We have no major objections to this Bill. Most of the amendments I have tabled have been ruled out of order. We have tabled no amendments to section 1. Would it be possible for me to speak on the sections to which I have put down amendments?
Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1995: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
You may speak on the sections to which the amendments are relevant.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order because it involved a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The unfortunate position in which spokespersons on social welfare find themselves is that most of the amendments they table involve a potential charge on the Exchequer and are ruled out of order. Amendment No. 1 proposes the substitution of "deserted spouse's benefit" for "deserted wife's benefit" in each place where it occurs. I hope the Minister understands why we tabled this amendment, which is to highlight the slight discrepancies which exist. The amendment may confer a charge on the Exchequer but could the Minister explain why such a provision was not included in the Bill? We have tabled similar amendments to other sections to highlight this matter. Can the Minister clarify why it was not included in the Bill because it could have been debated in full when in the Dáil? Under the rules of this House, we may not introduce an amendment which would involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.
When the Minister for Social Welfare was here last week, he told us he had plans for an integrated social welfare allowance for all lone parents and that this would be provided in the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill, which he hoped would be introduced later this year. A report in the Sunday Tribune said this would not go ahead in view of cost on the Exchequer and the cuts that had to be made in next year's budget
We also had other queries last week about the changing of the name of adult dependant allowance. Since the plans for the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill seem to have been dropped — we were promised the reforms we asked for on Second Stage would be taken care of in that Bill — can the Minister outline the situation and allay our fears in this regard?
I am glad Senators raised those points because it gives me the opportunity to answer. We cannot always believe what we read in the newspaper. What the Minister said is correct. It is proposed to introduce the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill later this year and that is still the case. It is not true the Bill has been scrapped or consigned to the waste paper basket. It is going ahead.
This amendment is out of order because this proposal is already in train; our officials are working on the structures. That proposal is still on stream. The scheme will be brought into force in 1996, which means it is still on target. There is no proposal to stop or reverse it.
By virtue of the legislative procedures that have already been put in train, amendment No. 1 is out of order.
In my Second Stage contribution, I said that some provisions in this Bill were panic measures and the Bill was not as coherent or as well thought out as it should have been if the Government is committed to the referendum on divorce later this year. Disallowing these amendments in both Houses indicates that some measures in this Bill have not been fully thought out. I said on Second Stage that some of these measures were slightly incoherent in parts and I was disappointed there had not been enough debate on them. The Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill will be coming on stream soon and it will add to the present confusion on social welfare. Does the Minister agree that not accepting these amendments points out the discrepancies and confusion that arise in parts of this Bill?
I am pleased the Minister confirmed the newspaper report was incorrect. There was concern last week about the cost of implementing the reforms in this Bill. A newspaper report stating the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill was being postponed because of costs could also give rise to concern. I also welcomed that the Minister was giving this commitment, although I would prefer it if he did it now. I am dissatisfied that we do not know the details of the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill when discussing this Bill, but it is essential the adult dependant allowance title is changed, that we move forward to accelerate the individualisation of rights, particularly women's rights, in social welfare and continue the commitment to social welfare reform the Minister promised last week.
I welcome the Minister's comments. We are all concerned with this matter and we want to indicate that this reform must be in place as quickly as possible.
I have not contributed to the debate so far, but the fact the Minister indicated another Bill is being introduced seems to suggest that Senator Kelleher's amendments are not only in order but are necessary. I do not know the contents of the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill either, but since this Bill was hailed as pre-divorce legislation, can the Minister indicate if that Bill will be in both Houses prior to the holding of a referendum on divorce?
Could this section be deemed to be discriminatory, if not unconstitutional, because it only refers to a woman's right to a specific payment after the dissolution of a marriage? A Fianna Fáil-Labour Government introduced the widower's pension because the previous arrangement discriminated badly against men. This legislation refers only to deserted wives' benefit. Cases of deserted husbands being left as the providers and supporters of children are becoming more common.
This section refers to the deserted wife's allowance when a marriage has been dissolved. During the debate on the Family Law Bill, about which I had reservations, I asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to refer to the position of nullity. What is the position of section 4 when a marriage has been annulled and there is no judicial separation or divorce? To what benefits is the deserted wife entitled in those circumstances?
Social welfare legislation is complicated and this Bill is further complicated by the fact we have been asked not to pursue this amendment as it will be covered in the Social Welfare (No 3) Bill. Can the Minister give us an indication of the anticipated expenditures under that Bill? In framing that Bill, the Minister would, at this stage, have a general idea of the total estimated costs of that legislation to the Exchequer. Is the reason for the delay in some way due to the fact that there is an in-depth review of spending currently taking place in the Department? The Minister can respond to this if he likes, but the Government is giving out strong indications that a review of expenditure in this area is under way and the Minister for Social Welfare is having difficulty in convincing his colleagues of the necessity to provide the finances to meet these provisions.
We have been forced to abandon our amendment on the basis that it involves expenditure to the Exchequer. At this stage the Minister must have an idea how much it will cost to meet the provisions in the Bill being drafted. Can he give us an indication in that regard? Is the delay in the introduction of that legislation due to the Department's cutting back on expenditure?
All Governments review their spending programmes at this time of the year in anticipation of the subsequent year's Estimates. The review that is currently taking place in my Department is no different to any other year. There are no unforeseen circumstances where the Government has changed its mind on any aspect of its legislation as a result of unforeseen or other matters of expenditure.
The question of expenditure as regards the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill was discussed adequately on Second Stage in the other House and here. The position is still the same in relation to expenditure, the final details of which are not yet known. There are fairly adequate projections based on information readily available, which are still valid. We do not anticipate anything which will change the legislative proposals arising from financial considerations. It is anticipated that the scheme provided for under amendment No. 1 will come into operation in 1996.
It is not possible to accept these amendments in view of the fact that the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill is proposed. The final details of that Bill are in the course of preparation and it would be unusual for the Government or the Minister to accept amendments which would pre-empt that legislation. We appreciate that these amendments have been tabled. However, the procedure which will be followed in this situation is that the Minister will introduce the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill in due course. He is on target to do so and, therefore, the amendments are not acceptable.
Another amendment relates to nullity. That matter will be dealt with under amendment No. 14. However, where it has been deemed that a marriage is null and void, then it is automatically presumed that it never existed because those are the grounds on which nullity is granted. I hope I have covered points raised.
Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has been asked to make substantial cutbacks in social welfare payments? Is this the case in relation to some child benefits to which this section refers? This is confusing and I would like the Minister to outline the provisions in a booklet or document which would be available to the public after we pass this legislation. There is widespread confusion about what the Minister is attempting to do and whether he will get the money to do it. Has the Minister been asked by the Government to curtail spending on social welfare, which is one of the reasons this legislation is being deferred?
I presume the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill goes hand in hand with the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1995, and is an essential plank to the divorce legislation. Will it be in place before the divorce referendum? As regards Senator Daly's point, if I recall correctly the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, stated publicly that the cost of the provisions of the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1995, will be £1 million in the first year of implementation. That struck everyone as a low figure. As a result of Fianna Fáil amendments to the legislation, it appears that the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill will pose a much greater burden on the Exchequer than the £1 million indicated by the Minister.
If the Minster makes these announcements, he should come to the House to answer questions. He did not mention the fact that there was another plank of legislation that was vital to the constitutionality of this legislation, which was welcomed by all sides, in press releases and on Second Stage in the House. If that is the case, the Minister has misled the public because this is not the only vital legislation. As the Minister will be aware, social welfare was a major stumbling block to the success of the 1986 referendum. People were rightly scared about losing their entitlements. It has been admitted by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, and other Ministers that the——
I ask Senator McGennis to stick to the section.
The Minister for Social Welfare should be accountable for the statements he made as regards the cost of the provisions in section 4. The amendments which Fianna Fáil Senators tabled have given rise to the need for a new Bill. We would also like to know the cost of the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill.
It is intended that the new scheme will coincide with the legislation on divorce. One cannot be certain whether the dates will coincide, but I hope that will be achieved. It will require a great deal of effort to try to bring that about. Senator McGennis's comments on the 1986 referendum are recognised by everybody. I reject the suggestion that there are vast increases or liabilities hidden somewhere and that they are now being uncovered for the first time. There have been substantial legislative changes and payments, including equality payments, since 1986 which have in turn dealt with the areas where difficulties of a financial nature might arise relative to social welfare. That has been addressed by the relevant section in the Department of Social Welfare.
I am confident that the officials in the Department of Social Welfare will identify the possible financial pitfalls which might exist. The expertise in the Department has identified the type of extra costs already indicated by the Minister in the first and second five year period. It is not expected that there will any extraordinary unforeseen costs. The Opposition has overlooked the fact that if the proposed legislation on divorce does not bring about a renaming of particular entitlements for which individuals are eligible, they would possibly and, probably in most cases, be entitled to an alternative payment. That is why there is not a vast difference between the figures already expended and projected and those which are likely to fall due after the new legislation.
As regards the divorce legislation and making the necessary provisions in the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill, it is essential that we do everything possible to cooperate in a constructive way — I know that is the intention — to ensure that there is no scare or unfounded suggestions which might lead to a scare and which would cause problems to other legislation.
Senator Daly mentioned serious cutbacks. All cutbacks are serious and, as is normal, all Governments — and Senator Daly was a Minister in this Department — review spending around the months of June and couch their estimates accordingly.
A number of economies have been suggested by various Departments to bring their expenditure within certain guidelines. This is not unusual and how serious those cuts are likely to be can be best measured by looking at the total social welfare budget of £4.2 billion. Some newspaper reports suggest that a £17 million restriction has been placed on the Department. However, given the level of total expenditure in the Department of Social Welfare, the economies being introduced at present to bring expenditure within European and other guidelines are not likely to cause any problems for social welfare recipients, such as those receiving child benefit or dependent allowances.
Acting Chairman
Is section 4 agreed?
We do not agree with section 4 for the reasons outlined. By opposing the section we are putting down a marker and indicating our disapproval of the way in which the matter has been handled. We have been informed that a Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill is on track. The amendments which were ruled out of order identified a cost to the Exchequer. Will the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill place a serious burden on the finances of the Department of Social Welfare? The purpose of opposing the section is to highlight the costs to the Exchequer.
Our opposition also highlights the fact that serious thought was not given to this Bill. It has been rushed and I cannot understand why the entire matter could not have been encompassed in one Bill. This would have ensured the matter was debated in a way which would not have caused confusion. Nobody wants to cause confusion on this sensitive issue but people must be guaranteed security in the event of the passage of a divorce referendum. They are entitled to safeguards.
A Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill will come before the House and we will be in the position of trying to clarify that also. The entire matter could have been covered in one Bill. If that had been the case, enough time could have been allocated to the Houses of the Oireachtas to discuss the issue. This would have ensured that there was no scare-mongering; nobody wants to engage in scaremongering. We oppose section 4.
The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, was in the House last week but he skipped over the cost implications of the Bill. We must highlight this issue because it would be disingenuous of this side of the House to support the Bill knowing that funding may not be available to implement the legislative changes. On that basis we oppose section 4.
Acting Chairman
I wish to point out to the Senator that the Cathaoirleach, rather than the Minister, ruled the amendments out of order.
I understand that, Sir.
The Minister does not appear to have any problem with the amendment.
Acting Chairman
Procedure ensured that the amendment was ruled out of order. It involves expenditure and this measure can only be introduced by the Government. A private Member cannot do it and it cannot be done by the passage of a resolution.
The Minister effectively said it is expenditure which will be dealt with in the next Bill.
It was anticipated in the budget.
Technically and administratively it might be as well for the Minister to do it now rather than later. The Minister and his Department are trying to save money because they are being screwed by the Department of Finance. The Minister should admit it.
With no disrespect to Senator Daly, I am sure he has every intention of being helpful; I have no doubt that his most recent intervention is intended to be of the greatest help to the Department and we appreciate it.
I know what the boys down the street are doing to the Minister and his Department.
An important aspect arises from Senator Daly's contribution. The question of extra or unforeseen expenditure has repeatedly arisen. However, we have identified through the usual means in the Department the possible extent, if any, of extra expenditure. As the House is aware, if there is any extra expenditure, it will be nominal and unlikely to cause any interruption in the flow of legislation as proposed.
All the reasons for this have been outlined and since this is the case — although Senator Daly was previously being helpful and positive — it is unhelpful to close on the note that the reason the amendment is not being accepted is that hidden expenditure is included for which provision cannot be made. That is grossly inaccurate and the suggestion is totally untrue. Senator Daly wishes to state this himself but I am being helpful to the Senator by suggesting that his concern is ill-founded. He can be reassured but the amendment is unacceptable for the reasons I outlined.
Question put and declared carried.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 2 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Amendment No. 2 was tabled for similar reasons to the previous amendments. Could the Minister outline what provisions will be made in the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill? Will it encompass the thrust of the amendment to section 6? Perhaps the Minister could explain the possible implications of section 6. Does he envisage that the point raised in the amendment will be covered in the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill? The purpose of the amendment was to clarify discrepancies in the Bill.
The full details of the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill will be made available to the House during the First and Second Stages. Adequate time will be available on Second Stage for a full debate on all aspects of the Bill. It is not the norm to anticipate what is likely to be included in a Bill. However, it will be detailed and comprehensive legislation which will be geared towards the issues which have already been identified as in need of addressing in that context.
I cannot say or disclose any more about it at this point. Everybody accepts the intention and any provisions which have not been included in the current Bill are not being excluded for any reason other than that it was deemed for the purpose of organisation to introduce three Bills in the current year, each with a specific purpose. This is the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill; the third Bill will be introduced in due course and will address the remaining matters.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
This is a sad day for me because all my amendments are being ruled out of order by the Cathaoirleach.
Acting Chairman
I am ruling the amendments out of order.
The amendment was put down to highlight a discrepancy. The amendment states: after "committed" to insert "or remanded". People can be remanded for quite some time. Where does that leave them? The section deals with the rights of people whose spouses have been committed to prison but not remanded. That is a serious issue because many people will be without some form of entitlement if their spouses are on remand. As well as that, we have proposed the deletion of the words "for a period of not less than 6 months". Why is there a provision in the section for a period of six months? What is the broad thrust of this section and why, even though our amendments would involve a charge on the Exchequer, was the "period of not less than 6 months" included? Why were the words "or remanded" not included in this section? It is discriminating against a vulnerable element of our society. That is the reason we put down the amendments and it is unfortunate that they cannot be accepted. I would like the Minister to speak on this section and explain the reason for including the provisions that we tried to delete by our amendments.
I support Senator Kelleher in his amendments Nos. 3 and 4. Remand prisoners' wives should be able to benefit from the provisions of this Bill. I know the Minister will say that this would involve an amendment to the principal Act, but in Section 11 there are substantial changes which increase the scope of this Bill and which involve a charge on the Exchequer. They were introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare on Committee Stage in the other House. These amendments should have been accepted and I support Senator Kelleher in his arguments.
This is related to a different issue I wanted to raise with the Minister, the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act enabling the transfer of prisoners from prisons overseas to prisons in Ireland. By and large, there will be no difficulty with the United Kingdom because of the agreement we have with it. As a result of that legislation, it is likely that quite a few prisoners who are in prisons overseas now will be transferred to prisons in this country. Can the Minister clarify what will happen in relation to people who are entitled to claim benefits or allowances because their spouses are now in our jurisdiction?
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would have provided for changes in the prisoner's wife's allowance scheme, under which allowances could be payable to a woman whose husband was committed to custody for a period of less than six months or where he was being held on remand. Those amendments were ruled out of order. In any event, they did not fundamentally relate to this legislation. It appears that they anticipated legislation subsequent to divorce, and they are not relevant to the Bill, nor do they have anything to do with divorce legislation. It would not be practical to give entitlement to prisoner's wife's allowance to women whose husbands were being held on remand for short periods. Hence the period of six months.
On Senator Daly's inquiries about prisoners on remand, the normal provisions will apply. If any unforeseen situations arise, which are not anticipated at this stage and will not create serious financial burdens in any event, financial commitments of an equal nature will be in place. It would require huge numbers of prisoners being transferred from one jurisdiction to another to occasion any serious questions about the overall funding of the scheme. It is not anticipated that it is likely to cause any major problems.
Now that we have got onto financial burdens, I thought the Department of Social Welfare intended co-ordinating all the various allowances. I read in newspaper reports that this may be delayed. That would be most regrettable. Much of the work that Senator Kelleher has put into his amendments has been to try and explain that it would be easier and simpler for the whole system if the allowances were the same. The people who are involved are in much the same financial position. I would be glad if the Minister could tell me that the reports I have seen are, in fact, erroneous.
I do not understand the Minister's reply to the points being made about these amendments. As Senator Henry said, if a person's spouse is in prison, even on remand, the situation of the person on the outside does not change. I presume these provisions under section 7 were introduced to ensure that somebody who was receiving a prisoner's wife's allowance would continue to receive it if they separated or divorced. I presumed this Bill was introduced because it is relevant to the divorce legislation. I presumed a prisoner's wife would still be in the same financial position, whether the prisoner was on remand or was sentenced, and should still be entitled to the allowances provided for under this Bill.
I am at a loss to understand why the Minister said the amendments were not relevant to the legislation. If my amendments are not relevant to the legislation, neither is the section; that is the harsh reality. A section in the Bill deals with the rights of prisoners' wives. We proposed a simple amendment to the section to include those remanded in custody. How can the Minister state that it not relevant to the impending referendum on divorce and to this legislation? It is relevant and it is important that something is done to clarify the issue I have raised. The circumstances of the person outside of prison are the exact same whether the person inside is on remand or is serving time. This is relevant to the legislation and is relevant to the people who will find themselves in those circumstances if we pass the Bill as it is.
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the principle of no loss of entitlement. In the event of a person being divorced, it will not alter the basic conditions of entitlement. That is why I said the amendment was not relevant; it does not affect the conditions of entitlement.
Senator Henry mentioned newspaper reports. I mentioned in relation to the previous amendment that we should not always believe what we read in the newspapers. I can assure the Senator that the suggestions of major difficulties, as outlined in some newspaper reports, have been greatly exaggerated. The legislative proposals are on target and will be introduced and a scheme will be put in place in 1996. There was a change of date, but there are no proposals to reverse any of the Government's intentions. I am sure Senator Henry will be delighted to hear that. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are out of order for the reasons already given. I will probably not satisfy the Members, but that is the way it is.
These are fairly complex matters. Could the Minister clarify if these are means tested allowances?
Yes, they are.
So one is really talking about the poorest people in the community. We are not talking about entitlements or benefits; these people will only get a benefit if they go through a stringent means test. I would not anticipate that acceptance of the amendment would involve huge expenditure and this is why we are suspicious that underlying this is the financing of the whole chapter. Can the Minister tell what is involved in terms of expenditure? It would be small amounts because these are means tested allowances.
I cannot understand the preoccupation of some of the Opposition with alleged financial implications which, with all due respect, Members know quite well are not there. All Members of the House are experienced politicians who have been involved in politics for quite a long time and have gone through legislation in the past.
I have only been here for two years.
I am sorry. In another couple of years I have no doubt the Senator will have achieved the degree of expertise to which he aspires.
Only if the Minister accepts some of my amendments.
There are eight women in receipt of prisoner's wife's allowance. In 1994 expenditure on prisoners' wives allowance amounted to £20,000——
The Minister is denying these few by not accepting the amendment.
The post budget estimate for expenditure for 1995 is also £20,000 or thereabouts.
It is only a few pounds. It shows the pressure under which the Minister finds himself.
It is the prerogative of any Minister in any Department to set his or her own programme in accordance with the Government's legislative programme and to introduce legislation which is consistent with his or her own objectives and timetable. For all the reasons I have outlined, it is good Government planning to initiate a legislative package and accept amendments which relate to the specific Bill under discussion and not pre-empt future legislation by accepting amendments now. There would not be much sense in deciding to forget about the social welfare (No. 3) Bill and do everything by way of amendment to the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill.
I appreciate the points made by the Members. However, I cannot understand how, without any research, the Senator anticipates huge cost increases in the area. Notwithstanding the transfer of prisoners or anything else, any changes will be minor in the context of the total social welfare budget. Some changes were introduced already. The text of subsection (4) was amended on Committee Stage in the other House to ensure consistency with provision relating to deserted wife's benefit in section 4 of the Bill. The amendment does not alter the substance of the Bill and continues to provide that prisoners' wives allowances will cease as and from the woman's remarriage.
The Minister is talking about benefits, not allowances.
I thank the Minister for reassuring me about the newspaper reports. As the songs says: "what's another year?" The fact that only eight women are in receipt of prisoner's wife's allowance means it is even more important to co-ordinate the various schemes. The administrative costs of separate schemes must be to the disadvantage of the Department. It might save money to bring it forward to early 1996.
The root of the problem is the directive to the Department of Social Welfare to save money where possible. That is the harsh reality. We pointed out that this amendment would only represent a few thousand pounds in the overall budget which runs to millions. Could the Minister not find it in his heart to accept it? I know he is sympathetic to my case but unfortunately he cannot accept my amendment because it has been ruled out of order. This highlights the fact that having been allocated its budget, the Department has been directed to scrimp and save every penny. While my amendments were ruled out of order because they constitute a burden on the Exchequer, they should have been accepted in the other House and that just validates my argument.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the Senator. He mentioned earlier that he is a novice, having been in the House a mere two years. However, he is heading in the right direction by identifying what Ministers should be doing. I appreciate his anxiety to assume the office of Minister and I will be more than happy to move over in due course but the situation is exactly as I indicated.
I reject absolutely the suggestion that major draconian cuts are being enforced on the unfortunate people who have to depend on social welfare payments. That simply is not the case. I have, to the best of my ability, detailed the relevant figures for the current year. One sees the figure of £17 million mentioned in newspaper reports but one can never believe everything one reads in newspapers. I do not intend any disrespect to the media; there is always much speculation on such matters. The sum of £4.2 billion is an extensive budget. I assure the House that there will be no erosion of the general thrust of Government policy and no hardship will be caused to any social welfare recipients. Since the foundation of the State Governments have conducted mid-term reviews. It has always been the tradition to introduce corrective measures which will, for the next six months or thereabouts, ensure that the economy stays on course. That has been done very effectively. The caring and compassionate attitude taken by the Minister for Social Welfare, myself and the Government——
Do not tempt us to get difficult.
——will continue and the people who are dependent on payments from the Department of Social Welfare can rest assured that will remain to be the case.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
This is an important section. While some of the previous sections did not affect many people, this section affects an enormous number of people. Like the Minister I am careful about what I read in the papers, even if it is in The Irish Times. When I read that the Irish topped the EU single parent league I was extremely alarmed. I got the Eurostat population and social condition statistics and I hope the Minister has read them because they are extraordinarily serious and show the situation in which many Irish families are living.
The figures are for the 1990/91 period. In proportion to population, the percentage of Irish households which are lone parent family households was 10.6 per cent and at the top of the league. Children of lone parents in Ireland represent 15 per cent. These are astonishing figures. When we describe the family in Ireland the two parent nuclear family is in a prominent position. However we must seriously look at the sort of families who must be catered for nowadays.
The Department of Social Welfare should give this area high priority. We should not be pleased to be topping this league. I am not sure how the statistics are compiled; other countries cut off the age of childhood at 18 or 25 but here a 40 year old bachelor living with his mother could be described as a child of a lone parent. I hope great cognisance is given to dealing with lone parent families in all future social welfare legislation.
The Minister, Deputy De Rossa, announced that deserted wife's benefit would be encompassed in this scheme. Is this the section which would have brought that about? It states that reference to a lone parent shall include reference to a person who would otherwise be a lone parent but for the fact that the person's marriage has been dissolved and that dissolution has been recognised as valid in the State.
Some people who currently qualify for deserted wife's benefit feared being classed as lone parents because as they had been in a marriage they would have many commitments, for example to mortgages or loans. If the dissolution of that marriage is recognised by the State they could find themselves in circumstances different from those of a person who became a lone parent by choice. A person who would now find himself or herself classified as a lone parent may have had to dissolve a marriage due to circumstances outside his or her control. Is this the section which provides for that?
It is.
The Minister is very brief; we would like this debate to continue until at least 2 o'clock.
I know Senators like concise answers but perhaps not that short. The points raised by the Senators are valid because this is an important matter requiring careful attention and monitoring.
In reply to Senator Henry, I will give the figures for recipients of lone parent's allowance from 1990 to 1994. In 1990, there were 18,061 unmarried parent recipients; 4,059 separated spouses; 2,217 widowed persons; and 194 prisoners' spouses. In 1991, there were 21,366 unmarried recipients; 5,391 separated spouses; 2,263 widowed persons; and 164 prisoners' spouses. In 1992, there were 24,077 unmarried parents; 6,438 separated spouses; 2,277 widowed persons; and 135 prisoners' spouses. In 1993, there were 26,735 unmarried parents; 7,585 separated spouses; 2,219 widowed persons; and 114 prisoners' spouses. In 1994 there were 29,987 unmarried parents; 8,714 separated spouses; 1,880 widowed persons; and 119 prisoners' spouses. The fall in the number of widowed persons is because some of those people were transferred to the survivor's pension.
The total recipients for each year were: in 1990, 25,231; in 1991, 29,184; in 1992, 32,937; in 1993, 36,653; and in 1994, 40,700. I obtained these figures from the pensions and allowances sections.
To take the point mentioned by Senator Henry, the number of unmarried parents rose from 18,761 in 1990 to 29,987 in 1994. Those are worrying figures and great attention is being paid to them and to the figures for separated spouses. Various social reasons have been put forward for these increases and there are no easy answers.
As one who has spent considerable time over the years dealing with applicants for deserted wife's allowance and benefit, I have come to recognise the significance of what Senator Henry has said about the status and the increase in numbers in those areas. We must isolate the cost factor, although that is not the point the Senator made. Regardless of the cost society still must address the position as it stands by way of education and a comprehensive social review. It is not a simple matter and it will not become easier.
The figures are similar to those in other countries and I note that Ireland is top of the league, which is alarming. Some of our neighbouring states went through similar, circumstances in previous years. We read the alarming statistics in neighbouring democracies and convinced ourselves such phenomena would never be visited on us but of course they have been. These matters will require careful examination by all Governments henceforth. Senator Kelleher mentioned the social problems which have arisen in relation to people who became single parents by choice. I am not sure that is a huge problem, although there may be occasional cases.
Be that as it may, we still must look at the issue in so far as society has changed and is changing. I recently addressed a conference organised by the Council of Europe in Helsinki, the purpose of which was to address the changing structure of the family, given the statistics mentioned here, and to identify how society could address the problem. I am speaking merely of the social structures and how to ensure children and parents are catered for and social responsibilities are met, while at the same time ensuring society is in a position to meet the financial burdens which might arise in the future.
I am sorry for discussing this at length but I have taken a keen interest in this subject and I know Senators have done likewise. They are right to identify the importance of these trends. Any helpful suggestions that can be utilised either now or in the future will be looked at sympathetically, but this will be done in the overall context of social welfare legislation. This is also happening in other European countries, and particularly within the European Union.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I am reassured that he is so concerned about the matter. Senator Kelleher pointed out that some people may be lone parents by choice but the Minister is right in saying that within these figures they are probably a very small proportion. I was also asked to go to the Copenhagen conference and wish I could have gone.
As the Minister pointed out, we could probably deal with the financial implications but the social supports to be put in place for the children of single parent families and for single parents themselves are extremely important. I am glad to see that the Minister is taking such a concerned interest in the matter.
I also thank the Minister for his reply to the concerns raised by Senator Henry and Senator Kelleher. As he said, we can probably deal with the cost involved. However, it is a matter of concern that between 1990 and 1995 the number of unmarried parents jumped from 18,000 to almost 30,000. Also of great concern is the number of young girls who are having children. I do not think it is a question of choice for many of them. I am sick and tired of listening to those who say that such people are having children for the money. If they are doing it for the meagre social welfare allowances they get from the State, then the conditions they are leaving behind must be pretty bad. A co-ordinated effort by the Departments of Health, Education and Social Welfare is necessary to address this frightening problem.
The Minister says this has happened in other countries in the past. Many children are born outside wedlock, particularly in the Scandinavian countries, but they grow up in family situations with both parents present. In this country the woman is effectively landed with the baby and is expected to take care of it with very little support from the child's father. It is necessary to educate boys and girls about their responsibilities regarding parenthood and the risk of young girls becoming pregnant. In this regard, a co-ordinated effort between the Departments of Health and Education is necessary. The Department of Social Welfare ends up picking up the tab but it is a small price to pay. The social consequences are enormous and need to be addressed. There is no point burying our heads in the sand because this is a huge problem.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, paragraph (b), line 33, after "spouse" where it firstly occurs, to insert "by regular transfer of income to his or her spouse".
The reason for this amendment is that an entitlement to claim for an adult dependant with whom one is not living should be qualified by a duty to show evidence that the transfer of income has taken place to that spouse. It is not acceptable for a man to receive payment from the State for a partner with whom he is not living unless that person, and it is usually a woman, has given her consent to that claim. In this case I do not think it would have any financial consequences for the State. If the State is paying out money for somebody it should pay it directly to the person, particularly if the person is not living with her spouse.
I support Senator Honan and Senator Kelleher's amendment. This is similar to the difficulties that arose in getting maintenance enforced. One could have a spouse — in most cases the husband — receiving income from the State which will not be passed on to the spouse from whom he is separated.
This a worthwhile amendment which I implore the Minister to accept. The Department of Social Welfare is paying money to two people who are claiming, yet one of them is not passing it on to the recipient who is entitled to it and for whom the claim was made in the first place. Major problems are caused by the fact that money is claimed on someone's behalf who is not receiving it. This amendment would sort out those problems by the regular transfer of income to his or her spouse.
Without this legislation or this amendment it would still be possible to sort out that anomaly, as we all know from dealing with it on a regular basis on behalf of our constituents. The amendment seeks to define in primary legislation the circumstances in which a person will be regarded as wholly or mainly maintaining his or her spouse or former spouse for the purpose of the family income supplement scheme. It provides that the spouse being maintained will have to be in receipt of a regular transfer of income.
As I said, the amendment is unnecessary in that section 10(3) of the Bill contains regulatory powers to determine the circumstances in which the person is to be regarded as wholly or mainly maintaining another person. These powers will apply to all social welfare payments, including the family income supplement. Under this section of the Bill as initiated, the regulations may provide for the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be regarded as wholly or mainly maintaining another person. The Minister agreed to accept an Opposition amendment to this provision on Committee Stage in the Dáil which replaced the word "may" with "shall".
The regulations in question will have to be made and, unfortunately, I will have to oppose this amendment because the provisions are already in hand. The Minister has already so agreed because of the amendment moved in the Lower House on Committee Stage and the Minister's indication in relation to the precise regulations.
Can the amendment not be accepted to ensure that the money claimed by a person would actually go to the recipient? This amendment would safeguard that. If that is already to be included in legislation why not accept it here?
The Minister said there is already provision where people can look for direct payment and that we may have dealt with this ourselves. However, that situation usually involves the case of a woman having to request that this should happen. That is not acceptable because while some women may know about their entitlements, others may not. It is disgraceful for the State to pay a dependent relative's allowance to somebody who is not even living with the woman who should receive it. It goes against the grain of the Minister's stated intention to accelerate the individualisation of rights. Such allowances should not be paid out unless there is evidence of regular payment. I cannot understand why the Minister cannot reassure us by accepting the amendment, given that it is already taken care of in the Bill.
I can only say again that the suggestion is to amend or define in primary legislation whereas, currently, under the normal procedure it is possible to obtain separate payments. I know Members are concerned that the payment should come automatically as of right instead of by request, but difficulties can arise from such a request. If, for example, a marriage is in difficulty and a request is submitted for separate payments, it can accelerate the difficulties that are already there. I know that from dealing with individual cases. On the other hand it may well be that on assessment of an individual case a suggestion is made to the Department to the effect that given the circumstances in the household where one or other partner is not providing as he or she should, it might be better to have the payments made in a particular fashion. The difference there with what is proposed in the amendment is that in the current situation and in that provided for by the Minister on Committee Stage of this Bill in the other House, there would be an individual examination of the case rather than a broadly based, across the board change. The provisions of this Bill apply to all schemes, not just the family income supplement. I note the points made by the Senators but from my experience of dealing with those situations, there is no rule of thumb that one partner is better than another. In some instances it may be better to proceed as at present, in other cases it may be better to have a more general situation as indicated by the Senators. My own feeling is that adopting one system in preference to the other would have very little impact.
I am a little older than Senator Kelleher and Senator Honan and I remember the same arguments when changes were made to the children's allowance scheme to pay it to the mother instead of to the father. Of course in some circumstances the parent who had the children — probably the mother in these situations — was not as careful as she should have been in managing the family finances but that was allowed for when the change was made in the children's allowance and it did not happen very often. The same will occur here. The original children's allowance legislation was altered so that payment was made to the mother and exactly the same thing will happen here. A great deal of pressure could be put on women who apply to have the money sent directly to themselves if it is not de facto and de jure the case that the money is sent to the woman and then, in the small percentage of cases where she is not carrying out her duties as well as the State would like her to, the money is transferred back to the husband. It is the other way around at the moment. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment from Senator Honan and Senator Kelleher.
The Government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. The commission recommended that family income supplement would be paid directly to the primary carer in the family and according to the first progress report of the monitoring committee on the implementation of the recommendations of the commission, this consideration is under review with a view to adopting this change at the earliest opportunity. Does the Minister intend to implement this change in the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill? It is obvious he will not accept our amendment.
The Minister will implement this change in the Social Welfare (No. 7) Bill.
The Minister will not accept our amendment. I endorse and support what Senator Henry said about the children's allowance scheme.
At the outset, I indicated that I understand the position the Senators identified and I have dealt with cases, directly with constituents and on behalf of colleagues, which have highlighted the kind of situation referred to. The Social Welfare (No 3) Bill may well be the appropriate legislation to deal with this issue.
I do not want to mention specific instances but in the last 12 months I have come across a number of cases in relation to family income supplement. Legislation dealing with family income supplement is slightly different from other social welfare legislation in the sense that it is payable when one of the spouses is working. It is very difficult to identify the best method of dealing with the issue raised, but it is something that we will re-examine sympathetically. I am interested in hearing from Members in regard to the number of these cases which have arisen in which they have a particular interest. I have dealt with cases and I am familiar with cases referred to me by colleagues, but there are pitfalls as has been illustrated. If Members have any other suggestions they will be sympathetically examined.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Henry, Mary.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelly, Mary.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Maloney, Seán.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Honan and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Wall.
Amendment declared lost.
Senator Norris has saved the day for the Government.
Amendment No. 6 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 are related and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, paragraph (c), after line 42, to insert the following:
"or
(c) each person or married couple;'.".
Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 seek to provide that the word "spouse" shall also include "one of a married couple". By definition, "spouse" means "one of a married couple". Careful consideration was given in the Department and in the Office of the Attorney General to the text of the Bill. In this context, an approach along the general lines of the suggested amendments was considered. However, it was decided, on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman, not to refer to "one of a married couple" in the provisions in question.
Sections 9 and 10 provide, for the purposes of the family income supplement scheme, a determining entitlement to an increase for an adult dependant. The word "spouse" shall include a divorced person where the divorce is recognised, and one of a cohabiting couple. I am not, therefore, in a position to accept the amendments. On the advice of the parliamentary draftsman and the Office of the Attorney General, they are not deemed necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to the family income supplement, the Minister earlier agreed with me on the financial and social problems pertaining to single parent families. A very small proportion — approximately 7 per cent — of the population is involved in part time employment, and of that proportion, approximately 70 per cent are women. Most are employed in the services sector, in the retail trade. However, there is an even smaller category of women involved in job sharing. They find a full time job impossible, although they need the money. However, they have grave difficulties from a social viewpoint in maintaining the structure of their families and have, therefore, opted to become involved in job sharing. In taking up job sharing these women take a reduction in income. At the same time, they are not eligible for family income supplement. Cherish has written to the Minister's Department on many occasions. I have also telephoned the Department to discuss the matter and have raised it in the House previously. Is there any movement on this matter?
Section 97 (2) of the Social Welfare (Consolidated Payments Provisions) Regulations, 1994, states:
A person who is engaged in employment on a job sharing basis shall not be regarded as being engaged in remunerative full-time employment as an employee, but account may be taken of the number of hours worked by that person in determining the aggregate number of hours worked by that person's spouse.
This is fine and legalistic, but it leaves those who are job sharing, and single parents in a very serious situation. As I have not managed to get any replies on this matter privately — nor has Cherish — I ask the Minister if he has any further thoughts on it.
I appreciate the points made and am aware of Senator Henry's concern and the concern of Cherish with regard to the section. Amendment No. 6, which is out of order, relates specifically to the subject matter. To qualify for a family income supplement the person must be engaged in remunerative full time employment as an employee. In accordance with regulations, a person is regarded as being engaged in remunerative full time employment where he or she works for at least 20 hours a week in employment which is expected to continue for a period of at least six months. In the case of married or cohabiting couples where both parties are in paid employment, the hours worked by the couple can be combined. Amendment No. 6 in the name of Senator Henry, which was deemed to be out of order, seeks to extend the family income supplement scheme to people who are job sharing and who are not regarded as being engaged in remunerative full time employment as already laid out in other legislation.
The family income supplement scheme is designed to provide cash support to families on low earnings and thereby preserve the incentive to remain in employment. To extend the scheme to people who voluntarily opt to work on a job sharing basis would be inconsistent with the rationale of the scheme, which is to encourage people to remain in employment. I appreciate the vantage point from which Senator Henry is considering the situation and I have come across cases where I can understand her concerns.
Where people can only obtain work on a job sharing basis, it will be open to them to apply for unemployment benefit or assistance in respect of the days they are not employed. It is possible to sign on and sign off, as it is termed, and to cover that type of situation under existing legislation. However, I am also aware of some recent amendments to the legislation which created some difficulties, and this is the source of Senator Henry's concern. I will have the matter further examined within the Department and a comprehensive reply will be issued to the Senator. She mentioned that Cherish has not recieved a substantive reply. I will also ensure that is speedily addressed. If, for example, the concerns expressed by Senator Henry are still apparent we will be happy to look at the matter in the context of other social welfare legislation. I am sorry that we cannot do so at present and with regard to this Bill, but we will certainly consider it in the light of other legislation.
I support Senator Henry. The legal working week is 39 hours and somebody job sharing is under the limit of 20 hours. The Minister made a distinction between a person who had no choice in job sharing and somebody who voluntarily opted for it and, therefore, would not be entitled to family income supplement. This is unsatisfactory, particularly for women as it is difficult to combine work and home responsibilities.
In an era of high unemployment we should encourage job sharing if it suits individual circumstances and make it easier for women to stay in the work-force on a part-time or job sharing basis and look after their children in the home. We should not discourage them but this restriction on family income supplement is a discouragement. In an era of high unemployment the Government should consider this seriously.
I thank the Minister for undertaking to send a reply to me and to Cherish as soon as possible. This is a serious matter. We discussed the social and financial implications of people — generally women — bringing up children alone. This is a method by which they would be enabled to devote more time to their children and family matters. The Constitution provides that women should not have to work outside the home for economic reasons. If we are to uphold the Constitution we need to support schemes such as this.
We will bear that in mind.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, before section 10, to insert a new section as follows:
10.—The Minister shall within 3 months of the commencement of this Act lay before each House of the Oireachtas regulations determining the circumstances in which a person can be regarded as cohabiting with another person as husband and wife.".
Cohabitation is not defined in the Principal Act or in the social welfare code, yet the accusation of cohabitation is one of the major grounds for refusing a lone parent entitlement to social welfare support. The issue of cohabitation has raised many complex policy issues with regard to the treatment of women in married and non married households. It has been addressed in judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Court, and the review group could not arrive at a definitive view on the subject. It should be addressed in a social welfare Bill and now is the time to do so.
In deciding whether a person qualifies, a deciding officer must be satisfied that the claimant is living with someone as husband or wife. The Department of Social Welfare must have guidelines as to how that is determined but the public is not aware of them. If there was a definition of cohabitation people would see how this matter is dealt with by the Department.
This amendment would impose an obligation on the Minister to define cohabitation in regulations. It has been a condition of entitlement for a number of social welfare payments for many years that the person is not cohabiting. This condition applies, for example, in the case of lone parent's allowance, deserted wife's benefit and allowance, and widow's and widower's contributory pension.
The incidence of people disqualified from receiving payment on grounds of cohabitation is rare. For example, 114 people were disqualified in 1994, mainly in cases of unmarried parents in receipt of lone parent's allowance, and about 40 people have been disqualified to date this year.
In deciding whether a person is disqualified from receiving a payment on grounds of cohabitation, the deciding officer must be satisfied the claimant is living with someone as husband or wife. There is no single factor by which this can be determined, and as relationships and domestic and financial arrangements between husbands and wives can vary considerably, each individual case must be decided on its merits and facts.
Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 7, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) Any increase in a social welfare payment in respect of an adult dependant shall, if requested by any such adult dependant, be payable to the adult dependant in his or her own right.".
It is demeaning for a person to be called an adult dependant. This amendment would give such persons their own identity. If they so request, the money should be paid to the dependant in his or her own right. It is a worthy amendment as it will give a status to people who have none at present when it comes to social welfare payments.
As I said in relation to earlier amendments, this is already possible under existing legislation without specific amendment to the Bill. Amendment No. 12 would provide that an increase payable in respect of an adult dependant would, at the request of the adult dependant, be payable directly to them. Under existing legislative provisions payment may be made directly to an adult dependant where the circumstances so warrant. These are known as separate payments. These provisions are used in cases of difficult family circumstances which generally involve situations where the claimant is not using the benefit or allowance to support the dependant.
Where the adult dependant is living with the claimant, they can receive half the married rate of payment, that is, half the personal rate plus the increase for the adult dependant. They also receive the full increases for children. These provisions, where applied, are more favourable than those provided for in amendment No. 12. That is the important factor in relation to that item. I appreciate the Senator's genuine concern but there is provision for the matter and it has been used on countless occasions by recipients of social welfare benefits, particularly in recent times.
In other situations where the adult dependant is not living with the claimant they may receive the adult dependant increase and the full increases for any dependant children. These provisions are more favourable than those provided for in the amendment.
The existing situation is better and more favourable from the point of view of the dependant than those provided for in the amendment by way of specific legislation. There is also provision at present for a certain amount of discretion and each individual case examined will receive greater consideration than if there was a global legislative proposal which does not have regard to the individual case.
I am aware provisions exist but they are at the behest of the Department. The Department may, if it so desires——
At the request of the recipient.
Yes. This amendment would ensure that if a request was made it would be payable. At present it may be payable at their request.
References to the words "may" and "shall" have bedevilled debates here and in the Dáil over the years. There are reasons, which I will not go into now, for the use of the word "may" in this case. At the request of a dependant the Department may or may not consent depending on the reason for the request in the first instance. The legislation is adequate at present. I take on board the Senator's point but the existing legislation is better from the point of view of protecting the dependant's rights than the proposal in the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 10 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
"11.—In all circumstances where a person is entitled to a social welfare payment on the basis of a marriage which has been dissolved, being a dissolution that is recognised as valid in the State, such payment shall be called a ‘special maintenance payment'.".
Unfortunately, I have no option but to oppose this amendment. First, the text is defective in that it refers to a person "entitled to a social welfare payment on the basis of a marriage which has been dissolved". There are no provisions in the Bill which entitle a person to payment on the basis of a marriage which has been dissolved. In this respect, the text is defective.
Furthermore, I am advised that even if the deficiency in the text was rectified, it is likely that the amendment would necessitate certain consequential amendments to other provisions of the Social Welfare Acts. These would include section 209 which deals with overlapping provisions under which, as a general rule, a person is not entitled to receive more than one social welfare payment at the same time. Members will be aware of this in relation to qualification for other social welfare benefits. This amendment would have a knockon effect on other unrelated social welfare payments.
Amendments to sections 30 and 118 of the Principal Act, which describe social insurance payments, would also have to be considered. That would mean major social welfare legislation which would be unacceptable. In effect, the nature of the amendment is such that it would be necessary to undertake a comprehensive examination of the Social Welfare Acts and regulations to identify all of the required consequential changes. For these reasons, I will be opposing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 14 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On behalf of this side of the House, it is always a pleasure when the Minister of State comes here to explain legislation because his knowledge of the social welfare code is without question. I thank him for his courtesy as every point we put forward received a detailed answer. Social welfare legislation is becoming like the "Rocky" or "Batman" films in that we will tune in next month for the Social Welfare (No. 3) Bill. We look forward to it with anticipation, just as we look forward to "Rocky VII".
I thank and congratulate the Members of both Houses who contributed to the Bill. A great number of amendments were proposed, many of which we could not accept. However, they all stemmed from a genuine concern for people who have to depend on social welfare payments. As the Minister and I have indicated on many occasions, a very considerable number of people are dependent on social welfare payments. Consequently, the manner and method by which we process social welfare legislation is very important.
I congratulate the Minister on steering this Bill through the Houses. I am very glad that it passed as it is important that we deal with these practical measures in a sensible way. I wish to explain why I voted with the Government on this occasion.
A number of years ago, on a similar occasion, I had lunch with my colleague, the then Senator John A. Murphy. We decided that we would nominate a Member from the Independent benches for the position of Cathaoirleach in order to cause an election, although we knew we would not get our way. It was with some surprise, having made a very flowery speech on behalf of Senator Murphy extolling his virtues, that I sat and listened to him say that he wished to disassociate himself from this empty and futile political gesture.
I remember it well.
He had not made this view clear to me over lunch.
I hope the Senator had not imbibed too much.
The amendment on which I voted with the Government is a very good, sensible and practical one. I understand that the Government has given indications that it will introduce this measure in a fairly short space of time. To have defeated the Government at this point in the session on such an issue — which would have simply held up the operation of the Bill and caused unnecessary problems — would have been counterproductive. I voted with the Government simply not to impede the progress of important legislation and in the light of the Minister of State's commitment, to which I have no doubt this House will keep him.
Question put and agreed to.