Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Debate resumed on 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.".
–(Deputy Broughan).
Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 3 and 14 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I was discussing the issue of inflation vis-à-vis the euro and the implications for social welfare. My Department does not have responsibility in this regard; the major responsibility lies with the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Tom Kitt. As I said on Committee Stage, the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, has requested Forfás to carry out an urgent review of the implications of the euro, which is ongoing. Contrary to what Deputy Hayes has said, all the information available to the Department of Public Enterprise shows that in the final quarter of last year there was no evidence of any effort to put up prices.
The CPI is a comprehensive and professional examination of pricing covering in the region of 1,000 items. Prices can rise or fall from month to month so one must examine the broader aspect over the longer term. For example, prices of essential items such as clothing and footwear have declined over the past year by 3.1%, but Opposition Deputies have not mentioned this fact. When the issue of inflation was raised during Question Time recently I referred to the fact that clothing and footwear prices had dropped by 11.5%. Although a number of items had increased, that represents a dramatic fall for those items. The February figures for clothing and footwear rose by 8.5% over January, but the year on year figure dropped by 3.1%.
Most of the items regarded as essential have gone down in price, year on year. People thought that while they might not see price increases in January as a result of the introduction of the euro, they would see them in February. In fact, however, the increase in February was much less than anticipated and on a year on year basis there has been a decrease this February. I have heard the anecdotal evidence about prices rising but, by and large, it is not appearing in the CPI.
Does the Minister ever go shopping himself?
People might say the CPI is not relevant, although I do not know how they can say so. The index covers food and beverages, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic, tobacco, clothing and footwear, housing, water, electricity, gas, furnishings, household equipment, routine house maintenance, health, transport, communications, recreation and culture, education, restaurants and hotels, and miscellaneous goods. Therefore, as well as covering many items, the index is both comprehensive and professional as opposed to some other surveys that might be quoted from time to time. No other survey is as comprehensive as the CPI which is the only one upon which we can act.
In the last budget the Government raised social welfare payments in most cases by around twice the rate of inflation. Given the fact that inflation is ear-marked to be in the region of 4.2% and most of the increases in social welfare have been at least double that, with significant real increases, anyone on social welfare is well cushioned against any fluctuations that may take place. Given what has occurred in the first two months of this year, however, all the indications are that the projected inflation rate of 4.2% will be reached by the end of the year.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 4 and 26 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"2.–The Minister shall report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on a proposal that social welfare increases shall not be taken into account for income assessment purposes in medical card applications.".
This amendment tries to relate what happens in social welfare increases to income assessment across all Departments. The previous amendment related primarily to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment whose role it is to examine price rises. One of the criticisms the Labour Party makes of this Government as it literally reaches its final days, is that it did not put in place a poverty proofing system across all Departments. The national anti-poverty strategy contains a commitment to have a national inclusion office in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. The reality, however, is that no such system of poverty proofing has been put in place across all Departments. The background budget briefing and the budget speech of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, demonstrated that his civil servants carried out a cursory poverty proofing of budget 2002, which ran to a couple of pages. It did not deal with key issues and missed some fundamental ones.
I am asking the Minister to try to avoid the unbelievable situation that existed in the early months of this year whereby social welfare benefit increases took a number of citizens over the new limits for medical cards. That left them in a vulnerable situation and cancelled out the advances made by the budget. People aged 66 or 67 were fearful of losing their medical cards and had they done so they would have been worse off as a result of the budget. The Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, have failed to create a Government-wide system of poverty proofing. I hope the next Government will take a strong line on this matter by insisting that we will not have such anomalies between Departments, local authorities and health boards.
Amendment No. 4 simply requests that a report be produced to ensure, in respect of future budgets, that we will never again end up creating the kind of fear witnessed on the six o'clock television news a number of weeks ago among senior citizens from the south side of Dublin and other areas. These people were distraught at the incompetence of the Government in not ensuring that the budget, particularly the aspects of it relating to social welfare, was poverty-proofed. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 26 in my name is similar to that of Deputy Broughan in terms of seeking to bring about the type of "joined-up" Government to which the Minister referred earlier. The Minister seemed to suggest on Committee Stage that the issue of income eligibility for medical cards emerged at health board level and had nothing to do with the Government. That is false, it had everything to do with the Government. I accept that responsibility did not lie with the Minister's Department, but it did lie with the Department of Health and Children. I wish to refer to a publication entitled Relate issued by Comhairle, an independent arm of the Department which produces excellent publications. In the last section of the document in question, which deals with medical card income guidelines as a result of the budget, it is stated that in practice, the chief executive officers of health boards, in consultation with the Department of Health and Children, draw up income guidelines each year. It is clear there was no consultation and that someone did not get the message.
The Minister tried to side-step this matter on Committee Stage, when I provided direct evidence supplied to me by a south inner city partnership which brought the matter to my attention in the first month of this year, by suggesting that these things did not happen. I pointed out, however, that it did happen, that someone got their wires crossed and failed to inform the health boards concerned that, in some cases, the new social welfare increases would put people over the income threshold for medical cards.
I wish to provide two examples. The first of these involves people aged 66 to 69 on old age contributory pension. Since 1 January their payments have risen to €147.30, but the income limit for a single person living alone is €144. As a result, people did not qualify. The second example involves widows and widowers aged 66 to 69, in respect of whom there is a difference of €80 between their payments and the income guidelines drawn up by the Department of Health and Children and the relevant health boards. The idea that this matter has nothing to do with central Government and that the health boards got it completely wrong is false.
There are examples, both in respect of the budget and the Bill before us of instances where people have lost out and will lose out this year. I pointed out in the debate on the Finance Bill that there were difficulties with the home carers tax credit. Under this measure spouses are entitled to work on a part-time basis and earn up to a particular amount each year. If they break this threshold, they lose part if not all the credit relating to their husbands' tax credits. Here we have an example where increases in social welfare payments have not been matched by an increase in the level of eligibility for the credit. The Minister for Finance voted down such a change two weeks ago when we debated this matter in the Finance Bill. There are classic cases involving the Departments of Finance and Health and Children where people are clearly not reading the literature provided by the Minister's Department or not paying attention to his input to the budget.
I agree with Deputy Broughan there is a clear argument in favour of bringing together Departments to resolve these problems and anomalies. The difficulties I have described, which were caused by the income thresholds set by health boards in consultation with the Department of Health and Children, existed. They were not figments of people's imaginations. It is clear that central Government made a mess of matters in the first two months of the year. I understand it took a Cabinet meeting to resolve this matter. After that meeting, a memorandum was sent to all health boards and the issue was ironed out.
The difficulties to which I refer should not have arisen. If our amendments are accepted, there will not be a recurrence of these difficulties and, in addition, we will ensure that "joined-up" Government becomes a reality.
If the parties represented by the two Members opposite return to Government, this will probably not happen again. We are discussing this issue because the Government, unlike Administrations of which their parties were members, has provided social welfare increases at a rate twice that of inflation. If we had given the normal increases, the medical card guidelines would not have had to be changed because the rates would only have gone up by the rate of inflation at the maximum.
Cognisance should be taken of the fact that we have increased social welfare payments in the past two years by more than the rate of inflation, particularly considering people's eligibility for medical cards. This is the reason that, in this year's and last year's negotiations on social welfare increases, it was indicated by my officials and me and agreed by the Ministers for Health and Children and Finance that no one would lose out on their entitlement to a medical card as a result of the record increases in social welfare payments. Unfortunately, certain people in the media went off on a tangent without checking the facts and I am conscious that concerns arose among elderly people as a result. Subsequently, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, issued a statement to allay their fears.
To date, in my personal capacity as a public representative and as Minister, I have not encountered a person who has lost their entitlement to a medical card solely as a result of the record increases in social welfare payments. I am not sure if the Department of Health and Children was contacted by people so affected but if it was, matters would have been put right immediately. There was "joined-up" Government in this instance because a decision was made that no one should lose out on their eligibility to a medical card as a result of the record increases in social welfare payments.
There was a six week period when we did not have "joined-up" Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"2.–The Minister shall report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on a proposal that social welfare increases shall not be taken into account for income assessment purposes in assessing local authority differential rents.".
This amendment, which is similar to amendment No. 4, seeks to take social welfare increases out of the equation when calculating increases in local authority rents. The Minister inquired about matters which have come to our attention in respect of medical cards. In the area we are now discussing, a number of cases have come to my attention where people feel they have been placed at a disadvantage. I refer, for example, to a lone parent who has a job, works hard and qualifies for family income supplement, FIS. This woman was assessed on her additional income and discovered she would be better off not working because her local authority rent has skyrocketed since her family income supplement increased.
The local authority of which I am a member adheres to the 15% rule. However, it is easy to place families in a poverty trap where it becomes incumbent on the parents to consider whether it is worthwhile to continue working when their social welfare benefits are taken into account in relation to their rent assessment. I accept the Minister addressed this matter on Committee Stage. However, the major local authorities do not appear to have developed a uniform system of assessment. This means some families are particularly vulnerable. Those who have the initiative to go to work, to the extent they are permitted, are less well off when their local authority rent soars. I ask the Minister to examine this again.
As I said on Committee Stage – the Deputy also referred to it – there is a general guideline for local authorities that no more than 15% of any increase in pension income should be absorbed by an increase in rent. I understand that works fairly uniformly throughout the local authorities. I also referred to the issue of differential rents, which represent less than 11% of social welfare payments. This arises because of the record increases in social welfare payments. At one time, people complained that all of their social welfare increases were taken by the local authority but, thankfully, as a result of the change in timing, in particular, it is not now as acute and there is an effort to ensure people receive as much as possible of the benefit of their social welfare increases.
In relation to FIS, as Deputies who are members of local authorities will know, with some exceptions, differential rents have to take account of virtually all income. If one starts excluding some income, where does one draw the line? The differential rents scheme is fair in that it discriminates in favour of the less well off. My Department maintains relatively close contact with the Department of the Environment and Local Government on this matter.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
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 implications of introducing a system of benchmarking or indexation of all social welfare payments and benefits as advocated by the Final Report of the Social Welfare Benchmarking and Indexation Group.".
This amendment is an old chestnut. We have raised it many times at Question Time and on Committee Stages of previous social welfare Bills. The Minister referred earlier to Father Seán Healy's praise of aspects of the review of the NAPS. CORI has been trying to promote a fundamental programme to the Minister, throughout the period of this Government, in relation to providing a decent basic income for every citizen. However, the method by which Father Healy and CORI wanted to pursue that laudable ambition would be subject to reservations by many economists. Nonetheless, the Minister and the Taoiseach indicated that we would have a Green Paper on basic income provision and I understood that was to lead to a White Paper and to legislation in that area to guarantee a basic income for every citizen. There have been major increases, due to the work of the voluntary sector and the trade union movement, in particular, in child benefit in recent years, which I believe the next Government will carry on. This Government reluctantly embarked on this course and then made a virtue of necessity in relation to those increases in child benefit. However, we have the beginnings of a viable basis to provide that every Irish child will have a reasonable income.
On the broader income front, the Minister is passing out of office without making a fundamental commitment. He took the basic income idea and, like a good rugby half back, kicked it into the stand every time it came into his hands because it was too hot to handle and he was unwilling to make commitments for future years. My party has made fundamental commitments to the elimination of poverty, as the Minister will see if he watches the television broadcast of our national conference on Saturday. I also commend Fine Gael on its document published yesterday, indicating a fundamental commitment from that party. This side of the House is about to run with the ball on this occasion and to make an absolute commitment on the issue of basic income.
In relation to the report referred to in amendment No. 6, it is disappointing that the Minister did not immediately accept the report in full rather than simply referring obliquely to it through the NAPS report. At the social affairs committee, officials from the Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment stated their opposition to the concept of a basic income for every citizen. Despite Father Healy' s recent comments, the Minister has refused, over his five years in office, to address this basic issue. This amendment simply asks him to look at it one last time.
I do not wish to go over the same ground we covered earlier in this debate. The conclusion of the final report of the Social Welfare Benchmarking and Indexation Group on raising the lowest rate of social welfare to 30% of gross average industrial earnings by 2007 is not the same as the Government's proposal in the NAPS. No matter what the Minister may say in that regard, there is no commitment to update that every year in line with the increase in industrial earnings. The Minister's clever device, in relation to the €150 in 2002 terms, was simply to get him over a problem with the Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is clearly not the same as what came out of the final report on benchmarking which I acknowledge represents some progress. Until the Minister makes that commitment, nothing substantial will be done on the relative poverty issue. I have acknowledged repeatedly that this and the previous Government have made great strides on the issue of consistent poverty. We should be proud of that but the next great challenge for Governments, over the next five to ten years, is to deal with the issue of relative income poverty. I accept it is a very difficult matter to establish at a time when wages are increasing by 6% to 10% and upwards but we must commit to it and achieve it in the coming years. The key recommendation in the report of the Social Welfare Benchmarking and Indexation Group is fundamental to that.
Deputy Broughan used the analogy of dropping the ball in rugby. His former party leader hates to be reminded of dropping the ball when he played rugby. I did not play rugby, I played the working class game of soccer.
That is not the only working class game.
I am well accustomed to running with the ball. When the parties opposite were in Government, they did not run with any ball in relation to social welfare issues.
Those parties set up all kinds of things but in the final analysis they gave only £1.80 to old age pensioners. They are in no position to lecture me in that regard. In relation to benchmarking, Deputy Hayes suggested that our commitment to the €150 in 2002 terms by the year 2007 is not the same as 30% but Father Seán Healy thinks it is and has said so in the article to which I referred earlier. He seems to be satisfied with the commitments that are made and to which we will be holding whatever parties are in Government after the next election. The commitment in relation to a cash amount is more significant than percentages because it is quite possible that average industrial earnings will not increase as dramatically as heretofore and yet €150 is a figure which, by all objective analysis, will be an extremely difficult target to reach.
So the Minister is admitting that they are not the same thing.
Deputy Hayes referred to the majority recommendation of the Bacon report. That recommendation was 27%, not 30% as was indicated earlier.
It said to reach 30% by 2007.
The Minister did not reach 30%.
The Government has committed itself to meeting the commitment in the NAPS review which, in effect, will be the basic income being called for by Fr. Healy and others. This is regardless of what happens in May, although we like to think we will be back in Government.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment Nos. 7, 8 and 27 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(2) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare a report for both Houses of the Oireachtas on the implications of having the same commencement date for child benefit increases as for all other increases in benefits and assistance rates.".
The payment date for the increases in child benefit became a very controversial issue for the Government. Many Deputies, including some Government Members, believed that the benefit was due to start a month earlier than is the case. The increases will probably come through around the time of the general election but there appeared to be widespread confusion in the House and among the media about the exact starting date.
Given the massive resources that the Minister enjoyed over the past five years it is unlikely that there will ever again be a Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs who will enjoy growth rates of 10% per annum in real terms in a remarkably performing economy and who will have such massive resources to give out. The position could have been reached where all social welfare payments could have been brought back to January. The Minister could have set himself that target but he decided, or it was probably decided for him by the Minister for Finance as usual, that he would not spend the extra £70 or £80 million leading to a situation where a major benefit, the income of our children, is being paid five months after the general range of benefits.
The amendment before us seeks to make a report on the implications of bringing all social welfare benefits and pensions into line with income and tax changes on 1 January every year. The Minister has failed to increase the income of a very important group of citizens at the same time as others are getting their increases. I urge the Minister to look at this area again.
I will speak on amendments Nos. 8 and 27. In 1997, the Minister and his party criticised the rainbow Government for letting public spending get out of control. It was said that the Government had overshot spending in that year by £600 million of taxpayers' money. This is the man who criticised the Government for the modest increases in social welfare payments that year, to which he objected because he was totally opposed to overshooting public expenditure by £600 million in that year. That is in the record.
The widespread confusion to which Deputy Broughan referred is largely due to the fact that the Government deliberately misled the House last December when the Budget Statement was being announced and when we had the short social welfare Bill. The Minister said then that the effective date of payment for child benefit would go from September in 1997 to April in 2002, the earliest date on which it is administratively possible to introduce these increases. Subsequently, the Minister said on Committee Stage of the Bill that the payment would not be made until 1 April and that was dictated by the budget. There was no reference in the budget to the payments coming in May, which we now know will happen. There are legitimate questions to be asked regarding this. On this matter, as in the Minister's St. Valentine's Day love-bombing, which he bestowed on some social welfare recipients, the Minister is deliberately stymieing the introduction of child benefit increases to ensure they coincide with the general election. The back-dated payments for April and May will be paid on the first Tuesday in May.
I accept that the Minister has a problem regarding child benefit payments. As I understand it, the payments go from May to June in the administrative year but there is nothing to prevent the Minister from paying the increased additional amount on the first Tuesday of April, given the fact that the Bill will be through this House by the end of this week. There is no difficulty in that whatsoever, but the Minister is not doing that; he is giving the additional amounts in May, surprise, surprise, which will probably be a week or so before the general election. If ever there was pure exploitation of public funds, this is it. If the Minister were to be consistent with what he told the House in December, why would he oppose amendment No. 8, given the fact that I am asking that the word "effective" be inserted in to the Bill? This is the effective date, but of course it is not going to be the effective date, it will be the general election date, the cynical date the Minster has selected in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, in order to love-bomb us a second time. The people will not be conned by that trick and if the Minister were really serious about making increased payments at the earliest possible time administratively, he could do so on the first Tuesday of April. That can still happen if the Minister accepts my amendment.
There was no confusion on this side of the House.
The Minister did not tell us.
The Deputy rushed out within hours of the national anti-poverty strategy and issued a statement getting it all wrong and is doing so again in regard to this issue. I was quite clear when I said at the time "effective date".
Why did the Minister not say May?
It is galling to listen to Deputies criticising me and the Government on the issue in regard to the payment of child benefit when they presided over a situation where minuscule child benefit increases of £1.00 in 1997 were announced as being granted in December but were not delivered until September the following year. The Government has progressively brought back the child benefit increases from June of 2001 to April at a cost of £70 million.
The Deputies ask why I do not bring all payment increases back to January and have a report to the Dáil on the implications. It would cost an extra €103 million, not a sum one could sneeze at and that is the reason it was not brought back in one fell swoop. It is very illustrative to see what is now going out on child benefit. The figure is £1.14 billion, €1.44 billion, in 2002 as opposed to £398 million. There have been huge increases over the lifetime of the Government and I do not see how the Deputies can criticise it in relation to child benefit. The timing of the payment is dictated by the capacity of the production process and other demands which must be met at this time. Since budget day we have been working flat out to meet the additional demands arising from the earlier implementation of the budget increases. There are many such increases, including child benefit, family income supplement and old age pension.
In relation to child benefit arrears from early March to 26 April, payable in May, 380,000 single vouchers are needed. To facilitate the production of renewals and single vouchers, the supplier has been working overtime every weekend since the start of the year and it will be necessary to continue working overtime to enable production of the single voucher in time for May. I assure the Deputies that we looked at this high up and low down in terms of when it could be delivered.
The Minister did, just like the trees.
It might have suited our political purposes to have it paid in April so that we could perhaps have gone to the country earlier, as we were being encouraged to do by Deputy Noonan.
The Government might have left it too late.
The Government has a record on child benefit of which it is proud and when it is returned to office, I hope after the May election, it will continue with that excellent record.
The Minister is a dreamer.
The people are not saying that.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, 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 need to extend the free telephone allowance to elderly persons living in nursing homes, either for a fixed line or a mobile phone, particularly in cases where the allowance was previously obtained.".
I am very determined that we address this issue. There was a good exchange of views on the matter on Committee Stage between the Opposition and the Minister. It is nit-picking in the extreme that people living in nursing homes cannot get the free telephone allowance. I do not accept that for the past five or even 15 years we could not work out an administrative system whereby elderly people living in nursing homes, in rooms with their own telephone lines, could not get an allowance for either a direct phone or a mobile phone. The matter is made worse when we consider that elderly people who have this allowance lose it once they go to a nursing home.
The Minister knows as well as I do that the demographic predictions for the next ten to 15 years show an additional 600,000 people over the age of 65. We will have to cater for an additional number of people moving into nursing homes, both publicly and privately funded, and this issue has to be addressed today. I ask the Minister to do that and to provide this allowance to elderly people in circumstances such as those described. The phone, be it mobile or otherwise, is a link. Just because someone is living in an environment with 30 or 40 other elderly people does not mean the allowance they had in their private home should not be extended to their new place of residence. I have received a large mailbag on this issue and people feel let down by the fact that a new administrative arrangement has not been worked out which would allow people this very small allowance, particularly as many of those who go into nursing homes had it previously. There are huge benefits to extending this measure. As the Minister knows, I am a great advocate of free schemes and I congratulate him for the extensions he has made in many areas, but an extension in this area would allow elderly people to stay connected to their wider family and friends and we should not discriminate against them by failing to recognise that in the social welfare code.
I strongly support Deputy Brian Hayes. Like him and, probably, the Minister, I have received a lot of representations about this. People who enjoy the telephone allowance find that when they come to live in a nursing home it is arbitrarily cut off. We had the debate before in relation to household benefit and it seemed at one point the Minister was preparing to change fundamentally the whole nature of the free schemes. He has made some fundamental changes by putting them into the social insurance fund and by talking in terms of a household benefit per se. One of the few advantages of that approach would be that citizens in exactly the circumstances Deputy Brian Hayes talks about – citizens who wrote to him and me, and probably to the Minister and his officials – who rightly feel very hard done by at the loss of what is a very small telephone allowance, would receive it.
This is something the Minister should look at again as, undoubtedly, a future Government will, particularly given the circumstances of seniors living away from their former family homes who feel isolated and want to keep in touch with friends and family. The Minister has had the opportunity to introduce an innovative approach, but sadly it has not been taken up and those citizens who made strong representations to the Department before Christmas are very disappointed. I commend the amendment.
Many innovative changes have been made by the Government, none better than the decision to provide the free schemes to people over 70. This issue has been around for some time and it is one we looked at carefully to see if there was a possibility of extending the scheme. The way forward is to include mobile phones in the free telephone rental scheme, but that is easier said than done. There are major issues regarding mobile phone contracts and licences and the marrying of the existing scheme with mobile phones.
Moves are being made in my Department and my officials are looking at the whole issue, but that is for another day as the Deputies will agree. The original objective of the telephone allowance was to provide an element of protection and security for elderly people and the disabled who live alone or with people who are unable to summon help in the case of an emergency. We all remember that was one of the conditions for eligibility for the allowance. By and large, the latter condition is no longer there because people over the age of 70 are entitled to the allowance. When people go into a nursing home they receive daily support and have daily contact with staff and other residents. They are in receipt of other State support through nursing home subventions and the public health system, and the view in the Department is that the extension of the telephone rental allowance scheme to them does not fit easily with the scheme's objectives in that it does not provide an element of personal security.
There is also the issue of control of phones. If there are 40 people with 40 telephones in the residence and the telephone rental is available to each, there is the question of access to the telephone and who can use it. These issues have been raised in the Department in the context of the availability of free telephone rental for such telephones. Again, while there might be a willingness to extend this to people in the nursing home per se, there are issues which need to be addressed. I like to think they would be addressed in the context of the broader extension of the free telephone rental scheme in the years ahead.
This amendment, like the others, seeks a report on the issue. Therefore, in accepting the amendment the Minister would not be doing anything radical. It does not incur expense on the State at this time but simply moves the issue forward in the context of this legislation. The Minister also made the argument about mobile telephone licences. He has a point, it is difficult. However, another scheme operated by his Department, the extension of the free travel pass to include private bus operators, is an example of the Department dealing with that dilemma. The scheme was extended to private bus operators on designated routes so that elderly people are now carried on those routes free of charge. With the right application, therefore, the Minister can overcome the problem.
The Minister spoke about 40 different telephones and said there would be issues in regard to access to them. I have visited a number of nursing homes in my constituency. The people in single rooms already have individual telephones. There should be no difficulty working out a scheme which could save the Department money in the long run because it would not have to pay the same rental for all the telephones. It can be done with the right will. I will press the amendment. It is only right that we should speak up for people in these situations. They feel aggrieved, particularly those who had it and lost it. It is only right to put the amendment to a vote.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Barrett, Seán.Belton, Louis J.Broughan, Thomas P.Burke, Ulick.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Hayes, Brian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Jim.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.
|
Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stanton, David.Yates, Ivan.
|
Níl
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.
|
Daly, Brendan.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Michael P.
|
Níl–continued
|
Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Donoghue, John.
|
O'Flynn, Noel.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.
|
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Coveney and Rabbitte; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, 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 in relation to increasing the weekly allowance to those seeking asylum in this country.".
This amendment asks the Minister to bring forward a report on the issue of the weekly allowance to those seeking asylum. As the Minister will be aware, the committee has discussed this matter for a number of years. I raised it in the last two Social Welfare Bills. I ask the Minister to expedite the long overdue report from his Department on this matter. While those seeking asylum in this country are entitled to child benefit and other supplementary assistance when they present to a local welfare officer, the basic rate needs to be increased radically. The Minister is aware that the working group he established has long gone beyond the point of making a recommendation. Therefore, the objective of this amendment is to come to a conclusion in respect of those matters and create a new and more appropriate rate for people in the circumstances I mentioned.
As I said on Committee Stage, a working group, including officials of my Department, the Departments of Finance, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the Environment and Local Government as well as representatives of the chief executive officer of the health board, is considering this issue. I would like to think that I will have a report shortly. Obviously, when we receive the report, we will consider the findings and recommendations of the working group.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, 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 need to provide–
(a) a pension supplement to those pensioners who are solely dependent on either a contributory or non-contributory pension, and
(b) increased support for pensioners under the living alone allowance.”.
I withdraw this amendment on the basis that we had a good discussion on this matter in terms of policy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, 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 need to provide a report on increasing the contributory widow's pension to the same rate as the contributory old age pension.".
The Minister has gone a considerable way in respect of bringing the contributory widow's pension up to the same level as the contributory old age pension. Will he inform the House of the total cost to the Exchequer of making that final leap? I think there is a difference of just over €3 between both schemes. I am aware the Minister made significant progress this year but in terms of a policy issue, widows and their late spouses have contributed through the PRSI system. The contributory old age pension, which is the largest amount of money that can be paid in any of the schemes operated by the Minister's Department, is the appropriate rate of payment for widows in this category.
While I recognise that a significant increase has helped to bridge the gap, a small amount more would make the gap even smaller. Will the Minister state in his reply the cost to the Exchequer if we were to make this commitment?
In line with the objective outlined in budget 2001, we said we would bring the level of payments to recipients of widow's and widower's contributory pension aged 66 and over up to the level of the old age contributory pension. In the last two budgets, we brought that forward progressively. We are short of the old age contributory pension rate by €2.50, £1.97. It would cost approximately €9 million, £7 million, to equalise the two rates.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, 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 improving the income limit for the back to work allowance scheme to account for family size of applicants so that secondary benefits would remain intact for the three years duration of the scheme.".
This relates to the back to work allowance scheme. Am I correct?
It is a good scheme which operates over three years to get people back to work. It encourages them to get back to work so they will not lose any of their secondary benefits. I am aware that in the small print concerning these secondary benefits, there is a clause stating that if one's income goes over £250, or whatever the equivalent is in euro, per week, one loses these benefits. The anomaly lies in the following observation. The £250 income threshold is in no way related to family size. Therefore, in terms of the back to work allowance scheme, one with five children can be marginally over the £250 threshold and lose the fuel allowance whereas a couple with no children on £250 can retain their benefits. The problem is that on the issue of the secondary benefits and the existing income threshold, no differentiation is made on the basis of family size. I ask the Minister to address this in the context of this amendment.
It is true to say the issue of family size is not taken into account, but I made two changes in budget 2000 which would have the effect of assisting bigger families in regard to the maximum rent supplement in particular and the household income limit for family income supplement. Obviously, if we are to make additional changes, they will have budgetary implications, but those two changes have ameliorated the problems to some extent in terms of larger families.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, 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 effects of different stamp contributions, in respect of obtaining treatment benefits, for those under 25 years of age and for those over 25 years of age.".
On the basis of what the Minister said about a report being due on the issue of contributions and existing anomalies, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 21 in the name of Deputy Broughan arises out of committee proceedings. Amendment No. 24 is related and they may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
"3.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the introduction of a non-means tested carer's allowance.".
This amendment asks the Minister to report, for the final time, on the introduction of a non-means tested carer's allowance. In recent years there have been improvements in the disregard for carer's allowance, both for a single person and a married couple. However, the promise made to carers by the Taoiseach to bring the disregard for a married couple up to the level of the average industrial wage has not been honoured. The promise was made to a meeting of carers in Limerick by Deputies Willie O'Dea and Eddie Wade. The Government will leave office after the general election having failed to fulfil this fundamental promise.
It is the intention of the Labour Party, if it participates in the next Government, to abolish the means test for carer's allowance. This is one of the six key pledges we have made to the public. We will replace the carer's allowance with a carer's payment, paid solely on the basis of need, to full-time carers. People who give care 24 hours a day seven days a week have a right to payment from the Government for work done at home. This should be a cast iron commitment. The Government is about to end and it has not addressed this question.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to address the rule that one may not be in receipt of more than one social welfare benefit. Although there are exceptions to that rule it pertains in general. Widows and lone parents often come to public representatives and express great bitterness because they cannot obtain even a portion of the carer's allowance.
I am sure the Minister will say he has addressed these issues but the reaction of carers makes it clear that they do not feel he has met their needs. Candidates are preparing to stand in the general election on this issue and a leader of carers in Limerick is directing the campaign.
The Labour Party will seek to address this issue if it is in Government after the election. I am aware of the cost factor and the Labour Party has addressed this in our policy document. The Comptroller and Auditor General has drawn attention to the expenditure on carer's allowance over the years. This increase has been a major development and the C&AG clearly anticipates a time when a future Government will deliver for all carers. A 1998 report by the Minister's Department said there are 50,000 carers, of whom 20,000 receive a carer's allowance. Voluntary bodies such as Care Alliance Ireland and NAMHI estimate there are 120,000 carers.
I ask the Minister to report on the means test for carer's allowance and on the rule that people in receipt of another social welfare benefit cannot receive carer's allowance. These are two of the most pressing problems for carers.
I do not think this Government will be passing away and with regard to the Labour Party being part of the next Government the old adage, "Hope springs eternal", comes to mind.
Any objective analysis of the record of this Minister will show that all the major improvements in carer's allowance have been made in my time as Minister and this Government's term of office. The expenditure on carer's allowance has gone from €38 million to approximately €120 million in five years. When I came to office 9,000 carers were in receipt of carer's allowance and when I leave office there will be approximately 23,500 in receipt of the allowance. They will all receive the free schemes and they will also receive a substantial respite care grant, neither of which was the case when I came to office.
I have always said the carer's allowance on its own is not sufficient for people who are caring for people in the home. I query the Labour Party's position which is akin to their abolition of third level fees. I am surprised that a party which espouses socialist ideals would abolish a means test so that people who do not need the allowance can get the same amount of money—
People who are well able to afford to look after a relative will be entitled to exactly the same amount as someone who is relying on a very small income, perhaps a social welfare payment. That is not fair or right. Whatever money is available should be directed towards people who most need it and not to millionaires or people with incomes of £100,000. The more an allowance is spread throughout the population the less one can direct at the less well-off. That is not to diminish the difficulties even a millionaire might have in looking after a relative. However, this is income support, supplied by the State. I do not see how someone can justify paying the same amount to someone at the bottom of the income scale as to someone at the top. I find it difficult to understand how a party such as Deputy Broughan's, which espouses the ideals of socialism, could do this.
Apart from the changes we made in the carer's allowance we made a commitment over time to raise the means disregard until the payment was equal to average industrial earnings. The allowance is not far from that as it stands. If we are given the chance after the next election I hope we will continue on that road.
Irrespective of who is in office after the next election I hope the Departments of Health and Children and Social, Community and Family Affairs will continue to examine the possibility of marrying the carer's allowance with the nursing home subvention and the home help scheme to provide a unified system which will take account of people's individual circumstances with regard to income, degree of disability and level of care required.
May I direct the Minister away from the millionaires to those in need of carer's allowance? I recognise the great work that has been done in regard to the allowance during his term in office, but there are more carers now than there were five years ago. Elderly people and others in need of care have a greater desire to stay in their homes than they had previously because of overcrowding in hospitals and so on. People are scared to go into institutional care and prefer to stay in their own homes.
I refer to a carer who becomes a widow. The Minister will not be surprised that I mention this because I have raised it at every opportunity during his tenure and still have not had success in this regard. If a woman who cares full time for a doubly incontinent, bed ridden patient in her own home becomes a widow and continues to be a carer, she is disqualified from receiving carer's allowance as soon as she is in receipt of the widow's pension. There have not been 100 such cases in the past five years, yet the Minister has refused to heed my representations. His officials can afford to smile, but I will continue to press this issue because I have dealt with two such cases in my constituency over the past five years.
In one case the woman concerned was in receipt of carer's allowance because her husband was a small farmer earning a meagre income. When he died, not alone was she disqualified from receiving carer's allowance because she was entitled to the widow's pension, she was put under more strain because she had to employ someone to do the farm work because she was a full-time carer. She cannot receive carer's allowance because the Minister refuses to allow a double social welfare payment.
Provision should be made in the case of a carer who becomes a widow and continues to provide full-time care. I have asked the Minister to examine this issue, but he has blanked me thus far. I would like something to be done about this before he and I retire from the House.
The Minister made a point regarding those who are better off. As Deputy McCormack rightly said, those who are not well off and earn less than the average industrial wage are badly treated in this regard. Even taking account of the new income disregards, the Minister still falls some way short of the average industrial wage in the provision of carer's allowance. He cannot honestly say he has addressed this and has certainly not achieved the average industrial wage despite a firm commitment from the Taoiseach that it would be reached.
The key point, however, is if one is a full-time carer, one should receive payment.
We have received representations from Care Alliance Ireland, the Carer's Association and all the other wonderful representative associations and the fundamental point they make is unquestionable. If one is a full-time carer, one should receive a payment. People want recognition for their very important work in the health system where they look after carees in their own surroundings voluntarily.
I welcome the Minister's comment in regard to creating a partnership between carers, health boards and local health staff, but it is a recognition issue. No matter who one is, if one is doing the job, one should be fully recognised by the State. I acknowledge what the Minister said regarding a double social welfare payment. However, it would be incongruous if an individual who has a large pension or other earnings was in receipt of a full carer's allowance while somebody in receipt of a social welfare benefit received only a portion of the carer's allowance. It would be just if that person was in receipt of the full carer's allowance.
I differ with Deputy Broughan on this point. If a Minister has a pot of money available to him or her, it is fairer and more equitable if the money is allocated to those less likely to generate a weekly income or who care for somebody in their homes. If one has money, one should concentrate on giving more to those less well off rather than dispersing it throughout the general population, thereby giving money to some who do not necessarily need it and also providing them with an absolute right to it. This would also dilute the money available to those in need of care.
I thank Deputy McCormack for his comments on the changes that have been made. I accept there will be an ever increasing number of carers and carees. We tend to forget there are carees who need significant assistance when we debate the issue of carers. Moves are being made to marry the various State aids, both financial and otherwise. When a needs assessment is conducted, various issues are thrown up.
With regard to the issue of double payments, the social welfare system is not designed to pay somebody to look after somebody else. It aims to provide a low income for those least well off in society. To a certain extent, many of the issues raised by Deputy McCormack are more appropriate to the Department of Health and Children. That is the reason we are working in partnership with that Department.
On the issue of income disregards, a couple with two children earning a joint income of €28,600 or an individual earning €23,600 can qualify for the minimum carer's allowance and the attendant free schemes. We are substantially on the way to achieving the average industrial wage.
If a person with an income of €23,600 can qualify for carer's allowance, why can a widow with an income of one tenth of that not qualify for the allowance? I cannot understand the logic behind this. I accept it is not the practice to make two social welfare payments, but there is nothing written in stone. The only change I seek is that in the case of a carer who becomes a widow, she should be eligible for carer's allowance because she continues to be a full-time carer. I do not know how much the widow's pension is annually, but it is much less than €23,600. I seek carer's allowance for full-time carers, who are the most deprived in our community, not for millionaires and others who are well off.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 6, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"4.–The Minister shall as soon as possible after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the extension of social welfare free schemes to widows and widowers with dependent children.".
On Committee Stage, I asked the Minister to consider this area again. Deputies receive ongoing complaints from widows with young and teenage children that despite the improvements in pension benefits in recent years, they still find it difficult to make ends meet. I am asking for the extension of the free schemes. On a number of occasions, the Minister has pointed out the difficulty of distinguishing between the different types of single parent families. However, widows suffer the trauma of the death of a partner and then have to raise a family with very little support from the State. I accept the Minister has introduced the widowed person's grant and the bereavement allowance, but there is still a feeling of dissatisfaction that we hear at our clinics, especially from widows with young children who feel the State should be more supportive.
I support this amendment. The argument I make in favour of extending the free schemes to widows and widowers is that in the main they are people who have paid into a social insurance scheme. This is an unexpected event that happens in their lives and the State should help them by giving additional support. The free schemes are already in place, they work and they are effective. As a secondary benefit they can be targeted at people in very difficult circumstances. No new structures need to be put in place and these are schemes that have a track record over 20 to 30 years. More than three and a half years ago, my party tabled a specific motion at plenary session in the Dáil on this idea and the Government rejected it. This can work and would be cost effective. For instance, if a man tragically dies at 50 years of age having paid into the social insurance fund for more than 30 years, his wife and children are left without any support from the State. The argument can be made purely on the basis that these people are contributing into a social insurance fund and if they cannot avail of that fund when unexpected events occur, when can they avail of it?
As I mentioned earlier, I have sympathy for people in such circumstances. During my time as Minister, I have considered many ways to give additional assistance to widows, which is why we agreed to raise the widow's pension for people over 66 to the level of the old age contributory pension and we are very close to succeeding in that regard. I also introduced the increased bereavement grant and the widowed parent grant. We examined the issue of the free schemes last year and there were fairly serious equity issues concerning the treatment of different categories of one parent families. The difficulty is that we would be extending the free scheme to a huge number of people who would not previously have been considered. The free schemes have generally assisted elderly people over 66. An exception was made for widows between 60 and 66 whose spouses qualified for it before they died. With that exception and the exception of people with disability, the free schemes tend to apply to people over 66. This matter will be considered again, but there are serious policy issues that cannot be easily overcome.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 6, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"4.–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 implications of relaxing the rule that a recipient of a carer's allowance cannot claim another social welfare payment at the same time.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 6, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"5.–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 implications of bringing together the widowed parent grant and the bereavement grant for the purposes of the one application for widows/widowers.".
This issue was also discussed on Committee Stage. I ask the Minister to consider this in the short time available to him. Whoever is framing next year's Social Welfare Bill should try to make progress in this area. The Minister can take credit for the introduction of the widowed parent grant. It has been brought to my attention, both in my constituency and by colleagues, that where people apply for the bereavement grant, they do not automatically get the widowed parent grant. It was increased substantially in this year's budget and we all welcomed that. However, there needs to be a more user-friendly way of drawing down both schemes at the same time.
On Committee Stage, the Minister said one regional office of his Department runs the bereavement grant and another runs the widowed parent grant. I ask the Minister to consider marrying both grants to avoid people not being aware of one or other grant. Information I received in a reply to a parliamentary question shows that since the scheme was introduced in April 2000, the Minister and the Department have attempted to inform people about it. There were 862 payments in 2000, 1,208 in 2001 and 80 payments already in 2002. However, I believe there are more than 1,208 widowed parents with dependent children in the country. I do not believe all of them are getting this new grant. It is a significant payment since the budget increase.
I agree this should be considered. Every effort is made in my Department to communicate with people, particularly funeral undertakers and to make information available in this respect. Some 2,298 payments have been made by the Department since April 2000, but they estimate that approximately 1,500 applications would be awarded on an ongoing basis, so we are not far from that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 6, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"5.–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 increases granted to social welfare recipients having regard to the failure on the part of health boards to increase income thresholds for the purposes of obtaining a medical card by the same amount and the need for improved co-ordination of policy between all relevant departments where social welfare improvements occur.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 6, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"5.–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 implications of paying interest to social welfare recipients where his Department is unable to deliver within a reasonable period of time either planned increases or benefits to recipients who have applied for the first time to his Department.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 31 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 6, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"5.–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 implications of introducing a new infancy payment to cover the considerable capital and other costs associated with the birth of a child.".
This amendment relates to a proposal my party made in regard to an infancy payment, particularly on the birth of the first child. We believe the State should make some contribution towards the excessive capital costs associated with the birth of a child. While child benefit has increased in recent years, no additional payment is made to parents on the birth of a first child. This is something which should be considered. A number of eminent sociologists produced a report last year suggesting that in the first six months of a child's life parents must provide in excess of £3,500 on capital costs alone. The State needs to recognise this fact in terms of a payment at birth.
Amendment No. 29 relates to the old chestnut of the different rates of child dependant allowance, of which there are three. It is incongruous in this day and age to give a dependent child of a widow €19 and a dependent child of an unemployed person a different rate. The differentiation needs to be ironed out. We have moved progressively from 13 rates approximately 15 years ago. However, we need to rationalise the existing child dependant allowance primarily because it is still the only payment which can be targeted for very low income people. Child benefit increases in the main are a very important attempt to take children out of poverty. However, child dependant allowances should be targeted even more at people on very low incomes. The three existing rates need to be rationalised because it is unacceptable in this day and age that they exist.
Amendment No. 31 relates to the child dependant allowance to children up to 22 years of age in full-time education. There was some attempt in the budget to give child dependant allowance to children over 18 years who wish to complete their secondary school education. There was a commitment in this regard under the PPF which involves very small amounts of money. The Government was wrong not to have delivered fully on the commitment in the budget. I am aware the PPF has another year to run but surely it would not break the bank if the Government were to go the extra mile on this issue.
I support the amendments. Deputy Hayes's point in regard to amendment No. 28 is well made. I know he has had some recent personal experience in the area so the issue is obviously close to home. We are all familiar with low income families who on the birth of a child try to access whatever supplementary benefit is available through the local director of community welfare. They usually receive an amount equal to the cost of a pram and some other basic necessities for a young child. The system should be rationalised so that there is a special payment on the birth of a child, as is the case in France and other EU countries.
We discussed amendment No. 29 at length on Committee Stage and during other Social Welfare Bills, as did the Acting Chairman when she was spokesperson on this whole area. Perhaps during the next round of child benefit increases additional resources will be targeted at low income families. The child dependant allowance is one of the best methods that can be pursued in that regard. Governments of all hues have made a decision in regard to child benefit. Perhaps when the current three year child benefit programme has run its course we will consider rationalising child dependant allowances into a single higher allowance. I also support amendment No. 31.
We considered the issue of infancy payments in recent years. However, given the major commitment in regard to increases in child benefit, it was felt that providing major increases over a three year period, two of which are almost implemented, would be a significant input into the cost of child rearing. I accept other countries have an infancy payment. We have something similar following multiple births but not in regard to other births. Perhaps the issue could be considered when the current round of child benefit increases next year. There is a commitment to an increase in child benefit during the lifetime of the national anti-poverty strategy review which is up to 2007. There is a significant additional cost over and above the cost already indicated in the three year plan.
On the rationalisation of child dependant allowance, it was agreed by the previous Government and by me that it would be better to put whatever resources are available into child benefit because there was no incentive to work or indeed to get married in providing money by way of child benefit. However, the loss of child dependant allowance for anyone taking up work or getting married would have significant implications, particularly for people who are less well off. The rationale to continue to fund child support through the route of child benefit is more realistic in assisting children out of poverty. Perhaps the issue could be looked at again when the current round is finished. The NAPS review extends the existing commitment to 2007.
On child dependant allowance for children up to 22 years of age who are in full-time education, we have gone some way in this regard. I would like to think that in the next budget and before the PPF runs out the gap will be closed in that respect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 32, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 8, after line 45, to insert the following:
"10.–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 introduction of a parental leave benefit to be funded from the social insurance fund.".
I remind the Minister on his final flurry through the House on social welfare issues of a key failure of his Administration to introduce parental leave benefit. This side of the House was very angry before Christmas when the social insurance fund was raided to balance the Government's books in a phoney and unfair way because citizens and workers had paid into the social insurance fund over many years. This was unfair action on the part of the Minister, Deputy McCreevy. There was a great deal of scope before the end of this Administration to bring forward paid parental leave. It is the policy of the Labour Party as enunciated at our previous party conference in Cork city that, if we have any influence on the next Government, one of the first items on our agenda will be to bring forward paid parental leave.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions rightly criticised the previous budget for its failure to initiate a simple parental leave payment, even on the basis of a few days a year. The Minister has failed to do this. I have examined his record and I do not wish to be unfair to him. He will probably be remembered for the decision he took on pre-1953 contributions which was an important advance and for which he deserves commendation. However, he had the opportunity to come forward with another series of innovations, one of which would have been paid parental leave. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions and major trade union bodies in the public and private sec tors are upset that he did not deliver on this issue. The Taoiseach certainly gave some indications that he was going to do something about it, but the Minister's time has passed and, unfortunately, it will be up to the next Government.
If a Government is genuinely concerned about family friendly policies, it must provide the money for them. While the law allows parents to take parental leave, no benefit attaches to it. If one's income is substantial, one can afford to take that leave, but people on modest incomes cannot. As Deputy Broughan rightly said, there must be a benefit through the social insurance fund to allow such people take parental leave.
What is the current surplus in the social insurance fund after the raid of last December? There is scope in the fund for this initiative. The money belongs to employers and employees who put it into the fund. It is the very least they can demand at critical times. Issues such as the birth of a child, when a child is sick or when it is necessary to take extended time off work to be with a child should be central if we are concerned about family friendly policies.
The phrase "family friendly policies" is often just a buzz word to indicate policies which mean nothing to people working and struggling to cope with rearing children and all its attendant difficulties. A modern economy which makes a contract with people must have at the centre of that contract flexibility in allowing parents time off to be with their children at various times in their lives. The way to do that is to have a State benefit and that should be funded through contributions to the social insurance fund. I agree with Deputy Broughan that we should have made much more progress on this. I accept parental leave can be taken, but unless benefit attaches to it, people on modest incomes will not be able to afford to take that time off work.
We are going to have an issue in 15 years' time or so because of the increasing disincentives to having children brought about by the way the tax code has been administered and radically changed through tax individualisation by the Minister's colleague. One of the incentives we need to include in the social welfare code is this benefit which will provide some flexibility for parents who want to take time off work at various times in the development of their child or children. Unless there is some monetary value attached to that, it will not happen and the hassle and pressure in family life will continue to grow.
It is one of the failures of the current Administration in this area. The Minister has not developed family friendly codes and he is responsible for family policy. This is the area in which he could have done most. Unfortunately, in five years he has not delivered in this area.
I support this amendment because I am in favour of anything that supports the family, and this amendment clearly does that. If a woman takes maternity leave, is her employer obliged to pay her for that or is it a voluntary payment?
On what Deputy Hayes said about the financial incentive to have children, I do not imagine that either his or my parents kept an eye on whether there would be financial benefits in having children or having more than they had. Much of what I hear these days is mainly from women who are no longer in a position to bear children who ask me why they cannot get back money in respect of the huge increases in child benefit and who say they had children too early in their lives.
I feel a manifesto commitment coming on.
The surplus in the social insurance fund was estimated to be €1.287 billion at the end of the year.
Everyone is in favour of paid parental leave and it is not just a great Labour Party proposal. This has been the subject of intense deliberation by a working group set up under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and its report will be issued soon. It is true to say there was no agreement among any of the participants as to how this issue could be dealt with. I take it from what Deputies Broughan and Hayes said that they are in favour of a social welfare based payment, but there is a strong argument that parental leave should be paid by employers. Perhaps Deputy Broughan, who never appears to be in favour of the employers, should take up that cudgel and rather than placing the burden on the social insurance fund which exists for the rainy days and the time when—
—we might not be able to afford the benefits. The more that comes out of it, the less there will be ultimately. Perhaps it is better to insist on parental leave being paid by employers rather than it coming out of the social insurance fund. That has not been decided upon, so there are major policy decisions relating to this issue.
On the point raised by Deputy McCormack, I understand there is the basic maternity benefit and, if employers want to pay additional money to their employees in that respect, that is a matter for them.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 11, to delete lines 19 to 22.
I am willing to withdraw this amendment but I am not sure if Deputy Broughan wants to continue. I had proposed to delete the words but we had a discussion on this and I accept the argument the Minister made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 13, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"16.–The Minister shall report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the implications of enabling adopted persons to have a right of access to information relating to their identity.".
The Minister indicated his strong support for this type of amendment. He said we need to have comprehensive legislation in relation to registrations. It is an issue that comes up occasionally, particularly through an organisation called the Irish Adopted People's Association. There is a feeling, particularly among the older membership of the association, that they have an absolute right to their own identity, particularly in relation to medical matters and genetic-type disorders which people can only be aware of if they are aware of their ancestry. I accept their view that the right to one's identity is a fundamental human right.
I tabled this amendment because of the significant reference to registration, amounting almost to a mini Bill, at the end of this Bill. It is something the House should address at some stage, particularly in light of the fact that in recent years Irish couples have adopted children from other parts of Europe and the wider world. Each of those children should have a fundamental right to go back to their native place, family and clan at some stage in their lives and find out exactly who they are. The Minister indicated support for this but I raise it again as something we should address at some stage.
I support this amendment. Does it cover the situation where a child is registered in the mother's name and subsequently the parents of that child get married? The current situation is that the child cannot be registered in the father's name if the child is already registered in the mother's name—
That is in amendment No. 47.
I will wait for amendment No. 47 then, if we reach it.
The issue in relation to access to information, particularly in relation to adopted persons, is dealt with under proposed legislation. A Bill is currently being prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel and will be approved by Government and published. That Bill is primarily within the remit if the Department of Health and Children. I support the sentiments expressed by the Deputies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 38 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 18, to delete lines 45 to 55 and substitute the following:
"
|
6Section 50
|
Substitute the following for all of the words beginning with ‘and every person' to the end of that provision:‘and a person shall be entitled–
|
|
|
|
(a) to search those indexes in the form and manner, at the times and on payment of the fee or fees prescribed by the Minister for Health and Children in regulations made under section 4 (as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002) of the Vital Statistics and Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1952, and
|
|
|
|
(b) to obtain a certified copy of an entry or entries in those registers (other than the information specified in paragraphs 2(c), (h) and (l) of the Schedule (as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002) to the Registration of Births Act, 1996, or in paragraph 2(e) of the Fourth Schedule (inserted by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002) to the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland), 1880) on payment of a fee of €5.08 in respect of each certified copy.”.
|
".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 20, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"
|
7Section 32
|
Repeal section 32.
|
".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 45 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 20, to delete line 27 and substitute the following:
"(b) date and place of birth;”.
I thank the Irish Council of Genealogical Organisations which has given me a great deal of advice on these matters. They are very detailed and intricate matters and, as I said earlier, legislation in this area goes back to the 1840s and 1860s as the Minister is aware. There is quite an amount of tidying up to be done when the Bill comes before the House.
What I refer to here are amendments to the death certificate register. I propose to insert the date and place of birth as well as marriage status, name and occupation of the person's spouse and I am asking the Minister to consider inserting a surname at birth of a married, widowed or divorced woman. I will set out why I think we should make those amendments to the death certificate register as outlined in Part V of the Bill.
It is important that we link the birth and death certificates. Without having the date and place of birth on the death certificate we are making a difficult situation more confusing for people who wish to find out where they and their relations are from. I ask the Minister at this late stage to consider this amendment. It has been put to me by people who are working in genealogy that it is an important amendment, not only because it links the birth and death certificates and makes it easier for people to find the information they are looking for but also because this explicit refer ence exists in death certificates in Northern Ireland.
There could be an argument made about greater harmonisation between North and South and equally that we should be trying to achieve one registration regime throughout the island of Ireland in terms of genealogy. The Minister is well versed in North-South co-operation in his constituency and I put it to him that the insertion I am trying to make here is exactly the same insertion that is in the Northern Ireland registration Acts which go back to 1973. Most of our legislation goes back well before that.
Since the introduction of the Vital Statistics and Birth, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1952, parties to a marriage are required to record on the civil record of their marriage their dates of birth. In this they are not given an option. The Minister provides an option in the Schedule to this Bill. The option, as I understand it, is the date of birth or the age. That is not given in the 1952 Act where no option exists between date of birth or age.
In relation to amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43, at the moment if one wants to get a death certificate, one must attach the notification from the newspaper to the application. A widow must send a newspaper notice to the office in order to get the death certificate and I am aware of cases which have arisen where proof required swearing an oath that the said person is the spouse or next of kin and is entitled to the death certificate. Some clearing up needs to be done here. The Council of Irish Genealogical Organisations makes the argument that death registration in future should record a deceased person's place and date of birth and the surname at birth of a married, widowed or divorced woman. This is the only way to ensure that, in future, having searched the index, members of the public will be able to locate the record of death that they require. Returning to the Minister's earlier amendments, he argued for easier access. By putting more information in the death certificate, we will help people make those links along the way.
Regarding the deceased's marital status, I am led to believe the proposed details to be recorded in future would cause nothing but confusion. Currently a deceased's marital status is recorded but this Bill proposes to record only the occupation of a deceased spouse. The occupation may be an important statistic for the Government but it is of vital public interest that death records clearly record whether the deceased was married, widowed or divorced. Given the changes that have occurred in society, I emphasise that this is updating existing law. I know the Minister's argument in this respect. He is putting in place a new public service number allowing easier access for his Department and all the Departments of State, which I welcome, but equally we must acknowledge that there are people trying to track down long lost family or friends who have a right to this information. We have to make it as user friendly and accessible as possible. We have to put the right information in the certificates to ensure there is a link from birth to death.
The Minister has accepted amendment No. 45 concerning marital status but more needs to be done, even at this late stage. If the Minister undertakes to re-examine this matter in the Seanad I would be prepared to accept that. We are setting standards for the future and we have to get them right. It would have been better if the committee had hearings on this issue, but it could not do so because the Minister stitched it on at the end. I know why he did so and I am not opposing that but we should not rush this matter. If the Minister gives me a commitment to re-examine the arguments I have made in relation to amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 for the debate in the Seanad I will look upon that in a sympathetic way.
We have looked at this matter and we received representations from the society. The view both from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Department of Health and Children, under whose aegis the general registration office operates, was that the capture of the information relating to the date and place of birth of the deceased person and the surname at birth of the married, widowed or divorced woman is not necessary.
The Deputy referred to the experience in Northern Ireland but there they do not have the PPS number or universal identifier. Ultimately, the purpose of the PPS system is to ensure that all life events are linked, so to impose more requirements to link birth and death on one certificate would complicate the issue. That information will be readily available however because the PPS will link all the life events of a particular person. The advice to me is that that is not necessary.
As regards the issue of marital status, that was an oversight on our behalf and we have agreed to accept amendment No. 45. The occupation of the deceased person as a parent or guardian is dealt with in amendment No. 46.
That is changing it from singular to plural.
Yes, changing "parent" to "parents". As regards giving details of death, I am told that the Deputy is confusing a late registration of death which requires proof of death, such as a newspaper notice. It would not be required, in the normal course of events, to produce the notice from the paper.
The PPS, the famous new number the Minister is introducing, is a welcome development but not everyone will have access to it. It will be accessible from the Minister's Department, every other Department and presumably also through the registrars. There is an inconsistency in the law, however, because of the distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic registrations. Am I right in saying that the PPS number will only apply to Departments?
Yes. Genealogists will not have the PPS.
That is the point I am making. Therefore, the new information I am trying to get on this will be of huge benefit to non-departmental people working in this area. Without access to computerisation, which the Minister's Department will have, and rightly so, it will be even more difficult. Other legal issues arise. I have been informed that some question marks have been raised about Irish death certificates which have a dubious international reputation because they lack an amount of detail contained on such certificates issued in other parts of the world. I am not sure how valid that claim is but it does not seem to be good international practice if Irish death certificates lack information that such certificates from other countries contain.
As regards the Deputy's point on linking, which would be of benefit to genealogists, the system will be totally computerised and that will make the issue of following family trees easier than it has been up to now. Given that fact, there will be no need to complicate the issue of linking birth and death on one certificate. It is something that we will look at, however. We are trying to bring forward amendments that will allow us to roll out the system. I will look at this matter between now and the Seanad debate. To be honest, however, I cannot see how it can be accommodated in any other way.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 43 has been discussed with amendment No. 41.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 20, to delete line 29 and substitute the following:
"(d) surname at birth of a married, widowed or divorced woman;”.
I ask the Minister to look at this amendment again.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 44, 48, 49 and 50 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 20, to delete line 30.
I intend to withdraw this amendment and the other two. I want to make the general point, however, that in some of these areas I am inclined to side with the Minister as regards information. I have made a point about the rights of adopted people to their identity but it is important also that some concession is made to people's privacy. The largest genealogical collection in the world is held by the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City, Utah. As part of its religious beliefs that church has compiled a massive genealogical database.
This massive body of information was compiled with the intention of baptising all the ancestors into the Mormon Church. Nonetheless, a balance must be struck between privacy and the necessities of genealogical research. I would be inclined to support the Minister on some of these amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 45 has been discussed with amendment No. 41.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 20, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(f) marital status;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 20, line 32, to delete "parent or guardian" and substitute "parent(s) or guardian(s)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 21, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
|
“1Section 1
|
(a) Substitute the following for subsection (4):‘(4)(a) Where a birth, the registration of which–
|
|
|
|
(i) took place on or after 1 October 1997 and before the coming into operation of section 16 and Item 1 of Part 6 of the Schedule to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, or
|
|
|
|
(ii) takes place after the coming into operation of section 16 and Item 1 of Part 6 of the Schedule to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, is being re-registered under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, the surname of the child shall be–
|
|
|
|
(I) that which has been so registered, or(II) subject to subsection (3) of this section, the surname jointly agreed by the mother and father of the child.
|
|
|
|
(b) Subject to subsection (4A) of this section, a birth which has been re-registered under any of the enactments specified in subsection (2) of this section may not be further re-registered under the enactment concerned.
|
|
|
|
(4A) Where a birth, the registration of which took place on or after 1 October 1997, has been re-registered under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) of this section before the commencement of section 16 and Item 1 of Part 6 of the Schedule to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, an tArd-Chláraitheoir may, on the joint application of the mother and father of the child, made in the form for the time being approved by the Minister for that purpose, authorise a second re-registration of the birth under the relevant enactment for the purpose of changing the surname of the child to a surname, subject to subsection (3) of this section, jointly agreed by the mother and father of the child.'.
|
|
|
|
(b) In subsection (6), substitute ‘father of the child or, where applicable, the surname of the child re-registered in accordance with subsection (4)(a)(II) or (4A) of this section' for ‘father of the child'.”.
|
This issue was raised by Deputy McCormack earlier and on Committee Stage. We had intended to bring forward this amendment before Committee Stage but we did not have an opportunity to do so. It provides for a change in the arrangements for re-registration of a birth.
I support the amendment and thank the Minister for bringing it forward.
Acting Chairman
As it is now 11 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and agreed to.
