Amendments No. 2 is related to amendment No. 1 and both may be taken together by agreement.
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1;
In page 3, line 27, to delete "16” and substitute “19”.
These are technical amendments in the main consequential on the acceptance on Committee Stage of an amendment to provide for the introduction of an habitual residence test for social assistance schemes and child benefit. Amendment No. 1 provides that sections 1 to 19, in conjunction with the Social Welfare Act 2003, shall be read together as one. This alteration is consequential on the insertion of a new section 17 on Committee Stage and also, pending their acceptance on Report Stage, on two further amendments inserting new sections 18 and 19.
Amendment No. 2 provides that section 17 in addition to those sections amending the Pensions Act shall come into effect on such day or days as I determine by ministerial order.
The amendments are consequential on the new section 17 being agreed and we are not happy with the habitual residence test and so on. A number of these restrictions will eventually come before the European Court of Justice because they are excessive, alarmist and pre-emptive and there is no basis for the suggestion that the accession of ten new EU member states will lead to an influx of social welfare claimants to Ireland. Social welfare payments are much lower in many other countries than in Ireland and the opposite is also true but it has not led to a major influx or outflow of people to claim social welfare and this suggestion cannot be sustained through objective empirical analysis.
Approximately 5 million out of a total of 350 million EU citizens reside in other member states. Less than 2% of the EU's working population comprises people from one state working in another.
The free movement of workers provisions were drawn up in order to open European labour markets to all EU workers. This included the right to equal treatment in working conditions and the social and economic integration of the migrant worker and his or her family. The Minister stated that people may come here to work, but the essence of the matter is that people who come here to work are allowed to work. We have not covered ourselves in glory with our work permit policy, which has been little more than an ad hoc policy. It left a lot to be desired. It created the perception that people did not want to work, whereas it was impossible for some to get the right of residency. I have a case of a couple, now both in their sixties, living and working and paying contributions for the past 16 years, where the husband has the right of residency, but his wife has been refused that right. There is no logic to that.
Entitlement to benefit is predicated on the number of contributions, for example one needs five years PRSI contributions to avail of dental benefit, which is causing a great deal of angst. The public believe we have failed to address the issue of entitlements. People, especially those with conditions such as asthma and inflammatory bowel disease, feel aggrieved about the drugs refund scheme, which has not been reviewed since 1975. May I signal to the Minister and her colleague the Minister for Health and Children that these issues will have to be dealt with?
The quid pro quo for opening the goods and services market to member states was the creation of a Single Market. On Committee Stage, we debated the treaty of accession with the ten applicant states which was signed in Athens on 16 April 2003 and the transitional measures for each applicant country. As far as I could see in the annexe documents to the accession treaty, the free movement of workers was identical. The rule was that by way of derogation from Community law for a two-year period from the day of accession, the current member states will apply national measures or those resulting from bilateral agreements on regulating access to the labour markets by nationals of the new states. The Minister is relying on that provision.
The current member states may continue to apply such measures until the end of a five-year period following the date of accession and a member state maintaining such national measures or measures resulting from bilateral agreements at the end of the five-year period may, in case of serious disturbance of its labour market or threat thereof, and after notifying the Commission, continue to apply these measures until the end of a seven-year period following the date of accession. I argued the point that the Minister was being pre-emptive. The numbers do not stack up. The transitional measures were without prejudice to more favourable measures resulting from bilateral agreements. The Minister will argue that it is a more favourable measure. Not only will we not rely on the five or seven-year derogation, we will not put in place a two-year derogation. We have a right to introduce restrictions at any stage. In the context of a proper policy on work permits, it is fair to warn people of the regime they will face. The free movement of workers and employees, the right to establish and the freedom to provide services by the self-employed amount to a right to be treated in the same way as Irish nationals to enter the State and reside here and to exercise economic activities under the same conditions as Irish nationals. The basic principle is one of non-discrimination.
I do not wish to curtail debate, but I do not want a Second Stage debate.
Especially when this amendment has nothing to do with it.
This is a technical amendment, but it is consequential on section 17. Is that not right?
It is consequential. It is changing section 17.
Section 17 deals with the provisions for habitual residence.
Yes.
That is a very significant change
All I am dealing with is the technical part.
However, if we accept this amendment, we accept section 17. We are not happy with the way section 17 is framed.
It prepares the ground.
It prepares the ground. I will take the guidance of the Chair and I appreciate the point. However, I wanted to signal that the measure is pre-emptive and unnecessary at this time. The Minister has put her arguments and I am making my argument again.
I appreciate the points the Deputy is making. I will come back later on the issues arising in section 17.
We have had a fruitful discussion on the habitual residence test and I hope that after Question Time yesterday, we were able to clarify the concerns expressed by Members, particularly on the eligibility of Irish expatriates. I have been advised by the Attorney General that the test is legal. I am introducing an habitual residency test which is a permanent inclusion in the social welfare code. As I indicated, I will issue guidelines on the determination of the two-year residency but each person will be dealt with individually on a case-by-case basis and it will be up to people to prove otherwise. We do not know how many people will be involved. Based on the changes by my colleagues in the EU and in particular by the British Government, I was left with no choice but to introduce some restrictions on access to the social welfare system to ensure it will not become overburdened.
It is very important that workers have free access to the economy. There has been no change in Government policy on access to the labour market by people from the accession countries. It is important that we say to people that they are more than welcome to come to Ireland to seek work, and if they wish to reside here, they are welcome. However, they must satisfy an habitual residency test in order to be entitled to social assistance and child benefit schemes. I have been fair and reasonable. I have been asked if this will be challenged in the courts, but I cannot answer that.
I did not speak on this earlier because we will be addressing the issue later. Yesterday on Question Time I raised a question about returning Irish emigrants. I hope that the guidelines will be quite clear that Irish people who were born and reared here but are now returning having had to emigrate for one reason or another, will be protected and that their children will be protected and that no obstacles will be put in their way. Is this legislation constitutional? Will there be a challenge to the Irish Government in the European Court of Justice? That is a question I cannot answer. The Minister and I spent a day in a certain place. I assure the Minister that it will not be me who will take the case. There is a question mark over this however.
Britain has not gone as far as we have. It has confined its provisions to the ten countries adopting EU membership in May. As the Minister tells us, our legislation covers all member states as one cannot discriminate. The provision must be for everyone or for nobody, which is a position I respect. Irish taxpayers do not want people coming here to abuse our social welfare system. The thousands of people in this city who leave for work at 6 a.m. and do not return home until 9 p.m. do not see their families before the weekend. They work hard and they do not want to see the tax money they pay to the State abused. However, there are many who want to come to this country to work and there is a need for them.
Not so long ago, the Tánaiste went to America and countries all over the world to ask Irish emigrants to return to fill the jobs which needed to be filled. It is important that we protect the right of free movement. While people who want to come here to begin a new life should be protected, I agree to an extent with the Minister in that we do not want to see our social welfare system abused by anybody. We must make sure Irish citizens and their Irish born children are protected when it comes to child benefit. If there is a problem in the future, I hope the Minister will deal with it quickly. We do not want a scenario to develop in which returned emigrants are deprived of social welfare benefits due to legislation passed in this House and directives from the Minster's Department. We cannot allow that to happen.
The House has agreed that this will be addressed at a later stage. I am not excluding anybody.
It is touch and go whether it will be reached.
We have lost an entire hour.
If we can move on, it will be reached.
It is on that basis I wish to contribute at this stage. I apologise, but the Committee of Public Accounts is sitting at the moment. I am grateful the Committee of Procedures and Privileges has cancelled its noon meeting.
The two technical amendments under discussion presuppose that the House will approve subsequent amendments. They are very important. While the debate has touched on the idea of a two-year residency requirement, it is amendment No. 20, to which amendment No. 2 refers, which contains the substantive provision. That provision falls to be discussed by the House for the first time only on Report Stage. If the debate follows the groupings of amendments, it is likely it will not be discussed in any substantial manner before 3.30 p.m. While I do not accuse the Minister of any sharp practice of the sort which would more likely be engaged in by her ministerial colleagues, the idea that a Report Stage amendment will not be formally discussed before forming part of the legislation is horrendous. I fear the principle might begin to be used on a more regular basis. I am thinking in this regard of the conduct of the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, ironically.
Rather than refer to procedural matters which are not germane, the Deputy should focus on the Bill.
This matter is important. We have limited time for Report Stage and the two essential elements of the Bill are contained in amendments subsequent to and including amendment No. 18. Those elements are the two-year residency requirements. There are several important issues which will be discussed in detail before we get to those amendments. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 offer the only guaranteed opportunity Members will have to discuss in any substantive manner amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
The Chair can only deal with the amendments it has been agreed to discuss. I am not trying to be obstructive, I am trying to facilitate speedy debate.
I ask for some guidance on the groupings. While amendments Nos. 1 and 2 refer to different sets of motions, the Minister must recognise that it is unlikely we will get to the substantive issues. Particularly on Report Stage amendments, there are some of us who wish to see an issue debated in the House before a vote on the Bill, despite the briefings we have had as spokespersons.
I ask the Minister for a brief comment.
Deputy Boyle would like to get to sections 17 and 18 quickly. Perhaps, we should motor on and attempt to get there, at which point we could have the discussion.
There is no guarantee that will happen.
If we stopped talking, we might get there.
The Chair is trying to facilitate the movement of the debate.
The problem is that the amendments must be discussed in order for the process to be legal. Amendment No. 2 might be pre-emptive in many ways but that is the advice I have been given by the Bills Office. This is the way the Stage must be conducted.
Yesterday, I had to sit in on Report Stage of the Finance Bill, which reached only amendment No. 8. Several hours more were available for that debate than for this. On those grounds, I fear we will not reach the substantive motion.
If we take the amendments as presented and move on reasonably speedily, there is every likelihood we will.
I record my reservations. The House will excuse my spasmodic appearance over the next few hours. I have to practice tri-location.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 31, to delete "20 and 21” and substitute “17, 22 and 23”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, between lines 2 and 3 to insert the following:
2.—The Minister shall within 6 months from after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the rent supplement scheme.".
The Labour Party wishes to be as helpful as possible to ensure the core issues of the Bill are discussed and the important amendments reached. Some of my colleagues have said I may have gone somewhat overboard in attacking the Minister during the detailed Committee Stage debate on rent supplement and SWA circular 05/03. The Minister stated clearly that her understanding was that anybody on the housing list would not lose out on rent supplement. While that represents a movement from the original proposal, it is only relevant if the Department works in tandem with the local authority and the community welfare officer. However, that is not the case. I have received further correspondence in recent days from concerned constituents and I have spoken to senior officials in the housing authority.
If a person has not already been renting for at least six months, he or she cannot receive rent supplement unless his or her local authority determines he or she is homeless or in housing need. The critical issue is the manner in which "housing need" is defined. We require clarification and agreement among local authorities, the Minister of State and the Minister. Any 25 year old will aspire to establishing an independent life for himself or herself and his or her family. If lone parents living at home with their parents aspire to establishing a home of their own, they should be eligible for inclusion on the housing list. As far as the local authorities, particularly Fingal County Council, are concerned, if the lone parent is deemed to have suitable accommodation in the family home, the person is ineligible for the housing list.
People are discriminated against and prevented from inclusion on the housing list. This must be dealt with. There is no point in the Minister telling me that everything is fine and that those on the housing list are eligible for rent supplement. When the local authority deems a person to be adequately housed in the family home, there is no way for community welfare officers to deal with this.
If one refuses two social housing offers, even if they are unsuitable, one is removed from the housing list and will be ineligible for rent supplement. My constituency runs from Balbriggan in the north to Dublin 15 in the south. In it, there are lone parents on the housing list who hope to re-enter the workplace. Many of them have to start with jobs that provide a relatively low income. The benefit of family support is important as members can look after a child while the mother works. If a person living in Balbriggan near the family network refuses the offer of social housing in Dublin 15 it is deemed to be a refused offer. If the person refuses a second offer she will be taken off the list. Being taken off the list means the individual will not be eligible for rent supplement. I have recommended that people do not accept houses in certain areas until such time as the local authorities and the Department provide the necessary infrastructure in the area. It is a matter of concern that people are taken off the list for refusing offers.
The amendment suggests that the Minister gives a report to the House of the operation of the rent supplement scheme within six months. This must be done and I hope the Minister agrees to it.
This is a straightforward and reasonable amendment and I am sure the Minister will agree to it. It simply seeks that a report be made available to the House six months after the introduction of these new regulations.
There is another aspect of the scheme that I would like to bring to the Minister's attention and I hope she will be able to include it in the report when it comes before the House, namely, anti-social behaviour by tenants on rent supplement. If a tenant in a local authority house is proven to have engaged in anti-social behaviour, the person can be evicted. However, a tenant in receipt of rent supplement can carry on in any way he or she likes and the health board has no authority to withdraw the supplement. Section 16 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 allows the health board to use its discretion in withdrawing supplementary welfare allowance or rent mortgage interest for private housing in the case of a person evicted, excluded, removed or refused social housing. This is the only way in which this can be done.
The housing list in most local authority areas is now five to seven years long and people on it qualify for rent supplement. In a minority of these cases, they engage in anti-social behaviour in private accommodation. The neighbours have no recourse to redress. The landlord will only laugh at their complaints — he is happy as long as his rent is paid. If the rent supplement were stopped for a period because of anti-social behaviour the landlord would soon deal with the matter.
The amendment does not commit the Minister to an additional financial burden and I am sure she will accept it. It will allow us to see how the new arrangements are working out. In the report she will make to the House, I would like the Minister to refer to what she intends to do about the isolated cases of anti-social behaviour of people in receipt of rent supplement. The health boards advise complainants to contact the Garda as it must continue to pay the supplement. Irrespective of the behaviour of recipients, legislation does not provide a mechanism to reduce or withhold rent supplement. The same rules should apply to those in receipt of the supplement as apply to tenants in local authority housing. If a person living in a local authority house is proven to have been involved in anti-social behaviour, the person's tenancy can be terminated.
This is one of the savage 16 measures the Minister signed into law in January. Like many other cutbacks, it is creating a major problem for many people. As I said to the Minister on Committee Stage, a lady in my constituency who is a lone parent was living with her parents in a three-bedroomed house. There was another boy and girl in the house and the girl was doing the leaving certificate. This lady approached a social welfare officer who told her to find a property and she would be provided with rent supplement. When she went back to the health board, a different man who covered a different area had different rules and regulations in regard to the matter. However, the issue has since been sorted out. The young girl who was doing her leaving certificate was sharing a bedroom with her 19 year old sister and her baby.
There are anomalies in the system. The Minister is saying rent supplement is costing taxpayers €330 million. She will say that this was intended to be a short~term supplement for people, particularly for single people. The reason so many people are using the rent supplement is because there are 48,000 people on the housing list. I agree with the Minister that if the €330 million was given to local authorities they could build the houses. However, this will not happen, and there is no point pretending it will. More and more people will be coming onto the housing list. The local authorities cannot build a sufficient number of houses to deal with this increase because the funding is not in place.
This measure was badly thought out by the Minister and the Department. According to the media, some officials in the Department had concerns about the issue. The local authorities had concerns also. The Minister of State with responsibility for housing who had major concerns about it said he had not been consulted by anyone. The Minister said she spoke to the senior Minister who has responsibility for housing. Prior to cutting back rent supplement, the Minister should have ensured there were sufficient houses for people who need to be housed. If she did so, we would not have half the problems regarding rent supplement. Deputy Ryan and I disagree on this aspect. People say there is abuse of the system. I have often been critical of the Minister's Department but I must compliment the staff on the ground who saved taxpayers €300 million last year in fraudulent claims. Anyone who frauds the social welfare system is taking the money out of the pockets of taxpayers and social welfare recipients who need the money.
People who have been abusing the rent supplement system have never been prosecuted by the Minister. Anyone who abuses the system should be prosecuted. This is a serious matter, because there is a major problem in regard to housing. Some people would like to live with their parents if they received some assistance from local authorities to provide extra accommodation and if they were not penalised by the social welfare system. Some parents may be concerned that their social welfare benefits may be affected, therefore, they are anxious to send their children out into the world at 18 or 19 years of age. These people find it difficult to live in rented accommodation while on social welfare benefits. These people receive €134 plus an allowance of approximately €19 for a child. It is not a massive amount of money to live on, even though some members of the public think that lone parents abuse the system. They do not abuse the system. There are people who defraud the social welfare system but they are a different category. There are people on social welfare who need to be on it.
I ask the Minister to look again at the rent supplement aspect which is causing problems for people. Deputy Ryan's amendment proposes that the Minister should lay a report on the operation of the rent supplement scheme before both Houses of the Oireachtas. She has already said to the voluntary groups that she will monitor the situation and come back to the issue if there are any teething problems. The Chairman of the committee, Deputy Penrose, has agreed to bring back these groups who will tell us what they are finding on the ground. As practising politicians, we will be the first to learn about the issues. We are already hearing about the anomalies. The Minister will save €57 million on the savage 16 measures, but there is a large surplus of money currently in the coffers. Saving just €57 million is creating problems for the Minister, the Department and for politicians. I can account for €45 million spent last year on programme managers and so on.
This amendment goes to the heart of everything that is wrong with the rent allowance system as operated by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The attack in this area began in last year's budget with the cap on rent allowance. I imagine if I were an official in the Department I would be saying it was a great stroke, it worked because all rents have been reduced. Despite what the Department believes or the information it is receiving, rents have not been reduced as a result of this measure. What has happened is that landlords are now signing documents indicating that they are charging less but, in fact, the poor misfortunates who are living on a pittance are paying more. Rents are still increasing on an annual basis. However, the Minister does not want to hear about it. She swans in and laughs about the whole thing. She does not understand as she has never been in that position, which is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that the Minister simply does not know the hardship she has created for others.
The section deals with discontinuing the rent allowance unless one is six months in private rented accommodation. As we all know, the homeless do not vote so why should the Minister worry about them? If they voted, they probably would not vote for Fianna Fáil. It is likely that more will be spent on research in an entire year than this Administration will spend this year on homelessness. The research indicates that homeless people do not vote, therefore, it does not matter how they are treated. They cannot get their revenge on politicians, including myself.
The most cynical thing I have seen in a long time was the Minister, colour co-ordinated, stating at a press conference that she will make €1 million available for family support measures. Why is she doing this? She is doing it because it is the UN Year of the Family. She did this, even though I stood up here on several occasions to tell her about the family in Cork she made homeless. That family will not benefit from the €1 million, but it helped to keep them in their accommodation. However, the Minister does not care. It is all about press conferences, the soft picture and the nice things in life, and please do not mention the horror stories or the awful things that happen to people as a result of budget cutbacks.
I do not blame the officials for this. Officials on the ground are phoning me desperately trying to figure out how to find a way round the problem. Like myself, they take the matter to heart. They meet the families on a daily basis. At the end of the day, the buck stops on the Minister's desk. When I said last week that I expected better from women, Deputy Cooper-Flynn replied that perhaps I expected too much. In this instance I have been gravely disappointed.
What if a person must leave home through circumstances such as family or neighbours' violence? What if emigrants, a group for whom we all feel so much, return from England and have to spend six months in private rented accommodation? Anyone who lives on lone parent allowance or unemployment assistance knows well that one either pays the rent or eats. The two cannot be done.
The guidelines for welfare officers are amazing. Paragraph 2.5 states that they have discretion:
These new provisions do not restrict the discretion given to health boards to award a supplement in any case where it appears to the board that the circumstances of the case so warrant.
However, paragraph 2.6 states:
Nevertheless, it is expected [it must be remembered that this is a case of someone having to answer to someone else] that the type of cases referred to in paragraph 2.5 should, by their nature, be exceptional and consequently the Department expects that the number of such cases should be minimal.
On the one hand, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs is telling the health boards to use their discretion and, on the other, that such discretion needs to be limited. Though I am probably wasting my energy, I appeal to the Minister to take a second look at this amendment. Her welfare officers have expressed concerns about this measure. The Minister should ask them what effect it is having on the ground and whether they feel they really have discretion.
In 2002 there was a 100% increase in the tenant contribution from €6 to €12 when before it was an 8% increase and a subsequent freezing of maximum rent ceilings. In 2003, as part of the savage 16 cuts on which the Labour Party has focused, this change to the rent supplement scheme was announced without any prior consultation. Organisations such as Threshold, Alone and the INOU have indicated to us that, while the rent supplement scheme was in need of reform, it did not need to be withdrawn in such a way without consultation.
The requirement to be accommodated for six months to qualify for rent supplement is unrealistic, arbitrary and unfair as it depends on circumstances. A person who has not rented for at least six months cannot avail of rent supplement unless the local authority determines that they are homeless, in housing need or meet certain narrow criteria. That is all right if there is joined-up Government with a number of agencies and Departments dealing with matters in a freeflowing manner. However, what happens if the system clogs up? Who determines the situation then? Are there emergency procedures in place that will ensure that a specific problem is addressed?
Up to 25% of rent supplement recipients are in receipt of unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit while another 25% are on supplementary welfare allowance payments. How can these individuals be expected to save for a rental deposit if it is six months' rent in advance?
The other major change to the system is the 30 hour limit. If one person in a couple works 30 hours or more, both are ineligible for rent supplement. No matter how low the wages, how uncertain the post, how high the market rents in the locality or the number of dependants in the household, if a spouse works more than 30 hours a week, the rent supplement is denied. This is an unemployment trap for the individuals involved. The thrust of social policy should be to get away from unemployment traps and smooth the path and the process of getting into gainful employment.
Take the case of a couple — Mary and John — who have no children, live in the Eastern Regional Health Authority area and are in receipt of UA payments. If Mary takes up a job for 29 hours that pays the minimum rate of €7 per hour, the household income is €254.65. However, if John works for 30 hours, their weekly income would be down to €88.65 because the ERHA's maximum rent supplement is €178. That highlights the difference from going from 29 hours to 30 hours. The Minister may not think this is relevant. However, if a man with a dependent spouse and four children is offered a full-time job for 39 hours a week at €380 per week, the family subsequently is ineligible for rent supplement which results in the household income being less than €150 per week, even including the family income supplement top-up. How can anyone survive on that amount of money? If that man's wages were below €370, he would be able to keep his secondary benefits, including rent supplement. This shows the income threshold for the retention of these benefits is unrealistically low. These are real examples of how these measures will impact on people. They creep in like a thief in the night, envelop those affected and wipe out whatever hope and confidence they have. It leaves them in despair.
The community welfare officers, who do a good job of determining eligibility, know local circumstances and the individuals involved. This is why it is an area where there cannot be major problems of abuse. They evaluate the situation in a holistic way. Their ability to apply discretion and to ensure the humane application of the rules has been severely curtailed. The Minister points out in the circular that the rent supplement can be given in exceptional circumstance such as when a person becomes homeless. However, as Deputy Lynch has pointed out, it also stipulates that such exceptions should be minimal and each must be specifically reported to the Department. The new rules deny people in the throes of crisis and transition who need their accommodation situation resolved yesterday. Deputy Seán Ryan also referred to lone parents who are involuntarily living at home with elderly parents.
Only €57 million was saved by this measure. Every day the House adjourns, some other cut is announced. I pointed out the cutbacks for wardens yesterday. Every day a further calamity comes down the line curtailing people's ability to qualify for benefits. When one door opens, another slams shut. The eligibility criteria now ensure people are further restricted in claiming benefits. To review the rent supplement scheme in six months' time is a reasonable proposal. Many difficulties will arise for individuals on the ground. We will be the first port of call and, when we report, we will expect that these urgent and human situations will be addressed.
I support amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Seán Ryan. It is a good idea to revisit the rent supplement area again in six months' time. Ideally, it should be a shorter timeframe. By that stage we would have a picture of what is happening in the area.
The effects of the rent supplement are dreadful and profound. Only last week, I dealt with a case in my constituency of a Traveller woman who had eight young children. To make matters worse, as well as eight young children, she had an estranged and abusive husband who regularly came back to the halting site and the dilapidated caravan. That woman could not get housed because she was not homeless. When the matter was resolved because of the abusive husband, we eventually managed to find accommodation for her. It was a classic case of somebody being debarred because of the new regulation that one must rent for six months before receiving the rent supplement.
Community welfare officers do an excellent job in the main, but nobody would deny that their attitudes are hardened somewhat in some cases by the constant abuse and impoliteness from our constituents who, under immense pressure, go to them for financial help. Who would wonder at our people being impolite, given that their backs are to the wall and they cannot get roofs over their heads because of legislation that we have passed in this House? That legislation's consequences on community welfare officers are profound in some cases. Where will they get the funding to sustain all of the cases that will come before them? They do not have the protection that they had under the previous regulation, under which funding had to be made available for them. That is a very serious issue, and I look forward to a report coming before the House in six months' time to give us some indication of the atrocious effects of the regulation the House passed.
At the back of it all, the Minister is probably a civil person who would not necessarily be in favour of the regulation. I would like to hear the comments she would make on it if she were in Opposition. I have no doubt that she was sent out with the regulation by those right-wing ideologues who are led by the Minister for Finance. It is most unfortunate that the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, did not fight back harder to repel the efforts of the Minister for Finance on the regulation, and I hope that, in the near future, she will see fit to take him on and win.
A number of issues have been raised. Deputy Penrose mentioned lollipop ladies. I will write to all the county councils and tell them to advise the lollipop ladies of the implications of lump-sum holiday pay with regard to entitlement to unemployment benefit. One of the problems is that people do not understand the implications of it. If people at least knew what the situation was, they could make a choice. I will write to the county councils explaining the situation on behalf of such people.
Deputy McCormack raised anti-social behaviour, which has been discussed on a number of occasions. One of my problems is that, although CWOs administer schemes on my behalf, their role is only in the payment of the rent supplement and there is nothing attached to that rent supplement to indicate that those who receive it must show good behaviour.
There should be.
That can be considered, but one of the problems is that, as Deputy McCormack knows, we had enough difficulties making county councils responsible for rent supplement and it has taken many years to get this far. Associated with that is the problem that, in the main, landlords have not registered with county councils and are not up to standard. That is an issue that we will take further with them.
It is a different issue.
It is a fair and reasonable issue, and I will have to analyse it. I could not agree to attaching a condition to rent supplement, because I do not know what the implications would be. However, I will consider it for Deputy McCormack.
With regard to abuse of the rent supplement system, one of the problems is that the health boards which administer the system, do not access the Chief State Solicitor and prosecutions are not made. I have asked the officials to take legal advice and prepare whatever is necessary so that reforms might be introduced. This will be done in due course and I will take the other matter into consideration.
On determining housing need, at the end of the day I have to be advised by the local authorities which are the housing authorities and determine whether a person has a housing need. We have a number of issues with regard to people who stay at home. Sometimes people want to do that, and for some that is a good idea and is beneficial. If there is abuse or overcrowding, the housing authorities take that into consideration when determining what a housing need is. I am not particularly au fait with Fingal County Council. I know that it participated in our pilot programme, was superb and has been very progressive as a housing authority. There will be issues that need to be teased out with regard to determinations.
I agree with joined-up Government. At long last and for the first time, CWOs, environmental health officers and housing officers now work together. It has been decided that there will be one application form. I cannot determine that because I have no right to do so. The professionals themselves have come together and decided that. The application form will be the same for a rent supplement as it would be for a house.
That will ease the administration, which is important, and, once and for all, we will have a real view of people's long-term housing needs. I have noticed in all of my years in politics that a large part of the problem with people on rent supplement is the fact that they are considered to be adequately housed because they are in rented accommodation and consequently do not get priority over others who move into unsuitable accommodation to get points, for example. It has been detrimental that the long-term housing needs of those on rent supplement have not been dealt with.
In no way is our intention in introducing the changes to make people homeless. That will not happen.
It did.
I will come to Deputy Lynch finally.
I have had the opportunity to meet all the non-governmental organisations. I met the NGOs that did not participate in the Government's partnership process as well as those that are involved in it. I have met Members of this House individually and have met and discussed the issue with the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. I have listened to my parliamentary party and have received representations. The changes are not being made in isolation. They are being introduced hand in hand with an action programme of which I advised the House and which I and the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with responsibility for housing, Deputy Noel Ahern, will introduce. When we see the full picture, that will indicate the necessity for and the reasoning behind the changes. Once we have the opportunity to really address housing need, we will be able to work in tandem and for the betterment of those who rely on income support.
Deputy Penrose raised the definition of full-time work. It is a fair and reasonable point. I must be careful because we define full-time work as 19 hours under the family income supplement and 30 hours in other circumstances. I will evaluate the definition of full-time work because, as Deputy Penrose said, if someone works 29 hours, he or she is not in full-time work. The reason that we discuss such issues is so that we can revisit, amend, listen and change.
Members of all parties know I cannot accept amendment No. 3. It has been framed in the only way possible to allow us to discuss the issue. That is fair enough. I would do that myself if I was in Opposition. I have given an assurance to the NGOs, to the House and the members of the committee that I will be reviewing this on a continual basis. The information garnered by the relevant section of my Department will enable it to advise me of difficulties that will arise. My colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for housing through the local authority system, will also advise me on teething issues. There will be teething issues, but we will deal with them as quickly and appropriately as possible.
A number of issues have been raised in this House which must be challenged. I have been a Member of this House for 17 years, and I have never and would never say to any other Member that I did not understand his or her job. Nor have I ever said that another person, regardless of his or her political position, did not care about or understand an issue. Each one of us is entitled to express a fair opinion on behalf of his or her constituents and to make a valuable contribution to ensure that legislation, for example, is dealt with to the best of our ability.
Since I became a Minister, I have refrained from becoming involved in the attacks from certain members of the Labour Party, although not all of them. What I wear, how I look and my personality have absolutely nothing to do with anyone else.
I was not talking about the Minister's clothes.
The Deputy's leader had much to say about the way I react and the way I perform. I do not intend to change the way I am to suit somebody else.
So it was not the officials.
I am as sincere as any other Member of the House and I care as much as any other Member. I represent a constituency with the highest level of unemployment in Ireland, yet the Deputies think I do not understand what I am talking about. I do. Like every other Member, I have clinics and I meet people who are less well off. I have also worked for 18 years in local government so I understand and appreciate the implications of any changes I introduce here.
Then why make the changes?
It is easy to get a headline on the strength of one or two proposed changes. I would appreciate if Deputy Lynch would give me the background and information on the family of which she spoke. I am as approachable as any other Minister and when difficulties arise I like to deal with them on people's behalf.
One of the problems with the administration of the supplementary welfare allowance is that community welfare officers are given much flexibility. Such a system can never have uniform administration. That is the nature of the system. I have heard a number of colleagues in Kildare saying that one CWO will do this or give that while another will not. One must appreciate that the CWOs are given great powers under the regulations. Reading these regulations, a copy of which I forwarded to all Members for the first time, one can see that section 31 grants more power than has ever before been given to public servants. They have complete flexibility in making decisions. It is on that basis that I will not make changes.
I appreciate that there are people who do not fit into a particular box. How could they? That is the reason behind the introduction of the provisions for exceptional needs. It is the whole tenor of the system. Rightly or wrongly — in my view, rightly — people should still be entitled to that flexibility, and the CWOs will continue to have that flexibility. Everyone here will agree that these officers have a tremendously difficult job. Deputy Morgan spoke about people being under pressure, which is true. Not too many public servants can be seen out on a Saturday morning giving a cheque to someone who is stuck, but that is the nature of the work of CWOs. The flexibility is part of this.
People can also be over-flexible. I have seen this happen and I have expressed concerns about it to the CEOs of the health boards. Under no circumstances can I stand over exceptional needs payments being given to people to do forklift courses. It would be bad enough if there was only one case — if it was some kind of disaster — but when I examined the exceptional needs payments granted by Deputy Lynch's health board I nearly died. I have no problem with individual cases but I have a serious problem with my Department paying for forklift courses for 25 people. I must make sure these things do not happen. We must take account of individual circumstances and support people who are experiencing problems, but I cannot condone that kind of carry-on under the supplementary welfare scheme.
Somebody asked me how I was going to save money if there were to be so many exemptions. That is a good question. I have exempted people over 65 and those on disability allowance, invalidity pension and blind pension as well as anyone who is determined homeless under the relevant Acts. I have categorically stated on a number of occasions — the CWOs are acutely aware of this — that where there are difficulties, dysfunction, violence or issues arising from marital breakdown, these cases should be dealt with under section 31 and exemptions granted to the six-month rule. By the same token, anyone on a housing list——
That does not always work.
The Deputies should think about it. The impositions and changes will not create homelessness or result in undue hardship. Exemptions can be made for people under section 31 in terms of the six-month rule. I have been as fair and reasonable as possible. As I indicated to the House a number of times, I will be evaluating the circumstances, considering trends and ascertaining the impact of the changes.
We all agree that this will need to be done hand in hand with a new action programme. Equally, we all agree that this is not a housing programme. My Department does not provide houses. It is an emergency support system which, as Deputy Ring correctly stated, was introduced to look after single men but has expanded. It had to stop on the basis that we were supporting the problem rather than dealing with it. I hope that with greater co-operation with county councils, CWOs, environmental health officers and my Department, with better joined-up government and better analysis and support for people, we will have a more progressive way of dealing with people's housing needs.
If there are issues that need to be dealt with, Deputies should let me know. I need to know about these matters, as a public servant, if I am to be aware of the implications of these changes. I can be as fair and reasonable as anyone else when it comes to exceptions, of which there were several last year. Most of these came from the west, which was surprising. Exceptions were agreed on and it is right that I am advised of these so that I may use the information to ascertain the implications of any changes.
Although I cannot accept the amendment, I accept the spirit of the concerns expressed by Members. I will be reviewing and analysing trends and the implications of any changes that are made in the social welfare code, particularly on this issue, not just over six months but on a weekly basis.
I am disappointed the Minister is not accepting Deputy Seán Ryan's reasonable amendment. If the Minister had accepted that amendment we could end the debate straight away. There would be no need to say any more because we could say it all in six month's time. That is the reality of the situation. All the amendment proposed was for the Minister to come back before the House in six months so we can review the situation. It is the duty of the House to do that. The Minister may say she is fair and reasonable but I do not think the Minister is fair and reasonable in refusing to accept this amendment. If the Minister was fair and reasonable, she would have accepted the amendments. There is nothing to hide and she could return to the House in six months and go through all the points now being raised. Given the Minister did not accept the very reasonable amendment, we must now make the points today instead of in six months and prolong the debate further than necessary.
The Minister will exempt anybody declared homeless from this provision. I do not think that is the case.
No.
I know of a case in Galway where the anti-social behaviour of a parent who is a local authority tenant led to a court case and a prison sentence being imposed. The 22 year old daughter is minding the younger siblings and is being evicted from the house because of the anti-social behaviour of her mother. According to the regulations, that person cannot now go on a housing list and cannot get rent supplement.
I refer to a letter I received from Deputy Noel Ahern, Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with responsibility for housing. He states in the letter that section 16 of the Housing Act provides discretion to the health boards to withdraw supplementary welfare or rent mortgage interest supplement for private housing in the case of a person evicted, excluded or removed from a local authority house. A person removed from a local authority house cannot qualify for rent supplement.
I suggest that the easiest solution would be for the Minister to accept the reasonable amendment. The House should be allowed have a reasonable debate on this issue in six months. That is all Deputy Seán Ryan asks for in his amendment. I appeal to the Minister who is a reasonable person to accept the amendment and allow us to debate it in six months.
I support the last speaker. This affects more than families. I know of the case of a man in his 40s who was employed in a fairly good job. Just before Christmas he moved into private rented accommodation because he is in his 40s and should be living independently. Unfortunately at the end of January, he lost his job in the construction industry. He waited a month in the belief that things would pick up and then applied for rent allowance. As he had not been in private rented accommodation for the past six months, he was refused the rent allowance.
The Minister may try to divert attention with talk of forklift truck drivers but that is not the issue. I recognise the ploy which is a very good one. The ploy is to send out the message that the system is being abused, hand over fist, and that the Minister must personally take control of every issue. Unless in exceptional circumstances where only the Minister can do the job, it is ludicrous and ridiculous for anyone to have to go to any Minister with individual cases when the framework is there and the case can be dealt with at local level. Ministers are far too busy for that kind of thing. Ministers work very hard and that they work too hard for me to bring individual cases to their attention. The Minister's diversionary tactic of forklift truck drivers, whether it is true or not——
That is the truth. It happened in the Deputy's health board area.
——it does not resolve the issue of people who have been rendered homeless as a result of this measure. The reasonable amendment, which I believe is probably far too reasonable, tabled by Deputy Seán Ryan, is the least we can expect. The Minister has stated that she will do what the amendment proposes in any case. Why then does she not share it with the rest of us? That is all we are asking and no more. These diversionary tactics should not be used in this debate.
I do not think any of the vicious 16 cuts have caused more debate than this one. When this proposal was brought to our attention initially, it was never envisaged that people on the housing list would be covered. There has been much debate and movement on the issue. We are now debating the significant areas in which anomalies still exist. I hope the Minister will act as a consequence of this debate and not wait until the six months have elapsed to examine the situation in consultation with the people on the ground, to get the feedback and try to deal with the genuine cases. There are still anomalies that need to be dealt with. The Opposition Members such as Deputy Penrose and myself have exerted pressure. The Minister will say she has consulted Members on her side. I acknowledge there have been improvements. I hope that if some of the other issues which we have outlined can be dealt with, it will be a fair scheme. On that basis, I will withdraw the amendment. Will the Minister give a commitment that she will review the matter and will report back?
I made a promise on Committee Stage. I am aware of the committee's deliberations. I will look at this issue and it could be reconsidered on the basis of future announcements that will be made with regard to the housing action programme.
On a point of clarification, I thought I was entitled to speak only once on the amendment, is that correct?
The Minister may speak twice but she may speak three times on her own amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 9 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, 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 abolishing the means test for carer's allowance.".
I raised this matter and I am aware that the Minister is dealing with it by means of an interdepartmental group involving the Department of Health and Children, her Department and members of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. Both Deputy Ring and I have indicated that we look forward to some significant improvements and the implementation of some of the 15 recommendations made by the committee in its report on full-time carers which was published last November, quite close to the time of the budget. I hope the Minister will address some of the significant matters in that report.
I draw the Minister's attention and that of her officials to last night's television programme. Mr. Enda Egan, chief executive officer of the Carers' Association made a number of very relevant and salient points. Some of the points made by Mr. Egan would be familiar to us who wish to improve the situation of the 150,000 carers.
On the basis that the Minister has given a commitment to deal with us at that level, I will withdraw the amendment.
We have discussed the position of carers on Committee Stage. Like Deputy Penrose we have put in a good deal of work and have made recommendations. There is great demand for the booklet. As Deputy Penrose has said, we have spent months debating this issue at the committee. There are approximately 170,000 carers who receive no recognition for the wonderful job they do. I hope when the Minister comes back she will take up some of the recommendations we have made.
A carer, who has been a carer for many years, came to my clinic last week. She is pregnant and not in good health. She would like to get maternity leave but that is not possible. She will have to get somebody else in to help look after her mother in law during the month before and after the birth. Will the Minister examine this case? The Minister will say she can continue to draw the carer's allowance and, perhaps, give it to somebody else. She is entitled to maternity benefit or whatever. Her husband works. I do not know whether she will be eligible under the stamp rule. Will the Minister examine this anomaly when considering her own recommendations at the committee?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 23 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, 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 extending the social welfare free schemes to widows and widowers who do not currently qualify in that regard.
We have discussed this matter for a considerable period. Any changes in regard to the extension of the availability of the household benefit package is welcome. There were some changes which were of benefit to a number of people, not least to some of the carers. Obviously we will advocate a further extension for them. As indicated, widows and widowers who lose their spouse in their mid-30s or early 40s, are left with two or three children at a critical time. At that time they are vulnerable and need a compassionate response and all the assistance they can be given. The various schemes in the household benefit package would be important to many at that stage.
We have strongly advocated the extension of those schemes to those who do not qualify. I appreciate the Minister is continually examining it in the context of the various committees which are assessing the cost implications. Deputy Ring and I indicated it was crucial that assistance be provided, even for a short defined time, when people are left on their own having had a spouse who brought home a significant income. They are now reduced to the survivor's contributory pension and nothing else and yet must look after children and meet all the household expenditures.
In the wider context, one of the 16 savage cuts related to the impact on widows, especially the abolition of the half payment for disability benefit, unemployment benefit or injury benefit. Certainly many widows and widowers in receipt of the widow's or widower's pension subsequently returned to work and paid their contributions and stamps. We have made a rush to individualisation and individualism in this respect. Despite this, when it does not suit the situation, we put a blanket around it and say it does not apply in a particular case, that it was meant to apply only to the taxation system or elsewhere. After five, six or seven years those people are able to become independent again. That is the reason we seek an extension of the benefits package for a few years to help them become independent again, something widows and widowers would wish to achieve. After seven, eight or nine years, when the family is reared and they continue to work, they may suffer an injury, sickness or become unemployed.
In the past they used to get half the rate of benefit. One irate widow asked why they did not get the full entitlement. What type of discrimination is involved? I got an earful of this last night. I was trying to explain that it is half the rate.
It was half the rate.
She said it was a disgrace. In any event, she said, they should be entitled to their full benefit. The airwaves resonated this week to the sound of widows expressing their deep-felt ire and anger. They do not want sympathy but a right which they had reasserted that they get at least the half rate and recognition for the contributions they made into the social insurance fund, which is sacrosanct. It belongs to the employers and employees and it is not for the Government to raid it at will. It is a solemn contractual obligation so they feel let down. The widow's or widower's pension would arise because of the contribution of the other spouse. It has already been paid in for them. They are getting only what the person who passed on to his or her reward would have made many years ago. They now find that what they themselves have paid has been taken away in a fairly significant cut——
With a hatchet.
——that impacts on them. How many does this impact on?
Two thousand.
That amounted to a saving of almost €6 million. For the sake of clarity, perhaps the Minister would set out how much was saved on each of the individual 16 cuts. One of the cuts amounted to a saving of €10.5 million and one or two others amounted to savings of €1.5 million or €2 million. I would appreciate if they could all be set out in sequence. For the sake of €6 million, this cut is having a huge impact on those people. The signal it sends out to them is negative. These people have survived the trauma of the loss of a loved one. When they have asserted their independence and are back at work, their feet are taken from under them at a time of vulnerability, when they are either ill, become unemployed or injured. Why was it necessary to take away their eligibility in this circumstance at a critical time?
It goes back to how measly, niggardly and insidious are these cuts and how they operate and undermine many people's eligibility for benefits to which they thought they had made contributions. As a nation how can we justify the abolition of the entitlement to the half rate of payment for disability, unemployment or injury benefit? This country is awash with funds and, for the sake of €6 million, we have taken that right away. People who are contributing to the social insurance fund do not get anything. There is no free lunch. They are paying for it and it is taken away. It is an injustice that must be remedied.
The Minister could tell me the Department of Social and Family Affairs budget is now approximately €11.3 billion. In the context of that sum, what is €56 million? There are many other areas for which the Minister for Finance can find money at will. However, in areas which impact at a human, individual and family level, he does not.
It is a family-friendly Government.
Widows often have young families but must go out to work to give their families a chance for education and so on. This cut is the perpetration of an injustice against the most vulnerable who have made social welfare contributions and feel they are entitled to this payment as of right. While they feel they are entitled to the full rate, the half rate has been wiped out at the stroke of a pen.
There is anger which manifested itself in the past week when the impact of the cut was realised. I spoke out strongly on this issue and am amazed the media did not pick up on the points I have made since November last when the cuts were announced. Perhaps the Opposition made their points in such a clear and focused way that the media assumed we were simply giving out about something. However, we knew that the insidious nature of the cuts when they impacted at individual level would draw the wrath and ire of those upon whom they impacted. This issue has erupted like a volcano and it will not rest until the cut is rescinded and benefit restored to those who are duly entitled to it.
Widows and widowers are the forgotten of this country. They have had tragedy in their lives due to the loss of a partner and, in many cases, have then to raise young families. They have been let down and forgotten since the foundation of the State. An example of this is in regard to the free schemes. If the partner of a widow or widower had been entitled to the free schemes but the widow or widower is under 60 years of age, he or she is not entitled to them. The Minister should deal with this in the next budget because widows and widowers should be entitled to the free schemes, even if they are under the 60 years of age guideline. It would give them a great lift. When a partner is lost, in many cases all or part of the family income is lost. It is wrong that this is not dealt with.
I agree with Deputy Penrose that the media did not take up this issue, despite it being raised in debate on the Social Welfare Bill in December last, because it did not concern many people. When widows and widowers drawing widow's pensions move to unemployment benefit or disability benefit — this also affects lone parents — they do so because they have paid money into the system and have social welfare stamps. This has now been cut back and such people are told they can only draw one payment, which is wrong.
The cut involves €5.8 million but affects more than 2,000 widows and widowers. They recently began a campaign and appeared on the Joe Duffy radio show this week, and some are in the Visitors Gallery in Leinster House today. They are incensed and upset by what has happened. The Minister must address their concerns immediately and return to the old system in which they were entitled to the payment which applied before 19 January this year when the Minister signed the measure into law.
Widows and widowers have been forgotten by all Governments since the foundation of the State. I plead with the Minister to deal with this issue. Widows and widowers are beginning to organise a campaign and will not let the matter go because an injustice is involved, which must be dealt with. The Government gave almost €15 million to Punchestown racecourse, with no strings attached and without the need for it to apply for the money. Despite this, for the sake of €5.8 million, 2,000 of the most vulnerable in society who need as much income as they can get have been let down by the State. What upsets me most is that they are not looking for something for nothing; they have paid into the system. Widows and widowers have paid, through their work, into the social welfare fund, which is in credit. All they seek are their entitlements.
This cut was mean and wrong. It should be re-addressed and the money returned to widows and widowers. Over the coming weeks, the campaign will develop and the widows and widowers involved will contact their local Deputies. This change should be overturned because it is wrong and affects many people. The Minister should give an immediate commitment that she will discuss this with her Department and return to the House to tell us the matter has been addressed. In that event, Deputy Penrose and I will not criticise the Minister.
We will not.
We will not say she made a mistake but will support her. This cut is wrong and unjust and must be dealt with as it does not make sense that those who have paid their dues to society and the State are penalised.
When people are widowed, the free schemes would be of great benefit to them. In the next budget, the Minister should ensure that all widows and widowers at least have access to the free schemes. This would give a boost at a time when a partner has been lost and it is important to have support. I reiterate that they have been forgotten since the foundation of the State simply because they were not as organised as other groups. They were not able to fight their corner because most had enough troubles raising their families on their own and looking after their homes.
The Minister should do right by widows and widowers. Only €5.8 million is involved, which is not a great deal in terms of the overall budget, but some 2,000 people are affected. The cut is wrong and one on which the Minister was ill-advised. I ask her to reverse it. I did not listen to the Joe Duffy radio show but know that many widows and widowers explained their cases on the show this week. The Minister should make the correct decision and, in doing so, she would have the full support of all sides in this House.
It is important in the context of the debate taking place on the airwaves and throughout the country over the past week to put on record the position of the Opposition, the Labour Party and community platform groups before Christmas. During this run-in period before the local and European elections, Fianna Fáil Ministers took opportunities to con the people with promises about what they are going to do, although I do not include the Minister for Social and Family Affairs in this. Nonetheless, other Ministers inform us that they did one thing or will do another.
To try to get into the Fianna Fáil mould of making promises, it is important in the context of this amendment to note the position of the Labour Party before Christmas. We stated that the Government, in the recent Book of Estimates, had decided to cut €58 million from the most vulnerable in society while, at the same time, believed it justified to spend €67 million on horses and greyhounds. They have chosen to prioritise the interests of the rich rather than the needs of the poor.
These cuts are petty and mean and make life more difficult for people, as was stated before Christmas. The following were scrapped: the supplementary welfare allowance for couples where one person gets a full-time job; the supplement given to those on SWA who are being supported by the Money Advice and Budgeting Service; the crèche supplement to cover emergency child care; the half-rate child benefit allowance for those on disability; the half-rate payment for lone parents when they earn more than €293 per week; and the cut that is now all over the airwaves, namely, the half-rate disability payment on unemployment benefit for new claimants when the person already receives a widow's or widower's pension or the one-parent family payment.
The Minister for Finance said the country's finances were in a despicable condition and that we had to make savings of €58 million. That was the context for the €5 million cut for widows and widowers. The reality is that there has been an upturn in the country's economic performance. The so-called experts said there would be a drop in the finances and now they are saying there will be a further surplus in the finances at the end of the year. Let us be clear, when the Minister was bringing in these vicious cuts there was a surplus at the end of last year. Now 2,000 people who served this country well, who reared and educated their children in difficult times, will be affected by these cuts, with the half payment they receive being stopped.
This is scandalous. Not all Ministers take Opposition views on board. Those outside the House who have been hit by these cuts need to come together and build up opposition to the cuts. I ask the Minister to accept the legitimate concerns expressed in the House and outside. If she does I will not be behind the door in saying she examined this and dealt with the unfairness of the situation. Let us see her responding positively.
I join with Deputies Ring and Ryan in offering our support to the Minister on the decision she will inevitably have to make — restoring this entitlement to widows and widowers. This amendment may not force her to do so but public opinion will eventually encourage her to act, as this is now a matter of public concern and has been aired on the airwaves. The media is taking up the issue of the serious cuts faced by widows and widowers. What good are the contributions made by those people if they cannot now enjoy the fruits of those contributions?
There is also an anomaly facing widows who are carers and a later amendment deals with that. If a person who is a full-time carer, 365 days a year, becomes a widow or widower, he or she loses the carer's allowance. I have asked previous Ministers for Social Welfare about this anomaly as well as the incumbent. I have raised the matter for six or seven years and I thought this compassionate Minister — maybe that is the wrong word — might address the situation. However, she has failed to deal with this serious anomaly.
If a full-time carer for someone who is incontinent and bed-ridden suddenly becomes a widow or widower, he or she continues as a full-time carer. The person gets the widow's or widower's allowance but the very week he or she receives that allowance the carer's allowance is stopped, though he or she continues to act as a full-time carer. The Minister should deal with this when she eventually concedes that this cut was slipped past her in the budget. She should restore to widows and widowers their entitlement to half benefits while on the widow's or widower's pension. Public opinion will encourage the Minister to make that brave decision, though I hope it does not force her to do so. Then I will join with other Deputies in praising her rather than condemning her. We hope we do not have to put the amendment to a vote as we expect the Minister to say she will be looking at this area with a view to eliminating that anomaly. Then there will be no need to put the amendment. All the credit will accrue to the Minister rather than to us and we will be very glad of that.
Apart from rent allowance, this is probably the second greatest change that has been made in this year's budget. It has been done strictly on the numbers, and 2,000 people are involved. I am not inclined to blame civil servants, as the buck stops on the Minister's desk no matter who the Minister is. However, when a Minister is being presented with cuts, they are always presented in this way: "If you make this cut then it only affects 2,000 people." That is probably how this was presented. The unfortunate thing is that those 2,000 people will lose out dramatically if they find themselves out of work. The Minister is affecting 2,000 families.
The Minister made an announcement this week about the year of the family and about giving €1 million to support families. On one hand we have €1 million to support families while on the other hand there is a direct attack on the incomes of families. These are families which need support and which do not have two people to rely on. These are not families like mine and the Minister's. If either of us were unemployed we would have another income to fall back on, but these people have lost spouses. They lost those spouses at a young age, because we are not talking about those over 65 years, and they had to go to work to do those things they planned with their spouses. It was not an intentional loss. Most of them have children in primary or secondary school or at third level and they usually fit their working hours around being at home when their children return from school.
I am not certain it is legal to ask people to pay a social insurance contribution for the following reasons while saying they will never receive the benefit of it. A social insurance contribution is to protect people from difficulties which may befall them in life, such as illness, and where the State comes in and gives them a degree of comfort and support. We are asking people to pay a social insurance contribution — tax is different — while saying they will never reap the benefit of it. I hope they will never want the benefit of the contribution and that they can continue working. Even if they need it, we are saying to them that they will never be able to draw down this benefit despite the fact they are obliged to pay it. The widow's pension relates to the husband's contribution. These contributions are their own contributions. It is a point that needs to be dealt with.
I know — I am sure the Minister does as well because we go out and meet people each week — a young widow whose husband died tragically and who was left with two children in secondary school and one in third level. After the trauma of something as sudden as that happening, she asked me what she would do if she got sick. I said we would deal with that if it happened. I assumed she would have her disability benefit if that happened because she had to work as she had three teenage children. If that woman came back to me now — her circumstances have not changed dramatically — and asked me what she would do if she got sick and what would happen to her children, I am afraid I would have to say to her that her income would be greatly reduced and that I wonder why she is paying into a social insurance fund.
I will not patronise the Minister because, as she probably knows better than anyone else, that is not my style. I will not say to her that if she does the right thing, we will give her the credit for it and so on. She knows that is not true.
Exactly.
Sometimes it takes courage to do the right thing, and it should be done for the sake of €6 million. Unlike the homeless, widows vote and they are organised. That should not come into the equation, but it does. For the sake of €6 million, the Minister should reverse this cut. If she does, the widows and widowers affected by it will be eternally grateful to her.
Deputy Penrose wanted a brief summary of all the changes, and I will send that to him as there is no point reading it out.
Thank you.
When given this job, one must make decisions which one must stand by. One has choices, and I had a couple to make. The amount of money made available to me, for which I had to bargain fairly hard, was €630 million. One must establish what is the best use of that money. We had a commitment to pensioners, and I wanted to continue that commitment of increasing the pension by €10 so that we can reach the target of €200. There was much criticism from people and non-governmental organisations that base line payments were low. I decided that out of the €630 million made available, I would increase everyone's payment by €10 and also the respective qualifying adult allowances. By making that decision, I spent €518 million. That did not leave me with a huge amount of money.
I felt that as a priority — Members may agree or disagree — we should give more money to child benefit, and those supports cost me €93 million. Carers were another priority to whom I was in a position to give another €10.71 million. I still believe we need incentives and supports for people working — technical assistance training and so on — and I had €4 million available for that. That left me with little money to do all the things we would all like to do. Not unlike the Members opposite, I would like to see many changes. On that basis, with the freeze and so on, all I had left was €850,000 with agencies, including the Combat Poverty Agency, the family support and other agencies, costing €3 million. That was the funding provided, not to mention the billions I must pay everybody each week. I must pay the staff and even the press office.
They must be paid.
One is left in a difficult position. If one does not have enough money, one cannot do everything. One must pick the priorities, and those were the priorities I chose this year.
It is easy to talk about principles, and I suppose we can all be principled about many things in life. In common with social security systems throughout the world, our system is primarily a contingency-based one, and Deputy Lynch is right in that regard. One's entitlements are based on pre-defined contingencies, such as sickness or unemployment. People can have more than one contingency at the same time — for example, a person could be unemployed and become sick. The general principle that usually applies is that where a person experiences more than one of the contingencies at any one time, he or she only receives one payment.
In general.
That has been the rule. One of the exceptions is the blind person's pension. People who are blind have enough trouble. That exemption was made a long time ago. Bad as Members opposite might think I am, I would not even consider changing that.
There are other short-term insurance benefits available. That limited exception has been widows and widowers. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Members and by individuals who have been in touch with my office. I think the girls in my office will resign because they cannot get their work done as they spend 90% of their time on the telephone. I empathise with widows. We have all had to deal with death. My mother, my aunt and many young women have had difficult and traumatic experiences. Following the deaths of their husbands, whether through sickness, an accident or whatever, they have had to pick up the pieces and most them have had children to look after. We have all encountered the experiences faced by widows and widowers in our personal lives and even in this House recently.
This is not a victimisation of widows. A number of years ago, there was an exemption from PRSI contributions and then it was felt best that people progress on to the half rate. In the preparation of my spending Estimates, I could only deal with the amount of money I knew I would have. The subsequent buoyancy in the economy did not occur during the timeframe in which I had to make decisions. I had to make my decision last June on what we would do. It was on that basis I had to consider a number of savings — up to €55 million. I agree that the removal of any social welfare entitlement is not palatable. I had to do this in the circumstances which prevailed at that time, that is, with a certain amount of money being made available to me and certain decisions having to be made to accumulate a saving of €55 million. I had other choices to making in doing that.
On the law of averages will the impact be more or less? The Government decisions were made in accordance with collective Cabinet responsibility. However, on the basis of quite a number of representations, I have given a commitment to meet the association. I did not get a chance to do so this week because I ended up doing three sets of legislative work. My secretary has been in touch with the association, however, to set an appointment the week after St. Patrick's week to meet with its representatives and discuss the issues. I have also given a commitment to re-evaluate the situation.
I realise the situation is a difficult one and that the Minister is faced with choices. The Labour Party would make different choices, however, because as a left of centre party, it has a different philosophy and ideology. We would ensure that this measure would not impact disproportionately on such vulnerable people who have made their contributions to society and who have a due entitlement. They are certainly not rich, they are struggling to make ends meet having worked hard all their lives. The Minister understands the difficulty. Elderly people who have made a contribution, feel emotive about this matter. The only reason they made the contributions is to ensure that they would have an entitlement. Can we unilaterally breach such a contractual commitment? Employees, including widows and widowers, entered into the contracts on the understanding that they would receive a benefit arising from injury, unemployment or disability.
The Minister should examine this measure carefully from a legal perspective by obtaining the relevant legal advice. She is committed to meeting the National Association of Widows in Ireland the week after next so she should bring along a purse containing €6 million from the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, because this was a cut too far. It behoves the Minister for Finance to give the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, the €6 million in this instance to deal with the problem on behalf of the 2,000 widows and widowers who feel deeply aggrieved. I urge the Minister to reverse the cut and I hope she will be able to give a commitment to do so when she meets the NAWI in the coming weeks. If the Minister can give that commitment to the House we will not press the amendment. In the absence of such a commitment, however, we will have no option but to press the amendment.
The Minister said she has to make choices, but on this occasion she made a bad choice. It is hard for widows and widowers to have to listen to the Minister, her Department and the Government on this issue. Yesterday, the Minister announced an expenditure of €1 million but the Government is spending €40 million on electronic voting that nobody wants. The Government spent €15 million for a harbour and pier in Kerry that had to be taken down. Now we find that the Minister has made a choice concerning widows by taking away something they were receiving up to now. One does not take sweets from children and, likewise, this cut affecting widows and widowers should not have been made. This was a mean cut that should be reversed immediately. The Minister will meet the widows' association next week but I will press the amendment because the cut is wrong. We cannot say one thing in the House and then not do something about it. I will push this amendment to a vote to let people know the choice the Minister has made. I agree that she has difficult choices to make but this scheme was already in place.
Yesterday, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, announced that there is a sum of €300 million in dormant accounts. Surely the Minister could have taken €5 million from that for social welfare. I am pressing the amendment because widows and widowers have made a major contribution to Irish life. The Minister should re-examine this matter because they are the forgotten people. The Minister is honest enough to have said that she and her family experienced this situation and she knows the difficulties involved. I should not have to press the case any further.
Ministers should be able to consider a situation objectively and admit with hindsight that they might have done something differently. My mind goes back to the so-called "dirty dozen" cuts that were introduced by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, in the 1989-1992 Government. A campaign was embarked upon concerning the "dirty dozen" and we were told nothing could be done to reverse them. The Government said it was not prepared to move on the cuts. It was the decision of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, who has been taking all the money from the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, as she outlined earlier. When there was a change of Government, however, the Labour Party gave a specific commitment to change the cuts. During the period of office of the subsequent Government, almost all the "dirty dozen" cuts were removed or changed, so there is a mechanism for changes to be made.
The economy is buoyant this year and at the end of 2003 when these cuts were introduced, the Minister for Finance had a surplus of €400 million, yet we are talking about finding only €5 million. The Minister should find that €5 million in order to deal with the situation. I hope she will do so on the basis of justification, merit and need. It has nothing to do with elections.
I do not really have anything else to say. I have given a commitment to meet the National Association of Widows in Ireland when I return. I also said that I would re-evaluate the situation.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Notwithstanding the commitment given by the Minister to meet the widows' association, the matter goes beyond that. Since the Minister is not in a position to give us a commitment to row back from that vicious cut, I will press the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided by electronic means.
This is an important amendment relating to the rights of widows and widowers. I would like to give the Government an opportunity to vote individually on this through the lobbies.
As Deputy Broughan is a Whip, under Standing Order 69 he is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.
Amendment again put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 56.
Tá
- Boyle, Dan.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Upton, Mary.
Níl
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Boyle and Harkin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, between lines 2 and 4, 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 operation of the social insurance system insofar as it affects persons whose entitlement is determined by reference to historic rather than recent contributions.".
There has been some movement on the historic operation of the social insurance scheme and pre-1953 contributions. A number of anomalies, however, remain to be dealt with. We discussed this matter in great detail on Committee Stage. Rather than get into a wide-ranging debate, I ask the Minister to comment on how she proposes to deal with this issue.
I will not delay the Minister as she has a firm grasp of the significance of this issue. It might have even greater resonance in Donegal where many people may have registered six to eight months' stamps before emigrating to Scotland for 25 years. As it is 2004, a person who left in 1960 and returned in 1985 must elongate the average over 44 years rather than, for example, 19 years. It causes a reduction for them.
This is an anomaly the Minister recognises. As it is important in this game to be fair no matter how we argue about our differences, I acknowledge that the Minister's senior pensions officials are examining this problem among others. I understand that the Minister must be careful to ensure that in wiping out one anomaly, she does not create others. Deputy Ring and I will press this amendment simply to indicate to the Minister the seriousness of this issue and its dilutive impact on a returned emigrant who worked here for only a year or two in the late 1950s or early 1960s before leaving. We move the amendment as a way of asking the Minister to accelerate her work.
As Deputies Seán Ryan and Penrose have said, we discussed this issue on Committee Stage. The Minister has informed us that a review of pensions is under way in the Department. It is not only those who have worked abroad who are affected, but also women who left employment to raise their families before re-entering the workplace. I spoke at my clinic recently to a woman who worked from 1954 to 1956. If she had not worked previously and entered the workforce only in the past ten years, she would have received her contributory pension. That is a very serious anomaly which I ask the Minister to address. As I said to her on Committee Stage, it will be difficult.
While one is always afraid that in resolving one issue, one will open up another, there is an injustice in this instance which must be dealt with. It especially affects women, particularly those who stayed at home to raise families. They should not be penalised because they earned two or three years' worth of stamps before the regulations were introduced where people could get their ten years' stamps and qualify for the contributory pension.
I hope the Minister will have this report dealt with as quickly as possible and deal with this unfair anomaly.
We have discussed this issue on a number of occasions. This is being considered as part of the phase 2 review of the qualification conditions of the old age contributory and retirement pension. The first phase report was made in 2000 and I am expecting the second phase report shortly. When this is received, we will examine the operation of the average contribution tests and we will put together options for a system based on a total contribution, as suggested in the phase 1 review. One of the issues regarding any changes in the permutations and eligibility criteria for social welfare is the knock-on effect this can have on others. I will be examining this issue shortly.
In view of the Minister's commitment, which we know is honourable, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, between lines 9 and 10, 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:
(a) contrasting the increase in 2003 of the Consumer Price Index with the increases paid to the entitled persons under the Act of 2003;
(b) evaluating the suitability and appropriateness of the items and weightings used by the Central Statistics Office in computing the rates of increase in the Consumer Price Index to the needs of the principal categories of entitled persons under the Principal Act;
(c) setting out the Department’s assessment of those groups potentially most seriously affected by significant inflationary pressures which may arise because of internal and external factors in 2004.”.
I raised this on Committee Stage and will not go into it in depth now. This amendment refers to the consumer price index and how inflation is determined. The basket used to calculate inflation includes holidays, luxury goods and second cars. I have asked that the basket be determined on the basis of foodstuffs. This would more accurately show how inflation affects people in receipt of social welfare. We have seen increases in the price of foodstuffs in recent months. We have also seen increased charges for electricity and the introduction of stealth charges. People's entitlements are being wiped away. Individuals in receipt of social welfare do not have second cars or take two annual holidays.
We will have to agree to differ on this. Inflation is determined by a professional organised valuation, based on 55,000 prices covering 1,000 different items. The general consensus is that the standard measure of CPI is the best method to ascertain price changes and inflation levels. My Department does not feel that a change in the usage of the CPI indicator would give added value to social welfare customers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall establish an internal departmental committee to assess the extent to which the amounts provided for in subsection (1) adequately meets or assists in meeting the costs of maintaining a child in the State.”.
The Minister and I have often clashed over the issue of child benefit. All statistics have shown that when child benefit is paid to mothers, they use it on their children. In 2001, the Minister for Finance made a commitment to parents and told them that he had set out what he was going to give them in child benefit for the following three years. He broke this promise in both 2002 and 2003. I want to see this broken promise rectified in the next budget.
While I could cite facts from CORI about the number of children that live in poverty, I will not do so as we have discussed this twice in committee in the last three months. In December 2001 the Minister for Finance made a promise to the women of Ireland. He has broken the promise and I ask that he honour it in the next budget. He should give mothers the increases that were promised in 2002 and 2003 and complete it with an increase for 2004. If the Minister can persuade the Minister for Finance to do this, she will be doing the right thing for the women and children of this country.
The Government's intention is to reach the target set. We currently have a considerable investment in child benefit. I firmly believe that child benefit is the best methodology for supporting child care and addressing child poverty. We have established increases in child benefit this year. There has been a huge investment in child benefit in recent years; the benefit was €38.09 for the first child in 1997 and it is €131.60 this year. This is true investment and it is our intention to continue this investment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 11
In page 6, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:
"7.—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:
(a) setting out the mechanisms by which family income supplement could be paid through the tax system, the estimated additional numbers of entitled persons who would benefit from such a change and the estimated cost of such additional take up;
(b) evaluating the potential numbers of beneficiaries under family income supplement if the self-employed persons were to qualify for participation.”.
This amendment refers to the take-up of family income supplement for families on low incomes. Only 30% of those entitled to income from this scheme do so. While this is a good scheme, a large number of those entitled to it do not avail of it because it is a social welfare payment. Many of those in receipt of low incomes do not want to be seen to be getting a social welfare payment. The Government is great for collecting money and my party feels FIS should be allocated through the taxation system.
I have been critical of the Minister and the Department for the amount of money wasted and squandered on press releases and photographs. The Minister is photogenic——
It does not cost money to send a press release. The Deputy does it himself and is something of a star.
There are press releases to inform people of what has been allocated in the budget, new schemes and the family day that is coming up in May. The Minister could have her spin doctors and programme managers promote the FIS scheme.
I do not have a programme manager.
The Department should try to identify and target the people that would qualify for the scheme. Were the Department to do this, it would spend taxpayers' money wisely. The FIS should be paid through the taxation system rather than having people make an application to the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
I support this amendment. The family income supplement is an important income support for those on low incomes. It is often the crutch that brings people over the threshold of survival. It is important to promulgate and advertise the availability of this scheme. In fairness, the Department has made a sum available for the scheme and it is important that information about it is explained and disseminated to the greatest degree. It is important that this is done in places of employment.
I believe in the social welfare offices, post offices and the Garda stations. I believe in using whatever vehicle of the State is available. It is crucial to ensure the scheme receives maximum exposure so that people are aware of their rights and entitlements. It is an excellent scheme, which has been improved over the years. It is important to ensure that the thousands who are entitled to it, but do not avail of it, obtain it. This is why Deputy Ring is proposing that it be dealt with through the tax system. It would be a better way to ensure that those who are entitled to the supplement receive it.
I support the amendment, which is a sensible one. Many people who are entitled to this allowance are on low wages and have a poor educational background. I do not know if the leaflet issue works, particularly for this target group. Many people do not read these leaflets. Deputy Ring is proposing that the issue be dealt with through the tax system. It is a scandal that fewer than one-third of those entitled to the funding access it.
We all agree that the family income supplement has been progressive. This year we increased the baseline payment. It has been exempted from the supplementary welfare rent allowance scheme. It is not that we do not advertise the scheme. It is included in the child benefit book, we advertise it to those who apply for the lone parent family allowance and the information is included with employers' PRSI mailshots. It is also on the Department's website but I appreciate that everyone cannot access this or understand it. It has been advertised extensively in the local and national media. There are also poster campaigns and so on.
There are two or three issues relating to family income supplement which need to be re-assessed. Some employers do not want people to know their business so they do not encourage it. Employees are sometimes afraid to ask for it because they might be seen to have a problem with their employer. It is a better system of family income support because it is a yearly based scheme. It is a continuum of a year and there is no evaluation in the middle of it. I have asked the information section of the Department to look at a couple of other ideas to see what can be done to encourage people to participate in the family income supplement scheme. The funding is available and we should try to reach that target group.
On the interaction between the tax and welfare system, this has been going on since I was in college. We have not been able to reach a firm decision on the best way forward. A working group was established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to examine the role of refundable tax credits, including their role within the tax and welfare system. It also examined the payment of FIS through the taxation system, which Deputy Ring raised on a number of occasions. The report, which is expected to be published shortly, indicated that responsibility for the administration of the scheme should remain within my Department and not within the tax system. One of the reasons for this is that tax cannot deal with an immediate situation. One gets one's credits for the previous year but the family income supplement can deal with an immediate issue. It would cause difficulties if people attached their application to the tax system. I appreciate the views expressed about the take up of the scheme, which I will examine.
I welcome the Minister's response. I am pleased that she will take on board this issue because it is important. We always talk about people on social welfare but we forget about the people who are working six and seven days a week for low pay. Some of these people do not qualify for medical cards; they must pay for everything. Some of them have mortgages and find it difficult to make ends meet. It is important to promote the scheme. It is wrong if 70% of people who are entitled to benefit from the scheme do not avail of it. Given that the Minister has promised to take on board the issue, I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 7, before line 1, to insert the following:
"8.—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 setting out the cost of giving effect to the new arrangements for payments after death in April 2004 rather than May 2004.".
If people lose a loved one, they will now get the six weeks——
That is all sorted.
It is sorted. I welcome that because we must be positive when something is done correctly. It is a good move because certain sections of people on social welfare did not avail of this. I am pleased to hear they will now get it. If a member of a family dies, it takes a number of weeks to sort out matters. If two pensions are coming into a house, and one partner dies suddenly, there is a problem. I welcome this measure.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 17, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 18 is consequential on amendment No. 36. Amendment 37 is an alternative to amendment No. 36. Amendments Nos. 18, 36 and 37 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 10, to delete lines 28 and 29.
This relates to the provision of a new section which looks at the habitual residence test. There has been some discussion on the issue. I reiterate that one of the fundamental freedoms which will be guaranteed under community law is the right to live and work in another member state. That right is being upheld in regard to the accession countries.
I have introduced a number of measures that will restrict access to qualification for certain social welfare payments by introducing what is called an habitual residence test. This will act as an additional condition to be satisfied by a person claiming a social assistance payment or child benefit. It is designed to safeguard the social welfare system from abuse by restricting access to social assistance and child benefit payments for people from other countries who have little or no connection with Ireland. The new condition will require a claimant for social assistance to be habitually resident in the State or the rest of the common travel area. If they have been present in the State for fewer than two years, it shall be presumed they are not habitually resident and the onus will be on the person to prove otherwise. A person must establish a degree of permanency to be considered habitually resident. The term is well-known in other jurisdictions and in EU legislation as it has been clarified by an EU court judgment. It is intended to convey a degree of permanency in the person's residence in Ireland. The duration and continuity of their residence will be important factors, as would their intentions.
The following factors will be set down in the habitual residence test: length and continuity of residence, employment prospects, reasons for coming to Ireland, future intentions and centre of interest. I assure Deputies that each case will be examined on the facts and the person's degree of permanency in the State. No single factor will be conclusive. A person who claims welfare but does not satisfy the habitual residency test will be assisted to return home and the necessary arrangements will be made in co-operation with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
It is anticipated that the majority of Irish emigrants returning from abroad, where the need arises, will qualify under the habitual residency test. In other cases, it is possible that a returned emigrant will qualify for social insurance-based entitlements, for example, a contributory pension, if they have been working in an EU member state or a state with which Ireland has a bilateral social security agreement. Under EU Regulation No. 1408, it is possible for an unemployed person, under certain conditions, to export his or her unemployment benefit for up to three months while seeking work in another member state. The regulations also allow people to exercise their right to free movement in the EU and have their social insurance-based entitlements, such as a contributory pension, exported to another member state.
These are sensible measures and introduced on the basis of the change of attitude by at least seven other member states. It can be done legally under the EU accession laws. However, I am changing the habitual residency test on a permanent basis as an additional condition to be satisfied for entitlement to social welfare benefits. It is legal on the basis that it will be expressly for all members of the European Community.
I strongly disagree with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on this issue and the general thrust of Government social policy. Not only is this two year residency requirement for all EU member and accession state nationals being introduced in this Bill, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, has said that those EU immigrants whose children are born in Ireland cannot apply for Irish citizenship unless they have lived here for three years. This raising of the threshold in all aspects of Irish social policy does us no credit as a nation. It is directly opposed to our own experience as an emigrant nation.
As the child of an emigrant, I am ashamed that our national Parliament is putting in place measures that make Ireland out as some paradise to which people will stampede. The reality for many of our citizens dependent on the social welfare system is that life is barely adequate. The idea that thousands of people in countries that will be welcomed into the EU in Dublin on 1 May will bleed this country dry should be seen as offensive to everyone who has argued in favour of a wider and broader Europe. This is an offensive amendment that makes poor legislation.
The Minister has, without any empirical evidence, failed to convince that a threat exists from these people entering the State. The only empirical evidence we have is when Ireland joined the EU as a proportionately poorer country. Many Irish people chose not to go to other European countries. There was the experience of when Spain, Portugal and Greece joined the EU. Each of those countries had a per capita income and social welfare system that were less developed than ours, yet we did not see Spaniards, Portuguese or Greeks flooding into this country. There are low levels of social provision in some of the EU accession states; I believe it is the equivalent of €19 in Hungary. The buying power of €19 in Hungary is equivalent to, if not greater than, the buying power of €134 in this State which has the highest cost of living in the EU.
This proposal and the proposal of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on citizenship are nothing other than an exercise of deflection as the three month's run-in to local and European elections approaches. This is an exercise by a Government that is intent not to have its record on social provision open to scrutiny and examination leading to the proper political reaction at the ballot box. Instead, it wants to change the agenda to issues of race and ethnicity, and to raise scares that do not exist.
My role and that of my party and others on this side of the House should be four square in opposing this cynicism. There is no risk from people coming into this country. If 1 May is to mean anything, welcoming people into the Union must be on an open basis. If it proves to be a risk, then we can adjust rules and legislate accordingly. Experience has shown that it has not happened in the past and is unlikely to happen now. I appeal to the Minister to remove this barrier. As 1 May approaches, the Minister will not just be aware of what the European Commission has said about the likely number of people who will come to Ireland, but also that the existing regulations put in place by other EU member states and the subsequent changes by the seven member states to which she referred are all open to scrutiny by the Commission. They are likely to be turned down due to poor application of EU law in terms of freedom of movement and labour across all EU member states.
To be fair to the Minister's officials, they have made as decent an attempt as they can not to breach those rules. Any attempt to have a distinction between Irish citizens, other EU citizens, British subjects — both have existing rights — and citizens of the accession states will be seen as a breach of EU law. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs must know that. The only reason Cabinet has asked her to proceed with these measures is due to the elections in three months. That one of those elections will be for the European Parliament should shame us further. The Minister has failed to produce any evidence. As of yesterday's answers on Question Time, she has shown she has not conversed with any of her counterparts in the accession states. If that is the basis on how we make decisions and inform the public as to what threats exist, or are likely to exist, the Government is doing an even worse job than I feared.
This is nothing less than anticipatory legislation. It is not based on the realistic assessment or objective analysis of the situation and certainly not backed up by any empirical evidence. Legislation should be based firmly on a set of facts, not anticipated facts or vacuous arguments.
One is obviously concerned. Everybody knows that we have a system and are continually trying to improve it for those who are in Ireland. Deputy Boyle made the point that, if our system was highly attractive to those from other countries, such as the Portuguese, the Spanish and the Greeks, there would be evidence that they had flooded the country, but there is no evidence that they have come in any numbers. That is because there is more to life than social assistance: purchasing power, family upheaval and disruption, and cultural changes can be significant for those coming to a strange country.
We would not have done anything had Britain not moved. That is the clear position. It appears to be the corollary of this argument. Britain moved in reaction to some of the arguments that were made in the British red-top media organs — there is no two roads about that — and we have some of those organs in Ireland. The Minister probably then found herself in an invidious position and had to do something.
When a safeguard amounts to a discrimination, it is illegal, but the Minister has applied it to everybody, including those from existing member states. People who have rights that have been established under European law over a sustained period of time will find that those rights have been cut adrift. Some residents from one of the other 13 EU member states — we already have a bilateral agreement with Britain, so we will leave that to one side — will bring a case to the European Court of Justice saying that a right that they had and that was firmly established has been cut adrift unilaterally by a member state. The Minister might say that is a crazy argument, but it is surprising how the direct impact of measures will find a level at which there is a basis for a case.
I point out to the Deputy that he is subject to two minutes but has the right of reply at the end.
I would rather give away my right of reply and do it now.
The Minister has not, so perhaps she wants to comment. I call Deputy Crowe.
Like my colleague, Deputy Boyle, I opposed the Nice treaty when it was debated in this House. Members said at the time that, if we were opposed to the treaty, we were indifferent to the plight of the candidate countries. It is ironic that many of those who made that argument are the ones who to some extent promote the politics of fear. The Bill cannot be taken in isolation from what the Minister, Deputy McDowell, proposes.
It is a social welfare bill.
It must be considered as a package.
It is not a package.
It is considered to be a package, because it is coming from a direction——
That is Deputy Crowe's interpretation. It is not a package. I cannot under any circumstances pre-empt what the people will decide.
Most fair-minded people would see that we are going in the direction of the politics of fear. We heard a great deal about the concept of fortress Europe, but are we now in fortress Ireland? Is that the sort of message that we are sending out?
This morning, I was at an event for children in my area. Children from throughout the world were in one school in my constituency. The President, who was there, talked about how good the children were. She said that they were the best in the world and that they were great because they included all the children in the class who were from all races. She said that, when she was growing up, one had to look at a map to find out about a country and now a child only has to talk to his or her school pals and they will talk about what is happening in their own countries.
Unfortunately, we are going in the direction of fortress Europe. That is wrong. We are being asked about evidence, but we do not know what it is. However, the evidence that we have is that those who will travel to Ireland are young, better-educated than Irish people in many cases and coming here to work, not with a begging bowl.
Who is stopping them? Not one person is stopping them.
That is the evidence coming from other countries. Deputy Boyle talked about what happened in a previous situation. In many cases, those who travelled went to the nearest country, and Ireland is far away from many of the accession countries.
The Government's policy is wrong and there is no evidence to back it up. It is yet more legislation being made on the hoof. We seem to be introducing changes all the time. They are negative changes and are designed to attack the most vulnerable people who are the ones who come to this country looking for a fresh start for their children. In many cases, they risk their lives and those of their unborn children to come here for a better start, and the answer that they receive is that the door is closed and we do not want them.
I find the topic difficult, because, yesterday, I spent an hour and a half in the United States Embassy meeting officials from the US Government to discuss Irish illegal immigrants and trying to get something done for them on the basis that they live in America and want to work there. In some cases, they cannot come home because, if they do, they will not get back in because, since 11 September 2001, a great deal has changed in the US.
I have listened to all politicians, especially pro-European politicians, over recent years and have found it hypocritical that, every time that there has been a referendum in this country, we have been told how wonderful free movement in an enlarged Europe would be. That reminds me that we are the greatest hypocrites that there ever were. I will give the example of how we treat our own people who return from America or Britain. The first question we ask when they come home is how they are, the next is how long they are staying and the last is when they are going back. We cannot get rid of them quickly enough. At night, when we are in the pub with them, we sing songs such as Goodbye, Johnny Dear.
A Chuisle Mo Chroí.
How great they are. We let these people leave the country. We are the greatest crowd of hypocrites that was ever known.
We are debating an Irish solution to a European problem. What I see happening in Ireland is what I see happening in Europe. The European Union is breaking down, and it looks as though we will have a three-tier Europe. The supers, namely, the Germans, French and British, want one tier with the Irish and a few others in another tier and the 10 accession states in a further tier. We cannot have that. We either have a common European policy or we do not.
Many people come to this country. At a recent constituency clinic of mine, I had a husband, wife and daughter from, I think, Slovakia. The husband is here on a work permit. His employer came with him and told me that he is the finest worker that he ever had. He will work day and night and never ask any questions once he gets paid, and the employer pays him well. The daughter came to Ireland 18 months ago and — this is the truth — started the course six months before the leaving certificate examination. Members should listen to this: she got 430 points in the examination. I saw my own children's scores. They got near enough the same, but they worked hard and it took them more than six months to get it. I must compliment the immigrants. They are bright, looking for an opportunity, work hard and, as I said to the Minister earlier, are needed.
I am concerned about the measure we are debating. It will be challenged. Questions must be asked about the European Union in the context of a debate on a European constitution. If this is the kind of policy the Minister, Deputy McDowell, has in mind, the people will think seriously about European referenda in future. The Government should not tell us one thing during a referendum and another afterwards. It reminds me of the referendum on abortion. Great assistance was promised to lone parents, but Ministers now have a social policy of cutting off rent supplement and making life difficult for lone parents by removing either their benefit when they work or the back to education scheme. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say one thing when it suits us coming up to an election or referendum and something else when it is over. That is what has happened in this country in the past. It is a bit like the fact that, when we joined the EU, we were told that there would be free movement of cars in Ireland, but the Government obtained a derogation on that.
The VRT.
That was a major substitute and is wrong. We are either in the Union or out of it. We must take the good as well as the bad, and there is much that is bad when it comes to EU directives and so on. People are sick and tired of hearing about directives day in and day out.
I am concerned about this legislation. This country has exported thousands upon thousands of people all over the world. There is no part of the world in which one cannot meet an Irish person. As I said to the Minister on Committee Stage the other day, it was not always the good people who left. A book I read recently referred to an article in a local newspaper from the 1950s about a man from my town who had got into a lot of trouble. The judge told him he could take the boat to Manchester or America, or else he would be sent by car to Mountjoy Prison. That is the kind of person we exported. They were not all great and we were glad when they got to the UK or America. If they found employment it was great, if they got into difficulty we were glad of the social schemes that existed in those countries. We saw the "Prime Time" programme about the thousands of Irish who are on the streets in Britain. They did not all do well.
We must give a chance to the people who want to come here and work. I do not want to be hypocritical — I said earlier that I do not want spongers coming here to clean out our social welfare system. At the same time, however, we should provide for people who want to make a contribution to Ireland and to their families.
The Deputy mentioned various issues and it is important we do not mix them up. People who wish to come to work here are more than welcome. There have been no changes or U-turns in that policy. The freedom of people to move around and reside anywhere in the EU has not been removed, nor has the freedom of people to seek and enjoy work throughout the Union. Those are two basic principles of EU law. This is the last country in the EU to introduce a residency requirement. We do not have residency requirements — we have never needed them. Everybody knew everybody else and people did not come here to live.
A person who wants to work and live in Belgium cannot open a bank account unless he or she obtains a residency permit. One must have an identification card. Things have changed, for better or worse. Accordingly, I was obliged to change the social welfare code to introduce a residency requirement. This is fair and reasonable on the basis that we must protect our social welfare scheme so that it is not overburdened. People are asking for empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence to the contrary either. What has happened is that there has been a change in attitude in seven other member states, which are legally entitled to introduce changes, as are the accession states. At a Council of Ministers meeting last week I met representatives of all the accession states.
Did the Minister talk to them about these changes?
We discussed numerous issues.
That is not the answer the Minister gave me yesterday.
The only person who raised the issue was the Minister from Poland. His ambassador came to my office seeking information, and I told him if he needed additional information I would be delighted to speak to him. The matter was raised within the Council and noted as part of the discussions on the key messages to the spring summit. The Commissioner was there. We had a press conference and she indicated that the current member states were legally entitled to introduce changes under the accession treaties.
I had no choice but to make these changes on the basis of much scaremongering by the media in the accession states. There was much publicity which would certainly have been detrimental to this State. We could have waited until 31 July but it might have been too late. The day that has been decided for accession is 1 May and it is on that basis I am introducing the habitual residency requirement. Will it be legally challenged? I am not sure. People are entitled to challenge anything in this State. I have been advised by the Attorney General that this is legally sound and it is certainly within the European parameters of legality. It is not tied to any other changes that may be proposed and accepted or not accepted by the Irish people. This is merely a requirement for habitual residence, something the UK has had for the past ten years. It is not an alien concept within the EU, nor within any social welfare codes, which, I am advised, I can change as long as the change affects all EU citizens equally.
I do not know whether the Minister remembers when the Taoiseach was the Opposition spokesperson on labour in the mid-1980s. He made a heartfelt plea to the American Government to introduce an immediate amnesty for Irish illegals. The day after the Minister introduced her amendments on Committee Stage, the Minister for Foreign Affairs was in Washington doing precisely the same thing. In the run-up to the second Nice referendum the Minister for Foreign Affairs sent a letter to his equivalent Ministers in all European accession countries guaranteeing that Ireland would make no changes when the accession countries became full members of the EU on 1 May.
We have not done so.
The Minister should examine the letter, which was written by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
We have not changed the labour laws. Contrary to what people believe, people cannot work without a visa in the USA. That is the problem. It is on that basis the Minister is trying to persuade the US Government to grant an amnesty to Irish people who are illegally working there.
That does not change the fact that a double standard is at work.
It is not a double standard.
I speak as someone whose parents emigrated to the USA. I was born there. I am speaking from family experience.
The Minister is not lobbying for the right to social welfare but for the right to reside and work.
We should consider this from the point of view of our cultural experience and in light of commitments given by the Government as recently as 2002. The Government has reneged on promises made to the EU accession countries. How can we welcome an enlarged EU on 1 May? On all these grounds, the Minister has failed to convince us. We are creating a European Union with first, second and third-class citizens. We are putting in place regulations to which we would have reacted with horror and anger if they had applied to Irish citizens when we joined the European Community in 1973.
No, we would not. We are not entitled to these things in other countries either.
They were not applied to us when we joined. Why should they be applied to others? The threat that has been implied does not exist. I appeal to the Minister to live up to the promises made by her Government to the other EU accession states and face the fact that the restrictions introduced in all other EU countries will be struck down as illegal by the European Commission.
I speak as somebody whose seven or eight uncles ended up behind the mixer with John Laing, Murphy, McAlpine and so on. They all worked hard. They were part of the 1940s and 1950s brigade who got a one-way ticket. They were allowed to work, but many people here are not allowed to do so. Until recently the spouses or partners of nurses from the Philippines, who have done important work here, were prohibited from coming here even though they could make an economic contribution.
The work permit system is the genesis of my distrust in this area. It is all right for the Minister to say that people can come and work here but that has not been the experience to date. People have come to my clinic saying their partners are not allowed to come here. One woman who has been paying PRSI for 16 years in this country has not been granted residency even though her husband has. She is over 60 years of age. The whole thing is up in the air. There is no coherent policy. We have a reactionary policy which is fomenting antagonism.
At present, freedom of movement is guaranteed only for persons pursuing or wishing to pursue an economic activity. It only covers the pursuit of effective and genuine activity and excludes activity on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary. As a general rule, a person looking for a job has no more than six months entitlement or sometimes three months, I think, to remain in another state unless he or she is genuinely seeking employment.
It is already guaranteed.
It is already guaranteed and if there is a genuine chance of obtaining employment. These are the two criteria. There is, therefore, no question of a right to shop around for the country with the most favourable social assistance and then, by asserting Community law, set oneself up as a welfare tourist. This also applies to Irish people. They do not have a right to State-subsidised economic inactivity either because they must be available and capable of work.
If not they will be cut off.
Correct. Social security as opposed to social assistance are entitlements which are acquired as a result of work in any of the member states or aggregated and paid to the state where the individual now finds himself or herself. There is no freedom of movement to Ireland by, for example, the Poles or Hungarians, in order to avail of Irish social assistance. They must be genuinely seeking work and have a genuine opportunity of getting work. We do need people to come in to supply particular advanced skills.
As a person whose family was forced out of this country, I hope we would treat people coming to this country in the way we would like our own people to be treated. In the past we were very angry when signs were put up about our people in other countries. Now we are saying to people coming here, "Hold on, you must satisfy residency rules."
Child benefit is not benefit-based and I question why it is included. The restrictions will only apply to or are focused upon people coming from the applicant states. The Minister has already given guarantees about the expatriates——
The vast majority. There will be exceptions.
I agree. What will happen to people who have been long-term resident abroad, our own people, and who wish to return to this country? There will be great resentment and dissension.
It will foment it.
I agree. People have spent 30 or 50 years away. They did not go of their own volition. Some of them were given the one-way ticket. The first time I got a pair of football boots was when one of my uncles who was working on a building site in London bought them for me. One of them said, "We got one great legacy from de Valera, we got a one-way ticket." It may not be remembered but at that time the work was very hard. When people sending back the remittances were asked when they were coming home, they would reply, "If it freezes up, we might get home." In other words, if the sea froze over, they would slide back.
Those days have left an indelible imprint on my mind. I have seen a football team with the Cloonans, the Jordans, the Penroses, the Mahers, wiped out of Ballysallagh and a football team decimated. They all bid goodbye to gnashing and weeping of teeth and crying at Mullingar station and the train took them away. I have never forgotten that scene as a child.
As a nation we should remember where we come from, what we had to go through and what our people suffered. We should never impose that great sorrow and heartbreak upon anybody else. We are a nation that has developed and that is big enough.
A lot of people pay hard-earned taxes to sustain many important services. If those services were under attack from a mass influx there is a seven-year derogation after three or six months. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, will advise the Minister in three seconds. He makes legislation on the hoof. We had better watch out tomorrow morning because he may have something else coming in.
He loves non-nationals.
I do not know. I have a great feeling for all our fellow humans. As a socialist that is what I hope distinguishes socialism, born of fraternity, solidarity, compassion and sense of community in the wider sense of the word.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Martin.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Murphy, Gerard.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairi.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Upton, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Broughan and Boyle.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I am now 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 and Family Affairs and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 45.
Tá
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Martin.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Murphy, Gerard.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Upton, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Broughan.
Question declared carried.