Amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 54. Amendments Nos. 1, 38, 39, 40, 51, 52, 53 and 54 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Recommittal is required as amendment No. 54, on which this amendment is consequential, does not arise from Committee proceedings.
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002: Report Stage.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, lines 12 and 13, to delete "AND THE REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGES (IRELAND) ACT, 1863" and substitute "THE REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGES (IRELAND) ACT, 1863, THE FAMILY LAW (MAINTENANCE OF SPOUSES AND CHILDREN) ACT, 1976, AND THE VITAL STATISTICS AND BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION ACT, 1952".
This amendment proposes a change in the Title to allow us to make these two amendments, one in relation to births, deaths and marriages, and the other in relation to the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1997. I will refer to those later. This amendment proposes to add them to the Long Title.
Regulations made under section 25 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland), 1880, provide that a person could search the indexes to the registers held in each superintendent registrar's office. As the indexes are an integral part of the register, being bound into the register, this gives access to the register itself. Registers being primary records of events registered have to be protected and searches are allowed only under the supervision of the superintendent or one of his or her staff. In addition, the need to afford privacy to persons registering events means that, in practical terms, access to the registers had to be limited.
At present, there is only one national index printed on paper and this means that only one person may access particular years for an event at any one time. The computerisation of the national index – dating back to 1845 for marriages and 1864 for births and deaths – currently under way, will provide simultaneous access to a number of parties, including genealogists, and will also ensure an accurate and up to date index to events is available. Copies of the records held electronically will be more accessible and easier to produce than at present. The electronic database of vital events will therefore provide a level of service which would not be possible in a paper-based system.
It will be essential to protect the primary records after the electronic capture has been completed and to have them available for the investigation of any query in relation to the electronic record. Accordingly it is propose to store them in a central suitable environment. That relates to Deputy Hayes's amendment No. 39.
Amendments Nos. 38, 40, and 51 to 54, inclusive, amend Parts 5 to 7 of the Schedule to the Bill to provide for a change in the current system for searches of the registration records of births, deaths and marriages by members of the public. The present paper-based system provides for two types of searches, a particular search where a specified event is being sought and a general search of the indexes to the records over a period of six hours. There are different levels of fees payable for such searches –€1.90 for a particular search and €15.24 for a general search. Some 1.2 million searches and inquiries are carried out each year across the various events.
The present access provisions and fee structure are based on searching in printed indexes which is a time consuming and labour intensive process. The new computerised system will facilitate a more efficient system of searching the records. Accordingly, it is proposed to replace the existing provisions in the Births and Deaths Registration Acts and in the Marriages Acts relating to searches with a new system that encompasses both electronic and paper-based searches and a new fee structure.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 remove references to general and particular searches in the case of the Births and Deaths Registration Acts, while amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53 do likewise in relation to marriages. The proposed new system will be set down in regulations to be made by the Minister for Health and Children under the Vital Statistics and Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1952, as amended by the new Part 9 of the Schedule as inserted by amendment No 54. Amendment No. 54 inserts two new Parts 9 and 10 to the Schedule. Part 10 amends the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1976.
At present, the law dealing with the commencement of maintenance orders is contained in the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1976. This Act was one of the first of the modern pieces of family law legislation repealing the Married Women (Maintenance in Case of Desertion) Act, 1886. It allows for stand alone applications for maintenance. Most applications under the Act are brought in the District Court. In the Circuit Court and the High Court applications for maintenance are usually made in the context of applications for judicial separation or divorce and the maintenance is only one part of a comprehensive ancillary financial relief claim.
The jurisdiction in the District Court at present is £200 per week in respect of the spouse and £60 per week in respect of each dependent child. These limits are due to be reviewed to €500 per week in respect of a spouse and €200 per week in respect of each child. Most applications under the 1976 Act are taken in the District Court.
Section 4 provides that a periodical payment order under the Act shall commence on the date specified in the order not being a date earlier than the date on which the order is made. As currently drafted, this provision opens up two ways in which the maintenance payer may operate the system in order to delay the date from which payments must be made.
The first of these is that payment under the order cannot be commenced earlier than the date of the order to the original court, usually the District Court. This gives the maintenance payer the incentive to delay the original court hearing as much as possible. Secondly, in the case of an appeal, usually from the District Court to the Circuit Court, while the appeal does not automatically act as a stay of execution of the order, nonetheless, as a matter of practice a stay is usually granted. Thus, the maintenance award usually has effect only from the date of the grant of maintenance in the Circuit Court on appeal. This provides an incentive for the maintenance payer to appeal the District Court order.
This contrasts with the provisions of the Family Law Act, 1995, and the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996, which state that the court can specify that the order may take effect earlier than the date of the order, although not earlier than the date of application for the order. This, in effect, allows the court to backdate the maintenance order to the date of the commencement of the proceedings or to any time during the intervening period. This will provide some encouragement to the parties to process the litigation in a speedy fashion. The proposed amendment to section 4 is designed to introduce similar arrangements to applications for maintenance under the 1976 Act by providing that a court could order that periodical payments should commence from any time after the date of the original application.
I understand there is a drafting error in amendment No. 51 and I ask leave of the House to correct it. In item 3 of amendment No. 51, which amends section 69 of the Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1844, the words "Health and Children" should be substituted for "Social, Community and Family Affairs". This error was a drafting oversight. The provision relates to regulations which may be made by the Minister for Health and Children in respect of searches of the marriage registers. Items 2 and 4 contain analogous amendments and refer to Minister for Health and Children.
I wish to comment first on the amendments tabled by the Minister in respect of the registration of births, deaths and marriages. I will then deal with the issue of maintenance.
Members on this side of the House have had the opportunity to discuss these matters with a number of interested parties since the conclusion of Committee Stage two weeks ago. While many of the changes the Minister is proposing to make may, in the fullness of time, provide for a more effective and efficient register, a number of particular difficulties remain even at this late stage. This highlights the problem in rushing through amendments of this nature on Committee Stage or Report Stage.
As Deputy Broughan stated in our discussion on these matters on Committee Stage, everyone accepts that there is a need for modernising legislation in respect of the registration of births, deaths and marriages. However, a number of particular difficulties have already been highlighted to the Minister by the Council of Irish Genealogical Organisations with which I have been in correspondence since Committee Stage. One of the major problems we face is that there are two registers. There is a register of all births, deaths and Roman Catholic marriages which dates back to 1863 and there is also a register of all non-Catholic marriages dating back to the same year. It is ridiculous that, in 2002, two such registers exist.
I wish to comment on some of the observations made by people outside the House in relation to, first, the indexes and register and, second, the issue of death certificates. If the Minister is stating that he is accepting some of the changes I am proposing, I will be extremely pleased. At present, in local registration offices access to both indexes and registers is a public right set out by legislation. The Government is now proposing that, in the future, access to registration books will be denied. This does not take account of the practicalities in local registration offices. As the Minister is aware, indexes are bound into the registration books. The Government's action will effectively and inadvertently deny all public access to both the registers and the indexes. As long as the indexes are bound to the back of the registration books, the amendments in the Minister's name could lead to access by members of the public to the vitally important information in these books being denied.
The information to which I refer is not just important from the point of view of the Government, it is vital for people, at home and abroad, who are trying to trace their roots and for those who are trying to keep contact with loved ones. This information is not merely a device which can be used by the Government to increase efficiency, it also provides people with a means of keeping in touch with relatives and others.
The Government's new proposals, as outlined in item 1 of the new section, will create a curious division between those searching for Roman Catholic marriages and those searching for non-Roman Catholic marriages. The Government's amendments, if passed, would allow public searches in civil, non-Catholic marriage registers, but would not extend the same right to search of civil registers of Catholic marriages. While it is true that these two types of registers are governed by separate Acts, one cannot help but believe the legislation before us will be seen as somewhat sectarian. It will be ludicrous if we enshrine in our law two fundamental registers, one for Catholics and one for non-Catholics.
As I understand it, no attempt is made in the amendments to bring together those two distinctive sets of registers which were both begun in 1863. An attempt may well be made in the much promised legislation about which we have been hearing for a number of years when it is published in a year or so. However, no such attempt is made in this legislation. I do not believe that is acceptable.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the Government's proposal to deny direct access to civil registration books of births, deaths and Roman Catholic marriages. This issue is particularly important for people travelling great distances to Ireland to meet their relatives and it must be addressed.
I have tabled a number of amendments relating to death certificates with which we will deal later tonight. However, I ask the Minister to take on board the concerns of those outside the House about the late tabling of these amendments in his name. This type of behaviour underlines the fact that the select committee should have engaged in hearings before we decided to advance and make these changes. Amendment No. 1 makes sense because it merely adds in items of legislation that were previously excluded. However, I am concerned about other amendments in the Minister's name because I do not believe that adequately addresses some of the points I have outlined.
I agree with and support the amendment relating to the issue of maintenance. The effect of the Minister's amendment would allow the District Court to set the time of the maintenance payment to act as an incentive for those people who bring a party to the courts. The maintenance award usually has effect from the date of the grant of the maintenance, which is good. I understand the amendment will allow the courts to backdate the maintenance order to the date of the commencement of the proceedings or to any time during the intervening period.
I wish to address another matter that has been brought to my attention in respect of this area. I refer to the difficulty many mothers face in respect of the non-payment of maintenance. Where an original summons has been made by a District Court and a judgment handed down, it is difficult for a person to continually apply to the court in an attempt to have the position rectified and his or her maintenance updated. For example, a working mother who is not being paid maintenance by her former husband must return to the original court on a daily basis to seek redress. In my opinion, a woman living in Tallaght should be able to go to the Tallaght District Court and have the order for maintenance made there rather than being obliged to return to the court in which the original proceedings were taken. That is a straightforward, common sense amendment which should be made to the District Court rules and it would greatly enhance the amendment the Minister is making to the legislation.
My party is mystified as to why these amendments have been tabled. Why has a separate registration Bill not been introduced? Why has the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform not come before the House with a Bill designed to bring about a full-scale reform of the area of maintenance? During its five year lifetime, the current Dáil has not dealt with many important Bills. I include in this a number of significant items of legislation from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs such as the Money Advice and Budgeting Service Bill, 2002. Why could that Bill not have been tacked on to the Social Welfare Bill or, as was mentioned on the Order of Business, why could the redundancy payments issue not be tacked on to the Social Welfare Bill? That would be appropriate. Why could the promised Disability Bill not be tacked on to it? One might well ask why three Bills, effectively, are being attached to the Social Welfare Bill this year and why we have not had the opportunity for a detailed discussion on the registration issue. I note that the issue has been raised and I commend the Minister for coming some way towards responding to the case put by the Genealogical Association of Ireland in relation to the ease of searches on registers and the Irish diaspora who are interested in tracing their ancestry. Anything which improves our registration process is to be commended. However, we should have had the opportunity to tease out more fully the implications of a new registration Bill.
One of the greatest disasters in our history was the destruction by fire, during the civil war, of ancestral records in the public records office. That was a major catastrophe which has deprived many people of detailed ancestral records prior to the late 18th century, apart from families who were registered for land ownership. Fortunately, because of our surnames and our Gaelic and anglo-Irish clan system, we retained a significant ancestral idea, location and history. Any move to facilitate easier access to registration documents is welcome. In relation to the maintenance aspect, I welcome what the Minister is doing but perhaps there should be a full scale Bill on this from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who has responsibility in relation to the matter which the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs is tacking on to the Social Welfare Bill. Broadly speaking, I have no fundamental problem with the Minister's amendments but it would be more appropriate for the Government to have brought in three separate Bills.
I thank Deputies for their comments. The provision in relation to maintenance is being brought forward at the request of the Law Reform Commission in response to public demand over many years. The problem was addressed in agreement with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We are sometimes criticised in the House for not having "joined-up Government" but there was full consultation in this instance. My Department has considerable responsibility in the area of family law and the provision of "maintenance", and personally I had some knowledge of this matter in my previous life as a solicitor. I encouraged my officials to proceed with the discussions so that the problem could be rectified.
The heading of the Bill refers to "miscellaneous provisions", indicating that there are other issues involved. From an obvious practical point of view, with the end of the present Dáil in sight, this would have to wait another year if it was not dealt with in this Bill. On the amendments in relation to searches – we will be discussing other amendments on the register of births, deaths and marriages – the problem is one of time pressure. If we were to wait for the ultimate Bill on the general registration office, it would delay the computerisation of the system, which is ahead of schedule. By passing these small amendments, it will facilitate earlier implementation than was, perhaps, anticipated. Otherwise, the rolling out of the computerisation process would be delayed and I am sure Members would not approve of that.
On the points raised by Deputy Brian Hayes concerning Catholic and non-Catholic registers, that is not an issue in this Bill, which is not in any way changing the existing position in that regard. The ultimate Bill will deal with those issues. Deputy Hayes, in amendment No. 42, seeks to include the issue of marital status and the occupation of a person's spouse. I will be accepting amendment No. 45 in relation to marital status but not the Deputy's other amendment. We are willing to meet some of the issues which he has raised.
Is the Minister accepting amendment No. 39?
No.
Do I understand correctly that the Minister's amendment takes precedence?
Yes.
This issue was raised by the Genealogical Association of Ireland.
On amendment No. 39, I pointed out earlier that under the existing regulations with regard to searches of the register, the computerisation of the national index dating back to 1845 for marriages and 1864 for births will provide simultaneous access to a number of parties, including genealogists and will also ensure an accurate and up to date index to events being available. We need to protect the primary records after the electronic capture and that is the effect of my amendments. Amendment No. 39 would not have that effect.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"2.–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 implementation of the review of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy ‘Building an Inclusive Society'.".
This relates to the report which I am seeking in relation to the implementation of the national anti-poverty strategy, "Building an Inclusive Society". The Minister will recall our discussions on this issue on Committee Stage. It is a useful amendment to provide that a major announcement such as the Government's extension of the national anti-poverty strategy, "Building an Inclusive Society", should be contained within this Bill. That would allow us, on a regular basis, to review its progress. If the national anti-poverty strategy is to mean anything, it must surely mean that the committee of this House dealing with this area, and the House itself, would review progress on a regular basis. By providing for a specific report on the Bill before the House, it would allow us to see progress, over the next five years or so, on many of these issues. There is still considerable discussion as to the net points contained within the NAPS review and as to precisely what is the Government's intention.
On Committee Stage, I referred to the distinction between acceptance of the majority benchmarking group on social welfare and the Government's composition of that in the national anti-poverty strategy, where it sets out a target to be reached by 2007. That is not the same because it does not uprate the lowest rate of social welfare on a yearly basis. There are also many commitments, in a general way, in the national anti-poverty strategy. This would be a useful amendment, particularly in the year in which the review of the national anti-poverty strategy has been initiated. It is an important amendment to make. If we are serious about our commitment to eliminate consistent poverty, where significant progress has been made by the last three Administrations, it follows that our seriousness about trying to reduce relative income poverty should also be addressed and this is the place to do it. I commend the amendment to the House.
I support the amendment. While the general targets of the national anti-poverty strategy addressed some of the key issues to be tackled to put an end to poverty, the key target of social welfare income was the most disappointing. The sum of €150 per week in five years time seems an extremely modest target, particularly if one looks at the commitments that appear to have been made under the benchmarking body.
Currently, one of the key issues in both urban and rural areas relates to programmes like RAPID and spatial disadvantage. Every day a new candidate seems to come forward to run in the general election in such places as Mayo and other western counties as well as deprived areas of our cities and towns because there is a perception that the Government has not come to grips with the issue of spatial disadvantage. The key problem with the RAPID programme in Dublin city areas is the lack of belief in the promised delivery of such things as extra policing in very deprived and disadvantaged areas. The Minister and the Department have not yet addressed these issues under the NAPS. I commend the amendment.
Since the Government came into office, the Opposition criticised us. It took its cue from people outside the House, such as Fr. Seán Healy of CORI and others. If the Opposition was sitting on this side of the House, it might have difficulty fulfilling some of the recommendations of such groups. Fr. Healy of CORI, the National Women's Council and other organisations welcomed the review of the national anti-poverty strategy when it was launched by the Taoiseach and I, particularly in the case of Fr. Healy who gave a big welcome to the commitments made in relation to the €150.
Deputy Broughan conveniently left out the fact that the commitment in regard to the €150 is to reach the equivalent of €150, in 2002 terms, by 2007. The new national anti-poverty strategy, Building an Inclusive Society, brings forward not alone significant targets which will be very difficult for future Governments to reach, but absolute commitments. I hope that no matter who is in Government after the election they will endeavour to reach those targets, particularly the €150. The NAPS review process will merge with the EU process that requires each member state to produce annual action plans against poverty and social exclusion on a bi-annual basis. This will ensure that the strategy, while subject to ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will be comprehensively reviewed every two years. That approach has merit because when the original anti-poverty strategy was announced just before the last election in 1997, we had to look again at some of the commitments virtually within months of taking office. Even at that stage what I regarded as very conservative commitments had been already reached, particularly in regard to unemployment.
It is open to the Oireachtas to take part in the ongoing review of the national anti-poverty strategy by means of a committee of the House. It is important that the Joint Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs looks at the national anti-poverty strategy and at the record of the incoming Government regarding its implementation. I would have thought the Deputies would see at least some merit in the national anti-poverty strategy review, which, after all, is the culmination of months of work by all the social partners in the various working groups that fed into the review on which ultimately the Government gave its considered view.
It is clear that the Minister has not read in detail the comments of CORI which he used in a most selective way in response to this amendment. It is strange that he has not read them because if he had he would not hold the view that there is universal rejoicing within CORI on this particular document or among many other third pillar organisations. This is simply not the case and I wish to put the record straight.
One of the key weaknesses CORI recognised in its immediate response to the national anti-poverty strategy is that it is vague and very general in many areas and leaves a great deal to be decided in the future in regard to the rights-based approach. While it acknowledged the recognition of social, economic and cultural rights contained in that view, it was very disappointed at the narrow focus of the application of these rights. It was also critical of the cumbersome and general way in which the document deals with the monitoring and evaluation response. We can all quote points that suit our arguments.
What is important is not the powwow between the Minister and I, but the action that a future Government takes in this area. It is interesting that the Dáil has not passed a resolution supporting NAPS. I support it and regard it as a first step on the road to the elimination of poverty. The Dáil has not had an opportunity to discuss it. The first time it was discussed was in a select committee of the House when Deputy Broughan, the Minister and I engaged in a three-way debate. If ever an issue should be centre stage, it is the elimination of poverty. This document makes some progress towards that aim although it is general and vague in other areas.
There is a need to include this amendment in the legislation because of the year in which we are discussing it. The first review has taken place after five years and if it is not specified, we will not have proper review and monitoring in the context of the House. That is why this amendment is worthwhile.
I take issue with the Deputy in regard to what CORI said. Fr. Seán Healy wrote an article in The Irish Times entitled “Government's Poverty Strategy is a Major Breakthrough”. He went on to say that it contains a major breakthrough on income adequacy. He stated that, for the first time ever, a Government decided to benchmark the lowest social welfare rates at 30% of gross average industrial earnings. He further stated that CORI has been looking for that to happen for years and complimented the Government in regard to the key target on income—
He is still waiting for his Green Paper.
—which is the most important of all the targets. While he may find fault with some of the institutional issues in the national anti-poverty strategy, by and large, his article is extremely complimentary. Although he went on to say that there is a lack of clarity on the status of the framework document, by and large, given all the issues referred to in the national anti-poverty strategy, he welcomes it. He said that for an anti-poverty strategy to be credible in the 21st century it needs to move towards a rights based approach to tackle the major issues underpinning poverty. It is crucial that society moves beyond charity and the whims of politicians. Obviously, he welcomes the statement and says that he welcomes the strategy. In conclusion he says that the review of the national anti-poverty strategy includes a major breakthrough on income adequacy. Though he goes on to say that more needs to be done, which of course is true, it is churlish of Deputies not to acknowledge the fact that the general reaction to the strategy was extremely complimentary. To a certain extent their criticism, including the reference to "baby steps", does it a disservice. All the social partners were involved in the negotiations relating to the strategy. I have no problems with the reviews of the anti-poverty strategy as it is the job of Oireachtas Members to constantly review it, more often even than on a bi-annual basis.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 3 and 14 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"2.–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 increase in the consumer price index since the commencement of the Act of 2001 and especially the increase consequent on the introduction of the euro currency and shall compare those increases with the increase in payments under the Act of 2001.".
In relation to the review of the national anti-poverty strategy, one of the difficulties we in the Opposition had was that we did not receive the major background paper – certainly, my office did not – which is characteristic of the Government.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 14 relate to the widespread perception by citizens that, despite what the Minister told us on Committee Stage, there has been major inflation, particularly in the prices of groceries and services such as insurance as well as in many other areas of basic human needs, since the introduction of the euro on 1 January. The improvements the Minister introduced, including his 9.5% increase in benefits have, to a large extent, been wiped out. The Independent Group newspapers are to be congratulated for the campaign they have run in relation to the euro rip-off which has developed over the last number of months, as is the Consumers' Association of Ireland. While the Minister will no doubt quote from the CSO figures that inflation actually fell in January and February when compared to the same period last year, most economists were asking him to disregard key products and areas of spending of the most deprived and disadvantaged families such as clothing, groceries and rents. Those areas show significant inflation, some of which undoubtedly materialised under the cover of the euro changeover. I gave the Minister a number of simple examples on Second Stage, including that of vending machines, where 10 cent or 15 cent was added to every product for no reason other than to rip off consumers.
The great effort the Government feels it has made in the area of social welfare provision has, to a large extent, been negated by the euro changeover. As the year progresses we will see more clearly that there has been significant inflation, particularly in areas which affect our most deprived citizens. This simple amendment, together with amendment No. 14, asks the Minister or his successor to bring before the House a report on how the euro changeover has affected social welfare recipients. It is often felt that this whole area is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, the Tánaiste and the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Tom Kitt, but it should be the responsibility of the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. Perhaps under the new Government formed after the general election the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs will take a special responsibility in relation to price increases of products which affect the most deprived people.
The Minister cited a report from the community sector, but one of the most damning reports published during his tenure was the Vincentian Partnership report on the weekly income and spending of a typical three-person family in receipt of social welfare. When published last autumn, it proved conclusively that such a family was £80 short of basic income in that year. In the interim those families have been severely affected by the introduction of the euro and we simply ask that the Minister reports to the House on the impact of euro inflation on the most deprived families in the community.
This amendment is similar to the previous one in that it refers to a specific event that occurred this year, which was the introduction of the euro. That is not going to happen each year over the next ten years, hopefully, and that is why Deputy Broughan and I seek to include this amendment in the legislation. It will not cost the Minister and his Department a penny. It is a straightforward amendment which asks the Minister to bring forward a report on the effects of price inflation social welfare recipients have endured since the introduction of the euro.
The Minister will get to his feet in a few minutes' time and discuss inflation. He will refer to the consumer price index. That is all very well, but in opinion polls being taken throughout the country ordinary people consider health and crime to be the most important issues in the context of the coming election with prices increasingly placed third or fourth. The Government is oblivious to the fact that we have seen massive rip-offs taking place since the introduction of the euro. It did not happen in December and it did not happen in the changeover period, it happened between July and December. Small incremental increases were made to the price of the pint and the price of foodstuffs. Anyone who shops on a regular basis will tell the Minister that the only winners from the introduction of the euro have been the shops and the manufacturers charging excessive prices.
The Minister will say that the inflation has not come through in the CPI and that, therefore, the Government is oblivious to the fact. All these amendments seek is to have the Minister with custodian responsibility for social welfare recipients bring forward a report by going out into communities to find out what is happening, as opposed to what he thinks is happening or what his economists tell him is going on. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Tom Kitt is doing work in this area as we know. At a recent select committee meeting I asked the Minister to take a chunk of that work and, over a month or six weeks, to produce a report. If the Minister fails to accept these amendments, he will be saying there is no problem in regard to price inflation affecting those on low incomes when, clearly, there is.
As I said on Committee Stage, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has direct responsibility for looking at prices. Deputies can criticise the CPI, but it is comprehensive and professional, unlike the other surveys that have been trotted out in recent times. While people might feel that prices have increased, we have to be very careful. The CPI collects over 55,000 prices covering 1,000 different items and prices go up and down from month to month.
Debate adjourned.