payments; significant improvements in payments for pensioners; the bringing forward of increases in weekly payments by two weeks; fundamental reform of the FIS scheme; additional support for families; special child benefit payment for twins and improved grants for children of multiple births; easement of the means tests for certain social assistance schemes; a firm basis for developing a more integrated administration of our public services; relief to over 1 million workers paying PRSI and a strengthening of the PRSI system with regular actuarial reviews of the social insurance fund. It also contains a number of other adjustments and amendments to the social welfare code.

The resources provided by the Government in the recent budget for social welfare improvements amount to £125 million this year and £225 million in a full year. It is the largest budget package for many years, allocating £11 million — or 9 per cent — more than was provided in the 1997 budget. As a result of this year's initiatives, the commitment to spend £525 million on social inclusion measures — including social welfare rate increases — during the three year period of Partnership 2000 has been more than exceeded in the first two years. The increased allocation of £125 million this year will bring overall spending in 1998 by my Department to £4.85 billion. I will now outline the provisions in the Bill.

The Bill contains seven parts. Part l contains the usual provisions of construction citation and continuance of instruments. Part II provides for the increases in social welfare payments.

In our programme for Government we are committed to increasing the rate of contributory old age pension to £100 over a five year period. In recognition of the contribution which our older people have made in developing our economy and improving the quality of life in our community, the Government decided to go beyond what is strictly required by that commitment this year. Accordingly, it has given a special increase of £5 per week in the maximum personal rates of payments to pensioners with proportionate increases for those on reduced rates of pension. The Government is also committed to providing substantial increases in other social welfare payments. In addition, Partnership 2000 guarantees that the real income position of those dependent on social welfare would be protected and enhanced and that the minimum rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare would be implemented before the end of Partnership 2000 in 1999.

These special increases in pensions, which represent increases of between 6.4 per cent and 7.4 per cent for those who receive them is a clear indication of the Government's desire to fulfil the promises given in the Government programme. As a result of these provisions 94 per cent of people who rely on weekly social welfare payments will now receive more than the recommended minimum rate of payment of the Commission on Social Welfare. The implementation dates for these increases is being brought forward by two weeks this year with the result that all the increased rates will be paid from the first week in June.

Section 4 provides for the increases in social insurance payments of £5 in the weekly maximum personal rate of payments to pensioners aged 66 years and over and in the maximum rates of retirement and invalidity pensions payable to people aged 65 years and over. All other personal rates of social insurance payments are being increased by £3 per week and payments in respect of qualified adults are being increased by approximately 3 per cent. Similarly, section 5 provides that social assistance recipients aged 66 years and over will receive a £5 increase in their weekly personal rate and those under 66 years will receive £3 per week. As with social insurance payments, increases in respect of qualified adults will be approximately 3 per cent.

Section 6 of the Bill provides for increases in child benefit of £1.50 for the first two children and £3 for each subsequent child, bringing the monthly rate of child benefit to £31.50 and £42 respectively. This section also introduces much needed improvements in respect of multiple births. The rate of child benefit payable in respect of twins will be one and half times the normal rate. Also, the grants payable in respect of multiple births are being aligned so that all multiple births will receive a grant of £500 on birth and further grants of £500 at the age of four and 12 years. These improvements will be effective from September 1998.

Section 7 provides for improvements in family income supplement. For the first time FIS will be assessed on a net basis, that is, gross income less superannuation contributions, income tax and PRSI. This improvement delivers on the commitment in Partnership 2000 to calculate entitlement to FIS on the basis of net earnings. This scheme is designed to ensure that unemployed people have an incentive to take up work and employees have an incentive to stay in work by providing an income supplement to low income families in employment. This improvement, which will come into effect on 1 October 1998, will bring an extra 1,600 families within the scope of the scheme in 1998 and about 7,000 in a full year. In addition to this improvement, section 7 also provides for a general increase of £7 in the weekly thresholds for the calculation of entitlement to FIS from June of this year. As a result all current recipients will benefit by at least £4 per week. In overall terms, the effect of the budget changes will mean that a two child family where the breadwinner is earning £210 per week will gain an extra £18 per week in household income.

Section 8 provides for increases in social insurance allowances, thresholds and ceilings. Under this provision the amount of an employee's earnings not subject to social insurance contributions will increase from the current £80 per week to £100 per week. The threshold under which employers are liable for the lower 8.5 per cent rate of employer contribution will increase from £260 per week to £270 per week and the earnings ceiling up to which social insurance contributions are payable will increase from £23,200 per annum to £24,200 per annum for employees and from £27,900 per annum to £29,000 per annum for employers. These changes will come into effect on 6 April. Section 9 provides for a similar increase in the income ceiling for self-employed contributors to that of employees, that is, from £23,200 per annum to £24,200 per annum.

Part III of the Bill provides for improvements in social welfare schemes. Section 10 provides for an easement of the rules for assessing means for certain social assistance schemes. An amount not exceeding the rate of old age contributory pension which is received by way of a foreign social security disability pension will be disregarded from the assessment of means for carer's allowance. Rental income will be disregarded for the purposes of widow's and widower's non-contributory pension where the rent is paid by a person who lives with the widow or widower and that widow or widower would otherwise live alone.

The first £2,000 of any income received under the special areas of conservation scheme will be disregarded in assessing means for unemployment assistance, pre-retirement allowance and old age non-contributory pension. A similar disregard currently operates in the case of REPS income. I have recently obtained Government approval for a further improvement in this last measure. I intend to put forward on Committee Stage an amendment to extend this disregard even further. At present all such income in excess of £2,000 is fully taken into account in the assessment of means. I propose that in future only half of any remaining income above the £2,000 threshold will be assessed. This measure will provide a real incentive for many smallholders to avail of these schemes. The additional cost of this improvement will be approximately £200,000 in the current year.

Section 11 provides regulatory powers to prescribe for payments in respect of loss of purchasing power where a claim for a social welfare payment is delayed over 12 months and the claimant is not responsible for the delay. These powers also provide for payment of costs necessarily incurred by the person in making a claim.

When a person whose spouse is being paid a carer's allowance to look after him or her dies, the social welfare payment will be paid to the carer at the married rate for six weeks following the death. However, carers in exactly the same situation except that the spouse was not in receipt of a social welfare payment do not receive any such payment. This anomaly is rectified by section 12 which provides that in such circumstances the carer will continue to receive carer's allowance for six weeks following the death.

Deputies are aware of concerns regarding the full-time care and attention requirements of the carer's allowance. I have recently reviewed the operation of this requirement and I am pleased to say that a more flexible approach should be adopted. Carers may attend educational or training courses or participate in voluntary or community based activities, for around ten hours per week, provided the carer makes adequate provision for the care recipient in his or her absence. These new arrangements will come into effect immediately. Furthermore, in the recent budget I extended the free travel pass to all carers in their own right. This is a clear indication of the Government's policy in relation to the needs of carers. As Deputies are aware, there is a comprehensive interdepartmental review of the carer's allowance currently being undertaken under the chairmanship of my Department, which will be completed by the middle of the year and further improvements will be considered in light of that review.

Section 13 amends two definitions in the social welfare code. The definition of "child dependant" is amended to ensure the continued payment of child dependant allowance where the parent is in receipt of long-term payments and the child has left school and is not entitled to claim unemployment assistance. It also amends the definition of "Minister" to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs in the light of the additional responsibilities assigned since last year.

I would now like to outline a number of new measures the Government has decided to introduce to improve the delivery of public services to the community. In its Action Programme for the Millennium, the Government aims to make public administration more relevant to the citizens for whom the service exists through focusing public administration on the needs of the customer. The legislative proposals contained in Part IV, sections 14 and 15 of the Bill provide a framework for the development of an integrated approach to the administration, delivery, management and control of publicly funded income support services. The main aim of these proposals is to introduce greater coherence to the provision of the various social services by making them more accessible and user-friendly, more co-ordinated, simpler to understand and easier to manage. This approach will lead to better service for the public and contribute to greater control of schemes.

Sections 14 and 15 provide for four elements: the standardisation of the RSI number as a personal public service number; the introduction of a public service card on the lines of the existing social services card; the use of new technology on cards to develop new methods of paying social welfare benefits by way of electronic direct delivery to the customer and the sharing of information between relevant agencies for the purpose of determining entitlement to and control of certain means tested social services. I commend my predecessor for the work done in preparing the interdepartmental report on the development of an integrated social services system, ISSS, which was published in August 1996 and forms the basis for the measures I am taking. The personal public service number will replace the RSI number currently issued by my Department. Over 3 million RSI numbers have been registered with my Department since 1979 and they are currently used by several public service agencies, such as my Department; the Revenue Commissioners in tax administration; the Department of Education and Science in the administration of higher education grants; the Department of Agriculture and Food in administering the early retirement scheme for farmers and health boards in administering supplementary welfare allowance.

In future it will be used as a key identifier by certain specified agencies. These include Government Departments, health boards, local authorities, the Revenue Commissioners, FÁS, the General Register's Office and the Legal Aid Board. It is intended to add to this list over time and the Bill provides for this in regulations which require a positive resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The public service card will replace the current social services card, of which over 1.6 million have been issued to date. The new card will have the person's name, their personal public service number and the card's primary account number visible on front. The initial cards will contain a magnetic strip on the back with the person's name, personal public service number, date of birth and gender encoded.

Following publication of the Bill, there was a degree of confusion about the intended use of the new number and public service card. I wish to clarify a number of aspects which have not been fully understood. First, I assure the House that the personal public service number will not become a de facto national personal identifier. The Bill provides it will act as a single identifier for public administration purposes only and may only be sought by the public service when there is a transaction between the person and the public service.

I also stress that the public service card will not be a general identity card as the provisions in the Bill make it illegal to use it apart from accessing public services. For instance, it may not be used for identity purposes by the Garda, publicans, etc. The Bill also contains a proposal to allow for certain information to be placed on commercial cards for the purposes of paying social welfare benefits. This means social welfare recipients may in future collect their payment via ATMs, banks, supermarkets or a variety of retail outlets.

The Bill includes provision for the sharing of information relating to a number of the most common means tests applied by various Departments or agencies. For example, a person who becomes unemployed or has separated may have to undergo separate means tests for supplementary welfare allowance, a social welfare payment, a medical card and differential rents in the same week. This can lead to a great deal of frustration among people accessing these services. Our aim is to put in place, over time, better administrative procedures by various State agencies which will enable them to share the latest available means data for customers. The means information will be stored on a central means database which has been developed by my Department and will be accessible to other relevant agencies where a customer has made a claim. This will help ensure a better and quicker service for the customer and ease difficulties currently experienced in accessing such services. It is intended the new arrangement on data sharing will apply in the case of social welfare schemes operated by my Department; certain income support schemes provided by the Department of Health and Children; medical cards; higher education grants; differential rents and civil legal aid. In effect the information required for any of these services will only be provided once. Similarly, corrections to existing information will also be shared so that a person will only have to tell his or her story once.

I assure the House these provisions are fully consistent with the provisions of the 1981 Council of Europe Convention, which was ratified by the Data Protection Act, 1988. I am satisfied the Government has addressed the need for efficient public services and personal privacy protection in a balanced way. The provisions outlined in the Bill contain adequate safeguards for the protection of the individual's right to privacy.

For example, it shall be an offence to use a personal public service number and/or a public service card other than for the purposes for which it is intended under the legislation; the holder of a card may at any time request a copy of the information encoded on his or her card and it may be read only by specially programmed computer systems; data sharing will be restricted for the specific purpose of entitlement to and control of certain means tested social services. While the personal public service number will be widely used, data sharing will only be permitted for purposes specified in law, approved by the Oireachtas and in conformity with established data protection obligations. Existing data controllers in all Government Departments and agencies, who are responsible for ensuring data protection requirements are enforced, must be satisfied that any proposed data sharing is relevant to a specified lawful purpose. Under existing legislation, people have the right to receive a copy of any computerised personal information held by a public body. This will be further extended when the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, comes into effect in April 1998.

Part V of the Bill provides a number of amendments to the social welfare code. Section 16 is a technical amendment relating to the financial management of the social insurance fund. Section 17 provides for actuarial reviews of the social insurance fund to be completed on a five yearly basis and the reports of such reviews to be laid before the Oireachtas. The final report of the National Pensions Board, published in December 1993, included a series of projections setting out the future costs of social welfare pensions. It also recommended that an actuarial review of the projected long-term costs of these pensions be carried out every five years and I recently published the first such review.

Section 18 clarifies the entitlement to pre-retirement allowance for separated spouses and consolidates the legislative provisions for the allowance. Section 19 is a consequential amendment to the provision of an increase of £5 per week in the personal rate of blind pension to those who have attained pension age. Section 20 amends and extends the recovery procedures for social welfare payments. It provides for the recovery of money wrongfully received by a person from that person's current or future social welfare payments and avoids unnecessary recourse to the courts.

Section 21 provides for the extension, by three months, of the period in respect of which arrears may be paid in the case of a late claim for certain occupational injuries benefits. It also provides that decisions regarding the payment of late claims made under regulations will be a deciding officer function and may be appealed to the independent social welfare appeals office. I recently signed regulations providing for the extension of the period for which late claims may be paid. They provide, in respect of contributory pension claims received more than 12 months late, for payment on a proportional basis where the statutory conditions are satisfied and the claim was received on or after 1 January 1997, and also provide for payments on a proportional basis depending on how late the claim is made. They permit full retrospection in several limited circumstances, such as incapacity or incorrect information issued by the Department, but I strongly emphasise that everyone should apply for their social welfare entitlements in good time.

Section 22 provides that it will be an offence for a person not to comply with a request for information required for the purposes of investigation of entitlement or control of social welfare schemes. Section 23 provides that the appointment of social welfare inspectors may be delegated to an officer of the Department. Section 24 provides for a definition of "liable relative", minor technical amendments to the liable relative provisions and that the District Court shall, where necessary, decide the manner in which contributions should be made. Section 25 provides for the introduction of the provisions of Part V by way of commencement order.

Part V, sections 26 and 27, provide for the raising of the thresholds from £197 to £207 per week, or in annual terms from £10,250 per annum to £10,750 per annum, above which the health contribution and employment and training levy apply. These provisions will come into effect on 6 April 1998. Part VI, section 28, amends section 54 of the Pensions Act, 1990, to provide regulatory powers to prescribe information to be provided by the trustees of occupational pension schemes and to whom such information is to be provided.

This Bill is one of the most radical Social Welfare Bills presented to the Oireachtas in recent years. It has many facets in that it recognises the contribution our older people have made in building the Ireland of today, while setting out the parameters under which the modern State will develop its public, and particularly its social services, in the new millennium. For those reasons, particularly for the large increases given in the budget, I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to a constructive and useful debate.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I would love to be able to congratulate the Minister on introducing his first Bill as Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs but I cannot as I oppose this Bill. It is a further chapter in the sorry saga of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government and its exploitation of the poor. The policy is best described as a reverse Robin Hood in that it takes from the poor to give to the rich. That was evident in the budget, the Finance Bill and now in this Bill.

There is an overflow of funds in the Exchequer. The figures for January showed a surplus of over £100 million. The Exchequer coffers are bursting but not a penny of the surplus will go to those who need it. Even last year's social welfare savings of £160 million have not been fully allocated for social welfare increases. I support savings and control measures in social welfare but surely we should make available as a minimum the amount that was saved last year. Only £125 million of the £160 million saved last year has been allocated for increases this year. The balance of £35 million is used for other measures, such as subsidising halving the capital gains tax for the rich. I do not accept that approach and I contrast it with that adopted by Fine Gael and published in a document I issued when the budget was announced, which advocated fair play. I do not see any fair play in the Government's approach or in this Bill.

There is much to be said for the "need over greed" approach advocated by the CORI justice commission. A two tier society is developing under this Government. Everyone knows the problems associated with widening the poverty gap. This leads to further exclusion, alienation, crime and an unstable society which is damaging for all citizens. A social dividend is available to everyone when a genuine effort is made to eliminate social exclusion. However, the Government has adopted a contrary approach as epitomised in this Bill. If this Bill is measured against the Finance Bill which we debated last week, the net result is to widen the poverty gap. I cannot support that.

We talk about the costs involved and the level of payment to social welfare recipients. Yesterday, in reply to a parliamentary question, I was told that ten years ago social welfare expenditure represented 12.3 per cent of GDP. It is now 9.5 per cent of GDP, if we take into account additions under the Social Welfare Bill. That large reduction in the percentage of GDP is being used to end social exclusion in society.

I will speak later about the administration of public service data and the proposed personal public service number. I want to focus not just on the short-term approach adopted by the Government on social welfare matters but also on the fact that the Bill does not recognise the changing nature of work. More and more people are now self-employed and many work on contract and part-time basis. People's work patterns are changing which must have implications for our social welfare system. Only four sections of the Bill deal with minor improvements in the system. The Minister has given no recognition to changing work practices and there is no new vision or future strategy to deal with this situation.

Our social welfare system is a 1950s model. It has been improved over the years but the Minister continues to tinker with the old model. We need to introduce a welfare to work support system. The Minister's speech is supposed to outline his vision — although there is a lack of vision — yet it does not seen to recognise the need for this new system.

The Minister may be tempted to criticise me on the basis that in opposition it is easy to suggest giving money to various schemes. However, I do not accept that. Although there is plenty of money available, I want value for money and cost controls. I supported the rainbow coalition when it introduced control measures at a cost of £10 million which produced savings of £160 million last year, a net benefit of £150 million.

Supplementary welfare, which has reached £200 million, is now the fastest growing area in terms of cost. The Minister has not taken on board my suggestion that control procedures similar to those in other schemes in the Department should be put in place in this area. Major savings can be made if proper control measures are introduced in the social welfare system. This was pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General in a report a couple of years ago, yet the Minister refuses to accept that advice. It is necessary to streamline the approach taken when assessing and granting supplementary welfare. This fragmented system has been taken over by the Department. There is evidence of fraud in that system and of the need for control. Savings, similar to those made in the past when the unemployment system was carefully monitored, could be made in the supplementary welfare system. I am not trying to give money to everyone, only to those for whom it is intended. I want value for money. I want more money to be given to those who need it and that would not necessarily mean increasing the overall ceiling on expenditure.

What should we expect from the penultimate Social Welfare Bill of this century? It should contain some sense of vision for the welfare system in the next century and millennium. This Bill does not have that vision. It contains no strategic direction, the Minister merely tinkered with the old model. It should include decent improvements along the lines of the fair play approach I advocated at the time of the budget. The trumpeting about payments for children is a joke because they amount to a mere 35p a week in child benefit from next September. The Minister's attempt to justify an approach that takes into account the needs of children is pathetic when one considers that payment.

Mr. D. Ahern

It is more than the Deputy's party did.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Bill does not provide for any increase in the child dependant allowance. That is what we got from a Minister who talks about major improvements in the system. I am a firm believer in State financial support for children. There was a 60 per cent increase in child benefit during the rainbow Government's time in office. A further initiative is required in the area of child care. An allowance should be payable through the child benefit system to support those who want to work outside the home and need support to do so. It should also apply to wives who want to work in the home. I proposed that there should be a child care supplement of £360 per child per annum, beginning with all children up to the age of five, but introduced initially in respect of one and two year olds. The gross cost of this would be £36 million per annum. That proposal should have been taken on board if the Government were genuinely interested in providing financial support for child care.

The Minister should accept that, even with the moneys available to him, he did not implement all the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. A total of 57,000 social welfare recipients on unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare are still below the figure recommended by the commission 12 years ago. How can the Minister clap himself on the back when he was not able to implement those recommendations? When confronted with such facts, he should hang his head in shame and renew the battle he is alleged to have had with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, who has been spending too much time trying to snatch money from people saving with credit unions rather than directing his attention to those in need. The Minister for Social Welfare's heart may be in the right place, but he has failed to reach the stony heart of the Minister for Finance. If that is the case he should come clean to the House and we will back him in renewing his efforts in that regard. He should not under any circumstances tell us the Social Welfare Bill will close the gap between the rich and the poor in our society. It is obvious it will do the opposite.

I must, however, give credit where it is due. I approve of the change regarding the family income supplement, but it does not go far enough. It follows on the approach adopted by the rainbow Government in removing PRSI from the assessment for FIS. I am pleased the Minister proposes to calculate FIS net of tax, but the job is not finished because the self-employed are not included. When we talk about the self-employed a number of images come to mind. There is the famous golden circle associated with previous Fianna Fáil Administrations and those who availed of the NIB-promoted schemes. I am not talking about people in those categories. I am not even talking exclusively about the traditional self-employed person in the corner shop or the small farmer. I am talking about an era when the main route back to work is through self-employment. The area based allowance scheme has been a great success in that regard. In future more less well off people will try to eke out a living through self-employment rather than through the PAYE system and they should be supported through the family income supplement. There should be no discrimination in this area. They should not be discouraged from taking up self-employment. The Minister should communicate with the Minister for Finance in that regard today. An extension of the family income supplement would be a significant improvement to the Bill.

A decent Social Welfare Bill should include adequate increases, proper vision and an approach that simplifies and streamlines the system. The Bill is a failure in that respect. There are still three different rates of child dependant allowance. If one is a child of a widower on social welfare, one is worth £17 per week, if one is a child of an old age pensioner or a person on invalidity pension, one is worth £15.20 per week and if one is a child of a person on unemployment assistance or disability benefit, one is worth only £13.20 per week. There should be no discrimination in this area. The figures should be increased to at least the top rate. There has been no attempt to streamline the many different rates of PRSI or to remove the poverty traps.

The Government does not have an appreciation of what the objectives of a Department of State which spends approximately £5,000 million a year should be. They should include a smooth path from welfare to work, equality of opportunity for all and reform of the system to reshape it for the challenges of today and tomorrow. The Bill fails on all those fronts.

I wish to refer to two specific inequities in the Bill. I made a strong plea for carers before the budget and the Carers' Association hoped some action would be taken. From that point of view the budget has been a disaster. Carers are the unsung heroes of society. Approximately 30,000 of them provide full time in-home care for their loved ones with no time off for holidays or sickness. They work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but are not entitled to any benefits. They have a legitimate entitlement to and expected, following their discussions with the Government, which presumably included the Minister, a reasonable improvement in their situation. A letter I received from the Carers' Association yesterday stated there was an unprecedented sense of hurt by carers to the proposals concerning them in the budget. I fully endorse everything they said and I will continue the fight on their behalf. It is a fair and reasonable fight and will be won. Carers need to be catered for today, not in the new millennium. I have proposals in that regard for a £1,000 carer's respite allowance payable, irrespective of means, to all carers with an improvement on a means tested basis.

A category that has not been catered for properly are widows. There are approximately 200,000 widowed persons, two thirds of whom are aged 65 or over and only a quarter of whom have sufficient income to be liable to tax. This is a neglected sector of society and my proposals for improvements for them have not been met.

Contributory old age pensions to the self-employed will be payable for the first time from 6 April. However, an injustice is being done to many people who were forced to make a contribution and will not now benefit. The figure quoted by the Minister of £756 million as the cost of remedying that injustice is utterly wrong. When I raised the issue here he agreed the figure was overstated. Yet, when I last raised this matter here, somebody from his Department spoke to The Examiner in slighting terms regarding this injustice and asked, in the event of so much money being available, if this was the most deserving group. I am not talking about deserving cases, I am talking about justice. These people were forced to make those contributions and should be entitled to payment. They did not volunteer these contributions, the State demanded and took them and has treated those people disgracefully.

The figure of £756 million is incorrect and I ask the Minister not to repeat it. It is the capitalised lifetime cost on some actuarial assumptions which go back ten years. The Department no longer accepts it and I ask the Minister not to accept it. I have done some calculations on the cost of remedying this injustice. Pro rata payments to the contributors — nine-tenths if one paid for nine years and two-tenths if one paid for two years — would mean, if we take into account those who will qualify for and are paid non-contributory pensions, that half the people can be excluded on that basis, which is not unreasonable. It would mean 4,500 equivalent full pension units, the cost of which at today's rates would be of the order of £18.75 million gross. There would be substantial buoyancy attached to that figure as those payments are taxable. The net cost to the Exchequer would be approximately £11.25 per year. That contrasts with the figure of £756 million floated and touted by the Minister, as if the job of remedying this injustice was impossible. It is not impossible and I am prepared to argue these figures with the Minister, bearing in mind that the annual pension bill of the State is over £1 billion. The figure of £11.25 million is about 1 per cent of the overall bill. It should be paid not because people deserve it on means grounds but because they are entitled to it in justice, having paid for it. I urge the Minister to confront that issue.

A new provision in the Bill provides for the administration of public service data in sections 14 and 15. I support the measures provided for in that there is a need for safeguards in this new system. However, those safeguards should be under Oireachtas control and not under the control of the Minister. We need to improve the system but we must be careful when entering this new territory that Big Brother, who is watching over people, has control of the elected parliament of the people rather than the Minister. Queries have been raised about the introduction of the personal public service number. The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed has made a good case on the issue, of not totally opposing it but has raised legitimate queries. I have discussed it with them and I firmly believe the points raised must be considered. I would prefer to have them considered in a separate Bill. To rush it through in the context of the broad picture of social welfare limits us in what we can say. The question of allowing the Minister to add additional information to the card, without recourse to primary legislation, deserves consideration. The accuracy of the information being retained and to whom it will be made available needs to be looked at.

I contacted the Data Protection Commissioner who had voiced some concerns in this area and probably had an input to the Bill. His response to the matter is measured but he raised the advantages and disadvantages of the system. The advantages are obvious from the point of view of efficiency but there are some difficulties with a system, with a common file reference number, that has a capacity to bring together files which are compiled for totally different purposes. That raises issues which need to be considered. There is also the question of the conditions under which State agencies will be permitted to share information.

I am concerned at the wide definition, in section 14, of "transaction" which seems to cater for virtually everything from an application for a television licence to a water grant or a birth certificate. I am not sure whether that is the intention. I question whether the definition of "transaction" which relates also to public funds is too loose.

There is a need for a better level of services and people in receipt of social welfare are entitled to the same sophistication as anybody else from the point of view of the delivery of those services. Computerisation has huge advantages in terms of speed of service and so on but serious issues have not been fully debated and teased out.

Before proceeding to Committee Stage it would be useful to hear from the INOU, who has prepared a paper on this issue, and the Data Protection Commissioner so that members of the committee may raise questions, some quite technical, with the representatives of the INOU and the Data Protection Commissioner. Members would then be much better informed and in a position to deal with this proposal in a measured way. It would be wrong to give an irrational and emotional response. We have a duty, as legislators, to tease out the implications. We all want a better system put in place and have advocated the introduction of a single means test. This is another way of achieving that objective. At the same time, none of us wants to see Big Brother moving into pole position. That would be a catastrophe of Orwellian proportions. I have discussed my proposal with the chairman of the committee, Deputy Noel Ahern, and he is agreeable. It is the best way to deal with this radical new approach. While there are benefits, there are also attendant dangers.

The Bill is a huge disappointment and something in which the Government can take no pride because of the way it treats the poor and disadvantaged in society. Fianna Fáil indicated before the election that it would make an all out assault on disadvantage but this Bill does the contrary. The Government should be ashamed of it. I and other members of the Opposition will continue to exert pressure to ensure the poverty gaps which have been widened by the Government are closed in the relatively short time the Government will be in office.

Mr. D. Ahern

Wishful thinking.

Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin

The Bill is an attempt to ensure the marginalised are kept on the margins of society. It is proposed to introduce the public service card for social welfare claimants to facilitate sharing information on a claimant's record among a series of Departments and such other persons as may be prescribed. Regardless of the Minister's assurances, I still have concerns. The Bill provides for sharing information with the Garda Síochána. For what purpose? The provisions of the Bill are far too loose.

While fraud at any level is unacceptable, it is grossly unfair and unjust that social welfare claimants are being singled out and will be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. This is in stark contrast with the Government's decision not to actively pursue information on the millions of pounds invested in the Ansbacher accounts to evade tax.

When the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, then Minister for Social Welfare, proposed the introduction of identity cards in 1992, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney was very critical of him. She said the measure could be more appropriately applied to significant commercial activities such as stock market transactions and bank accounts. She appears to have forgotten her policy. Were the proposals in this Bill and in the Finance Bill relating to the taxation of credit union accounts discussed at the same time? Does the Tánaiste have an opinion to offer on any subject?

This is an all or nothing law. If the public service card is introduced, everybody should have one. More importantly, the concerns of the Data Protection Commissioner should be taken into account. The commissioner, who is well versed on the implications of this proposal, has recommended that a White Paper on sharing information be published. He stated in his annual report for 1996 that, "information collected for one purpose should not be used for another without the consent of the individual". The Minister has chosen to ignore this advice.

The implications of this proposal should be the subject of a more extensive debate in this House. It merits the introduction of a separate Bill. It will require a massive investment in computer facilities across a range of Departments. We have been informed that certain provisions of the 1997 Social Welfare Act cannot be implemented because of inadequate computer facilities. If it is possible to introduce the public service card, why is the introduction of the sickness allowance provided for by the previous Government and which everyone supports being put on hold?

The Minister has also opted to delay until October the introduction of changes in the method of calculation of family income supplement. If the Government is still in office, the social welfare budget for 1999 will be announced the previous month. I do not know why it bothered to announce the budget for 1998 before Christmas. People will probably receive their 1998 and 1999 payments at the same time. The Minister for Finance insisted that the massive concession in capital gains tax for the super rich should become effective on the day following the budget. I propose that all social welfare increases should also become effective from that date.

Provision is made in Partnership 2000 for the calculation of FIS on net rather than gross income as a means of increasing the take-up and to simplify the method of calculation for claimants. The delay in introducing the changes is further evidence that the Government is promoting policies that favour the rich at the expense of the poorest in society. The changes should be introduced at the latest at the commencement of the new tax year in April to enable the hundreds of workers in my constituency who take up seasonal employment in the tourism industry to benefit. I urge the Minister to think again.

The Minister has failed to move sufficiently on the punitive means test for the carer's allowance. Ideally, the sick, the elderly and the disabled should be cared for at home. However, many people are being forced to live in homes and institutions which cater for their special needs. It is not financially viable for their families or relatives to take on the role of carer. The carer's allowance should be reviewed. There is also a need to put a system in place to enable carers to take a two week holiday each year. I was surprised that many of the women in the houses I canvassed in a rural area in Tipperary yesterday were either working or out walking. I met three women who told me the only reason they were at home was that they were minding elderly people. That is a 24 hours a day, seven days a week job. I ask the Minister to initiate a measure to allow carers to take a break, perhaps three out of the 52 weeks.

One of the most welcome aspects of the Bill in relations to carers was the extension of the free travel pass to recipients of the allowance, but the implementation date for the introduction of that measure is October. Once again the Government has decided to make whatever budgetary savings it can on the backs of the poorest people. The Minister met representatives of the Carers' Association prior to the announcement of the budget and the publication of this Bill. They lobbied him to seek an easing of the punitive means test, but their representations fell on deaf ears. I intend to table amendments on the provision for carers on Committee Stage next week because that provision affects mainly women and people who have been forgotten. I presume the Minister will tell me it will cost a good deal of money to implement what I propose. I ask him to discuss this matter with his colleague in the Department of Health and Children who has responsibility for the provision of long-term institutional care for the aged and infirm. The cost of care on the Department of Health and Children is great. In addition there is a shortage of institutional accommodation in many areas. A realistic assessment of means testing for the carer's allowance would have a great impact on the numbers who would be cared for in their homes and it would free up places in institutions that are completely overcrowded. There is a good deal of debate on that at present and those who are canvassing in the Dublin North by-election will know St. Ita's Hospital in Portrane is a major issue. If the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Department of Health and Children co-operated they could devise a system to free up places in those institutions and keep those people at home where they should be.

The Government has applauded itself for increasing welfare payments to the adequacy rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare as it was obliged to do under Partnership 2000. However, in this Bill the Minister failed to carry out the Government's commitments in the national agreement by not increasing the short-term rate sufficiently to bring it over the minimum adequacy level. He has also failed to do that in the case of the basic supplementary allowance payment. He went so far as to give it with one hand and to take it away with the other. The increase in the full rate of social welfare benefit is offset by the knifing tactic of reducing the rate of adult dependant allowance or the qualified adult rate — I am confused with the new names of schemes and Departments. It is almost custom and practice at this stage for the adult dependant rate to be increased by 6 per cent of the personal rate. This year the increase has been reduced to 5.8 per cent, which in cash terms means that the adult dependant will receive £1.20 per week less than expected. That is quite a loss for those who are on a very low income. This move is antiwomen and anti-children.

In most cases the adult dependant rate is a payment which applies to the female spouse. Women are generally the managers of poverty in the home. They must stretch out inadequate social welfare benefits to cover the cost of putting food on the table, clothing their families, paying the bills and keeping their children at school. The failure of the Minister to increase the adult dependant rate in line with the normal rate is an insult to those women.

Under the previous Government an important document entitled National Anti-Poverty Strategy was drawn up following a wide consultation process involving a number of pressure groups and experts. That document was published in April, but since this Administration has taken over, its recommendations appear to have been shelved. The National Anti-Poverty Strategy committed the Government to poverty proofing the budget before it was announced. The Minister ignored his obligation under the NAPS when he gave adult dependants a lower rate that they would normally get.

I also regret that the Minister did not take the opportunity to rationalise arrangements for child dependant allowances for grown up children. The present rules are a maze. The age at which child dependant allowances cease depends on the payment involved. The rules should be rationalised and applied in the same way in respect of all payments. Recipients of unemployment benefit and disability benefit are not entitled to child dependant allowance because they are short-term payments. The Minister and I know the cost of keeping a child at school, particularly at third level, is extremely expensive, especially if one is from south Kerry. Students have to leave home on Sunday evening and return perhaps once every three or four weeks. To punish those who are on short-term disability benefit and unemployment benefit by not allocating them child dependant allowance is another burden on those people. I say that in the knowledge that child dependant payments are gradually withering away. That is the correct strategy provided child benefit is increased to take account of that. Even while child dependant payments are withering away they should be applied equitably and I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to do that.

Child benefit is payable up to the age of 16 or 19 if the child is in full-time education. After that there is no support, even though many of those young adults are financially dependent on their parents. The opportunity should be taken this year to raise the qualifying age for a child dependant where dependants are still in full-time education. I was also disappointed with the increase in child benefit payments in the budget.

The Government has defended the December budget in the name of old age pensioners. An increase of £5 per week in the full rate was welcome, but the increase of £1.50 in the dependant rate takes the good out of that increase. Effectively for a couple dependent on the old age pension, the net gain under the budget was £3.25, which leaves a good deal less than the £5 increase we read about in the papers in the pockets of old age pensioners. The Government cannot continue to blow its trumpet about the increase in old age pensions by acting selectively when giving examples of the impact of budgetary measures.

I am also concerned about the provision for the review of the social insurance scheme in the Bill. What is outlined here is something the Minister should undertake on an ongoing basis as part of normal management. The social insurance system is not funded in the normal way insurance is generally funded. Is it the Minister's intention to turn it into such a fund and, if so, is it his intention that the benefits to be paid out should be determined by the condition of that fund? That would involve a major change to social insurance as we know it. It is also very worrying. I would like the Minister to elaborate on his intentions in this matter. I am concerned he has taken on board some of the PD rhetoric from the last election campaign when the Progressive Democrats wanted to end the social insurance system.

When social insurance was introduced for the self-employed in 1988 there was a provision for a review of the adequacy of the self-employed contribution to meet the benefits within five years. What happened about that? Was the review undertaken and, if so, what were the findings? This is an important issue because this year will see the first old age pensioner to benefit from that scheme. I ask the Minister to elaborate on the matter, to state whether he has the results and if he will publish them.

I am also concerned about the Bill's failure to build on the work of the last Government in the field of welfare to work. The Bill presents us with little which will increase the movement of people off the live register and into employment. The new tax allowance for the long-term unemployed who are moving into employment is a far more favourable option for employers than the back to work allowance. From the available information the back-to-work allowance has proven to be a success in moving long-term unemployed people into work, particularly into self-employment. Instead of building on the success of this scheme, the Government has issued a new scheme which will make welfare to work options more confusing. Many of the unemployed are confused by the schemes. They should be rationalised. The back-to-work allowance has been in operation for some time and we should shortly have evidence of the numbers who have been sustained in employment following the completion of the scheme.

I am concerned about the lack of income supports for those who set themselves up in self-employment and either have exhausted their entitlement to the back-to-work allowance or have no entitlement to it. On this basis, I ask the Minister to extend FIS eligibility to self-employment where income support is required. I am a member of my county's enterprise board; we meet many young people with great ideas but they are afraid to take the plunge, particularly if they have a family, because the first two or three years of any business are extremely difficult. The Minister should extend the FIS for the first three years to support people trying to start a business.

The Minister's party committed itself to examine income support and pension entitlements for women in the home but he has neglected to include plans for such an examination in the Bill. Will he forget all about it? Perhaps he would elaborate on that.

As I said in my contribution on the Finance Bill, the assessment of capital for contributory old age pensions is out of line. The rate of assessment is not the rate of interest which those people are receiving. The Minister should re-examine this because we do not want old people to return to putting money under the bed. Interest rates are decreasing and I hope they will do so for some time but the assessment of capital has not changed for some time.

There are many other glaring examples in the Bill where the Minister has neglected commitments made while in Opposition. On all Stages I will seek substantial amendments to ensure we get a more progressive, less punitive and more equitable social welfare system. Neither my Labour Party colleagues nor I will offer support to the Minister in his efforts to have the Bill passed.

Mr. Ardagh

Deputy Moynihan-Cronin was incorrect to say the personal public service card will be used by the Garda against those who hold it. The Minister specifically stated that it may not be used as an identity card for Garda purposes and that the number may only be sought by the public service when there is a financial transaction between the holder and public service. I would not like it to go out from this House that the personal public service card can or will be used by the Garda and if there is any doubt on the matter I would expect the select committee to ensure that is the case.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Garda Síochána can use it in relation to its own members.

Mr. D. Ahern

That is different.

Mr. Ardagh

The late Éamon de Valera's athletic youths and comely maidens, who danced at the crossroads, are now frequently found dancing in the many community centres and parish halls around the country. The young boys and girls of 1943 are the senior citizens of 1998. Life is easier, trips are organised, "golden years" holidays are available in hotels, day care centres provide meals, medical care and hairdressing, and voluntary groups provide meals on wheels almost nationwide. Active retirement groups are thriving in parishes and communities. Senior citizens are coming into sporting facilities such as indoor bowling and table tennis — many of them were not previously involved in any form of sport.

It is a golden era for our senior citizens and things are getting better. In the Social Welfare Bill the Minister, Deputy Ahern, has given a special "catch-up" increase of £5 per week to people receiving old age pensions, both contributory and non-contributory, and retirement pensions. The same increase is being given to people over 66 in receipt of widow's and widower's pensions, blind person's pension or carer's allowance, and to people over 65 in receipt of invalidity pension. This is a significant increase which is recognised and appreciated not only by its recipients but also by the children and grandchildren of the elderly. I have no doubt the level of popularity maintained in the polls by Fianna Fáil is due in no small measure to this generous increase.

During 1998 inflation is expected to be 2 per cent. An extra £5 per week represents an increase of between 6.4 and 7.4 per cent, which is hefty in anyone's book. Not only that, the payment will be made earlier than it was in 1997 — it will be made in the first week in June.

Whether it will be in 20, 30 or 40 years' time, everyone in the House will eventually look for comfortable nursing homes, as will our constituents. For the benefit of all we should encourage the co-operative building of nursing homes in every parish so that people can be cared for conveniently and near to their families. Complementing the £5 per week increase in the Social Welfare Bill, the Finance Bill gives capital allowances for building nursing homes. In Templeogue, where I live, the age profile of the population is increasing all the time and there is both the desire and the will to get together with the responsible institutions to build a nursing home, so that people can stay in the parish where they have been all their lives. The capital allowances should help in that regard.

Partnership 2000 guarantees the protection and enhancement of income of those on social welfare and Fianna Fáil is committed to this. We are determined that social welfare payments will at least equal the minimum rates set by the Commission on Social Welfare by the end of 1999. In that regard, some 94 per cent of social welfare recipients currently receive a level greater than the commission's minimum recommended rates.

As to pensions, it is opportune to examine the findings of the actuarial review on the cost of social welfare pensions into the next millennium, published last September by the Minister. It estimates that the number of persons aged over 65 will increase from more than 400,000 at present to about 700,000 in 2026. That number is expected to increase to in excess of one million persons over 65 years in 2056. However, the total population is expected to remain fairly static. At present, five working people support each person over 65 years of age; it is projected that in 2056 only two working people will support each person over 65 years of age. We must ask whether we can continue to provide pensions at their present level from the PRSI contributions of the working population.

The review forecasts that if pensions increase in line with prices the position will be manageable. Fianna Fáil is committed to linking increases in old age pensions to increases in the current rates of public service pay. It is very important to keep the living standards and quality of life of our senior citizens in line with those of the rest of the population. If pensions are to be increased in line with earnings, which everyone would prefer, it is estimated that in constant 1997 prices £3.2 billion would be needed in addition to workers' PRSI contributions in 2026, increasing to a need for an additional £10.4 billion in 2056.

The review suggests that while the funding position is reasonably stable for the next 20 years, the position thereafter cannot be ignored. I am pleased that in section 16 the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has set up an investment account within the social insurance fund. It is necessary that substantial contributions are made to this investment account over the next 30 years, so that the living standards of our older people are maintained without imposing an unsustainable cost on future generations. It is farseeing of the Minister to ensure actuarial reviews will be carried out at least every five years to find out the level of need and how adequate the purse is to maintain the living standards to which our elderly people are entitled.

I am very much in favour of the introduction of the personal public service card. The last Government promised throughout its term in office to promote and progress its introduction. I am very surprised by the Labour Party's U-turn. Deputy Moynihan-Cronin suggested that Labour is totally against such a card at this point. It is a quare thing that one's mind can be totally turned in eight months.

For too long the agencies of the State which provide services have operated in an isolated manner to the detriment of their clients. As each speaker has said, it should be possible for one means test to be carried out to determine one's entitlement to the various social services administered by State agencies. These services include the supplementary welfare allowance, medical cards, the differential rents operated by local authorities, higher education grants, entitlement to free legal aid and the many social welfare schemes.

The Bill envisages sharing information between the specified public service agencies which deliver the public funded income support services. I am somewhat concerned by the provision whereby data controllers have to approve this sharing of information. Since entering this House, I have become somewhat wary of the powers of the data commissioner to stop progress in its tracks. The examination of data will be a time consuming task for the data controllers and will create long delays.

The administration of public service data should be operated in an open manner by the civil servants of the various agencies. We are indebted to the Civil Service. All Members have high regard for the integrity and honesty of our civil servants. They can act in a confidential manner which will respect the privacy of the clients and ensure the security of the information contained in the general public service data bank.

The new personal public service card system will involve new ways of thinking among civil servants. Their training should include, to a very great extent, training on the ethics applicable to the information aspect of the job. This would take into account matters of confidentiality, privacy and security. I am sure that, with the professionalism of our civil servants and appropriate sanctions under the Official Secrets Act, the administration of public service data would be more effectively and efficiently performed, without the need for a delay creating control mechanism. I ask the Minister and the committee to consider that. I accept there is a need for a unified means test. The personal public service card will lend itself to the development of this.

I am sure some people will feel that further freedoms are being trodden on. However, we live in an era of rapid information availability. Open, transparent and fast transmission of information leads to a more effective and efficient way of getting things done. This efficiency translates into greater productivity, which increases wealth, and increased wealth improves the people's standard of living.

The Government is committed in An Action Programme for the Millennium to protecting the family through political, social and other measures which will support the family's stability. It is committed to maintaining the tradition of the family in Ireland, which is one of our strongest national characteristics. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has made some headway to improve the lot of the family. Late last year he brought into effect legislation allowing partners of social welfare claimants tapered relief on earnings, from £60 to £90 per week, without losing all of the adult dependant allowances. This was a start in the assistance to the family.

The most significant improvement in the position of the family is the improvement in family income supplement. The Bill provides that, with effect from 1 October 1998, the rate of family income supplement payable will be calculated on the basis of net earnings, that is, earnings after taking into account PRSI, income tax and pension contributions. This was recognised as one of the major poverty traps which prevented people from taking up employment. The report of the expert working group on the integration of tax and social welfare systems referred specifically to the benefits of using net rather than gross earnings to calculate family income supplement. I am delighted the Minister has taken this very important initiative.

The Minister has also provided for a general increase of £7 per week in the threshold for the calculation of entitlement to family income supplement from June 1998. Together with the taxation incentives in the Finance Bill, I am sure this measure will have a significant impact on reducing the number of long-term unemployed persons.

The Minister stated he will publish the final report of the commission on the family in 1998. I hope recommendations will be made relating to pensions for homemakers in their own right, as mentioned by Deputy Moynihan-Cronin; the need to give some tax relief to married people in recognition of their staying at home to care for their children; and that the rates of benefits and assistance for each qualified child should be increased from the present £13.20 per week to the maximum level which is now available to people receiving widow's and widower's pensions, which is £17 per week.

I have been making representations for some considerable time for increases in child benefit payments to families with twins. I am delighted the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, got the child benefit for twins increased to 150 per cent of the normal child benefit. That will come into effect from September 1998.

The Minister mentioned in his budget speech he will establish a community trust to bring business funding and know how to support community development. Community based local development groups, partnerships and task forces are worthwhile and are doing a good job, but significant business know-how and funding are missing. The involvement of business interests in a meaningful way would give an added impetus in increasing employment and in minimising the effects of social exclusion which is suffered by so many in the inner city and in other deprived urban areas. I urge the Minister and the major industries and business organisations to take urgent action on this matter.

The Social Welfare Bill, together with the Finance Bill, will make significant inroads into improving the living standards of all the people. I commend the Bill to the House.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister has to leave shortly for another appointment and I thank him for informing me of that fact. Before he goes, let me congratulate him on bringing in his first Bill. However, I am not very impressed by it. I do not suppose the Minister expected me to say otherwise, but I do not say so in any mean-spirited way. I simply regard it as an inadequate response to the problems faced by hundreds of thousands of people.

The Minister said the 1998 Bill is one of the most radical Social Welfare Bills presented to the Oireachtas in many years. However, that depends on one's definition of radical. If one were to take the view that a nominal £5 increase for pensioners is the most radical thing that has happened in many years, that claim would be accurate. However, I do not take such a narrow view of the notion of radicalism. I would simply draw attention to the things the Minister claims are radical. He says the Bill provides for substantial real increases in the value of all social welfare payments. There is nothing very radical about that — it is good, but it is not radical. He said the Bill significantly improves payments for pensioners. Again, this is good, but it is not a new direction in any sense. That has been happening for some time. The Bill brings forward increases in weekly payments by two weeks. Again, this is a good move, but it is not significant enough to be defined as radical. That step was introduced by the last Administration to try to close the gap between the date on which tax changes take place in April and the date on which social welfare increases are implemented. It is good that the date has been brought back another two weeks, but it is not a new direction. Fundamental reform of family income supplement was begun some time ago. There is additional support for families, special child benefit payments for twins and improved grants in respect of multiple births, all of which have been done before. There is an easing of the means test for certain social assistance schemes; a firm basis for developing a more integrated administration of our public services, again based on the ISSS report; relief to more than one million workers paying PRSI, again an initiative developed by the last Administration; and strengthening of the PRSI system with regular actuarial reviews of the social insurance fund — again, the first actuarial review was carried out by the last Administration. I welcome the fact that a five-yearly actuarial review is included in legislation, because it cannot be dropped unnecessarily or without coming back into this House. However, none of that sustains the claim that this is the most radical Bill introduced in this House for many years. It simply is not.

To satisfy myself that I was not being unfair to the Minister, I went back to An Action Programme for the Millennium, produced by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats as their programme for Government, to find out whether there was any reference to social exclusion, poverty, deprivation and disadvantage, or to any policy to deal with those, and whether this was what the Minister was measuring himself against. If this is the document against which he is measuring himself in the context of this being a radical Bill, then what he has produced is a radical Bill, because there is nothing in this programme which seeks to address the issues of deprivation in a significant or in a concerted way. It is striking that the only reference to economic deprivation, educational disadvantage and social exclusion is under the heading "Crime". They are not issues that are brought forward in this Government's programme in terms of dealing with them as issues which relate to the quality of life of the person affected by deprivation.

I have attempted to press the Taoiseach and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs in this House on whether the most recent budget would be audited and measured against the targets in the national anti-poverty strategy, and all I got in response was fudge. The nearest I got to a commitment from the Taoiseach was his assertion that progress would be measured against economic performance. That is not what I was asking about. I was asking specifically whether the changes being made would be measured against the targets in the national anti-poverty strategy. It seems there is no commitment to do that. I hope I am wrong, and I hope the absence of a policy framework in the Minister's speech today is simply a desire to concentrate exclusively on the detail of the Bill and not an indication of an absence of any policy framework. If we are serious about ensuring that the Celtic tiger delivers a good standard of living and quality of life to all our citizens, the Government of the day and its agencies have to co-ordinate their efforts to ensure that disadvantage, social exclusion and poverty are eliminated.

The only place I could find reference in the Government's programme to the idea of auditing or proofing was, interestingly, in relation to rural development. In a sense that is not surprising, because the rural ethos dominates the thinking of the Fianna Fáil Party. I am not suggesting that what is in here is not a good thing, but it seems there is a blind spot in Fianna Fáil thinking when it comes to urban poverty. That is surprising because there are significant numbers of Fianna Fáil TDs representing areas where there is urban poverty. There seems to be a blind spot in terms of developing Fianna Fáil's general approach to the issues which are exercising the minds of the population at large. For some reason or other we get a hotchpotch of sticking plaster approaches to issues of poverty in urban areas, while in the Government programme it is stated that key priorities will include a positive plan to ensure that rural population stabilisation will be embarked upon and that all policies, fiscal, social and educational, will be proofed to ensure they do not discriminate against rural areas. That is the only reference to proofing in the programme for Government. Has this proposal been implemented and, if so, what mechanism was put in place to implement it? I agree with the objective but it is an inadequate response to the endemic poverty in many rural areas and to the more serious issues of urban deprivation and poverty which are concentrated to a significant extent in particular geographical areas.

I am surprised the policy outlined in the programme for Government is so weak. The publication issued by the Combat Poverty Agency in l996 contains a detailed analysis of the causes of rural poverty and outlines a programme of action and policies which should be introduced to deal with it. There is no reference to this idea in the Minister's speech, the Social Welfare Bill or the programme for Government.

There is nothing in the Bill with which I fundamentally disagree. However, some areas need to be tightened up. The public services card is a good idea but the checks and balances necessary to protect the privacy of citizens need to be addressed in a more coherent way. The INOU has said that the issue is of such importance that it should be dealt with in a separate Bill, not the Social Welfare Bill. It is not opposed to the introduction of the card. Like everyone else, it is anxious that people who need to be means tested from time to time do not have to go through a series of means test, for example, a means test for unemployment assistance today, a means test for a medical card tomorrow and a means test for differential rent next week. It makes sense and would save money to have a standardised test in so far as this is possible. I have looked at this and, while there are difficulties, it should be possible for a public services card to contain information which would reduce considerably the number of forms which have to be filled by a person seeking social services of various kinds. While there is nothing in the Bill with which I fundamentally disagree, it is inadequate in terms of the claim that it is radical and of what needs to be done with the available resources.

One of the most important actions of the previous Administration was to agree the national anti-poverty strategy. I am proud of the role I played in developing this strategy and am also proud that Labour and Fine Gael saw the need for it and supported it. Inevitably there were discussions and debates about what the targets should be. However, these are not extraordinarily ambitious. What is important about the strategy is that it is the first time a Government acknowledged there was a serious problem of deprivation and poverty which needed to be dealt with and that, regardless of how well it was doing, the economy on its own would not lift those in abject and persistent poverty out of it and mechanisms had to be put in place to do this. The national anti-poverty strategy attempts to do this.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs have given rhetorical commitments in relation to the national anti-poverty strategy and social exclusion but there is no evidence that the Government will take the strategy on board as a matter of urgency. If the strategy is to succeed it needs to be driven, but there is no evidence that this will be done. Departments and agencies tend, by their nature, to approach these matters in a conservative way and are not adventurous. Unless a political agency at the top drives the strategy it will not be effective. In addition, other powers and interests will press for other approaches.

The budget is an example of how the rhetorical commitment to the national anti-poverty strategy has been undercut. The budget gave tax cuts to those on the top end of the income scale when the clear demand and need under the national anti-poverty strategy is to give tax cuts to those on low pay to ensure they do not fall into the tax net and that poverty traps are eliminated. It is ridiculous that a single person earning £80 per week has to pay tax.

At a time when the national anti-poverty strategy is in place, a unit in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs is doing its best to co-ordinate the response of various Departments to it and a Cabinet sub-committee headed by the Taoiseach is looking at the matter, it is ridiculous that the Minister for Finance, in contravention of everything the Combat Poverty Agency argued for in advance of the budget and the proposals in strategy, introduced a budget which benefited the better off. If the Government is not serious about the national anti-poverty strategy — and the budget indicates it is not — then it should stop saying it is committed to it and drop it. It should not pretend it will do something if it will not do it.

Mr. Cullen

There is a clear commitment to it.

Proinsias De Rossa

The hundreds of thousands of people who are barely making ends meet and the organisations seeking to develop communities and support families have pinned much hope on this document and it will be disastrous if it is not implemented. We cannot expect the current levels of economic development to continue forever and if we do not use what we have to lift those in poverty out of it and ensure they make a productive contribution to society not only in terms of work but also culture, etc., we will create much dissatisfaction and greater alienation than already exists in relation to politics.

Mr. Cullen

There is a Cabinet sub-committee.

Proinsias De Rossa

I know that, but the Minister for Finance ignored it.

Mr. M. Kitt

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill. I congratulate the Minister on introducing his first Bill and I hope it is the first of many because there are a number of issues of social exclusion, marginalisation and poverty in the community which must be addressed.

There is much good news in the Bill and Deputies from all sides have to admit that. It might be expected that I would not say anything else. However, the Minister in his speech spoke of the £5 increase which he has provided for old age pensioners, which is well above the expected rate of inflation, moving towards a pension of £100 per week in the year 2002. He also made the point that 93 per cent of all payments are above the Commission on Social Welfare's recommended rate.

I welcome the fact, to which Deputy De Rossa referred, that the date on which the increased payments will be introduced is being brought forward by two weeks to 1 June. The Minister has often spoken about the need to bring that date forward towards the start of the tax year and we all look forward to that.

One of the major lobbying points over the past number of years relates to the carer's allowance.

Mr. McGrath

Considering the importance of Deputy Kitt's contribution, there should be more people here to hear it.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present, House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. M. Kitt

I welcome the fact that the Minister has increased the carer's allowance by £5 for carers aged 66 and over, and by £3 for carers younger than 66. All carers who receive the carer's allowance will receive a free travel pass in their own right.

Many people have lobbied on this matter. The Carers Association is particularly looking for changes in the means test for carers similar to those the Minister proposed for family income supplement. It also wants an increase in the amount of income which is disregarded, which is £150 per week at present.

The association has also lobbied for a change in the 24 hour care rule, which is very difficult. In his speech the Minister has shown some flexibility in this regard and I welcome that. However, the Carers Association lobby will continue to be very strong.

I, and other Deputies, lobbied in the past to abolish the means test for the carer's allowance and I was told by officials of the Department that it would cost in the region of £120 million. We should point out that it is not just about looking after elderly people. There is the sad circumstance of children and young adults who are suffering mental or physical handicap who also need care. It is very difficult for carers if they lose out on this allowance over a strict means test. I hope the Minister will go further and disregard more income in the case of the carer's allowance.

I welcome the extra support for smallholders in relation to means test assessment and the further improvements under the rural environmental protection scheme. The REPS is a popular scheme and the first £2,000 of the REPS payment has been disregarded for means test purposes. The Bill provides for an extension of this disregard of income to the new compensation scheme for the areas of conservation, which is operated by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. I am glad that under these revised arrangements the first £2,000 will continue to be disregarded with the balance being assessed at 50 per cent rather than on a pound for pound basis as at present. This means, for example, that a farmer who receives a REPS payment of £4,000 will be £1,000 better off now.

It is important to mention this famous pound for pound basis because it is the bane of our lives in rural areas that smallholders with a small income are penalised. There was an example of this in The Connacht Tribune, my local newspaper, last week where a farmer's unemployment smallholder's assistance was reduced by £3 pounds per week because he purchased a cow.

I welcome these measures to help people either on the REPS or on the scheme run by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. It not only helps the low income farmers but also the environment by improving the sustainability of agriculture through the preservation and enhancement of the rural environment. I strongly support the initiative taken by the Minister in conjunction with the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera.

One of the major complaints I have in regard to social welfare generally concerns delays in the appeals system, in particular oral hearings. I hope this problem can be addressed. People like to have an oral hearing because they can make their case across the table to a social welfare appeals officer, but the delays involved in this procedure are disappointing. The main reason for the delays is that there are so many social welfare schemes in operation as well as various means tested schemes.

Farmers have a particular problem with regard to social welfare in that when cattle headage, suckler cow and beef premia grants are paid, notional figures have to be taken into account because these payments are made in instalments. Unfortunately farmers may be assessed on all grant payments even though they may not have been received in a particular calendar year. That issue must be addressed.

A different system operates in regard to assessment for a medical card and another one for higher education grants. I ask the Minister to respond by ensuring that fair means tests are carried out. If there are figures with which an applicant does not agree, the matter should be rectified promptly rather than the person completing another application form and going through the appeals procedure, thereby incurring further delays.

This debate gives me an opportunity to talk about how the Department could co-ordinate many of the schemes that operate under various Departments. I have always been of the view that the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs could act as a type of one stop shop when it comes to job opportunity schemes and not simply deal with paying out social welfare money.

Last November the Minister, Deputy Ahern, made changes in the back to work scheme to ensure that people with disabilities were not denied job opportunities. The last initiative taken by the Department resulted in 1,000 places being reserved in the back to work scheme for peoplewith disabilities. I understand this scheme will now be extended to people receiving a disability allowance or a blind pension.

The back to work scheme, which was introduced in 1993, has been successful in encouraging over 22,000 unemployed people to take up employment or start a business. The participants can retain some of their social welfare payment over a period of three years with additional benefits. This scheme, with the return to education scheme, are important and I hope improvements will be made in them. I hope there will not be any duplication in regard to these and similar schemes operated by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and FÁS. I understand FÁS operates an employer incentive scheme which complements the back to work scheme. One of the problems with many social welfare schemes is the fact that a person must be signing on to qualify for them. I ask the Minister to examine that.

In regard to the student summer work scheme operated by the Department, some students do not qualify because they are not signing on. I would like to see a situation where people who passed the leaving certificate, for example, could qualify to participate in this scheme. Some flexibility should be shown to families with two or more children wishing to participate in the scheme, similar to the position which obtains in regard to the higher education grant scheme which offers some flexibility to families with two or more children in a third level college.

It is ridiculous that a young person can sign on and claim social welfare but cannot participate in the student summer work scheme because of their age or the fact that they are not in college. It must be frustrating for the large number of community groups who try to get students to work on these schemes only to find that not enough of them qualify in a particular parish. That is disappointing. When a person completes a FÁS scheme operated by a local authority, health board or community group, they should not have to sign on again for six months to take up employment in a different scheme.

I want to refer to the question of PRSI for self-employed people. Many small business people, shopkeepers, etc., throughout the country who applied for a contributory pension ten years ago are now one year short of the required number of contributions. I came across a case where a person was one month short of the required number. There was an understanding in the past that if a person was short of contributions they could either buy the required number, get a proportion of their pension or continue contributing until they had ten years' contributions after the age of 66. That no longer seems to be the case and it is disappointing for people to be told, having started the scheme nine or ten years ago, that all they can get is a refund of their contributions. I hope the Minister will examine that matter. He has made some improvements in regard to the average number of years needed for the particular pension, and I am aware the Department is also reviewing the whole area, but more progress must be made because it is a matter of major concern to the people affected who thought they would be entitled to benefits under the scheme.

I welcome the announcement on family income supplement which will now be based on net income. I understand an additional 1,600 families will benefit in 1998, 7,000 people in a full year. I hope that will extend to schemes operated by other Departments. Under this scheme there is now an incentive for unemployed people to take up work. That is something for which the Minister has fought for a long time. I welcome the fact that he got the additional funding to provide for the welcome improvements in family income supplement.

Given that unemployment rates are falling, the Minister should provide more funding for social welfare. Since he referred to savings in social welfare, those savings should be used on the scheme I mentioned. Last year the unemployment rate fell below 10 per cent for the first time in 20 years. In November the rate was 9.9 per cent, well below the European average of 11.5 per cent. For the year to December last, the number of people on the live register fell by 22,426, or 8 per cent. In January 1998 the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment reached its lowest level in seven years, since February 1991, with 241,400 people signing on. There was a big fall in the number of unemployed in the Dublin region while the position in the western region was not as good. As Deputies from that region said, given the high unemployment rate in those areas there is need for greater development there.

Three-quarters of the fall in the number on the live register in the year to October 1997 was accounted for by the progress made in regard to long-term unemployment. With the fall in unemployment figures the Minister has more money available to him. The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs is a high spending Department and I hope the Minister uses the money gained on savings to be more flexible with schemes such as the carer's allowance and unemployment assistance. There are different views on means testing of farmers and assessment of smallholders for unemployment assistance.

I welcome the Bill and the Minister's comments. I hope further legislation will be introduced to deal with social inclusion, marginalisation and poverty.

Mr. McGrath

I wish to share my time with my colleagues, Deputies Ring and Sheehan.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Briscoe)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. McGrath

I listened with interest to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern, who said that this is a radical Bill. I wonder was he referring to the 35p per week increase in child benefit, or what aspect of the Bill is radical? Given that the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs made savings of £160 million last year, it is disappointing the Minister did not find it worthwhile to distribute that amount of money to social welfare recipients in 1998. That is far from radical.

As a Deputy of long standing in the House, the Chair will be aware that one can almost predict the contributions of Members to Bills such as this, with those on the Government side welcoming the Bill and congratulating the Minister and those on the Opposition side pointing out the difficulties. I will point out a number of anomalies in social welfare payments and other areas that should be changed quickly. I know the Minister is concerned about the family. He should be in a position to bring about changes needed to strengthen the family.

In regard to child dependant allowance, an unemployed person with a child dependant receives £13.20 per week, a person on old age pension or invalidity payment receives £15.20 per week while a widow, widower, lone parent or deserted wife receives £17 per week. It is not fair that children are treated differently. I am not suggesting that everybody should receive £13.20, but the allowance should be £17 per week for everybody. It is unthinkable that some people are paid 28 per cent less in child dependant allowance. That is an anomaly that should be corrected. We will be told there were many more rates over the years and that they have been reduced to three, but it is still an unfair system since all children are not treated equally.

In regard to adult dependant allowance, an unemployed person receives £40 per week, a person on old age pension receives £51 per week and a person on invalidity pension receives £45.10 per week. Those inequities should be corrected. It is unfair that all adult dependants are not treated equally.

Another anomaly — I heard much about this matter before Christmas — is the difference between unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit for people coming off FÁS schemes. Many people who came off FÁS schemes in the October-November period were disappointed to receive unemployment benefit rather than unemployment assistance. In certain cases those people missed out on £30 to £40 per week because they did not qualify for the fuel allowance or the Christmas bonus, and those with children in higher education did not receive child dependant allowance. That results in a substantial reduction in payment on a weekly basis, which is unacceptable. The Minister should consider that matter.

One of my hobby-horses relates to family income supplement, a marvellous scheme which is working extremely well. In many cases it makes the difference between people being prepared to work and staying at home drawing unemployment benefit. There are, however, difficulties with the scheme in that it creates poverty traps. I referred to this matter at the committee last week, but I repeat it because it is important this matter is sorted out. I put down a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance asking what would be the effect of an increase of £10 per week, £20 per week and so on for a family on a gross income of £230 per week with three dependent children. Because of FIS and marginal tax rates, such a family would need an increase of £40 per week to get an additional £5 take home pay. That is unacceptable. I thought that if FIS was applied to net pay it would eliminate that poverty trap, but that is not the case. If that same family received FIS on net pay, an increase of £40 per week would mean an extra £9 per week in take home pay. I accept that by paying FIS on net pay their total take home pay will increase. However, taking that starting point, if they are given an increase of £40 they will still only gain £9. This matter must be co-ordinated by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Department of Finance and that loophole, which is not right or reasonable, should be removed.

Mr. Cullen

One of its fundamental purposes is to bring more people into the net.

Mr. McGrath

I agree that it will provide many people with additional money. However, there is a disincentive for employers to pay additional costs.

FIS should not be administered by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, it should be administered by the Revenue Commissioners who have access to the returns. In that way we will guarantee that everyone who is entitled to FIS will qualify for payment.

Mr. Sheehan

The Social Welfare Bill was introduced with great fanfare. We were led to believe that the underprivileged sections of the community would benefit to a great extent from what was intended to be a "fabulous" budget and that social welfare benefits were supposed to increase to bring the standard of living of people in disadvantaged sections of society up to par with those of others. However, it is evident that the substantial real increases in the value of all social welfare payments did not materialise.

Discrimination exists whereby a dependent relative of a non-contributory pensioner is paid 30p per week less than a dependent relative of a contributory pensioner. The Social Welfare Bill has created two tiers among the elderly. It is laid down in the Constitution that everyone should be treated alike. Instead of penny-pinching, the Minister should rectify the existing anomaly and bring payments in respect of dependants of non-contributory pensioners up to the same standard as those which apply to dependants of contributory pensioners.

The Minister stated that the Bill provides a special child benefit payment for twins and improved grants for children of multiple births. That is laudable and it is long overdue. However, a meagre increase of only 35p per week has been granted in respect of the first child in any family. That is deplorable because it would not be enough to buy a bar of chocolate. The Minister should also correct this anomaly.

I am disappointed with the Minister's approach to the entitlement of farmers over 66 years of age to contributory pensions. On 5 April 1988, these people were compelled to pay PRSI contributions. Some of them have paid contributions for between seven and nine and a half years but they do not qualify for contributory pensions on reaching 66 years of age. If the Minister understands the seriousness of the situation, it should not be beyond his power to give those farmers an opportunity to pay the necessary contributions to the Department to entitle them to qualify for contributory pensions. It is an injustice that farmers and self-employed people, such as small shopkeepers, who were compelled to pay social welfare contributions have been beaten by the bell in respect of the ten year qualification period. When a similar scheme was introduced in Great Britain, the then British Minister for Social Welfare gave the people concerned an opportunity to pay the contributions which would entitle them to qualify for contributory pensions.

I urge the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to review this situation carefully and introduce a system whereby the people involved would be given the opportunity to pay the necessary contributions to allow them to qualify for payment. It was not their fault that they did not pay contributions before 1988 because it was not made compulsory to do so until that date. I urge the Minister to give them the opportunity to pay the contributions they require to qualify for payment. Failing that, they should be given the opportunity to continue paying contributions after the age of 66 until they reach the level required for qualification. They would only have to do so for between one to three years. Payment would mean a great deal to these people who, having entered the scheme in good faith, have discovered they are not eligible. They believed their case would be upheld but it has been overlooked by successive Ministers. I call on the current Minister to rectify that serious anomaly once and for all.

Even if they are a week late in applying, people who are not aware they qualify for family income supplement and return to work are disallowed payment. That anomaly should also be rectified.

Mr. Ring

I thank my colleagues for sharing time and I congratulate them on their contributions. I particularly congratulate Deputy McGrath who served as chairman of the Joint Committee on the Family during the lifetime of the previous Dáil. That committee discussed many practical issues, a number of which have been taken on board by the Government and its predecessor. I am sure future Governments will take further issues on board. I compliment Deputy McGrath on the great work he did as chairman of the committee.

I agree with Deputy McGrath that the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs is oriented towards the family. However, last year the Government saved £127 million in respect of people drawing social welfare who should not have been doing so. This year's budget increase for social welfare amounts to £125 million so there is no overall increase in social welfare. I believe 90 per cent of the £127 million to which I referred was taken from small farmers with small holdings.

I was going to say a great deal about the Social Welfare Bill but I will not do so now because I am disturbed and upset. People may believe I am being smart or funny, but I cried half an hour ago. Within the past hour, I spoke by telephone to a man at his home. The sheriff, representatives of the building society and other vultures were present. The man, his wife and four children were evicted from their house in County Mayo. The man was carried out and may be charged with assault. A civilised society should not do business in that fashion.

I am from County Mayo and I am put in mind of Michael Davitt, the Land League and the problem of evictions in the past. We are returning to the days of the landlords. We used to have British landlords but their modern day equivalents are the Irish Nationwide Building Society, AIB and the Bank of Ireland. There will be a revolution in the years to come. The Celtic tiger will run out of steam at some time.

Mr. O'Flynn

I hope the Deputy's party will not be in Government then.

Mr. Ring

The Deputy is in trouble with his constituency colleagues and he should listen to me. It is not nice to hear a wife and children crying over the telephone while the husband is being carried out of his house. The landlords in Dublin make these decisions. When the banks and building societies got into trouble legislation was rushed through this House to help them. When the PMPA and AIB got into trouble the taxpayers saved them. I criticise the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs but it would never evict people from their houses. It was disappointing that 13 or 14 people were involved in the eviction of which I have spoken. If those banks and building societies ever get into difficulty I hope legislation will not be rushed through to save them.

I agree with Deputy Sheehan's point about farmers who were compelled to pay PRSI in 1988. People should have the opportunity to buy into the scheme or, as the Deputy suggested, to continue paying until they have ten years' contributions. Alternatively, they might be paid pro rata if they do not qualify for a full pension.

I am upset today that a family with four children will have no home tonight. This is supposed to be a Christian country in which people are treated fairly. However, we will need another Michael Davitt to take on the banks and building societies. There may be bad days ahead for people who borrowed money to buy property at prices they cannot afford and who may not now be able to pay it back.

Mr. O'Flynn

I hope the revolution has not started in my constituency.

Mr. Ring

It has.

Mr. O'Flynn

I have not spoken to Deputy Ring and I do not know what he means when he says I am in trouble with my constituency colleagues.

Mr. Ring

I read it in the newspaper.

Mr. O'Flynn

Perhaps I will have the opportunity to talk to him at some point and he might advise me on the coup d'état that is being planned.

Deputy Sheehan seems to have forgotten that his party was in the previous Government. What did that Government do to improve social welfare payments?

Mr. McGrath

It increased child benefit by 50 per cent.

Mr. Sheehan

That is more than the price of a bar of chocolate.

Mr. O'Flynn

The Deputy's selective negative comments on the Bill are overshadowed by the many positive steps taken by the Minister and the Fianna Fáil led Government. I congratulate the Minister on this excellent Bill.

The social welfare package in the budget which is being brought into effect with this Bill is one of the largest in the State's history. It will make a great contribution to improving the circumstances of many people. The Bill and the budget mark the first step in implementing the commitments given in An Action Programme for the Millennium.

The Bill delivers on the Government's commitments in a range of key areas. It gives a special £5 increase in pensions and this is an important step in achieving an old age pension level of £100 per week to be achieved over the five year life of the Government. Older people have made a great contribution to the development of the country. Without their sacrifice and hard work we would not have an educated population and a growing economy. Older people deserve a decent standard of living in their old age and the Government is determined to ensure they get it. This contrasts with the miserly increases paid over the last three years by the previous rainbow Government. There may be gold at the end of the rainbow but that Government made sure it stayed there. This Government has put its money where its mouth is and given a decent £5 per week increase.

The Government's action programme also guarantees that the Government will honour its commitments in Partnership 2000, including that to bring social welfare rates up to the level recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare by 1999. I am glad to learn the increases announced in this Bill mean that 94 per cent of all payments are above the rates recommended by the commission. I am sure the Minister will want to take the final step in next year's Bill and bring all payments above the recommended rates. This is a major achievement and the Minister deserves credit for what he has achieved in his first few months in office.

I will highlight the Bill's provisions for people with disabilities and carers. An Action Programme for the Millennium commits the Government to implement the proposals of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. This Bill brings the rates of social welfare payments for people with disabilities above the rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare and this is a major step towards fulfilling this commitment. The Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities recommended that incentives to take up employment should be available for people with disabilities. The Minister has taken an important step to this end by increasing the amount which people on disability allowance can earn without affecting their income from £36.20 to £50 per week. The Minister should consider further increases in this amount in future budgets.

Carers provide a vital support to the community. Their hard work and dedication is acknowledged by all. Deputies know from experience that carers put many hours of hard work into their vocation. I am delighted the Minister is to provide a travel pass for them in their own right. They are the unsung heroes in the community. They remove a great financial burden from the State by caring for family and friends. The travel pass will allow them a degree of independence and help them to keep in contact with their families and friends. I am aware the Minister is reviewing the operation of the carer's scheme and I am confident he will put forward significant improvements in future legislation. His proposals will have my support.

The Bill and the budget as a whole will do much to improve the position of carers and people with disabilities. The total package of measures announced in the budget and to be given legal effect with this Bill will provide an extra £17.5 million for them in a full year and £10 million in 1998. We are anxious to improve their circumstances further.

The Bill and the measures announced in the budget will guarantee that people will be better off in work than on welfare. This is as it should be. In line with the Government's action programme PRSI for those on low pay has been cut. In addition, there has been a great improvement in family income supplement, probably the most significant since the introduction of the scheme in 1984. From June the amount of FIS payable will increase by £4 per week and from October FIS will be calculated on the basis of net pay which will result in an average increase of £11 per week. That is a great deal compared to increases in previous years. This is an example of the Government delivering on commitments in its action programme and Partnership 2000.

I welcome the improvements in payments for twins. In our election manifesto we promised to increase payments for twins and it is a sign of the Government's commitment to deliver on election promises that it is providing one and a half times child benefit rates for twins or, put another way, three child benefit payments for two children. This will benefit about 12,500 families. The grants for multiple births are also being improved.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.