I do not like to follow the Minister down some of the avenues she travels, but she did mention competitiveness and prices. It is one of the simplicities that the coven of economists have foisted on us, that you can equate competitiveness and international markets with price. That is all very well if you are selling buttons, because they are an easily transported and sellable commodity, but all you ever get out of selling buttons is buttons. If you are selling high technology goods in a high technology market, which is what this country should be doing, competitiveness is as much related to other non-measureable and non-financial matters as it is to price. To get involved in arguments about the level of employers' PRSI as an index of competitiveness, which therefore generates sales on international markets, is grossly to over-simplify the industrial strategy this country should have. Other countries have tried that strategy and ended up bankrupt. I do not think we should go down that route. It is possible to have a high wage, high salary economy which booms on international markets; many other countries have done it. Prices and competitiveness do not equate and should equate less and less. There is a long OECD report which states precisely that.
Social Welfare Bill, 1986: Committee and Final Stages (Resumed).
The Minister said 1,000 people would be brought into permanent employment in that five month period. That is encouraging. We are told that for every 1,000 unemployed the State pays out approximately £2½ million in unemployment benefit. I hope the Government will request a continuance of this scheme which seems to have been a worthwhile exercise.
To assess the success of this scheme one has to make an estimate of the number of people who would have been employed by these employers if the scheme did not exist. There is no point in saying the people who were taken on are benefiting from the scheme. What you have to identify is how many of them would have been employed if the scheme did not exist. That is the real measure of its success and we do not have any indication of that yet.
This section increases the period of disqualification for disability benefit and injury benefit from six weeks to nine weeks where a person fails to turn up for a medical examination by one of the Department's medical referees, or where a person has become incapable of work through his own misconduct. The Minister indicated yesterday that approximately 75,000 disability claimants were called for medical examination and about 6,000 did not attend for examination. I would like more information on the figure of 6,000, if it is available. Obviously within that 6,000 there would be some with very genuine reasons why they could not attend. It would be unfair to proceed with increasing the period from six weeks to nine weeks if people are genuinely ill and cannot attend. If the reasons given are not good enough, then I think we should leave it as it is. I believe there are many genuine cases in the 6,000 cases mentioned by the Minister and I do not think it is fair to penalise everybody because of a few "cowboys" in that group.
I, too, am trying to understand this. If a person is called for a medical examination and fails to turn up without a legitimate reason he should not be paid but should be afforded an opportunity to be able to sign on for unemployment. That is the next stage if, on a doctor's certificate, he has been ill and unable to work. The Department communicate with the doctor and inform him that the person he has been certifying for some time is to be called for a medical examination and he is asked for his comments. I would like to know from the Minister if the GP at that stage advises his patient that he is to be checked, that he cannot stand over giving certificates and recommends that there is no point in going for a medical examination as in his opinion he is fit for work. This is probably one of the reasons why people do not turn up for medical examinations.
I am worried about penalising people, of which there are many, who are dependent upon the opinions of medical practitioners. If they are not on doctors' certificates, they could be on unemployment certificates. If it is either one or the other, we should not penalise them. I made a strong appeal yesterday for people who are genuinely ill and who are suffering the problem of trying medically to prove their illness. We have been successful in endeavouring to do this with the help of the Ombudsman. There have been anomalies in the interpretation of the medical inspector's views. Here, we are trying to penalise people who do not turn up.
The Minister from her records would know, when a person is called for a medical inspection, is their GP also notified and asked for his views? If that is the case, is it because the GP has given a view to the beneficiary that he should not turn up because there would be egg on somebody's face? If so, is six weeks not long enough in penalising such people? I presume that during that six week penalty period they are without any income whatsoever and are unable to sign on as being eligible for unemployment. I do not mind them using the normal couple of days for which they are not paid but to penalise somebody with no income whatsoever for nine weeks means that we are creating another demand on the supplementary welfare discretionary system where you have people with no income unable to sign on as they have been disqualified under this section and who have to have recourse to somebody to buy bread and butter for their children.
I hold absolutely no brief for those who defraud the system. I want to make sure that regulations embodied in Social Welfare Bills do not exploit situations or penalise people unduly as we are dealing with those on the bottom end of the social welfare spectrum. They are in real need. I wish we would use the same liberalisation as was used on the ceiling income for those who are contributing. We should show the same care and compassion as nine weeks is too strict except where there is a real, genuine reason. The Minister and her advisers who considered this probably had some information available that we do not have. I hope that by asking these questions the Minister will realise that we only want to come to grips with the situation and find out what are the reasons for this extension. Is there a similar disqualification for those on unemployment who have been found working and who are penalised for a lesser number of weeks because of that?
Having mentioned that, could I say that the people who should be penalised in that situation should be the employers who also exploit the system in employing people whom they know are signing on. They allow them time off to sign. It is the employer in that situation who should be penalised and not the unfortunate person who is caught in the black economy trap. It is on the employers' information that we could stop the payment of social welfare but they will deny it because they have exploited the labourers. The employers will deny that they ever employed them.
We are left with asking people to sign on every morning at 10.30 a.m. just because they have a reputation of signing on and working. I know of somebody who had to sign on every morning, each day of his life, even on the day when his father died, simply because he was suspected of working for somebody. That employer would have the discretion to say that that person was working and that would be the end of it. I am worried about the penalty of nine weeks when there might be a genuine reason. Is it a fact that GPs are consulted in advance of the medical referee's visit?
I agree with Senator Ferris. We do not exist entirely in a vacuum. There was a very detailed study on the whole area of disability benefit conducted by Gerry Hughes for the Economic and Social Research Council. His conclusion, unequivocally, was that there was no evidence of serious abuse in that area.
There is also a myth circulating around this country that we have a high level of absenteeism. A recent issue of the journal of the Irish Management Institute—I emphasise the source; I cannot give a precise quote—had a long article on the basis of a study commissioned by the IMI on absenteeism which scotched virtually everyone of the famous Irish myths and particularly the official level of between 8 and 13 per cent as being so undefined and unquantifiable as to be utterly pointless as some employers incorporated maternity leave as absenteeism in terms of statistics. That was his identification, not mine, as one of the major anomalies in the definition of absenteeism. A second one is that it goes up towards the end of the tax year. There is no evidence according to this independent survey for the Irish Management Institute that this happens at all.
Gerry Hughes's recent figure is that about 25 per cent of claimants for disability benefit are called to a second opinion by the Department of Social Welfare. That is a huge figure and means that one in four people are called for a second opinion. Crudely, from memory, about 25 per cent of those people are found to be fit to work. That does not mean for one second that they were all consciously defrauding the system. There is the possibility of people being better and doctors differing. I suspect from what Senator Ferris mentioned, and I have evidence from people who were told by their doctors that if they go back to work, even though the Department of Social Welfare say they are to go back, that they will accept no responsibility for their health because in their view they are not fit to go back to work. That is a serious matter and one for which there should be some solution.
If the Department are doing that kind of thing, getting a second opinion on 25 per cent of disability benefits, they must by now have some information on the names of doctors who are writing certificates on the scale which some people are suggesting is being done. I know of one doctor in Cork of whom it is alleged that if you send your little brother up saying you have a pain in your back a certificate is handed out by his secretary. I do not know if that is true but I think that if the Department of Social Welfare are actually calling for second opinions on 25 per cent of recipients for disability benefit in any given year they must by now know the names of the doctors who are signing and there must be evidence of disproportionately high certification in the big cities and towns. If the Department have that information, it should be passed on to the medical council with a request that appropriate action should be taken against doctors if they are abusing the certification scheme.
It is ironic that doctors get paid for signing these certificates. Therefore the doctors who abuse the system are the ones who make most out of the Department of Social Welfare. It is regrettable that until we have genuinely objective evidence, as distinct from mass hysteria and my coven of economists targeting another area of alleged abuse, we are now further penalising people. As Senator Ferris suggested, this will leave some people nine weeks without incomes. That is an unjustified imposition because it imposes absolute poverty, and if the alternative is supplementary welfare I would not wish it and the process of applying for it on anybody, not even the members of the Government—it would be unfair even to them. Nobody deserves to go through the process of applying for supplementary welfare because it is humiliating in the extreme; it is often run by people who deliberately humiliate people and often deliberately go out of their way to demean people applying for supplementary benefit.
I have often written to the ESRI suggesting that they seek substantial Government funding to do a detailed study of the whole area of social welfare abuse. As an independent social research body they should be given funds to enable them to carry out investigations that would help them to identify where there is abuse in the system. Figures based on mythology should be dismissed. As I have said, 25 per cent of disability beneficiaries are called for second medical opinions. Crudely putting it, 25 per cent of them are found to be fit for work. That is 25 per cent of 25 per cent, actually 6.25 per cent. Of those 6.25 per cent, we could argue forever as to whether some of them were victims of differences of opinion and so on.
There is no hard evidence to suggest that there is widespread abuse of the disability scheme. If somebody is concerned that there is large-scale abuse, let us for God sake get hard evidence to prove it or disprove it and get away from this constant harassment of people who live on very small incomes, without people like us, in well off positions, adding to their humiliations and their burdens.
Disability and injury benefits, as Senators have said, are a most sensitive area. Senators are aware that deciding fitness and disability for work can never be in any country in the world an exact science when one is administering a social welfare system. This is one of the difficulties with Senator Ryan's suggestion about ESRI going in to try to establish definitively whether there is or not abuse of the social welfare code, how much there is and how it should be stopped. As Minister, I am the one in the firing line because on the one hand I am being very hard on people who are trying to claim benefits and on the other I am accused of wasting taxpayers' money because abuse is rampant. One would have to consider Senator Ryan's suggestion carefully because in another breath Senator Ryan and other Senators say that the thing is simply not an exact science.
The Department of Social Welfare must look constantly at these systems and adapt them or change them and make small adjustments here and there as various things emerge which give us cause for alarm. No matter how you look at it, 6,000 people failing to attend for examinations and failing to give any good reasons, represent large numbers of people and a huge amount of time on the part of the medical referees who have called people for examination. Those 6,000 people who were disqualified did not have good reasons. The Department's system will accept good reasons for inability to attend medical examinations. In those circumstances the Government considered that the penalty for nonattendance should be increased, particularly because the number was so high.
In reply to a question by Senator Ferris, I understand the GPs are informed when persons are called for examination. I do not know whether the GPs then tell their patients not to bother to turn up for the examinations because they would not be passed — I have no way of knowing that. If some of the 6,000 came into that category they will hardly give it to the Department as a reason for nonattendance. Senators should know that people are not left without any means at all for the nine weeks. People who have a good reason for not coming for examination will not be put off disability benefit. I emphasise that very strongly, and the supplementary welfare system is open to people who have special difficulties and cannot make ends meet. As well, they can get themselves on to unemployment assistance.
Senator Ryan spoke of doctors who might or might not be furnishing medical certificates which turn out to be contested by medical referees. Obviously, the Department watch that system carefully and if they find cases where this is indulged in wrongly we can write to the Medical Council, and we do not have to continue such doctors on our list. That area is carefully monitored. We do not have to continue with a doctor whom we regard as a person not following normal procedures. So there is a mechanism in the Department to see that people who have genuine reasons for not attending for medical examinations will not be crossed off. I repeat that, because the high figure of 6,000 people not turning up for examinations without valid reasons justified the Department in increasing the disqualification period from six to nine weeks.
In regard to possible abuses by doctors, has the Minister any information about the numbers of doctors whom the Department have felt obliged to report to the Medical Council or the number of doctors whom they have taken off their lists of approved certifiers? It would be interesting to know how many, if any, have been subject to the wrath of the Department.
I thank the Minister for her response to the questions. The Minister has confirmed that GPs who are certifying patients as being incapable of work are contacted by the Department before claimants are subjected to investigation. Can the Minister confirm that, when a general practitioner is notified that his patient is being subjected to examination, in the interim that general practitioner is required to submit some kind of report to the Department? Can the Minister say, when a general practitioner receives that kind of notification, whether he responds? For example, is he expected to notify the appeals doctor, confirming that his patient is still ill? What I am endeavouring to ascertain is whether, in relation to those 6,000 applicants, there was confirmation from the relevant doctors that they understood the position, because the Minister has said there was no valid excuse advanced by those 6,000 people. I should like to know whether there have been any excuses advanced by their doctors.
It appears abundantly clear that proper facilities are not available to Department inspectors to enable them carry out a proper assessment of an applicant's ability or inability to work. I posed that question yesterday but, in replying, the Minister did not respond. My hope would be that there could be greater use made of laboratory, X-ray and out-patient facilities in hospitals so that applicants would be subjected to a proper examination rather than a Department inspector sitting across the table maintaining that in his opinion the applicant was fit to work. The applicant may contend that he has a bad heart, cancer or whatever, while the inspector will contend that in his opinion that person is fit to work. The inspector probably will say to the applicant, "I will be communicating with your doctor and the Department within a certain number of days." The very most such an inspector might do is check on one's blood pressure; he will not take any blood samples, or look at X-rays even when the applicant produces them at the point of examination. There have been substantiated complaints by applicants that, in spite of producing X-rays or medical evidence at such examinations, the inspector will say he is not interested. I have obtained X-rays from hospitals on behalf of constituents in order to help them in their applications. Ultimately one has to resort to the Ombudsman to sort out these types of problems, the proper medical evidence confirming that the applicant is unable to work.
If we want a system that shows some sympathy and compassion let us use to the fullest the facilities available to us in the areas that most affect people. In some areas there may be district hospitals. Other areas may be fortunate in having proper health clinics. In the town of Tipperary there is a health clinic nobody could attend because it affords no privacy whatsoever. Indeed, the social welfare procedures carried on in that building can only be described as inhuman. It should be remembered that social welfare officers carry out a public investigation there and there are no facilities for any privacy whatsoever. I have asked the Minister to make capital sums available for the building of a proper health clinic in Tipperary town to replace the old workhouse building which is ready to fall down. In this delicate area of establishing people's state of health and their capability to work or otherwise, we should use the other medical facilities available, even if they are located in the out-patients' department of the local hospital. That would appear to be the appropriate location especially if an applicant has a record in that hospital, so that inspectors could resort to consultants at that hospital to establish the real state of a person's health.
None of us is defending people capable of work or suggesting that they be paid because some general practitioner contends they are not capable of working. Nobody is suggesting that for a moment. We are endeavouring to ensure that the relevant regulations are not interpreted by officers without regard to the full medical evidence available. I know that has been the practice and the Ombudsman has so proven. The Department should ascertain how their image can be improved in this respect. It can be said that applicants for various benefits are now petrified. Indeed, perhaps that is why those 6,000 people did not turn up; perhaps they did not want to be humiliated. Perhaps it is easier not to turn up than be humiliated in endeavouring to prove that one is not well. The Department should endeavour to have the regulations implemented with a degree of humanity.
The Minister will see from my various interventions that this is a matter about which I am most concerned. I have had the experience of seeing so many applicants in trouble. I have no complaint at all with the section of the Department dealing with queries lodged by public representatives. Rather I am concerned about what happens on the ground in, say, Tipperary town, Chair, Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir, Cashel or anywhere else. I would not worry about the odd applicant not turning up for examination. The inspector will be there examining people over a couple of days. But one has the impression that sometimes inspectors say, "We will disqualify everybody today and those who feel sufficiently strongly will appeal and will be readmitted for eligibility". If the regulations are to be interpreted in that way then that will lead to a clogging up of the machinery of State because all of us would be involved in representations.
In her remarks yesterday the Minister almost admitted that the Department experienced difficulties with public representatives making representations on behalf of applicants. The reason for that is that applicants experience tremendous difficulty in establishing eligibility. Those problems are not created by us but by people in the system. There is enough ill spoken of public representatives. It should be remembered that, in this respect, unfortunate people have nobody else to whom they can resort. Yet, finally, we have to turn to the Ombudsman. What sort of a monster are we creating in the administration of a scheme intended to help people at the lower end of the scale, people who are unfortunate enough to have no work or are unable to work because, otherwise, they would not be seeking assistance?
We should remember that we are spending £2½ billion on social welfare, that is £7 million a day, a figure which is at an all-time high and has increased enormously over the past ten years. Many of those huge increases were occasioned by the increase in the volume of unemployment. These schemes were expanded enormously to include many more people and their provisions have been improved substantially and as I said earlier, improved over and above the cost of living increases. There is an enormous amount of money being spent on the system.
Much of the discussion on this section would give the impression that, for the £2½ billion, we have an appalling system. I am sure Senators do not intend to give that impression. I have a great respect for the people who administer the system, who work in an area which, of its very nature, is difficult, establishing people's entitlements, people who are not at all well off. That is not an easy job. As Senators have rightly pointed out, it is an area continuously under the microscope, subjected to public scrutiny. When we talk about a figure of 6,000 people not turning up let us remember, as I said in the Dáil, that in 1985 over 75,000 disability benefit claimants were called for medical examination. If you take away the 6,000 people who did not attend and were disqualified for not attending and having no reason, that is 69,000 people who attended. We should keep that figure in our minds. It seems that those 69,000 people did not feel as badly about coming as we might deduce from some of the concerns expressed here today. I understand these concerns very well. They show an admirable worry about ordinary people trying to get their entitlements.
Regarding the number of doctors whom we have referred to the Medical Council or whom we have removed from our list, I am afraid I have not got that figure to hand but I will endeavour to find it out for the Senator. I am told that it is quite rare that we either refer doctors to the Medical Council or remove them from our list.
When the general practitioner is informed that a person is being called for medical examination he is not asked for his views but, of course, his views may be given to us. It is open to him to give us his views or his observations, but he is not asked to do so. There might be some misunderstanding about the powers or abilities of the medical referees to refer people to other sources. For example, where a medical referee himself has doubts or does not feel that he wishes to make a pronouncement on the person's condition, he would refer a person to a specialist if he felt he needed to, and it is open to him to do so. The client can also submit a specialist report. The deciding officer is the person who decides whether the person will receive disability benefit, and the deciding officer will receive the report from the medical referee. However, where it is felt that a medical referee or any officer of the Department — in this case we are talking about medical referees — has refused to take any medical evidence offered to him, and this is the kind of case Senator Ferris mentioned, we would need to know about that instance because it would be very important to us that people would not feel that they were not getting medical attention or medical examination of any kind. I ask Senators, particularly Senator Ferris in this case, to let us know the details of where that happens.
Mention was made of facilities for people coming for medical examination. I accept fully that even within this vast amount of money that is being spent on these services there are inadequate facilities in many places for these examinations. The question of improving facilities is something that we are trying constantly to keep up with, for example employment exchanges, in terms of refurbishing them and building new ones. The inadequate facilities are very off putting and difficult for people to deal with. We should look at them constantly with a view to trying to improve them. I assure Senators that this is a matter of some concern to me.
I accept very much the concern expressed by Senators on this section of the Bill. I have listened with considerable interest to the opinions of Senators. As I said last night, I am extremely impressed by the expertise and concern of people in this House about this area, which are very valuable and helpful to me in my work of trying to improve the social welfare system.
This is a very long section containing a great deal of technical jargon. What effectively it means is that under the section, as we read from the explanatory memorandum, "a woman's maternity allowance will be calculated as 70 per cent of her earnings in the relevant income tax year or 70 per cent of a specified weekly amount rather than a combination of flat rate, pay-related and additional pay-related benefit as at present." The maternity allowance scheme should be straightforward enough to the claimant of maternity benefit. I am mindful that the Ombudsman's report for 1985 recorded that 14 complaints were made in this area. Having made those points, let me ask the Minister to comment on what I would regard as being the bottom line. Is the benefit altered in any way as a result of these technical adjustments?
I assure the Senator that there is no change in the level of entitlement in any case from this provision. It is the same. It does not alter it.
What would the Minister's comment be on the fact that 14 people complained? Is it a low or high number? Would she care to comment on that aspect?
I am not aware of the aspect that the Senator mentioned, so really I have no comment to make on it. I assure the Senator that this section of the Bill does not change entitlement for any woman.
This section increases the maximum fines to £1,000 and £3,000. Considering the kind of people we are dealing with, are those amounts realistic? I cannot see the logic of imposing fines on people who may not be in a position to pay them.
I take the Senator's point that they might seem to be unrealistic. However, the fines are increased year by year or over periods in keeping with the level at which the fines started off with. This is an increase to keep these fines in line with fines in other sections of the system.
Having argued on the other side of the fence on humanitarian matters for so long, I have no problem at all with these levels of fines. If they are a disincentive to people to abuse what we would like to be a good scheme then I have no problem with my conscience. The Ombudsman has mentioned in his report that the Department are very liberal about approaching problems of even overpayments and have on the intervention of the Ombudsman overlooked overpayments because they felt they would create problems. I have found in working with the Department that, where genuine errors of overpayment occurred, they were very liberal in trying to ensure that people were given an opportunity to repay. When social welfare payments stopped and the person had no other income from the State the Department were prepared to defer payments. My experience with the Department in this area has been good. They have been liberal in their approach to the problem. I presume these fines are there as a disincentive to people fiddling the system.
If that is the purpose, it is all right.
That would be my reading of it. If there is a stiff penalty for people who deliberately go out of their way to play the system for their own benefit, it is a disincentive. I admit that collecting it is another matter. With the exception of the woman who has 86 children — she is obviously doing very well and she might be able to meet a fine like this — to collect such a fine, generally speaking, would pose a problem. A fine is there as a disincentive. Having argued for a humanitarian scheme I am also saying that we should ensure that there are sufficient penalties so that people do not abuse it. I want to be consistent in what I have said on the Bill.
I wish also to be consistent. I accept why the fines are there, but the collection of them would present real problems. This is my point.
Is it not a fact that a lot of the fines that are stuck into legislation are there to satisfy public opinion as much as anything else? Public opinion gets itself worked into a frenzy about social welfare abuse and one appropriate response is to up the levels of theoretical fines that people could be fined for offences.
I very much doubt that people who are fiddling the social welfare system have a clue what the penalties are. I doubt very much that they know whether the fine is £50, £100, £500 or £50,000. I doubt that if they did know that they would care. I have long argued that there is nonsense associated with deterrents. The deterrent that deters people is the possibility of being caught and not the scale of any penalty. It is also a fact that close to one-sixth of our prison population are there because of non-payment of fines and are costing the State sums of money vastly in excess of the fines they did not pay.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will the Senator confine himself to the Social Welfare Bill?
We are talking about fines for abuses. I defer to the ruling of the Chair but I thought I was arguing about the scale of penalties. I do not believe the scale of fines is a particular deterrent. If fines are made very large there will be an increase in the level of the non-payment of fines. We will push up the prison population and end up costing the State a fortune. The real deterrent is the possibility of being caught.
Will the Minister explain the difference between child allowance and child benefit?
The child benefit scheme, when introduced fully, will involve the abolition of the child tax allowance. It will be a taxable child benefit scheme as distinct from the children's allowance scheme which is non taxable and has no redistributive effect.
May I tease this out a little further? The child allowance, as we know it at the moment, is paid to everybody irrespective of income. It is paid to either the spouse or the husband, whichever is decided. The child benefit, as we understand it, will be a direct payment to the mother. The income earner in the family will lose the £100 tax free allowance which, in some way, will balance it. Having looked at it, and worked out the computations, I note that most people will be beneficiaries, particularly those in the lower income bracket who will not suffer too much from the loss of the £100 child allowance. That should have been higher because of the difficulty of rearing a family. I understand that the payment under the child benefit scheme of approximately £30 per month for each child, will be treated as an income for tax purposes by everybody and will be taken into account in their reckonable earnings.
What we are discussing is an interim scheme under which we are paying an increased amount of money to everybody and removing the tax allowances for children from those who are in the tax brackets. In that way, we are moving towards what I would like, a proper child benefit scheme paid directly to the mother but taken into account as a reckonable income for those who are paying tax. In that case those who are not paying tax will be net beneficiaries.
To the extent that I understand what they intend to do, I fully support the Government's proposal in Building on Reality for a child benefit scheme. It is one of the great anomalies of our social welfare system that people like myself and the Minister, to make two extreme comparisons, should get children's allowances indiscriminately and irrespective of income. It is wrong and I am glad the Government are moving in this direction. The benefit for the first five children of £15.05 a month represents a 25 per cent increase or about £3. I understand that the value of that is about £36 a year. The loss to a person paying the standard rate of income tax from the abolition of the £100 allowance is £35 a year. The net benefit to a person paying standard rate income tax of this change is £1 per year per child. I do not regard that as an enormous sign of social progress. I support everything else about it except that at the level of standard rate of income tax, and given the fact that far too many people pay tax above the standard rate because of the injustices and unfairness of the Irish taxation system — not I emphasise because of the levels of taxation here but because of the uneven way the whole burden is carried — this benefit will not achieve the admirable objective it should, that is, to put a substantial income directly at the disposal of mothers. It is really an accountancy exercise until it is either substantially increased or the levels at which people pay both the standard rate and higher rate of taxation are adjusted. A pound per year is not much of a sign of social progress.
I should like to emphasise, at the outset, as Senator Ferris has rightly identified, that this is the interim scheme on the way to the implementation of the full child benefit scheme which will have a very significant redistributive effect towards those on lower incomes. Under this interim scheme three-quarters of all families in the State will be at least as well off. They will not suffer any change. Some of them will, in fact, be better off. Perhaps, I should give some figures in that respect. For example, in terms of numbers of families, 42,300 families at the 58 per cent marginal rate of tax will lose very slightly—£1.83. The next group at 48 per cent marginal rate of tax, 62,600 families, will lose £1. The group at 35 per cent marginal relief, 188,500 families, as Senator Ryan rightly identified, because of the removal of the child tax allowance will, in fact, be almost unchanged.
The next group are the 158,600 families on social welfare. All these categories will gain per child per month. For example, widows on contributory pensions will gain about 72p per child per month and people on disability and unemployment will gain £1.26 per child per month. People with very low earnings or entirely outside the tax net would gain about £3 per child per month. This is an interim stage on the way to introducing the full child benefit scheme. To avoid the interim benefit scheme being detrimental to people, we have had to inject a net £11.1 million from the Exchequer into the system. We have not increased the child dependant allowance for social welfare recipients because there will be an automatic increase through this new scheme.
The child benefit scheme that we are introducing as from next Tuesday is the first step in the direction of achieving the redistribution of resources which Senators rightly identify as being called for for a considerable length of time. I would fully agree with the Senator that it always seemed an anomaly that people on relatively high incomes for this country were in receipt of exactly the same non-taxable benefit as families who were very much worse off.
I believe that this is a very significant step in the whole child support system of this State. It has been an important move forward.
Can the Minister assure me that the original intent of the child benefit scheme is still the Government's objective — that the administrative obstacles are not going to be insurmountable and that the objective will be achieved?
It is certainly our full intention that it would be achieved.
Briefly, on the question of people who have children's allowance books which probably will not expire until June-July, may I assume that they retain them, or is there some other method?
Yes, I mentioned this briefly yesterday and I would like to emphasise it again. As of next Tuesday people presenting themselves at the post offices will get the new benefits, even with the present books. We will be making that quite clear in advertisements, so that people will fully understand that.
The Minister is paying the penalty of being very helpful; that is why I am hopping up and down so often. As Senator Ferris quite rightly said, she is being very forthcoming and therefore it is very tempting to ask many more questions. If she said no more often, I might ask far fewer questions.
Is there implied in section 18 some capacity by central Government to impose a ceiling on expenditure and supplementary welfare in each health board? In other words, is the actual budget beyond which one cannot pass now going to be allocated for a year, irrespective of need? That, in my view, would undermine the whole objective of the supplementary welfare system. If people are operating within rigid annual budgets we are going to have serious problems, particularly towards the end of each financial year. Supplementary welfare of its nature, while it is discretionary and therefore caution has to be exercised by the officers and on the other hand because it is discretionary and meant to be related to need, has to be open-ended. If it is not open-ended, it will cease to be able to do what it is intended to do.
I want to pass a few comments on this. Most of us as members of local authorities this year welcome the fact that for the first time in our Estimates this provision was removed. I was rather disappointed to see on the other side of the scale that our rate support grant was reduced accordingly, so we were not really beneficiaries. When the health boards were set up and some powers were transferred direct from the councils to the health boards, on the basis or representation it was appropriate that councils would have made a contribution to health boards. It also gave an opportunity to make representations direct to the supplementary welfare officer. It was right for various reasons to be able to approach him at weekends. The level of antagonism from supplementary welfare officers against people using public representatives to try to stimulate them into action is ever growing. They have told the recipients that they should not be going to Senators, Deputies, or councillors about these matters, that there is no need, they would turn them down anyway.
This year it is appropriate that we tidy up the whole area. If the State considers that this is its responsibility, it will have information immediately available through the Department that money was paid out under this heading. In the case of people on supplementary benefit who are waiting for qualification for various schemes, their claims must be confirmed as correct and there is then a further delay in communicating with the supplementary welfare officer through the health boards to find out how much money was advanced under this heading. A person had to be without income for a week, otherwise the Department could not come through with the payment because supplementary welfare benefit was still in operation. I welcome the fact that we are going to streamline the operation. I hope that a ceiling or limit is not by the Exchequer on the amount of money they will make available, and that there will not be any change in the interpretation of how this money should be distributed. God knows, it is tight enough at the moment.
Supplementary welfare officers carry on as if it were their own money they were giving out of their own pockets to people. I know that collectively it is all our money, but these people hold on to it as if it were their own. One has a feeling that the more they have in their pockets undistributed at the end of the week, the more payment they might get for being very excellent officers. I hope that transferring the responsibility to the Exchequer, removing it from the health boards and the county councils, might assist in the streamlining. I know that there is still an argument going on between councils and health boards about the amount of arrears due under this heading, but we will reach agreement — some of us are members of both authorities — that we might divide the spoils for four or five years and pay back over a period. The Government will be pleased when this has been done. This happened in the transfer of the responsibility of health care and charges for it to health boards and to the Government. Now, this is the final bastion of bureaucracy that we might hand back to the State. Obviously, it cannot be implemented on the ground as I would like to see it done. It is difficult to assess the demands being made on any local authority or how assessment is arrived at because it is globally done by the health board in consultation with the community care directors, community care officers and administrators. There is a fair bit of bureaucracy in this scheme and perhaps this proposal will help. It will certainly avoid the delay that happens when both schemes come into play and both cannot operate together.
As Senator Ferris has said, this is purely an administrative measure which will tidy up the system and has generally been welcomed as something that should have been done some time ago. It is really a financial problem being sorted out between the health boards and the central Exchequer. The central question for answer at this point is that, as in all other areas of social welfare provision, there can by its very nature be no ceiling on expenditure. Obviously, like every Government Department in every area, one has to set Estimates. In the social welfare payment area, one pays whatever the rates are and there is no ceiling on it.
The Minister has direct responsibility for the funding of supplementary welfare and I support what Senator Ferris said about the way it is done. People I know have written to the Department frequently about anomalies in regard to social welfare supplementary welfare, particularly the interpretation of the circular letter under which the Act is interpreted. I should not have seen the circular letter since it is covered by the Official Secrets Act but, nevertheless, having seen the circular I am amazed at what supplementary welfare officers do, given the compassionate interpretation the Department put on the supplementary welfare legislation. The circular letter is quite compassionate, flexible and intelligent but the people who implement it do so in the most extraordinary way.
I know of one person in the North Eastern Health Board who decided that £15 a week was an adequate income for anybody to live on and would not grant the full supplementary welfare benefit rate. I know in some places that rent allowances are paid freely and frequently and reasonably intelligently to ensure that people stay in accommodation but in other areas to get anything above £5 a week you get the impression you would need a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I am sure Senator Ferris will confirm this. The most appalling thing about supplementary welfare is the anomalous way it is operated by individual officers running the scheme. If that could be straightened out, and if people could run it as it is intended to be run according to the Department's own circular letter, it would be an admirable scheme which would succeed in doing its own job very well. The tragedy is that it is not done like that and it should be looked at and examined. The people who run and operate it should be straightened out.
At the risk of undoing the goodwill I seem to have got from Senator Ryan earlier by being ready to answer questions, I must point out that this section is really only a technicality. It provides that the cost of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme should be borne by the Exchequer in the Social Welfare Vote. I really could not go down the other avenues that have been raised there.
I am not a lawyer and perhaps the Minister can put my fears at rest. When I read something like "Where the Minister revokes regulations made under...the Principal Act and makes regulations which he certifies to be substantially to the like effect as the regulations so revoked"...it seems that the Minister is becoming judge, jury and executioner. As long as he believes that they are substantially the same as those there before, he does not have to get anybody to approve it for him. It appears that would leave a Minister, not the present Minister obviously, but a subsequent Minister in a position to do all sorts of strange things as long as he could certify that they were substantially the same or had substantially the same intent.
The Senator is under a misapprehension. If they are only regulations for consolidation they are not substantive. In case the Senator might think that a Minister might decide whether they were or were not, they have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas for 21 days so that that danger does not arise.
I am worried about this section. I expressed that worry here yesterday on the basis that it seems that the section——
The Senator should not be breathless about it.
I am breathless because I came here at speed which reflects my concern and worry about the section.
And the audacity of the section took the Senator's breath away.
Indeed, but I am getting my breath back gradually. The section is entitled: "Restriction of provisions requiring laying of draft regulations before Houses of the Oireachtas". The section relates in particular to a number of sections of the consolidation Act. It provides that regulations made under these sections may be amended in minor ways by the Minister without the necessity of laying a draft of the regulation before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
On a point of principle, I dislike this type of legislation. I dislike legislation which allows Acts of the Oireachtas to be changed by regulation. The Joint Committee on the EC have already expressed their view in relation to EC regulations in this regard and said that, where a major change is effected, it should always be incorporated in legislation. The sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Legislation which deals with statutory instruments have expressed considerable concern with regard to this matter also. If one reads through and examines the 1981 Act and if one examines the sections which can be affected by section 22 of this Bill one's worry is increased particularly at section 12 of the 1981 Act which states that regulations may alter the rates of employment or voluntary contributions but where such regulations are proposed to be made a draft thereof should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until the resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each House.
The important part as far as section 22 of this Bill is concerned is the part in section 12 which states that regulations may alter the rates of employment or voluntary contributions. The mandarins of the Department of Social Welfare, those whom I complimented and thanked yesterday, are conferring upon their Minister the power to alter by regulation, without the necessity of placing that regulation before the Houses of the Oireachtas, the rates of employment or voluntary contributions. I am very worried about that because it is the kind of legislation which cannot be supported and I ask the Minister to consider very carefully the operation of that section between now and Committee Stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This is Committee Stage.
I mean between now and Report Stage. It is my breathlessness that is giving me difficulty in mentally comprehending the Stage we are at.
The other sections referred to in section 22 of the Bill deal with the making of regulations for the provision of modifications of contribution conditions for disability benefit, maternity allowances, unemployment benefit, old age contributory pension, retirement pension, invalidity pension, widows' contributory pension, orphans' contributory pension, deserted wife's benefit and death grant respectively. It is very improper that these rates can now be altered, not merely by regulation but by regulation which expressly does not have to be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Why is this change necessary? The 1981 Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act is extremely complicated containing 313 sections and six schedules and of necessity has been amended at least once a year since then. We are now suggesting that it should be possible to further amend that Act by regulations which do not even have to be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I see this not merely as a major erosion of parliamentary democracy but as the creation of a situation which will make the social welfare code most difficult and complex and hard to comprehend. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter very seriously between now and Report Stage for the reasons I have mentioned.
Finally, in relation to Social Welfare Bills in the past, I ask the Minister to ensure that her Department or the Stationery Office will arrange for the production of the social welfare code in a composite form in the same way as the Income Tax Acts are produced. It should be possible each year, with each amending legislation, with each order that must be placed before this House or, if this draconian and terrible section is accepted, with each order that does not have to be placed before this House, for somebody who is attempting to explore this legislation to find it all in one physical form which is easy to comprehend.
The Minister made the point that the system may occasionally become clogged up because of the amount of representations made by public representatives. Frequently the reason is that the code is very complex and difficult to comprehend. Far less representations would be made and greater clarity would exist if the suggestion which I made with regard to the production of a composite form of legislation were adhered to. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on the general point I made in relation to this section. I hope that the amendment which I have suggested is introduced and that we will see our colleagues in the lower House being summoned back to Dublin to agree with the change which I hope this House will find acceptable.
I am really alarmed now. I asked a question as a non-lawyer because the wording of this section disturbed me. The Minister answered me and I did not pursue the matter because I did not think I was qualified or competent to do so. Senator Durcan has now alarmed me entirely about this. I do not know whether he is right, but I am sufficiently unhappy with the phrase "which he certifies to be substantially to the like effect" to ask for a detailed interpretation of that phrase. What does that mean and how can such a procedure be policed? For instance, will regulations which the Minister "certifies to be substantially to the like effect" be public documents? What will their legal status be?
Regulations, as I understand it, are either statutory or non-statutory. If they are non-statutory are they covered, for instance, under the Official Secrets Act? Will we know what is in them, or will the Minister simply regulate them so that they are to the like effect? I would not have understood the phrase to mean what Senator Durcan said. I do not believe the Minister is in a position to change rates of benefit or substantially alter regulations. That may or may not be to the like effect. It bothers me that the Minister would have the right to certify what is to the like effect and that there would be no method of redress available to the Houses of the Oireachtas if the Minister is interpreted as going beyond what the section means. It appears that somebody would have to go to the courts to have regulations of this form overturned. One would have to challenge the Minister's certification that there were substantially to the like effect. Perhaps the Minister would interpret to us in simple layman's language — and she and I are both laypersons in the area of law — what this section actually means.
I support what Senator Durcan said. We had a conference before the Seanad sat to consider the implications of this section. It may be that there is a perfectly rational and understandable explanation. On a simple reading of the section it appears that it proposes to introduce an entirely new concept into Irish law, that is, to allow the Minister to certify whether new regulations are substantially the same as old regulations. We all know there can be circumstances where changes are necessary in the regulations, for example, indicating the eligibility qualifications for, say, deserted wife's allowance and the various other allowances that are covered by this section.
What is much more difficult to imagine is a realistic definition of what "substantially to the like effect" means. That is a matter of opinion. It appears that it is going to be a matter of the Minister's opinion. That is the worst kind of legislation. We are depending on the Minister's interpretation of whether the new regulation is to be "substantially to the like effect" as the old regulation. For example, there are income limits in respect of one of the sections. A figure of £7,000 is mentioned in the consolidation Act. It has been changed since by various amendments.
If it were decided to change again the level at which these qualification limits would operate, would that be substantially to the like effect if the change only took into account inflation between the time of the old order and the new order? The problem is that this Minister cannot give us an answer which will bind her successors. It appears that the Minister has quite an amount of explaining to do in this regard. By far the best approach for the Minister would be to withdraw this section and have another look at it even if that requires Members of the other House coming back from their holidays. That will not inconvenience me. I am quite sure they are so diligent in the way the perform their duties that they would welcome the opportunity to have a meeting to express their views on our views relating to section 22.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator O'Leary should not comment on what Members of the other House do or do not do or on whether or not they would like to come back.
I can appreciate the constitutional nicety of that. It does not prevent them from commenting on this House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
If they do wrong it does not mean——
——was announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the other House on one occasion without any defence from the Ceann Comhairle of the other House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am not interested in what rulings the Ceann Comhairle gives in the other House. I will rule here as Leas-Chathaoirleach.
We will obey to the letter and indeed to the spirit of what you say. You can strike from the record that portion of my remark. We cannot ignore the fact that Bills like this are being presented to us with a threat that they must become law before a particular date, 1 April in this case, and the consequential problems that arise when sections like this need to be examined critically by this House. I look forward to the Minister's explanation on section 22.
I sympathise with the anxieties which are being expressed by Senators. I sympathise also with what Senator O'Leary has said in regard to the manner in which this House is treated in regard to legislation. I will defer my remarks on that until we deal with the Earlier Signature Motion which arises directly from the lack of time this House has had to consider this legislation.
Like many other Senators I am worried about section 22. In the consolidation legislation of 1981 there is a requirement that drafts of regulations shall be brought before each House of the Oireachtas and can be nullified. It is perhaps a matter of convenience if, where there is merely a textual change, a very minor change, it can be argued that it should not need positive endorsement by each House. But this section appears to go further than to seek that convenience by removing all control.
If the requirements for positive endorsement were removed there should still be a power of annulment open to either House on the grounds that in the opinion of the Houses there was a substantial alteration. If this final power of determining whether there was a substantial alteration were left with the Houses of the Oireachtas there would not be the same objection to the requirement for positive endorsement of a regulation being made. If we were in actuality in the same state of freedom that we are supposed to be under the Constitution in regard to this legislation, I would suggest that an amendment along those lines be introduced on Report Stage.
The day will come when this Seanad in exasperation at the short time it is given for certain legislation, will reject a section such as section 22, irrespective of the fact that that action calls for an emergency recall of the Dáil. I do not think that day has arrived yet, and I do not think this section, which is a difficult one to interpret, is the one on which there should be such a trial of strength or a declaration of final impatience on the part of this House. I ask the Minster if she would not seriously consider the misgivings that come from all sides of this House, have this matter throughly examined and give an undertaking that if in her opinion and not in the opinion of anybody else, the case which has been made today is well founded, she would remedy the matter in the next Social Welfare Bill that will be inevitable in 12 months' time. Rather than standing up here today defending section 22 as it stands perhaps the Minister would undertake the re-examination of this section. Section 22, as we have it before us, is not the section 22 that was introduced earlier in March. It has already been amended in Dáil Éireann. We know that in the course of amendments further difficulties can arise. If we had time available this would be an obvious case for considering section 22, not on a Report Stage taken after an interval from before or after lunch, or Report Stage ordered on Wednesday for a Thursday, but a Report Stage which would follow a Committee Stage by one or two weeks — in fact, those one or two weeks are not open to us now. I would feel much happier if the Minister, rather than mounting an all-out defence of section 22 asked us to allow this to go into this year's Bill with an undertaking that the whole question would be examined during the next 12 months.
Senator Dooge has summed up the problem as we see it. If this Bill is passed, without amending section 22, and if the Minister considers it her duty to change the regulations, can I have an assurance that she will come back to this House with a resolution for a decision? If we have an opportunity to delete the regulations we would be able to give our views on the Minister's interpretation. This is not a shot across the bow for anybody, the parliamentary draftsman or anybody else. On numerous occasions in recent times this House was left with the responsibility of ensuring legislation was properly enacted, and that is not a condemnation of the other House.
A number of questions have been raised on section 22. Once again we have to rush very important legislation through this House because the Social Welfare Bill must become law by the end of the month. I am not supposed to mention the other House but they leave us no alternative but to rush this Bill through. We should get some assurance that the Social Welfare Bill, and other Bills of major importance will be brought to this House in time to be debated properly and amended where necessary. We should not have to waive our right to further investigate and question certain sections or subsections of any legislation.
I wish to attempt to allay the fears of Senators and assure them that section 22 is not intended to confer the draconian powers which Senators seem to be afraid of. If I may make a few remarks before responding to the suggestion of Senator Dooge, the purpose of section 22 is essentially to facilitate the work of consolidating social welfare regulations, work which has been considered to be extremely desirable. Senator Durcan asked that we simplify the social welfare legislation and regulations. Various Social Welfare Acts were consolidated in 1981. That was of major benefit and brought together in one Act all the basic provisions of the social welfare system. There has been so much additional legislation in the meantime that it is now necessary for us to begin the process of consolidating the Acts again but that is another day's work.
This section is concerned with the regulations under the Acts. As Senators know, there is a very large number of such regulations. Senator Robinson said yesterday that social welfare law is becoming of major interest to legal people, and the consolidation of the various regulations is a matter of great urgency and importance. A considerable amount of work has already been done in the area and I am anxious that we will complete the work and that the consolidated regulations will be made available as soon as possible.
I would like to make this very important point now because it is relevant to questions that have been raised. There is a general provision in the legislation that where any regulations are being made they must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas for 21 sitting days, and there is provision for a resolution annulling the regulations within that time by either House. The provision in the general legislation is not being affected by section 22. Senators can be assured on that point. That general revision remains, which is the main worry of the Senators. Another provision in the Act is that certain regulations must be laid in draft before each House and must be approved by a resolution of each House. The process of consolidating the regulations will involve bringing together in one regulation a number of different regulations of different types. I do not think there is very much to be gained by bringing all the consolidated regulations through both Houses and section 22 is designed to avoid this. I would repeat that there still is the general provision in the legislation that any regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas for 21 sitting days.
The section requires the Minister to certify that the consolidated regulations do not involve any change of substance but are merely a consolidation. While I respect the concern expressed by Senators that some unscrupulous Minister might certify a regulation as being a consolidating measure whereas in fact he or she was taking the opportunity to make a substantial change in some particular area, it need not be a real one. Obviously, there is a general presumption that Ministers will act reasonably in this regard as in so much other legislation. Apart from this, if anyone felt that a Minister in a particular instance had misused powers given in the section it would be open to that person to get a declaration to that effect from the High Court. Senators will know that recourse to the courts in relation to social welfare matters has become more frequent and will become even more frequent in the future.
Having said that, and pointed out the general provision in the legislation about the laying of regulations before both Houses of the Oireachtas, I would repeat that the provision is a reasonable one. It is only designed to help to do something which everybody wants us to do, which is to facilitate the process of consolidation. I would very much hope that the House would be able to see it in that light and not in any way an attempt to undermine the role of this House or the other House. The problem with section 22 is that it was circulated as far back as 4 March. The amendment subsequently made is very small. It does not affect the arguments Senators are making. I have tried to make it very clear that the Senators' fears are not necessary. Having said that, if Senators feel they are not fully satisfied with those remarks I would be very happy to comply with Senator Dooge's request in this respect.
I appreciate the Minister's approach. The Minister will also appreciate that it is difficult for us because of the pressure we are under to grapple with this. I would ask if the Minister will examine the question. It may well be that when we look at the whole Consolidated Act together, it would be quite clear. There is the general provision which the Minister referred to but there are provisions throughout the Act. Now that we are dealing with Report Stage, it is not possible for Senators to deal with this point on their feet or sitting down while other Senators are speaking.
A fair measure of the obnoxiousness of section 22, and I say the obnoxiousness at first sight to Senators, might well have been removed if, in fact, it had contained a phrase at the end "without prejudice to the general power under section 3 of the Principal Act" which would immediately make everybody look at section 3 of the Principal Act. The difficulties we have in dealing with it here are the difficulties other people will have when they are trying to see what does this piece of legislation mean. I would suggest to the Minister that the code which will have to be reconsolidated, as it were, in 12 months' time, should have such a phrase.
I know what the parliamentary draftsman is going to say when the Minister suggests that. The parliamentary draftsman is going to say that is unnecessary and therefore, it should not be done. It may be unnecessary to somebody who has all the legislation on a computer and concerts the sections and their effects on the computer. To a member of the ordinary public and to an ordinary Member of the Legislature, I think repetition is no harm. In fact, the theory of communication on which electronics is built depends on the fact that a degree of redundancy is necessary for good communication. There is a quantitative theorem known as Shannon's Theorem in regard to this. What we want is the application of the theorem of C.E. of Shannon to social welfare legislation in this particular regard. In fact, if that simple thing of the reference to section 3 or a reference to the fact that the general power of annulment was not thereby affected, I think this section would have been passed 45 minutes ago.
I am glad the Minister has responded positively to Professor Dooge's suggestion in relation to this overall section. I am still at a loss now that I have got my breath back again. But the question is the problem with the words "substantially to like effect". The Minister attempted to define those words by saying in effect it meant no change of substance. Do they mean that in relation to section 12 of the 1981 Act? I will read section 12 into the record again as it is a very short section. It states:
Regulations may alter rates of employment or voluntary contributions but where such regulations are proposed to be made, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas....
What section 12 says is very simple. I cannot see how there can be a change of regulation made under section 12 which would not, as it were, affect the substance. I still am unhappy about the powers section 22 confers. I do not know if it is fair to ask the Minister if she would be willing to give an undertaking to the effect that she would not use her powers of certification under this section between now and the enactment of the next following Social Welfare Bill.
Senator Dooge said almost all that I would like to say. Legislation is not for lawyers, legislation is for the community at large. There is nothing improper or wrong about incorporating into legislation phrases which may be technically unnecessary but which make the purpose or meaning of a piece of legislation more understood. A warning I would like to give to the Minister as would the Leader of the House, but cannot, is that the Leader of the House to his great credit has a habit so far of enabling motions to annual regulations to be discussed in this House. That is something that is not so frequent in the other House, particularly where minority groups, like independent members, raise them. The Minister ought to realise that on the tradition so far established in this House, the Leader has made it clear that it is not a precedent; we have in the past discussed the annulment of regulations where Members were not happy with them. Therefore if any regulations come in which are certified under section 22 of this Bill the Minister can assume that if they are, in the view of Members of this House, substantially at variance with the regulations, the proposals will be discussed and if necessary be annulled. The Leader has already given us evidence that he supports that view.
I would like to return to what section 22 is about. In doing that, the Minister is well served by such a skilful Leader of the House as Senator Dooge who can appear to handle the most difficult problems. The Minister is lucky that I am not Leader of the House because she would not be getting out quite so early today. I can guarantee her that. We are probably lucky that she is not Leader of the House because if she was, she would adopt an attitude similar to my own.
The principle of consolidation is well known in legislation but nowhere does this section mention consolidation. The Minister mentions it. Though the section refers to regulations "to the like effect", it does not say "the same regulations" or "like regulations". It says "substantially to the like effect". I do not think that means consolidation. It is slighty wider than consolidation. It is not a consolidation measure, and although what the Minister said about consolidation appears to be reasonable, this section goes a little beyond that.
Of course, other options were open to the Minister. One of them is shown in section 3 (5) of the Principal Act. There are two ways in which measures can come before this and the other House. The sections we are proposing to amend have, by and large if not all of them, the following rule: that if a change is to be made a positive resolution of both Houses must be passed before the regulation will take effect. In respect of the other provisions of the Bill, section 3 (5) of the Principal Act allows the Houses to intervene if they see fit. The provision provides that regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as they are made. If a resolution annulling a regulation is to be laid before the Oireachtas it must be within 21 sitting days. If nobody raises the issue, that is grand.
The Minister said that.
That is not happening here. There are now three ways in which regulations can be made. One is that a positive resolution of the Houses is required. All of the regulations I have looked up require that. General regulations may be annulled if the House feels it is necessary to do so. I understand this is a third category of regulation which may not be put before the House at all.
I understood that we did not have three categories.
Indeed we do, but that does not matter. This section contains a provision that the requirement that the regulations be laid before the Oireachtas — not passed by each House of the Oireachtas —"shall not apply". Therefore, such regulations do not come before the Oireachtas even for affirmation, or for information — they do not come before us at all.
After all the confusion, perhaps I should intervene. I thought I had acceded to the request when I expressed agreement with the Leader of the House a few moments ago. I am not sure why we are still arguing. The important word in regard to the point Senator O'Leary made is "draft". The regulations need not be laid before the Houses in draft, but they must still be placed before the Houses. I can only quote the legal advice from the Attorney General's Office. It is that section 22 does not enable the Minister to make a change of substance in any existing regulation including a change in the rates of contribution. The word "substance" would mean any change in the rates of contribution. That was a matter of some concern to Senator Durcan and others. As in all legislation, ultimately only the Supreme Court could make a final decision. In the spirit of what the Leader of the House said earlier, I am prepared to give an undertaking that until the next legislation, which as night follows day must come to us again in the next 12 months, I will not use that power given to me in section 22.
We are all grateful to the Minister and perhaps it can be all wrapped up now. I wish to withdraw my interruption of Senator O'Leary's contribution. I said I thought that his point in regard to section 22 was governed by section 3 of the Principal Act. Senator O'Leary's case at least has to be answered. It would appear that if we enact section 22 in its present form there will be a conflict between section 3 (5) of the Principal Act, which says that the draft shall be laid, and section 22 which states that the draft shall not be laid. The Act might have said that a draft regulation made under those sections would not be laid. It actually says that no draft shall be laid. Therefore Senator O'Leary had a point. I do not want to provoke him into further making the case.
I do not think I have a point after what the Minister said. It is important that we keep the thing clear. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that what we are talking about is a draft. I presume that the Minister was confirming that there are not three categories, that all she is being enabled to do is not to have to put the draft before us but that the regulations, when made, still have to come before the House under the general duty imposed by section 3 (5). If that is the case, I have no objection to section 22.
In so far as it is a consolidating measure I should like the Minister to spend some time in the next 12 months examining the words "substantially to the like effect". Assuming that that is found to mean "consolidation" it is quite reasonable to assume that, if it was merely a consolidation provision, to allow us an opportunity to annul it after the regulation was made would be sufficient. If it were limited to consolidation only I would be happy that the general provision in section 3 (5) of the 1981 Act should apply to consolidation measures. Our continued concern is what is the legal definition of "substantially to the like effect". I do not think it is a very good definition. The Minister should examine that in the course of the ensuing 12 months.
I should like a response to my request to the Minister in relation to the production of a composite volume containing the 1981 Consolidation Act together with the amending Acts, indeed together with any regulations made under the provisions of the 1981 Act and amending legislation. It is extremely important that the social welfare code be readily available not merely to lawyers and legislators but also to officials, to members of the public who have recourse to the courts. There should be a commitment on the part of the Minister's Department, in conjunction with the Stationery Office — which I gather comes under the aegis of the Department of Finance — to produce a composite volume containing the social welfare code in terms of legislation and of regulations.
It would be helpful also if circular letters, which interpret these regulations, were made available because, if there is a court case, people will be entitled to them anyway. That has already been established in a couple of cases. There is no point in keeping them sub rosa until a court case arises because they will become available and be used then, and have been already.