Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Revenue.
NEW SECTION.
Social Welfare Bill, 1993: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
SECTION 3.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I am disappointed that my amendments have been ruled out of order. I would like to say that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were tabled after much consideration and I appeal to the Minister to take on board the points made in them. According to the 1985 report of the Commission on Social Welfare the figure of £66 is the minimum rate that should be payable today, and that would be the priority rate. The Commission on Social Welfare decided on that figure after careful consideration. I am sure that the Minister, who says he gives consideration to the people who depend on social welfare, would not easily ignore that report. The report was well researched and its findings have been supported by the pre-budget submission by the Conference of Major Religious Superiors. If the recommendations of the commission were accepted, the figure today would be £66, so I am not plucking a figure out of the air. The Minister may argue that he is bringing the rates up to the level recommended by the commission but that is not so because the commission's report was published in the mid-1980s and the figure recommended then would be equivalent to £66 today.
Children of different ages have different needs. An infant does not have the same needs as a teenager, and when young people reach the age of 17 or 18 they are more demanding because their clothing and education cost more. The great worry of parents, particularly mothers who are buying clothes for First Communion or Confirmation is that they have to dip into the money they put by every week for emergencies. It is frightening to realise that they have done so again and again because their weekly income is below the level required to provide the necessities of life. This is happening all over the country and we should do all in our power to remedy the situation. For that reason I believe my amendment is reasonable.
Another pressure for parents on social welfare arises when a child continues in education beyond the age of 18 years. It is only natural the young people will require money to socialise. However, they cannot have it as the parents are on a low fixed income from social welfare. This causes many problems and for this and other reasons the Minister should consider my amendments.
A Cathaoirligh, I thank you for your letter and for your speedy reply. I did not know we were trying to railroad the Bill through the House——
In fairness, Senator Cregan, I wrote a similar letter to Senator Sherlock. Because the amendments are a potential charge on the Revenue, they have been disallowed.
It would appear that this type of amendment can be moved in the other House but not in this House. Your letter gives the impression that the other House has powers we do not have.
The same Standing Orders apply to both Houses in regard to this type of matter.
If that is so, would somebody please explain why similar amendments were discussed in the other House?
The amendments cannot be moved; however, they may be discussed on the section, as Senator Sherlock has done.
From midnight on budget day the Minister for Finance asks people, including the less well off, to pay the increases introduced in the budget. The majority of the less well off live in local authority housing and have to pay rent increases of nearly 50 per cent from January onwards. However the social welfare increases do not come into effect until the end of July. Do we really believe that the money spent on social welfare is being given to those who need it most?
The increases I have outlined are compounded by the increases in the cost of food imports arising from the currency devaluation. In consequence, the person on the poverty line is being asked to pay more. Is there any possibility of paying the social welfare increases sooner? The Minister will probably say the Minister for Finance would not sanction such a move. I do not believe it is within this Minister's power to make a constructive reply. That is very sad. Nevertheless, there is a strong case to be made for this course of action for people to help people who are in real trouble. Further consideration should be given to supplementary benefits.
During the Second Stage we had a long argument about an increase of approximately £12.5 million in supplements paid. I have investigated the reason for this increase and I understand from the health officials that the extra money was needed because the Department was slow in repaying the health authorities. Normally a health board pays the supplementary allowances but has to wait six months for repayment from the Department of Social Welfare.
There should be a debate in both Houses on whether the increases should be made at an earlier date. We should clarify this matter once and for all in order to avoid spending Committee Stage making an ongoing argument about benefit entitlements. People are expected to pay the increases in VAT, rents, and on communion and Confirmation clothes but they do not have this money. That situation must be addressed.
I support the points that have been made. I accept the Chair's ruling that if there is a charge on the Exchequer, amendments cannot be moved.
In relation to the wider issue it is bad management, if nothing else, to have so many different dates for commencement, all of which are much later than the budget. When payment increases are announced in a budget, people in receipt of those payments assume that they are to receive increases immediately. It is not until they read the small print later or go to their local office that it dawns on them that the increases are not due until much later in the year. In those circumstances people may spend money they do not have and find themselves eventually in greater difficulties than before. I am sure the Minister will sensibly agree that it would make common sense to regularise the dates on which many of these increased payments begin. It would also make the parliamentary draftsman's life much easier.
I thank the Senators for their contributions on that section. They touched on the main issues. Senator Sherlock spoke about the Commission on Social Welfare and its recommendations. If all the outstanding recommendations of the Commission were to be met now an extra £354 million would be required. It is obvious why they are not being met right away but there has been substantial progress on the Commission's report. As the Senators know I held this post previously in the latter part of 1987 and at that time the Commission's report was on the shelf. Its recommendations would cost so much that implementation was not even considered. I suggested the areas of greatest need should be examined and tackled. Senators will note that Social Welfare Bills since that time have tried to improve the lot of those on the lowest incomes while increasing payment rates generally. We have kept ahead of inflation each year and we have increased payments levels.
The priority rates for social insurance payments as recommended by the Commission have been achieved in a wide range of areas, including the old age contributory pension, the retirement pension, the invalidity pension, the widows' contributory pension scheme, the deserted wives' benefit and the long term occupations injuries schemes. These payments rates are all higher now than the priority rates recommended by the Commission.
In relation to assistance payments, following the implementation of this Bill, 83 per cent of those on assistance payments will be receiving more than the recommended priority rate. That is a substantial achievement although it is not sufficient. It will be possible to close that gap completely in next year's budget. The assistance schemes involve those on lowest incomes. When taken with the insurance schemes over 75 per cent of all payments are now above the priority rates. Short-term payments have tended to be below the priority rates because long term payments were increased as Senators had demanded that priority be given to the long term unemployed. That was seen as a principal objective.
I have spoken from the point of view of implementing the commission's recommendations. In relation to the long term unemployed we have reached a position where the new rate for a single person will be £59.20 and the rate for a couple with two children will be £129.54. In the case of a couple with four children the increase in child benefit is included and the new rate will be £165.07. This is the total sum of money the Exchequer contributes to families in those circumstances. If one compares current rates here with British rates, ours were lower once but have now edged ahead. We are ahead on basic rates by approximately £10 and many extras which apply here do not apply there.
It is important that we recognise what we are achieving nationally on the question of social welfare dependency. There is more to be done and one of the greatest problems is the provision of employment at adequate rates of pay. The commission did not examine low wages except to recommend that people on low incomes should have an adequate income. The commission identified a certain income as adequate but there are many people at work whose incomes would not match recommended social welfare payments. Larger families receive a social welfare supplement for each child while a parent is out of work but one does not receive that from an employer. We are trying to tackle this anomaly by increasing family income supplement. The social welfare budget would be helped if more jobs paid better wages.
We are dealing with basic social welfare entitlements here and trying to ensure they are adequate. At the same time every family on family income supplement, which applies to people at work but on low incomes, will receive an increase of £12 per week. This is probably the biggest increase of all in the Bill and is to ensure that employed people with families receive adequate incomes.
Senator Sherlock also raised the question of the needs of children as they get older. These are certainly questions to be considered in the future. It is worth arguing for improved child benefit and other payments for children. There is a danger in the current economic climate that families and children will be forgotten. The budget and this Social Welfare Bill makes special provision for children through a substantial increase in child benefit which applies to the children of those at work and out of work. There is no question of distortion then from our point of view. That is the way we want to go and we will have to see how payments for the employed and the unemployed can be integrated.
As far as the substantial increases in child benefit are concerned, we will have to look at how best to spend the money there. In the recent past I introduced a "back to school" payment at that critical time of year. I also introduced a special payment at Christmas to help families who are dependent on social welfare. There is scope to develop the systems further and that will have to be considered in future budgets.
Senator Cregan indicated the sort of changes and improvements he would like to see. In most cases they involve an extra charge on the Exchequer and, therefore, we can only discuss them on this section. This brings home the kind of change Senators would like to see.
The Senator asked if the money was going to the right people. We take great care to ensure first that the money is going to the people for whom it is intended. That is where you encounter fraud, abuse, unwarranted claiming and so on. Secondly, we take great care to ensure in the allocation of moneys that the people who need them most receive them. That is something one has to keep reassessing.
The Senator said food was dearer now but the most recent inflation rates are much lower than 3.5 per cent. The 3.5 per cent rate is making allowance for the changes anticipated this year. Since the budget, things have improved so the indications are that the rate in this Bill will be adequate and keep everybody ahead of inflation.
Senator Cregan also asked why the increases would not be paid until July. It would be nice to be able to pay out immediately and that can be considered in the future. To bring the payment forward this year would cost up to £60 million. My interest at the time of the budget is to get the rates increased, because once the rate is increased it remains so. The cost in a full year is £180 million so it is a question of getting the rates up to an adequate level. Obviously I want them increased as early as possible but that depends on the circumstances of the budget and the moneys available.
Senator Dardis said it was bad management that the dates of an individual client's payment can vary on a weekly basis. Pensions are paid in advance whereas the unemployment payments are paid on a particular day in the week. That was designed to meet the needs of the people at the time. We will be looking at this to see how it can best be managed. There has been a major problem there in the past. We cannot have everybody coming to social welfare offices on the one day; if that happened the system would break down. There are 1.5 million people claiming benefits every week so there must be some scheduling. Leaving that aside, we would want to meet Senator Dardis' requirements as far as possible.
The child benefit will be paid from 1 September. I accepted that because it is a "back to school" time when there are increased expenses. It is going to cost £16.6 million in this year but remember once it goes up it stays that way. It is a great achievement to have the child benefit increased. It costs some £50 million in a full year. Since the increase will be from the beginning of September instead of July, it meets the Minister for Finance's budgetary requirements this year. We have not done badly at all; in fact, I think we have done very well. It is introduced in time to meet increased costs in September, it will apply for the future and I think it is a major achievement.
Senator Cregan said the community welfare officers were slow to pay out money. The Department pays out £10 million a day and it could not be accused of being slow in paying money. Among the 1.5 million people each week there are cases that cannot be sorted out immediately. The Committee of Public Accounts might take a different view and say the Department is paying out moneys and making payments it does not recover. In relation to this, increasingly officials interview people across a desk and agree figures with them that can be examined on a "spot check" basis later. Systems have been made more efficient and, overall, the payments have been improved. The Department will review that matter again. There is a dilemma here. The danger in paying money out is that it is not easily retrieved if that becomes necessary. On the other hand, if it is not paid there may be a problem. We have gone a long way towards resolving that question.
The increases provided for in this section are good increases. I am happy to be able to introduce them in the current circumstances and I commend them to the House.
I sympathise with Senator Sherlock about his amendments. In an ideal world with unlimited finance this is what we would like to see. We would not need these amendments because the Government would have put the measures in the Bill.
This Bill is not regressive legislation. It proposes increases. As the Minister said and I mentioned last Tuesday, these increases are to continue at the same level as in the past two years. All pensioners, widows, lone parents, deserted wives and the long term unemployed have at least been receiving the priority rate advocated by the Commission on Social Welfare. It may not be moving fast enough but, as the Minister said, that report lay on the shelf for a number of years. The developments are in the right direction because a 3.5 per cent increase is a substantial increase, as is the 26 per cent increase in child benefit.
We spoke at length on Second Stage about the cost of social welfare payments. Senator Cregan said £70 million per week is a huge amount of money to be paying in social welfare. I am glad we have that amount of money to pay. Along with the Minister, I wish we did not have to pay quite as much on unemployment and that there were jobs to relieve this burden. If we could ease that burden then we could increase various other rates of social welfare.
Senator Cregan and Senator Sherlock referred to hardship experienced by families. I am well aware of that hardship. In my constituency there are huge numbers of unemployed. Supplementary Welfare has also been increased by £12.5 million this year. This is the type of payment designed to ensure that people experiencing hardship can be helped.
I would love to see increases of the amounts proposed in his amendment but it is not possible in the light of the limited money available.
I accept that social welfare measures on their own cannot end poverty, it would require major changes in our economy to get people working and off the dole. The Minister said there are 1.5 million people claiming benefits. I would like to remind him that they are Irish people also and are entitled to an income sufficient to meet their needs rather than being continuously in the poverty trap. The Minister gave percentages — generally he is very good at percentages as he is a very practical man — but they must be out of line if he now agrees that £354 million is required to bridge the gap between the current level of payments and that recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare backed by the Conference of Major Religious Superiors. Let us consider the case of a husband, wife and one child on short term social welfare who receive £103.90. Incidentally whether it was long term or short term, there was no increase in the dependant allowance; it remains at £35.50. How can a family living on £103.90 pay any additional outgoings?
In 1982 the social welfare increases were granted in April and since then, which is over ten years ago, they have been moved back; this year, they will be paid in July. In the 1982 budget there was a proposal to put 18 per cent VAT on clothes and footwear and that Government was very short lived. The VAT rates will increase from March. The Minister must take all these matters into consideration.
My main point, however, is that the Minister must close the gap between the proposed long term payment of £59.20 and the short term payment of £55.60. That must be done if people dependent on social welfare are to have a reasonable standard of living, so that they do not have to go begging to community welfare officers who have become very nasty in the last six months. We did not know that the community welfare officers had to comply with a circular issued by the Department of Social Welfare. I continuously had to argue with the community welfare officers when people were seeking special payments, whether for clothing or electricity bills for example, and were being denied help. I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply.
May I remind Senators to keep to the section. We seem to have extended our debate.
While I agree with the Cathaoirleach that the normal procedure should be adhered to, the Minister has broadened the issues involved. It would be unfair to you and to the House if we were to debate the same issue on every section. If we had a broad discussion now and we might get speedy agreement on the relevant sections later.
Given reasonable time for each section; there are 52 sections.
I am prepared to do that but I do not want to be left without a reply from the Minister.
The Minister said on Tuesday that, this autumn, a new social welfare consolidation Bill will come before us. The Minister indicated that supplementary benefit will increase overall by £12.5 million and I do not deny that it has increased. However, having investigated this, I think that the reason for this increase in that the Department of Social Welfare is receiving claims faster than it can process them. I can understand that since 40 to 45 people lose their jobs every day it is obvious that the Department of Social Welfare will be overloaded.
Since 1982 increases in social welfare payments have been paid later each year. Child benefit will be increased in September, because children are going back to school and the less well off will need extra money. It disturbs me to think that professional bodies are making representations on behalf of social welfare claimants, people who are entitled to up to £200 million. Although they are entitled to this money, many of them could be well off.
We must get our priorities right. Why is it that most of those in dire need will not receive increases until the end of July? Yet, if representations are made by professionals many women will be paid their entitlements out of this £200 million? That is very unfair. It would cost £60 million extra a year to pay social welfare increases from the beginning of April. I am sure the Minister would prefer to take that £60 million out of the £200 million and so would I. I make no apology for that because there are many people claiming social welfare who do not need it. Many professional people who make representations on behalf of married women will be getting a percentage of the money due to these women under the EC equality directive. I know my comments are more relevant to section 4 and I will repeat them when section 4 is being discussed. May we take section 3 and 4 together?
We cannot agree to do that but the point has been made now.
Let us consider the supplementary welfare allowance. Last Tuesday we were told that the average weekly industrial wage was £260 gross. Perhaps my experience is different to that of others here, but to my knowledge the average gross wage of a general operative employed by the State, or in a semi-State organisation, is £158 per week and it does not matter how many children he has. The Minister has made that point and I will give him credit for being able to see the rights or wrongs of the issue, even though we may disagree on certain points. The deserted wife's allowance is discriminatory because no allowance is paid to deserted husbands. This allowance should be abolished and replaced by a deserted parents allowance.
To return to the issue of supplementary welfare allowance, a person with four children and earning a gross salary of £150 or £160 per week is entitled to supplementary welfare allowance. If he was unemployed he would receive £165 per week in unemployment benefit. I am not suggesting that an unemployed person with four children should not receive £165. However, embarrassment is caused to low income earners who have to collect the supplementary welfare allowance each week. At the same time their employers deduct PRSI from their wages. The system could be simplified and any embarrassment avoided by not paying supplementary welfare allowance to low income earners but, instead, asking their employers to pay them an equivalent amount in addition to their wages. Employers would not be required to deduct PRSI from these employees' wages. This would reduce the workload of social welfare offices and post offices. There would also be savings in terms of postage and allowance books.
The Minister stated that the average industrial wage is £260 per week. I would like to know how this figue is estimated.
I congratulate the Minister on providing £180 million to implement improvements in the social welfare system. The people in receipt of social welfare at present are very fortunate in that we have a very competent, hard-working and caring Minister for Social Welfare and the same can be said of the Minister for State, Deputy Burton. I was delighted with some of the improvements proposed in the Social Welfare Bill. I welcome the improvement in the carer's allowance and I ask the Minister, if possible, to relax the rules so that more people can qualify.
This issue is relevant to a later section. We are now dealing specifically with section 3.
I did not have an opportunity, a Chathaoirligh, to speak last Tuesday. It is not out of disrespect for the Chair that I am making these points now. I just want to express some general views.
It is not in order to make a Second Stage speech on Committee Stage but I will give the Senator some latitude.
I am glad the Bill provides for the payment of carer's allowance for six weeks after the death of the person for whom full-time care was being provided. I ask the Minister to look at the position of those under 66 years of age who are dependants of their spouses who are over 66 years of age and are social welfare recipients. They lose entitlement to free electricity, free television licences and telephone allowances on the death of their spouses. They lose entitlement to these benefits, often for a year or more, until they reach the age of 66.
I am delighted that child benefit has been increased to £20 per month for the first three children. I am also glad that family income supplement has been increased to £12 per week. This clearly demonstrates that the Government cares about families.
I also welcome the new rules in relation to cohabiting couples. Equity has been achieved in the social welfare system between cohabiting couples and married couples. I ask the Minister to examine the tax situation of cohabiting couples and to achieve equity there also. If both of them are working their tax situation is all right but if one of them is not working they receive only the single allowance.
I wish to raise the case of self-employed people, most of whom do not have any employees, who have received C2 certificates from the Revenue Commissioners. They pay PRSI at the rate of 7.25 per cent whereas if they were paying the AI rate they would be paying 7.75 per cent. They gain very little here. They often find that when they are out of work it is almost impossible for them to get unemployment benefit and they have to fall back on the health board to get something to keep them going.
A provision in the 1991 budget discriminated against small farmers. They were advised to take up off-farm employment. However, they find that while other people can claim unemployment benefit after 30 social insurance contributions small farmers and some small business people need 39 contributions. This is very unfair. The proper way to tackle that would be through tax, rather than rule them ineligible for benefit. The present situation encourages people to be lazy. If they work and earn an extra pound on their farm it is deducted from their social welfare payments.
PAYE workers who receive lump sum redundancy payments and who are thrifty and do not waste the money are penalised when they seek unemployment assistance after 15 months. The Minister should have a look at that and at least allow a concession on a considerable proportion of the lump sum so that workers will not be penalised when they apply for unemployment assistance. There are other social welfare recipients who, when they sign off for a few days, are deducted——
An Leas-Chathoirleach
I would like to remind the Senator that he is straying away from section 3. You can make further contributions on later sections.
We have been discussing sections 3 and 4. It is not uncommon to discuss sections together and perhaps to vote on them afterwards.
In reply to Senator Sherlock's point, a total of 1.5 million people receive benefits each week. This includes old age pensioners, invalidity pensioners and persons in the various other categories. This figure is made up of 800,000 beneficiaries and 700,000 children and dependants. There are not 1.5 million signing on for unemployment benefit each week.
One of the most confusing aspects of the social welfare code and budget is that there are many different elements involved. There are insurance schemes and assistance schemes. For example, the Exchequer must contribute only the net cost in relation to social insurance schemes; after the employer and employee have paid the required amount the State pays the remaining cost. However, the State must finance the total contribution for social assistance schemes. If higher contributions are made then the cost to the Exchequer is lower but that does not mean paying lower rates of benefit. One must look at rates in relation to the circumstances of the recipient. Frequently economists and statisticians make statements which do not relate to the factual position, because it is so complex.
Senator Sherlock mentioned the sum of £354 million. The priority rate for long term unemployed proposed by the commission is in today's terms £58.30. These rates were also discussed in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress agreement. In order to meet the long term objectives set by the commission in 1985 an additional £354 million would have been required then. Approximately £30 million is needed to close the gap now. Next year it should be possible to close it so that everyone will then be above priority rate.
I do not believe we will be able to move in the direction recommended by the commission. Its study was carried out in 1985 and times have changed since then. We are now increasing child benefit payments, for instance because that is what people want. The commission recommended a rate of £10 per week for child dependent allowance; it is now almost £13 per week. However, the problems which Senator Cregan mentioned must be addressed.
The commission suggested reducing other rates in order to equalise payments. The Government did not want to implement such measures because widows' rates and old age pension rates were above the average rate and would have had to be cut. The priority rates are broad targets indicating areas of greatest need. It is to the credit of the Oireachtas and the people that we have met most of the commission's objectives.
Senator Cregan mentioned the supplementary welfare allowance rate increase and the question of claims coming in too fast. Social welfare officers handle a considerable number of claims. One is often asked by the Committee of Public Accounts why social welfare officers do not check various details, while in the Dáil or the Seanad one is asked why they do not pay claims more quickly. They are caught in a dilemma. More people are using the supplementary welfare allowance scheme now than previously; improved information and payment facilities ensure a greater take-up of all schemes.
As a result of the increase in the number of long term unemployed and lone parents there are now special needs categories which demand extra payments.
There has been a substantial increase in the number and the cost of rent and mortgage supplements. These increases are being examined and I realise it is a problem. These are some of the demands which increase the social welfare budget requirement. Social welfare administration is improving. Regional managers are now coming up with innovative ideas which highlight the benefit of a regional social welfare management structure.
Senator Cregan also mentioned the question of eliminating the deserted wife's benefit. A cap has been put on that benefit in terms of income limits and it was for that reason the lone parents allowance was introduced. There is a means-tested scheme which applies to widowers, widows, deserted, divorced and separated parents. We do not ask how people came to be in a particular situation; we deal with people as we find them. The lone parent's allowance scheme covers widowers as well as widows. This scheme is not in operation in the social benefit or insurance categories and that is the subject of a directive which has been in the course of preparation at EC level for the last few years. I presume the costs and difficulties of operating the scheme as an insurance scheme are delaying the implementation of that directive. However, the issue will have to be addressed to establish if benefit will apply to widowers and deserted husbands.
Senator Townsend spoke about carers. There is an increase in the carers allowance from the short term rate to the long term rate. They are now equated with the long term unemployed. Understandably, there has been a great deal of comment about carers. This allowance was introduced initially for carers with no income or low incomes and who were not in a position to claim unemployment assistance because they were not available for work. This situation has now been redressed. These people were receiving the lowest income so they were our first priority and responsibility. We are talking about a means tested social assistance scheme for people on lowest incomes. By moving to the long term rate more people are included in the scheme on partial payments because the means test for the long term rate is used.
What is to be done for carers is an important area that will have to be examined. There are other ways in the system to deal with the issue. Formerly there was a small tax allowance and such a system could be applied to people on middle or higher incomes who provide full-time care. There is a substantial tax allowance if one has to hire a nurse. At present we are dealing with people on social assistance and it has been a substantial improvement to move from the short term to the long term rate. Senator Townsend is right to emphasise the importance of carers and the importance of the increase provided in this Bill.
Senator Townsend suggests that the self-employed have been given a bad deal. The problem arises because an employer, as Senator Cregan often reminds us, pays almost twice the rate the employee pays towards the fund; the employer's contribution is 12.2 per cent and the employee's is 7.75 per cent. Of the 7.75 per cent, 5.5 per cent is social insurance and the remainder is the health contribution and the youth employment levy. Two people pay into the fund in that case, unlike the self-employed. Under the new scheme I introduced for the self-employed there is, at least, long term cover for widows and orphans pensions and for old age pensions but there is no cover for unemployment benefit, and the Senator has difficulty with that. The definition and control of that situation would be difficult. Also, the self-employed are not included in the family income supplement scheme.
It is a problem of definition. The self-employed also do not qualify for invalidity pensions. It would be one of my objectives to rectify that problem. One of the arguments against that is the situation of farmers who tend to be older and thus are more likely to be invalided from old age than from an accident.
The older one is the more likely one is to die.
The farmers' situation would have to be considered when providing benefits for the self-employed. Many of them have provided for their future through private schemes. The arguments arise because of the likely cost to the Exchequer. With many of these schemes one does not find out the costs involved until they are up and running. I argued, over a long period, for old age and widows and orphans pensions for the self-employed——
The Minister was right.
Eventually we introduced such a scheme but the dire predictions have not come to pass. At this stage there is no unemployment benefit for the self-employed although everybody is, of course, eligible for unemployment assistance. However, the self-employed cannot get some of the benefits available to others within the insurance scheme.
One helpful measure we have introduced is in the casual employment sector where the amount of money one is allowed to earn has risen to £15 a day from £10 per week. That is a substantial improvement. The problem with farmers is that as they are in the self-employed sector they cannot get unemployment benefit.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
The proposed amendments to section 5 have been ruled out of order because they impose a charge on the Revenue. Under section 5 a woman who has more than one child is entitled to extra benefits. There are a number of families with more than three children living at home. Are there any benefits or other allowances available of which they should be informed?
Child benefit ceases when children reach 18 years of age. However, if parents are unemployed they get a payment for the children over 18 years of age. Parents who are not unemployed and whose children are over 18 years and attending a secondary school do not get a payment. The Minister should investigate that situation.
Child benefit is paid in respect of children up to 16 years of age and to 18 years of age if the child is in full-time education. The Senator's interest is in child benefit when children are at college——
Children who are attending secondary school after 18 years of age and whose parents are working. If the parents were unemployed——
They get the child dependant's allowance. The Senator is referring to the child who is repeating a year or is an older student and I will take note of the point. It means an extension of the scheme to include older children who are still in secondary school.
In relation to that we have given the back to school allowance to parents who receive the family income supplement. It is not available to all parents but to social welfare claimants or beneficiaries. The back to school allowance, as Senator Sherlock said, varies according to the different stages in school. In some countries the rates are increased after the child is 18 years of age and is in the next education level. Such rates depend on the grants system and the education level. We have a £35 back to school allowance for primary school and £50 for secondary school which meets the principle mentioned by Senator Sherlock earlier.
This is a very important section, accounting for £50 million in the full year. This is where the child benefit goes up by 26.6 per cent. It increases the child benefit for the first three children to £20 each per month and more than 400,000 families will benefit from these increases. In total, child benefit is payable to 476,000 recipients in respect of approximately 1.8 million children.
The Minister is becoming statistical.
This is a real statistic. The numbers with one child are 155,000 families. It has a huge impact and it applies across the board. It is a very important increase. Senator Cregan raised the question about people with three or more children, who might be unaware of their entitlements. The matter of equal treatment was widely publicised at the time. It was to be applied by the end of 1984 but this did not happen until 1986, with the result that there was a gap. Court cases were taken which resulted in the subsequent developments. There are still court cases taking place here and in England in relation to that whole area. We have nothing to hide in regard to this matter.
Section 5 provides for a grant of £200 on the birth of twins. The grant of £300 is currently payable on the birth of triplets and £400 in the case of multiple births of more than three children. There is nothing there which would cause difficulty in relation to equal treatment.
Senator Cregan is making the argument about the level of money spent dealing with the equal treatment provision. This can lead to some extraordinary legal situations where a family is paid twice. At the time the male was paid in respect of the female spouse who, even if she worked, was classified as a dependant. This resulted in a family being paid twice for the same situation. However, budgetary allocations have been made to even out payments and to give the equal treatment that should have been given at the time.
As far as I know, people do not require solicitors in those cases. Certain cases which were taken to establish the position were then taken to the European Court of Justice because a different finding was made by the Irish courts in the first instance. Once the position is established, the Department pays out on that basis. Payments differ which sometimes people cannot understand, but the amounts depend on the individual's circumstances.
This is an important section. It provides for a substantial 26.6 per cent increase for the first three children, bringing the rate per month to £20 per child. The rates for more than three children were rounded up to £23. In effect, 1.078 million children will benefit and the cost in a full year will be £50 million. It is a substantial help across the board to people with families, whether they are at work or out of work and it is welcome.
I do not want to delay the section but I do not want to allow the impression be given that there is a massive 28 per cent increase. There is a 1 per cent levy on a person earning £15,000 which amounts to £150 a year or £3 a week. A person with one child loses out on the 28 per cent increase. Let us not give the impression that somebody is not paying for this. The small numbers of people who are currently working have to pay for this in an initial levy of 1 per cent. I do not want anybody to gloat and pretend there are massive increases in child benefit.
I have always said that the most important thing in our society is to ensure our children are looked after. I will take money from anybody for that and I make no apologies for that. Any mother who has more than three children at the same time should receive special recognition from the State. That is all I am asking. I know it is unusual but I know of one mother who had six children. Do we give these women a monthly or yearly grant? If we do not, then we should consider it because this is something of which we are proud.
The increase in child benefit is welcome. However, there are many people who are very disillusioned, disappointed and frustrated because the increase will not come into effect until 1 September, 1993. They voted on the grounds that the increase would be paid which is what they were told would happen. The mothers rearing the small children referred to by Senator Cregan voted on that account.
There an estimated one million people living below the poverty line and a percentage of the people who are waiting for that child benefit to be paid are part of that one million. Will the Minister accept that the national income spent on social welfare has declined from 14.7 per cent in 1986 to 13.8 per cent last year? Does the Minister believe that is progress? There are one million people unemployed and it is unreasonable to delay the payment of that additional child benefit to 1 September 1993.
Nobody claims that the percentage increase in child benefit payment is of major proportions but it is a step in the right direction and I congratulate the Minister. I would also like to reiterate what the Minister of State, Deputy Burton said in her Dáil speech, when she said that child benefit would increase each year. This is an important way of combating poverty. With all due respect, I feel people should pay their due towards ensuring that children do not have to suffer because of poverty. I agree that this increase is good news for families. Although there is a delay in payment, the benefit will be available in September and families will benefit.
I wish to make two brief points. First, Senator Sherlock underestimates the intelligence of mothers. They know when this payment is made. Secondly, a rumour was put about — and I mentioned it on Second Stage — by certain elements before the election that the child benefit payments would be abolished, but it has been increased by 26 per cent. I know from experience——
When you were in Opposition, it was an important issue.
That is probably a misinterpretation. The women I meet in post offices are well able to read the date and know when child benefit payments have been increased. I am very glad to note that Senator Cregan is a realist. He concurs with the point I made with relation to these other amendments. It would be wonderful to pour money into every section of social welfare, but somebody has to pay for it.
In line with the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare, we have increased child benefit payments for more than three children to £23 per child per month. Benefits for the first three children did not increase but their allowances are now being raised to £20 each per month. This is a substantial increase of 26.6 per cent, which is costing the Exchequer £50 million per year. Starting from 1 September, the cost this year will be £16.6 million. The point has already been made that once it is increased it will be paid in future years and that is what matters.
I am not going over what was said during the election, where many words were spoken. The Programme for a Partnership Government was agreed after the election and increasing child benefit payments was one of the commitments in that programme. Senator Sherlock should be delighted this commitment is being fulfilled so soon. It has only been a couple of months since the election and this major provision, which is costing the State £50 million per annum, is now being implemented. The starting date of 1 September is a good one, because it is when people come back from their holidays. Although social welfare payment increases usually start from July, there is little difference in the timing. Once the benefit is in place, it will be paid in future years.
Senator Cregan raised the question of multiple births. If there are multiple births of three or more children, there is a provision for doubling the normal monthly benefit for each child, as long as not fewer than three of the children remain qualified for child benefit. In addition, there is a starting benefit of £200 to mothers on the birth of twins, £300 for triplets and £400 for more than three children. If a mother has multiple births of three or more children then she will get £120 instead of £60.
We are teasing this out to the utmost at this stage and I would not like to detain the Minister much longer. Has he any figures in relation to numbers who would be affected by these provisions for multiple births? People with three or more children deserve more sympathy than just £400.
We should double the amount.
Earlier, the Minister defied the laws of physics by saying that what goes up stays up. He is to be congratulated on making that scientific breakthrough.
Section 5(4) reads and I quote: "that the section shall apply in the case of any multiple birth occurring on or after I July 1993." Is this because the Minister expects a large number of births between now and then?
Nobody is saying that money should not be given to the mothers of these children. At one time, children's allowances were paid to fathers — and there was no guarantee that mothers would have access to the money. The former Minister for Labour, Michael O'Leary, changed the scheme to enable payment to be made to mothers.
The 1 per cent levy will apply for the new tax year and this year's increases will cost £16.6 million from September onwards. There is an impression that the 1 per cent levy imposed on the PAYE sector in the budget is due to the extra allocation in children's allowance. I have no objections to this, but I would like to know the total amount and where it will be spent.
I thought the 1 per cent levy which Senator Cregan claims is for funding increases in child benefit was to fund employment.
We are losing 40 workers every day.
In answer to Senator Dardis, it is a social welfare law that what goes up stays up. One should not apply the laws of physics or chemistry to social welfare. The statement is genuine; it is not absolutely guaranteed in all circumstances but generally it is true enough. I accept the point about the date. The date was set in the context of the Estimates and the figures generally. We do not have the figures here.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 13 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on funds.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I was not notified that my amendment was out of order. Is section 6 out of order?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The amendment cannot be discussed as it has been ruled out of order, but the section can be discussed.
I think that is most unfair. The amendment deals with a relevant matter.
That is life.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have ruled that the amendment is out of order. The Senator may speak on section 6.
The Senator may discuss the amendment in the context of the section.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments No. 14 and 15 are related and may be discussed together.
I understood the Senator was proceeding to discuss his amendment which referred to pay-related benefit.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We have agreed section 6. We are on section 7, amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
I am disappointed that we are not allowed to discuss something that can be implemented in another year.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I pointed out to the Senator that he could discuss section 6 and not the amendment. I am calling Senator Sherlock on amendment No. 14.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
"7.—The Minister shall, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, make regulations in relation to Family Income Supplement to ensure that all persons qualified to receive payment under Family Income Supplement are automatically paid.".
The reason for this amendment is that there are people who, at certain times of the year, would qualify for family income supplement if they were assessed. The use of a computer system and of the same RSI number by the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare should make it easier to monitor when a person's entitlements fall due. This information should be easily obtainable from the record of the Revenue Commissioners to assess the person's eligibility for family income supplement.
I raised this point when discussing section 4 and I did not get a reply from the Minister. A family with one child will be eligible for the family income supplement if their income is less then £175 per week. I presume that refers to gross earnings.
Yes, gross earnings.
First, the 1 per cent levy is deducted — £1.75 a week. Other speakers have said that the employer has to deduct the employee's PRSI. Senator Sherlock asked that the family income supplement be paid as soon as possible. My point is that the Government does not to have to pay it at all; we should allow the employer to do it, in particular if the employer has more than one employee. Every two months employers are asked if their PRSI and PAYE contributions are up to date to make sure their employees are covered. There is no logic in causing embarrassment in the family unit by forcing them to collect money elsewhere, even though the husband or partner wants to work. Many women have to go to work because their husbands cannot get work and they are claiming the family income supplement.
Employers are constantly asked for more money and a situation is being created where they are employing fewer people. It cannot be denied that this is happening; it is a fact of life. There is no longer any incentive to employ people. The operation of the system is a disincentive to employment and if employers feel they can decrease their work-force, they do so. We do not give them any encouragement because we do not trust anyone and that is the problem. Small businesses are the subject of ongoing investigations by one Department or another and they feel they would be better off if they did not employ anybody. Section 7 is relevant to this problem and I would like to see something done about it.
There is no reason a person who is working should have to get a supplement to keep the family unit together. The system should be simplified and situations avoided where there is always some Department involved. At the end of two months we get money from the employer of the person receiving the benefit but that money could be given to the employee and the employer could pay a smaller contribution. A person who buys goods from a wholesaler pays the VAT and then claims the VAT back when he is paying VAT on his service or retail charges. This is only a paper transaction and a similar system could be operated in the social welfare area. I would like other Senators to consider this because it is a cause of embarrassment to the family unit when either the wife or husband has to collect a benefit outside the workplace.
Under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress people are to get a 3 per cent increase. Yet, the person applying for the supplementary allowance is asked whether they received a 5, 10 or 15 per cent increase. No employer paying below the gross average wage will suddenly give an increase of between 10 and 15 per cent. We are deluding ourselves if we think they will do so. I ask the Minister to consider paying this supplement directly to the recipients, even on a phased basis or as a pilot scheme, so that these people are not constantly embarrassed by the Department.
Amendment No. 15 reads:
In page 8, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Payment of family income supplement shall be made directly to the primary caregiver in the family.".
The Commission on the Status of Women looked at the position of women in the home, payment to women in the home and areas like joint ownership of the family home. We have a commitment from the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to bring a Bill on joint ownership of the family home through the House. The commission also looked at the joint entitlement to family income in the area of community property. I support the recommendations they made in this area. Many women in the home feel their only income is child benefit, because this is the only income in their own name they get from the State.
The State does give benefits to working men because they have wives and children at home, yet the wife has no entitlement to that income under the present system. The commission recommended that a mechanism to transfer a portion of the earned or social welfare income to the spouse in the home must be introduced. An examination of the income tax code should be undertaken to determine the feasibilty of using it as a means of transferring income from the earning spouse to the homemaker. Homemakers, where their spouse receives social welfare payments, should be paid their own allowance directly with the child benefit. It is usually the man who gets the allowance and an adult dependent allowance. I do not agree with this and I said so on Tuesday when we were discussing the Second Stage of the Bill. The State is giving this money because the man has a wife at home and because he has children but it should be paid directly to the wife.
The commission also advocated better and more support for low income families. I acknowledge the £20 increase in the weekly limit below which families can qualify for the family income supplement. I recommend that the family income supplement be paid directly to the spouse in the home — usually the women. Senator Cregan spoke about paying the family income supplement directly to the person at work with their wages. I might be willing to accept that when there is provision for joint entitlement to all income that the spouse in the home would be jointly entitled to all the wage the spouse earns. I am also willing to accept that perhaps we will not need a family income supplement when, as the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, said, the taxation and social welfare systems are integrated. Perhaps all this will be taken into account at that time. At present I would like the Minister to ensure that the family income supplement is paid directly to the spouse in the home.
Senator Sherlock's amendment reads:
The Minister shall, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, make regulations in relation to Family Income Supplement to ensure that all persons qualified to receive payment under Family Income Supplement are automatically paid.
While I appreciate the intention behind Senator Sherlock's amendment I must oppose it because the proposed provision would be inoperable. There is no way I, as Minister for Social Welfare, can legislate to ensure 100 per cent take up under any scheme, and particularly under this scheme. One of the experiences of the Department over the year has been that certain people are reluctant to apply for the family income supplement, because of other income which was not readily disclosed.
The Department of Social Welfare had difficulties over the years assessing the exact number of people eligible under the scheme. Nevertheless, the numbers participating have been increasing steadily and the increase this year of the £12 per family is designed to encourage a further increase in the take-up. The allocation for the family income supplement is £13.25 million. Last year 7,750 families, involving almost 27,000 children applied for the family income supplement. This scheme is helping low income families. The purpose of the scheme was to assist low income earners with children.
Over the past number of years I have made extensive efforts to improve the take-up under the family income supplement scheme. The measures taken included extensive advertising campaigns, television advertising, national and local radio advertising, outdoor posters and billboards, free telephone services, posters on buses, free packs distributed to people likely to come in contact with potential recipients, special features in magazines and newspapers, and many other measures, to try to make contact with people or get them to come forward. Often Deputies and Senators have encouraged people to make applications. In the recent past more direct forms of targeting potential beneficiaries have been used. The Revenue Commissioners enclose tax exemption leaflets with the tax free allowance certificates issued to all low income earners. That arose from discussions we had with them a couple of years ago.
The Revenue Commissioners are currently running an advertising campaign in the national newspapers which highlights the scheme. Details of the FIS are contained in all child benefit books and the scheme is advertised on Aertel. The Department has published information leaflets and given the information to voluntary organisations.
We have tried very hard to give away the money under FIS but some people are just not taking it. We have to face the fact that some people must have other incomes they do not want to declare. That would affect a percentage of cases. I know of cases like that from my work as a TD. The take-up is increasing; there has been a substantial increase this year and I can assure Senator Sherlock that we will keep the spirit of what he says in mind and make even greater efforts to get the message across. Some 27,000 children now benefit from this scheme. This is a substantial improvement.
As far as the amendment proposed by Senator Honan and Senator Dardis is concerned, under the existing arrangements any person entitled to receive family income supplement can nominate his or her spouse to receive the payment. That enables the FIS to be paid to the primary care giver in a family. The FIS scheme is a valuable mechanism for improving the position of low income families and it maintains the incentive for low paid workers with families to take up and remain in employment. I have some reservations about the proposed amendment, however, because I believe it would limit the flexibility which already exists in this scheme. I am willing to examine any proposal which will improve the take-up under the scheme.
I am aware that a recommendation along the lines of the proposed amendment was made by the Second Commission on the Status of Women. While I see merit in the proposed amendment, it raises the whole question of payments to spouses working in the home. This is a much broader issue and one in which I have always had an interest. Senators can be certain I will be pushing this and have been for some time. Because of my knowledge of the system I have many ideas, some of which arc not in the commission's report. I am anxious to follow that line and over the next year it will be considered. The report has only just been published, but the question can be considered in the context of the broader issue.
However, I do not want it to be too broad. If we can take action in some area now, I would rather do that. That is the way I will be approaching the proposals made by the commission. I am anxious to ensure that any changes made to the present arrangements would not remove the degree of flexibility that exists at present and would not have any adverse impact on take-up under the FIS scheme. In these circumstances, while I accept the points made by the Senators, I could not support the amendment.
Senator Cregan raised the question of the employer making the payments. Many people might not be too happy with that. There are employers and employers, just as there are all sorts of other people. There are many good employers who play an important part in our system and I intend to have more contact with them and talk to them about their interests and problems. Nevertheless, when you come down to implementing a scheme like this the problem is that you could have a very variable response. Some employers will be anxious to help in every way and certain schemes can be developed on that basis, but we have to consider the entire situation across the board.
As far as any embarrassment involved in collecting benefit is concerned, I do not think that is a problem because the FIS is paid by orders in a book similar to the child benefit book and nobody finds it embarrassing to collect child benefit. It is quite normal and everybody is happy with it.
I will look at the question of paying FIS by electronic fund transfer. We are doing that in a number of other areas. We have an option for contributory old age pension and retirement pensions to be paid by electronic fund transfers and so far, there has been quite a good response to it. The surveys that were carried out over the years indicated that the one group of people who would not be interested in electronic fund transfer were the older people. For young people it is just a way of life now; they are accustomed to using plastic cards and electronic fund transfers, but the surveys indicated older people were suspicious of these things and would not want to paticipate in them. This is something we can look at in relation to paying FIS.
I would like to assure Senators Honan and Dardis that we will take into consideration the position of women in the home, particularly following the recent report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women.
There is still a lot to be done. We have some good schemes and the commission's report highlights that fact. I think you will see considerable developments over the coming year. We will certainly press on further with advertising, promotion and information but I could not agree to Senator Sherlock's amendment.
I am encouraged by the tone of the Minister's reply which goes some way towards meeting our requirements. However, I question the ruling as to whether these two amendments are related. They are related only in respect of the family income supplement, but they deal with different aspects of its management.
The Minister referred to the matter of nominating the person who receives the family income supplement which is fine where there is a stable marriage or relationship. Unfortunately, the problem arises in difficult situations where the victim is the carer, is the person in the home. State intervention is required to ensure that money is directed where it is needed and I think the Minister will accept that as a reasonable principle. I believe the Minister's assurance that he will take these matters into consideration, but I hope he will accept that the State has a responsibility to ensure that the weakest and most vulnerable people are protected and given the support they need.
That brings us to the related matter of Senator Sherlock's amendment. The Minister made the point that the provision was inoperable and that may be the case. I can understand the difficulties in ensuring, under law, that everybody would be in receipt of the family income supplement. Would the Minister not agree, however, that there is a heavy onus on the State to make sure that everybody who is qualified to receive the payment receives it? The Minister mentioned the fact that there have been advertising and information campaigns and, while these are welcome, there are people who are illiterate and vulnerable whom the campaigns might not reach. On the basis that the Minister accepts that the State has a very serious responsibility to those people who are either in receipt of family income supplement, or who are eligible for it and not currently in receipt of it, then I think we have made some progress. The Minister made the point that there are employers and employers, which is a point I accept. There are also spouses and spouses, and partners and partners. That is the difficulty we have, and that is why we have put forward this amendment.
I am supporting amendment No. 15, stating that the family income supplement should be paid "directly to the primary caregiver in the family." I think it is a good amendment and a very necessary one in many instances. Regarding amendment No. 14, and the Minister's reply, may I say it is a revelation that there are 27,000 people whose income is so low that they have to depend on family income supplement. In addition, there are many people on low income who are not getting the benefit.
I referred to the system that should apply between the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare. Those engaged in seasonal work can be on very low average annual income. This would, however, be in excess of the threshold income entitling them to the family income supplement People in this situation are uncertain of their entitlements because at certain times they have reasonably good earnings. Examples are those who engage in shift work in the dairy industry during the summer and in the sugar industry during the winter.
The social welfare system has now become efficient. I can testify to that as a person with great experience of the system. Previously one spent half the day trying to get information from the Department of Social Welfare or the Revenue Commissioners; now one can get it in a very short time and that is to be welcomed. In view of this, I ask the Minister to consider the amendment again and ensure that if people are entitled to benefit that they receive it.
Regarding those on low income for a certain period of the year may I ask the Minister to explain the criteria used for assessment? Is it based on the week in which they apply? Is it on the month previously or three months previously? In addition, what criteria is applied in assessing the eligibility for family income supplement of the shift workers to whom I referred?
I ask the Minister to reconsider this amendment. The Minister has stated that there is a provision that one can nominate either spouse to receive the allowance as in the case of child benefit. However, I believe that women in the home, the people about whom we are concerned, will not be in a position to ask their husbands to nominate them. As Senator Dardis said, there are spouses and spouses and there are partners and partners.
When the State pays money into a home it should ensure that the money gets to the people for whom it is intended. Spouses in the home need this payment. While I am sure the Minister is anxious that these people get their entitlement, they may not be getting it because the Minister will not accept this amendment.
Regarding the increases in the family income supplement, I note that anyone with two children earning less than £195 per week is entitled to a supplement. The Minister in his earlier statements advised that anyone unemployed with two children will receive £129.54 on social welfare. There is not a great difference between these allowances. If a person with three children earning less than £215 per week will get a supplement, surely we could make an employer aware of this? He could then have the opportunity and incentive to employ more people.
I am concerned that a general operative working for the State, Semi-State bodies and local authorities may be entitled to some of these allowances. This means that the State will be investigating the means of some of its own employees to ascertain if they are entitled to benefit.
Regarding the industrial wage rate, I have asked for clarification of this on Second Stage and now on Committee Stage. The impression has been given in this House that this rate is £60.
I point out to the Senator that we are considering amendments Nos. 14 and 15. We are not considering the section itself. I ask Senator Cregan to confine his comments and contribution to the amendments.
With respect, I understood I could speak on the section.
Acting Chairman
I point out to the Senator that we are on the amendments. We are not on the section.
Are you saying that I cannot speak on the section?
Acting Chairman
The Senator can be assured that the opportunity will be given to make contributions to the section after we have dealt with the amendments.
Earlier this morning we agreed that we would not unnecessarily delay on the sections. I do not want to do that, but it is important that we have an opportunity to put our views to the Minister. It would be better if both were considered together.
Acting Chairman
I must point out to the Senator that the procedure of the House is that we deal with the amendments and then with the section.
In response to the amendment tabled by Senators Honan and Dardis, I agree with the sentiments expressed. I have come into contact with those types of cases. However, there are practical difficulties in ascertaining if a family is in difficulty. For example, if there is a breakdown in the contact between the breadwinner and the care-giver then he might not make his income available to the other person to apply for family income supplement. In addition, when a person is applying, do we ask them about the state of their marriage, or the contact between the caregiver and the person working?
I wish to make a similar point to Senator Kelleher. I fully support the thrust of this amendment. However, it differs from child benefit in that child benefit is not means tested while this benefit is means tested. Unless it is teased out further it might have an adverse effect on certain households. I have encountered situations where the breadwinner deliberately and vindictively refused to allow the spouse avail of entitlements. If the Minister has given a commitment that he is sympathetic towards this, and many of the recommendations in the second report, perhaps the Senators would agree that the amendment be withdrawn. The Minister has given a commitment that he will consider the matter. My fear is that if we pass it today the people Senator Honan refers to, those we want to benefit, could be further penalised.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
The Senators have made further points in relation to Senator Honan's and Senator Dardis's amendment which relates to paying the family income supplement directly to the primary care giver in the family. This suggestion was made in the recent report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. It has wider implications than this Bill and will have to be considered in a broader context. In that respect I have undertaken to have it considered.
I made the point that as far as applications are concerned, the claim form requests the family to state who will collect the supplementary allowance each week, whether it will be the husband, the wife or another person. It is a weekly payment and this is welcomed by many people but since it is a weekly payment the question of someone being available to collect it arises. My impression is that in most circumstances it is the woman in the home who collects the payment. In effect, the primary care-giver collects it for practical reasons. I have checked if there are any statistics on this and in one survey the figure was over 75 per cent. What you see on the ground is what happens. I think that figure would be higher because it is normally the primary care giver who collects the payment unless there are other circumstances involved.
The question posed by the amendment goes further and suggests that the supplement should be paid directly to the primary caregiver in every case. That is a question that would have to be examined and we could not take it on board now because, in the first instance we would have to make sure that different circumstances which can arise would be covered. There is a difference between this and child benefit. Child benefit is fairly straightforward in that it is paid in respect of children. As Senator McGennis and Senator Kelleher pointed out, there is no means test involved. That is the big difference There is no investigation and no information has to be supplied other than the number of children. It is much simpler and more straightforward whereas in the case of the FIS information has to be supplied about the family income. The option is then offered to the family as to which person will receive the payment and which person will make the claim each week. I will examine this issue in the context of the woman in the home, the primary carer in the home and the spouse at home and the report of the commission.
Senator Sherlock raised the question of seasonal work and some low income families not qualifying for FIS because the income earner might be engaged in seasonal work. The normal procedure for establishing entitlement is to assess the income over the previous six weeks. It is a very liberal and simple scheme. The income is assessed and it is shown that the person will be earning a certain amount over the next six months. The entitlement is then paid and that is the end of it. There are no more questions until the full year is up. If a person is paid monthly his income is assessed over the previous six or eight weeks. That is how the scheme works in practice.
The intentions of both amendments are good and we are meeting them to a large extent. In relation to information and ensuring people receive payment, we will strive harder on that front. It is very difficult to ensure that everybody receives payment and it would be very difficult to ensure that everybody who is due a payment is paid automatically. We could not accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Before lunch it was agreed that we would discuss the amendments and the section together. We discussed sections 3 and 4 together this morning. Perhaps it would be possible, with the agreement of the House, to allow Senators who did not put down amendments to discuss the sections so that we can speed up the process.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is not possible. I gave a ruling this morning on section 7. The amendment is out of order; Senator Cregan may speak on the section, but not on the amendment.
There are amendments which have to be discussed and decided, but there is no reason we cannot discuss the section generally.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Standing Orders do not allow it. We are discussing section 7.
On a point of order, the same thing occurred while we were discussing section 6. I intended to oppose that section, but because you called the next section and stayed with that decision, I thought if I said I was opposing the section I would be out of order. I did not have an opportunity to speak on section 7.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have called Senator Cregan on section 7 and I now ask the Senator to speak to the section.
In relation to family income supplement, is there an impression that because the gross industrial wage is £260, the majority of industrial workers are earning more than £260 per week? If that is the case, I would like to point out that 7,750 families benefit from the family income supplement scheme, including people working in Government, semi-State and local authorities.
The Minister is correct when he says that in many families a second member of the family must also work. This work could involve looking after the elderly for £20, £30 or £40 a week. This Bill also allows people to do extra work and still benefit from the local unemployment schemes. If a husband with a wife and one child earns less than £175 a week, he can apply for the family income supplement. Is there a danger that people are not applying for benefit because they believe that if the husband earns £160 a week and the wife earns £30 or £40 a week they will be drawn into the tax net and will have to pay PRSI and other deductions? For instance, what is the gross earning of a general operative employed by a local authority? I would like the Minister to answer this question because I have my own figures. On Second Stage the Minister said the gross average wage is £260 a week. If this is so, I do not see any reason for this type of benefit.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not accept my amendment in relation to "consultation with the Minister for Finance". In his reply, he did not give any indication that such consultation had even taken place. I tabled this amendment because people who are entitled to family income supplement are not receiving any payments. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that people do not apply for the family income supplement because they would have to disclose all the details of their income. Approval for family income supplement is subject to recorded disclosures to the Department of Social Welfare and, in particular, the Revenue Commissioners. That is why I am asking the Minister to consult with the Minister for Finance on this question.
I supported amendment No. 16 which proposes that this section come into operation on 5 April. The Minister should do this if he is serious about eliminating poverty. I am aware of the increase in poverty in Ireland and I read an article recently which stated that the numbers living in poverty increased by 53 per cent between 1973 and 1987. Furthermore, the numbers living in most severe poverty, that is, below the 40 per cent line, increased by 79 per cent over this period. What do we learn from this? There is an increasing number of people living in poverty and social welfare increases must be paid immediately. There should be a better way to deal with this matter more expeditiously to ensure that every family whose income is below the poverty line will receive family income supplement. These figures are alarming. I ask the Minister to reply.
I am glad Senator Sheriock mentioned 1987 because, since that date when I first came to this Department the number of people living in poverty has decreased. Senator Sheriock must return to reality. We had a discussion on this earlier and we talked about how much can be done within budgetary constraints and the extent to which families have been supported over the years. For example, a couple with four children on long term unemployment assistance will now get £167 per week. Senator Cregan will ask how this compares to wage levels but I cannot be blamed both ways. One cannot say we are doing nothing for poverty and also say we are causing a problem because of improved rates of unemployment assistance.
Children are an important social welfare issue. Are we going to cherish the children of the nation? If so, we have to find a way of doing so.
Payments for dependent children cause distortions in the figures. Over the last number of years children and families have received extra support in each budget including this one. That is what the Irish Government wishes to do although that may not be happening elsewhere.
Senator Cregan raised the question of family income supplement. He said earlier he did not see the logic in local authority employees receiving family income supplement. My reply is that we are trying to implement equal treatment everywhere, in wages and at work. The family was once regarded as the unit of society to be supported whether parents were in or out of work. Equal treatment is demanded now regardless of the size of family. A worker with two children and a worker with 16 children are paid the same wage. That is where the Government intervenes.
A man or woman working in a local authority, a health board or other public sector job with low to moderate income may if they have a big family find their income inadequate. We have raised child benefit which will help somewhat.
Family income supplement is related to the number of children and compensates for the equality of wages demanded by Irish and EC law. The difference in income requirement is basically the expense of children. Through the FIS we can correct this to some extent. An employer cannot pay additional money to an employee with a family; that would be unequal treatment in wages and there would be trouble straightaway. The family income supplement is designed to make up the difference.
Senator Cregan also mentioned the question of average wages. For the purpose of the PRSI exemption scheme, we use the average industrial wage that is currently used by trade unions, employers and all parties concerned. There are, of course, industrial wages above and below that figure. I understand the Senator's difficulty in applying that to what happens in practice. The Department of Social Welfare has the same difficulty with different jobs, incomes and family sizes.
Family income supplement is one way to counteract disparities. My Department consults with the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners are continually trying to find ways of encouraging people to avail of FIS. The example I mentioned was a family entitled to FIS that was looked into to find the reason FIS was not being claimed and it was because income was earned by both adults. That does not happen in all cases, but it is a reason why FIS is not always claimed.
When one says everybody should automatically get that payment one has to take into consideration all that might happen if that were implmented. Following discussion with the Department of Social Welfare, the Revenue Commissioners send information on FIS to people entitled to claim it.
The section on FIS provides for substantial improvement in the scheme. Every family involved will get a benefit of £12 per week. Separate studies on the integration of tax and welfare systems with wages and salaries will continue. In the meantime we will do what we can to support families though FIS.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 8, before section 8, but in Part III, to insert the following new section:
"8.—Where the Minister issues a circular, guideline or code of practice to Community Welfare Officers relating to entitlements of persons to supplementary welfare allowance payments or regarding the interpretation to be placed by Community Welfare Officers on regulations relating to supplementary welfare payments, such circular, guideline or code of practice shall be lodged in the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas.".
I am sure the Minister will accept this amendment. I put it forward because as a public representative I make representations from time to time for people who need supplementary welfare allowance. In mid-1992 I found a complete change of attitude among community welfare officers.
The community welfare officers replaced what were formerly known as relieving officers. I formed the opinion in mid-1992 that we were going back to that system. People were appalled at the attitude of relieving officers many of whom had no regard for the people they served.
The community welfare officers had always used their discretion and I wondered why there was a change in attitude. They knew the needs of the people with whom they were dealing. They were able to make decisions to give relief and relief is the appropriate word.
At the end of last year circulars were issued, the first of which was circular 14/92. That put the kibosh on supplementary welfare and generated anger with community welfare officers. Under the terms of that circular entitlements under the supplementary welfare code were denied. Consequently people had to go without. In many instances electricity was disconnected. I know of two families to whom that happened. In that regard, the community welfare officer had no discretion to make further payment; they were advised to stick rigidly to the terms of circular 14/92.
At a later stage in the year a further circular was issued, circular 18/92. That circular did not change anything. After the first circular was issued the client was told that if they were granted a payment for an electricity bill, £100 would be the maximum amount paid, and the same applied to gas supplies. People have other needs. For example, a family may need to buy additional clothing for their children and given that they are on a fixed income any additional outlay would create hardship for them. The community welfare officers always had the discretion to meet their needs on such occasions.
It is a deplorable state of affairs that the community welfare officers are warned not to show the circulars to anybody else. I almost went public on this issue. If it was as bad as that in my constituency, I wonder how much worse it was in the cities. This puts public representatives in an impossible position when they are approached by constituents complaining that they have been denied supplementary welfare allowance payment without any reason given. The decision may have been made according to a ministerial circular and nobody was in a position to query it.
This aura of secrecy surrounding supplementary welfare allowance payments is unacceptable. It makes a nonsense of the fine words in the Programme for a Partnership Government about openness and freedom of information. What possible justification can there be for keeping the poor, and their public representatives, in the dark about such matters? For that reason I have tabled this amendment and I hope the Minister will respond to it positively.
This is the second time Senator Sherlock has referred to the community welfare officers and it would be wrong of me and of Members of this House not to comment on it. In a previous contribution Senator Sherlock made on this subject, he referred to people going to the community welfare officer begging for help. I resent and reject that. People who go to the community welfare office are going for their entitlements, nothing more and nothing less. I want that put on the record of the House. This morning the Senator stated——
I have seen people crying as they came away from the community welfare office. Put that on the record of the House. That kind of behaviour is going back to the 1930s and 1940s——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McGennis, without interruption. Senator Sherlock will have an opportunity to speak.
I was not around in the 1930s and 1940s but I have experience of people who have dealt with community welfare officers.
This morning Senator Sherlock referred to the community welfare officers saying, and I quote, that they: "had become very nasty". Politicans in this House and in the Dáil are well used to being criticised and are well able to defend themselves. It is sad that Members abuse the privilege of this House to attack people who work at the coalface, so to speak of the welfare system. They do not deserve to be criticised and the privilege of the House should not be used to criticise them. If there are complaints to be made about the way welfare officers behave they should be made in the proper way.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator, we are on amendment No. 17.
I am talking about the community welfare officers and the code of practice which is to be issued. I am speaking to the amendment.
The amendment is about community welfare officers.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask the Senator to address herself to the amendment.
I am speaking to the amendment. I did not speak earlier about community welfare officers although I spoke about the community welfare allowance on Second Stage. I am speaking about community welfare officers because this amendment refers specifically to them. The contribution Senator Sheriock made singled out community welfare officers and I felt abliged to respond. I am speaking to the amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would ask the Senator to address herself to the amendment and not to Senator Sherlock's remarks.
If Senator McGennis mentions my name again I will continue to harass her.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McGennis without interruption. Senator Sherlock, please resume your seat.
I am making the point that as regards the supplementary welfare allowance, the code of practice to which the Minister referred in his speech and which is contained in the Bill is a welcome change in the system. It was said the discretionary powers were bordering on secrecy. Everybody welcomed the fact that the community welfare officer had discretion to make payments. The code to which the Minister has referred is welcome. An additional £12.5 million is to be made available under that scheme.
I would like to know why that amendment is in section 8 since it is not relevant to that section. The welfare officers in health boards have a tough job especially with circulars being sent out from Departments instructing them to be very strict. That does not help the welfare officer.
I come from an area that has a lot of problems. Sometimes I get the impression from the other side of the House that there are no problems, but there must be when £10 million a day is being spent on social welfare and that figure is increasing. I am glad to hear that in the autumn a new Bill will come before us proposing a new structure whereby one Department will handle everything. Why should the health authorities be involved in social welfare issues? Social welfare issues should be dealt with by the relevant Department. The proposal to issue identity cards to people now coming on the register will be a matter of considerable discussion.
Why is it that a person in the Cork region, for example, cannot take a social welfare problem to a relevant, local social welfare office? Why are social welfare problems being dealt with by other authorities? There is an impression given that £12.5 million extra is being spent on supplementary welfare benefit when in fact the money is going from one Department to another because the first Department is unable to handle the matter. Let us have local social welfare offices rather than welfare officers. There is a constant queue of people outside the health authority's office on George's Quay in Cork, particularly on a Friday, who cannot get money elsewhere——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would ask the Senator to stay on amendment No. 17.
What I am saying is relevant to the welfare officers, their work in George's Quay and their work for the health authority. I am asking the Minister how long it will take before this social welfare problem will be handled by the social welfare authorities? May I also ask who sent out circular 14/92 which nobody knows about and on which Senator Sherlock is so well informed? We should consider carefully whether internal communications should be lodged in the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister should clarify whether it is only community welfare officers who receive these letters or whether more senior officials in the Department of Health or the health boards also receive them.
On Second Stage I mentioned the desirability of closer co-ordination between social welfare officers and community welfare officers who operate under different Departments and different Ministers. While I have some sympathy with the point being made by Senator Sherlock, the proposal contained in his amendment may result in a situation which is more cumbersome and less beneficial for people who need the support and guidance of community welfare officers. I have had dealings with community welfare officers and I must say there are a minority who do not treat the people who go to see them with the courtesy and consideration they deserve.
Many people go to see welfare officers despite being in the most difficult circumstances; many go at weekends when a service is not even provided. Invariably, after going the round of social welfare officers and community welfare officers, these people contact their public representatives and all public representatives are very busy at their weekend clinics meeting people who are having difficulties of one kind or another. The Department of Social Welfare, in an effort to deal with this situation, have set up an excellent service in local towns.
The operation of the community welfare officer system is currently under review and it is time that this review was completed as reorganisation is needed in order to minimise delays and avoid situations where people who need support are going from one Department to the next. This should be done in an efficient way through the local officers. A service should be provided at weekends for people who need it. While I have sympathy with the view expressed by Senator Sherlock I do not think his suggestion will alleviate the problem. There should be more co-ordination between the Department of Social Welfare and the health boards operating the community welfare system, and this should be made more efficient. A circular should be issued to community welfare officers outlining the courtesy, care and consideration they should show the people with whom they are dealing. The actions of a minority of community welfare officers should not be tolerated.
In relation to the point made by Senator Daly the Department is working on an integrated short term schemes payment system which will be in operation before October this year for all short term social welfare payments. However, it is expected that the supplementary welfare aspect will not be completed until the middle of next year. That will provide for the possibility of much closer integration of these two systems.
Last year I spoke in the Dáil and in this House on this topic. Circular 14/92 and circular 18/92, which was issued to clarify circular 14/92, also dealt with the issue. The matter was also raised during the general election. I said there were immediate plans to improve the situation of people depending on supplementary welfare allowance and to help them meet exceptional needs. An additional £12.5 million was provided this year to meet the demands on the scheme. The most frequent reasons for seeking supplementary welfare allowance are to pay rent, mortgages and ESB and gas bills. Paying the ESB bills is the most common difficulty. I want to ensure that the health boards exercise discretion in a sensible way to ensure that people in genuine need are helped sympathetically and effectively.
I also said I was drawing up a code of practice to deal with debts owed to providers of services, such as the ESB and An Bord Gáis. The code of practice will replace the guidance originally offered by the circulars issued last year, which will be withdrawn. I said I was consulting with the ESB, An Bord Gáis and the health boards to develop this code of practice. I will be publishing revised guidelines covering all aspects of the scheme following the review which is taking place at present. In my Department and in the health boards there are group meetings and consultations on this code of practice and, when they are concluded I will place the data in the Library of the House. As I told Members in the Dáil I am prepared to do that but in the Seanad under this amendment I am expected to do this under law. I do not understand why Members do not accept what I say. I know they have always had difficulty in accepting anything I said but they have always had to agree later——
Would you blame us?
They have adopted the Doubting Thomas approach on almost every issue. I do not mind this but it is like a long-playing record after a while. That is the approach they adopt all the time. I have given undertakings on this issue, and I gave a firm commitment when I introduced this Bill in the Dáil that I will publish revised guidelines covering all aspects of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme as soon as the current review is completed. I reiterated this commitment when I introduced the Bill in this House and I have stressed my desire to ensure that the health boards exercised discretion in a sensible way to ensure that people in genuine need are sympathetically and effectively helped. I made it clear that I am drawing up this code of practice, it will be available reasonably soon and I will publish the revised guidelines.
This amendment suggests that all internal communications between my Department and the health board should be made public. I see no reason this should be so. Senator Cregan already made this point. If every letter, publication and circular had to be made public it would make the Dáily working of the Department and its officers very difficult.
For a number of years we have produced fact sheets to explain what is contained in circulars. People have welcomed them and said they are very helpful in explaining complex elements of social welfare. In relation to this area let us start with this code of practice, let us produce a published fact sheet on that code and see where we go from there. I do not accept the legal obligation proposed in the amendment.
The Minister might be annoyed with members of Democratic Left making the case but I will continue to do, as is my right. The Minister fails to recognise what the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Conference of Major Religious Superiors and others are saying. He is turning a blind eye to the fact that people are living below the poverty line.
Senator McGennis commented on my reference to community welfare officers. If she had been listening she would have heard me say that until mid-1921 had no problem with community welfare officers and I have been dealing with them since 1974. The reason for the problem was that circular 14/92 was issued and the superintendent community welfare officers were obviously advised not to disclose the contents to public representatives. They told their community welfare officers to comply with the terms of the circular with the result that people in need were turned away. I almost went public on this issue when it came to light that, as a result of these circulars, a different attitude was taken by the welfare officers.
This amendment merely requests that the Minister, when issuing a circular, guideline or code of practice to community welfare officers relating to the entitlements of persons to supplementary welfare allowance payment, would make the interpretation of the guideline known to public representatives. If guidelines are issued by the Department to community welfare officers or to programme managers that we in the Seanad know nothing about, although we legislate for peoples' entitlements, then a conflict arises.
There was a cutback as a result of that secret circular and it did not require any legislation. When there was considerable outcry about the impact of the cutbacks the Minister told the Dáil last October that he would issue another circular. The first circular I referred to was 14/92 and the other was 18/92. What difference did circular 18/92 make? It made no difference. It confirmed what was said in the previous circular about withdrawing discretion, particularly in the payment of supplementary welfare allowance to help people with arrears of ESB bills. In future any guidelines or code of practice issued should be made public. The Minister has stated that a code of practice is being drawn up. Can he say when that code of practice will be ready and if it will be made public?
First, we should stop fighting the last election. This happened last year before the election and it is water under the bridge. The Senator knows that I was not the Minister at the time.
Circular 18/92 was issued to clarify 14/92 and the discretionary powers of the community welfare officers. There is a problem in relation to the exceptional needs payment. In certain areas very high rates were consistently paid out and there were great variations between health boards and even between areas within health boards. The health boards, faced with that difficulty, had to establish a basic level and that led to the situation last year. I hope it will be resolved soon. In law the health boards had discretion in exceptional needs payments and it cannot be taken away by a circular.
We will have the code of practice ready in the next month or two.
The Minister reneged on his responsibility.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We have laboured on this amendment for a long time.
The health authority, under law, has the right to assist people and has a duty to get its priorities right. Due to the ongoing shortage of money from central Government health authorities are going to cut back in areas that are not their priorities. That is what happened and the Minister must admit that.
That is not where the problem arose. I have said many times that the problem was a lack of consistency. Extra money was spent in this area last year. Another £12.5 million has been allocated this year so no one can say it is a cutback of funds.
Problems developed when people came to regard the payment as continuous, which it was not meant to be. That is where the problem of consistency among the health boards arose. One of the ways being considered to overcome that problem is to link exceptional payments with the family budgeting process being developed by the Department. Special payments for ESB bills, for instance, continuously increased in certain areas of a health board and not in others.
Rent allowance?
Yes, rent allowance also. It will be useful to link the budgeting process, which we hope to have ready soon, with exceptional payments to get at the real problems.
A substitution problem occurred in some cases. The substitution was that, in some cases the bills were given to community welfare officers to have a certain amount paid. That was a substitution for a separate problem where, for example, one of the spouses, usually the husband, spent the money somewhere else and the wife was left every month with an essential bill to pay. The community welfare officer has virtually no alternative but to assist in paying it. That is where the family budgeting is important: to establish what is essential spending. Budgeting will help a great deal.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 18 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
In relation to the carer's allowance I have to give credit to the Minister who, since 1987, after long argument with all sides of the House, looked at the issue of carers and introduced a small allowance for them. It has been increased regularly and I congratulate the Minister. As far as possible, an elderly or sick person should be kept at home, rather than go into a nursing home.
I get worried when I see signs which are put up with the approval of the planning authorities giving directions to nursing homes. There are better signs for nursing homes than there are for roads. The nursing home business has grown considerably in the last seven to ten years. Every type of available accommodation is being used for nursing homes. I say this with no disrespect to any nursing home or more importantly to any patient and many of the people concerned are patients.
At last, the person at home looking after somebody who cannot take care of themselves is receiving some recognition and money from the State but at the same time there is extensive means testing. Other Bills have allowed people to engage in activities while in receipt of money from the State. I am annoyed therefore, that we are not paying enough to carers.
The situation should not arise where, as happened with the family income supplement, people are afraid to apply because they have income from another source such as a small pension. Such carers may have been working for 35 years. A woman may be caring for her mother but receiving no assistance from the State because she already has an income. A non-means tested minimum amount should be paid to all carers. We should encourage people to keep their parents at home but so far we have done the opposite.
In recent weeks in Cork people have had to be taken into local authority care, at a cost of approximately £370 per week per bed, because they had been in a nursing home which had not received the assistance it had been expecting. I carry no flag for such places; I support people who want to care for the ill or elderly in their own home. We should learn from other countries especially Greece where the last thing one would do with elders is remove them from their family.
I realise the amendment is out of order because it involves a charge on the Exchequer. It is ridiculous that I cannot speak directly to the amendment when I could speak indirectly to it for four hours. I do not see the logic of that. I wish to ask the Minister if anything is really being done for carers looking after elderly people in their own homes? This is vital work as the Minister knows.
For clarification purposes I wish to state that the section makes provision through after death payments to enable a spouse in receipt of a carer's allowance, to continue to receive both a personal rate and the adult dependant allowance for six weeks. If the carer's allowance is £59 per week is that not less than the person would receive as a pensioner or from any other long term unemployment assistance?
And it only applies to spouses.
Why is it not extended to carers such as sons or daughters who spend a lifetime looking after an elderly person who might otherwise have to be accommodated in a nursing home?
I wish to support Senators Cregan and Sherlock. I pointed out the other day when the Minister of State was in the House, that carers who look after their elderly relatives within the home save the State an enormous amount of money. It is unfortunate that the interpretation of a carer's allowance is so narrow. It is also unfortunate that the payments given to carers are so low. I hope the means test will not be applied as strictly as before which has resulted in few carers receiving an allowance.
Senator Sherlock's point about the spouse being the only one taken into account by the Bill after the death of the patient being cared for is particularly relevant. I ask the Minister why children or even relatives such as a niece or a nephew have not been taken into account? Carers may have had to leave work to care for a relative.
The Minister said in his speech that he is looking into the situation regarding the PRSI contributions of the carer but it may be a long time before we find out whether this is being done and whether those who have had to drop out of the PRSI system will be compensated. In this situation, younger people could be at a greater disadvantage than elderly carer spouses.
This after death allowance cannot apply to a single son or daughter. It applies only to a married couple where on the death of one spouse the bereaved spouse continues to receive both payments for a period of six weeks. That does not apply to carers at the moment who receive a full payment in their own right. A person cannot be a dependant on one hand and a paid carer on the other.
When we bring in equal treatment, people lose many traditional benefits. This happens especially to women who in most cases are the carer. I want to give women credits for PRSI as the Senator mentioned but women who receive payments in their own right cannot receive a dependant's payment. The arrangement only applies to dependants.
I am going in an anti-equality direction here. In 70 per cent of cases it is the husband who dies first and where the wife has been a dependant, she will continue to receive the double payment for six weeks. That as Senator Cregan said, is a sympathetic benefit and will apply equally to husband or wife. It could not apply, by definition, to a son or daughter. They can get the carer's allowance if their circumstances warrant it.
Before I deal with minimum payments for carers and their importance, I wish to answer Senator Sherlock's queries about the rate. The rate relates to the long term payment. This is a big increase. Why does the Senator not say so? I had to fight for this money at the Cabinet table. Money to make these changes does not fall out of the sky. Under this Bill the short term rate will be increased to the long term rate.
This is a non-contributory scheme; it is not an insurance scheme.
Is it means tested?
It is means tested, but we will discuss that later.
The Senator asked why it was not related to the old age pension. It is related. The carer's allowance is equivalent to the rate paid to the long term unemployed and the old age pension on the assistance schemes. This is an assistance scheme and that is why it was introduced.
Senator Cregan asked about the carer's scheme. As Minister for Social Welfare, I introduced a social assistance scheme. At one time the Department of Health had responsibility for carers but I brought them under the social welfare code because although they were not employed they could not claim unemployment benefit. Only women came to see me. They told me that they could not claim unemployment assistance because they were full-time carers. This meant that not only did they have no money but they did not qualify for any social welfare benefits. Carers are usually single women who stay at home looking after elderly parents.
I introduced the social assistance scheme to rectify this situation. It was a big breakthrough to get it accepted that a carer could be a husband looking after his wife and vice versa. Senator Cregan said that in Greece and other countries, caring for your husband, wife or parents is regarded as a duty. Let us be clear about what we have done. We are increasing and improving the allowance and we are providing benefit after death.
Senator Cregan asked for a minimum payment for every carer. I am sympathetic to this suggestion but much still needs to be done here. Groups like the Carers Association and the Soroptimists claim that there are 60,000 involved in caring. However, "caring" would have to be defined otherwise the numbers might double when the £25 allowance is introduced. Even at 60,000, the cost to the Exchequer would be £78 million in a year. If this allowance was introduced, there would be calls to increase it.
Under a current scheme catering for 4,500 people costing over £11 million a year, the average payment in 1992-93 would have been around £48 a week. Many of those people needed that money which was means tested. The health boards and the Department of Health can also define bad situations. Once this is done we can say that a payment should be made. It is a popular scheme and many would like to see it expanded. We will have to consider this. This section represents an improvement which I hope will be welcome.
I welcome the Minister's reply and I recognise that the carer's situation has improved considerably since 1987. At that time there was no allowance paid. However, there have been many arguments in the House about this subject. The Minister is correct when he says that the main problem concerns those carers who are living at home but are not in receipt of any benefit. Those who are financially dependent on their parents are in the worst situation.
Both the Minister and I agree that caring for the elderly should be the responsibility of the Department of Health. If necessary, the Minister should take some of the money spent by the Department of Health to subsidise people going into nursing homes and give it to carers. They are caring for their parents 24 hours a day and £59 a week is the least we could give them. Under no circumstances should we issue circulars depriving carers of financial assistance. We would have a better society if the Government gave carers a decent allowance.
I support what Senator Cregan said. He was not criticising the Minister or his Department because the public regards members of the medical profession as expert on social welfare. In my dealings with the Department, I have found them very helpful. I also welcome the consolidation of various payments within the social welfare code and, like Senator Cregan, I urged the Minister to get more money from the Department of Health——
Steal it.
——because I want the disabled person's maintenance allowance transferred to the Department of Social Welfare. I encourage the Minister and his Department to take on extra responsibilities because I am sure that what the Department of Social Welfare pays carers saves us an enormous amount of money.
I am happy that the Senators have emphasised this point. Perhaps, the House will have further discussions about the development of caring which is needed. I want to be clear because outside the House there is confusion about the role of the Department of Social Welfare in paying the carer's allowance. One could define people in a particular situation with regard to their health and make payments on those grounds.
I sought clarification from the Minister and I am afraid I am still in the dark. I understand from what the Minister said that an old age pensioner gets £68.90.
That is the insurance rate.
There is also a dependant's allowance of £43.90 if the old age pensioner has a dependant spouse or other relative. Is the Minister saying that a dependent spouse who is caring for her husband will now be paid the carer's allowance of £59 instead of the dependant's allowance of £43.50? If that is the case, will the Department continue to pay the carer's allowance after the spouse who was being cared for dies? What is the situation of a person who spends all their life caring for their loved ones? That person — it is often the mother — was getting a prescribed relative's allowance, but will now be paid the carer's allowance. I accept that change because it includes a fairly substantial increase but what will happen to the carer when the person they are caring for dies? Will they have to go to the employment exchange and sign on for unemployment assistance or will it be at the discretion of a community welfare officer to decide whether that person will have anything to live on the following week?
The rate of £59.20 is the same as the long term unemployment assistance rate and the non-contributory old age pension. Someone who is the adult dependant of another who is on a long term old age pension may be entitled to a non-contributory old age pension in their own right. One can move from the adult dependant's allowance to the carer's allowance.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 11, subsection (1), between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(a) for the period during which the person would have attended school if that person had completed second-level education, and for three months following that period.".
The purpose of this amendment is to remove an incentive from the Bill for young people to drop out of school before completing second level. There has been much talk about graduate unemployment etc. but if one looks at the unemployment figures one sees that those with least education are most affected by unemployment. Those who drop out of school without any educational qualifications have very poor chances of getting a job.
Senator Quinn, on whose behalf I moved the amendment, fears that this payment of £55 per week to young people is an inducement to them to drop out of school. Far from emphasising the importance of staying on this will give them a motivation to leave school. Young people see this payment as money for discos, extra clothes, cigarettes and drink. Senator Quinn believes the State will be seen as encouraging young people to leave the education system. They may not realise the harm they are doing to themselves, but the State should point this out to them.
Senator Quinn would like young people who drop out of school to have to apply for unemployment assistance on the same basis as everyone else. If there was a delay before young people could get the payment of £55 per week, they might look at their situation and make an alternative choice to return to school. The more we encourage young people to stay in the school system the better.
I share Senator Quinn's concern, as expressed by Senator Henry, that there should be no incentive for young people to drop out of second level education. However, I do not accept that this section as drafted provides such an incentive. The basic point is that the Department only pays unemployment assistance to those aged 18 years and over.
I note that Senator Quinn considers it a good thing to have a three month wait before one becomes entitled to unemployment assistance, because there is a chance that people will at least look for other options before going onto the dole. I think that is true. I have arranged that people who leave school will be able to register with FÁS and will be eligible for FAS courses. Normally one has to be six months with FÁS to get on any course, meaning that young people leaving school have to wait some time to get on a course. Young people's entitlement to register with FÁS for training courses and to look for work will begin immediately on leaving school. However, it will take three months before a person is entitled to unemployment assistance. During those three months the child dependant allowance will continue to be paid to the parents of those who drop out of school. These payments are already continued for the long term unemployed, but now they will also continue for the short term unemployed.
I will report back to Senator Quinn. The amendment is intended to save the State money, but apparently everything is equal and there is no disadvantage in dropping out of school.
By and large there is no disadvantage — one has to be over 18 in any event.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Amendment No. 23 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
On section 14. The decision to deny unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare payments to third level students during the summer period and to second level students for three months after finishing school is an unacceptable attack on young people. It is clearly designed to improve the appearance of the live register without putting any more people to work. This move will further impoverish students, many of whom are already on the breadline due to a totally inadequate grant system.
In third level institutions the summer break can be as long as four months. We want to encourage the sons and daughters of families on low incomes to continue their education at third level. Will the Government deny them the right to sign on for unemployment assistance or to get supplementary welfare allowance? Those students who are available for work during this period but who are unable to find employment either in Ireland or abroad should be entitled to unemployment assistance. Many students want to find employment. They try to find employment but if they are unsuccessful and their parents are on low incomes, as many of them are, how can they support themselves or ask their families to support them?
Students should be entitled to unemployment assistance on the same basis as other unemployed people. This decision will further penalise working parents who are already struggling to keep their children in college at great sacrifice to themselves. A conflict arises when parents enthusiastically support the child in furthering their education, but when they can no longer afford to look after them at home it is a different matter. This decision has resulted in some young people moving into flats. That should not be the case as it breaks down the fabric of society.
The proposal to take unemployment assistance from students has been strongly condemned by youth and student organisations. The National Youth Council of Ireland described the proposal as arbitrary and pointed out that it would take no account of family circumstances. I have stated this repeatedly. The council forecast that the move would reduce the number of young people from non-professional backgrounds attending third level education. That would be a terrible thing to happen.
Recently it has been said that it is good that more of our young people are furthering their studies and going on to third level education. We are going to deny them that right because they cannot find a job during the summer holidays even though they will try to get a job. They try to find jobs long before the summer recess but they are not available. In these circumstances it is wrong to deny them unemployment assistance. They are unemployed people. I oppose section 14 of the Bill.
I spoke on Second Stage about this problem. It is sad that because of the financial situation in the Department of Social Welfare there must be cutbacks in certain areas. I am not worried about those in third level education. I am very proud of them. However, one aspect of the social welfare code worries me. We, as a people, have created a situation where people living at home do not get assistance because another member of the family is earning money. Unemployment assistance is means tested. I mentioned this on Second Stage and I said I would go into more detail on Committee Stage.
I would like to hear the Minister's views on unemployment assistance in general. Does the Department of Social Welfare still apply the means testing criteria stringently? I know of one family in Cork city and the husband earns £209 gross per week and he brings home £147. He has an 18 year old daughter who is unemployed. He has two sons, one of whom earns about £55 per week from part-time work. I am describing this case because it is a typical example of what people do to qualify for payment. The daughter left the family home because she was means tested. She went to live in a flat 60 square feet — in another part of the city to qualify for assistance. She is living in an area she does not like, meeting people of whom her parents do not approve.
I do not enjoy describing this girl's situation. I blame the Department of Social Welfare for this. I do not like to have to say that. This girl cannot get any money if she lives at home because the family unit is earning £264 gross per week. The son has to pay PRSI and the father has to pay PRSI and taxes and another child is still living at home. The situation has upset the mother. The daughter is mixing with people of whom her parents do not approve. Young people can get involved in the drugs scene and in immature and unstable relationships. These situations cost the Department of Social Welfare more money than paying unemployment assistance to people living in the family home would. The girl was entitled to £42 per week while living at home but she is entitled to approximatley £108 per week while she is living in a flat. Because she is getting £108 a week social welfare she is not anxious to return home. The Department is subsidising landlords. It appals me to think that people are under the impression they are sorting out problems by giving money. The community welfare officers give these people a lot of money by way of supplementary rent allowance. That is where the Department's money is going.
We should have offered that girl £30 per week and explained that she could not get more because her father earns £209 gross per week. However, when she left home she became entitled to more money. Have we any answers? I have the answer. I will be realistic. I would like that young girl — I am sorry she cannot be given £42; she is entitled only to a certain amount.
The Government imposes limits and is not prepared to deviate from them. The community welfare officers also work within certain limits. Up to the middle of 1992 these people were very caring and sincere. They have to stay within limits. Let us look at the social problems we have created, and whether we like it or not, we have created them. More and more of our children are going out on their own because of this provision in the social welfare code.
Senator Sherlock will probably be surprised, but I agree with him. There is a tradition of third level students working and the figures the Minister mentioned on Second Stage indicated there was in excess of 70,000 students. This section of the Bill will only affect about 12,000 students, so it is an indication that most of our student population seek summer jobs.
My understanding is that under the proposed scheme students who are children of people whose only income is from social welfare will get either a community work scheme or the equivalent of their unemployment assistance entitlements during the summer months, provided they apply from home. I would like the Minister to clarify this. This will ensure that students from deprived backgrounds will get every possible assistance to make it through third level education, and that is one of the points I mentioned on Second Stage. If the Union of Students in Ireland want to embark on a lobby, that is where I would ask them to direct their attention. The imbalance of participation in third level education is something which needs to be addressed urgently and is an area which the USI should tackle.
It is very difficult for us to be a caring society. The problems Senator Cregan refers to are problems in my own constituency, including that of young girls leaving home. Their parents very often have not wanted them to leave home——
I am not saying that at all.
There is a situation where there is a tremendous burden on the State, but we created this problem ourselves under the various provisions of the homeless legislation in 1988 which ensured that nobody could be left homeless. What we effectively did was to hand over responsibility from parents, to a large degree, to the State, and the net effect of that is a huge burden on the State. It was meant to be a caring piece of legislation but it appears to have been abused, and instead of handing over £40 to somebody who is staying at home, we are paying huge sums and are creating social disasters.
That is right.
A point was made earlier about community welfare officers and their attitudes being changed. Some community welfare officers have told me that they will not give a rent allowance to certain categories of people who apply because they do not feel it is in their interest. They have been criticised for that but I believe they have made the right decision in certain cases. In large urban areas where one boy or girl goes down to the welfare officer, gets a rent allowance and goes to live in a flat, it sets the trend for a whole population. We are creating a huge social problem.
It is a fact of life and is costing millions.
I support the point Senator Cregan is making but it is very difficult, as the Minister and other Ministers say, to hold a line to be a caring community and help those who are genuinely in need, and then decide, "no, you are not in genuine need, and just because you do not want to live at home, we are not giving you any assistance". I do not think there is a simple solution.
The debate has covered a wide range of situations. The first one is the question of students and their entitlement to unemployment assistance during the summer holiday period. They have no entitlements to assistance during the Christmas and Easter holiday periods whereas they have had such an entitlement during the summer holiday period but that is being removed in this legislation. Senator Sherlock says this is going to impoverish students, that grants are low and that the Department of Social Welfare is not dealing with them as they should do. We are talking about people who are looking for full-time, permanent jobs. By definition you cannot look for a full-time permanent job when you are in full-time permanent education. You can do so if you are in part-time education, and the system caters for that but when you are in full-time, permanent education you are not available for full-time work. It is not allowed in the North of Ireland, in Britain, or on the Continent because you are getting the benefits from the State in other ways. The taxpayer is paying for a whole educational system.
Students should get a loan.
It is not as simple as the Senator would suggest. In the first instance, it is not necessarily the people who are impoverished who are taking most from this scheme at the moment. All you have to do is what Senator Cregan was talking about in a difficult circumstance, leave home as students are doing increasingly move into a flat and receive the full rate of unemployment and the supplementary allowance as well. We are paying for that with taxpayers' money. However, that was never the intention of those allowances or for the unemployment assistance scheme. That is what this Bill is correcting or altering.
At the same time, I recognise that there are students who may need to make some money to allow them to return to college in the autumn and who may not be able to get employment. For that reason I proposed to the Government that we should have a scheme for students during the summer period which would allow them to work, if they are prepared to do so, particularly with voluntary organisations.
All I keep hearing here is the negative side. I am getting letters and calls from voluntary organisations to say this proposed scheme is good. They say these are fit, intelligent, young people who would be very helpful to such organisations in the summer if they want to help. I do not understand why there is such a negative reaction here. We will never do anything positive if we do not go that route. We can simply do what is done in the North of Ireland, in Britain and all around the EC, where unemployment assistance is not payable to students. We will be in line with those countries once this Bill passes. I knew however, there will be people who will be in difficulty. Therefore, I asked the Government to let me introduce a scheme to cover that situation. It is a bit of bother for me and the Department but nobody thanked the Department of Social Welfare for introducing this scheme.
Senator McGennis is right in saying that if a student comes into the scheme and if there is no work for them under the scheme, they will still get payment. Nobody could say that is inconsiderate and that we are not looking after the interests of people directly concerned The Union of Students in Ireland have said in a press release that they think it is outrageous that students should have to work for a wage this summer.
They would say that, would they not?
We are looking at the situation of students who genuinely want to work and participate in society and contribute to it. There is no doubt they are the cream of society, intellectually, physically and in almost every way. They are in a special position and are getting special assistance and support. We are giving them the opportunity, if they want to, to participate in a scheme, some elements of which I have outlined on Second Stage. They would get payment roughly equivalent to the amount they are currently getting. In that sense, I believe it is a good innovative scheme and something that does not exist in other countries. In other countries you do not get unemployment assistance when you are in full-time education or on holidays, and that is the end of the matter.
The number of students claiming unemployment assistance is increasing every year. I pointed out on Second Stage that if every student did what any student can do at the moment, and moved out of home into a flat for the summer period anywhere in the country, then the cost of that would be £90 million. That cost is increasing each year. It went up £10,000 in 1991, £12,000 last year and, as people get to know the system and how it works, it certainly is a substantial extra charge. We are bringing the position into line with what applies in other EC countries. We are also, however, offering an opportunity to students to participate in a scheme, the terms of which will be set out afterwards. I have given a clear indication of those terms on Second Stage.
Senator Cregan raised the more general question of the income in the family home being taken into consideration. Even much wealthier countries than ours have to do that. If everybody is going to be paid, irrespective of the rest of the income in the household, then you are talking about extra hundreds of millions of pounds. Where that is to come from is another question. It is a problem, and I accept what Senator Cregan has said in that regard. One of the solutions would be that if you paid less tax on the £209 you would have more take home pay. This is where we run into problems in the Department of Social Welfare. We are down at the lower end. If a net take-home pay is not adequate then that creates its own problems. We have different ways of approaching that matter. We have the family income supplement which goes some way towards solving it and in certain cases it does a lot. There is also the point that the Minister for Finance is reducing taxation. There have been significant reductions in the past few years and these will continue to be the objective.
I thought the Senator would suggest there might be a minimum payment. The cost would be enormous if that were done. A general entitlement would cost hundreds of millions of pounds. That is one of the current difficulties with the provisions and it is one that we will have to examine more closely.
This is an important point. I am not particularly worried about the student in third level education. There are other parties who are more worried about them than I am. The Minister says he can find work for students for three months of the year at a time when we have over 300,000 people unemployed, 115,000 of them on long term unemployment. That work should be given to the long term unemployed for the three months. Yet, the student who is young and educated is favoured. It amounts to discrimination and it should not be allowed under any circumstances. The Minister should not say that he will provide work for one group of people and not for the long term unemployed.
You said that.
The Minister is prepared to provide work for students in local authority areas and give them a little more than the unemployment. Why does he not make the same offer to the long term unemployed for three months of the year and offer them some hope? Why is he favouring students who, as graduates, will have the opportunity to be the top earners in the country? Many of them will work in the professions, in law, medicine, dentistry and so on. It would be preferable to do something for the long term unemployed.
The Minister made the point that every child should be entitled to assistance. My attitude is that my child should not be entitled to a benefit if I have the necessary means. A maximum level should be set at which assistance is payable. Payments should then be reduced on a phased basis as earnings rise above that level; for example, £30 where the family income is £230 a week, £23 where it is £240 a week and so on. This system has been implemented in other areas. Our present system has created massive social problems.
We have a scheme like that but the levels are not high enough. This raises the question of more money to provide larger amounts and to include more people. The question of the long term unemployed is a separate matter. I will be introducing a special programme to deal with that. We introduced a voluntary work option for the unemployed by way of part-time work and various other schemes and we will be coming back to that issue shortly and to the issues of work support and the transition to work. I accept the point the Senator made on providing options and opportunities for the long term unemployed. That will be one of my primary objectives. However, today we are dealing with the measures in this Bill.
Question put and declared carried.
Sections 15 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 14, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsections:
"(5) The provisions of the Data Protection Act, 1988, shall apply in full to any information obtained under this section.
(6) Section 31 of the Act of 1988 is hereby repealed.".
For many years in this House I have maintained that in order to eliminate the black economy employees should use a job card. This is not a novel idea; it operates in other countries. Questions are being asked about the system of social services cards and the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner has reservations about the system. The Minister said in his Second Stage speech that it was not an identity card, that it was not a card for purposes other than an individual's PRSI number. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister would explain why there has been so much effort made to ensure that only one section of the community will participate in this system?
Young people have become familiar with credit cards and other such cards. This is because of the benefits they can obtain when the banks are not prepared to employ people to open for longer hours. I ask the Minister to tell us the Government's intentions in this matter. Presumably he has read the "Data Protection Commission: Annual Report, 1991."? Is it the Minister's intention that every person on social welfare will have a card, or will such cards be confined to a particular area?
On a point of clarification, it was sometime last year when young children got these numbers from the Department of Social Welfare. What is the purpose of this exercise?
That happened last year and it has stopped. The Department of Education was interested in having the numbers and some of them were issued for that reason. However, the Department did not proceed with the exercise. There were other proposals and suggestions last year — we can revert to fighting the last election if the Senator wishes. This is a very specific proposal; it is well thought out and well directed and it provides the legislative background for the work we normally do. The RSI number is used specifically for our social welfare services and for our dealings with the Revenue Commissioners and community welfare officers.
Senator Cregan referred to proposals in relation to a wider use of the identity card. This was referred to by the data protection Act and the data commissioner. The commissioner said that if the card was to be used its purpose would have to be very clearly specified in law. We are specifying our purposes here. Section 23 — as in the case of all legislation — is already subject to the provisions in the data protection Act. There is no need, therefore, for the proposed subsection (5) in this amendment. There might have been a need if some of the things talked about earlier were being done but they are not being done. What we are doing is very clear and specific.
As far as section 31 of the 1988 Act is concerned, this provision was enacted to provide for the transfer of information between my Department and the Revenue Commissioners and for similar transfers between my Department, other Departments and specified bodies for the purposes of the administration of the social welfare schemes. We have been administering many of these schemes on a routine basis. There was a cardboard card which everybody used and it is now a plastic card. This matter was discussed on Second Stage and I outlined the card's purposes at that time. We are providing the legislative background and therefore nobody can subsequently challenge us for using these cards for these specified purposes.
Can they use them for their own information?
They can use them for anything they like. That is their own business. If they are asked for identity, they can show their card and use it as an identity card. It has nothing to do with us. As far as we are concerned, it would only be used under the data protection Act for the specific purposes outlined. Most young people would be used to these cards and eventually they will have a bundle of different cards.
Will the social welfare card be accepted in place of a Visa card?
At 29 per cent? They are in the wrong bank.
This one does not carry those charges. A question was raised about our dealings with the Revenue Commissioners regarding fraud. We have a joint investigation unit and it has been very successful. In 1992 JIU activity brought in savings of £16 million from fraud and abuse through cross-checking between the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare. The total amount saved in the schemes in 1992 in relation to fraud and abuse and unwarranted claiming comes to £84 million; a further £27 million is to be saved this year.
Senators can rest assured that the purposes for which this card is to be used are very specific. It is not a general identity card and is not to be used in that way. It is being issued to people over 16 years of age. It will provide that they have a card from the first instance. The Department of Social Welfare took over the issuing of these cards from the Revenue Commissioners. For various reasons, people tended to come up with two and three numbers and that caused many problems in the social welfare system. It is not too bad having two or three numbers if one is paying tax but when one is receiving benefits under two or three numbers it can cause a great deal of difficulty. The cards are being issued by the Department of Social Welfare. It is a tighter issuing system and this section provides the legislative background for it.
On a point of information, will a claimant or beneficiary under the Social Welfare Acts be required to furnish information? For example, will a person in receipt of a non-contributory pension have to furnish information and will they be issued with that number.
It will be the normal card for all social welfare services. At present it is a cardboard card and soon there will be a plastic card instead. It is not usual for somebody to be concerned about being identified for receiving a social welfare benefit. They usually want to be identified to receive the benefit.
If a person did not contribute to the welfare system, will they get a card?
Everybody gets a card. Everybody will have an RSI number for their social welfare and tax dealings and they can use that number for those purposes. The extent to which they are using it is another matter. The card will be available to everybody.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 agreed to.
Sections 24 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Amendment No. 25 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Section 31 agreed to.
Sections 32 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 42.
Question proposed: "That section 42 stand part of the Bill."
On a point of information, may I ask a question on the taxation of disability benefits in relation to the amendments to the Pensions Acts? Have the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Finance discussed if the taxing of these benefits could be implemented on a phased basis rather than as a once off payment? There are some people whose income is above the tax free allowance because they are receiving a small pension from somewhere else. Is there any possibility that the taxing of disability benefits could be done in another way? I am not saying they should not be taxed; if people are making enough money they should pay their taxes. The solution is to tell the people concerned that benefits are being taxed on a phased basis over a two or three year period. I would appreciate a commitment from the Minister that he will speak to the other Minister involved.
The Department of Finance is dealing with that. I will bring the points made by the Senator to the attention of the Minister for Finance. The intention is to implement this from the beginning of April. The way it will be implemented will obviously pose various administrative questions. I will convey Senator Cregan's concerns to the Minister for Finance.
Questions put and agreed to.
Sections 43 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 51.
Question proposed: "That section 51 stand part of the Bill."
Is the equality officer with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions earning £40,000?
An "‘equality officer' means an equality officer of the Labour Relations Commission appointed under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990."
Section 51 clarifies the meaning of "equality officer" as used in section 76 of the Pensions Act, 1990. The section now defines "equality officer" as an equality officer appointed under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 52 agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Schedule C agreed to.
Schedule D agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Senators for very searching and constructive comments. We will bear those in mind. This is an important and valuable Bill. As Senators pointed out, there are always steps to be taken and problems to be solved in this area. Senators can be assured that this Bill will improve the position of families in receipt of social welfare. Senators' comments will be taken into account in our consideration of future developments.
Question put and declared carried.