I received a note from the Cathaoirleach informing me that my amendment was ruled out of order.
Social Welfare Bill, 1995: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
It would involve a charge on Revenue, so it is not in order.
My amendment asked for the rates to be brought into line with the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. I know the issue has been debated ad nauseam, as it was described by the Social Affairs Committee. I had hoped, in view of the Minister's statements at his party's recent conference, that the social welfare increases were inadequate, that there would have been a Government amendment to this section calling for greater increases to be provided. We believe that any social welfare increases which are not at least in accordance with inflation are totally unacceptable. That is why I tabled an amendment, which has been ruled out of order. I ask the Minister even at this late stage to suggest to his colleagues that a 2.5 per cent increase is totally inadequate.
It has been pointed out already — and we will point it out in subsequent amendments — that although child benefit and other increases are welcome, only those who receive them will benefit. All other recipients will receive increases of only 2.5 per cent. I will be asking the Minister for clarification on other sections.
In reply to a parliamentary question by Deputy Joe Walsh in January 1995 the Minister said the estimated cost of increasing social welfare personal rates to the levels recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare would be about £60 million this year and £136 million in a full year. These rates would not provide the necessities of life for the unfortunate people concerned. In good economic times there is a possibility that they could be given substantial increases to bring their payments into line with those recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare.
Unfortunately, my amendment has been ruled out of order and there is no corresponding Government amendment. We will air this issue throughout the debate on the Bill. We will not support this section as we find these increases paltry.
I welcome the Minister. I have always felt that we should not be afraid of using another term in place of "social welfare". A report will be issued by the special committee on taxation and social welfare. The Minister should consider not only changing the structure of the social welfare system but of using another term in place of "welfare". We should refer to "social services" rather than "social welfare" and not apologise for doing so. We have been using the word "welfare" for too long. We should be more customer friendly. We use the word "welfare" in relation to 800,000 adults and 600,000 children. I do not like this word and we should not be afraid to change it.
Tá áthas orm a bheith anseo inniú mar Aire chun an Bille seo a chur chun cinn. Tá súil agam go mbeidh díospóireacht mhaith againn i rith an tráthnóna. Tá súil agam freisin nach rachaidh sé ar aghaidh ró-fhada mar go bhfuil cruinniú agam le hUachtarán na hIodáile i gcomhair dinnéir ag a seacht a chlog. Measaim gur maith an rud é go mbeinn in ann an dinnéar sin a fhreastal.
I hope we give you an appetite.
Perhaps you will. I refer to the comments of Senator Kelleher about the general increase in social welfare. The Senator is right; I said at the weekend conference of my party, Democratic Left, that our general social welfare payments are grossly inadequate. I also said that some weeks earlier during Question Time in the Dáil when the Senator's party's spokesperson asked me about the Commission on Social Welfare's recommendations. I also said it very vociferously when I was in Opposition and I will maintain that position until such time as I think our payments are sufficient to help people to keep body and soul together, and not to just survive but in a way which gives them dignity.
The Commission on Social Welfare published its report in 1985 in which it made around 60 recommendations on a range of aspects of the social welfare code and how we deliver it. It particularly addressed the question of poverty and made a number of recommendations in relation to our levels of social welfare. It estimated in 1985 that, on the basis of the personal rate of social welfare, an income of between £50 and £60 a week would be just about adequate to help people survive.
In addition, it regarded a number of the social welfare payments as so far behind that target level that it recommended, as a matter of priority, that all rates should be immediately increased to £45 per week. It took Governments from then until last year to reach the priority rate, not the main recommended rate. In updated financial terms, the weekly rate was £45 in 1985 and about £59 last year. The commission felt that those priority rates should have been implemented within about 12 months but it took more than eight years to reach that target.
As I said, the commission's other main recommendation was a weekly rate of between £50 and £60. It pointed out that it had no absolute criteria by which poverty or the level at which a payment would be adequate could be measured because of the wide range of circumstances in which people find themselves; whether they are living in a local authority house or in private rented accommodation, alone, with an elderly parent, with children, as single or widowed parents. It also identified other factors which relate to poverty, such as the standards of housing, education and training. These all contributed to the assessment of poverty.
With regard to the point the Senator made about the actual level of social welfare payments, the commission recommended between £50 and £60 a week. In today's money terms that would be approximately £66 to £79 per week. Increasing all our social welfare payments, across the board, to the lower range of that figure — £66 per week — would cost approximately £140 million a year. If we were to aim for the higher range of £79 per week — and I do not think anybody would argue that £79 is a princely sum, it would still be barely adequate — would mean finding an extra £700 million a year. Therefore, it involves a significant amount of money.
When spokespersons for Fianna Fáil addressed this issue in the Dáil, they argued that the Government was spending and borrowing too much and that it had a budget deficit. It cannot be argued, on the one hand, that we should spend between an extra £140 million and £700 million and, on the other hand, that too much money is being spent or borrowed or that there should not be a budget deficit. Fianna Fáil must make up its mind as to what it wants. Does it want additional spending on social welfare or not?
A comparison of the increase in the provision for social welfare which I negotiated in the budget with the increase negotiated last year by the then Fianna Fáil Minister for Social Welfare demonstrates that there is an increase of 35 per cent this year. I negotiated in excess of an extra £90 million for this year alone, or an increase of £212 million in a full year. In addition, I negotiated a further £200 million to pay the equality arrears to the 70,000 women who had been denied their rights since 1979. It is, therefore, unreasonable for Fianna Fáil to complain, on the one hand, that we are spending too much money and, on the other hand, that we are not spending enough. The two ends cannot be argued against the middle in this way while retaining any kind of credibility.
Of the sum of £212 million in a full year which I negotiated, I applied £103 million to child benefit. The Senator argued correctly that child benefit is fine for those with children. It is directed specifically towards families with children, because that is where the greatest threat and risk of poverty exists in our society and all academic and expert research proves this. Time after time reports have been produced which indicate that if poverty is to be tackled in a fundamental way in Irish society, substantial resources must be directed to families with children, and we have done this in the budget.
The Senator makes the point wrongly — perhaps because he has not read the detail of the budget — that apart from those who get child benefit, everybody else must settle for an increase of 2.5 per cent. The predicted rate of inflation is 2.5 per cent and the increase, therefore, protects people's income in that respect. I have not made any case that the increase is sufficient. If welfare payments were to be increased to the level which I believe is desirable — which is the top range recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare — the rate of increase would be 33 per cent, not 3 per cent, the amount proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Dáil. The difference between an increase of 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent would amount to an extra 30p per week so there is no valid argument in this proposal.
To say that all those not in receipt of child benefit must settle for an increase of 2.5 per cent is incorrect. Every young person living at home who qualities for unemployment assistance will now get a minimum of £25 per week. This is a major move forward in terms of keeping families together. Under previous budgets the payment amounted to £10 per week and much concern was expressed at the fact that young people were driven out of their homes because they were assessed to receive such small amounts of money when they applied for unemployment assistance. The extra funding represents an increase of 150 per cent, not 2.5 per cent.
The students' summer job scheme has been increased by 11 per cent — from £540 to £600. Students may also complete their jobs in six weeks, if they wish, and still earn money in a job, if they have one, for the remaining time without any obligation to remain idle. In addition, any student who can show that their parents are dependent on social welfare may get an additional bonus of £200 on top of the £600. This is another example which shows that not only those who have dependent children will benefit.
There are other examples of social welfare payments, such as the carer's allowance and certain categories of old age pension payments, which have also been increased. In addition, free travel has been extended to Northern Ireland and coloured television licences have also been extended to those who previously only qualified for black and white television licences. If one honestly assessed the range of other improvements in this budget one would say this was a good social welfare budget. To concentrate on the general increase of 2.5 per cent is a distortion of what we have done this year to seriously tackle poverty.
As regards the term "welfare", I have the same reservations about it but I have not found an alternative phrase. Perhaps we could call the Department of Social Welfare the Department of Social Affairs, but we could not use that as a title for payments. I am not averse to finding a more user friendly phrase in terms of how we define what we are doing.
It is stimulating to hear the Minister for Social Welfare mention budget discipline and financial responsibility and justify the meagre increases in the Social Welfare Bill, 1995; he said he had not made a case that it was sufficient. It is inconsistent and hypocritical to attempt to justify those meagre increases and to mention budget discipline and financial regulations in the lecture I have just heard. If he does not make the case that it is sufficient, is he implying that his partners of the left in Government, the Labour Party, frustrated him in his attempt as Minister for Social Welfare to provide what is sufficient?
Far from making the case that it is sufficient, I understand that at his weekend conference he almost apologised for the fact that he was not in a position to provide what was sufficient. One of the commentators covering that conference summarised it well when she said that nothing short of a bid by Fine Gael to abolish old age pensioners would prise the Democratic Left away from power. That party has a distorted representation in Government, with four of its six members in power. It is clear they have their priorities right in terms of security of employment and the benefits they intend to apply and the targets are the members of the Democratic Left in Government.
I would prefer if the Senator would speak to the section.
I will speak to the section but it was the Minister who spoke in terms of the financial realities and disciplines within which the Government must operate and I am entitled to address it on the same basis.
I wish to contrast the miserable approach of the Labour Party and Democratic Left — both are equally culpable — and what they are doing in Government with what they demanded consistently, loudly and aggressively when they were in opposition. I was a member of the Fianna Fáil Government in 1987 which cut back the current public expenditure increase to 4 per cent. It was a huge reduction on the pattern of public expenditure in previous years. Day in and day out this Minister and his colleague in Government, the Tánaiste, attacked us consistently for what they saw was our heartless, unpitying approach to the needs of those whom we were primarily charged to protect, namely, the less well off and those on social welfare. Those debates in the Dáil are on the Official Record.
It is unthinkable and the essence of hypocrisy to hear the Minister now. He is the Deputy who daily attacked the Fianna Fáil Government which established the basis for the regulation of this economy. Lest it be thought that I am not according due credit to another party, the attitude of Fine Gael under its then leader, Deputy Alan Dukes, was helpful and played no small part in bringing about the total revamping and restructuring of our economy. This Government, in which this Minister serves as Minister for Social Welfare, can now reap the benefit of a healthy economy. However, what is the Government doing?
In that particular budget there was a 4 per cent increase in public expenditure. We stayed well within the 4 per cent limit, as the outturn from 1987 clearly shows. With that level of increase in public expenditure the Fianna Fáil Government was able to provide an increase of at least 3 per cent across the board in social welfare. Those are the facts. As the old Latin maxim says res ipsa loquitur, the facts speak for themselves. The Irish have another way of putting it: beart de réir do bhriathar or action to match one's words. However, in this case we have heard the words but the action is entirely inconsistent and hypocritical. The 8 per cent increase in public expenditure proposed by the Government gives the wrong signal to potential investors in this economy. That can be seen already in terms of pressure on interest rates and speculation on our currency. It will be, unfortunately, a continuing feature——
What happened in 1993?
——as long as the parties of the left are there with their programmes for spending and not targeting such spending on those who need it.
I make the confident prediction — and I welcome being tested by events — that inflation will not remain at the projected increase of 2.5 per cent which the Minister for Social Welfare suggests will be the pattern this year. He says that the social welfare classes are receiving a 2.5 per cent increase in line with inflation. However, that inflation rate will increase during the year. Any economist will tell you that there is no possibility of inflation staying within 2.5 per cent this year having regard to the clear signals given by the Government from day one. Initially the Government intended to increase public expenditure by 6 per cent; now, through what is called creative accountancy, it has come closer to 8 per cent.
The Government somehow expects a miracle, that inflation will remain at 2.5 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will learn another lesson in reality; it is one thing to make a statement, another to see how others react to it. The investing public do not have confidence in this Government and we will see that in a drain in resources and increases in interest rates and inflation. The Minister says there will be a social welfare increase of 2.5 per cent; I bet my future against his that there will be much higher expenses to offset that.
He may feel the increases are not sufficient. There is no Democratic Left representative in my constituency — and on this basis it is even more unlikely that there will be — but there is a Labour representative. It is probably the same in every constituency but if the Minister has not heard it from other sources, let me tell him the old, the sick, the unemployed, the people dependent on social welfare and those past child bearing age who do not gain from increases in child benefit — those dependent on what they receive — feel totally deprived and rejected. This has been done by a Minister who waited years to get into Government so that he could correct the anomalies.
While taking tough decisions on current expenditure and being harangued in Dáil Éireann daily, it is extraordinary that — with the discipline and support of Fine Gael — we provided increases in social welfare which were ahead of inflation. The outturn for the years involved demonstrated this and we maintained that pattern. Now, the first chance this Minister gets, he does the opposite and his Labour cohorts fall in line.
Is the Minister implying that Fine Gael does not agree that what he is doing is sufficient, but he would have done it himself if he could? He should learn that Government is about collective responsibility. No one should say he wants to give more or that he is not making the case that what he is providing is sufficient, that he is bringing in something which is insufficient. The Minister is no longer in Opposition. That is an extraordinary example of Government responsibility. It is hypocritical in terms of today's reality and of the demands the left wing parties, Labour and Democratic Left, have made through the years.
The Minister said it is not consistent for Fianna Fáil to say expenditure must be increased in this sector while arguing against the overall increase. I made this case while in Government and I do it again in Opposition. We are not saying expenditure should be increased across the board, far from it. I spoke against the 6 per cent overall increase when it was first announced and I feel more strongly about the 8 per cent increase.
My colleagues in Fine Gael will recall the growth in administration under this Government. When we were in Government with Labour, now partners of the Minister, we abolished two agencies, the IDA and CTT and replaced them with four. That was a huge increase in administration but a reduction in what was provided to those most in need. Is that the kind of social justice we want to see?
I spoke against that when we were in partnership with Labour; imagine how I feel now when I watch that party and the Democratic Left; there is not much democracy or left wing policy when they behave in this fashion. Now there is a growth of agencies so that people do not know where to turn to when they wish to stimulate employment.
It is difficult to square the concern to reduce public expenditure with the Government's readiness and determination to increase it to accommodate the extra Members which it insisted it needed. The Government should try telling the old age pensioners, the unemployed——
Senator, you are straying from the section.
Could I refer you, a Chathaoirligh, to what the Minister said——
You were not here for all of his contribution, Senator. The Minister gave a lengthy reply to Senator Kelleher on the section. You are engaging in a Second Stage debate. I ask you to stick to the section.
I will. The documentation from the Department to justify the section makes clear that all social welfare and health board personal payments made weekly and the increases for adult dependants — 2.5 per cent — is in line with inflation.
What section are we discussing?
Section 3.
In this section we are speaking about the name of the social welfare body concerned — I asked a question about this.
We are talking about section 3. I declared amendment No. 1 out of order as it involved a charge on the Revenue. We are now discussing the section. I ask Members to move on to the section.
We have gone through the Bill but section 3 was not agreed or put to this House.
That is because we are dealing with the section.
I indicated to Senator Kelleher his amendment was out of order. I said if one was speaking, it was to the section.
I do not wish to cause trouble, but was section 2 agreed?
It was.
Excuse me, it was not, because I asked the Minister a question on that section about changing the name from "social welfare" to "services". There was no agreement on section 2.
The Government side may not want to agree to section 2 but we have agreed to it.
I do not wish to stifle anyone, provided he speaks on the section.
We are on section 3. I ask Members to speak to the section or the amendment as the case may be.
With respect to my friend Senator Cregan, he is the only person not speaking to the section because he thought I should be addressing section 2. I am speaking to section 3 and referring to the accompanying documentation from the Department——
That is not before the House.
But it explains what is in the section. It says the increases will be in line with inflation at 2.5 per cent.
Does the Senator know the rate of inflation, since he is so well informed and knows everything?
Senator O'Kennedy without interruption.
By the end of the year inflation will be higher than that.
Those people have changed since this time last year. We will have a long day here.
That is no problem to us.
I wonder who is looking after the interests of the poorer classes.
Fianna Fáil never did. They forgot there were children in the country.
Senator O'Kennedy without interruption and I ask you to keep to the section.
The section, with the accompanying documentation from the Department, makes clear that the purpose is to provide a 2.5 per cent increase in line with inflation. That is a distortion. It is misleading and wrong; the inflation that will follow the general increase in public expenditure will exceed 2.5 per cent and the pensioners, the sick, the unemployed and the disabled will carry the burden. If the Government wants to ensure that the miserable increases they are applying are in line with inflation and if the Minister feels that the increases are not sufficient, we can offer him the opportunity now, by way of consensus, to provide sufficient increases; he will not meet any objection from us. If he comes before us and says he will have to reduce some of the agencies, that he will have to abolish two Ministries he created with all the accompanying costs so that his party could be in the comfortable position where 66 per cent of its Deputies are Ministers, he will receive enthusiastic agreement.
The Senator is great gas.
I am offering the Minister that opportunity. The Government should return to the way of all Governments before it. It should go back to the same number of Ministers, the same number of Departments——
Do the same job.
This Government has two more Ministers doing jobs that are of no benefit to social welfare recipients.
We have had a long debate on this section.
It is a very interesting debate.
I am anxious to move forward. It looks to me as if Members will call a division on this section, so it is as well to have it out of the way.
The public is entitled to know the views of this House on the Social Welfare Bill.
We have discussed this section for three quarters of an hour.
I contributed at length on Second Stage and I would like to contribute on Committee Stage. If some of the Members across the floor are getting hot under the collar because some of the things being said are not to their liking, that is too bad. The public is furious with the 2.5 per cent increase provided in this Bill. People realise that on this occasion this Government had the benefit of a financial situation that has not prevailed for over 25 years, yet the best they could offer our pensioners and those on long-term social welfare payments, was 2.5 per cent.
I agree wholeheartedly with Senator O'Kennedy when he says that those increases will be very much out of line by the end of 1995. All the economic pundits will tell the Minister that the position in regard to inflation will deteriorate during the second half of this year. They believe that, to some extent at least, the public finances are going out of control. Confidence will be lost in the market and in the finances of this country and that will be reflected in an increase in inflation. The 2.5 per cent that has been offered — all that will be available now because the Minister does not seem to be going to change his mind — will fall far short of what will be necessary to meet the cost of living increases which will be imposed on the poorer section of our people in 1995 and 1996.
It was announced some months ago, on the formation of the Government, that public expenditure would be 6 per cent of GNP. It is now well known that that figure is way out of line and that it could now be as high as 8 or 9 per cent; it is probably on a rollercoaster and we do not know where it will stop. There is also the question of where the money for the payment of the equality award is to come from. While we want to see the award paid, that has not yet been spelt out in detail and people are very worried about what the fallout might be. Are we to raid the pocket books of local authorities? If that is so then we are robbing Peter to pay Paul; a further clear statement on where that money is to come from is necessary.
Because of Government policies the Department of Social Welfare will have to meet the expenditure when a further 7,000 people will be thrown onto the unemployment register as a result of the cutback in the community employment schemes — from 42,000 to 35,000 by the end of the year. All in all the Government's approach to social welfare recipients will show it in a very bad light when the chickens come home to roost.
I welcome the Minister to the House. He has created his own piece of history; he is the first Minister from his party and I wish him well. I compliment him for providing that every young person living at home who qualifies for unemployment assistance will now get a minimum of £25 per week. That is very welcome. Where the members of the family had to move out, this placed an extra burden on households and the only people who benefited were property developers.
I wish the Minister to look at a specific problem in relation to a person who owned a public house, and it closed two years ago. He is not entitled to social welfare because the Department is including the public house in its assessment of his income. The Minister might have a look at this. I do not think the Department should take his ownership of the public house into consideration when assessing him for social welfare especially as it is in a very isolated rural area.
As a person who has spoken several times on social welfare in this House, and more often as a member of the Opposition than as a member of the Government, I am impressed by the people who stood on this side of the House last year and who are now giving the impression that things are very serious.
They are very serious.
I would like to know who said inflation will be more than 2.5 per cent this year and what will the figure be.
It is coming from the markets.
I wish to clarify one point. Senator O'Kennedy made a very valid point in regard to the currency crisis. Could somebody please tell me what the inflation rate was during the currency crisis between 1992 and 1993? That crisis was of the then Government's making and cost the ordinary people, not the moneymakers, more than £800 million. Had the currency crisis anything to do with the increase in inflation? Did inflation go above 3 per cent, for instance, even though we experienced a massive currency crisis that cost many people and businesses a lot of money?
I would appreciate it if the Opposition looked at the Bill to see if there is anything wrong with it, apart from the increases. I agree with the Minister that 2.5 per cent is not enough. The 1985 report stated that the minimum amount should be £60 for a person living alone, but the Minister informed us today that that figure should be £66; I believe it should be higher, probably £70. Why did we not see bigger increases between 1985 and 1994?
We did.
It was 3 per cent.
Why did we not see an improvement in benefits for people with children?
We did.
The Opposition decided to tax social welfare, although people were below the poverty line.
This Government is also doing that.
The Opposition did that and made no apologies to anyone. Opposition Senators, like lords of the manor, stood up today and spoke on behalf of the less well off in society. For years they said that "people are not having children anymore" and there was no need for child benefit. The Opposition then removed child benefit from the mother. I told Deputy Woods, the former Minister for Social Welfare, that because of pressure in this and in the other House, there has been an increase in child benefit which will go directly to the mother.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I remind Senator Cregan that we are not dealing with child benefits now.
We are dealing with payments and increases. If the Opposition Senators were so concerned about section 3, why did they not see the discrepancy in it? Why will some be paid on the 8th, while others will not be paid until the 15th? The Opposition did not notice that, although it did the same thing last year when in power. I see no reason there should be a difference of nine days between one payment and another. Opposition Senators are more interested in arguing about the 2.5 per cent increase. If the Opposition was effective, it would have seen the discrepancy. It is terrible that a Senator from the Government side must question the Opposition in this regard. I ask the Minister why those on unemployment benefit will be paid on the 8th, while others will not be paid until the 15th?
That is a fair point.
I raised that question last year. I ask the Minister to make sure that those on similar benefits receive equal payments. There is no difference between disability benefits and invalidity pensions so why do those in receipt of either not receive equal payments? I ask that increases be paid on the same date and if not, they should be paid back money.
Hear, hear.
Thank you.
I often applauded Senator Cregan when I was on the other side of the House.
It is a pity the Opposition, which is so concerned about the increases, did not notice that people will lose a week's increase.
Senator Cregan would be more comfortable if he came over to this side of the House.
I support Senator Cregan. I was not going to contribute to section 3; I was going to ask the Minister the question raised by Senator Cregan in relation to section 4 on adoptive leave. I want to be fair and to recognise the good points in this section. I refer specifically to the increase in child benefit, which I welcome. We introduced a £5 increase last year, which Senator Cregan has forgotten about.
For the first time.
I live in an adjoining constituency to the Minister. He represents Finglas while I represent Blanchardstown — constituencies which have many similarities. A large area of my constituency has an unemployment rate of up to 60 per cent, a statistic similar to the Minister's constituency. A large number of these people live in local authority dwellings in Dublin Corporation or Fingal County Council areas and are subject to differential rents schemes.
Leaving aside the points capably made by my colleagues — this is not political points scoring — I meet people who do not know who is in Government. They see us as politicians and tar us all with the one brush. Old age pensioners have said they got an increase of £1.80 and that we should be ashamed of ourselves. Let us not kid ourselves. People in receipt of social welfare benefits do not draw distinctions; they do not care who is in Government. They just know they have been treated badly by politicians.
The Minister knows that his constituents, old age pensioners in receipt of the £1.80 increase and those in receipt of the 2.5 per cent increase in social assistance, will be less well off than last year because there will be an increase in their differential rent. As Senator O'Kennedy said, the rate of inflation will be more than 2.5 per cent. Senator Cregan can criticise the increases we gave, but last year they were in excess of 3 per cent which was above the rate of inflation.
I will not project what inflation rates will be, but those who are more enlightened than I in this regard have told us that inflation rates are about to increase and I believe them, the ESRI and other economic reports. We base our financial documents on those projections and predictions. If economists say inflation will be below 2.5 per cent or substantially higher, I believe them.
While recognising the positive aspects of this Bill, I ask the Minister how he can defend the 2.5 per cent increase——
He does not defend it.
——and the £1.80 increase in the old age pension when he knows that people in Blanchardstown, Finglas, Cork and elsewhere, who rely on him and the Government to look after them, will feel aggrieved. There is no Democratic Left candidate in my constituency. I believe it is the only one in which The Workers' Party decided not to join the ranks of the Democratic Left and it is highly unlikely that that constituency will ever see a Democratic Left TD.
I welcome the Minister to the House and compliment him on the Bill. The fact that the payment of the increases has been brought forward six weeks shows concern for the aged and underprivileged. There has been a reaction from the public——
There certainly has.
I did not interrupt the Senator.
I apologise.
I would appreciate some decency and manners. I have been in the House for two years and I have never interrupted anyone on the other side. It is a small thing to ask.
I agree with Senator Wall.
A previous speaker mentioned collective responsibility. In a short time we have forgotten what that was, but I hope the Labour Party, Democratic Left and Fine Gael will be responsible enough to know that collective responsibility means Government in three parts.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister has already spoken at length on this section but he may wish to reply briefly.
I do not wish to delay the House unduly except to respond to a number of the points that have been made. It is no harm to make the point that yet again — even though I rebutted the argument by Senator Kelleher — Fianna Fáil is attempting to argue on the one hand that we are spending too much money and on the other hand that we are not spending enough. That is a not a valid argument and even though I rebutted it — fairly effectively, I thought — Senator O'Kennedy spends a long time repeating the same silly argument.
I told you where to stop spending and where to cut back spending.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption, please.
On a point of clarification, I did say where he could reduce expenditure and I pointed out where it would be.
Of course.
Of course.
The Senator may or may not know that for every 1 per cent increase in the general rate you are talking about a £14 million increase across the board. Perhaps the Senator would identify the number of Departments — not the number of agencies or Ministers of State; after all, he is talking about thousands of pounds — that he wants abolished. Does he want to see the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry or the Department of Enterprise and Employment abolished because we are really talking about big money?
I would remind the Senator that his party leader in the Dáil said that if Fianna Fáil had been in office it would have provided a 3 per cent increase. The difference between what I provided and what the Leader of Fianna Fáil was proposing is 30p a week, so we are not arguing about seriously attacking the question of poverty. This silly ping-pong argument, saying that you are right and you are wrong, ignores the fact that more than half the money for social welfare in this budget went towards tackling child poverty in a serious way. Unfortunately, previous budgets have attempted to do this superficially by spreading X millions of pounds like a thin layer of margarine across the whole social welfare spectrum. In a full year £103 million will be spent in addition to child benefit, which will help 650,000 families and 1,332,000 children. You are talking about dealing seriously with the question of child poverty.
Who created it?
Of course, the argument is made that this will leave the unemployed, the sick and old age pensioners on 2.5 per cent, but that is wrong because you are misreading the situation. Some 6,365 old age pensioners are caring for 10,216 children. Some 32,000 people on disability benefit, invalidity pension, injury benefit, interim disability benefit, disablement benefit and death benefit pensions are caring for 67,000 children. The sick and the old have not been left out as a result of concentrating on child benefit.
A total of 79,000 widows, deserted wives and lone parents are caring for 155,000 children, and 94,728 unemployed people are caring for 237,000 children. Therefore, it is inaccurate to generalise and say that the old, sick and unemployed have been left out by concentrating resources on child benefit. Clearly, it is not true. I am quite prepared to argue the point — as I have made clear here, in the Dáil and at my own party conference — that, of course, social welfare payments are grossly inadequate.
Grossly inadequate?
Yes.
Grossly inadequate. Ten years ago, a report from the Commission on Social Welfare recommended that we should pay a minimum of £66 a week in today's terms. In fact, they believed that it should be as much as £79 a week. However, the stark reality is that to reach the higher level of £79 a week in one year would cost £700 million on top of the £212 million that I have applied this year. If you can tell me where I will find that £700 million I will more than gladly apply it across the board in social welfare payments. It is annoying to have Fianna Fáil Senators claiming that we are spending too much money and at the same time saying that we are not spending enough.
I would remind Senator O'Kennedy that the money for the equality payments for married women, who have been denied their rights since 1979, will be paid out this year to the tune of £200 million, with an additional £60 million over the following 18 months. Had Fianna Fáil administrations, who have been in charge of social welfare since 1987, paid the money when it was due, it would have only cost this State——
A Fianna Fáil administration was not responsible.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption.
On a point of order, it was not a Fianna Fáil administration. The Minister cannot read inaccuracies into the record of the House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McGennis, you cannot come in like that, and you know that. The Minister without interruption.
The Minister cannot read inaccuracies into the record of the House. That is grossly unfair. It was a Fine Gael-Labour Administration who would not pay the equality payments, and the Minister knows that.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McGennis, I am asking you to resume your seat. You are out of order and you know it.
If you had heard me out you would have heard what I had to say.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator O'Kennedy, on a point of order.
When dealing with section 3, which clearly provides for specific rates of payment as set out in the section and in the explanatory memorandum, is it in order for the Minister to speak about an issue which does not arise at all under the section, namely, the payments to married women? The Minister has gone on at some length. Is that in order?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You have made your point of order, Senator, and I will reply to you. For a long standing Member of both Houses of the Oireachtas and a former Minister, as you know, the Chair cannot dictate to the Minister what he says.
Is that a personal comment?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister is replying in the House. I called on the Minister to reply and I do not deem that to be a point of order.
I am sorry, that is not the point. The Chair is supreme in determining the order of this House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes.
I am asking if it is in order, when we are debating a section which makes specific provision in the Minister's Bill, that the Minister should depart totally from the section.
The Minister was replying to the question.
This is a precedent. We will both be here, fortunately, for a good while. I do not mean today but subsequently. Are you telling me that a Minister is not under any circumstances bound by the order of the Bill itself?
Yes.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You have made your point of order.
I am asking for a response to it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Many Members of this House spoke on different aspects of social welfare when contributing to section 3 and I am now calling on the Minister to reply.
I want to be clear on one point, not just now but forever more. As Leas-Chathaoirleach of this House, are you saying that a Minister is free — never mind the issue just now — to speak as he wills on the issues he wills and is not in any way subject to the order of this House? Is that what you are telling us?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am surprised at you Senator. The Minister has a right to be heard. I called on the Minister to reply and I am now asking him to complete it.
I am interested in your ruling on order, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.
I am surprised at how sensitive the Fianna Fáil Senators are on the issue——
(Interruptions.)
——of its refusal to pay 70,000 married women their entitlements since 1987.
I refuse to allow this Chamber——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have asked the Minister to reply.
We never refused to pay anything. A Fine Gael Minister refused to pay the women their entitlements.
Fianna Fáil did not want to pay them.
Like the Minister, we awaited the outcome of the court case.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
If Senator McGennis does not resume her seat and stop interrupting, I will have to adjourn the House.
I will not allow the Minister to——
This is ridiculous.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I will have no option but to adjourn the House if the Senator does not resume her seat. I have called on the Minister to reply without interruption.
This performance is extraordinary.
On a point of order, is it not right to say that a Minister has the right to reply to a question?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have asked the Minister to reply and I expect him to do so without any further interruption from any Member of the House.
I was in the course of replying to a question about the equality payments from Senator O'Kennedy——
I did not have any question on equality payments.
I asked the question.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister to reply without interruption.
This is my first day on Committee Stage in the Seanad and I am surprised at how disorderly it is. In 1979, the European Community, as it was then known, adopted a directive which obliged member states to pay women the same social welfare benefits and assistance as men.
Is this in order on section 3?
It is; the question was asked.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have called on the Minister to reply and I do not expect him to be interrupted again.
I am not interrupting the Minister. I am asking you, a Leas-Chathaoirleach.
Senator O'Kennedy does not want the facts put on the record.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister is replying to queries raised. As you know, Senator, I already spoke to another Member of this House for straying from that section. I am asking the Minister to reply without further interruption from any Member of the House.
The Irish Government of the day — a Fianna Fáil Administration — in its wisdom sought a derogation until 1984.
The Minister is abusing this House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have called on the Minister to reply without interruption and I would expect that this House would have the courtesy of listening to the Minister's reply. You have been disorderly, Senator O'Kennedy.
In the meantime, a new Administration came into office.
Who were the parties in that Administration?
Fine Gael and the Labour Party.
If Senators do not mind, I will tell the story in my way and if I am wrong, they can correct me.
Even if it is grossly out of order?
A Labour/Fine Gael Administration came into office. The Minister for Social Welfare at the time, Barry Desmond — he is now one of the five auditors of the European Union — introduced equality legislation which, instead of levelling women's entitlements up to the level of men, levelled men's down to the level that women occupied. Because of the public furore about that and the loss of income to families that Administration were forced to introduce what it referred to as a transitional payment — it averaged up to £40 a week and that was paid to certain categories. In the meantime, the fact was that women were still being denied what men had been paid for.
Is this relevant? It is making a nonsense of this House. This is not even in the Bill.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I call on the Minister to reply to points raised in this debate on section 3.
There was a the two year delay. Bearing in mind that a directive was to have been introduced in 1984, but the legislation did not come into effect until 1986, women were still denied their increase for those two years.
Under which Government did that happen?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister to reply without interruption. The Minister is replying to points raised already in the debate.
I am coming to Fianna Fáil; it has its part in the story. I warned the then Minister for Social Welfare that the way the legislation was being introduced would result in years of litigation from women who were being denied their rights and that is exactly what happened. A variety of women brought cases to court. Each Administration, including every Fianna Fáil Administration since then, resisted those claims for equality — the Fianna Fáil minority Administration in 1987, the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Administration in 1989 and the Labour-Fianna Fáil Administration in 1992-94.
(Interruptions.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption.
From 1987, Fianna Fáil was in full control of the Department of Social Welfare and probably refused——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I call on the Minister to reply without interruption.
Even if the Minister is not dealing with the right section?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister is dealing with the points that were raised during the debate.
Proinsias de Rossa
Fianna Fáil pushed these women to challenge——
The courts decided on that last month.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McGennis is continually interrupting and I will have to ask her to stop.
——these cases in the High Court.
The courts only decided on this matter last month and the Minister did not pay them until the courts had decided.
(Interruptions.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McGennis, you are continually interrupting the Minister. I ask you to have the courtesy to allow the Minister to reply without any further interruption.
Proinsias de Rossa
Senator McGennis cannot deny the facts. The ex-Minister for Social Welfare. Deputy Woods, forced women into the courts to claim their just rights.
Correct.
Proinsias de Rossa
He refused to pay them and introduced regulations in 1992——
(Interruptions.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have called on the Minister to reply. The Minister is entitled to the courtesy of being able to reply without interruption.
I will go all around the garden with the Minister for the rest of the day on this matter.
Proinsias de Rossa
The Senator is entitled to go all around the garden as long as she likes.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have called on the Minister to reply and I expect Members to listen to him.
When you say that you call on the Minister to reply I presume you are calling on him to reply in relation to section 3?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have called on the Minister to reply to points raised by the Senators. As you know, Senator O'Kennedy, I have already referred to one particular Senator who strayed and raised points. The Minister is replying and I ask the House to listen to his reply without any further interruption from any Member of the House.
I was not interrupting the Minister.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have clarified it.
It is from the Chair that I need clarification. Are you saying, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, that if the Minister's sole contribution up to this point, which it has been , is on an issue that does not even raise a mention in the Social Welfare Bill, much less in section 3——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have called on the Minister to reply to points raised. I have pointed that out to you on a number of occasions and I now ask the Minister to conclude his reply.
The Minister is abusing his position and making a nonsense of the Chair, as well as everything else.
Proinsias de Rossa
Now where was I in this fairytale?
Exactly. I am glad the Minster said it.
Proinsias de Rossa
Fianna Fáil were in Government since 1987 and had control of the Department of Social Welfare. Had it paid the money when it was due and when the courts decided it was due, it would have only cost the State £18 million. It is now costing us £260 million. That is a gross mismanagement of the finances of this country——
(Interruptions.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minster to reply without interruption. Would Members from both sides please allow the Minister to reply?
Proinsias de Rossa
——and a gross dereliction of responsibility and duty by the Fianna Fáil Administration from 1987 to 1994. It took a Coalition Government of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left to give women their entitlements and I am proud of the fact that I have got the support of my two partners in Government to pay £200 million this year. Fianna Fáil has got itself into a knot.
This party has a name.
I would appreciate it if the Senator would learn some manners.
The Minister could also learn some manners.
It would help this debate if the Senator would allow those who are speaking——
It is a reciprocal situation.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McGennis. I call on the Minister to reply without further interruption.
The party opposite has attempted to create scare stories about the £200 million. We are paying women what we are obliged to pay them as of right. They are attempting to frighten people who have local authority mortgages by pretending — and they know better because they have all been briefed on it — that this will, in some way, affect the mortgages held by people with county council loans. They know well that is not the case. They know well that there will be no change whatsoever in the relationship between the person who holds the loan from the local authority and the local authority itself. The only change will be that the local authority, instead of paying the money they collect from their mortgage holders to the Department of Finance, will pay it to the agency which buys the portion of the local loans fund which we sell to them. It is time Senators stopped playacting and trying to create scares. The people are beginning to see through it.
They are beginning to see through the Minister.
They do not reckon that Fianna Fáil have any credibility, given their experience of them.
Wait for the next poll.
The 70,000 women who will be getting cheques from the Government this year certainly recognise that Fianna Fáil held them to ransom while they were in office, that the Fianna Fáil Minister for Social Welfare drove them into the courts to claim their rights and, in the process, cost this State hundreds of millions of pounds. Yet, Senators have the cheek to come in here and complain that we are paying these women the money to which they are entitled——
That was never said.
——and that we are breaking some sacrosanct——
Show us, on the record of the House, where that was said.
——public spending limits that they believe——
Show us where it was said.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McGennis, would you allow the Minister to conclude?
This is nonsense.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Would you allow the Minister to conclude his contribution without any further interruption?
Disgraceful behaviour.
May I deal with a few more points which were raised by this Opposition Party which does not like to hear the truth?
Listen to the public.
They talk about——
He is doing a good job for Senator Cregan. He must be happy.
——inflation and paying increases below the rate of inflation. Those Senators — certainly the former Minister, Senator O'Kennedy — know that the inflation figures on which budgets are based are provided by the Department of Finance and are debated with the Central Bank. The Department of Social Welfare has no control over the projected inflation rate provided for all Departments by the Department of Finance. That Department has an important responsibility to ensure that the State's resources and the taxpayers' money are properly spent and accounted for and that, in so far as we can, we neither over nor under-predict inflation or public expenditure and, therefore, we all accept those figures. I draw the attention of the Senators — Senator McGennis has left the Chamber — to the 3 per cent increase paid in 1987. The inflation rate that year was 3.2 per cent.
I think the Minister's figures are wrong but keep going.
In 1989 there was a 3 per cent increase and the inflation rate was 4 per cent.
The Minister is not taking account of the special increases in those years.
Hold on; they are the facts. The Senator wants to base his argument on statistics. I am countering those statistics with the statistics of the time.
What figures did the Minister give for 1987?
In 1989, inflation was 4 per cent.
The Minister mentioned 1987.
In 1987 inflation was 3.2 per cent and the social welfare increase was 3 per cent.
0.2 per cent less.
In 1989, inflation was 4 per cent and the social welfare increase was 3 per cent. The Senators' colleagues in the other House made a big deal and claimed that this 2.5 per cent increase was the worst in 30 years. I only had to go back to 1989, five or six years ago, to discover that Fianna Fáil gave a social welfare increase which was 1 per cent less than inflation.
It is a rather silly argument because it ignores all the other increases in the social welfare budget. It also ignores the significant fact that this year the payments will be made six weeks earlier than normal. In every budget Fianna Fáil introduced since 1987 they pushed the date of payment further towards the middle of the year until it was paid at the end of July. I have brought it back six weeks and made a commitment that it will be brought back further next year. If the Senators calculate that extra six weeks payment increase this year they will find — if they want to stick to statistics — that it works out at approximately 3 per cent for this year. It is a rather silly argument and, as I said in the Dáil having listened for days to Fianna Fáil's spokespersons on Social Welfare, I still have not heard a single new idea——
Constructive argument.
——on how the serious problem of poverty in this society should be dealt with. All we hear is an argument that the general increase should have been 3 per cent and not 2.5 per cent and that we should have paid 30p more a week. Is that really a serious argument to defeat poverty? Does it not make more sense——
Give them 2.5 per cent.
——to direct £100 million, as I have done this year, to child benefit which has been shown to be the best way of tackling the serious issue of poverty in our society? If we calculate the general increase with the child benefit increase for those families, we will find that the average increase is much more and ranges as high as 7.8 per cent in some cases, depending on family size. That is a serious way of dealing with poverty, not the superficial way it has been dealt with in the past.
There has not been a social welfare budget introduced by Fianna Fáil since 1987 that has not included social welfare cuts. When increases were given in social welfare in any year, it was not by getting extra money from the Exchequer but rather by cutting some other unfortunate's social welfare. The most notorious cuts were the dirty dozen introduced by Deputy McCreevy when he was Minister for Social Welfare for nine months. He did more damage to social welfare in those nine months than Fianna Fáil did in the previous seven years.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is section 3 agreed?
No.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would remind the Senator that we have discussed section 3 for over an hour.
I appreciate that but I propose to confine myself to section 3.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask the Senator to be brief.
I will be precise and confine my remarks to section 3.
It is a pity the Senator did not do that from the start.
It will not be an election address.
May I ask the Minister if my calculations on the increases in section 3 are correct? Is it a fact that the orphan's contributory allowance will be increased by the huge sum of £1 per week? Does he regard that as anything near adequate? I want to be clear on this. Is it a fact that the contributory old age pension will be increased by £1.80? I may be wrong because the Minister seems to think they are generous.
It all depends.
Is the figure £1.80 for the contributory rate? Is it a fact that the old age pension non-contributory rate will be increased by £1.50? Under section 3, is it a fact that the old age contributory pension will be increased by £1.80? I would be happy if the Minister told me I was wrong, but is it a fact that those on invalidity pensions——
With respect, the Senator is wrong. The non-contributory pension is not relevant to section 3.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Cregan, resume your seat. Senator O'Kennedy without interruption.
The explanatory memorandum specifically mentions section 3.
On a point of order, perhaps I could assist the Senator?
I have not finished. May I ask my question?
On a point of information, the Senator is reading from the explanatory memorandum. I wish to confirm that all the information in the explanatory memorandum is accurate.
If that is the case, I can take the rate of increase as fact. I appreciate the Minister's confirmation. As I promised, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, I will stay within the rules of order.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I was not disputing that fact.
These are the rates and an increase of £1 in orphans allowance is derisory. A £1.50 increase in the old age non-contributory pension, a £1.80 increase in old age contributory pension and an increase of £1.50 in unemployment assistance are a scandal. This is particularly so since the Minister said that there are approximately 265 old age pensioners with children. The Minister may give me the precise figure again, but he said we were misreading the situation when we examined these figures which were supplied by him.
The Minister mentioned a certain number of old age pensioners with children who will receive increased rates due to the increases in child benefit. However, that is a gross misrepresentation of the position. According to the laws of nature, the fact is that most old age pensioners do not have dependent children. Most of those who will receive the benefit of these paltry increases will have nothing else to look to except those paltry increases. If the Minister quotes children and child benefits in respect of old age pensioners, he is distorting reality and attempting to mislead the people. The people will not be misled.
The Minister said it is inaccurate to generalise. As I read it, by introducing these other relevants into the old age pensioners' entitlements or increases, the Minister is generalising. I ask him to tell me how many old age pensioners will gain from the increases in child benefit one way or another? What proportion of old age pensioners will gain? As I see it, the vast bulk of old age pensioners will not benefit other than from these miserable increases.
May I tell the Senator that my point in raising this issue at all was to refute the claim by his colleague, Senator Kelleher, that every recipient of social welfare, the old, the sick and the unemployed, will not gain except those who will gain from the increases in child benefit. I simply pointed out, contrary to popular belief, that there are 6,365 persons in receipt of old age payments caring for 10,216 children. This is a fact.
What proportion is that of the total number of old age pensioners?
It is a proportion of the total number of people in receipt of those payments. I am surprised the Senator must ask as I gave all this information to his party's Social Welfare spokesperson, Deputy Joe Walsh. more than two weeks ago.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption.
I thought the Senator would have had time to read it by now. The total number in receipt of payments relating to old age is 256,616.
There we have it; 6,000 of the 256,000.
The Minister is generalising.
In addition——
The Minister is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption.
The Senators are not out of the woods yet. In addition——
Another rabbit.
——many of them will also qualify for the colour television licence.
They will be thrilled.
Perhaps the Senator does not appreciate how important it is not to have to pay for a colour television licence——
They will be spending much time indoors because they cannot afford to go anywhere.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption.
——for a person on an old age or invalidity pension.
The Senators did nothing about it for 25 years.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask the Members to listen to the Minister's contribution.
In addition, the terms have been changed so that more people can avail of the carer's allowance. This will benefit considerable numbers of people who are on old age pensions of various types. There is a whole range of improvements in this budget which Fianna Fáil chooses to ignore for its own propaganda purposes. That is legitimate Fianna Fáil politics, but it is not succeeding in misleading the public. It is clear from the response of the public that people recognise the improvements brought about by this budget. I do not intend to go into the details, unless Senators wish me to spend the afternoon reading out all the improvements provided for in this budget.
It would be a short debate.
The Minister does not believe that himself. We heard him over the weekend.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption.
This information is in the document which was provided to the Fianna Fáil spokesperson in the other House weeks ago.
It is nice to hear it from the Minister's mouth.
I am long enough in the tooth and long enough in politics not to be too worried by what is said about me by Fianna Fáil.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption. The Senator got an opportunity to make his contribution without interruption. At least allow the Minister to reply.
Old age contributory pensioners are at 109 per cent of the Commission on Social Welfare's recommended main rate. To argue that old age pensioners in particular are badly done by in this budget simply does not stand up to examination. I appeal to the Senators to cop themselves on. We should move on to real debate.
I am obliged——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This matter has been discussed for an hour and a half. Is section 3 agreed?
My point arises from what the Minister said and it will take exactly ten seconds.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
One question.
I ask for clarification. Is there a motion before the House that each section must be completed within a given time?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
No.
If there was, I would adhere to it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Let us be reasonable. The Cathaoirleach tried to put the question to the House before I took the Chair an hour ago. Let us be fair, Senator.
The Minister has explained the whole thing twice.
I will adhere to rules of orders and procedures which have been agreed or determined. If I am told it has been determined——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Does the Senator have a question for the Minister?
——that the sections must be finished by a given time——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
No.
I am obliged to the Minister. He has indicated in respect of old age pensioners that his reference to those who will gain from child benefit increases and other matters is confined to 6,365 from a total of 256,000. Of those entitled to old age pensions, 2.5 per cent will probably be entitled to some other social welfare benefit. If the Minister is going to rely on that as a justification for what he is doing to the other 97.5 per cent, then let it stand as his justification. It is a disgrace.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelly, Mary.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Magner; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Finneran.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I appeal to Senators to speak only on the section. On the last section speakers rambled on and on and it will not happen again. I am not referring to you, Senator Kelleher.
I understand that under Standing Orders the Chair cannot instruct a Minister to avoid rambling and I hope the Minister will also take your instruction into account.
I do not know where in Standing Orders you saw that.
I tabled an amendment, which was ruled out of order, to bring to the attention of the Minister and the Government that a 2.5 per cent increase is totally insufficient. The personal rate of unemployment assistance has been increased from £58.90 to £60.40 a week. Those in receipt of this over a long period and those receiving pre-retirement allowances are even more harshly treated. The payment for a married couple with two children has increased from £124 to £126.40 a week, an increase of £2.40. I do not know how a family of four can make ends meet on this amount. A married couple with two children in receipt of an old age non-contributory pension or a blind pension will receive £126.40 per week.
The personal rate of the carer's allowance was only increased by £1.50. The Minister mentioned this allowance when speaking on section 3. I have no difficulty in welcoming payments which encourage people to take care of the elderly in their homes. We have discussed this on many occasions. To claim that an increase of £1.50 a week is a major step in the right direction is very disingenuous. The payment to a family with two children will increase from £87.40 to £88.90 a week. These increases are miserly.
The Minister has an opportunity in this Bill to deal with these issues. Department of Social Welfare figures show that 196,000 people are in receipt of unemployment assistance and 62,841 people qualify for child benefit. Almost 130,000 will not benefit from increases in child benefit. When speaking on section 3, the Minister stated that 6,000 people receiving old age pensions will benefit from increases in child benefit — this is out of a total of 200,000 people. Only 2.5 per cent of those receiving old age contributory pensions will benefit from this. This is the same percentage increase they will receive. This budget can be described as the budget of the 2.5 per cent increases.
Senator Cregan was very excited earlier. Speeches were made in the past about champagne being cracked open. It would be no harm if some champagne was cracked open for some of the Senators on the other side and, in particular, for the Minister, who for many years advocated major increases. The Minister stated that he would like payments to be increased to the maximum recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. He said that this would mean increases of 35 per cent. We will never get to this position if we keep increasing payments by less than the rate of inflation. The Minister should take this into account and should not be so disingenuous to suggest that child benefit and the equality payments will resolve every problem. The vast majority of recipients will receive only 2.5 per cent.
It was the equality payments which kept the Senator out of the Dáil.
The Minister is very lucky I was kept out of the Dáil. The Minister is taking solace from the fact that Fianna Fáil was tarnished for not implementing the equality directive. He gave us a history lesson in regard to section 3 for which we are all grateful but which was not relevant to it. We will probably hear the same thing again because this is the only benefit which I can see in this budget where the Minister can put his hand on his heart and say that this is what he did. I admire the Minister for sticking up for his colleagues on that issue.
However, the 2.5 per cent increase has to be highlighted time and again because every Member from an area with high unemployment or dependency on social welfare will know that people are very concerned about that provision, although it has not been implemented yet. The Minister can talk about the rent allowances going to local authority rents, but every time there is an increase the local authorities snipe at it. However, they will be worse off this time next year. This is not a personal attack on the Minister, but I hope for the good of the vast majority of social welfare recipients that there will be a change of thinking in the Department of Social Welfare or at Cabinet level. To date, it has been very disappointing. As I stated, almost 200,000 people are in receipt of unemployment assistance, only 62,000 of whom qualify for child benefit. Therefore, 130,000 will qualify for nothing else other than the 2.5 per cent increase.
That is not true.
A minimal number of people might get a token gesture in other areas. I invite the Minister to inform me how many people out of the total of almost 200,000 who are in receipt of unemployment assistance will benefit from other increases in the Social Welfare Bill. I tabled the amendment to this section in order to highlight the inadequacies of the increases.
In his last reply the Minister mentioned the summer jobs scheme, which members of his own party, which is part of the current Government, called slave labour and that it was an insult——
It was last year; it will not be this year.
——to expect people to work for the paltry sums which were being offered. The Minister said today that over 9,000 students availed of the summer jobs scheme last year. I am glad that he is continuing the good efforts which the former Minister, Deputy Woods, made last year and is encouraging this scheme. However, the speeches in the Dáil would suggest otherwise and that he has made another major U-turn.
I could quote all of the part of the explanatory memorandum which relates to section 4. I have yet to find a part of this which I do not oppose because none of the payments is increased by more than 2.5 per cent. The Minister seemed to disagree with me when I suggested that earlier and I would like him to point out to me where there is an increase greater than 2.5 per cent. The explanatory memorandum states "Section 4 provides for an increase of 2.5 per cent generally in the weekly personal and adult dependant rates of social assistance payments" and has a table which "shows the effects of the increases on the principal rates of social assistance payments". There is not a great deal more to the section. The implementation dates of the payments have been brought forward, which must be welcomed. However, the Minister is obviously planning a very short term——
Short term?
——strategy by bringing it forward six weeks this year, because I presume that if he is around next year he will bring it forward another six weeks and so on. However, in effect he will probably end up meeting himself——
There is crossfire here which I will not tolerate. I ask the Senator to address the Chair and let the Minister conclude.
I will address the Chair.
Acting Chairman
Please do that.
If we are to boast about and take credit for the bringing forward of the payment increases, we must ask that if there is another 2.5 per cent increase in 12 months time will the Minister bring it forward another six weeks? In effect, the people will not gain if the Minister is planning such a long term strategy unless he also increases the rates above basic inflation. If he brings it forward by 12 weeks but the increase is still less than basic inflation rates, people will not benefit. The Minister should look at this.
We will oppose vehemently all Stages of this Bill until the Minister acknowledges in this House that an increase of 2.5 per cent in social welfare payments is unacceptable to the vast majority of those who are dependent on social welfare, as he did last week when he was speaking to his party faithful. To date, he has not said that in this House and I invite him to——
I have clearly been wasting my sweetness on the air.
He did say it.
——state here that an increase of 2.5 per cent is unacceptable to all those who receive no other entitlements such as child benefit. As was pointed out under section 3, only 2.5 per cent of those on old age pension will benefit from any other scheme which the Minister has announced or has increased, such as free colour televisions or child benefit. This Bill will get an easy passage through this House if the Minister acknowledges that the increase of 2.5 per cent is a derisory sum and makes provisions to increase it.
Is the Senator surrendering?
I will surrender gallantly if the Minister takes into account the many thousands of people who this time next year will be in a poorer situation, people whom the Minister defended and fought tooth and nail for when he was in Opposition in the other House. I am not shedding any crocodile tears for them but only stating the facts.
I wish to speak about the structure of section 4, how the benefits are paid generally and also to give examples of the direction in which we should be moving. I have been my party's spokesman on Social Welfare, on both sides of the House, for many years and this is the first time that there has been a change in the Social Welfare Bill. It is a change for the better, although I admit that it is not good enough. The Minister has already made it quite clear that he does not agree that an increase of 2.5 per cent is good enough.
He is willing to drive a State car for it.
Unfortunately, because of the structure of our social welfare system young people were subject to means testing and had to leave the family home and live in shoe boxes in order to qualify for a miserly benefit. The State was giving benefits to the landlords who provided those shoe boxes. Up to now, in the region of 20 to 25 per cent of the total supplement of £48 million was paid to people who had to leave home, because otherwise they would get no assistance. We are increasing this allowance from £10 to £25, irrespective of how much income is coming into the family home, which is a big change. I am not denying that different amounts come into different homes, but at least we are recognising people as individuals.
I hope that the savings from the supplements which will not be paid this year will be put towards the social welfare benefits which will be paid next year. The savings will contribute towards next year's payments and I congratulate the Minister on that part of the Bill.
A married couple on short duration unemployment assistance with two children will receive £124.30. It is not the greatest amount in the world, but in addition to the increase of 2.5 per cent, it amounts to £4 extra per week for each child. This increase goes some way to addressing the recommendation of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare, a report which has been in existence since 1985. At that time the report recommended that nobody should have less than £60 per week on which to live. This caused some surprise and the question was asked then if it was possible that a person needed £60 per week on which to live? The Minister has advised the House that in today's figures the amount should be in the range between £66 and £79 per week, which is an average of £72. To provide this weekly amount to those on social welfare would cost an additional £140 million in a year. Where would we get this sum?
In the meantime, the present amounts which we provide are not sufficient and I will always argue for increases until conditions have improved to a satisfactory level. It must be recognised, however, that benefits have been increasing and conditions improving steadily over the years, especially in respect of people with children. This point has not been made across the floor of the House today, and it has not been made for years, even when Fianna Fáil was in Government.
The personal rate of unemployment assistance is increased from £61 per week to £62.50 per week and the old age contributory pension is £72.80 per week, whereas the old age non-contributory pension — paid to those who were not covered by benefits — is £10 per week less. Why should there be this difference and why do we demean the latter kind of recipient? I have long advocated that benefits relevant to one group should be applicable to other similar groups.
With regard to the issue of equality payments, I congratulate the women who had to seek redress at the High Court and the European Court. I predicted some years ago that this would happen. It is a shame on this nation that if this issue had been resolved at the outset and we had granted these women their equal rights it would have cost approximately £18 million, whereas it is now going to cost £200 million this year and £60 million next year, in addition to the payments already made by the then Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods. This amounts to approximately £300 million and can only be described as bad management.
Should we not recognise that people should receive equal payments in terms of social welfare entitlements? We spend approximately £4 billion per year on social welfare. Given this, will the committee which is considering the social welfare and tax systems at present be able to define, in a simplified way, the amount of benefit to which each person is entitled as at present, because much administrative time is devoted to deciding on the distribution of different benefits?
While in no circumstances should a State pension be recognised as taxable, any additional pensions should be subject to taxation. People are still below the poverty line if they are receiving payments of £61 per week when the Minister admits that they should receive between £66 and £79 per week, averaging £72 per week. Such people, together with those on the poverty line, can still be subject to personal taxation. This should never be allowed and a Social Services Bill — which is the title I would prefer for this Bill — should not allow circumstances to arise where personal taxation can be applied. In addition, no benefits which derive from PRSI contributions, which an individual may have made over 30 to 40 years, should be subject to taxation — whatever about taxing other entitlements — because the income derived will be below the limits provided in tax free allowances.
Why should those who are in the non-contributory net and who are on their uppers — for example, a self-employed person whose business has folded or a small farmer who did not contribute to benefits — be entitled to £10 per week less than the person who has made contributions? This is unfair. The same amount should be paid to both categories and also to those who are 79 years of age and 80 years of age.
To judge from the content of the Bill and from remarks made by the Minister and the Minister of State to the House, changes are taking place which will be for the better. Hopefully, there will be more improvements as there are deficiencies which must be addressed. For example, the level of benefits are still too low. In addition, the administration and distribution of the benefits is too cumbersome. The Bill contains too many definitions. For example, what is the difference between disability and invalidity pension?
I know a person who is very sick at present, and whom I wish the best, who was entitled to benefits up to 1992. However, she is no longer in receipt of them because her credits were exhausted in 1991-92. She is not entitled to invalidity pension. She worked for 18 years up until 1989 after which she was unable to do so because of her illness. She is now receiving supplementary benefit and I had to advise her today that she was not entitled to invalidity pension, even though she will never work again. It is most unfair, but she is not entitled to benefits because she has been idle for the past three years.
I ask the Minister to clarify the points I have raised as they are important to people in need of social welfare payments but who are not aware of their benefits. Many people are able to maximise their benefits, but there are others who find it difficult to do so, or prefer not to from a sense of dignity or pride.
There should be no distinction in the benefits allowable to those who have made contributions and those who have not. This is the purpose of our taxation and social welfare systems and both codes should be harmonised. Hopefully, the forthcoming report on this issue will recommend that people make one payment, with equality in benefits for all.
This section makes provision for increases for what would probably be regarded as the least well off sections of the community. They include people who are long term unemployed, who receive widow's non-contributory pensions, the carer's allowance and unemployment assistance, those generally regarded as the hardest hit. It was expected that the Minister would find a mechanism by which he could work towards the increases recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare to deal with these matters. We had a long discussion some time ago about a report on the long term unemployed, the poverty traps created for them and the necessity to deal urgently with this category. It covered many areas, including the provision of employment. It is regrettable that the Minister has not availed of the opportunity under this section to make special provision for the categories mentioned by the previous speaker who are severely hit and are not protected by insurance cover. In an effort to come to grips with the problem which the Minister faces in trying to meet the commission guidelines, perhaps he might single out these categories of people for special attention and make a decent payment to them.
I do not wish to score cheap political points. The Minister and his party have a commitment to the less well off sections of the community. I am sure he is fully aware that a sizeable number of people are gravely dissatisfied with his response to the long term unemployed and the least well off sections of the community.
Perhaps the Minister could explain why it was necessary to have four different implementation dates — 7 June and 12 June for supplementary welfare payments and 15 and 16 June for deserted wives allowances. What is the purpose of the four different dates? Why could they not be payable from 7 June, the earlier date? We are endeavouring to remove inequalities, but we are creating further inequalities. Why is it not possible to organise a system which would make one weekly payment instead of having four different dates which confuses everyone?
I am further confused about equality payments to widows. The payment of equality funds to those who have waited a long time for them has created further inequalities when the purpose of the exercise should be to try to remove inequalities. For example, a widow who gets only half the disability benefit payment will be further discriminated against because of the equality payments, although they are welcome. How can this be eliminated?
Could the Senator explain how she will he discriminated against?
A widow who is in receipt of a widow's pension and who also suffers a disability and cannot work will get only half the disability payment.
How is that a discrimination? Surely it is an advantage to be able to claim two social welfare benefits?
She cannot get the full rate of disability payment and that is a disadvantage. Does the Minister understand my point?
Acting Chairman
I ask the Senator to make his point and then the Minister will have an opportunity to reply.
I want to explain my point because the Minister does not understand it.
I am interested in the fact that Fianna Fáil is promoting a new concept that a person who is entitled to social welfare should get two payments.
The Minister must be aware that a widow is entitled to claim disability benefit, but she gets only half the personal rate. It is a discrimination that she cannot get the full rate.
She also gets her widows pension.
She gets half the disability rate. Why can she not get the full rate? I am not sure the Minister understands my point.
I find it extraordinary that the Senator is arguing for two full rates.
Acting Chairman
The Minister will have an opportunity to reply.
The Minister made a big political issue of the fact that he endeavoured to eliminate discrimination in the area of payments, but this is blatant discrimination. If he wants to eliminate it, he should show us how he proposes to do so.
I am still not clear if the Minister can explain the reason for the four different dates for payments, which are confusing. Rather than further discriminating against the long term unemployed and the people who are regarded by everyone as the least well off in our community, perhaps he could explain the four different dates for these payments.
I ask the Minister if he proposes to means test some of these allowances which have not been means tested before. The money the Minister is providing for child benefit payments is inadequate. Does he propose to curtail these payments under certain regulations because, if so, we need to know what he is proposing? Is there any provision to ease means testing for non-contributory blind pensions? As most Members are aware, income is strictly measured at present. The Department of Social Welfare devised a new name for means testing a few years ago, income testing. The Minister will be aware that non-contributory pensions, non-contributory blind pensions, lone parents allowances, orphans allowances, etc. are severely income tested. There is no provision in this Bill to ease this situation for those people who are the least well off in our community.
Is the Minister proposing to change the pre-retirement age limit because it is not clear in the Bill if it is proposed to reduce it? Perhaps the Minister could clarify this because the pre-retirement age level has declined, but this Bill does not propose to change that. There are some changes in the age limit between 65 and 66, but it is not clear from the section if the Minister proposes to lower the age limit threshold for qualification for non-contributory pensions. It was intended to steadily reduce the age limit over a period of time, but that has stopped in the past few years. We expected a more revolutionary move from the Democratic Left Minister for Social Welfare as regards these payments.
The Senator would not recognise a revolution if he saw it.
We see no sign of revolutionary changes in this Bill. A sizeable number of people supported the Minister's party and its move into Government because they thought it could effect meaningful and speedy change. These people are now disillusioned. However, they are prepared to offer further scope to the Minister to demonstrate his commitment. I agree with many commentators that a lot of the preparation for this budget was done before the Minister took office. We certainly would like to see some indication of the Minister's philosophy.
The Senator cannot have it both ways.
He will be watched carefully from now on. Many people, particularly those who are sympathetic to Democratic Left, have been prepared——
The headlines tomorrow will read that Fianna Fáil accepts responsibility for this budget.
——to give the Minister some latitude because the party has not been in office long and the Minister might need a certain length of time to come to grips with a complex Department. To a certain extent I would agree with that sentiment. However, from now on people will want to see real commitment to the less well off on the part of this Government and this Minister in particular.
If this legislation demonstrates the commitment of the Minister to the least well off sections of the community it is a poor effort. However. I hope he will clarify the points I have raised and especially how he can eliminate the discriminations he is creating in the Bill.
There is change in this budget. Senator Cregan has already pointed that out. The balance has shifted in favour of the family by way of direct payments to the mother.
And the banks.
That is a welcome development. My query relates to a member of the family who is living with a disabled person or couple. If that member is in receipt of either FÁS or social welfare payments, or the £25 payment as a member of the family, can that preclude the disabled person from availing of free fuel, free TV licence, free ESB and free telephone? I hope a payment to a member of the family would not preclude the disabled person from availing of such benefits.
I also ask the Minister to broaden the carer's allowance scheme. Great savings for the economy can be made through the carer's allowance. It now costs about £700 per week to keep a person in hospital. The carer's allowance is a great benefit to those looking after people at home. Carers are providing a great service to the community. I ask the Minister to examine all aspects of the scheme.
I welcome the changes the Minister has made in the carer's allowance. However, I wish to draw his attention to a number of anomalies in the scheme which I noticed when dealing with constituents.
Last week, for example, a lady telephoned me to explain her position. She had been caring for an elderly brother and was stricken with cancer. Her daughter has decided to leave her job and come home to care for her mother. This woman does not have a qualifying payment, although the Minister would agree that she qualifies in every other respect. She is 63 and has a widow's pension. As a result, her daughter will not receive the carer's allowance even though she would qualify for it under the means test. In fact, her daughter has no income at this stage.
We have encountered a substantial number of such cases — and I am sure the Minister is aware of them — in the past few months. I have not asked the lady yet whether her pension is contributory or non-contributory. I believe I should advise such people to try to switch payments and to apply for the disabled person's maintenance allowance from the health board. That is a qualifying payment whereas a widow's pension is not. However, if somebody is in receipt of a contributory pension I would be loath to suggest that they should give up the pension and all it entails in order to secure the disabled person's maintenance allowance. First, the person would lose money and, second, the person would lose benefit over time. This is an aspect of the carer's allowance that is difficult to fathom and I am sure the Minister has been trying to figure out how to deal with it. Perhaps he will tell us he has sorted out the problem when he replies.
The carer's allowance is wonderful. It removes a burden from the State and once again strengthens the extended family. A person who is already on social welfare assistance and is caring for somebody who obviously needs full-time care and attention does not benefit from the carer's allowance either, even though the means test has been improved dramatically. The improvement in the means test will assist people who are better off rather than those on social welfare assistance. Could the Minister look at that problem and suggest, perhaps in time for the next budget, that a bonus be paid to a person on unemployment assistance who is giving full-time care and attention to a person who is obviously in need of such care? It would be a recognition of the caring nature of the work. The fact that a person is available 24 hours a day — which is what is involved in full-time care and attention — should be recognised in some way particularly in view of the enormous saving to the State and the improvement in the quality of life of the person who is being cared for. I look forward to the Minister's response.
I wish to raise one matter regarding the carer's allowance. I am delighted that the allowance has been increased and that changes have been made in the scheme. The Department of Health intends to examine and review the home help scheme which is run by the health boards. I hope there can be links between the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health in relation to the home help scheme and the carer's allowance.
In many cases the family or near relatives cannot provide home help under the home help scheme because they are relatives. I hope it might be possible for the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health to examine this. A change would be of benefit to the overall care of the person involved. It is often the case that a carer would like free time but the person being cared for would prefer a relative to be the home help. That creates problems because the home help must be somebody other than a relative.
I am aware of one case where a home help was willing to look after a 93 year old person. However, the home help was a relative and was refused for that reason. The person has now gone into hospital and that is costing the State more money. The woman could not care for the old person because her husband was unemployed and in receipt of assistance. The small jobs being carried out by the woman were generating finance for her home and were of assistance to her and her husband. Perhaps in their deliberations the Department and the health boards could look at linking the home help and the carer's allowance so that discrimination against relations acting in the capacity of a home help could be eliminated.
I will avoid rehashing the debate on section 3 because, to a significant extent, the arguments for and against the increases are the same on this section.
No, they are not. This section is about assistance payments.
The Minister should tell us a story instead.
I am a good storyteller.
I hope he can tell a good story to 800,000 people.
I can keep Senators here until midnight if they want, but I doubt they do.
I am surprised at the Minister.
Acting Chairman
This type of interruption will not be tolerated. It is most unreasonable. The Minister had only just begun to speak when Senators interrupted. This is silly. An tAire, without interruption.
He is inviting interruption.
Senator Kelleher said I had failed to repeat the statement I made at the Democratic Left annual conference at the weekend, that is, that social welfare payments were inadequate. Perhaps the Senator was asleep for the last few hours: if he had been listening he would have heard me say social welfare payments were grossly inadequate and as long as I am Minister for Social Welfare I will do everything in my power to rectify that. I said that today, at Question Time in the Dáil two weeks ago, at my annual conference last weekend and when I was in Opposition. If by some fluke I return to Opposition I will say it then also.
The Minister will say it loud and clear then.
A serious point was raised about differential rents and there have been problems in this area over the years; I raised this in the House in the past. When social welfare payments are increased, local authorities think this is up for grabs and increase their rents accordingly.
In the housing provided by Dublin Corporation — which covers Blanchardstown and my area, Finglas, among other areas — the local authority has agreed that no more than 15 per cent of the social welfare increase will be taken back in a rent increase. Compared with the massive clawback which occurred last year, old age pensioners who are Dublin Corporation tenants will be far better off as a result of this year's increase than they were last year because the corporation has taken the humane view that only 15 per cent of the increase will be clawed back.
I encourage Senators who are members of local authorities to contact Dublin Corporation, or councillors from their party on the corporation, to find out how that local authority has persuaded the city manager to accept this decision. If that practice spread throughout the country it would be a major step forward for social welfare recipients. It does not just apply to people receiving pensions.
There is no point rehashing the arguments. If a young person living at home applies for unemployment assistance and is assessed on their parents' income, the minimum payment he or she will receive is £25. That is a major step forward in helping young people to stay with their parents because many of them do not want to leave home.
Regardless of the parents' income?
No, it is an unemployment assistance payment, means tested in the normal way. Once a person qualifies, even if only by 50 pence, he or she will receive £25 per week.
That is a good provision.
Another point which has been missed in the concentration on one aspect of this budget is that I have moved to ensure adults who live at home with brothers and sisters will be assessed on their own means and not on those of their siblings. In many families, parents have died or a brother or sister may live with a married sibling. In the past, they were assessed on the means of the relative with whom they lived. Now they will only be assessed on their own means. Again, this provides independence.
I know of one man, aged 45, who received £12 per week unemployment assistance because he was assessed on his sister's income — she and her husband always worked. That will no longer apply; he will receive full unemployment assistance. This is a major step forward. I do not suggest it is revolutionary, as Senator Daly said I did.
It is a good provision. We give credit where it is due.
I appreciate that. If Fianna Fáil Senators read the full budget, they would not be so surprised when I point out these things.
We ask the Minister to treat us with courtesy and we will reciprocate. If he wants to cause trouble, we will too. We may be here for a while.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption.
The summer jobs scheme was raised by Senator Kelleher. Some 9,000 students participated in it last year and I agree it seems to be working well.
Did the Minister say that last year?
I said I disagreed in principle with the idea that any unemployed person should be deprived of unemployment assistance and be obliged to work for it; that is "workfare".
This year it is all right.
No, it is not all right. Again the Senator is not listening; if she did she would learn.
I listened last year and I learned.
If she listens to me now she will learn even more.
It is a different lesson.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister is replying and I ask Members to listen to him.
When I met the Union of Students in Ireland this year I guaranteed that, so long as I was Minister for Social Welfare, no "workfare" scheme would be introduced; that I would seek to have the summer jobs scheme as voluntary as conceivably possible; and to improve it to make it beneficial to students, especially those whose parents are entirely dependent on social welfare.
I have increased the basic rate of payment to £600 and removed the threshold — one had to qualify for at least £16 in unemployment assistance before getting a place in the summer jobs scheme. Now, if a person qualifies, even if only by 50 pence per week, he or she will qualify for the summer jobs scheme.
In addition there are strict rules. Senator Kelleher said it was slave labour but I have made it obligatory that sponsors should not expect anyone participating to work more that 35 hours per week; they must not oblige a participant to engage in dangerous work; and, where feasible, the sponsor must enable the participant to complete the job in six weeks. The student will still get £600 and be free for the rest of the summer to travel or to get another job. Even if they spread it over the full period of their summer holidays, they are free to take up a part-time job without any restriction, if it is available. In addition to that, any student whose parents depend entirely on social welfare gets an additional £1 per hour. I raised the rate to £3 per hour this year and those students whose parents are dependent on social welfare will get £4 per hour. That is not an ungenerous rate of pay. Many people in ordinary employment would be very pleased to earn £4 per hour. Many young people working in various fast food outlets around the country take home a lot less than £3 per hour and are taxed on it. This £3 per hour is not taxed and they do not have to pay PRSI on it.
It is not taxed?
It is not taxed, no.
However, it will be taken into account——
It is not taxed and it is not liable to PRSI, the sponsor pays the special rate of PRSI. There is a leaflet I can provide which explains it all.
If they work after they have completed the summer job scheme, is this income taken into account in calculating their tax liability?
No, it is not taxable.
It is not taxable on its own, but is it taxable when added to other income?
I will have to check that but as far as I know it is not.
Thank you. The Minister knows I am not trying to be awkward.
I have moved to improve that scheme substantially. It is now largely voluntary in that students, once they can find a sponsor who is willing to allow them to work for just six weeks, is free for the rest of the summer and gets that money into their hand. I have made a special arrangement for students who will be gaining the extra £1 per hour, which, given that the scheme provides for 200 hours work, is an extra £200. This £200 will not be paid through the sponsor, because I do not want two young people who are working on the same job to get different rates. That additional money will be paid at the end of the scheme just before the student returns to college, when £200 would be very useful to them to buy books or to put a deposit on a flat or for whatever they might need. I have made significant progress in improving that scheme.
The question of why particular people are not entitled to invalidity pension was raised. One of the anomalies in our system at the moment is that we have unemployment benefit, which is based on contributions, and unemployment assistance, which is based on means testing. We have a disability benefit, or sickness benefit as it is more commonly called, for those who have contributions but we have no disability assistance scheme. The Department is taking in charge the disabled persons' maintenance allowance from the Department of Health. It is scheduled to happen around the middle of this year. As soon as the Department of Social Welfare has it within its system, we will be looking at how we can create a sickness assistance scheme so that people who are in the situation that Senators have mentioned, and who may not qualify because of lack of contributions, would still be able to qualify on the basis of means for assistance when they are sick from work or disabled. Our consideration of it is at a relatively early stage but it will be seen when it is introduced as the kind of revolutionary step that Senator Daly expects from Proinsias De Rossa, the Leader of the Democratic Left.
I am sure the Minister knows what happens during revolutions.
I ask the Senators who have raised specific questions in relation to persons who have been disallowed invalidity pension or carer's allowance to let me have the details, because it is not possible to respond without knowing the full circumstances of each case. The position at the moment is that the carer of a person of pensionable age who is in receipt of a social welfare payment will qualify for the carer's allowance. If they are under pension age, however, the carer will not.
When the former Minister, Deputy Woods, introduced the carer's allowance I praised him for having done so, because we had all been demanding such a payment for some time. It is unfortunate that at the time, and even up to now, resources have not been available to develop it in the way that it should be developed. We have to address the fact that our population is growing older, not just as Senators or Deputies, but as a society. The population is greying, like myself. We need to find ways to ensure that people at a certain age, simply because they have some infirmity or other, do not automatically end up in a nursing home or hospital. This year I have extended the categories of person who are entitled to carer's allowance by including the carers of people with occupational pensions, which is a significant step. It is not a huge step and it is not hugely costly, but it is a recognition that people in receipt of occupational pensions, which are often no more than social welfare pensions, and in some cases less, need care as well as people in receipt of social welfare pensions. In addition to that I have increased the income disregard of the spouse of the carer from £100 to £150.
I have also provided for a companion pass for the person who is being cared for. The important aspect of the companion pass is that it is not confined to use by the carer. The companion pass will go to the person who is being cared for, who has it for free travel. Any person who accompanies the cared for person on public transport can avail of that companion pass. The carer will be freed from having to go everywhere with the person they are caring for.
I am conscious of the fact that we need to avoid creating a virtual enslavement, where a young woman or man, because he or she cares for their elderly relative, ends up being trapped in that position of care 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The importance of the availability of respite care and home help which Senators have raised needs to be addressed. As I understand it, an agency was established some time ago — I am recalling from memory — to look at the integration of social services. It is not making a lot of progress and I will be examining this as soon as I get time to draw breath in the Department of Social Welfare.
The Minister had better hurry up before the revolution starts.
I feel strongly about the carer's allowance and the whole area of care for people who, by and large, want to stay at home. They do not want to be shunted off to homes and hospitals. It is to the credit of Irish society that there are still sons and daughters and nieces and nephews who are prepared to give that kind of care to people. We should examine the possibility of providing an additional bonus where people are unemployed. I cannot give any undertakings in that regard but I am prepared to look at all those areas. I am interested in making progress in this area. The means test has to be looked at. It is far too stringent.
Should this whole area not be administered by the Department of Health?
I am not sure that it should. We are transferring the disabled persons' maintenance allowance to the Department of Social Welfare. We are looking at various other aspects, for instance, of rationalising the supplementary welfare allowance. I am not sure it would make sense for the Department of Health to become involved in payments to carers as distinct from the provision of care. There must be rationalisation of what each agency delivers, but there should be integration in terms of how they work together.
One of the first things I did in the Department of Social Welfare was to look at areas where we were doing things which the Department of Health was doing. For example, I transferred the respite care allowance, which was being provided by my Department, to the Department of Health because I believed it was more appropriate that it should deal with that area. I am not in the business of protecting turf. I want to ensure that the best service is delivered by each Department.
The increases provided for in the budget, including child benefit, etc., do not affect the entitlement to secondary benefits, although I will double check that. On the question of means testing allowances, Senator Daly will know assistance payments are means tested, but benefits are not. When Deputy McCreevy occupied this position he introduced a number of income related provisions for benefit, specifically maternity benefit, and he reduced occupational injuries benefit below the recommended rate of the Commission on Social Welfare. He made a number of other unfortunate changes. It is taking some time to recover ground, but progress is being made.
Another revolutionary initiative in this Bill is the——
Keep trying, someone will believe the Minister at some stage.
Wait and see. The requirement to prove desertion by a woman or, in some cases, a man has been abolished. When a spouse walked out of the home for whatever reason, a woman had to prove that she was deserted to qualify for a payment. I believe that demeaned the person concerned. A new uniform lone parents allowance is to be introduced, which will provide support for the parent caring for the children. This will not require proof of desertion; it will simply require proof that the person is not cohabiting, is a lone parent, has a certain number of children and his or her income is within a certain range, depending on the number of children. It will be income related and one will not have to prove desertion. It will only be necessary to show that one's income is within certain bounds and one has certain number children. That is a major step forward in the social welfare code, but it has not been adverted to by the Opposition parties.
There are a number of other provisions in the Bill which have not yet been discovered.
We wait in anticipation.
For example, the tapering of the adult dependants allowance has not yet been discovered by the Opposition, which again is a major step forward. Currently, if one goes to work and earns more than £60 per week, one's adult dependants allowance is taken away. The Bill provides that one's adult dependants allowance will only decline proportionately, depending on one's earnings. There is a range of other provisions in the Bill which is ground breaking.
A number of points were made in relation to the difference in the dates of payments. The most important thing about the dates is that payments will be made six weeks earlier than last year and will be earlier still next year. Senator Kelleher said that this was no real advantage to people. That is a curious way of seeing it.
It is a curious way of interpreting it.
If, for example, Fianna Fáil was in office and did the same as last year by providing an across the board increase of 3 per cent from the normal date in late July and ignored the real issue of poverty, the amount of money a person would receive would be the same as what they will receive as a result of the 2.5 increase paid from early June. That is a mathematical fact which cannot be disputed. It is wrong to say that it is a disadvantage for money to be paid earlier. I understand that is what Senator Kelleher said, but if I misrepresented him I stand corrected.
Why are there different dates?
The different dates are based on the historical fact——
The Minister is a revolutionary one.
I appreciate that many people believe I am Superman, but I cannot solve in two months all the problems Fianna Fáil created over generations.
Pathetic.
The Minister is creating new ones.
I realise I have a lot of problems to resolve which Fianna Fáil left behind and it will take a little time to sort them out. I would like to explain to Senator McGennis that her constituency colleague, if I am not mistaken——
The Minister is not mistaken.
Good, at least I am right on something. The difference in the dates arises from the historical fact that short term payments are paid one week in arrears while pensions are paid in advance. That is the way it has always been.
The Minister can change it.
I have no doubt that I can.
Supplementary welfare is a pension.
This has been done since 1964 when Fianna Fáil was in office. It is a bit much, after Fianna Fáil occupying the Department of Social Welfare for almost three generations, to expect me to come into the Department and in a matter of two months solve all the problems which it created.
A revolutionary approach.
Social welfare increases are to be paid six weeks earlier than when Fianna Fáil, who pushed them back to the end of July, paid them. That is now being reversed. We were told why there is a difference between the unemployment benefit rates and the assistance rates. The Commission on Social Welfare recommended a 10 per cent differential, although in some cases the differential is much higher. While I regard basic rates of social welfare to be inadequate, the reason for the difference is that it is felt that people who contribute to the social insurance fund should receive a higher payment than those who do not qualify either because they do not have sufficient contributions or they have no contributions. In other words, it is an incentive to pay into the social insurance fund on the basis that it will benefit people when they apply to qualify for disability or unemployment benefit or a contributory pension. That is a fair way of looking at the system.
A point was made about the pre-retirement age limit. There is nothing in the Bill about the pre-retirement age because it is not proposed to change it and, to my knowledge, it has not been changed for some time. While some people welcome the fact that when they reach a certain age they no longer have to prove that they are searching for work that is not there, many others will not be interested in pre-retirement because they feel they are on the scrap heap at what is a very young age. If I was unemployed I would probably qualify for pre-retirement.
Do not retire yet, Minister.
We will give him his pre-retirement pension any time.
I am sure the Senator would like to but she will not get the opportunity for a long time yet.
He will qualify in three years.
That is the position at the moment. The priority of this Government is not to fiddle around with the pre-retirement age, but to work to create more jobs so that people can actually make a useful contribution to society.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- Maloney, Sean.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelly, Mary.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Magner, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Magner; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Finneran.
Question declared carried.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.