Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jul 1995

Vol. 144 No. 8

Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1995: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Social Welfare (Proinsias De Rossa)

This Social Welfare Bill is the latest in a series of legislative changes promoted by this Government which are designed to provide clarity and security for families and individuals in the event of marriage breakdown. The focus of the Bill is, of course, the proposed holding of a referendum later this year to remove the constitutional ban on divorce.

The programme for A Government of Renewal commits us to the preparation of a detailed paper dealing with all the relevant issues relating to divorce and the putting in place of all necessary legislation. That is what this Social Welfare Bill is seeking to achieve.

The central purpose of this Bill before the House is to provide for the necessary changes in the social welfare code to ensure that no person, either spouse or child, will be disadvantaged in terms of his or her social welfare entitlements as a result of the spouse's legal status being changed from married, separated or deserted to that of divorced. In making these changes we are not conferring new or additional rights on individuals. Rather we are guaranteeing no loss of rights under the social welfare system arising from a change in a person's legal status to divorced.

The opportunity is also being taken in this Bill to introduce an important change in the way the earnings of seasonal workers are assessed for the purpose of qualifying for unemployment assistance. The existing arrangements have caused serious difficulties in certain industries and I am glad of the opportunity to improve their position by removing a major disincentive to taking up seasonal work. I will come back to this particular measure later. I want to deal with an issue which is in a way related to unemployment assistance and qualifying for it.

On the Order of Business in this House today the question of the Irish Press workers was raised. There was mention of the fact that a number of them have not qualified for unemployment benefit or assistance. Many of the queries raised in this regard arise from a letter from Mr. Ronan Quinlan of the National Union of Journalists. Some of the information which he provided to Members is inaccurate and I have issued a detailed response to that letter which I propose, with your permission, Sir, to read into the record of the House.

Dear Ronan,

I have received your letter on 5th July 1995 regarding the difficulties your members are experiencing in qualifying for Unemployment Benefit or Assistance. This difficulty arises because your members are involved in a trade dispute with the Irish Press Newspapers. People involved in trade disputes are in general precluded from Unemployment Benefit or Assistance under Sections 47 & 125, respectively, of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993 (relevant extracts attached). However, where a Deciding Officer, and subsequently an Appeals Officer, refuse payments an appeal can be made to the Social Welfare Tribunal that was first established in 1982 and whose terms of reference are now contained in sections 274-276 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993.

This Tribunal, which I reconstituted several weeks ago in anticipation of an appeal by Irish Press journalists, is available to consider your submission as soon as they receive it. As you know, the Appeals Officer's decision issued on 21st June 1995, more than two weeks ago [this letter is dated 7 July]... When it [the application] is received, there will be a 2-week period in which the employer must be given an opportunity to see and respond to your submission. The Tribunal will then meet to consider the submissions and come to its decision. Normally, its decision issues within a few days.

In the meantime, dependants of your members may be entitled to Supplementary Welfare Allowance from their local Eastern Health Board clinic, pending the outcome of any appeal or a resolution of the dispute with Irish Press Newspapers.

The procedure which applied in your case was also applied in the case of Dunnes Stores workers. The decision in that case was precisely the same in relation to full-time workers as in the case of the Press journalists. The difference is that the part-time Dunnes workers could qualify for those days for which they normally received Unemployment Benefit or Assistance while working.

I must stress that this entire procedure is laid down by law and operates independently of the Minister. Nevertheless, I have ensured that in your case each stage was dealt with expeditiously. Indeed, as you can see from the attached Information Note, the time which elapsed between the date of the first NUJ claim and the date of the Appeals Officer's decision (3 weeks and 2 days) was far shorter than the norm (about 9 weeks). You are also aware that the Department of Social Welfare has set up a dedicated 'phone line, reserved exclusively for use by Irish Press journalists, in order to answer queries and explain procedures, etc.; I understand that this 'phone line has been extensively used by your members.

It is clear, therefore, that the way in which the Irish Press journalists' case has been processed involves no anomalies or ‘injustices’ as alleged in your letter. Nor was there any unfavourable treatment by comparison with the Dunnes workers. The different outcomes in each case resulted from the different circumstances of each.

There is a case, I believe, for examining how in future the Social Welfare Tribunal could be brought into play at an earlier stage of the process. However, this would require legislation as well as careful consideration of all the ramifications. We would of course consult with the ICTU and IBEC before any such changes would be contemplated.

Yours sincerely,

Minister for Social Welfare.

It was important to read that letter into the record and I have arranged for a copy to be sent to every Member of the Seanad and the Dáil. It is important that it is made clear that whatever difficulties the Irish Press journalists have, do not arise as a result of any reluctance on my part or the Department's part to treat the Irish Press journalists fairly. I stress that there are 600 workers in the Irish Press and 400 of them are on social welfare while this dispute proceeds.

It is also wrong to claim that the fact that the journalists of the Irish Press, who number about 200, chose to bring in an examiner has ruled them out from receiving social welfare. They have already been ruled out from receiving social welfare and have been told why. They have been told they may appeal to the social welfare tribunal but up to 7 July last, two weeks after they had received the results of the appeal officer's decision, they had not done so; it is important to make that clear. They are not entitled to social welfare simply because a deciding officer and an appeals officer in accordance with the law have decided that they are in dispute with their employer. If they want to dispute that decision, they must take it to the social welfare tribunal to resolve it. They can, of course, qualify for social welfare if that tribunal finds they are not in dispute with their employer or if the journalists decided that, because of the circumstances and by introducing an examiner, they are ending their dispute with the employer. Then they would qualify for social welfare for as long as the company refuses to allow them to work or for as long as there is no work available for them at the Irish Press. It is important to put those facts on the record and those details, with an explanatory memorandum, are being circulated to all Members.

The main elements of the social welfare code affected by the provisions of this Bill are widows' and widowers' pensions, occupational injuries benefits, lone parents and deserted wives schemes, family income supplement and prisoner's wife's allowance. The widow's and widower's contributory pension is being extended to enable a divorced person who has not remarried to qualify for pension on the death of their former spouse. This means that on the death of a divorced person, his or her former spouse will be able to qualify for a contributory pension either on their own insurance record or that of the deceased even if the deceased had remarried. Where the deceased had remarried, their second spouse may also qualify for a widow's or widower's pension.

As regards occupational, injuries benefit, the pension or gratuity payable to a married person whose spouse dies as a result of an occupational accident or disease is being extended to the former spouse of a divorced person who has not remarried as well as to the existing spouse if the deceased had remarried.

A woman in receipt of deserted wife's benefit or allowance who becomes divorced may continue to be regarded as deserted for the purposes of the deserted wife's benefit and allowance schemes. Similarly, a divorced parent caring for children will be recognised as a lone parent and may qualify for a lone parent's allowance.

A divorced person in employment who is supporting his or her former spouse and children may qualify for family income supplement if their pay is below the relevant income thresholds. A woman receiving prisoner's wife's allowance who becomes divorced will continue to qualify for this allowance provided that she continues to satisfy the other conditions of entitlement. A divorced woman whose former husband is imprisoned may also qualify for the allowance. In addition, the Bill also provides that a divorced person supporting his or her former spouse may receive an adult dependant allowance in respect of them. They may also receive an additional adult dependant allowance if remarried or cohabiting.

I would like to take this opportunity to refute criticisms that the Bill is seeking to perpetuate and extend the concept of dependency and the practice of treating women as dependants in the social welfare code. Rather than extending dependency, this Bill ensures, as I have already said, that no one on social welfare loses entitlements as a result of divorce. It implicitly recognises that many women do not currently have social welfare entitlements in their own right by, for example, allowing their former spouses to retain their pension rights even after divorce. The argument that women should only have entitlements following divorce based on their own contributions or solely on means would be tantamount to depriving many thousands of women of rights which they have acquired — albeit as dependants — by virtue of their husband's social insurance contributions. Those rights may have been built up over many years of marriage during which the women in question may have contributed substantially to the accumulation of those entitlements through their work in the home. This Bill in no way prevents women from having or acquiring social welfare entitlements in their own right. Many women already do, but thousands do not.

Other provisions, such as the improvements in "pensions for homemakers" which I announced earlier this year, will help more women to build up their individual entitlements in future. I would very much like to see the process of "individualisation" accelerated. In practice, however, it will involve a major restructuring of the social welfare code which will take time. In the meantime, it is essential to protect those women who have not had the opportunity to build up contributory pensions and other social welfare entitlements as individuals, in their own right, up to now.

Another issue on which I would like to set the record straight is my commitment to abolish the concept of desertion in social welfare legislation and to extend to men the right to claim a lone parent's allowance. My Department has already worked on a third Social Welfare Bill for later this year which will, among other things, abolish the necessity for people to prove desertion in order to receive State support, a requirement which is often criticised as being degrading and difficult to comply with. My intention is to ensure that, in future, anyone who is bringing up children, or a child, on their own, whatever the reason and whatever their gender, will receive adequate support from my Department based on their need.

The costs of the provision contained in the Bill, as estimated by my Department, are £1 million by year five, following the introduction of divorce, and about £2 million by year ten. I want to emphasise that these figures do not represent the cost of marital breakdown. Rather they represent the additional costs of ensuring that there will be no loss of entitlements in the event of the introduction of divorce. The social welfare costs of marital breakdown are already being met by the State and the social insurance fund under the existing provisions of the social welfare code. These supports are provided primarily through the lone parent's allowance and deserted wife's benefit and allowance schemes.

It is important to realise that, under the existing provisions, a man or woman who is separated from their spouse can qualify for survivor's pension on the death of their spouse, even though they may have been separated for many years. What this Bill does is to ensure that a divorced person whose former spouse dies will not lose entitlement to survivor's pension. This does not give rise to any additional costs as the person would have qualified for pension in any event if they had not become divorced. Some additional costs will arise, however, on the death of a divorced person who remarried and where his or her spouse and former spouse qualify for pension.

The Bill also provides that a deserted wife may continue to be regarded as deserted for the purposes of the deserted wife's benefit and allowance schemes. These provisions will not give rise to any additional costs as, under the present arrangements divorce, in itself, does not affect entitlement to these payments. It was considered necessary, however, to include explicit provision for this in the Bill. Similarly, a divorced person can qualify for lone parent's allowance under the present arrangements. They can do so on the basis of being an "unmarried parent" but under the provisions of the Bill, they will be recognised under the social welfare code as a divorced person. The Bill will also enable a divorced person on low pay who is supporting his or her former spouse to qualify for family income supplement. In practice, however, it is extremely unlikely that a person on low pay would be in a financial position to maintain two households.

It will be evident to Senators, therefore, that, for the reasons I have just put forward, the additional costs arising from this Bill will be relatively low. Hence, the estimated costs of only £1 million by year five, following the introduction of divorce, and about £2 million by year ten. While £1 million, in itself, is a substantial amount of money, it must be put into some perspective. Total social welfare expenditure this year will be in the region of £4.2 billion and the figure of £1 million represents just 0.02 per cent of that expenditure.

I would now like to discuss the provisions of the Bill on a section by section basis. Section 1 deals with the definitions used for the purposes of the Bill. Section 2 deals with death benefit which is a payment, under the occupational injuries benefit scheme in the form of a widow's pension or a dependent widower's pension or gratuity, to the dependants of a person who dies as a result of an accident at work or an occupational disease. The purpose of this section is to allow a divorced person qualify for death benefit where their former spouse dies as a result of an occupational accident or disease. Under existing provisions, a widow who remarries or who cohabits with someone as husband and wife is not entitled to death benefit. This section extends those provisions to widowers.

Section 3 is central to the thrust of this Bill. Its purpose is to ensure that a divorced person may qualify for survivor's pension on the death of their former spouse provided they have not remarried or are not cohabiting with someone as husband and wife. In addition, this section extends to divorced persons a number of provisions relating to widows and deserted wives. For example, it is not necessary for a widow or widower to satisfy the contribution conditions for entitlement to survivor's pension if the deceased spouse was entitled to an old age contributory pension or retirement pension which included an increase in respect of an adult dependant. Similarly, a woman in receipt of deserted wife's benefit is not required to satisfy the contribution conditions for survivor's pension on the death of her husband. Both of those provisions are extended to divorced persons under section 3.

I should mention that on Committee Stage in the other House I agreed to have the definition of "spouse" contained in this section reviewed by the Attorney General to ensure that it will enable survivor's pension to be paid to the legal spouse of the deceased and any former spouse, subject to their satisfying the conditions for entitlement. The Attorney General has confirmed that the definition of "spouse" contained in the Bill is correct as it stands. However, in order to clarify the intention of the definition, he considers that the words "that last" be inserted in the definition. This amendment was accordingly made in this section and in five other provisions in the Bill during its passage in the other House.

Section 4 provides that a deserted wife who becomes divorced may continue to be regarded as a deserted wife for the purpose of the deserted wife's benefit scheme. A similar provision in relation to the deserted wife's allowance is included in section 6. The text of subsection (4) of this section was amended on Committee Stage in the other House to ensure consistency with the text of the provision in relation to deserted wife's benefit contained in section 4. This amendment does not alter in any way the substance of the Bill and continues to provide that deserted wife's allowance will cease as and from the woman's remarriage.

Section 5 provides that a divorced woman who fails to qualify for survivor's pension on the death of her former husband may qualify for widow's non-contributory pension provided that she has not remarried or is not cohabiting with someone as husband and wife and, of course, that she satisfies the other conditions such as means. In addition, this section also provides that a divorced woman in receipt of deserted wife's allowance shall, on the death of her former husband, be entitled to receive a widow's non-contributory pension at the same rate as her deserted wife's allowance.

A similar provision is included in section 7 in relation to prisoners' wives. A woman in receipt of prisoner's wife's allowance who becomes divorced may continue to be regarded as a prisoner's wife for the purpose of this scheme. In addition, this section also enables a divorced woman whose former husband is imprisoned to qualify for a prisoner's wife's allowance. The text of subsection (4) of this section was amended on Committee Stage in the other House in order to ensure consistency with the text of the provision in relation to deserted wife's benefit as set out in section 4. The substance of the Bill is in no way altered by this amendment as it continues to provide that the prisoner's wife's allowance will cease as and from the woman's remarriage.

Section 8 extends the definition of a lone parent for the purposes of the lone parent's allowance to include a divorced parent. This will give proper recognition in social welfare legislation to divorced parents. Section 9 extends the definition of a family for the purposes of the family income supplement scheme by including a former spouse where he or she is being wholly or mainly maintained by the claimant. The effect of this change is to enable a divorced person who is maintaining his or her former spouse and children to qualify for family income supplement.

Section 10 contains a number of changes to existing practices in relation to adult dependants. The definition of an adult dependant is being extended to include a divorced person and a similar extension is being made to the definition of a spouse in the old age pension scheme, which is being used to determine entitlement to an increase for a spouse. In addition, provision is being made for regulatory powers under which a person may receive more than one increase in respect of an adult dependant and for determining the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be regarded as wholly or mainly maintaining another person. Subsection (3) of this section was amended on Committee Stage in the other House by substituting the word "shall" for "may". The effect of this amendment is to impose an obligation on the Minister to make the regulations in question.

Section 11 is a new section which was inserted in the Bill by way of an amendment which I introduced on Committee Stage in the other House. The purpose of the amendment is to change the method of assessment for entitlement to unemployment assistance for seasonal workers, such as those in Bord na Móna and the meat processing and tourism industries. Under the provisions of this section, seasonal workers who claim unemployment assistance outside their normal seasonal employment will not then be assessed with the value of their earnings from seasonal employment.

The assessment of means for unemployment assistance was changed in July 1992 when earnings from insurable employment were taken into account for means purposes. This change gave rise to specific difficulties for seasonal workers because their earnings in part of the year often disqualified them from unemployment assistance during the rest of the year. The existing legislation requires that means be assessed on an annual basis and that account is taken of all earnings which the person may reasonably expect to receive during the year. In doing this, earnings which they received in the preceding year are assessed.

The practical effect of the existing provisions for seasonal workers is that when they cease their seasonal employment and claim unemployment assistance they are assessed with their earnings from that employment which they no longer have. Consequently, they qualify for a reduced rate of unemployment assistance for the remainder of the year and, in many instances, seek a "top-up" payment under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.

This new section in the Bill is designed to ensure that seasonal earnings will not be assessed against the worker in respect of claims made outside the period of seasonal employment. This approach will enable seasonal workers to qualify for the maximum rate of unemployment assistance on the cessation of employment until they resume their seasonal employment in the following year. It will also enhance the attractiveness of taking up seasonal work by eliminating this major disincentive.

This new section has nothing to do with divorce. I introduced the section as I believed it was urgent to do so. Its provisions could only be introduced by legislative change and it is necessary to do this before the summer recess because many of the seasonal workers referred to undertake summer work and we wish to ensure they qualify for the benefits provided by the section. It is also a reversal of one of the famous "dirty dozen" cuts. The new section is designed to ensure that seasonal workers are not hit by having previous earnings taken into account.

Section 12 contains the usual provisions relating to the short title and the construction of the Bill and provides that the Bill, or portions of the Bill, may be brought into force by way of a commencement order or orders. This section was amended on Committee Stage in the other House to enable section 11, dealing with seasonal workers, to be brought into force separately.

In conclusion, the thrust of the proposals contained in the Bill is to ensure that divorced persons will not be disadvantaged in terms of their social welfare entitlements. In meeting that requirement, we have looked critically at the level of additional protection that is necessary to meet the new situation arising from the introduction of divorce. I am satisfied that we have approached this situation in a straightforward and comprehensive manner and I commend the Bill to the Seanad. It is not a Bill which seeks to create a total reform of the social welfare system. It is a Bill which intends to guarantee that the social welfare rights of people who find themselves divorced, assuming we have a successful referendum on divorce, will be protected and that they will be at no financial loss as a result.

Mr. Kelleher

I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill. It is important that clarity and security be provided to everybody prior to the divorce referendum. This can only come about through legislation. One of the main reasons the last divorce referendum failed was the fear people had of the unknown — the fear that their entitlements, not only social welfare but property entitlements and so on, would be taken away. In view of this, it is important that we have a full legislative base prepared prior to a referendum. This will be a very divisive debate and such debates, which tear our society apart, should not occur on a regular basis. I, therefore, appeal to the Minister to accept one or two of the amendments we have tabled to ensure that entitlements are safeguarded and guaranteed.

In recent years there has been a broadly constructive debate in these Houses on the need for a referendum on divorce. There may be disagreement among the political parties about this but we must examine the statistics and the misery caused by marital breakdown. There are 75,000 people in a situation of marital breakdown and 55,000 of them believe their situation to be irretrievable; they have stated that their marriages cannot be saved. That alone is reason enough to put a divorce referendum to the people.

I welcome this Bill because it tries to set out in legislative form a guarantee of entitlements under the social welfare code. I agree with the Minister that it does not facilitate an overhaul of the social welfare code. However, it is slightly opaque.

The Minister said "clarity and security" were very important. The Bill is far from clear. The average person would be confused reading the explanatory memorandum, although the Bill is very short. We recognise the social welfare code is intricate and complicated. This is the Minister's opportunity to ensure this Bill is clear and concise so that those relying on social welfare, who will be voting in a divorce referendum, will know for what they are voting. However, this Bill has failed in that regard.

The Minister has said the implementation of the entitlements in this Bill will only cost a couple of million pounds extra over the coming years. I challenge him on that point; a lot more money will have to be provided to ensure the Bill's implementation and the Minister is aware that it is hard to come by extra money at Cabinet.

Proinsias De Rossa

Not at all. That is a myth.

Mr. Kelleher

I do not wish to score political points as this Bill is above that, but if there is no financial backing for this legislation people will be very concerned. That is what happened in 1986. I appeal to the Minister to give a legislative guarantee of funding so that the entitlements in the Bill which will become law when we have passed it — with my humble amendments — will be safeguarded.

The people who will adjudicate on this Bill prior to voting in the divorce referendum will be those receiving social welfare payments at present. That is a point not to be missed. Those receiving social welfare payments and who are in a situation of marital breakdown will sift through this legislation to see where they will stand in the event of divorce being introduced. Those who are not receiving social welfare payments will not be overly concerned, although they may find themselves dependent on social welfare payments in the future. It is a failing in the Bill, the Minister and his Department not to have pointed that out.

The primary purpose of the Articles in the Constitution which deal with the protection of the family is just that, the protection of the family. If the divorce referendum is carried and a change is made to the Constitution, this legislation will ensure that a new family that might be created after a divorce has equal entitlements. I will be raising this point again on Committee Stage. The Bill does not seem to take that further step.

This Bill does not have the broad consensus we thought it might, especially under the present Minister who had been an enlightened voice on many of these issues over a number of years in Opposition. This Bill is confined in its thrust. I am concerned this will create difficulty among those who find themselves in a situation of marital breakdown and are receiving social welfare payments; as I said, this Bill will not concern everybody who is in a situation of marital breakdown.

The Bill lacks financial backing for what it is trying to achieve. I scored political points on the debate on the Social Welfare Act, 1995, with regard to the 2.5 per cent increase in social welfare payments. Does the Minister's paltry 2.5 per cent increase allay the fears of those receiving social welfare payments who will depend on this Bill to safeguard their entitlements? If we are to support the referendum and encourage people to vote, we have to put our money where our mouths are. The Minister fails to do that even though he says the Bill will provide "clarity and security".

Certain elements of the Bill are not clear; that point was made in the Dáil by many Deputies. Certain sections of the Bill deal with adult dependants. We had hoped such designations would be removed in this Bill to ensure everybody would be aware of their entitlements. Any person over 18 years of age should not be called an "adult dependant". I made this point on the last Social Welfare Bill and when my party colleague, Deputy Woods, was Minister for Social Welfare. Such wording should be removed from legislation. One is either an adult or a dependant, but it is hard to see how one can be a dependant as an adult. Changing such small elements would make the Bill more attractive and would ensure that those with whom it deals would support it.

I welcome some elements of the Bill but they have not gone far enough. Will the Minister clarify the provision for unemployment assistance for seasonal workers? He said the provision related to tourism and Bord na Móna. Will it be at the Minister's discretion to point out which areas will be covered under this section? The dairy industry would have a large number of seasonal workers. The Social Welfare Act, 1995, contains provisions for share fishermen. Would it not be possible to include any form of seasonal work? Will it be up to the Minister to decide who is covered by this section?

The Bill largely succeeds in meeting its objectives in terms of the existing social welfare code. It confirms the approach adopted by the previous two Fianna Fáil led Governments. The Minister, Deputy de Rossa, does not like to acknowledge that fact but it has been acknowledged by many others. The White Paper on marital breakdown was attacked by the parties now in Government when they were in Opposition but it contained, in essence, the thrust of this debate.

Mr. Cregan

What about 1986?

Mr. Kelleher

The Senator's party was in Government in 1986.

Mr. Cregan

What did Senator Kelleher's party attack?

Mr. Kelleher

We were proved right. We want to ensure that people have the utmost confidence in the legislation and its financial backing so that when they vote in the referendum they are not afraid of the unknown.

I am disappointed we did not hear more conviction from the Minister when he said it will cost £1 million every year for the next five years. Is that correct?

Proinsias De Rossa

No, £1 million in the fifth year. It could be £200,000 in the first year and so on up to the fifth year when it will reach £1 million. In the following five years, up to the tenth year, it will reach approximately £2 million.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Fitzgerald)

The Senator should not request an answer on this Stage. That is a matter for Committee Stage.

Mr. Kelleher

I requested an answer from the Minister in this sitting, not on this Stage. I unreservedly apologise but it is good to receive clarification to ensure that I am on the right path. I am correct in the sense that the Bill when implemented will place a larger burden on the Exchequer than the Minister anticipates. The experience of other European countries with similar societies in terms of the emergence of new family structures, such as an increasing number of lone parent families, shows an extra burden will be placed on the Exchequer. However, the Minister seems unaware of this point when he says it will cost £200,000 a year and up to £1 million in the fifth year.

Many people put on a brave face for society but they would apply for a divorce if the referendum was passed. These people have not been taken into account. In his reply perhaps the Minister could clarify the Government's predictions of the number of people in this situation, given that the Minister said it will cost £1 million in the fifth year to implement this legislation.

The Bill largely succeeds in meeting the objectives and terms of the existing social welfare code. However, if this legislation is to be implemented by the end of the year in an effort to pave the way for a divorce referendum, will the Minister indicate his Department's predictions regarding the overall burden which will placed on his Department by this legislation and the referendum if it is passed?

The Department of Social Welfare will inevitably bear the brunt of the changes brought about if the referendum is accepted. Has the Minister taken this into account? Will I be arguing next year that social welfare increases of 1.5 per cent or 2.5 per cent are paltry? I fear insufficient resources have been allocated to this matter and that money will be taken from other areas to implement the legislation.

This legislation is fine if the intention is to give old age pensioners an extra 20p a day. By bringing forward the date of payment, the Minister said it would be worth an extra £9 a year. This works out at approximately 22p a day. I am concerned about these aspects. Has the Minister discussed with his officials the burden which will be placed on his Department by the passage of this Bill?

I am sure an extra burden will be placed on it, given the experience of other European countries, the fact that the family structure is changing and that people are, unfortunately, becoming more dependent on social welfare. It is inevitable that those in marital breakdowns will start drawing social security following the passage of this legislation. This could affect hard pressed old age pensioners and those already in receipt of social welfare support and mean that they again only receive an increase of 2.5 per cent. In my contribution on the Social Welfare Bill I attacked the Minister and pointed out that this was a miserly amount. The Minister agreed 20p a day was an insufficient amount to give to anybody. Many Senators agreed with me.

Mr. Cregan

How much should it be?

Mr. Kelleher

It should be more than 20p a day.

Mr. Cregan

Twenty two pence equals 3 per cent.

Mr. Kelleher

Are the Minister and the Opposition saying that 2.5 per cent was not enough?

Mr. Cregan

We said that in the previous debate.

Mr. Kelleher

The Senator is now saying it is enough.

Acting Chairman

Senator Kelleher without interruption.

Mr. Kelleher

People fear that when this legislation is passed, as I hope it will be because it is the best available——

Proinsias De Rossa

The only people creating fear are those making speeches such as the Senator's.

Acting Chairman

Senator Kelleher without interruption.

Mr. Kelleher

I am not trying to create fear.

Proinsias De Rossa

You are.

Mr. Kelleher

I am trying to point out reality. When the Minister comes back to the House next year — if he is still Minister for Social Welfare — he will agree that I was right. If people are asked, they say the 2.5 per cent increase was far from adequate. We all agree the increase in child benefit was welcome.

Proinsias De Rossa

It has nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill.

Mr. Kelleher

I am trying to discuss the funding for this Bill.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Senator is not trying to do that. The Senator is creating unnecessary fears.

Mr. Kelleher

The Minister has underestimated the cost of implementing this legislation and the problems which exist in society.

Proinsias De Rossa

Can the Senator give me an estimate of what it will cost?

Mr. Kelleher

I would remind you that you are the Minister and I am asking the questions.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Senator does not know?

Mr. Kelleher

I am asking if your Department——

Proinsias De Rossa

It is unreasonable and irrational to say that my estimates are wrong and the Senator's are right when he does not have an estimate.

Mr. Kelleher

I never said I was right.

Acting Chairman

Senator, there will be no conversation between you and the Minister. The Senator should address the Chair and this goes for the other side of the House.

Mr. Kelleher

I apologise. I am questioning the Minister's estimates for the cost of implementing this legislation. I have not given statistics but I question the provision when I consider the development of family structures in Europe. This is my point. The Minister has the Department and the Government behind him in trying to ensure that proper research is carried out and that sufficient funding is available to implement the Bill.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Senator is confusing divorce with marital breakdown.

Mr. Kelleher

I am not confusing the two. I hope the Minister will accept some of my humble amendments on Committee Stage. We support the broad thrust of the Bill, although its explanatory memorandum lacks clarity. Unfortunately, there is also a lack commitment on the Minister's part to provide sound economic support to those who may find themselves in the circumstances covered by the Bill, such as a person in receipt of social welfare. I want those fears allayed by the Minister prior to a divorce referendum.

In 1986 people were afraid of the unknown; they were unsure about their entitlements and property rights. I have a fear in relation to this Bill, which is held in the community. Divorce and marital breakdown are traumatic experiences and I ask the Minister to state the Department's research and predictions on the number of people who may find it necessary to avail of this legislation.

Mr. Cregan

I congratulate the Minister on the Bill and I welcome his statement with regard to the Irish Press workers. It is a sad reflection that some people in the Irish Press are not entitled to the same benefits as others. There are approximately 600 employees involved but a different structure seems to apply-to the 180 journalists. The Minister's statement is welcome and he should be congratulated. Even if they are not entitled to unemployment benefit are they not entitled to supplementary benefit? They should have been told that they are entitled to these benefits immediately if they are not in receipt of other benefits. They are entitled to supplementary benefit and it is unfair that they were not told that. Everybody seemed to give the impression that everybody was right and nobody was wrong. It is a sad reflection on us as a society that we have so many structures in labour relations yet we do not have a structure whereby people can get benefits when in need.

Mr. Kelleher

It is a sad reflection on the Government that it did not resolve that dispute.

Mr. Cregan

They are entitled to benefits if they seek them the right way. I do not know why the unions did not inform their members of their entitlements.

Mr. Kelleher

They are entitled to work.

Mr. Cregan

This Bill does not put the cart before the horse. The reports from the other House show that the Opposition is giving the impression that this Bill puts the cart before the horse. The Bill consolidates exactly what benefits people are entitled to if they are divorced or deserted. They will retain the benefits they already have if they are deserted. It is the most simple social welfare Bill I have ever seen before the House. It simplifies matters. For many years I have sought such a Bill. The former Minister, Deputy Woods, was prepared to simplify the legislation. However, the present Minister said he wants to simplify the legislation even more. He wants each person's benefits to be recognised. The quicker the Oireachtas comes around to that way of thinking the sooner all the people will know to which benefits they are entitled.

The Minister admits that it will take time. He referred to pensions for homemakers and said he would like to see the process of "individualisation" accelerated. That is an important development. Many sections in this Bill help people to define their exact entitlements. Let us not give the impression that enough is not being done; indeed, enough is never done for the less well-off in our society. However, £4.2 billion will be spent this year. A total of £4 billion was spent last year and about £3.8 billion the year before.

Mr. Kelleher

That is because more people are unemployed.

Mr. Cregan

Irrespective of who is in Government, we as a society will spend about £4.5 billion a year on welfare within two years. That is more than we spend on education. It is a sad reflection on us but it is a fact of life.

The most important aspect of this Bill is that, for once, it is not putting the cart before the horse. I welcome that and I congratulate the Department on how it drafted the Bill. It ensures that the benefits available to deserted people will also be available to divorced people. A deserted person is not a divorced person. It is not easy for me to say there is a need for divorce. However, it is a sad reflection on our society that there is such a need. There is no doubt that the third biggest problem in society is marital breakdown. I, like every Member of the House, am aware of that. I see a great deal of the problem in my constituency. It is a sad fact but we must accept it.

Whether we are doing enough to protect the family structure is another question. Are we doing enough? Are we trying to create a better atmosphere to ensure that the family and both spouses are well protected? For a long time there has been the strong impression — which still prevails — that there is not enough protection provided for the woman. That is true. In last year's and this year's Social Welfare Bills extra benefits were given to mothers for the children. That is an important development. While only 2.5 per cent is given to everybody else, enormous extra benefits were given to people with children. Nobody has recognised the fact that the person minding the children in the home has received the extra benefits.

The Opposition is arguing that the 2.5 per cent is not enough. Of course, it is not enough. Everybody, including the Minister, has said it is not enough. If I were on the Opposition benches I would say the same. However, the annual amounts paid over the years were decreased by being postponed to the middle of July; initially they were paid at the end of April but they were postponed to the end of July by other Governments. They have now been brought forward by six weeks and I hope they can be brought forward another month next year. That is where we see the benefits to these recipients. As we speak these people have received their increases. They probably would not have received them by now if another Government were in power. However, I still admit that 2.5 per cent is not enough.

We should be seen to be doing more to hold the family unit together. The question of how we do that is important. Unemployment is our largest problem; crime is our second largest problem and our third is marital breakdown. Why? Why has marital breakdown become so prevalent over the last 20 years?

It has become a political issue and some people have gained enormously, from a political point of view, from this issue. Unfortunately people are looking for opportunities to say they want nothing more to do with marriage. That is very sad. Is it because they do not want to be involved? Is it because there is no longer recognition of the family? Is it because they are not receiving proper recognition for having children? The family unit is the backbone of society and it must be protected. Part of the Department's £4.2 billion must be used for this purpose. I would expect everybody in this House to agree with me because, irrespective of where we sit in this House, we must protect the family unit.

This Bill, unfortunately, is selling divorce — I wish we did not have to do that — to protect people who cannot protect themselves. Therefore, I welcome the Bill. I do not welcome the content but I must admit it is a fact of life. I am reluctant to say it but we appear to be doing everything possible to undermine the main unit — the family, mother, father and children. That is very sad.

However, that issue is not relevant to the Department of Social Welfare. Its job is to look after people who cannot look after themselves. It does that quite well, and particularly so in the case of our elders. Nobody can deny that our elders are well protected in comparison with their counterparts in other nations but they are not protected from loneliness or being left alone. The Department of Social Welfare can help by sending people to look after the elderly and so forth but it cannot prevent people being left alone. However, we can honestly say that our old age pensioners and our elders on social welfare are well looked after.

I welcome the fact that the Department of Social Welfare is helping people in a way we had never envisaged — by way of supplementary benefit at a cost of £43 million last year, through extra housing and through the Department of Health. The Bill protects the people who have been given the impression that they will not get benefits. Senator Kelleher said that such an impression might be created and, in many ways, he is probably right. Let us not do that anymore. Let us not be false or political about an issue where a family is being divided. It is not an easy decision so let nobody give the impression that these people are not going to get benefits. The Bill says they are. The Minister spoke of a cost of £1 million over five years. I have, in my own small way, looked at where the £1 million could be spent and I can only see one extra way.

Mr. Kelleher

A programme manager.

Mr. Cregan

What does that cost — about £660,000 a year? The £1 million over a five year period is roughly £300,000 over two years. For instance, if a divorced person died and left two spouses — under the Bill one would be a survivor and the other would be a former spouse — the former spouse has to be paid the same benefits as the survivor. Let us presume there is a rush to leave the family home or to divorce — I hope there is not. We could have a situation where, over a year, a thousand of those would die and the benefit for the second spouse would have to be paid. That is all, no more than would have to be paid to any other person. That is the point. I cannot see any need for a hangup about where the extra money would come from. I read the Dáil debate on this issue and I would like the Opposition to explain to me and to the Minister — it is important that it be explained — where they see so much money is needed. No figure was put on it, so let us not give the impression that there is going to be a big worry about the provision of money. If we can provide £4.2 billion a year for social welfare, we can surely come up with an extra £2 million a year, if it goes to that. We will make sure — and the Bill will make sure and says so — that the person who survives is looked after.

Mr. Kelleher

By the Minister.

Mr. Cregan

The Bill states it, so it will not be by the Minister. When the Bill goes through this House, it will soon become law. That is a fact, so when we are discussing the question of divorce in October or November, we can show that provision. Everybody has the right to that information, in particular people on welfare. Let us not knock people in the lower category of society; we have been doing it for too long. We are giving an impression — and we did it during the last referendum — that deserted wives would lose their benefits. A deserted wife remains a deserted wife; she does not become a divorced person. She can claim all the benefits to which a deserted wife is entitled.

I would like to emphasise — and the Bill does not do this — that the Minister or his successors must, in the future, make sure that everybody has the same entitlements. When the legislation is simplified, everybody will be entitled to the same benefits, whether separated, deserted or a lone parent. Everybody should get the same benefit. How can we say that a person over 80 years of age is entitled to more money than a person of 79? That happens and I do not understand why. I would like to simplify things, and this is being done slowly but surely. About five years ago, there were 32 ways of paying child benefit, now there are eight or ten. All children should get the same benefit; that is what I would like to see happening.

I am particularly happy with section 9 of the Bill. The Attorney General has made clear — and long arguments were made about this in the other House — the definitions of spouse, the next spouse and the other partner. Section 3 makes that equally clear. We must protect everybody. I welcome the Bill which recognises in every way every type of benefit. I congratulate the Minister for that. I also congratulate the Department for ensuring that, at long last, we are getting to a stage of simplifying things. I say that because I am a simple person and I want to see the social welfare code simplified. I have always said that. I do not know why Senator O'Toole is laughing.

Mr. O'Toole

My grandfather told me to be careful of simple people.

Mr. Cregan

This is an area we need to simplify; this is an area where we should be telling people who are busy, particularly women in the home, who want to stay in the home and who are looking after the children, what their benefits are, and that this Bill shows them. This Bill states that and I welcome it.

Senator Kelleher asked when we are going to come to the real argument on divorce. The real argument on divorce for people outside of the social welfare system will be a long and strenuous one — property rights, money rights, equal rights — and is not going to be easy to resolve. In all honesty, this Bill is much easier to discuss, debate and argue. In looking at this legislation, we can say that we, the people and the taxpayers, will be paying. The Department will be paying these benefits on behalf of the taxpayer as the Bill states. We will define that every year. The person who is unfortunately on social welfare or any sort of benefit, man or woman, lone or deserted parent, deserted spouse or unmarried person, widow or widower, is now better protected legally because of this Bill. It creates a situation where we say they are entitled to certain things.

I take the opportunity to say again that this Bill is consolidating the system. We may not be going far enough and consolidating everything, but this Bill is consolidating by telling the person in the less well off categories of society not to have any worries about marital breakdown. This Bill tells them we will protect them. I welcome the Bill and I know that, on Committee Stage, the Minister will expand on points made. I have no strong argument against other benefits and increased benefits should be given; I have pushed for these for many years.

I congratulate the Minister and I hope the extra benefits will go, most importantly, to the less well off.

Mr. O'Toole

I welcome the Bill. It is progressive, it grasps an important principle and moves forward the discussion on the needs of society. Without a doubt, it reflects the need to adjust to a changing society, and the family unit has changed and will continue to change. This societal change requires that we prepare for it and that the social welfare system reflects that change.

I am particularly delighted that the Minister has highlighted the needs of spouses and children in this Bill. I have become increasingly concerned that, in the quasi-debate that is taking place in certain quarters about divorce, it seems to be that the conservative reactionary right wingers in society have taken unto themselves — or given the impression abroad — that they are the only ones who care about the children. The Government in its public utterances on societal change and divorce should be seen to put that issue to the fore. I know from speaking to individual Ministers that they hold that opinion. It is perfectly correct, responsible and in line with the policies of all political parties for children to be seen as the paramount consideration and responsibility of all of us in legislating for changes in family units, patterns and lifestyles. As an Independent I may differ with the Government over the final details of legislation, but I would hate to see the Government presented as not caring about the needs of children, in particular.

As an educationalist, I welcome the consideration given to support for the rights of children and unwaged spouses. It effectively anticipates the forthcoming legislation and deals with one part of the debate. People might continue to have differences of opinion over it but at least it has been addressed and legislated for and the position is clearly understood. That has to be welcomed and I compliment the Minister and his advisers. Sometimes Ministers are not quite so trustworthy on issues such as PRSI but they are particularly good on this issue.

On the question of dependants and cohabitants, it has been put to me quite strongly by a number of sources that the Bill should include a specific reference to and definition of the term "cohabitant". Considering the linguistic difficulties with defining "husband", "wife", "spouse", "dependant" and so on, I would hate to see what the Minister might do with a definition of "cohabitee". I suspect it would take another ten pages in the Bill. I know I am a husband because I got married, but the convoluted language of the definition in the Bill would make me unsure that I am. I presume in good faith that the definitions of "husband", "widow", "wife" and so on describe what they purport to describe.

To try to deal with the question of cohabitees would have weakened the Bill. The Minister's explanation that dependency is not a question of a put down or of being demeaning but one of practicalities was clearly articulated. I am delighted the Minister has grasped the nettle because too often I have seen Ministers being too responsive to political correctness which, in effect, reduces entitlements in practical terms. I am happy with the term "dependant" because I know what is meant by it and that any change in that would have implications for other areas and could leave people worse off.

I know it is not appropriate for a spouse's right to a contributory superannuated scheme to be included in the Bill, but it will be a very difficult issue for the Minister's colleagues to deal with, particularly the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, with whom I have raised it on a number of occasions. It is interesting to note the approach the Minister has taken in this legislation which applies to all those covered by the definition. The same question will apply with regard to the cohabitees, spouses or dependants of contributors to a contributory superannuation fund. The event of two surviving spouses or partners would present great difficulties.

I am a trustee of a pension fund — and I have another interest in pensions — which puts me in a very difficult position where it may not be possible to meet the stated, written and signed desires of a contributor who says he would like, in the event of his death, for the payment to be made to person A. However, person B, whom the trustees of the fund might not have known existed, might have a rightful claim to that payment. I do not know how to deal with that and I am glad I have not been faced with having to make that decision. The sooner that matter is addressed the better. Perhaps it will have to be determined on the basis of the ratio of years of partnership.

However, this legislation at least lays the ground and establishes that both spouses or partners have an entitlement. That is a very important principle for dealing with the next, more difficult issue of property which was raised by the previous speaker. I do not purport to know the answers. If I was asked to judge I would do so simply on the ratio of the years people spent together as partners. However, that may not be fair either.

I welcome the legislation because it begins to address these tortuous subjects. It is important for the Government to be seen to start tidying this matter up and to take one step at a time so that people can be reassured. Reassurance is the most critical issue we face in the forthcoming debate on divorce. The legislation should be seen as a response which will address and resolve problems in society.

For practical, political and PR reasons, the Government should reflect its deeply held views that the needs of children should be to the front in any divorce legislation. I am increasingly concerned that those who are anti-divorce present divorce as the idea of those who are anti-children. Those of us dealing with children on a daily basis know that the children of a bad marriage will be as damaged as the children of a "bad" divorce. The introduction of divorce will not create that problem. We, as legislators, must be seen to put children first in this issue — I know that it is like teaching my grandmother to suck eggs but it needs to be said. I congratulate the Minister and his Department on making a reassuring start on that issue. There are issues in the Bill with which I disagree but I welcome its general thrust.

Mr. Wall

I welcome the Minister to the House and I support the Bill which provides the necessary changes in our social welfare code to ensure that no spouse will be disadvantaged as a result of changes in marital or legal status. The electorate voted in favour of joining the EC — now the European Union — participation in the Single Market and the Maastricht Treaty. This means that our laws must be aligned with European laws. Our officials and representatives in Brussels look after our country's interests and it is logical to conclude that if we do not voluntarily bring our legislation into line with Europe, we will be obliged to do so.

This Bill is a necessary legislative measure in advance of the forthcoming referendum on divorce. It provides the necessary code to ensure that no spouse will be disadvantaged in terms of social welfare entitlements resulting from a change in legal or marital status, from married to separated, divorced or deserted.

The main benefit provided for in the Bill is a survivor's pension, which grants entitlements to divorced persons on the death of their former spouses provided they are not cohabiting or remarried. A divorced woman, who does not qualify for a survivor's pension on the death of her former husband, now qualifies for a widow's non-contributory pension. Death benefit will now be extended to include divorced survivors of the deceased.

Prior to the divorce referendum in 1986, the main question concerned payments to deserted wives. While the level of desertion in 1986 was lower than it is now, it was on the increase. Under the terms of the Bill a deserted wife who is divorced may continue to be regarded as deserted for the purposes of deserted wife's benefit. This is welcome and will discourage propaganda on the issue, which was a feature of the 1986 referendum. Since 1986 that category of social welfare recipient has increased substantially.

The number of women receiving prisoner's wife's allowances has increased substantially because of the increase in crime. The Bill provides for continued entitlement to prisoner's wife's allowance when a recipient becomes divorced. It entitles a divorced woman, whose former husband is in prison, to receive this allowance which will be welcomed by women in those disastrous circumstances.

The lone parent's allowance is adequately covered in the Bill, which extends the definition of lone parents for the purpose of this allowance to include a divorced parent. This is a clever move because it will cover a number of circumstances in that category. The Bill extends the definition of an adult dependant to include a divorced person and provides for the powers under which a person may receive more than one increase in respect of an adult dependant.

I congratulate the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa on a good team effort on this Bill. It will be the rock on which the referendum will be won and its measures will help the unfortunate men and women facing divorce.

I welcome section 11 which deals with seasonal workers. Having met the Minister, with colleagues from the midlands, on the question of Bord na Móna seasonal workers, I congratulate him on the action taken.

Mr. Farrell

I dtús báire ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire agus cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo ach nílim ró-shásta leis. Earlier we discussed the costs arising from the implementation of this Bill. We were told the costs of Bills dealing with health and education but we know we must multiply them by at least 50 per cent, perhaps a few hundred per cent in some cases; £1 million will certainly not cover it.

The Minister should explain the statement he made yesterday — which has worried pensioners — that old age pensions may be unsustainable in a few year's time. This year they received an increase of only 2.5 per cent.

Acting Chairman

Could you please give a reference for the statement of the Minister to which you referred?

Mr. Farrell

It was on page 7 of yesterday's Irish Independent.

Proinsias De Rossa

That is not the truth in the news.

Mr. Farrell

It is read and believed.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is what newspapers print.

Mr. Farrell

The Minister was always good at quoting the press and he always believed it. It is amazing that he now disbelieves it. It is funny how we change when we change jobs.

Acting Chairman

Please speak on the Bill.

Mr. Farrell

This is relevant to the Bill because old age pensions are paid by the Department of Social Welfare. Elderly people believe that in a few years pensions will not be paid and that they will die as paupers as old people did in the 1800s. This is how alarming the Minister's statement is. I ask him to use the House to correct it because many pensioners were greatly worried when they read that article.

I always find myself agreeing with my friend, Senator Cregan. Are we doing enough to keep families together? The family is an important part of society and we are not doing enough to keep it together; I said this when other Ministers were in office, including Ministers from my party, and I am saying it again.

This is a divorce Bill. I do not quibble with this but we should not expect to win the referendum hands down because I do not think we will. I am glad the issue of divorce is being put to the people but I hope it is put to them in simple language which will require a simple "yes" or "no" and not in language which will subsequently require clarification from the High Court and the Supreme Court.

From reading newspapers every day we can see who is in trouble with the law, children from broken homes and families and from bad marriages. We are doing nothing to help people in bad marriages. Alcohol and drug abuse and unemployment are the reasons marriages break down.

For many years I have said that women should be able to work if they wish but that no woman should have to work because of necessity. A large proportion of women who work do so from sheer necessity. Our tax system is bad. We should give money to the woman in the home to help her stay at home and rear her family.

Houses cost a large amount of money but we give a paltry £2,000 grant. When I built a house in 1954 I was given 50 per cent of its cost, that was the practice then. At that time people were given £500 and they could build houses for £1,000. If people were given grants of £1,500 to build houses, there would be far less pressure on local authorities to build houses and on families. Because of the amounts deducted from their pay-packets, husbands and wives are not able to survive. They cannot pay their bills and have to deal with sheriffs. We should do surveys on why marriages break down. I have mentioned the three main causes for this and we should do research to try to solve and eliminate these problems.

I was delighted to hear the Minister say that social welfare will become more work friendly. Why could he not have done this first? We used to have a good welfare system whereby if somebody acquired 26 stamps during the summer they received double the amount of dole payments during the winter. This encouraged them to work and it is amazing how many of them found jobs. Today we are giving people no encouragement to work.

There would be no point in me employing someone for a week because I would have to become registered for PRSI. There could be between ten and 20 other people who would also want to employ people for a week but, because they would have to become registered for PRSI, would not do so and leave the work undone. There used to be a simple form on which people put Xs for the days they worked and Os for the days they did not. We introduced systems and computerisation which have destroyed society. We should go back to simple procedures. When people completed these forms they were paid from employment exchanges for the days they did not work and paid for the days they worked by those who employed them. Such people went to the post office to buy stamps and did not mind if they cost £30 or £40. People do not want to become entangled with the Revenue Commissioners and PRSI when they want to employ people for a week or a fortnight. The amount of red tape which registration involves is far too great.

The FÁS schemes do a great job, but why do we not increase their number and take more people off social welfare? There was much unemployment when I was a rate collector in the early 1950s and 1960s. The rates charged in my area was only £3 but people did not want to pay. However, their morale changed once they began working.

A person who has not drunk alcohol for six years told me there is no such thing as an alcoholic but there is a pub culture and that is the problem. People meet their friends in the pubs and it soon ends up as being the only place where one can get a sympathetic ear. That person found it far harder to get out of the pub culture than to stop drinking. We should get people out of the dole culture and dole mentality and put more money towards schemes. If young people got the opportunity to work in a job, even if only involved sweeping floors from 8 a.m to 6 p.m., they would go home and get a good night's sleep. They would not be standing at the street corners, congregating in a wrong atmosphere and culture and would not get hooked up so easily with drugs and drink. Why are we doing nothing in that regard? Why is it that we can find millions of pounds to hand out for nothing and cannot find money to pay people to work? It is well known that if young people who went to England got work as soon as they arrived, they were a success, but if they spent a fortnight or a month going around the pubs looking for a job, they went down the slide and never got off it.

We are breaking up the family. A young person living at home gets around £12 a week. If that same person rents a flat in a town, they will get £70 a week and an extra £25 from the local health board. We are encouraging them to leave their families. Why are all our laws designed to break up the family? Why can we not encourage the Government to spend money on research into keeping families together? These problems would occur to a far lesser degree if we did that. Why do we not help the people with shared loans? These loans are a great help and are enabling families to buy houses at much cheaper prices. Why do we not encourage that to a greater extent?

Padraig Flynn brought out a housing scheme when he was Minister for the Environment and was criticised for giving houses away for next to nothing. However, those houses have their own individuality. They are all beautifully painted and their gardens are well tended. The people who own these houses have great pride in them. One can see this huge change in both sides of Dublin. Why can we not give this sort of encouragement to more people?

We should be getting to the root cause of why we want divorce and why marriages break down. I was married for 33 years and remarried after the death of my first wife. I have been married for two years and have been happy in both cases. I have seen couples who were happy when they were courting, but their marriage was put under strain by pressure. A husband comes home to get his dinner but has to cook it himself and children come home to an empty house. Thank God we grew up in poorer days. When I came home, at least I knew there was a pot of spuds boiling over a burning fire, if nothing else. We have lost that, which is one reason why our society is breaking down. We are not coming to grips with that situation.

We should not be quick to push this type of legislation through. Every Bill that comes into this House costs millions of pounds. The late Luke Corridan once told me, "Your crowd and our crowd are borrowing, but the bubble will burst some day". He was right and some day there will be a revolution in this country.

Some 80 per cent of everything a person earns goes on taxes. That figure is only 60 per cent in England. We must give people some freedom to have and to spend money. We must also give assistance to marriages to help them to survive and ensure that families are kept together. We are not doing it in either housing or social welfare at present, but do not seem to mind what lengths we go to in giving people money after their marriage breaks up.

I ask the Minister to think about what I have said and put more money into job creation. There is no local authority that could not take on a few hundred people to do useful work. I appeal to the Minister to think of the family and not to go overboard on divorce legislation. It is not yet a reality. If we put the same amount of work into keeping families together as we are doing in trying to break them up, we would have a good country. I also appeal to the Minister to respond to the headline I saw recently in a newspaper saying that old age pensioners may not be able to get their pensions in a few years time.

Mr. Sherlock

What newspaper said that?

Mr. Farrell

Yesterday's Irish Independent.

Mr. Sherlock

I thought it might have been the Sligo Champion.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Dardis)

It is not in order to display a copy of a newspaper.

Mr. Farrell

I am not displaying the newspaper but the article to prove that what I am saying is true.

Ms Honan

I welcome the Minister to the House. This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate him on his appointment. I wish the Minister well in his difficult portfolio. The Department of Social Welfare is a huge Department involving large public expenditure with constant demands from all of us for more money.

I welcome this Bill, which provides for changes in the social welfare code to ensure that no spouse will be disadvantaged in terms of his or her social welfare entitlements as a result of changes in their legal status from married, separated or deserted to divorced. It also extends entitlement to widow's and widower's contributory pension, occupational injury benefit, lone parent's allowance, family income supplements and prisoner's wife's allowances to people who might be divorced.

I accept this is one step in addressing these issues which have to be dealt with before we have the referendum on divorce and as such I welcome it. Many people, especially women, had fears at the time of the last divorce referendum about money and their entitlements should divorce become legal in this country and this caused great concern. Many women are financially dependent. This is not acceptable but it is a reality which has to be addressed. This was a major concern to women and I hope the changes that will be introduced in this Bill, together with further changes through reform of the social welfare system and the other legislation that is being brought before us, will address some of these concerns.

Marriages break down in this country and, even without the legal formality of divorce, that number is increasing. I do not accept the scaremongering tactics being used by some people that divorce will impoverish many people, particularly women. Marital breakdown creates that situation and we already have that. The cost of marital breakdown is already borne by the Exchequer for those on social welfare or receiving lone parent's allowance or deserted wife's benefit. I do not accept, therefore, the scaremongering tactics used by many people who say we cannot afford it. I accept the Minister's statement that the costs will not be great.

It is essential that women whose marriages break down but who are not entitled to social welfare benefits because they have a family income, and children in particular, get their fair share of entitlements. Children who are victims of marital breakdown must be protected and given care and counselling. We must reassure people that this will happen. Otherwise, people will be scared when the time comes to vote in the divorce referendum. The Progressive Democrats support the Government in its wish to hold a referendum, although we may not agree with everything the Government is doing. We also support the introduction of divorce.

This Bill extends social welfare benefits to certain people who may find themselves in a different legal situation as a result of being divorced. It also gives us an opportunity to discuss the social welfare system with the Minister, who does not often come into this House. The Minister said he refuted criticism that the Bill was seeking to perpetrate and extend the concept of dependency and the practice of treating women as dependants of the social welfare code. Senator O'Toole agreed with the Minister. I support the Minister's view that he would like the practice of individualisation accelerated, but that it would involve major restructuring of the social welfare code which would take time. I hope this will happen during the Minister's term in the Department of Social Welfare.

I have a problem with dependency status because it is mainly women who are considered adult dependants. Perhaps that is why Senator O'Toole does not share my problem. Until now, many men did not find themselves in this situation. I am a member of the Second Commission on the Status of Women and one of its recommendations was that the term "qualified partner" should be substituted for the term "dependant" and that social welfare payments should be divided between the recipient and the qualified partner. It also recommended that the qualified partner should receive their own allowance book and that the Government should work towards establishing a system of individual rights and payments in social welfare and social insurance by 1997. I ask the Minister to consider this in his review of the social welfare system.

I have a problem with calling women adult dependants. The State pays a man a certain amount of money because he has a wife or partner. He would not get such a payment if he did not have a wife or partner. I cannot understand why the State should reinforce this dependency status and why it cannot move towards a system of individual payments.

The same question arises as regards pension entitlements. In this Bill the Minister is extending pension entitlements to former spouses and ensuring that they retain their pension rights. This is acceptable because many men were able to work and build up contributions which gave them entitlements to a pension because their wives stayed at home and looked after the children.

Senator Farrell mentioned that in the past women stayed at home and looked after the children and that everything was rosy in our society. Many changes took place because women became dependent and they realised that society, while giving them a lot of lip service and telling them in the Constitution and elsewhere that it valued their contributions, did not value them in monetary terms. Women then decided to become independent and to move into the workforce. Unfortunately, women are now blamed for many ills in society because they took this step. I do not accept that. We did not and do not value the contribution of women who stay at home. We do not give them entitlements. I am sure the Minister would like to move towards a system of individual payments and to remove the dependency status of many women who stay at home. I would like to see this system in operation as soon as possible.

The Second Commission on the Status of Women proposed that women in the home should be able to make voluntary contributions which would enable them to build up entitlements in their own right. It also suggested that a pro rata pension should be paid on the basis of the number of contributions made, as opposed to an average number, which is how it is calculated at present. Many women who leave the workforce while they rear their children do not have the average number of contributions needed over a number of years to qualify for pensions. I am moving away from the thrust of the Bill, but we do not have many opportunities to discuss these issues.

I welcome this Bill which ensures that spouses and children will not be impoverished or in a worse position than they are at present if divorce is accepted. The Minister must address the need to prevent people whose marriages have broken down from falling into the poverty trap or becoming part of the social welfare system. A large proportion of people on social welfare are lone parents, particularly women. The Minister has introduced changes which allow women on lone parent's allowance to work. He has also increased the threshold of money they may earn before they lose their entitlements. I welcome these changes.

We must try to create a society where fewer people depend on social welfare and where work is available. Many of the measures we have introduced here and the high taxation rate discourage people from working. However, the additional benefits which those on social welfare would receive if they had a job would make them reconsider this. I accept there are not jobs for everyone, but we should try to make it more attractive for people to work. I am not saying they are better off on the dole, but the differences in some cases are not enough to encourage them to work.

Maintenance is important. An effective and efficient means of maintenance must be enforced if divorced families are to be kept out of the poverty trap and are not to become dependent on social welfare. The Family Law Bill, 1994, and the Civil Legal Aid Bill, 1995, were introduced in this House by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor. Many women who depend on maintenance from their husbands will be disadvantaged if they divorce. It is extremely difficult for them to force their ex-husbands or separated husbands to declare their incomes. It is not acceptable that the taxpayer must pick up the tab for all these people. People must face up to their responsibilities. If people get married and have children they should realise that they are responsible for their maintenance. The State will step in when they fail, but it should not be readily accepted that the State will look after everybody as the State cannot afford to do that. We have a high dependency rate and the thought of that increasing further could scare many people. While the social welfare system should be there for the people who need it, we must ensure that spouses who can afford to maintain their separated or divorced spouses and children should be made to do so.

We dealt with private pensions, private property and so on in the Family Law Bill, 1994. The Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill deals with social welfare pensions and social welfare payments so it is quite narrow. I accept the necessity to reform the social welfare system and I support the Bill. It will help reassure people who are concerned about divorce. Will the Minister consider the removal of the "adult dependant" term and move toward a system where women, who remain in the home for certain periods to look after their families, would be able to accumulate an entitlement to pension rights and benefits in their own right? Perhaps, a pro rata pension payment can be introduced for them.

Mr. Sherlock

I welcome the Minister. Opposition Members from both Houses spoke of the cost of these measures. The explanatory memorandum states that "The Bill provides for the necessary changes in the Social Welfare Code so as to ensure that no spouse will be disadvantaged in terms of his or her social welfare entitlements as a result of his or her legal status being changed from married, separated or deserted to divorced". This is commendable. It is a short and comprehensive Bill and it is easily understood.

The greatest injustice perpetrated against women was when the previous Government denied them their right to equality payments. Every other day women were forced to go to legal representatives and sign a confidentiality clause so that they could not tell their mothers, sisters or whoever how much they had received. The injustice continues to this day because some people feel constrained by these confidentiality clauses forced upon them by the previous Government.

Section 5 entitles a divorced woman to a widow's non-contributory pension. If her former spouse dies and they have been divorced, she now qualifies for a non-contributory pension. Why is it a non-contributory pension if she is recognised as a widow on the death of the spouse who had divorced her? Is there some need to look at that area?

Section 11 relieves us of the most archaic law under which people who were employed, or even self-employed, for a period and looked for unemployment assistance, found their previous year's earnings were used against them. The only way out was to apply for supplementary welfare allowance.

On the subject of the supplementary welfare, will the Minister look at the supplementary welfare code and consider whether we should have a better appeals system to make it easier for people to make their cases directly to an appeals officer? Advising people that they have the right to an appeal, and giving a name, address and number, is not good enough.

Senator Honan referred to dependency and spouses and it occurred to me that legislation was enacted to empower the Department of Social Welfare to have an attachment of earnings made against an offending spouse. The person would get the benefit quickly from the Department and an order would be made, in some instances by the court, for maintenance. The fact that the spouse could be working is taken into account. I do not see any evidence of the implementation of this power and I deal with cases often enough to know there is need to examine this area.

It is a good, well thought out Bill, which will be of great benefit to the people involved.

Minister for Social Welfare (Proinsias De Rossa)

I thank Senators Kelleher, Cregan, O'Toole, Wall, Farrell, Honan and Sherlock for their contributions to this important debate. The purpose of this Bill is that in a straightforward way it guarantees and protects the rights of people on social welfare, who find themselves divorced, and their children.

I am astonished that any Senator cannot see the simplicity and clarity of the explanatory memorandum. Four paragraphs on page 1 explain clearly and precisely what the Bill proposes to do and the way in which it proposes to do it. It deals with each section and with what each section proposes to do in respect of changing the law.

It is wrong to assume that any law can be changed in a simplistic way but we can explain simply, as we have done, what our intention is. Unfortunately, because the law must ultimately be interpreted by the courts, it must be complex in order to cover all the angles.

We have a social welfare code that is complex for a variety of reasons. When it started it was fairly simple and straightforward but because we wanted to protect more people we had to add more sections to it. I give credit to the Department and the former Minister, Deputy Woods for introducing the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993, which intended to bring all the legislation together in one publication for people to read if they needed. However, this is still a legal document which must be carefully put together to ensure that it stands up legally and does the job it is intended to do, which is to protect the interests of people who must come to the Department of Social Welfare to have their needs met. It will also ensure those who are not entitled to payments do not receive them.

The remarks about the Bill being opaque and unclear are patent nonsense, as a two minute reading of the explanatory memorandum will demonstrate. I started this debate with the view that all Members wanted to have a successful referendum and wanted legislation to protect the interests of people on social welfare. However, having listened to the contributions of some, although not all, the Fianna Fáil spokespersons, their intention is to muddy the waters and create confusion, fear and concern. That is not helpful. Everyone wants a calm. rational debate on divorce and muddying the waters will not facilitate that.

I am prepared to defend specific charges about the Bill and to argue the case, as I have done in relation to dependency, etc. In the Lower House I took on board amendments from the Opposition parties to clarify our intentions. Although the Attorney General advised me the Bill as it stood was correct, to reassure people even further we accepted those amendments.

Senator Kelleher spent much time seeking to muddy the waters on the question of costs. I dealt with this at some length in the Dáil and I will attempt to do so again as briefly as I can. The two matters being confused are the cost of marital breakdown versus the costs arising to the Department of Social Welfare from divorce. The Department is already carrying some of the costs of marital breakdown; that is, where a couple whose marriage has ended decide to separate, or a husband deserts the household. Not every couple who break up receive social welfare but uniquely, we provide a deserted wife's allowance — no other European country provides that. Nor does any other country provide a deserted wife's benefit, whereby a spouse can insure against being deserted. Those costs are already carried by the Department and the Bill guarantees that existing rights and security are protected.

Remarriage gives rise to an increase in costs. Specifically, in excess of 90 per cent of the cost arises in widows' and widowers' pensions; where one spouse remarries and subsequently dies, both spouses qualify for a pension. To take Senator Sherlock's point, that might be a contributory pension if the spouse who died had made sufficient contributions to sustain a contributory pension. In that case, if there is a surviving spouse and a former spouse, both would qualify for the contributory pension. If they do not qualify for it on the basis of contributions they will qualify for the non-contributory widow's or widower's pension.

The 1990 CSO statistics showed we have 55,000 separated people in the State; the only figure we have. We worked on the basis that 75 per cent of those would remarry, although I think that is a high estimate. As I said in the Dáil, it is a mistake to compare us to England or the United States. Some Opposition speakers wished to compare rates of divorce and marital breakdown in Ireland and California. That is unreal. If we are to make comparisons they should be with societies which are broadly similar in religious or family ethos. Spain is a largely Roman Catholic country where there was no divorce until Franco died and a parliament was elected. There was a rush to divorce when the law was introduced, because there was a backlog of people whose marriages had already broken down or who were in second relationships and wanted to regularise their position. The only way they could do so was to get a divorce and remarry. Since the first five years, there has been a decline in the number of divorces in Spain. I think, therefore, it is important to look at reality and not to raise unnecessary fears.

There is also an assumption that as soon as divorce is introduced, anyone who has a marital problem will dash to court to look for a divorce. People who live in the real world or in a marriage know that is not how it works. To argue that divorce per se will increase the number of people who will divorce or whose marriages will break down is not to know the real position. In the vast majority of cases people marry because they love each other and a marriage breaks down because they cease to do so. Sometimes they stay together even in those circumstances for the children's sake, or for many other reasons. Some people cannot afford a second home, so they continue to live in the same household as separate, independent people.

There is already marital breakdown here; the 1990 CSO statistics show that at least 55,000 people are formally separated, as distinct from those whose marriages are, to all intents and purposes, dead but who are still living together for their own legitimate reasons. I have no doubt that if the CSO statistics were available today they would show that there are probably more than that. It has been estimated that there are probably around 70,000 separated people — I am talking about individuals, not couples. Even taking that figure as the accurate one, one is talking, at most, about a 50 per cent difference between the cost figures I am giving and what they might be if 70,000 is the real figure.

We are assuming that all these might be involved in claiming social welfare which, of course, they are not. It depends on how many remarry as well as how many women or men survive their spouse in remarriage and many other factors like that. Even if we are 50 per cent out, we are talking about £1.5 million in year five and roughly £3 million in year ten. When one compares that to the actual expenditure on social welfare of £4,200 million this year alone, it is wrong, misleading and creates unnecessary fears to argue that this is an unsustainable burden. I would appeal to those taking that line to back off because they are not doing any good for the thousands of people crying out for the opportunity to remarry. They want the opportunity to get divorced so that they can remarry and legitimise their second relationship and the children of that relationship.

Under our law people can legally separate, obtain annulments, settle their property and do all kinds of things which were not possible in 1986. Divorce is about giving those people who want it the right to remarry. This Bill guarantees that in those circumstances people's social welfare rights — widow's pension, old age pension, occupational injury pension, benefits and death gratuity — are protected. That is what this Bill is about. It is not about reforming the social welfare code, although that is what I want to do. If we are re-elected at the next general election I will have enough time to do it but that is another day's work.

Acting Chairman

If there is not a divorce.

Proinsias De Rossa

If there is not a divorce.

That is my plea on this question of cost. It is a mistake to link that with the question of social welfare benefits and their rate of increase. In any one year the Government of the day, whoever they may be, will decide what social welfare increases they can afford to give. That will depend on how good the economy is, what the buoyancy in tax is like and what it is projected to be in the next three, four or five years. It is a mistake to link the principle of guaranteeing rights and entitlements with the question of rates of payment. Let us not confuse the issue by pretending that in some way the State will not be able to sustain widows' pensions or old age pensions simply for a cheap political jibe.

On the question of old age pensions, Senator Farrell mentioned an article on pensions in yesterday's Irish Independent which arose from an interview I gave to RTE. Although I did the interview about two weeks ago, it was prerecorded and broadcast on Sunday.

It is at least the fourth or fifth time that I have addressed the need to plan now for pensions in 20 to 30 years time. I do not know what Senator Farrell is upset about. The headline on the article runs: "Massive pressure on State pensions scheme". There is a photograph of myself with the caption: "Proinsias De Rossa...must plan now". The article begins as follows:

The country's ageing population will make the current State pension scheme unsustainable in the long term, Social Welfare Minister, Proinsias de Rossa, warned yesterday. Demand on Exchequer funding for pensions would increase by 200 per cent in the next 40 years as the number of people over 65 was set to rise dramatically, he said. Problems would arise if changes to cope with the ageing population were not planned now, Mr. de Rossa said.

That cannot be taken either as a scare headline or as saying that we cannot sustain old age pensions today. In any of the interviews I have given to newspapers, radio or television, I have been extremely careful to stress that we have to be careful how we express this view. It is easy to worry old age pensioners——

Mr. Kelleher

You did a good job of it when you were in Opposition.

Proinsias De Rossa

——that their social welfare pension may be cut in some way. I have been careful to stress that this problem will arise in 20 to 30 years time, but that we must start planning for it now. It is my intention to start that planning now. Whether I happen to be here in ten or 20 years time is another matter, but at least it will be said of me that I started the planning process.

I have already dealt with the seasonal workers issue and I do not want to spend too much time on it. I gave Bord na Móna and tourism workers as an example of seasonal workers but there are other categories who will be thus classified also. There is a range of classifications in the Department of Social Welfare.

It is a sign of the times that we no longer have the stereotypical male employee working a 40-hour week, 50 weeks a year. We have instead a whole range of part-time workers, systematic short-time workers, seasonal workers and others. All of them have to be accommodated within the social welfare system to ensure that they can move readily from unemployment into employment or education because that is the way the future requires us to go.

One of my priorities is to create a situation where receipt of social welfare payments is not seen as a shame but something that assists people at various points in their lives to go into education, work or stay in the home to rear children, whether the recipients are men or women. We may not be able to do these things overnight but they need to be done.

Senator Honan raised the question of pensions for women in the home. My predecessor introduced a system, recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women, whereby women working full time in the home could make their own contributions to build up personal entitlements to pensions. Under the arrangements introduced originally, periods spent working in the home caring for children up to age six or for an incapacitated person are disregarded in determining entitlement to old age contributory pensions. Up to 20 years spent working in the home may be disregarded under those provisions. I propose to introduce a number of improvements in these provisions including extending the scope of these arrangements to include those caring for children up to the age of 12. These measures will be included in the third Social Welfare Bill which I will be introducing later this year.

The concept of adult dependency is just as unacceptable to me as it is to Senator Honan and other Members. It would have been relatively easy for me to substitute the phrase "qualified partners" but it would not change the status of the dependant. People would still be dependent in the sense that they would be required — in many cases, though not in all — to depend on their partners' social welfare PRSI contributions. I want to reach a position where people can qualify in their own right, so that when the term "qualified partner" is applied it actually does imply partnership and equality in terms of the amount of money each would receive.

There would be serious political problems involved in combining the main and adult rates and splitting them down the middle, and that is the only non-cost basis on which it could be done. If I introduced the concept of qualified partner in this Bill and raised the adult dependant's allowance to the main rate, it would cost £200 million a year, for which I would get little thanks from certain quarters in the House. Nevertheless, it is an objective towards which we should aim. At the moment we work on the basis of the adult dependant's rate being 60 per cent of the main rate. It is my intention to close that gap, but I cannot give an undertaking as to how quickly that can be done as it depends on many other factors, including negotiating skills.

I made the point time and time again that the 2.5 per cent should not be confused with this Bill. There was an important point in the recent social welfare budget which has a bearing on divorce, particularly given the concerns people have expressed about care for children. I increased child benefit by 35 per cent which will be retained by the parent caring for the children, in the vast majority of cases that is women. It is a real increase and will be not be clawed back through tax or differential rates.

Mr. Cregan

Like the dirty dozen.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is not clawed back. It is an attempt to tackle the issue of poverty in families with children and has a real bearing on the issue of separated spouses. Most of the separated people I know depend to a significant extent on child benefit to make ends meet.

I dealt with the Irish Press but there is one other small point. People who were refused unemployment benefit or assistance, because they had initiated a dispute with their employer, were informed immediately of their entitlements under supplementary welfare allowance. People involved in the dispute are not entitled to supplementary welfare allowance but any dependants, spouses or children may be depending on their means and so on. I have no doubt that a number of the Irish Press journalists may be in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance.

There is a perception that unemployment accounts for most of our social welfare expenditure; of course, that is not the truth. Some 28 per cent of what we spend on social welfare goes to people on old age pensions; 28 per cent is spent on family income support; and 10 per cent on support for people with illnesses. Only about 28 per cent goes to those who are unemployed. More than 70 per cent of social welfare payments go to people who are not unemployed in the strict sense. These people are in receipt of social welfare because they are old, sick or have families to support. Unemployment accounts for less than 30 per cent of social welfare expenditure. It is also interesting to note — this is a point in the Department's favour — that the administrative cost of the Department of Social Welfare is less than 5 per cent, especially when one considers its major job.

Senator Sherlock mentioned the liable relatives legislation. Where the Department is paying deserted wife's benefit or lone parent's allowance, it can pursue the father or spouse — in current circumstances, usually men — to help defray the cost of the payments to the Department. That legislation was introduced in 1991 and currently brings in about £1 million. About £0.5 million of this is made up of payments while, interestingly, the other £0.5 million constitutes savings where claims are dropped because inquiries are made.

This area must be handled delicately and sensitively. One does not want to create a situation where a husband, who for whatever reason has left the home, will disappear leaving the spouse and children. I do not want to be the cause of even greater discord between a husband and wife or in contact between parents and children. More than half the people we trace do not have sufficient income to make a contribution because they are on social welfare or low pay. Major efforts are being made in this area.

We have not yet moved into the area of requesting the fathers of children of unmarried mothers to make a contribution because we want to get the system working right. In Britain they went pell-mell and head first into this area and created untold damage. One result is that many fathers refuse to allow their names go on birth certificates because they are fearful of being pursued by the Department of Social Services for a contribution towards rearing the child. We must be careful how we deal with these matters. The interests of the child are far more important than the few shillings we might pull in as a result of pursuing these matters without the necessary sensitivity.

Senator Farrell asked why we spend so much money on breaking up the family. We do not, I have already indicated that close to 30 per cent of what we spend on social welfare goes on family income support. Another 28 per cent goes to support for old age and 10 per cent to support for illness while less than 30 per cent goes to support the unemployed. There is a preponderance of support for the family and keeping people together.

A matter in the recent budget which was largely ignored was that I increased the minimum unemployment assistance for a single person living at home with parents or brothers and sisters to £25 per week because I am aware of the risk of means testing a younger person. They may find they are only entitled to £1 or £5 and leave the home to get a flat. This entails a cost to the social welfare and supplementary welfare allowance systems, and to the family. That is why I have ensured that where a person qualifies for unemployment assistance when living at home with parents, he will get a minimum of £25 per week.

I knew of a man in his forties some years ago who lived with old age pensioner parents and was in receipt of £12 per week. I also knew of a man who lived with a brother who worked and he was in receipt of a very small amount of money. This change ensures that the very minimum is £25 per week. These are small reforms but they are useful in terms of tackling the perceptions there are of the Department keeping families together.

I have dealt with most of the questions raised. Senator Kelleher raised the question of cost and I have dealt with that. I agree with Senator Cregan about the need to continue simplifying the code in so far as we can. There is always a tension between simplification and coverage. In order to cover as many categories as possible and ensure that nobody falls through the net it is necessary to provide as much detail as possible. Even with all that detail, the system does not always work. The simplest system would be to pay everyone, whether unemployed or sick, a flat rate of, say, £50 for the claimant and £10 for each child. That is simple but it would cost about £20 billion per year instead of £4 billion because there would be simply no controls on it. There is always a dilemma between the need for simplicity and the need for coverage. Having said that, I am not closed to the view that the rates of pay and qualification criteria and means testing for some schemes need to be looked at. There is a possibility of some standardisation which would result in some savings, perhaps in administration. The Department's investment in computerisation and the extent to which we continue to invest in computerisation assists that. I thank the Senators for their contributions.

If we are, as I hope we will be, successful in the divorce referendum, this legislation will provide security to many thousands of people who in 1986 felt they would be insecure in a situation where divorce existed. For that reason I am enthusiastic about this legislation. It is straightforward and clear and it is worth having in advance of the divorce referendum campaign.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 19 July 1995.

Sitting suspended at 5.35 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.