Before proceeding to Report Stage I wish to reiterate the serious concerns in relation to the admissibility of certain amendments to the Bill which have been conveyed to members of the Select Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs during the consideration of Committee Stage of the Bill. The amendments in question require the Minister to prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the implications of changing various social welfare schemes. If these amendments did not include the report mechanism, they would be clearly out of order as imposing a charge on Revenue. The allowance of amendments of this kind will have to be reviewed in the future and I understand that the matter has been raised with the Government Chief Whip so that the issues involved can be examined by the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform with a view to having Standing Orders amended to prevent this practice.
Social Welfare Bill, 1999: Report Stage.
May I comment on the matter?
We cannot debate the matter, but if the Deputy wishes to make a brief comment he may do so.
I am concerned by the prospective ruling as there would be no proper debate on the Social Welfare Bill if we did not use these devices to table amendments. The difficulty is that because the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs deals so much—
Perhaps the Deputy will reserve his arguments and allow his party's representatives to put them before the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform which will examine the matter. I do not think we should use the limited time available for consideration of Report Stage of the Bill to discuss this matter.
I wish to be allowed to put on the record of the House my serious reservations regarding the proposed change. Effectively, such a change would mean totally emasculated Committee and Report Stages of Social Welfare Bills. This device has been used for many years to enable a proper debate to take place on Committee and Report Stages and any change could have serious implications.
The matter will be considered by the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform.
I wish to echo the comments of Deputy O'Keeffe. We understand the difficulties inherent in the discussion given that many decisions relate to the budget and are financial in nature. However, the Minister has independently made decisions since the budget which have a financial impact and which the Houses should discuss. The most disturbing aspect of the ruling, based on the legal advice received by the Labour Party, is the claim that we are seeking to create a precedent this year in relation to such motions. The Labour Party is frankly not prepared to accept this.
It is a matter for another forum.
It is totally unacceptable and a bad precedent. I am sure that if the Minister was on the other side of the House he would think it should not be allowed develop along the lines suggested. It should be possible to discuss the Social Welfare Bill in its entirety on Committee and Report Stages to justify the huge responsibility we have towards one third of the population.
The Deputy has made his point. I will allow the Minister to make a brief comment.
I too have some reservations on the basis that I would not like to see Report or Committee Stages truncated as this might prevent me from telling the House and those outside it about the great achievements contained in the Bill.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 14, after "one" to insert "and may be cited together as the Social Welfare Acts, 1993 to 1999".
We see no reason why the Social Welfare Act and the Finance Act are not named cumulatively over a number of years. This seems to be the only legislation where this does not occur. The Minister gave an extensive briefing on the matter on Committee Stage and I am prepared to accept that for the moment.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the rationale for the differing com mencement dates of social welfare and tax aspects of the annual budget.".
This amendment relates to the core issue in the Social Welfare Bill, namely, the timing of increases. The fundamental point we made on Second and Committee Stages was that it is totally unacceptable that the majority of the population receives pay increases in terms of changes in taxation on 6 April while one third of the population, a very significant minority for whom we are totally responsible in terms of income, have to wait months before receiving increases. The situation is worst in relation to increases in child benefit which were announced in December 1998 but which will not come into effect until September 1999, a time lapse of almost a year. Under section 6, 1 September is the date from which the increased benefit will be paid. Later we will refer to our desire for proper increases in child benefit, but our concern here is the very inappropriate timing. Section 4 states that increases in unemployment benefit will be paid from 27 May, increases in disability, health and safety and injury benefits and the disablement gratuity from 31 May, increases in retirement and invalidity pensions from 3 June and increases in the disablement pension and death benefit from 4 June. Section 5 states that increases in unemployment assistance will be paid from 26 May, increases in supplementary welfare allowance from 31 May, increases in the disability allowance from 2 June, increases in the pre-retirement allowance, the one-parent family payment and the carer's allowance from 3 June and increases in the old age – non-contributory – blind, widow's and widower's – non-contributory – pensions and the one-parent family payment from 4 June.
The reason for tabling the amendment is the Minister is not prepared to make plans during his stewardship of the Department to bring increases in social welfare rates into line with taxation changes. He told us in reply to a question that the cost of the social insurance and assistance elements would amount to £350 million. However, this should be compared with an overall budget of £5.5 billion, so he could synchronise the increases in payments. All politicians have experienced this as a gripe which repeatedly arises.
The previous two Governments, especially the rainbow Government, attempted to synchronise payment increases with changes in taxation. However, it did not succeed, which means people dependent on social welfare are treated differently from the other two thirds of the population. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, said before Christmas it was his ambition to bring all taxation changes onto a calendar year basis over the next two to three years, if the Government survived. If that is the case, people in receipt of social welfare will be even more disadvantaged.
This matter relates to the issue of income adequacy. Despite low levels of inflation, there have been increases in food, clothing and hous ing, especially in rent, so it is particularly cruel that the Government is not prepared to synchronise social welfare payments with taxation changes so that all sectors of the population are treated similarly. I referred in previous discussions to Fr. Healy and others in CORI who have argued for a basic income for all the population. One small step towards that would be to synchronise all social welfare payments with taxation changes. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
I am glad to support the amendment. The House should, I hope by all-party agreement, aim towards this worthy and laudable objective. The Minister is not being asked to synchronise the increase in payments this year but to prepare a report on the issue. We should all agree it is a worthy objective to synchronise the date of payment of social welfare increases with the beginning of the tax year initially and ultimately to have both coinciding with the calendar year. That should be the objective. I am sure if the Minister were on this side of the House he would agree with that, so I can see no reason he cannot at least agree with the objective in his current position.
What really highlights how ridiculous is the current situation is child benefit. We have been told there will be a magnificent increase of £3 per month for our children. However, it will not come into operation until September this year. Effectively it is a total of £12 for the year. That shows how ridiculous is the current situation. The £3 per month increase is small enough, but to confine it to the last few months of the year makes it ludicrous.
It is a worthy objective to aim towards the synchronisation of the increases in payments. They should all be brought forward initially to the commencement of the tax year, and ultimately the year for both systems should be brought forward to coincide with the calendar year. I anticipate the Minister will be defensive and tell us about all the good things he is doing, such as bringing forward payments by a couple of weeks. That indicates the Minister agrees with the objective, but he would have to accept there is a long way to go. We are aiming for an acceptance of this as a worthy objective. We do not expect it to be attained immediately, but we should try to progress towards it. For that reason, I support the amendment.
This amendment was tabled on Committee Stage and I gave my views on it on that occasion. Deputy O'Keeffe used the phrase "worthy objective" and that is the case. It would be a worthy objective and has been for all political parties, be they on this side or the other side of the House. However, the Government has paid the increases given at budget time for 31 weeks of the year as opposed to only 29 weeks during the previous Government of which Deputies O'Keeffe and Broughan were members. The much more substantial increases given by the cur rent Government in the past two budgets, which are considerably in excess of those given by the rainbow coalition, are given for a longer period over the year than was the case during the rainbow coalition's time. I make that point in case anyone thinks that the Government is being niggardly because that is not the case.
When a Minister is faced with a budget package amount, he or she must decide on the priorities. The Government decided it would give priority as much as possible to those over 65 or 66 as appropriate. It gave them an increase of £5 in its first year and £6 in its second year, which is considerably more than the rate of inflation, four times in one case, and far ahead of any increase in previous years. They are the largest increases given to old age pensioners for a long time. Deputies will say there is plenty of money in the coffers, but the Government has the difficult job of not only ensuring financial constraint to provide for the rainy days but also of giving as much as it can in current circumstances.
The Government is examining the possibility of bringing increases in social welfare payments and taxation changes into line with the calendar year, which is our express wish. However, there are implications involved. If social welfare payments were brought forward to 1 January, that would cost in the region of £80 million plus in a year, apart from any increases. That would have to come from the financial package amount made available to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs at the time, and that might restrict the money available for increases. I have always said that I would prefer to give an old age pensioner £6 later in the year than a smaller sum earlier in the year.
In its first budget, the Government brought forward the payment dates by two weeks, at a cost of £8 million. It would cost in the region of £32 million to bring them forward to 6 April. This would have to be met from the overall social welfare package. While the amendment is worthy and laudable, the Government will do what it can.
Deputy Broughan said that the increases will be paid on different dates. The general increases will be paid in the same week. For logistical reasons, the payment dates differ; the increases will apply from the normal payment day. For the reasons given, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
Much of what is in the Bill is dictated by the budget announced in December which made provision for an overall social welfare package of £305 million – £177. 5 million in 1999. Since then additional measures, which I would like to think Deputy Broughan will support, have been taken. An additional £5 million will be made available for the farm assist scheme while an additional £500,000 – £1 million in a full year – will be made available to assist low-income fishermen.
The initial allocation for the bereavement grants scheme, which was due to be introduced on 6 April, was £7.5 million – £10 million in a full year. Following representations, mainly at meetings of the Fianna Fail parliamentary party, the changes came into effect from 2 February, the date of the Government announcement, at an additional cost of £1.7 million.
A sum of £750,000 – £1 million in a full year – will be allocated for over 56 pensions. As a result of these changes, the overall social welfare package comes to £317.5 million – £192.95 million in 1999. This is by far the largest social welfare package in the history of the State. I am delighted to be a member of the Government which introduced it. It will do more before it leaves office.
When will we have another year like last year or this one? According to The Economist yearbook, this is the forty-third or forty-fourth wealthiest country in the world. Ireland is in the top 20 when it comes to income per head and accounts for 1 per cent of world trade. We have overtaken the United Kingdom.
We have heard all the clichés about the tiger economy and the tiger cubs, of which there are between 400,000 and 500,000 totally reliant on the income the Minister provides. In a niggardly way, the Minister for Finance – the iron chancellor – has determined, as he did when Minister for Social Welfare, that the increases will be paid on the dates decided by him. He banked £1 billion before Christmas and will attempt to bank hundreds of millions more this year. He is not prepared, in an attempt to be socially inclusive, to use some of this largesse to pay the increases from the same date, possibly early January.
We do not know what will happen in 2002 following the introduction of the euro. The Minister should assert himself and demand the extra funds required for the forgotten people. His colleague from the north side of Dublin and every Fianna Fáil backbencher would echo my sentiments. All he has to do is present a report.
I compliment Deputy Callely on raising the issue of the death grant at a meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party.
I thank the Minister for his understanding, compassionate and sympathetic response, for accepting some of the pragmatic suggestions made and for making additional moneys available. He showed great foresight in bringing forward the implementation date. Deputy Broughan's party had an opportunity to do what he has requested the Minister to do.
Just give me a chance.
The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has proven to be one of the best Ministers in the Department since he took over the brief. I compliment him on that.
There are 34 sections and 40 amendments. There is a limited amount of time for dealing with them and they all deserve careful consideration. I suggest that we cut out the compliments and other remarks about the Minister's performance and get down to the nitty-gritty of the Bill and the amendments. Clearly the Minister will try to say he is doing a great job and the Opposition will say he is not doing enough. Let us get down to the detail of the amendments.
Cut out that nonsense too.
A reasonable case has been made by Deputy Broughan about the commencement date for payment. The Minister has accepted that it is a worthy objective, that we should aim towards bringing forward the date for the payment of increases because it seems unfair that the weakest section of the community should have to wait longest for their annual increases. If we agree that is a worthy objective and use our best endeavours to achieve that, then something might be achieved from this amendment.
Deputy Broughan can do all the shouting he likes in this Chamber, but it will not change the fact that his party was in Government for the longest period over the past decade or so and—
The Minister's party has had 70 years.
—it did not do much to pull back the payment dates. The record of its term in Government shows that those payment dates were not brought back any differently.
Three months.
In our first budget we brought them back by two weeks and the intention is to continue on that path. It is not at the instigation of Deputy O'Keeffe or anyone else. It is the general view of all Deputies in this House to bring back the payment dates to when the tax changes are made. There will be added difficulty from a financial point of view if the Government decides that the tax changes should be brought back to the calendar year, as suggested by a number of people in this House. In a particular year and in successive years that will place a substantial additional burden on the social welfare budget, but it is the right thing to do and we should aim for it. Given the opportunity that we will have in Government in coming years, we will do that.
As I said earlier, I, as Minister, am delighted to have introduced measures such as the bereavement grant. Deputy O'Keeffe may criticise Deputy Callely for complimenting the Minister, but it was a good decision. It was not Members of this side of the House who started the long ream at the start of this debate about what could or could not be done.
It was a good decision. I accept that.
Deputy O'Keeffe is a dab hand at saying things with his tongue firmly in his cheek.
He is not listening. I am saying it was a good decision.
When I first became Minister, the issue was that I would far rather give old age pensioners a higher sum later in the year than a lower sum earlier in the year. That is not to say I am against bringing back the payment dates. We will do whatever we can but it is a balancing act. In respect of this budget, which contained by far the largest social welfare package in the history of the State, I think we have done a good job.
Going on the terms of reference the Ceann Comhairle gave us at the start of the debate, I do not see what is so difficult about the Minister accepting the amendment, providing the full report and letting the House have all the figures. Deputies who have not attended Question Time on social welfare would be interested to know the figures, were we to decide to do this next year or the year after, irrespective of who was in power.
It would cost about £80 million to bring it back to 1 January and about £32 million to bring it back to 6 April. I said this earlier.
Will the Minister circulate that in a report?
It will be in the "blacks".
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"2.–Not less than every 3 months commencing on the passing of this Act, the Minister shall prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on any provisions of the Social Welfare Acts which are not yet in force, and the plans, if any, for bringing such provisions into force.".
This was one of a number of amendments prepared for me by my predecessor who shadowed Deputy Dermot Ahern, namely Deputy Moynihan-Cronin. In recent years she was concerned about various aspects of and regulations under the Social Welfare Acts which were not yet brought into force. Obviously the legislation is extremely complex. For years further refinements have been introduced. The Minister referred to the bereavement grant and I commend him and any Government Deputies, including my northside colleague, Deputy Callely, who strongly supported it. It is a welcome innovation. The public will be grateful for it.
On looking at all the legislation, not just in the social welfare area but other social legislation, Deputy Moynihan-Cronin was concerned that there were many aspects of legislation which had not yet been brought into force by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs.
One of the references she gave me related to all the divorce provisions of the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1995, following the introduction of divorce. Following the referendum, there was a concern among many people who were separated or divorced that all of those regulations had not been brought into force.
The amendment asks the Minister to give the House regular updates on when all social legislation, relating to the remits of the Ministers for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, including possibly even the Minister for Education and Science, will be brought into force or which parts are outstanding. I ask the Minister to comment briefly on the matter.
Over the years parliamentary questions have been tabled about this issue. The last one to which I replied was tabled in June last. A number of the regulations have been brought into force even since then. It might be appropriate for the Deputy to table a parliamentary question to which I could reply.
On the issue he raised with regard to the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1995, we checked the "blacks" of last year's Committee Stage and could not come across the reference, but we think it is the one in section 10(4). Many of the social welfare measures in relation to the introduction of divorce have been put in place. This is one which, in the view of the Department, is fairly academic because it has not arisen. It is the issue of two qualified adults being paid because it is considered most unlikely that a divorced person, who is in receipt of a social welfare payment, would be able to maintain a former spouse at such a level as to prevent that former spouse from qualifying for a social welfare payment in his or her own right. Our understanding is that this has not arisen. If the Deputy knows of an instance of it, he might let me know.
There is an interdepartmental working group examining the treatment of different types of household under the tax and social welfare systems. That group is examining that and other aspects and will report fairly soon.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"4.–The Minister shall lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report outlining up-to-date figures for the expected current Budget surplus in 1999 and contrast these with up-to-date figures for the additional monies payable from the Exchequer in 1999 arising from measures in the Bill over and above the pre-budget estimate for the Department.".
This amendment goes to the core of the question of whether we are achieving a fairer society. My tone is not critical of the Government's proposals. I accept the money made available is greater than in previous years. However, we are now in a totally changed situation. Things can be done today which would have been unimaginable three years ago and certainly ten or 20 years ago. Our economy is the envy of Europe if not the world. Some of our citizens are experiencing great prosperity and I am delighted because I love to see people doing well. In consequence, we have many more wealthy people in the country. This is good for those people and it is good for the country. On the other hand, some people have been left behind and have not gained in any way from our economic prosperity. Some have even been disadvantaged as a consequence of the Celtic tiger economy because our booming economy has produced higher prices for housing, including rented accommodation. People at the bottom half of the economic scale are faced with those consequences while getting no advantage from the booming economy.
The Social Welfare Bill, with the social welfare provisions of the budget, is one of the instruments for dealing with this inequality. My colleagues, Deputies Browne and McGrath and I tabled this amendment for the purpose of initiating a more philosophical debate on this issue. I do not expect the Minister to be able to change anything at this stage, but I hope a message will be sent from all parties that we must do much more if we are to achieve a fair society. Our actions must not be confined to the Social Welfare Bill. We must do much more in the area of health where we have waiting lists of more than 35,000. These people do not have private health insurance. They must rely on the public health services and many of them are waiting in pain. The question of equality is not confined to the Social Welfare Bill, but it is a major instrument in achieving a fairer society. I pin my colours to the mast of a fairer society. That is what my party is aiming for and it is what we should all aim for.
We will have unprecedented Exchequer surpluses. The budget surplus for this year is estimated at £2,300 million. In my view that is an underestimate. The surplus will be hundreds of millions of pounds more than that. The excess over the estimated surplus will probably be greater than the entire amount budgeted for increases in social welfare. That is my prediction. When such an amount of money is available, a totally changed approach towards achieving a fairer society is possible.
We must contrast this huge amount of money with the amount made available for social welfare provisions. The Minister quoted a figure of an additional £192 million. The additional money from the Exchequer over and above the pre-budget social welfare Estimate amounted to only £77.9 million. The figure of £77.9 million and the Minister's figure of £192 million can be reconciled by the fact that some of the money in addition to the £77.9 million from the Exchequer, will come from the social insurance fund to people who are contributory pensioners and beneficiaries. This amount bridges the gap between the Minister's figure and my own, and I am happy the social insurance fund is in surplus.
Because of the amount of money available it is time to take a different approach and to examine the real problems of disadvantage in our society. For the first time in our history we can deal with the have-nots in society. The first group to be considered in this regard are our children. Child benefit is being paid in respect of approximately one million children. This is a very large number of children, the benefit is universal and many of these children do not suffer disadvantage. However, the figures available from, for example, Combat Poverty show a significant amount of poverty among children. It estimates that 28 per cent of children live in poverty. The Minister corrected me on Committee Stage when I said one third of our children live in poverty.
That figure is for 1994.
I accept that. I also accept that the figure is probably lower than 28 per cent now because of improvements in society since 1994. I certainly hope so. The figure of 28 per cent is the most recent available. We can safely say that approximately 25 per cent of our children, according to the definition of Combat Poverty, live in poverty. Is this the kind of fairness we want in our society? If we are agreed that we do not want this, we must ask ourselves what we should do about it.
There has been a debate in the past about whether one should concentrate resources in child benefit or in extra benefit to the children of social welfare recipients. The argument has been won by those who advocate increased child benefit. All the experts tell us that increased child benefit is the right approach to tackling the problem of child poverty. It has the advantage of not excluding the families of people who are in low paid employment and it is not a disincentive to those who wish to take up employment. A number of Ministers have agreed that child benefit is the way to deal with child poverty. In that case, how can an increase of £12 per year make an appreciable change?
Did the Deputy say "£12 per year"?
The increase was £12 this year.
I thought the Deputy said £12 per year.
I accept the Minister's correction. The monthly increase in this year's budget was £12, in a year when we will have a current budget surplus of £2,300 million and probably far more.