Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Mar 1999

Vol. 501 No. 4

Social Welfare Bill, 1999: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): The proposal by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs for social welfare inspectors and gardaí to take part in multi-agency vehicle checkpoints with power to stop any vehicle with suspected workers is a blatant attempt not to wipe out fraud but to harry, harass and force innocent unemployed people, according to the agenda of the Small Firms Association and others, into taking jobs with disgracefully low and slave wages which cannot be filled at present. The Minister's fire should be directed at the other end of the spectrum. I wish the Minister would listen to the debate rather than talking in the corridor, as this is the nub of the problem.

This morning at an industrial estate in Park West near Ballyfermot a protest was called by building workers because a developer on the estate was insisting that the building workers in his employ should go into the black economy, that bricklayers should take £80 per day cash in hand. When the trade union members objected and when the trade union insisted on the right of workers on the site to be on the books, to pay taxes and to receive their dues, they were met with threats of intimidation, violence and death threats which have been reported to the Garda Síochána. The union officials met with pressure of the most disgraceful kind from the developer who wanted to continue to run the black economy. This concerns Harcourt Developments, a prominent development company operating in Dublin, one of the most active board members of which is Mr. Mike Murphy, an RTE broadcaster. I hope the Minister will take note of this.

I ask the Minister to take his hit squads off the backs of ordinary decent people and to move from an agenda of trying to frighten the innocent unemployed. Instead of stopping people in their trucks, pick-up vans and mud spattered cars, the hit squads should be sent to root out the real bully boys in the economy who can be found running the show in the construction industry. Has the Government the will or determination to do this, when traditionally the parties in Govern ment have been financed over the years by these construction companies? IBEC and the Tánaiste are aware of the situation which has been brought to their attention. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs says he is defending taxpayers and attacks some of us who criticise his mutli-agency vehicle checkpoints. What will he do about rooting out the cowboys who are forcing workers into the black economy, who are ripping off taxpayers and who are putting the lives of building workers at risk by enforcing the conditions I have outlined? I await a reply from the Minister.

Mr. D. Ahern

I will answer the points raised by the Deputy.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I would like to hear the Minister's reply.

Mr. C. Lenihan

I would be delighted to give way to Deputy Ahern who has some serious points to make. I have no problem responding positively to what Deputy Higgins said in the sense that I too have reservations about the multi-agency checkpoints from a policing point of view. I do not think this device should be used in an indiscriminate manner as it would jeopardise the position of gardaí, particularly in disadvantaged areas, in terms of their intelligence gathering function and the respect which they have in the community. It is somewhat demeaning to involve the Garda in this kind of work. I am all for extra resources being given to the investigative arm of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs in terms of rooting out fraud. However, I am not against the principle of the multi-agency checkpoints. In that regard Deputy Higgins will be disappointed to hear that I will not be voting against this measure.

This measure was already implicit in the general social welfare legislation and regulations. Through the Bill the Minister has merely fully incorporated the measure into law. I understand he is doing this at the behest of the Attorney General who wanted the situation clarified. The powers have existed for a number of years in the social welfare code and it is rather sanctimonious of Deputy Higgins to scream "shock, horror". The issue is whether one favours the principle of rooting out social welfare fraudsters.

In my speech on the Finance Bill I said it is very important that we are moving from a culture of non-compliance to compliance. This shift is occurring not just in relation to taxation, but also in relation to the obligations of ordinary citizens to respect the social welfare code and the entitlements to which they are due. In the context of tax and social welfare fraud there was a time when there was a sneaking regard among the general population for those who defrauded the taxpayer either directly through not paying their due taxes or by abusing schemes operated by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. We must send a clear signal to the young people in the Gallery who will hopefully soon join the workforce that the House stands four square against all types of fraud, be it of the type described by Deputy Higgins which occurs in the business or self-employed sector or by people who do not pay their taxes. I do not believe we should water down the powers given to Revenue to pursue serious fraud. Neither do I believe the powers are draconian or too extreme. They are only right in terms of the damage being done to the Revenue collection system and, in the context of the events at Dublin Castle over the past year, the political system.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are against fraud at every level in society, be it at the very top or the very bottom. I do not believe there should be one rule for the rich and another for the poor. The same law should apply to all. I find it remarkable that Deputy Higgins seems to be advocating a type of Robin Hood style system whereby the law of this land should not apply to people who defraud the social welfare system but should apply to those who defraud the taxation system. I find that inconsistent and wrong.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I did not say that.

Mr. C. Lenihan

If one strips away Deputy Higgins's rhetoric, at base he probably believes that and, in that sense, he should support this measure in relation to multi-agency checkpoints.

My only caveat, of which I am sure the Minister will take note, is that this device should be used sparingly. It could send the wrong message to ordinary members of the Garda Síochána and may undermine their role in terms of community policing. My understanding from my research in this regard is that this power is being used sparingly and that these checkpoints are largely concentrated in the Border counties where for a number of years people have been coming down from the North to defraud our social welfare system.

Mr. D. Ahern

Cowboys.

Mr. C. Lenihan

That is something we all deplore, as we would if people here defrauded the system. Obviously, this is a problem peculiar to our now largely irrelevant Border and it must be tackled.

The Social Welfare Bill is welcome. It shows that our party in this Government is committed to looking after that section of the population who are not in work and not even low paid. The Minister has largely won his battle at the Cabinet table in pushing this caring approach, particularly in relation to the increases due to carers. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, who said last night that we should consider giving more money to carers and more resources to people who want to keep their elderly relations or friends in the home rather than in nursing homes. This is something we should review because there will be huge pressure on resources as the population profile becomes more elderly. We should encourage people to care for others in the home.

We may have to consider consolidating the ministry this Minister holds into a much broader remit because it is too narrow to be focused purely and simply on social, community and family affairs. The training function is now under the remit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and we should have a Minister with responsibility for human resources. It is a human capital which will push this country forward in terms of economic wealth creation and success. After the next election, we should consider creating a new ministry which would incorporate social welfare and the training function now resident in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and consolidating all those functions which have regard to human resources in the national economy. That would be a suitable way to harness those at work and those without work – the advantaged and the disadvantaged – for the same economic purpose.

Cecilia Keaveney

I thank Deputy Conor Lenihan for sharing time with me. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this significant Bill. It gives effect to the substantial provisions announced in the budget and, in so doing, will significantly improve the quality of life for those who rely on social welfare payments, particularly the elderly and carers. Among the many innovations, the new supports for farmers and low income fishermen show that the Government values the contribution of so many people in our society. Fianna Fáil made a commitment of £100 for the old age pension in the programme for Government and the £6 increase, or 8.3 per cent, is an important step in that plan. I look forward to the other three steps in what is a five year programme.

For those who care for the sick or elderly, there will be an important improvement to their quality of life with the 40 per cent increase in expenditure. The allowance is being extended by almost 3,500 people, to carers of children in respect of a domiciliary care allowance and to those, subject to a means test, caring for all people between 16 and 65 years who require full-time care and attention. The relaxation in the residency and full-time care and attention conditions are also welcome along with free telephone and travel allowance.

On the travel allowance, I press the Minister to carry out a review of the facilities and ability of people in rural areas to use current public transport because that is a huge issue which will have to be addressed. In one respect, it is great to have free travel but if there is no facility or resource available on which to travel, it makes life extremely difficult for those in greatest need.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect as regards carers is the recognition of the need for respite. The £200 annual payment is extremely significant and I commend the Minister on his holistic approach to the issue which, ultimately, will assist both the 11,500 carers and those cared for. It will improve the quality of life for all of them. It is also important to know that the wish to improve things further for our most needy group continues in the form of the needs assessment working group which is to be set up. I wish the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Moffat, well in this endeavour.

Our farmers have had an extremely difficult year and their plight has been recognised and addressed on an interdepartmental level also. While the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, has introduced many measures, their plight is also dealt with in this Bill. The Minister will be remembered as the person who got rid of the pound for pound assessment, and I congratulate him in this regard.

The disregard of £100 for the first two children on the family farm and the £200 for each subsequent child, as well as the fact that the farmer's net income from self-employment will be assessed at a rate of 80 per cent, should prove a real improvement for many families. I know they will be glad to hear this £10 million scheme will come into operation at the beginning of May and payments will be made at the beginning of June. However, I ask that the Minister be in a position to extend the REPS exemptions to cover people on disability allowance. I also believe the REPS exemption should cover farm assist.

Another important announcement for coastal communities, such as my own, is the new fishing assist arrangements under the unemployment assistance scheme. The assessment of 80 per cent of income from self-employment, the £100 and £200 disregards as per the farm assist scheme and the relaxation of the signing-on arrangements will mean a great deal to those on low incomes who have suffered as a result of prolonged bad weather. We all know how bad the weather has been in the past few months.

While the other social welfare payments are well above the rate of inflation and are most welcome, there are people in my constituency who would prefer not to have to avail of the newly increased social welfare payments. The many people who were laid off from Fruit of the Loom and the Donegal Shirt Factory continue to impress on us their wish for replacement work. I take this opportunity to reiterate their commitment to work and extol their work ethos and capability. I look forward to continued pressure being exerted on all agencies to ensure increased job creation in Inishowen and Donegal north east generally.

I also look forward to the day when our unemployment statistics come down in line with national trends. I also acknowledge that a key focus of the Government is to provide training and education for the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed. We are looking to the stage when we will not have any long-term unemployed and move everyone into employment. That is the work ethos of the people in my constituency.

Time will not permit me to expand on the many other issues in the Social Welfare Bill, but I ask the Minister to seriously consider the plight of ESB meter readers who are having ongoing difficulties with their stamp recognition and the reduction in the number of readings throughout the year. I know representations will continue to be made to the Minister and I hope he will look favourably on their needs.

There is much in this Bill and, suffice it to say, many people over use the words "innovative" and "radical", but surely this is a really radical and innovative Bill. I look forward to the many Bills the Minister will introduce and wish him every success with them.

Ms M. McGennis

In the few minutes available to me, I will make a couple of points on the Social Welfare Bill. I am pleased to support the Bill and believe most Members opposite are equally pleased to support it, if the leaflets and circulars I have seen from colleagues on the opposite side of the House in my constituency are anything to go by. These leaflets and circulars from members of Fine Gael and Labour are produced to me on a daily basis and I am asked if these are the increases. It is acknowledged by politicians outside the Chamber and on all sides of the House that this is an extremely good Bill.

Mr. Dukes

I am delighted that we are helping to inform the Deputy.

Ms M. McGennis

The Minister stated that the effect of this Bill will be to produce an inclusive society and it sets about doing so in a positive and obvious manner. The job of Government and politicians is to ensure that we provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. This has been achieved by the budget improvements, particularly those in the area of social welfare.

I welcome the fact that the focus of this Bill is on the elderly. We have discussed this issue at parliamentary party level throughout the year, including improvements in pensions. I am glad that those improvements have been married to increases in the income limit for eligibility for the medical card. The problem in the past was that even small increases in social welfare or pension payments caused concern among the elderly that they would lose their medical cards. I am pleased that the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, has substantially increased the level of eligibility for these cards. However, there has been the most unedifying spectacle of a spokesperson for the medical profession screaming that he was about to go to court to try to block this provision. I am sure the Government will not kow-tow to that kind of pressure. We have set about doing something positive for people who have given of their time, energy, sweat and blood to produce the current economic climate. It is most unedifying to see well-paid pro fessionals screaming about going to court to block what seem minor improvements. They are major improvements if one is elderly.

An indication of the success of this Bill is the fact that the only provision which has caused any opposition is that concerning multi-agency checkpoints. I have not experienced these checkpoints and I cannot make much comment on them. However, I cannot get into the lather of sweat concerning this provision. If someone is stopped and asked if they are working surely they will also be asked where they are working. This will highlight whether someone is being paid through the black economy which Deputy Higgins was screaming about. This provision will also facilitate measures against those referred to by Deputy Lenihan who cross the Border to engage in the abuses referred to by Deputy Higgins. This is a sensible step. I have not experienced the checkpoint system as it has been in operation in only one area. If one marries this measure with proposals introduced by the Minister for Finance one will see that we are tackling social welfare fraud and white collar crime. I welcome this development.

Privately I have raised with the Minister the concern of women in low-paid employment regarding the amount they can earn before it affects their social welfare payments. Such women, particularly those working in the cleaning industry, are of the view that the minimum wage will not help them. Their view is that if they receive a minimum wage they will have to reduce the number of hours they work or go into the black economy. We will have to examine how this provision will affect families on social welfare. Anyone who goes to work at 4 a.m. to clean offices or supermarkets is not doing so to pay for a summer holiday in the Bahamas but to provide for their family. The Minister has increased the amount people can earn before their social welfare entitlements are affected but we need to examine this issue further.

When spokesperson on social welfare in the Seanad I raised the position of payments to lone parents and I welcome any improvements in this area. We will have to draw fathers into taking responsibility for their children. I do not want this to be misinterpreted as a Thatcherite approach to child support. I am not suggesting that the Government go after absentee fathers and reduce payments to mothers. There has been recent media coverage of the fact that many children are growing up without a father and this issue has to be examined. More importantly, we cannot continue to allow young men to become fathers and then accept that the entire burden of responsibility for the child rests with the mother and her family, if they are supportive.

As Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods introduced measures concerning attachment of earnings but I do not know the extent to which this provision is being used. I do not want a situation whereby a woman has to go to court to obtain child support from the father. The Government and the Minister will have to address ways of making fathers more responsible for their children which are not regarded as penalties.

I opposed the abolition of deserted wife's allowance by Deputy De Rossa when he was Minister. One could have changed the name of the entitlement without changing the entitlement for women whose husbands had been paying into the social welfare system and who were automatically entitled to that allowance if they could prove desertion. That is gone and it means that a woman up to 65 years of age has to present herself at the unemployment exchange to claim lone parent's allowance. If she has no dependant children she will have sign on at a labour exchange. This was not a positive development.

In the context of Partnership 2000 we will also have to consider the position of those people, mainly married women, who are not eligible to sign on and are, therefore, excluded from a number of education, training and community employment schemes. There is concern that the unemployment statistics will go through the roof if this section of society is allowed sign on. However, we can be innovative enough to deal with both requirements.

There has been much welcome for the £6 increase in the old age pension and people are looking forward to reaching the £100 mark promised in the Fianna Fáil manifesto and the programme for Government. This is a very deserving area and the increases have been welcomed by the elderly.

The Minister is introducing a number of schemes to assist farmers experiencing hardship. This does not affect my constituency, but it has been pointed out that for the first time such people can see themselves earning a pound without losing a pound. The Minister should examine such an initiative aimed at women in low-paid employment who feel they will lose social welfare entitlements if they earn the minimum wage.

I support this Bill. The fact that I have seen so many pieces of coloured literature being distributed by Members on both sides suggests that there is general acceptance and support for the Bill.

Mr. Dukes

I wish to share my time with Deputy Bradford.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dukes

I wish to raise four detailed issues concerning this Bill. I have raised some of them in the House before and some progress has been made but I wish to urge to Minister to make even further progress.

The first issue concerns the surviving spouses of deceased old age pensioners who are entitled to secondary benefits. Where an old age pensioner is entitled to various secondary benefits and dies, the surviving spouse, if he or she is over 60, is entitled to retain those benefits. It would cost the State very little but it would mean a great deal to surviving spouses if the age limit was abolished.

Spouses, usually wives, under 60 face a difficult situation when they lose a husband who was entitled to an old age pension and secondary benefits and find that, in their mid-50s, they are only entitled to a widow's pension and lose a number of benefits they previously received. Arguments are made that she is not treated any differently from any other person of the same age who has not been widowed and who is entitled to various social benefits but does not have these secondary benefits. It is part of the human condition that what one does not have, one does not miss. However, if something one has is taken way, it can create a serious sense of grievance.

There must be few cases where the surviving spouse in such circumstances is under the age of 60. It would cost very little to remove that age qualification and provide that in any case where an old age pensioner who had secondary benefits dies, the surviving spouse, irrespective of age, would continue to be entitled to those benefits.

The vexed issue of the assessment of capital means in assessing eligibility for old age pensions was debated by the Minister and my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, on 2 February last. They had a long and erudite discussion on it during the course of which the Minister said, as reported in the Official Report of 2 February 1999, volume 499, column 861:

Reducing the assessment rates of 7.5 per cent and 15 per cent to the current levels of interest available on bank deposit accounts would disproportionately benefit those who are well off. Any proposals to further ease the assessment of capital would have financial implications.

It appears such implications are to be avoided. The Minister also said that if the rate was reduced to a combined 1 per cent, which is the effective rate of assessment for capital means, a single person with capital of £428,000 or a married couple with capital of £856,000 would qualify for an allowance. The Minister adduces that as a reason not to change this nonsensical set of assessment rates which ignore the first £4,000.

Mr. D. Ahern

They were brought in when the Deputy was in Government.

Mr. Dukes

I have consistently argued about them.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy voted for them.

Mr. Dukes

I have argued inside and outside Government for some reality to be brought to bear on this matter.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy cannot have it every way.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister said because the first £4,000 is ignored and other provisions come into play at £7,500 and £15,000 that he is not doing badly. For most people that is the case. However, the Minister also said that a total of 75 per cent of old age pensioners have no means. Only 2 per cent of old age pensioners have capital of £20,000 or over. At the end of January this year there was a total of 167,208 old age pensioners of whom 95,416 were non-contributory old age pensioners. This group is envisaged by the provision.

Mr. D. Ahern

There are about 350,000 old age pensioners.

Mr. Dukes

I am using figures I was given for the end of January. What is the number of old age non-contributory pensioners?

Mr. D. Ahern

Approximately 60,000.

Mr. Dukes

I was informed that there were 95,000 of them. If the figure is less, it strengthens my point. If 2 per cent of those people have means of over £20,000, a maximum of 1,900 people would be affected by a change in the assessment rates. If the Minister halved the assessment rates or divided them by three and made them 2.5 per cent and 5 per cent, bringing them somewhere near the reality of the market today, only those 1,900 people would be affected. The amount of extra expenditure the Minister would incur would be minimal in return for bringing some reality to bear on the capital assessment for old age pensioners.

Aside from the erudite arguments the Minister deployed on 2 February, I ask him to consider reality. He would do a better job if he said the Department in assessing the value of capital would examine the amount of income which old age pensioners get from the capital and deduct that from their entitlement. In almost every case of which I am aware, this would produce a better result for the pensioners than the artificial means used to date. The Minister may say the system has been in operation for many years. That is the case, but it has been wrong for many years. I would like a Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, of whatever stripe, to bring some reality to this matter.

A couple of years ago I came across a case of three old age pensioners who were siblings and lived together in the old family home. Two of them had contributory old age pensions because they were previously employed while the third had never been employed and had a non-contributory old age pension. They found that three could live together more cheaply than three living separately. For example, they ran one car between them.

The member of the family with an old age non-contributory pension had been in receipt of the pension for approximately 15 years. She had savings in the bank because by living with her two siblings she was able to save money from her pen sion. The Department of Social Welfare found out about this and said she had undeclared means. It wanted to make deductions from the pension she had been paid for the 15 previous years because she had been able to make savings from it. Unfortunately, the lady died before the matter could be resolved and it was argued between the Department of Social Welfare and her estate. It should not be beyond the ingenuity of any Minister for Social Welfare to find a way of allowing people to keep the benefit of savings from their old age pension without incurring that type of penalty.

Section 10 extends the carer's allowance to cover carers of children in receipt of the domiciliary care allowance. I am delighted that extension has been introduced and a fuller provision is being made for carers. However, the domiciliary care allowance is paid to carers of children who are over two years of age. Unhappily, some children are born with serious disabilities. Their life expectancy is short and their quality of life is not expected to be great. However, because of the current rules, the domiciliary care allowance is not paid to the parents until the children reach the age of two years.

The Minister should relax the rules and make the domiciliary care allowance available to parents of all severely disabled children from birth. Many of these children do not survive long and such an action would not only be a financial ease for the parents involved, but also give them the feeling that they are not forgotten. At present they feel left out of the social welfare system. Most of them are in the position that their children require care 24 hours a day. I urge the Minister to consider extending the domiciliary care allowance scheme to cover the first two years of those children's lives.

I have been in correspondence with the Department of Health and Children on this matter and I have been told for the past 18 months that the possibility of making this change is under review. It does not need to be reviewed any more. It only needs a charitable decision to be made. It would not cost much money, but it would bring a disproportionate and worthwhile benefit to the parents of these children.

Mr. Bradford

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Social Welfare Bill. It is a Bill on which most Deputies like to comment. Each year interesting topics are raised and relevant suggestions are put to the Minister. We have this set-piece occasion once a year when the Minister brings his Bill forward. We may comment, but our points are not taken on board, nor do they get the attention they deserve. Perhaps we should engage in broader discussion of social welfare policy throughout the year, through better use of the Select Committee on Social Affairs. I hope we will have an opportunity to go into these matters in greater detail at the Social Affairs committee.

I support what my colleague, Deputy Dukes, said about the means test. I take the Minister's point that previous Governments neither amended nor improved it. I cannot dispute that. However, I concur with Deputy Dukes that the present means-testing system for non-contributory old age pensions, unemployment assistance and, in a slightly amended form, for the farm assist scheme, needs to be brought closer to reality. It is difficult to reconcile the assessment of capital at 7 per cent when the return on capital is 2 or 3 per cent, but that is a debate for another day. I hope that over the next 12 months the Minister will look at that issue with a view to putting in place a more realistic means test. It is a question of give and take and of limited resources but, within the resources available to the Minister, I would like to see a realistic rather than a notional means test.

The Minister announced an extra £18 million for carers this year, an increase of 40 per cent. Last year the total spent on carers was only £45 million. We can all be criticised for this because we have all been on the Government side of the House, but it shows that we have a long way to go to improve the lot of the carer. Carers have been doing unpaid work for generations, not just for their families but on behalf of the State. I hope the Minister will follow through on his commitment to improve their circumstances. I welcome what has been done this year but we have to go further because without a family carer, many of the people being cared for in their own homes would be in residential care and costing the taxpayer hundreds of pounds per week. I would make the case for giving a carer's allowance to every carer in the State. It is a minimalist demand as we approach the millennium. As this is the International Year of the Elderly, we should look after the elderly and the people who are caring for them.

I welcome the Minister's ongoing commitment to bringing the old age pension rate to £100 per week. There has been an increase of £6 this year, but there is quite a distance to go. I hope the Minister will live up to his commitment in that regard also.

I welcome the extension of the free schemes to all pensioners over 75. However, we should reduce that to 70 and, eventually, to 65, particularly in the case of married couples if both are pensioners and they have nobody else living with them. Under current regulations medical evidence is necessary to show that one or other of them has a medical problem. The free schemes should be extended to all and the age limit should be reduced eventually to 65.

Perhaps the Minister would detail in his reply how he intends to deal with arrears payable to people who were late in claiming contributory pensions. I welcome the progress which has been made, but public representatives have received a significant number of queries from people who believe they are owed arrears for up to five or six years. This matter should be finalised at an early date. I am glad the arrears will be paid but we would like to see the fine print.

We recognise the urgent need for the farm assist scheme. Will the Minister ensure that payment is made as early as possible? Social welfare payments can be made retrospectively but poverty is not retrospective. A significant number of farmers are enduring poverty as a result of crises in farming. The farm assist scheme will be very important to farming families. If they are to be kept on the land, payment must issue as quickly as possible. I trust that once this Bill is passed social welfare offices will be in a position to process claims and make early payment.

In the context of social welfare offices, are there any further plans for decentralisation? The Department has regional offices throughout the country, and these perform an effective and efficient service. However, with so many smaller social welfare offices it should be possible, in an age of computerisation, to deal with the paperwork relating to the various allowances and schemes in the local office. Currently forms have to be sent to various places, but there are social welfare offices in the regions and schemes should be processed directly from those offices. Does the Minister intend to make progress in this area? There has been much regionalisation of Government offices. However, true decentralisation does not mean regionalisation; it means taking decisions in local offices. I would like to see progress on decentralisation of schemes to local offices.

Mr. N. Ahern

I am sharing my time with Deputy Cooper-Flynn. I am delighted with the trend in this year's budget and with this Bill which seems to be redirecting money where it is needed. I particularly welcome the increases for the elderly, carers, and the new bereavement grant which are very worthy. I am delighted that the Minister and the politicians seem to have regained the ground lost to the expert groups. For too long Ministers have been quoting what was said by this or that expert group and practitioners on the ground were not listened to. I see the £5 increase last year and the £6 increase this year as a regaining of ground by the politicians, as an indication that what we are saying about who are the most deserving people is recognised in practice. The expert groups have been rowed back a little and I hope that trend continues.

I feel very strongly about the fuel allowance disregard and I am delighted with the Minister's move on it. Many people in my constituency have small private pensions and until last year they received little reward for them. They receive £15 or £20 per week from various companies and these payments prevent them from qualifying for a fuel allowance or medical card. They contributed to a pension for 40 years and received a negative response when they applied for such welfare benefits. I am also delighted with the changes relating to medical cards which have been introduced by the Minister because the door has been opened for these people to qualify. It shows them that if they work hard and contribute to a pension, they will be rewarded.

I wish that there was a greater difference between contributory and non-contributory old age pensions. Those who have contributed for 40 years receive £89 per week whereas those who did not contribute get £9 or £10 less. No Minister will reduce the non-contributory pension, but if I were Minister I would increase the contributory pension by £2 per week more than the non-contributory pension. This comes back to my basic philosophy that if one contributes for years, one must benefit.

I am chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social, Community and Family Affairs and Deputy Bradford is welcome to attend any meeting and impart his wisdom to us. We meet on a regular basis to discuss these issues. It is ridiculous that we only have seven or ten minutes each to debate this Bill because all Members could speak on it.

I am concerned that more than 200,000 people are still unemployed. I am not calling for more increases for the unemployed. The trend in the budget, which is to make it worthwhile for people to work, is the way to go. Some people talk as though the problem has been solved and that is not the case. There are many unemployed people in my constituency who are forgotten. Too many people think there is no unemployment. For example, during this morning's Order of Business Members called for asylum seekers to be allowed to work.

Two reports are currently before the Cabinet which send worrying signals. One is an OECD report which was referred to by newspapers on Monday while Deloitte & Touche has presented a report to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment which recommends a reduction in community employment schemes. That is heresy; it is scandalous and not the way to go. It is based on the notion that the unemployment crisis has been resolved. Perhaps in well heeled areas in south Dublin there is no problem and everybody has a job. However, that is the real world.

While I was delighted to preach the gospel in relation to the budget, everybody did not do famously. I have met many men, particularly those aged between 50 and 65, who will get a 3 per cent increase. However, they are unemployed and it is too expensive to retrain them. The attitude is that they will get a pension in ten years' time and it cannot be expected that they should be retrained. Community employment schemes and other forms of social work are the only options for a huge number of people. More people should be on such schemes but they should be given a greater incentive.

The CES needs to be changed because it has been hijacked by lone parents. It is a scandal that single and married people get £15 extra per week on a community employment scheme while lone parents receive £80 or £90 extra per week. There is no logic to that and it is discriminatory. There should be an equal incentive for everyone to share in community employment schemes or other forms of social work and not look for a hand out every week. I am worried about the reports which are before the Cabinet because they seem to indicate that such schemes should be cut back. To whom have the consultants spoken?

I hope the Minister fights hard against this. It is not exclusively under his remit as a number of Ministers are involved. The same argument applies to asylum seekers. I have nothing against them but I am inclined to think that charity begins at home. When many of my constituents, who are actively seeking employment, are looked after, I will think of others. There is a huge difference in the attitude of politicians depending on whether they are from a well heeled south Dublin constituency or a less well heeled north Dublin constituency.

The Minister will have an input into the reports before Cabinet but they send the wrong signals. The rules and regulations governing community employment schemes should be changed to make them fair but the 200,000 people who are currently unemployed should be offered training or social work and if they do not take it up, they should be cut off. They need a greater incentive and I believe in "workfare". Everybody receiving unemployment assistance should do one day's work and should then be offered extra money to work another day. We need to give everybody an incentive and a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Many people in my constituency have children who struggle into school at 11.30 a.m., while their mothers get up at noon. They are going nowhere and this cycle is repeated. This situation needs to be addressed.

Deputy McGennis referred to the need to examine the lone parent's scheme. Many genuine lone parents must be looked after and they should receive social welfare benefits, housing, etc.. This issue was discussed at the last meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social, Community and Family Affairs, with particular reference to a points system for housing. Many fathers opt out of their responsibilities and that is unacceptable. One must pay for one's fun. There is a trend, particularly in regard to local authority housing, where everyone declares themselves as lone parents. This encourages men to move to different addresses every six months. If one fathers a child, one should pay for it and I do not care whether one lives at home. The Minister must act tough about this. One can live with a certain amount of this in society but it is getting to the stage where one must cry "halt". The Department must get tough.

The old saying, "any woman can get caught once", is fine and such women must be looked after, but 12 months notice should be given that there will be a serious examination of any new claim for a second child under the lone parent's scheme. When a woman becomes pregnant, she knows who is the father in 99 per cent of cases. The fathers should be named and should pay for their children, whether they are drawing the dole or earning £30,000 per annum. I have come across many cases where men suddenly repaint themselves as self-employed just for a number of months. The Department thinks that they have strayed and will not take any money from them because they only receive £65 per week. That is a load of rubbish. If one fathers a child, one should pay for it whether one is unemployed or earning a good salary. A crackdown is needed. This is linked with the debate on child care. If child benefit is to be increased, which is perhaps the way to proceed, then it is time to examine the situation regarding lone parents. We cannot increase child benefit by £10 per week and expect it all to be well spent and that there will be no negative spin-off. If anything of that nature is happening, perhaps the Minister could examine carefully the current lone parent's scheme and its ramifications, and direct his money in the right direction accordingly.

The lone parent's scheme is being abused. Many women in the scheme are struggling but are doing their best and will probably succeed in the end with their children turning out to be good, solid citizens. However, many of them are abusing the system wholesale. Men live with them and father their children and they should be made pay. When there is any new significant increase in child benefit, that is the time to examine the matter and grasp the nettle by correcting what has gone wrong. A small level of abuse is not significant, but it is now reaching the stage where the system needs to be carefully examined and reformed.

Ms Cooper-Flynn

I thank my colleague, Deputy Noel Ahern, for sharing his time with me and welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I am delighted that £317 million in social welfare improvements were introduced in the budget. I compliment the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, on the Bill, and also on his attitude towards social welfare. It is admittedly hard to get excited about bereavement grants and increases in some areas of social welfare, but the Minister has brought a positive approach and a bit of colour and flair to the Department, and that is welcome. It has been especially welcomed by old people and carers whom the Minister has gone a long way towards assisting in the recent budget.

Most of us recognise that old people have served society well, and we would like to think they can live out their lives with dignity and not have the financial worries many of them currently have. In our programme for Government, caring for and dealing with old people was a priority for Fianna Fáil. I am delighted the Minister has honoured the commitment we gave. We are well on our way to achieving the goal of increasing the contributory old age pension to £100 over five years. We increased the pension by £5 a week last year and by £6 a week this year, bringing it to £89 per week. I know from having spoken to elderly people in my constituency that they genuinely appreciate the Government's efforts in this area. It is an increase of 14 per cent since we took office and that is something of which we should be proud. I know my constituency colleague would agree with that because that is the view of old people throughout the country.

I also welcome the personal increases in social welfare other than those relating to old people. Those increases of £3 per week are very significant. A number of significant changes have been made to bereavement grants. An increase from £100 to £500 is a very significant increase. Most people recognised that a £100 grant was menial and in no way assisted people in difficult financial circumstances undergoing a bereavement. I welcome the changes in that area. Many more people now qualify for the grant as a result of the easing in the qualifying criteria introduced by the Minister in the Bill. That is very significant.

The commitment we gave to self-employed pensions before we came into office has been honoured fully by the Government and it is an important move. Section 21 deals with that issue where a special rate of old age contributory pension is now being given to people aged 56 or over on 6 April 1988. That is very important. A person with five years' contributions paid since that date is entitled to a special rate of contributory old age pension and I welcome that.

I wish to focus on three areas – carers, the farm assist programme and the fishing assist programme – because these are very important to people in my constituency. I welcome the recognition given by the Minister to carers. He has improved the lot of 11,500 people currently in receipt of the carer's allowance, and 3,500 more people will benefit as a result of changes he has introduced in the Bill. Some of the people most in need who come to me are those caring for an elderly parent or a handicapped child in the home who find it very difficult financially. In many cases, they have to give up a job to care for an elderly parent. The Minister has examined in detail the attitude to carers in society and has taken a very welcome, sensitive attitude himself.

I welcome the changes whereby carers of children in receipt of the domiciliary care allowance are now eligible for the carer's allowance. That is very important and is certainly appreciated by the people who now qualify. I also welcome the relaxation of the residency conditions for qualifying for the carer's allowance and also the relaxation of full-time care and attention rules introduced by the Minister in the Bill. I also welcome the extension of the free telephone rental scheme to people in receipt of the carer's allowance. That might seem a small matter, but it is very welcome and goes a long way towards easing the financial burden carers experience.

In many cases, carers are working 24 hours a day and it is a tiring and thankless task. It is often left to one person in a family to care for an elderly parent, and any assistance the Government can give must be offered to them. There has been considerable debate over the years about abolishing the means test for carers, but unfortunately, that is not a financial possibility at the moment, although the Minister has examined it. While we must live within our means as a country, I recognise everything is being done with the considerable finances available to assist people in need.

Regarding the farm assist programme, I come from a constituency of over 5,000 farmers, many of whom have small farms and who are trying to eke out a living in very difficult circumstances. I have spoken to the Minister about the condition of farmers and unemployed people in the northern part of my constituency, Mayo. They find it very difficult to survive and most farmers would also be in receipt of social welfare payments. Not only do people live on very small farms in that part of the world, they are also the worst hit by the weather. The Minister recognised, as I do, the efforts of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, under the fodder scheme. While that is helpful, 75 per cent of farmers in my county have no fodder and are in dire straits, and the other 25 per cent are in severe difficulty. It is a difficult time for farmers but I know that is recognised by the Minister. I welcome the changes he has introduced in section 16 whereby a farmer will now be assessed at a rate of 18 per cent of his self-employment income, including farming, instead of the pound for pound basis which applied before. I also recognise the concessions he has introduced relating to children in families, which will go some way towards assisting those farmers in serious difficulty.

My colleague, Deputy Keaveney, said earlier that, while the improvements in social welfare are very welcome, most of us would prefer if our constituents did not have to rely on those benefits, and I agree with that. There have been two factory closures in my county recently: Betatherm in Ballinrobe with the loss of 40 jobs and the Allfresh bakery in Charlestown with the loss of 100 jobs. While I know the Government is making every effort to ensure replacement jobs are found, those people are now living in a community which has lost a massive income as a result of the closure of the factories. While I welcome the increases in social welfare benefits, I hope the Government will make every effort to find replacement jobs.

The European initiative towards reducing unemployment in member states, to which we are party, means we are going to do everything we can over the coming years to ensure every young person is either put in a job or given a training scheme to ensure they have self-esteem and the right attitude to work in the years ahead. I know it is one of the Minister's aims in coming years to reduce the dole queue, and it is an aim with which we all agree and would like to see achieved. I also welcome the fishing assist programme. I come from a county with not only a huge rural population but also a huge fishing one.

I fully support the Bill and welcome the fact the Minister has brought it before the House. I concur with the views of my colleague, Deputy Noel Ahern, about CE schemes. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Ring

I wish to share time with Deputy Browne.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Ring

I disagree with my colleague from County Mayo. The budget did not look after the categories that should have been looked after. I am totally opposed to the proposal relating to social welfare officers, Customs officers and gardaí. It is outrageous. It is an attack on the poor. If the Minister wants to attack anybody, he should attack the rich, but he should leave the poor alone. In north Mayo – my constituency colleague will confirm this – many rural Garda stations have been closed. Perhaps social welfare officers could double up and do both jobs, given the shortage of gardaí. The people of the area have been plagued in recent years. They have suffered because of the weather and the land is of poor quality. I cannot understand why the attack has been focused on the area. I hope my colleagues in Fianna Fáil will raise the issue at meetings of the parliamentary party and block this ridiculous proposal.

I disagree also with my constituency colleague on the position of carers for whom successive Governments have done nothing. If a person on social welfare decides to care full time for his or her mother, father, grandmother or grandfather or a sick relative, he or she will receive a few pounds more per week. A person in full-time employment, however, would not be able to live on the carer's allowance for which many do not qualify because their husband or wife is working and on a good income. The first £50 should not be means tested.

The work of carers is not recognised. In other countries there is great respect for the elderly. We are beginning to lose that respect. I compliment those who look after an elderly relative at home, be they a brother, sister, mother or father. The alternative is to place them in a home but at what cost to the State? The work of carers, particularly those over the income threshold, should have been recognised in the budget. This should be rectified as soon as possible. Most people would like to be looked after and to die at home.

The Minister will not allow rent payments to local authorities to be made direct under the household budget scheme. Social welfare recipients, regardless of the benefit, should be permitted to enter into an agreement with the local authority to have rent payments deducted at source. I do not understand why this cannot be done. It is always the woman – never the man – who has to make sure payments are made to the local authority to ensure they have a roof over their heads. I hope an amendment to this effect will be tabled by my party on Committee Stage. There would be no cost. There appears to be a new policy in County Mayo in recent months. The county council appears to spend every day in court prosecuting tenants. It has tried to put some out of their homes. This is outrageous. The request I am making is reasonable.

Farmers in the west have had a difficult time in the past 18 months. Despite this health boards and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs have not adjusted the rates at which they assess cattle, sheep and other stock. The Minister may consider this in the small farmers scheme which will be introduced before the local elections. The increases in child benefit should also be paid before the local elections, instead of September. Increases in social welfare will be paid from June.

There has been much talk about the Celtic tiger and about how well the economy is performing. The elderly receive the £5 fuel allowance from October to April. It should be paid throughout the year at a cost of between £3 million and £4 million. One has to light a fire 52 weeks of the year. This would make a huge difference to the old and the sick. It is the least that should be done for them.

The Minister with his colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, should ask local authorities to increase their income guidelines in respect of local authority housing. Two pounds of the £3 increase in social welfare will go to local authorities. What is being given with one hand is being taken with the other. There should be a decent increase in the income guidelines. This would enable social welfare recipients to retain the entire increase in their payments.

On the death of a spouse, widows and widowers not of pension age lose their entitlements under the free schemes. The Minister should consider allowing them to retain their benefits for six months at least. It is an awful shock. First, they lose their partner and then they lose all the free schemes. It is a major loss. If the Minister will not allow retention on a full-time basis, he might at least allow it to them for six months.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I do not intend to spend all my time either burying or praising the Minister. I just want to make a few suggestions and compliment him on the good he has done. His is a difficult role. No matter what provisions a Minister introduces, there will always be those who say he should have gone a little further. However, we are living at a time of economic boom and Government backbenchers who make comparisons between current payments and payments when other people were in Government are not being fair. We are living in a different era and the least we can do is look after the least well off.

I want to refer to two matters which were referred to the Minister's office. I am aware that often the Minister does not receive such correspondence. Tinteán, the voluntary housing group in Carlow, wrote to the Minister on 11 January regarding the rent supplement and the pension increase. It made a valid point. The Minister gives £6 per week to old age pensioners but if they are in rented accommodation, their rent allowance which they receive from through the health board is cut by £2. It is unfair. Tinteán's letter stated:

To give a comparison, . A farmer who retires on reaching pension age transfers his holding to one of his family, retaining the normal rights of residence and maintenance. He will enjoy the full Old Age Pension and will receive in full the increase under the '98 & '99 budgets.

A casual farm worker who retires and has to rely on the Commercial Sector or Voluntary Housing to provide, on a rental basis, a place to live may need to apply for Rent Supplement to meet his tenancy obligations. This pensioner does not enjoy the full benefits of the '98 & '99 budgets, but by virtue of the clawbacks is reduced to the same level of increase as all the other Social Welfare recipients.

It is a pity that there is this distinction between pensioners. Being an efficient group, Tinteán made a suggestion. Its letter states that one suggestion might be "to change the baseline assessment criteria in respect of Rent Supplement entitlement for our senior citizens only to an appropriate pension rate . ." If that line was taken, it would mean everybody would retain their pension increase rather than have it reduced through a clawback. Having drawn the attention of the Minister to this matter, if he has not come across it already in his office, I hope he might deal with it.

There is another piece of correspondence to which I want to refer. In this case the Minister's office reference number is 986775. This man wrote to the Minister in early December. When he wrote to me on 6 February he said that he had not received a reply and if he got one in the meantime he would contact me. I presume he has still not received a reply. He is concerned about the self-employed, some of whom were caught between the ages of 63 and 66. They paid their contributions but are not entitled to widow's or widower's pro rata pension to which he feels they should be entitled. If he wrote to the Minister in December, he should have received an answer before he wrote to us. He makes the point that while there was a 53 per cent refund given to people who did not qualify, 47 per cent was retained. He wants to know what happened that 47 per cent and why it was kept in the fund if a person would not benefit.

Year after year my colleagues and I have spoken on behalf of widows. No matter what we do we cannot undo their trauma. If they are depending on social welfare, it is important that we treat them as a different class because they are doing such an onerous job. I hate to see widows getting the same increase as other people. They must run a house, heat it and do all the things which would be done if their spouse was with them. We should make an exception of widows. We should give them a different category of allowance in order to help them get through their difficult chore. There is no point in going into the psychological and other disadvantages which they might encounter on occasions and their difficulty in rearing children on their own. They have a greater cost base which we should look after.

We are all against the black economy. How to deal with it is a difficulty for any Minister or Government. I heard people criticise the on-going vehicle checks. If they are abused, that cannot be tolerated. On the other hand the Minister stated that the occupants of 10 per cent of the vehicles at one checkpoint were found to be involved in fraudulent work. That is a high rate of detection. It is not easy to judge whether that rate was exceptional. I do not want to be hypocritical, saying that the black economy should be stamped out and at the same time telling the Minister not to impose checks, but it sounds as if a sledgehammer is being used. Perhaps it has proved effective and justifiable. It was stated that £350,000 was saved in a short space of time.

Mr. Enright

It would be disallowed.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): We can argue whether or not it is disallowed. People may be discouraged from signing on simply because there is pressure. We cannot defend people who abuse the system. On the other hand we cannot abuse them. If we were paying out less to people who did not deserve it, we could pay more to those dependent on social welfare. It is as simple as that. If people are abusing the system and working while in receipt of unemployment payments, it is unjust.

When we were in Government I would have defended the line that these people should be found out. I will not change my position at this stage but if there is any abuse of this vehicle checkpoint, if people are held up and there is no return, they should be stopped. On the other hand we cannot have it both ways.

I would welcome the inclusion of the farmers in the FIS scheme. Even if there is a question about their returns, if farmers were receiving FIS there would be a greater incentive for them to work. The unemployment assistance they receive, farmers' dole, is degrading because that scheme does not encourage them to work. It might be easy to administer but it is the wrong scheme.

I welcome the improvements in the carer's allowance. We often discussed it here when Deputy Woods was Minister for Social Welfare and things were much worse. The free telephone rental scheme is a good idea also and I appreciate it.

The Minister deserves credit for dealing with the death grant. It was embarrassing when people contacted us about the death grant to discover it was only £100. I congratulate the Minister for increasing it to £500. I do not know why I have praised him so much.

Mr. J. Brady

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Social Welfare Bill is evidence of the Government's commitment to ensuring Ireland becomes a State in which nobody is left out. This social welfare package is the best ever granted by any Government and includes a welcome provision for low income farmers. Because of the economic growth over the past ten years it is now possible to invest in the future; that includes the future of those receiving all types of social welfare payments.

There are particular aspects of the Bill on which I want to compliment the Minister. The extension of the carer's allowance to carers of people between the ages of 16 and 65 who require full time care and attention is a major improvement in the scheme. The extension of the free travel and free telephone rental allowance for carers is also a beneficial feature for those engaged in this important work and for those in care. The relaxation in the residency and full-time care conditions is another important factor. This will ensure people who care for a neighbour or relative who lives next door will be able to apply for the allowance.

Carers provide an important service in the community. People in need of care can live and be cared for in their communities. The move to unfamiliar surroundings, such as a hospital or nursing home, may become unnecessary for many older people.

The Bill contains a package of measures designed to improve the position of older people in our society. These are the people who contributed greatly to our economy at a time when working conditions were much more difficult. A couple in receipt of an old age pension will benefit by £9 per week and will be £15.50 better off since this Government came into office. The weekly payment to a couple, both aged 66, in receipt of old age contributory pensions will increase to £148.90.

I welcome the commitment to the introduction of a pro rata pension for the self-employed who were aged 56 years or over when social insurance was extended to the self-employed. Older people will also benefit from an increase in tax allowance and from an extension of the guidelines used to establish medical card eligibility for persons over the age of 70.

The major increase in the disabled person's and essential repairs grants available through local authorities will help older people to improve the standard of their living accommodation. The new bereavement grant of £500 for self-employed people is welcome because it will help alleviate the cost of funeral expenses.

The Minister is acknowledging in the Bill the difficulties being experienced by many low income families. The new farm assist scheme will target income at those farmers in genuine need. This is a vital requirement for the survival of many rural farm families, and the Minister must be complimented on that. I was involved in that scheme through the National Farmers' Association when we visited Northern Ireland some time ago to see how a similar scheme operated there.

All families will benefit from an increase in child benefit and an increase in the family income supplement threshold. The Bill illustrates the Government's commitment to people dependent on our social welfare system for income support. I welcome the Bill and compliment Minister Ahern on the work he is doing for needy people.

Mr. M. Kitt

I wish to share my time with Deputy Daly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are 15 minutes remaining in that slot.

Mr. M. Kitt

I congratulate the Minister. This is the second Social Welfare Bill he has introduced since taking up office, and there are substantial improvements in it for older people, families and communities. I particularly welcome the £6 increase for old age pensioners; we are moving quickly towards a pension of £100 per week in the year 2002.

I welcome the £18 million package of improvements for carers which will implement most of the recommendations in the carers review. The Minister knows that I would like the means test for the carer's allowance abolished, although I realise that would cost more than £140 million. I ask the Minister and his Department to examine the question of the level of care because, in the case of the nursing home subvention, for example, three types of payment are made – £75, £90 and £120.

We are not talking only about the elderly. There is the question of caring for people, including young people, with a disability who incur extra expenses as a result of the need for physiotherapy and other services. I know of families in County Galway who have to travel with young disabled people to Dublin for those services. It is important that the level of care is examined and there is a precedent in terms of the nursing home subvention.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister that the carer does not have to live in the home of the person needing care. That is important and I hope the measure will be implemented. I also welcome the Minister's statement that an additional 3,500 people will now qualify for the carer's allowance for the first time.

The Minister mentioned that other Departments are involved in the care of the elderly. That is an important point in terms of elderly people who need housing aid or home improvements carried out. Schemes are available for this through the health boards which are very useful because they give elderly people security, even if it is only a question of putting in new windows and doors. Such measures are important for their health and independence because many elderly people like to stay at home. It should be a priority for the Government to have such home improvements carried out. One thousand people have applied to the Western Health Board for house improvements. That is an area at which more funding will have to be directed.

I welcome the farm assist scheme, which will come into effect from April 1999, under which 13,400 low income farmers will benefit. An additional £10 million is being allocated to the scheme, making a total of £43 million for low income farmers in a full year. In the past, when farmers gained a pound, they lost a pound, but this will not happen with the new means test. There is also an easing of the means test for fishermen, similar to the farm assist scheme.

I also welcome the extension of pro rata pensions for the self-employed over the age of 56 who have at least five years' paid contributions. This will benefit hundreds of people who were told in the past that they did not have a sufficient number of contributions. Widows and widowers also lost out in the past, and I am not talking only about farmers. Shopkeepers, small building contractors and business people will benefit under the scheme.

The Minister announced a significant increase in the bereavement grant scheme which will be increased to £500 from April. That is important because health boards have experienced difficulty in assisting people with funeral expenses. In cases where the deceased person has no relatives it is difficult to obtain payment and I suppose there has been duplication between the health boards and the Department because they are both involved in these schemes. I have much sympathy for carers, who in the past might have earned as little as £1 per hour from health boards for home help work, whose funeral expenses were not paid in full by the Department.

Some of my colleagues spoke about the move to bring forward payment dates. I understand the Minister has referred in the past to the possibility of bringing payment dates back to April to coincide with the start of the tax year. I would welcome that. Ideally, we would like to see social welfare increases implemented in January. The introduction of social welfare increases in January 2000 would be an appropriate celebration of the millennium. Perhaps Deputy Séamus Brennan, the Minister of State with responsibility for millennium celebrations, might act on this suggestion.

The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has been innovative in introducing schemes such as the back to work scheme, back to education schemes, training support schemes and the student summer jobs scheme which I have referred to in the past. The student summer jobs scheme is very useful and I look forward to its continuing this summer. Complaints have been made about the severity of the means test for this scheme. The Minister might consider the difficulties faced by families in which two or more children are in third level education. The means test could be relaxed in such cases. There are many sponsors who are looking for students to employ and the scheme is of great benefit to students who take part in it.

The Minister has often said he wishes to encourage people to join the workforce and to reduce the number of people who are unemployed. There are many schemes to help people to do this. I know of people who, on their own initiative, have become transport managers, for example. These people are required to get a certificate of competency. They should be given some help, either by the Minister's Department or through community employment schemes, in doing this and in giving employment. A similar situation exists with regard to community employment schemes. Participants on these schemes are required to be in receipt of unemployment assistance or other social welfare benefit. Married women, in particular, are discriminated against by these requirements. We must look at ways of helping people to get employment when they fail to qualify for social welfare payments.

I welcome the Bill. The Minister has made major improvements in addition to the increases in social welfare payments and to the improvements he made in the Social Welfare Bill of 1998. I hope he will be given the funding to bring about the increase in the carer's allowance and the other improvements we seek.

Mr. Daly

I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill and on making very important and progressive changes in the social welfare code. Since taking office, the Minister has demonstrated a keen desire to take care of the sections of society which need care and has adopted a very imaginative approach to dealing with the issues we face. I thank him for the increases in social welfare payments generally and particularly in the assistance schemes, child benefit schemes and in family income supplement which was much discussed earlier this year. The Minister has taken a keen interest in the carer's allowance. The improvements in this scheme are very worthwhile and will ensure that many people can be cared for in their own homes rather than go to insti tutions. We have been campaigning for quite some time for an increase in the subvention for nursing home care. This may be for another Minister but it is a serious matter and there is widespread criticism of the level of subvention. Urgent action must be taken in this regard.

The Minister has made some allowances for development workers coming back to Ireland. This is very worthwhile. Many development workers find it difficult to get employment here and very difficult to settle into jobs. The improvements in this regard are very welcome.

I have some concerns about section 26 which deals with the appointment of inspectors and the granting of powers to these inspectors to visit premises, examine records and so on. I am not convinced that much work has been done in this area in the past few years. Most social welfare inspectors have been busily engaged in assessments of means and investigations of claims of one sort and another. Inspecting the records of employers is much more important than stopping people in cars on their way to and from work. I have reservations about the practice of social welfare officers being involved in examining records with gardaí at checkpoints. It would be far more helpful to appoint additional personnel to enter places of employment to ensure that records and payments are kept up to date. We all know of occasions when companies closed down, owing huge amount of money to the social welfare fund. The Minister might give us some indication of the number of premises which have been inspected and of the work being done in this regard.

I refer to the disregard of certain income of people who are in receipt of benefits. I am concerned that gross income seems to be taken as equal to weekly earnings. Gross income is often very different from take home pay. While I welcome the increase in the levels of disregarded income, some allowance should be made for travelling expenses, taxation and items of that nature.

Section 31 limits payments. I have read many Bills in the past and I would be greatly relieved if someone could read this section and translate it into meaningful language. Anyone trying to read this section will be totally confused and perhaps in need of the help of a psychiatrist. The most important thing to say in this regard is that we do not wish to see people less well off as a result of these provisions.

It has come to my notice that because farm retirement pensions have been calculated in ecus, many people in receipt of these pensions find them reduced by approximately 5 per cent when they are paid in pounds. Some mechanism should be found to compensate people for this loss.

In my constituency and especially in the west of County Clare, many elderly people live alone in isolated conditions. In many cases their hous ing and the access to their homes is in a very bad state. I appeal to the Minister to discuss this matter with his colleagues, particularly with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, to see if a fund could be established to provide proper access to the homes of elderly people living alone in isolated areas. When the Minister reviews the carer's allowance he might examine the possibility of introducing a childminder's relative allowance, which would ensure many infants and children of pre-school age could be cared for in their homes by relatives.

Mr. S. Ryan

I wish to share my time with Deputies McCormack, Farrelly and Enright.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Briscoe)

That is agreed.

Mr. S. Ryan

I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the Bill. While I compliment the Minister on the improvements and good innovations in the Bill, I do not believe it will provide a foundation on which to create an inclusive society.

I stated here that we must revisit the issue of the carer's allowance following the introduction of the budget, and I intend to do that. I also wish the Minister to examine other aspects of social welfare. The issue of the pre-1953 contributions is contentious. It concerns a small group who made contributions prior to 1953 which did not entitle them to participate in a full pension. As there are very few of those people left, will the Minister examine the possibility of remedying this position?

Mr. D. Ahern

I have undertaken to review it this year.

Mr. S. Ryan

Thank you, Minister.

There is also the issue of the living alone allowance and the allowance for people over 80 years of age. A requirement of the living alone allowance is that an applicant must be in receipt of an Irish pension. I am aware of people who were born and reared here and had to go to England to work in tough times when they could not get work here. They have returned and are in receipt of a pension but they have limited means. Many of those people are over 80 years of age, living alone and are not entitled to a living alone allowance. An elderly Irish person living alone, who is not in receipt of an Irish pension, should at least be entitled to such an allowance. I ask the Minister to review this matter.

Will the Minister give a commitment to old age contributory and non-contributory pensioners that the Government will tie the level of pensions to the level of the average industrial earnings? The Senior Citizens' Parliament of Ireland made a submission on this. The Labour Party's position on it is that initially the standard should be set at 34 per cent of industrial earnings. It is necessary to relate contributory and non-contributory pensions to average industrial earnings to ensure pensioners participate in the growth of our economy. Many of these people made sacrifices through the years to build this economy to the level it is at today and now they are finding it difficult to make ends meet. Many other groups have passed them out in financial terms.

I wish to raise the issue of the restrictions that apply to when the holders of free travel passes in Dublin, Cork and Limerick can travel on buses and trains. Many elderly people living in the inner-city have to travel by bus to Tallaght Hospital for early morning appointments when they may not use their free travel passes. This also applies to many of my constituents who have to travel by bus to Beaumont Hospital for early morning appointments. I would like the Minister to review the time restrictions that apply to the use of free travel passes.

We have allowed an ad hoc support system for carers to develop, which has not been given the priority it deserves in terms of funding. Notwithstanding the hype and media headlines following the announcement of the budget about the increase in the carer's allowance, we could critically examine what improvements it has made. Given that our recent strong economic performance has yielded significant Exchequer returns, a substantial increase in the carer's allowance should have been given as well as a commitment to improve the area of community care. This would entail the provision of more professional health workers and other improvements targeted at carers. Carers have often given up paid employment or the potential to participate in it to care for members of their families in their homes. Many daughters and, indeed, sons have given up the prospect of marriage to care for a loved one. A non-means tested cost of care allowance should be introduced to cover the hidden cost of caring, including the cost of heating, laundry, special dietary requirements and so on.

There has been much talk about what has been achieved for carers. In a contribution prior to the budget I said I would monitor the position of carers and ensure the Minister honoured his commitment to them. A document published by the Carer's Association states that last year's budget was one of the all time disappointments for carers in the home. Some 11,500 carers are in receipt of the carer's allowance. Under the Minister's proposal an additional 3,300 carers will be brought into the scheme, but that will account for only one in four carers. The £3 per week increase in the carer's allowance for carers under the age of 66 is inadequate. Given our economic performance, it should have been possible to give a substantial increase in the allowance. Notwithstanding the hype about the carer's allowance and the information circulated by the Minister to sell the budget and the Social Welfare Bill, carers who are providing a service that saves the State millions of pounds describe the increase in the carer's allowance as a major disappointment. While I would like to elaborate on this, I will yield to Deputy McCormack.

Mr. McCormack

I wish to deal with some of the anomalies in the social welfare code which we encounter in our constituency work as public representatives. The praise is already on the record and I will not waste time by adding to it.

Most speakers referred to the carer's allowance, which is a pet subject of mine. I consider the carer's allowance to be one of the greatest and most compassionate social welfare schemes but there are some anomalies which I have been endeavouring for the past year and a half to have corrected. So far I have met a stone wall. I was told that a review group was sitting which would deal with it. I made a submission to the review group and I have on file several letters to the Minister and several notes of when I raised this matter in the Dáil. I will continue to raise it until I get some satisfaction.

For example, a woman – carers are generally women – minding a bedridden, incontinent relative of her husband qualifies for the carer's allowance because her husband's income is under £150 per week, or under £162 if they have one, two or three children. If her husband dies in any circumstances, she then qualifies for the widow's pension. She will receive a widow's pension of £72 to compensate her for the loss of her husband who was earning an income of up to £150 per week. She will then immediately lose the carer's allowance because the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs cannot make double payments. I have asked for this glaring anomaly to be corrected but I have met a blank wall. I appeal again to the Minister, as I did in my contribution on the budget and on last year's Social Welfare Bill, to amend provision.

Another anomaly concerns a carer living in a local authority house. If that person qualifies for the carer's allowance the local authority immediately takes back 20 per cent or £18; in other words, the local authority steals £18 of the carer's allowance.

The third anomaly is that the carer is taxed when the carer's allowance is added to the husband's income. That anomaly should be eliminated because it is not fair to tax the carer on the carer's allowance.

My final point was drawn to my attention as a result of recent burglaries of old people's houses in Galway and other areas where considerable sums of money were found. I ask the Minister to examine the qualifications for social welfare. Elderly people with savings over £2,000 are currently estimated to have an income of 8 per cent from those savings, when in actual fact they only have an income of less than 1 per cent from them. As a result, people are reluctant to put their savings in banks and other financial institutions because they are being penalised by the social welfare system for so doing.

Mr. Farrelly

Given the buoyant nature of our economy, why has child benefit been increased by such a small amount? Parents have to pay many expenses, such as crèche charges, and the Government is doing nothing about it.

There has been a substantial reaction against the Minister's proposal in the legislation to stop people on their way to and from work to inquire where they are going. That is a gross infringement of people's rights. I am not happy with the explanation provided by the Minister or by the Department officials who were sent out to announce and sell this on "Five Seven Live".

I wish to refer to a point raised by the previous speaker. I know a person minding her 94 year old mother-in-law who has lost all her allowances, including the living alone allowance, for which she was eligible. As the carer's son is earning £20,000 a year she is entitled to nothing, although she is rearing a family of four or five children in addition. If that person were in a home it would cost the State between £400 and £500 per week. I ask the Minister to look at such cases. It is unfair that we do not have a system in 1999 that can cater for people who are saving the State substantial amounts of money.

In regard to the proposal for farmers in financial difficulties, it seems they will have to qualify for the leaving certificate before they are eligible for any of the money. They will be approved in May and the money might be backdated to April, but people are starving in many parts of the country. I am not surprised it has taken so long to bring forward proposals in this area, given the Minister's attitude to this when we tabled a motion last October or November.

The poorest person in this country is a pensioner who lives alone and who still has to pay rent to the local authority. Such people are finding it extremely difficult to live and are doing without food.

Subvention payments have not been increased since they were introduced in 1993 while nursing home charges have increased substantially. Something should be done in that regard.

Mr. Enright

The Whips should get together and try to have longer Second Stage debates on important legislation such as the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill. All Members of the House should look at that.

The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Government should take a policy decision to move towards reducing the qualifying age for an old age pension from its current level of 66 years to 60 years of age. The qualifying age had been 70 years from the foundation of the State. Richie Ryan, then Minister for Finance, and Frank Cluskey, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, set out to reduce it from 70 years to 66 years – it had been intended to reduce it to 65 years but the Government changed. We should, as a country, make a firm decision to reduce the qualifying age for the old age pension to 60 years of age. That would benefit those aged 60 years and over as they could draw a pension and it would create employment for those entering the labour market.

The farm assist scheme will be means tested. The existing situation in regard to the payment of unemployment assistance to farmers is unsatisfactory. I recently met a person whose cattle are on the verge of starvation and he is not too far from that himself. He applied for unemployment assistance on a number of occasions but has not qualified for it. This man, who is a bachelor, is in a serious situation. He will also be excluded from the scheme the Minister is introducing, although he is barely able to survive. I am somewhat unhappy with this scheme – it would have been much fairer and better to have used the family income supplement.

I welcome the Minister's proposals in regard to the bereavement grant of £500. While I had hoped for greater increases in children's allowance, the Minister has gone a good distance. I also welcome the carer's allowance. I believe that the powers which have been given to the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs are totally wrong. George Orwell would not even have thought of them.

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

I thank Deputies on both sides for their compliments and constructive criticism of the Bill. I regret I will not be able to cover all of the issues raised in the short time available to me.

Deputies O'Keeffe and Broughan complained about what they perceived to be the small size of this package. That is absolute nonsense. The overall cost of these improvements will be in the region of £320 million by the end of Committee Stage on a full year basis and £192 million for the remainder of 1999. This is the biggest social welfare package in the history of the State and substantially exceeds the increases provided by the Deputies' parties when they were in Government. For example, the first year cost of the improvements I am introducing is now almost £103 million or 49 per cent higher than the full year costs of the last budget package introduced by the Rainbow Coalition in 1997. The costs of these improvements for 1999 is more than £78 million or 69 per cent higher than the equivalent budget year costs of the Rainbow Coalition's last budget. The allocation of this substantial level of additional resources clearly demonstrates the priority this Government is giving to the issues of exclusion, marginalisation and poverty.

I understand the Opposition may vote against this Bill. It is important to emphasise that anyone who votes against it is voting against the major improvements outlined in it.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Codology; the Minister should be realistic.

Mr. D. Ahern

They are voting against a £6 increase for old-age pensioners, a £3 increase for all other recipients at the maximum rates – way ahead of the rate of inflation, £40 million in child benefit increases, tremendous changes in FIS and the substantial £18 million package for carers.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

We want decent increases; the Exchequer is stuffed with money and the Minister is only giving people crumbs from the table.

Mr. D. Ahern

It is important that people are aware of what is being voted against. Deputy O'Keeffe does a lot of pontificating from the far side of the House. The Opposition will be voting against pensions for the self-employed, an issue which Deputy O'Keeffe claims credit for but did nothing about when he was in Government.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

This is pathetic PR; the Minister is the Minister for crumbs.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Opposition will vote against the farm assist scheme for smallholders, the fishing assist scheme, the bereavement grant and many other major measures such as the issue of the integration of pensions and the £2,000 increase in the back to work allowance. The Labour Party, in its post-budget bulletin, published false information which stated that the Government was reducing the amount of money going towards the back to work allowance. They still have not corrected the record in regard to that false information.

The Opposition is voting against changes in relation to late claims to pensions, something on which it failed to take action when in Government and against changes in the fuel allowance. It disappoints me to see that but it is important that I emphasise all the changes we are proposing and state that the Opposition is, in effect, voting against them.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Miserable moves.

Acting Chairman

Deputy O'Keeffe should cease interrupting and the Minister should address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Minister is provoking me.

Mr. D. Ahern

Since budget day, I have secured Government approval for further improvements which have not been acknowledged by some of the speakers on the other side of the House. These include the provision of an extra £5 million in 1999 to bring forward payments on the farm assist scheme to the beginning of April, the introduction of measures to improve the position of low income fishermen costing £1 million in a full year and £0.5 million in 1999, a new bereavement grant costing £10 million and additional enhancements in the pension improvements for self-employed people over 56 years of age. I am also extending the back to work allowance scheme to carers, thus representing a further improvement to their situation since budget day.

A number of speakers, Deputy O'Keeffe among them, raised the issue of the breakdown of the cost of measures I am introducing. Of the total 1999 costs of £192 million, approximately £97 million or 50 per cent is fully Exchequer funded with the £95 million balance being funded from PRSI contribution income. However, the question of the breakdown of the budget package between Exchequer and PRSI funded costs is of little relevance to those who depend on social welfare payments. What is of primary concern to them is the level of increases actually provided and, in this regard, the increases this Government has provided are well ahead of the increases provided by the Rainbow Coalition. For example, the old age non-contributory pension was only increased by £6.50 over the previous Government's three budgets. To date, in this Government's two budgets, the old age non-contributory pension has been increased by £11, almost double the amount provided by the Rainbow Coalition over three budgets. It is also worth comparing the miserly £1.50 increase provided to old age non-contributory pensioners and the £2.40 increase to pension couples in 1995 with the £6 increase to old age non-contributory pensioners and the £9 to pension couples this year.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

They should be given a cut of the £2.5 billion Exchequer surplus.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy does not like to hear the truth. In 1993, the real increase provided by the outgoing Fianna Fáil Government amounted to £2. The real increase provided in 1994 was only 60p. In 1995, there was no real increase; inflation stood at 2.5 per cent and the then Government gave a 2.5 per cent increase. In this budget, we are giving a 2.3 per cent increase on normal payments and old age pensioners are receiving a real increase of 5.1 per cent.

A number of speakers have raised the issue of the assessment of capital. It is important to emphasise that the effective assessment rate is much lower than 7.5 per cent and 15 per cent. Opposition Deputies are aware of that but are attempting to misconstrue the facts.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Why does the Minister not change the system?

Mr. D. Ahern

There is a significant capital disregard of £2,000 before an assessment is made and there are a number of other aspects of the means test which, on interacting with the assessment formula, operate to reduce it even further. For instance, in the case of old age and widowed pensioners, the first £6 of weekly assessable means does not affect entitlement to payment and, in the case of a couple, means are taken to be half the joint means. All of this combines to make the effective rate much lower than the 7.5 per cent or 15 per cent.

That fact was acknowledged by Deputy De Rossa when he introduced these measures in the previous Government in April 1997. He stated that in relation to the changes in assessment, the effective rate for couples with £20,000 would be just 3 per cent compared with the 5 per cent which then pertained. Deputy Durkan, a Minister of State at the time, claimed that the new capital assessment changes were much more generous than they had previously been. I agreed before today to review the current operation of capital assessment given that some people are spinning the wrong story and trying to give old age pensioners the impression that the State is, in some way, taking money out of their pockets. That is not true.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Minister is robbing old age pensioners.

Mr. D. Ahern

In regard to multi-agency vehicle checkpoints, there has been a considerable degree of misunderstanding. The checkpoints are not new; they have been in operation since early 1998.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Legally?

Mr. D. Ahern

The Garda in conjunction with the Departments of Social, Community and Family Affairs, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Environment and Local Government and the Customs and Excise have operated 19 checkpoints, namely, five in Dublin, two in Kildare, one in Wicklow, one in Monaghan, two in Cavan, four in Louth and four in Meath. The checkpoints are focused on commercial vehicles. In all a total of 1,846 vehicles were checked and 118 fraudulent claims discovered, mainly involving people working and claiming unemployment payments, resulting in savings of £360,000.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Were the checkpoints necessary? Is the legislation necessary?

Mr. D. Ahern

In a typical operation vehicles are stopped by the Garda who check for road traffic offences and vehicle defects. Officials from the Customs and Excise check for illegal fuels and smuggling. Officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment check for tachograph offences. Officials from the Department of Environment and Local Government check for illegal road weights and officials from the Department of Social, Community and Fam ily Affairs check that employers are fulfilling their legal obligations, that is, maintaining proper records, paying PRSI and notifying the Department of the commencement of employment of new employees and ensuring employees are not illegally claiming social welfare payments while working.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Why are these provisions being brought before the Dáil now? Under what powers is the Minister operating?

Mr. D. Ahern

These checkpoints were highlighted in the media as far back as last April. It is somewhat ironic that people are criticising them. The Evening Herald of 24 April 1998 contained a complete rundown of exactly what was taking place in relation to the checkpoints and on 9 May 1998 the Irish Independent had a major article on them. In May 1998 my local paper included a headline which read “Many hauliers are bagged in the net”. The scheme was well publicised and for anybody to say they did not know what was going on is an indication that they are not paying attention to what is happening. I know that Deputy Higgins may not have the necessary backup, but I thought some of the Opposition parties would have checked the papers.

I commend the Garda on the initiative. Often people are not compliant on a number of fronts and a multi-agency approach to fraud is a most efficient way of using State resources. There are two new powers in the Bill, namely, the power to remove and secure documents for later inspection and the power to require an employer to make himself or some other competent person available to answer questions which an inspector may wish to ask.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

That is separate from the checkpoint provision.

Mr. D. Ahern

These powers have become necessary in the light of shortcomings in the existing powers identified by inspectors. Deputy O'Keeffe was concerned that the powers would be exercised in a random manner and that people's rights of privacy and confidentiality might be breached. This shows a distinct and surprising mistrust of the agencies involved on the part of the Deputy. Multi-agency checkpoints by their very nature are very carefully planned. There is no question of any person's privacy being compromised and a person may seek to answer questions in private. In order to ensure delays are kept to a minimum, interviews are kept as short as possible, with more detailed inquiries being conducted in the aftermath of an operation.

Both I and my Department have received anecdotal evidence that quite a number of people are signing off the live register as a result of the publicity engendered by the checkpoints. I thank some Deputies in this regard.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Will the Minister send the checkpoint teams to Park West?

Mr. D. Ahern

Deputy Higgins talks about cowboys, but these checkpoints have caught some cowboys. On 18 February, 97 vehicles were checked in Lissenhall and nine fraudulent live unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit claims, with a total saving of £31,000, were found, representing a fraud rate of 9.3 per cent.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Why do we need more powers?

Mr. D. Ahern

It is important for Deputy Higgins to be aware of a further fallout in relation to this checkpoint as following employer inspections 15 cases were referred to the social security agency in Northern Ireland. In two cases live claims were already being made in the North. Therefore, we are catching people who are coming across the Border, something we have all wanted to do in recent years. I could go through the entire list which shows fraud rates of 8.5 per cent, 8.7 per cent and 3 per cent. In the north east, my own area, 300 vehicles were checked over a four day period resulting in 25 fraudulent claims being detected, a fraud rate of 8.3 per cent. The result was a saving of £66,000 to the taxpayer. This checkpoint had a particularly high profile locally and was reported in both the local and national newspapers.

Those who find fault with the multi-agency effort are surely not asking the Government to turn a blind eye to what we know is happening. If they are, they are being hypocritical in the extreme.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Why is the Minister looking for more powers?

Mr. D. Ahern

Those most vocal cannot have it both ways. I suggest to Deputy Higgins that he wants it both ways.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): No.

Mr. D. Ahern

These powers will only work if they are used in a sensible way, and I guarantee that they will be so used.

Question put.

Tá

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.

Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Roche, Dick.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.

Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Naughten, Denis.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Callely; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.

Question declared carried.