Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Apr 1996

Vol. 146 No. 20

Social Welfare Bill, 1996: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Kelleher

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 20, after "1993" to insert "and ' qualified persons' shall be substituted for any references therein to 'adult dependant"'.

The purpose of this amendment is to delete "adult dependant" and replace it with "qualified persons". Derogatory phrases, such as calling adults dependants, are sometimes used in social welfare legislation. This amendment has been welcomed by many bodies, including the Second Commission on the Status of Women, which stated that this issue must be immediately addressed. Many people do not like being called adult dependants. The Minister should consider this amendment because its thrust was welcomed in the other House.

We were given a commitment some time ago that this would be resolved and that from here on in the words "adult dependant" would not be included in social welfare legislation. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment which would delete this derogatory term.

Ms Honan

I support Senator Kelleher's amendment. As a member of the Commission on the Status of Women which made the recommendation that we move away from the term "dependant" and change it to "qualified partner", I believe is its a worthwhile amendment. The Government accepted the recommendations of the commission and this is one which would not cost anything to implement. I urge the Minister to accept Senator Kelleher's amendment.

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Mr. Durkan)

I note the sincerity with which the amendment has been tabled and supported. I recognise that the term "adult dependant" would serve only to reinforce the notion of the dependency of women, in particular, and that it should be replaced. I support the principle of the amendment proposed by Senator Kelleher. However, accepting the amendment at this point will create difficulties because we have a deadline within which we must pass this legislation. It may be possible to look again at this later in the year, but it is not practical to do so now. I noted the points raised which will be borne in mind.

Mr. Kelleher

This issue has been discussed on many occasions, including debates on social welfare legislation. The Minister and the Department are fully aware of the concern of those who are called "adult dependants". This issue was raised last year and it is something on which the Commission on the Status of Women has been very forceful. I do not understand why we must wait for another six or 12 months before the words "qualified person" is inserted in place of "adult dependant". It was stated last year — if I remember correctly — that this would be looked at and that something would be done. This is a positive amendment which would remove a derogatory term from the legislation.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Daly

I am not sure if what I wish to raise applies in this instance, although benefits, including disablement benefit, are covered by this section. I want to ask the Minister about appeals. A number of cases have arisen where disability benefit has been paid with disablement benefit and it appears there are two separate mechanisms for appeal. While a person may appeal a disability claim, it does not follow that the disablement claim would be under appeal at the same time. This has led to confusion, delay and dissatisfaction among claimants who believe it should be possible for the same medical referee to determine both claims. These matters are covered by this section and it would be desirable if we could get some clarification from the Minister of State as to whether that can be remedied. Where somebody is appealing a medical referee's examination for disability benefit, and the other payment is affected, it should be possible to have both examinations conducted on the same date, in the same location and by the same referee, rather than on separate dates and by different referees.

Mr. Durkan

The Senator raises an interesting and valid point in administration terms. As far as I can recall a medical examination relating to, for instance, an invalidity pension review or disability review can be done on the same day and the same examination referred to both files. As regards the degree of disability which will determine the amount of disablement pension or benefit payable, it is a little more intricate and has engaged my interest for a number of years, long before I had any responsibility for it in the Department.

The Senator's suggestion could complicate the administration of invalidity and disability decisions. The three applications could arise at the same time and an examination might be deemed to cover three separate files. It could cause difficulty and would certainly cause a slight delay because the determination of the degree of disablement can be a lengthy process. It is usually the most involved payment and is subject to regular reviews in some cases and not so regular reviews in those cases where it is deemed that the condition of the person is unlikely to change.

We will note the point raised by the Senator and see to what extent it could be applied in the interest of efficiency of administration.

Mr. Daly

I appreciate the comments of the Minister of State. If he could give us some indication that he might examine it as a matter of some urgency, I would be satisfied. The Minister of State might agree that at times it appears administration takes precedence over the individual who has a grievance or a claim. This should be eliminated as far as it is possible. I acknowledge that the Minister and Minister of State have made some progressive moves towards putting the customer, as they now describe claimants, into the important position.

One can find variations in the percentage of disablement. The claimant could be told by one referee that he should go back to work and by another that he is unfit for work. The system seems to be in need of some administrative reorganisation. The Minister of State might pay some attention to this because it would be in the best interest of the people involved that the scheme would be streamlined to make it favourable towards the person who has the grievance or difficulty rather than towards administration.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cregan

For many years I have mentioned the difference of eight days between the payments on 5 June and 13 June. In some instances people receive back payments while others are paid well before 13 June. I have always asked why the payments cannot be made together. If one is paid on 5 June, the rest should be paid on 6 June, 2 June or 3 June. The answer I have been given over the years is that some receive back payments while others are paid an allowance.

Section 4 uses the term "lone parent's allowance"— a matter raised on Second Stage. Why is the term "deserted wife's benefit" still used? It is agreed generally that matters should be simplified — it is something I have called for over many years. However, the term "deserted wife's benefit" appears in section 3 and 4.

Mr. Mullooly

I also wish to raise the issue of the discrepancies in the payment dates set out in section 4. On Second Stage the Minister of State said section 4 also provides for the special increases of £5 per week in the carer's allowance and the new living alone allowance of £6 per week. Will he indicate the current rate of payment of the living alone allowance? Is it an extension of the allowance provided for in this section?

Mr. Durkan

The living alone allowance was £4.80 and not £5 as I thought. The new allowance is as indicated. It is not a huge increase in monetary terms but in percentage terms it is quite considerable. Members may say the percentage is not important in such situations, but it accumulates over the years and is a clear indication of the Government's intent with regard to such payments. One must keep in mind that a combination increase on ancillary payments such as this attaching to a direct major payment, will have the cumulative effect of greatly enhancing the quality of the full social welfare payment.

Senator Cregan questioned the dates in section 4. The reason for this is that some payments are made in arrears and some are made currently. It is not possible to arrange it so that they coincide because of the nature of the payments. It may sometimes be beneficial to have a single operation date for everything but it causes other administrative problems. A series of operation dates allows the burden of change to be spread over a number of days. The Senator referred to a number of dates — they relate to different payments. It has been found necessary to have the dates staggered.

Mr. Cregan

I do not agree. The first payment date indicated is 5 June and the latest is 14 June — a difference of nine days. The payments to be made on 14 June could be paid on 7 June and still remain within the structure of the section. If the Minister says it cannot be done, why are there nine days between them, from 5 to 14 June? If he could clarify that I would be happy.

Mr. Durkan

Section 4 states:

(2) This section shall come into operation—

(a) in so far as it relates to unemployment assistance, on the 5th day of June, 1996,

(b) in so far as it relates to supplementary welfare allowance, on the 10th day of June, 1996,

(c) in so far as it relates to pre-retirement allowance, deserted wife's allowance, prisoner's wife's allowance, lone parent's allowance . . . on the 13th day of June, 1996, and

(d) in so far as it relates to old age (non-contributory pension) . . . on the 14th day of June, 1996.

Mr. Cregan

Why does it not come into operation on 7 June?

Mr. Durkan

Over the years I have found that if an increase is announced for a particular date, people who have other qualifications will inquire when they receive their increase. It can be disconcerting but it has the beneficial effect of alerting people to an entitlement. Bringing them all into operation on the same day could have benefits in that it might eliminate those inquiries but, on the other hand, it might not. The point is to separate the categories. When one considers that 1.5 million people are in receipt of payments from the Department of Social Welfare, one realises that a single operational date might be ideal for some cases but, with the best will in the world, it might not be possible to achieve it.

Mr. Cregan

I agree in theory but not in practice. Section 4 (2) (a) means that people on unemployment assistance get their increase on 5 June, nine days before those who get "old age (non-contributory) pensions, blind pensions, widow's (non-contributory) pensions, lone parent's allowance payable in respect of a widow or widower and orphan's (non-contributory) pension".

An Cathaoirleach

We have already covered that ground, Senator.

Mr. Cregan

How can we explain to these people why they get their increase nine days after a person on unemployment assistance? Why can they not get it on 7 June? This is not a complicated point. I am asking the Department why consideration is not being given to paying the increase on 7 June to those covered by section 4 (2) (d), who may be more in need of it. I would appreciate an answer.

An Cathaoirleach

I think the Minister endeavoured to answer your question, Senator.

Mr. Durkan

I think I did. It would be an even greater amount of money——

Mr. Cregan

I know.

Mr. Durkan

——because old age pensions are paid in advance, so if the payment was brought forward they would receive an extra week, which would be interesting.

Mr. Cregan

That is the contributory pension.

Mr. Durkan

Some payments, such as disability or sick benefit, are made in arrears, because sick certificates must be submitted and the first three days are discounted. If the payment is in arrears, it follows that there will be a slight difference in the operation date applicable in such cases and the date applicable for a benefit or pension payable in advance. The reason is that one has already qualified for the payment in advance and will remain so for the foreseeable future. In those cases, it would be of no great benefit — the only effect of bringing the operation date forward would be to give an increase not provided for in the budget. We would be automatically bringing the payment date forward and it would cost more money.

Mr. Daly

I support Senator Cregan. This matter was discussed at length last year and we received an undertaking from the Minister that it might be rationalised. It seems unusual that different dates apply to payment increases in different categories.

Living alone allowance is payable at 66 years of age. It was my understanding that the age limit would be reduced to 65 years and progressively reduced thereafter. Could the Minister of State inform us whether this will be done and what would be the additional cost involved? A substantial number of people are debarred from the scheme due to the existing age limit.

Mr. Durkan

The Senator raised a valid point which has been considered by successive Ministers for Social Welfare. The original intention was that the qualification threshold of 66 years of age would be reduced. This measure was heralded ten to 15 years ago and it was presumed that the age limit would gradually be reduced to 60 years of age. However, for reasons of which the Senator will be aware from his time as Minister for Social Welfare, this did not happen. The basic considerations which militated against the change were financial. I do not recall what would be the precise cost for a reduction of one year in the age limit.

With regard to the section, the point raised by the Senator and a number of other elements of the social welfare package, a total bill of £4.4 billion for social welfare services in any particular year means that barbs or snags will appear. In the past traps developed in the social welfare system, some of which were addressed by last year's Social Welfare Bills and some of which will be addressed by this and future Bills. The Senator correctly identified a problem relating to living alone allowance which can be included in future considerations. The fact the reduction has not occurred is not because someone decided that no action should be taken. It is an aspiration, but aspirations are not always the material on which we can rely.

Mr. Daly

It would be desirable to return to the philosophy that existed in the past to systematically reduce the age limit. The Minister of State is aware that pensioners living alone represent a vulnerable section of the community. I will not enter a debate about attacks on people living alone or similar controversies, but the Minister of State is aware that many pensioners live alone in isolated areas. Any additional support to such people would be very welcome. I impress upon the Minister of State the desirability to continue to support elderly people living alone in isolated areas. We should not lose sight of that fact when preparing future provisions for pensioners.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Kelleher

I welcome the increase in payments from £200 to £500 in respect of twins.

Mr. Cregan

And triplets.

Mr. Kelleher

What is the position regarding triplets and multiple births? The conclusion must be drawn that, if it is expensive to raise twins, it must be more expensive to raise triplets. Parents of triplets incur extra costs because their health might be more delicate than that of twins or single births. What provision is there for multiple births?

Mr. Durkan

I am delighted to note that the Senator welcomes this section; it is a very promising indication. Triplets are also provided for. They get double payments for the duration and that also applies, as far as I am aware, to other multiple births. The reason for the special payment in respect of twins is the extra costs likely to be incurred when they are at school. That section has been highly acclaimed by parents who find themselves in that situation. Only those who have had to deal with the situation readily recognise the need for this provision. I note the Senator's welcome for it and I hope his comments will continue in the same positive vein.

Mr. Kelleher

On page 7 members of the Defence Forces or civil servants in the Civil Service of the Government or the State are mentioned. Where does that leave members of the Garda Síochána who are serving overseas? There is no mention of them.

Mr. Daly

Those members of the Garda who will be allowed to stay overseas.

Mr. Kelleher

I refer to those who have not been brought back for making inappropriate comments. This section specifically mentions the Defence Forces or civil servants in the Civil Service of the Government — I presume this would cover personnel in embassies and so on. Why have members of the Garda Síochána not been included? Do they qualify under this section? This is important as there has been an increase in the number of gardaí taking part in overseas activities over the last number of years, and in peace-keeping activities in particular. Why has the Garda Síochána not been specifically mentioned in this section?

Mr. Durkan

The Garda Síochána is not mentioned in the section but I presume the use of the phrase "Defence Forces" applies to the Garda. I note that the Garda Síochána is not mentioned specifically but it mentions Defence Forces or a civil servant in the Civil Service of the State. The reference I have just read covers that category.

Mr. Kelleher

Is the fact that the Garda Síochána comes under the auspices of the Department of Justice as opposed to the Defence Forces which are the responsibility of the Department of Defence sufficient for members of the Garda to qualify under this section?

Mr. Durkan

I presume that is the case because they are serving overseas in the same way that the Defence Forces are serving overseas. I am not aware of anything which deprives gardaí in that situation.

Mr. Kelleher

Would it not have been as easy to state that in this legislation to ensure that there would be no confusion? My understanding is that the Defence Forces are separate from the Garda Síochána. I need more clarity on this.

Mr. Durkan

I have a feeling, from past experience, that it may well have been established as accepted practice that gardaí are included under that heading when they are overseas. There is some technical reason that I cannot recall off hand. It would make it much simpler to state their entitlement but it does not in any way change the entitlement of those who are currently entitled and who will be entitled in the future. There is no change in this case.

Mr. Kelleher

Even so, I reserve the right to propose an amendment on this on Report Stage.

Mr. Daly

I am certain that if gardaí were not entitled under this section, the Garda representative body would have made its views known long before now. However, it would be important to clarify it very definitely one way or the other, otherwise there would be an anomaly which should be dealt with.

The Defence Forces have a very detailed set of arrangements in place for personnel serving overseas because of the long period of service of the Defence Forces overseas, going back to 1953 or thereabouts. They negotiated a number of concessions, including concessions relating to making telephone calls home. The main emphasis at the start of our peace-keeping operations was on the Defence Forces as distinct from the Garda. Only in recent times has the Garda become involved in some of the peace-keeping missions in former Yugoslavia, Cyprus and elsewhere. We need to be more definite about this and we would like to be certain that they are covered fully in the legislation.

Perhaps the Minister would ask his colleague, the Minister for Defence, to make arrangements to allow that garda continue his service in Cyprus, and not to be vindictive about the incident.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cregan

The family income supplement was introduced some years ago. This very welcome payment is made to the families of low paid workers on the Friday after wage earners' pay day. I have always made the argument that the payment should be made directly to the person who is working rather than the person who collects it on the Friday in the post office. It is an unnecessary embarrassment to ask the person in receipt of FIS to collect it from the post office. Why can the family income supplement not be paid to the wage earner with his or her wage cheque instead of paying it separately at greater cost to the State?

I welcome the increases. For many years we had to advertise the family income supplement because low paid workers were not aware of it, but now I understand that much more money is paid out and more people are staying at work because of the family income supplement. What amount was paid out for 1994-95? Is the supplement more effective now? What comparisons can be made between the payments made in 1991-2 and 1992-3? The idea of looking after the lower paid was put forward more in this House than in the other. Could we look at the idea of giving it directly to the employee rather than asking the other partner to collect it at the post office?

Mr. Durkan

The concept of the payment of FIS is to acknowledge the existence of the person at work and to add a bonus, as it were, in the case of those who are in the lower paid bracket. To make the payment in a different way might make it seem to be a payment separate in itself. I am not so sure that we are looking at that concept here. The criticism at the time was that there were not enough incentives for people to remain in low paid employment because it was more beneficial for them to be unemployed and in receipt of a direct payment, which is what the Senator said. If we move in that direction, theoretically there is a danger the element of incentive and the reward for the person being at work may well be removed to a certain extent. This would not be beneficial to what is being attempted, that is, the recognition that there is a system in place for the person who has work to go to which may not be as highly paid as they would wish and that a certain scale has been laid down whereby a payment is topped up after they have worked. It is a reward for the effort and it is a good way to have it. It is useful to the person to recognise that when they have been at work for the week, there is reward at the end of the week, albeit a day late and in arrears but it is there. It is positive and constructive.

This addresses a situation in respect of which the Department of Social Welfare has long been criticised. There are always those who if they are not themselves directly affected, unemployed or in receipt of a social welfare payment, will be critical and say that such people are too well paid and it is more attractive to be unemployed. In fact, the FIS payment is the answer to all those allegations. It sets out simply a system and scale which is clearly identifiable whereby the individual can go to work in the clear and firm knowledge that at the end of the week they will be well into the average industrial wage as a result of the availability of FIS.

The scheme was introduced in 1984. It was an innovative scheme at the time and we must be grateful to the then Government for introducing it. In 1984, 1,424 families benefited from FIS; in 1985, 4,664; in 1986, 4,979; in 1987, 5,532; in 1988, 5,159; in 1989, 6,066; in 1990, 6,569; in 1991, 7,157; in 1992, 7,735; in 1993, 9,605; in 1994, 10,671 and in 1995, 11,398. Based on last year's performance, we can well assume that at the end of this year more than 12,000 families will benefit from FIS. That is a positive and clear indication of what the scheme is about. Consequently, the number of families which benefit from it and the actual economic impact of supporting the concept of those families who are at work is another clear indication of the commitment of both previous Governments and the present Government to that concept which is generally recognised as being fundamental to dealing with our social welfare budget. The 1996 estimate for family income supplement is £25 million.

Mr. Daly

I could make the case that families are getting progressively worse off. In a situation where we should be improving the income position of low paid people, it seems now that the State is increasing the provision of additional money by way of this fund. Perhaps it is time to examine income tax provisions so that it might be possible to reduce the amounts which are being paid through a more favourable tax regime for lower paid workers. This is an issue with which the Labour Party would agree.

There seems to be little planning in the Department on this area. It seems as if they have continued operating the scheme since it was introduced in 1984. The uptake was poor in the first years because the system was so complex that trying to work out how someone would get money from this fund was like trying to read hieroglyphics.

The main point I want to raise relates to the unavailability of the family income supplement to small farmers and farmers who are in receipt of unemployment assistance. The Minister of State will be aware that we have consistently made the case here that the FIS should be available not broadly to the entire farming community but to the farming community who are in receipt of a supplement already by way of small farmers assistance. This might save the Exchequer money in some respects. A reorganisation and rationalisation of the small farmers supplement and FIS would improve the income position of many small farmers and would be beneficial to many of them who are experiencing grave difficulties at present.

The Minister of State will also be aware that many of the small farmers in this category would be small producers of store cattle whose income is severely damaged at present. It was always the intention since the scheme was introduced in 1984 that as the economic situation became more stable, it would be possible to broaden the scope of FIS to include those on low incomes. The Minister could tie it down further by providing it only in severely disadvantaged areas. I am not suggesting he open the floodgates here with the payment of FIS to the farming community but I urge strongly the examination of the possibility of extending FIS to small farmers who are in receipt of unemployment assistance in severely disadvantaged areas or whose main income is derived from the production of store cattle. These small farmers are hard pressed, fearful of their future and find it difficult to survive at present, especially in disadvantaged areas. We raised this issue last year and the year before but there has been no movement. Perhaps the Minister will give some indication of a wish to include in the scheme these categories of farmers, who are the backbone of the farming community and who are hard pressed at present.

Mr. Cregan

I am delighted to hear that the numbers of families who benefit from FIS has risen from 4,000 to 12,000. If we had not introduced this scheme in 1984, these people might not be working at all and might be drawing from the State directly. In saying that, I do not disagree with what Senator Daly has said. Irrespective of whether they are self-employed, small farmers or otherwise, I presume the section is relevant to everybody. That is as it should be and there is no reason for it not being so.

Mr. Daly

They are excluded.

Mr. Cregan

I do not understand that, especially when we are talking about the Social Welfare Bill. Again, I made the point on Second Stage that the emphasis was being placed, on the one hand, on taking PAYE and PRSI from low paid workers while, on the other, the State is paying out £20 million to the 12,000 who are working. People ask me "Why can't we have a better system"? Why do we not have a better system? There must be more cohesion between the Department of Finance and the Department of Social Welfare.

I know that other Ministers are slowly tying in the tax and social welfare systems. We should not be afraid of that because it is exactly what will happen anyway in future. That is what is happening in France at present because of the upheavals in its social welfare and tax systems. Families benefiting from supplementary benefits for lower category workers have increased on average from 4,000 over a ten year period to 13,000. Although £20 million is being paid out to assist these people, it is money well spent. We talked about spending £37 million to defend 300 jobs on the Irish Steel Bill a week ago. Should PAYE and PRSI be regarded as the same? Of course they should. However, people say that while a person makes a contribution on one side, they are paying tax on the other and there is no reason why some of the taxes paid cannot be used to pay one's insurance benefit contributions, but only one payment should be taken from every person.

Some sections of this Bill will enable the better off in our society to pay less PRSI after their first £26,000 earned. However, a person earning £9,000 will keep paying it. We will then have to spend £20 million on the less well off. However, this is more a matter for the Finance Bill. The Department of Social Welfare spends £4.4 billion, which is second only to the Department of Education. However, the Department does not have the right to do it in the way it wants.

I was one of those who pushed for the implementation of supplementary benefits to less well off workers and we got it through. We also promoted and advertised it to ensure that every person who was not being paid enough by their employer would be informed about their benefits. For many years only 4,000 families benefited from this supplement. That figure increased minimally every year and now 12,000 families will benefit. While those workers would earn less money than if they were unemployed, they would get supplementary benefit if this measure was promoted properly.

While the Minister is to be congratulated, there are areas which must be examined. Are there ways in which we can ensure a person who is not getting enough money from working could get more directly? Why should we take PRSI and PAYE from a person on the one hand and give it back to his wife by way of a supplementary benefit? This is an insult to that family.

Mr. Durkan

In 1995, 11,398 families, and up to 50,000 individuals, could benefit from the family income supplement. The £25 million spent in 1996 is money well targeted.

This is Government policy and is also what has been called for by all parties that recognise the necessity to encourage people who have the opportunity to work, albeit not as highly paid as they would have liked, to do so and put them on a par with other workers. It is a family payment which recognises its special needs. Otherwise there would be a serious disincentive for a person to work, particularly one with a large family, because of the overheads involved. It will cost money for a person to travel to work and this measure recognises that.

For example, the qualifying income limits have increased this year from £185 to £195 for families with one child. All smallholders qualify for UA, depending on their income.

Mr. Daly

Not in this measure.

Mr. Durkan

That is correct, but if this was applied, only those families with children could qualify. Smallholders with no children would be excluded.

When I was in Opposition I always believed that incentives by way of payments rather than appearing to encourage people not to improve the output of their smallholding would be better. If this measure is introduced to this area under the FIS scheme, it may cause problems in other areas. Other self-employed people might also appear to qualify and it could then not be confined entirely to smallholders alone.

Family income supplement thresholds will increase from £205 to £215 for a family with two children, £225 to £235 for a family with three children, £245 to £255 for a family with four children, £270 to £280 for a family with five children, £290 to £300 for a family with six children, £307 to £317 for a family with seven children and £324 to £334 for a family with eight or more children. While this may be a large family, this increase recognises the fact that it can earn a gross figure of £334 per week and still qualify. This will give them that extra motivation to remain at work if they are already there or to find work if they are not. These payments are well targeted and recognise the need to protect people in lower paid employment and give them the incentive to remain in or seek work.

We should address ourselves to the issue — people have reproached every Government about this for the past ten years — that no incentives exist for people who want to work and that it would be much better for them to remain unemployed. Others will say that social welfare payments to unemployed people are not nearly high enough. There is a balance between these views and we must find it. We are doing this. In fairness to previous officeholders in the Department of Social Welfare, it has always been done. This measure is a recognition by the Department of the need to target certain sectors in the community at vulnerable times. The planning sector of the Department is conscious of those needs and is responding to them on an ongoing basis.

The family income supplement, as constituted, is one of the most positive payments available. The £25 million spent on that area in this year's budget can benefit up to 50,000 people by one means or another and thereby constitutes a sizeable input into the homes of those families. The figure of 12,000 mentioned are families; the individuals contained therein constitute a much wider group.

Mr. Daly

Can the Minister of State indicate the number of small farm families in receipt of small farmers' assistance? Would it be an enormous burden on the State if the family income supplement was extended to small family farms which are already in receipt of some form of assistance to supplement their incomes? The Minister of State will be aware that these people are on very low incomes which are below the national average in any category. It was always felt desirable that the assistance would be paid to supplement their incomes. Rather than being seen as assistance it was always seen as a family income supplement.

In areas where small farmers assistance was paid the bulk of the money was used to increase production. A survey of east Clare found that most if not all the money paid to farmers under the small farms assistance scheme was used to improve conditions on the farm and to increase production. It may not be very popular to increase farm production at present but it is important to preserve the small, low income family farm.

It would not be an enormous burden if the Minister of State were to extend the family income supplement to small farm families qualifying within the same framework. It would be of enormous benefit in helping them to stay on the land and to maintain their families in decent conditions. It would not break the State to do that.

Mr. Durkan

I am not in disagreement with the points raised by the Senator. Over the last 12 months in my capacity as Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, I have travelled to various locations throughout the country where people are dependent on such payments. In such remote areas people rear their families in difficult circumstances that would not normally prevail in an urban environment, and that is being recognised under the small holder's allowance.

The question at issue is whether the family income supplement could be applied to their case. It could have implications outside and beyond the family heading in the budget. To address the problem raised by the Senator, one would have to consider introducing a differently named payment specifically targeting that essential area.

Some 10,000 small holders are in receipt of small holder's unemployment assistance, but that number is not nearly as great as some people would have you believe, in fact, it is quite small and there are 5,600 adult dependants and 14,500 child dependants on the full rate and 2,000 on the half rate. The total number of beneficiaries of unemployment assistance under that heading is 32,100. If you apply that to the other graph the figure of 50,000 that I mentioned would probably be a bit high. In the region of 44,000 people are beneficiaries under the FIS on foot of that £25 million.

I do not disagree with the point raised by the Senator but it would be difficult to apply the family income supplement in lieu of small holder's unemployment assistance because of other implications outside that area. We will bear in mind, however, what the Senator has said and if it transpires that some other means can be found to deal with it, there will be no difficulty with that.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Kelleher

I move amendment No 2:

In page 8, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

"7.—(1) The recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare in relation to a common basic payment or minimally adequate payment shall be recognised as the official poverty line.

(2) The official poverty line rate shall be established at:

(a) for a single adult, £50 per week at 1985 prices,

(b) for a married couple, 1.6 times the weekly rate for a single person at 1985 prices,

(c) for each child under the age of 18 years, £10 per week at 1985 prices.

(3) The official poverty line rate shall be indexed annually in line with the Consumer Price Index."

Opposition amendments are often described as obstructive but this one would set in stone the Commission on Social Welfare's recommendations and would put into effect an official poverty line. This would assist the Government and civil servants in the Department of Social Welfare to work towards the advancement of social cohesion. It would ensure that everyone is eventually moved above the official poverty line.

After the announcement of Social Welfare Bills we often slap ourselves on the back and believe that we have done a great day's work. We talk about being slightly ahead of inflation, but many people are living well below the poverty line suggested as a minimum by the Commission on Social Welfare. This is a worthwhile amendment and I see no reason it cannot be accepted. It does not place a burden on the Exchequer but puts into effect the aims of the Department of Social Welfare.

The amendment provides that the official poverty line shall be established at £50 per week at 1985 prices for a single adult, and 1.6 times the weekly rate for a single person at 1985 prices for a married couple. It further provides that the official poverty line shall be established at £10 per week at 1985 prices for each child under the age of 18 years. It would also provide for the official poverty line rate to be linked to the consumer price index.

These rates were recommended in 1985 by the Commission on Social Welfare when it was asked to report to the Government. If we accept this amendment we will put into the legislation what the Department of Social Welfare and the Government are trying to do. For far too long we have failed to recognise that many people are living on or below the poverty line. This amendment would establish an official poverty line by which to gauge whether our social welfare system is achieving anything.

I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendment. It would have a positive effect in assisting the Government as well as officials in the Departments of Social Welfare and Finance to come up with a strategic plan to ensure that after the passage of the Social Welfare Bill and Finance Bill each year fewer people would be living on or below the official poverty line. I cannot see any reason this amendment cannot be accepted. The official reports of the Seanad and the Dáil over the years reveal that various Members who are now on the Government side, but who were then in Opposition, have called for this type of amendment. I move the amendment to be of assistance to the Minister of State. I am sure this provision was omitted by accident and I hope the amendment will be accepted in good faith.

Mr. Durkan

I am not as pessimistic as the Senator about the levels of payment and the distance we have travelled since 1986. It is not true to say that we are below the poverty line on all levels. The rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare in 1986 in relation to a number of payments have now exceeded 100 per cent, and in two cases they have exceeded to the extent of 110 per cent.

In 1985 the old age contributory pension was £103 and over the recommended optimum payment; in 1995 it was 109 per cent above and in 1996 it stands at 110 per cent. A number of other payments have risen right across the board. Disability benefit has ranged from 79 per cent in 1985 to 94 per cent in 1995 and 95 per cent in 1996, that is, 5 per cent under the recommended guidelines, and there are a number of similar cases.

It is not true to say that we are way behind other countries and that a large number of people are below the poverty line. Looking at the main payment, it may be that, in some cases, we have not reached the recommended level of payment but we are within 2, 3 or 5 per cent of it. It is also true that the ancillary benefits applicable alongside many of these payments put our social welfare payments on par with most such payments throughout Europe. We are not at the top of the league but we are far from the bottom. While not claiming total responsibility for being in that position we claim responsibility for the increases made last year and this year.

Mr. Daly

The Minister is slowing down the rate of increase.

Mr. Durkan

The Minister and I are in absolute agreement about the increases made in both years. They were not necessarily as high as those sought by the Opposition, but having been a Member of the Opposition for many years, I appreciate its anxiety to speed up the system and reach targets more quickly. However, our rates of payments are on a par with most others and it would be wrong and misleading to give the impression that we are deficient in addressing the problems.

It is ten years since the Commission on Social Welfare published its report and the rates of payment it recommended are obviously out of date now. However, they are being updated in line with inflation on an annual basis. In view of the extent to which these rates are out of date, the Government's policy agreement of December 1994A Government for Renewal contains a commitment to commission the Economic and Social Research Institute to review the minimum adequate income rates recommended by the commission in 1986. The ESRI review is already underway and will be completed in July 1996. This review will put forward new rates and provide an updated, objective basis for assessing the adequacy of the current rates of social welfare payments. It will also examine how the proposed rates could be indexed in future years. It would be inappropriate to use rates set by the commission ten years ago as an official poverty line as this would pre-empt the review being undertaken by the ESRI.

The general increase in the rates of payment provided for in this Bill will mean that contributory old age pensions will increase to 110 per cent of the main rate recommended by the commission, widows and widowers contributory pension will reach the main rate, the carers allowance will reach 99 per cent and all long-term social assistance payments will increase to 95 per cent of the main rate.

A balance must be achieved. We must ensure that we meet the requirements of those who are dependent on the different payments. That is the predominant objective of Members on all sides of the House. However, we must also keep an eye on the availability of resources to meet those requirements while ensuring that payments are targeted at specific groups so that they will have maximum impact and not be frittered away. Within those parameters a great deal of work is being done. I pay tribute to the officials in the Department of Social Welfare for the scientific way they have approached this issue over the years.

Apart from the extent to which the rates recommended by the commission are out of date, it should be remembered that any given level of income deemed to be an inadequate rate of payment for social welfare purposes is not necessarily an appropriate measure of poverty. It is now accepted nationally and at EU level that other factors in addition to income should be taken into account in determining what is an appropriate definition of poverty in any society at any given point in time. At a broad level these factors relate to a person's ability to participate in society. For this reason I do not favour the term "official poverty line" or the use of such measures which do not take factors other than income into account when identifying the extent of poverty and social exclusion.

There was a time when poverty was determined by whether the unfortunate individual had enough to eat. There are other aspects of exclusion and deprivation from the mainstream quality of life which are in themselves a type of poverty, although "poverty" is not the correct description. They can be caused by a person's lack of adequate housing, by being disabled or by being unemployed. Any one of these would be a serious obstacle to a person achieving a high quality of life and standard of living. A combination of all three, which affects many people, is obviously a very serious impediment to their enjoyment of a good quality of life. It is for that reason that the emphasis is being changed.

Payments are important, but how they and other benefits are targeted is equally important in addressing the problems of exclusion and marginalisation. The combination of payments and other measures to address such problems is the key factor and everybody agrees that is how they should be tackled. If one were to apply the traditional concept of poverty many people would be left out and over a number of years the problem would multiply and deteriorate.

I note the points raised by the Senator. A comprehensive examination of the spectrum of social welfare and the need for it is the most appropriate answer.

Mr. Cregan

Senator Kelleher is right in saying that for many years, when we were on the other side of the House, we put the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare before the relevant Minister. The Minister of State has given a similar answer to the answers we received. I welcome the fact that increases have gone beyond 100 per cent of the recommended rates for old age pensioners. The carers allowance is almost 100 per cent although it was only introduced a few years ago.

The ESRI report will be available later this year. I hope it will look at areas that are more relevant now than they were ten years ago or, indeed, 15 years ago when the discussion about poverty first began. The ESRI must examine whether the Department of Social Welfare is doing the right thing for people who do not receive a direct benefit — for example, people who must be means tested. Five thousand people between the ages of 18 and 21 have left home and moved to private accommodation. The price of that accommodation is supplemented by the Department of Health at a cost of £60 and £70 per week. These people are also getting full benefits because they are not in the family home. There is no way that 5,000 people should cost anything near the £60 per week or more by way of rent allowance. They also receive unemployment assistance and full benefits. The ESRI must see the problem in that area for the Department of Social Welfare.

We are not opening up the system by linking with the Department of Health and the Department of Finance and finding out what is the best way to spend moneys. I welcome the commitment in last year's budget to transfer the allocation of money for housing from the Department of Health to local authorities. That has not been implemented yet. The Department of the Environment and local government will handle this issue better. The ESRI report must be examined in regard to the number of people who cannot get benefits at home. Some 5,000 people between the ages of 18 and 21 fall into that category. How many people between the ages of 21 and 24 are still at home and could benefit if the Department of Social Welfare implemented it directly at less cost to the State? There are strict regulations in place. Unfortunately, we opened up avenues in the last section for supplementary benefits but we are closing them for people who are entitled to benefits. A rent allowance of £70 or £80 per week is given as a supplement to those who are entitled to their full benefits but who are not living at home. The ESRI must consider this issue.

Mr. Kelleher

I welcome the Minister's response.

Mr. Daly

The Minister is looking forward to the day when he is in Opposition again.

Mr. Kelleher

If what he said is correct, many people will crack open bottles of champagne when this Bill is passed. However, few people coming to my clinics or walking the streets of Cork North Central will do so. I tabled this amendment to ensure that payments under the official poverty line will be increased.

Mr. Cregan

Why did Fianna Fáil not introduce it in 1987 or 1992?

Mr. Kelleher

We do not have to reduce the payments which have reached 110 per cent. After every Social Welfare Bill is passed, the Government says it has given a 3 per cent increase in social welfare payments——

Mr. Cregan

That does not include child benefits.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I ask Senator Cregan to stop interrupting.

Mr. Kelleher

——and an increase in child benefits. However, many people do not have child dependants so they cannot avail of child benefits.

I cannot understand why we do not have a recommended official poverty line which would act as a guideline for Governments and Department officials. A situation could develop where Governments could target a large section of the community, while a smaller section would not be granted the same increases. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment so that the Government and Department officials will have a guideline to follow. It would also allow various bodies which represent those who depend on social welfare to gauge the Government's performance. Why must we hide behind publicity each year when the Social Welfare Bill is no different from that of any other year? I hope the Minister accepts this amendment, which is not a cost on the Exchequer.

Mr. Durkan

I hate to see Cork people disappointed, but it has happened after many Munster finals. I hope it does not happen too often in the future.

Mr. Cregan

Not against Kildare.

Mr. Durkan

The Senator is disappointed that people do not carry bottles of champagne to his clinics. Such activity should not be encouraged because it could give the wrong impression. While the Department does its best, it cannot always achieve a Utopian situation where people will bring bottles of champagne to Senator Kelleher's clinics.

Mr. Daly

Could they afford cider?

Mr. Durkan

Last year there was considerable criticism of the social welfare payments by some of the Senator's colleagues in the other House. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, was asked to resign — I presume that also applied to me — because we had not done enough for those who depended on social welfare payments. When we slightly improved the situation this year, some of the Senator's colleagues in the other House said that the Minister for Social Welfare had put excessive pressure on his colleagues to make huge payments which the country could not afford.

In the past few minutes the Senator made a proposal in relation to young people who leave home, which would cost a further £30 million. The Select Committee on Social Affairs dealt with that issue recently and it sent submissions to us. Other aspects of the problem require further consideration. In some cases the qualifying guidelines appear to make it more attractive for young people to leave home. I am aware of the money paid out in rent supplements as a result, which must be taken into account when considering the figure of £30 million.

Social habits are changing in this country. There is clear evidence to suggest that a number of young people want to leave home because they want their independence. That may not be good but it is happening throughout the world. It is not a good development because it removes the young person from a safe haven — the family home — and puts them into a world where they must fend for themselves. In most cases they are able to do so, but some people may not and they are more vulnerable. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to determine the costs. If the qualifying limit was removed and board and lodgings were not taken into consideration, there would be a considerable increase in the payments which would cost approximately £30 million.

Far from improving the situation for people who depend on payments from the system, the 1993 Social Welfare Bill abolished some payments.

Mr. Daly

The Minister is going back a long time.

Mr. Durkan

This morning on local radio I took part in a debate during which someone telephoned the studio to criticise the Department of Social Welfare for not reinstating pay related benefits. That is an example of where payments were reduced. I would hate to think what would have happened if any payment had been reduced in this section relating to rates. I am sure there would be a major upheaval and questions would be raised in the House and elsewhere. Far from unplugging bottles of champagne, serious issues would be raised with Members who did not bring bottles of champagne to clinics to treat their constituents.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 7 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 3 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Daly

This section applies to voluntary contributions by self-employed people, which I presume includes farmers. As far as I am aware, the minimum contribution last year was £230. Is it proposed to reduce that to £215?

Mr. Durkan

Yes.

Mr. Daly

Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on the purpose of the section. Will he tell us how many are contributing?

Mr. Durkan

There are 285 voluntary contributors who are formally self-employed. As Members will know, voluntary contributions paid by former self-employed contributors provide cover for old age contributory pensions and widow's and widower's contributory pensions.

Mr. Daly

This does not apply to the general body of contributors but only to the self-employed and farmers who contribute. Is that correct?

Mr. Durkan

Yes.

Mr. Daly

How many contribute?

Mr. Durkan

Not very many. In 1992-93 there were 360 voluntary contributors at the high rate which covers retirement, old age, widow's and orphan's pensions, deserted wife's benefit and the death grant; in 1993-94 some 490 were covered.

Mr. Daly

There must be a sizeable number who are not contributing and who will complain in a few years' time because they are not entitled to claim benefit. Has the Minister any plans to undertake a campaign to draw attention to the benefits available by way of contribution? When the family income supplement was not being taken up, the Government and the Minister of the day engaged in a publicity drive to encourage people to avail of the fund. This is a beneficial scheme which is not being widely availed of. It would be desirable if the Minister would undertake to bring this to the attention of the public because many will complain in a few years' time because they are not entitled to benefits.

Mr. Durkan

The Senator made a valid point. This is an Irish solution to an Irish problem in that we never seem to realise the necessity for a particular provision until it is imminently required. For that reason, we use every opportunity to encourage people to make provision of one kind or another. I take on board the point raised by the Senator.

There are 138,000 self-employed people. A number of them would make independent provision for themselves in respect of some payments. This is an ongoing worry which was dealt with on Second Stage and last year as well. To provide adequate provision and to identify the need in advance is something Departments are good at, but to get the public to respond accordingly and to make provision in accordance with the wishes of the Department may not be as easily done.

A number of people who do not have any provision, assets and so on, will qualify for non-contributory payments. It will be difficult to identify the number who do not have adequate provision and who will be in a twilight zone. I have found that the most difficult cases concern those who have had a high standard of living and a relatively valuable house but who did not make adequate provision until it was too late. These people can find themselves in a difficult situation. If they have savings — and people have — that militates against their entitlement to or possible qualification for non-contributory payments. It is a catch 22.

I hope the public and the private sector will combine so that the State can have an idea of the total number in a particular category. There are considerable benefits to be gained from co-operating with the private sector in making provision for that category. We are supposed to fear the year 2035 in terms of the number who will require payments, the number contributing to the system and the scope for increases. However, I believe people worry too much about it. I, like many others, heard this issue raised when I first came into this House. At one stage I was led to believe that within five to ten years we would have a serious situation on our hands and that we would not be able to meet payment requirements. That did not happen because other factors should have been taken into account.

Thankfully, our economy is growing. People may say that is because it did not grow for a long time and we had a long way to go. While that may be the case, it is growing and that is positive and reassuring in the context of the number who will require payment under such a heading now or in the future. The numbers to which I referred may seem small; relative to the total number of self-employed, they do not reflect the number because 138,000 is quite a sizeable number and a relatively small number of people are actually making contributions. That does not mean that a number of them are not making other provision. On the other hand, quite a number of them can and will qualify for non-contributory payments.

Mr. Cregan

I am delighted to hear the Minister speak about a joint effort between the private sector and the State to help people look after themselves in their later years. However, it is a sad reflection that there are 138,000 self-employed people but only a small number to which the section applies.

Every year the Department of Finance provides opportunities in the budget for people who want tax benefits for business expansion or investment. Is the Minister prepared to consider recommending to the Department of Finance that in the next budget people in the self-employed sector should receive benefits for contributions paid under this section? Why are we not telling the self-employed to protect themselves? The Minister admitted that, unfortunately, many people in the self-employed sector must rely on a non-contributory pension from the State in the later years. Everything is assessed and means tested, including their assets and house, and they may get some money.

I differ from those who hone in on a particular Bill. Why does the Department of Social Welfare not recommend that the self-employed pay voluntary contributions into the Department? We should give them the benefits we give to people involved in the business expansion scheme. It appears we are not prepared to tell the self-employed that we would like them to contribute. Any person under the age of 56 can contribute but very few have done so. This is similar to family supplementary benefit payments. We should use the carrot approach. For instance, we could give tax relief on added voluntary contributions. Then in ten years' time, those people will be providing protection for themselves rather than claiming non-contributory pensions. It will not cost us as much in ten years' time if we allow for added voluntary contributions now.

We should provide tax relief. If people are paying 48 or 27 per cent tax, they should get relief on their AVCs. If they want to pay £500 per year, they could get tax relief of £250 approximately, if they want to pay £2,000 a year, they could get tax relief on £1,000. However, they would be building up their voluntary contributions in the Department's system. The Department should not be afraid to recommend to the Department of Finance that it use the carrot approach to entice the self-employed to come into the State system. If we want a relationship with the private sector, we should consider this option. Then it would not cost us anything in ten to 12 years' time when these people reach pensionable age.

We raised the issue of the age limit of 56 with Deputy Woods a few years ago. We argued that we should protect the self-employed so they would not have to look for non-contributory pensions. We managed to agree a number. Why not now create a situation to protect the self-employed? We have a duty to protect them because we will have to pay out money by way of non-contributory allowances anyway. As I said, everybody will be assessed before they get that payment.

Every opportunity should be given to these people by offering a tax benefit. The BES is a perfect example where people with large sums of money are given tax relief so they can invest in Dublin, Cork and elsewhere. I am not saying that is wrong but I would like to give relief to people who are less well off and who may not be able to do something for themselves in ten years' time when they are elderly. We should avail of this opportunity.

Mr. Daly

I strongly support Senator Cregan. He has put forward some very good ideas which should be worked on. Is the Minister including farmers in the figure of 180,000?

Mr. Durkan

Yes, they would be included.

Mr. Daly

Thousands of farmers would like to contribute but many of them felt that, even if they made a contribution at this stage, they would not have sufficient contributions to enable them to draw down benefit. It was suggested there may be some arrangement whereby they could purchase credits or make voluntary contributions. This is an expensive method of doing things but the views expressed by Senator Cregan highlight that there is ample scope for new initiatives that would benefit both the State and the individual, whether they be self-employed farmers or self-employed business people. There is a sizeable amount of business to be transacted in this area which is not being done at present. The Department should look carefully at this and see what could be done, if not now, then next year.

Mr. Durkan

I will take on board the points raised by the Senators. They are constructive points and could have considerable benefit for future planning. I will ask my officials to examine those proposals to see to what extent they can be accommodated in the future.

This area is one in which I have had a special interest for some years, essentially because of the problems I encountered when dealing with individual queries. I agree that the financial services environment is such that now would be the right time to investigate the possibilities. For a long time it would not have been possible to do this. However, in the last few years it has become possible to examine the prospect of co-operating with the private sector with a view to making provision for payments, for which we may be liable at some stage in the future in any event because of the non-contributory liabilities, where involvement in such an arrangement could be beneficial to both the private sector and the State. Nobody has any problem with that because it is obviously good business.

One or two things must be remembered and we need to get over one difficulty. It takes much enthusiasm to tell a 21 year old that they should make provision for their pension. That is understandable because when I was 21 years of age I regarded such mundane matters as pension provision as something for people whose hair then was the colour mine is now. I can assure the House that pension provision was very far from my thoughts. The problem is that it is only when a person is 45 or 46 years of age that they begin to think it might be a good idea to make provision for later and if they have been unfortunate enough to suffer ill-health, the problem is very much accentuated.

Popular opinion is determined by the number of people in a particular category. In other words, with a young population, there will not be much emphasis on that aspect. However, one will find that emphasis in an older population. The general thrust of any lobby is reflective of the group of people most directly affected. Nobody in any jurisdiction wishes to make too much provision ahead of time.

The problem of pensions is not new. Farmers and the self-employed came in as contributors under the 1988 Act and although that resolved some problems it created others. It was an attempt to deal with the problem. Some people now require part of their contributions by way of refund and may want them in instalments. In some cases they get them and in others it is not beneficial to the person involved to get a refund. Some people claim they gain no benefit from the contributions they made but that is not true. However, it is unfortunate some people view it in that light.

The issue will ultimately be resolved by a comprehensive review of pensions and pension legislation which will have to be undertaken. We are improving the situation by appending new provisions on an annual basis by way of increases. There is a need for a major review — the 1960 Act is a case in point.

Mr. Cregan

The incentive for self-employed people is that the benefits they receive cost only 52 per cent of what they pay in tax. Payments of £2,000 a year will cost them £1,040. Over a ten year period for a cost of £10,400 they would get £20,000 plus the profits. That is a legal arrangement. The danger is that if this becomes too well known the loophole may be closed by the Minister for Finance. It is an opportunity given to those who are better off. Any person over 45 years who is self-employed and making money and who does not avail of the opportunity to get tax relief from AVCs to their pension is not well.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Acting Chairman (Ms Kelly)

Amendment No. 4 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Kelleher

Most of the provisions in this section are welcome. It is difficult to discuss the section without making reference to the amendment which has been ruled out of order. Why have people on the schemes referred to in the section been prevented taking up employment after 6 April? I know there is a cost to the Exchequer involved but the schemes are so beneficial that provision should be made for those on the schemes at present. Is there such provision in the section?

Mr. Durkan

The amendment would have had negative consequences from the point of view of staff. They have indicated that any change in the PRSI status as proposed would in effect represent a loss of the employee status enshrined in the 1983 Act, which established the company, and accordingly would have the most serious implications for their view of any such proposal. I can say no more about it. The amendment is out of order.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 5 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

SECTION 13.

Mr. Kelleher

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 13, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(b) In all cases where a person's application for a disability allowance has been rejected, they shall be entitled to receive within ten days a written statement, in such form as shall be specified by regulation, of the reasons for this rejection.".

This amendment is aimed to improve the quality of service provided to the recipients of allowances. The amendment refers to disability allowances, responsibility for which has now been transferred to the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Cregan

Thank God.

Mr. Kelleher

The Department of Social Welfare should inform claimants of the reasons for refusal in a short period of time. Many claimants who are refused do not get information rapidly. The amendment should be accepted, given that the disability allowance is now the responsibility of the Department.

Mr. Durkan

There are two aspects to this amendment. The first is the requirement that all notification on claims for disability allowance should be given in writing, setting out the reasons for an adverse decision. The second is that such notifications would be issued within ten days of the decision being made. The requirement to issue a written notification setting out the reasons for the adverse decision has already been provided for in section 31.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 13 agreed to.

Sections 14 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Kelleher

Last year we discussed the issue of including deserted wives, widowed people and lone parents in the one category and this is a welcome provision. However, this section may cause difficulty for deserted wives from here on in. There have been difficulties for deserted wives in the past who, because they proved their desertion, were left with large financial burdens. On the other hand, the lone parents may not have incurred the same financial burdens. The amalgamation causes certain problems and anomalies and I would like the Minister of State to clarify the matter.

Mr. Durkan

The reverse is the case. This brings a considerable improvement all round. The overall effects are that an additional 2,000 one parent families will qualify for the new payment, 4,200 recipients of a reduced rate of lone parent's allowance will qualify for the maximum rate and a further 900 will qualify for the higher rate of payment. It is a vast improvement all round.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Kelleher

This relates to deserted wife's allowance and while it is a welcome provision, concerns spring from it also. Despite all the advances in amalgamating payments and removing barriers to proving desertion, anomalies could arise in time to come. The threshold levels in the Bill could mean that deserted wives will be worse off than they are at present.

Mr. Durkan

I do not wish to be argumentative but the thrust of this section is to attempt to address a current problem in a positive way. It should be remembered that provision is being made to provide cover for those who already qualify for and receive payment at present to ensure they are not disadvantaged by the new system. At the same time the new people who will qualify in 1997 for either deserted wife's benefit or deserted wife's allowance will qualify for the new one parent family allowance. The section removes the onus on one partner of proving desertion and the reason for doing this was that it created a great deal of trauma in some cases — a wife had to prove she was deserted even though this was obvious and she was receiving no support, but a variety of factors could affect her claim in such a way as to make it difficult for her. In those circumstances this proposal addresses the problem in a positive way. It will also be administratively beneficial because there will be one scheme for everyone.

Mr. Kelleher

The scheme will be means tested so there may be a problem for women who do not receive child benefit. A woman who has been deserted will receive the one parent family payment from next year onwards. Her husband may have left her with bills mounting up and many other financial burdens but because of the means test she may not qualify for it. Might people not find themselves in a financial trap because of the means test?

Mr. Durkan

No, because a means test for deserted wife's benefit was introduced in 1993, so it already applies. It has been re-organised — the means test or income guideline has changed, but it is hugely beneficial to people who would otherwise have qualified under current legislation for non-contributory deserted wife's allowance. I do not see any circumstances whereby someone will be worse off.

A wife facing responsibility for bills and commitments made by the husband is a separate issue and it applies across the board in any event. I have dealt with many social welfare queries of that nature and if proper advice is given and assistance sought, there should be no circumstances whereby a woman is put out of her home because of liabilities occurred by the other party to a marriage or a relationship, with consequent disastrous results for her and her family. One cannot provide for such cases because each has individual characteristics. It is not possible for the State to make provision for eventualities whereby the wife will find herself in a particular position after separation or desertion; each case will differ. However, it must be recognised that within the totality of the assistance available — through deserted wife's allowance and deserted wife's benefit as they are at present and lone parent family allowance as it will be — there is sufficient scope to ensure that a person in such difficulties will have as near as possible to adequate resources to meet her requirements.

Mr. Kelleher

I am happy with that, but I am concerned that women who receive this benefit, or could apply for it if it does not change, and who do not have children could find themselves worse off at some stage in the future. While I welcome the provision, a section of women without children who could claim this benefit up to now will not qualify because it is becoming an allowance and will be means tested.

Mr. Durkan

Provision is being made for such cases and it exists at present, depending on the age of the individual concerned. I do not have the precise details but suffice it to say adequate provision is undoubtedly being made now. Furthermore, in the proposed new scheme the income disregard of £6,000 is quite considerable. This is a positive step towards removing the doubt which existed for the applicant for deserted wife's allowance, which was not contribution-related and as a result was always means tested. One of the most difficult issues I have had to face in that area was that a woman in that position who wanted to work part-time for her own reasons, perhaps while her children were in school, in order to make an input into the economy, found she could only earn £24 per week before losing her benefit commensurately. As a consequence, she would put the welfare of herself and her family at risk and she might have several children. Some of the most sensitive and horrific cases I have dealt with concerned women whose bills were mounting up and with the sheriff at the door, having to contend with her responsibility towards her family. In the new scheme her position will be much more readily identifiable. She will be much more secure and will have the advantage of knowing she can go to work if she wishes to earn up to a specified sum which will be disregarded and not affect her situation. She will have the safety net of relying on a social welfare payment while being able to enter the workforce to improve her situation. There are tremendous benefits available for such a person. It is important for such women to be able to avail of opportunities to re-enter the workforce because, as was mentioned with regard to earlier sections, they must think of their future status. Provisions are also being made to cater for this.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 7 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Section 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cregan

Section 20 (1) (c) states that a reference to a qualified parent shall include a reference to a person who would otherwise be a qualified parent but for the fact that the person's marriage has been dissolved, being a dissolution that is recognised in the State. Is this the first time such a section has been included in the Social Welfare Bill? I have never seen this type of provision in previous Social Welfare Bills. Is it relevant to the future or do serious situations currently exist which require such provisions?

Mr. Durkan

Section 20 amends the definition of a qualified parent to include a person who would otherwise be a qualified parent but for the fact that their marriage has been dissolved. The section also provides for the repeal of section 8 of the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1995. The purpose of this amendment is to maintain the commitment provided for in the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1995, that no spouse would 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 provision was heralded last year and was in line with commitments given in recent years. It was also in line with the situation where a person who qualifies for a particular payment, given their circumstances in a particular year, should not be disadvantaged as a result of changes in legislation. A payment cannot be withdrawn from a claimant because a legislator decides to reorganise or introduce new legislation with implications for the future. Such legislation should never disadvantage someone to the extent that their payment disappears.

Mr. Cregan

Is it means tested?

Mr. Durkan

It is means tested to the same extent as the previous section.

Mr. Cregan

When discussing the dissolution of marriage, we are not discussing desertion or lone parents. The Minister of State is now proposing a complete division. People involved in such a division — both of whom could be claiming social welfare payments — which occurred before a dissolution could be in a better position because of their new relationship. Are these people entitled to the benefits they received in the year of the dissolution and are they means tested in each succeeding year?

Mr. Durkan

Separation occurs before dissolution. It is most unusual that anyone would dissolve a relationship or marriage without first entering into a separation agreement. It is usually the other way round. A study of all the cases throughout the country would show that separation occurs first. Following a separation, the State incurs the liability of providing for deserted wife's benefit for those with insurance contributions or deserted wife's allowance for those in the non-contributory category.

The Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1995, also provided that people would not qualify for payment where subsequent relationships changed their status and they might have access to a substantial income. Critics suggested that the State was exposing itself unnecessarily in this regard, but it was pointed out that the State's situation could possibly improve with the emergence of a later relationship within which more resources were available. In such circumstances qualification for payment would no longer apply.

Mr. Cregan

The Minister of State stated that, in theory, it would no longer apply but how strong are existing structures for ensuring that people receiving benefits can be assessed? How often are they assessed and investigated to ensure that they are not receiving additional benefits?

Like the Minister of State, I deal with many people who are involved in domestic breakdown. I am aware of a woman who was deserted by her partner and left with a house and two children and a man living across the road was deserted by his wife and left with their house. Subsequently the two neighbours developed a close relationship. Why could they not live together thus enabling the State to gain a house because both lived in local authority housing? If the State regained that house it could be given to someone who needed it. The two people involved were living separately while enjoying a great relationship. However, they could not live together because he would lose his rent allowance and unemployment assistance and she would lose her deserted wife's payment and other benefits. By living together they would only receive one benefit from the local authority and unemployment assistance from the Department. These payments would be far less than they were receiving when living alone, which included their rent allowances of £5 each per week on houses valued at £60,000. How will we put a stop to the situation where some people receive all the benefits while others receive nothing?

Mr. Durkan

I do not wish to be unromantic.

Mr. Cregan

Neither was I.

Mr. Durkan

I will address the Senator's point, if possible. The situation to which he referred is not entirely correct. In the case of two people living in separate houses who must pay mortgages to a building society or rent to the local authority, the situation is as follows. If they are paying rent to the local authority, they will pay a differential rent which is assessed on the basis of the income of the house. In the man's case this is derived from lone parent's allowance or unemployment assistance; in the woman's case it is derived from the deserted wife's or lone parents' benefit.

It is not entirely true to say that they cannot regularise their relationship; I have advised countless people to do so. The theory is that they cannot because she will lose her lone parents' or deserted wife's allowance. It is true that she will no longer come within the qualifying category. However, they will jointly qualify for UA and all that goes with it. The same applies to the differential rent. The same payment applies right across the board. If they had both been in receipt of lone parents' allowance, they would no longer be lone parents after marriage. They would not qualify because they would no longer be in a qualifying category. However, that is not to say that it should be anybody's ambition to become a lone parent in order to get into the category because that is an unfortunate category to be in. People very often come to an inaccurate conclusion on this issue. It is much more beneficial for the two people in that situation to do what the Senator is suggesting and to do it legally. They may lose a few pounds——

Mr. Cregan

They will lose 40 per cent.

Mr. Durkan

They will lose 5 per cent.

Mr. Cregan

They will lose 40 per cent.

Mr. Durkan

I have to take issue with my good friend the Senator on that because they do not. If the local authority which assesses the rent operates according to the rules, with or without family they will be slightly but not appreciably worse off. The general impression is that they are much worse off. They will also reduce their living costs; they will have one ESB bill and one telephone bill.

Mr. Cregan

They would only have one anyway, they would only be using one house.

Mr. Durkan

The costs of running two households disappear. The cost is now that of running one household. Further illustration of that point, if it is needed, is what happens when a couple go on old age pension. If one of the partners passes on, even though the remaining partner is entitled to higher rates than the single rate, he or she will be in a rather difficult situation simply because they have now to pay for the total running costs of the household, with the sole exception of the food bill, from their assistance. When everything is taken into account, there is only a slight difference. I will have a discussion with my colleague on this issue at a convenient date and I will illustrate that particular aspect of the situation further because it is a point worth making.

Mr. Cregan

I appreciate the Minister's reply. He is very sincere but I am more concerned about the £60,000 house which is not being used. The ESB bill in one house would not be nearly as high in one house as it would be in the other. One house would be busier than the other. The standing charge would still apply, of course. This was the position that time because we did not have lone parents' allowance and we were talking about deserted wives. That person was on unemployment assistance and would have been in the region of £22 per week less well off if they had married.

The Minister is right but it is a sad reflection on us that we recognise this point. The Minister made the point that two elderly people on old age pension get the benefit of one and six tenths of a pension to keep two people. If you are looking at equality — that famous word cost us £320 million — and if both of them got the same amount, perhaps more people would be prepared to be together. A contributor and his or her spouse only get 60 per cent of the single allowance for the other person, that is the difference. That is why the person is worse off as a dependant. That provision should go. I agree also that two people living in one home does not cost as much as a person living alone. We do not know how much of this is going on; unfortunately people are cohabiting about whom we are not aware and it costs the State a lot of money.

Mr. Kelleher

We have a difficulty here. I have come across this issue on many occasions. How can I explain this to these people? People begin a new relationship but they cannot do so legitimately. This is what we come across. In a large urban constituency we have diverse situations. On numerous occasions people have said they cannot move in with their partner because they will lose their entitlements. Sometimes they take a change and go one step further. They move in together and because they do not legitimise their relationship, they have an extra house which can be rented for cash under the counter. They are afraid to legitimise their relationship because they will lose money. That is a big problem in my constituency and I am sure it is the same south of the river in Cork. I would like the Minister to explain why it is different where he comes from.

Mr. Durkan

I have dealt with that question many times. I have advised countless people how to deal with it. About 470,00 people are on social assistance payments. To review them on a regular basis would be a considerable task. It is very difficult to reassure people. There is the presumption that two people, for example a lone parent and someone who is unemployed, who want to get married cannot do it because of the social welfare system. That is not true. Senator Cregan referred to the £60,000 house. Senator Kelleher referred to the fact that they could have an extra house that they could rent out. They cannot, because that is breaking the law. They would be attempting to earn an income outside the social welfare system and at the same time qualify for a payment. The presence of such an income would automatically disqualify them from the payment.

I mentioned earlier that I can empathise with the widow or widower who, if one partner passes on, may be alone in a reasonably large house. Whether they are on a contributory or non-contributory pension does not make any difference because the household costs remain the same — electricity, telephone and maintenance costs. Every item remains the same with one exception, the food bill, which is halved. That is generally regarded as not being the biggest single item of expenditure at all. If you look at it in that light you will find that the situation from the point of view of the remaining partner is quite a difficult one because they had been in a partnership, that is, it was a joint situation. They had the benefit of a social welfare payment and recognition of their status for a number of years.

How then do you set that against the kind of situation to which the two Senators referred? There are no circumstances, in my opinion, where it can be claimed that there is a vast difference. There is none, and I have examined this carefully. If you take into account the costs of heating, lighting, maintenance, telephone and other ancillary expenses, you will find you will have arrived at a situation where it is cheaper, better and more beneficial in any situation for them to get married or form a relationship and let one house go. If they own the house, that is one matter; but if it is a local authority house, it is obviously more beneficial that it go back into the system. It is not true and would be unfair that they would have the ability to rent that house and at the same time have the benefit of living in a partnership arrangement across the road or whatever the case may be. The system does not work that way. The social assistance system was never intended to work that way and it could never work that way. If it were to work that way it would be unfair to people in other situations.

This is an abuse of the system and cannot be condoned by anybody. It is of course beneficial to an individual if, for instance, a lone parent has a person who is in full-time employment living with her. That of course is a big drawback to the individuals concerned, but they are also operating outside the system. They are breaking the rules. They are not supposed to do that. Provision is made for people who are in particular categories and situations where they require a particular payment. It is not fair to other recipients of social welfare that people should decide to avail of both sides of the argument. I know there are situations where that happens, but that is why I emphasised at the beginning that there are no circumstances, in my opinion, where it is vastly more beneficial for two people dependent on social welfare payments to pretend they were living separately when, in fact, they were in a relationship. There are no such circumstances. The difference arises in the last scenario to which I referred.

Mr. Kelleher

Is the Minister suggesting the need for an Ethics Bill for social welfare?

Question put and agreed to.

Section 21 agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cregan

I congratulate the Minister on this section. There was a long discussion on this provision on Report Stage in the Dáil and it is long overdue. The structure of this section now gives an opportunity to say that we recognise at long last the need to assist people who want to work by giving them more benefits.

We discussed FIS on an earlier section. In this section we readily admit there are avenues which can be created to encourage more people to work who said up to now that it did not pay them to do so. We can create an opportunity where the black economy may not be so black. This section creates an opportunity for people to see they can get the benefits of working, the recognition for working which is the most important part of it, and not be out of pocket. Much work over the last 12 months has gone into looking at what opportunities could be created. This has been acted upon in this section. I wish it well. This time next year and, for that matter, in two years' time we will have another opportunity to do more to implement what is relevant in section 22.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 23 to 43, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 form a composite proposal and all may be discussed by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kelleher

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 36, before section 44, but in Part IX, to insert the following new section:

"PART X

44.—(1) The Minister shall, following consultation with representative bodies, including representatives of claimants, establish a ‘Charter of Rights' for claimants.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Charter of Rights shall contain provisions in relation to—

(a) the right to have all personal dealings conducted in a manner and place which is conducive to privacy and is easily accessible;

(b) the right to be treated with courtesy and respect;

(c) the right to be presumed honest;

(d) the right to full access to services and fair treatment irrespective of political, religious, cultural or sexual orientation;

(e) the right to confidentiality and to have access to all relevant information contained on his or her computer file;

(f) the right to an explicit and transparent system for making complaints and the right to a speedy response to such complaints;

(g) the right to an oral hearing in the event of an appeal;

(h) the right to full and total information including eligibility criteria at the time of application;

(i) the right to be advised within a period of not more than four working days of the lodgement of an application within the meaning of this section, to be advised of the identity of the person empowered with the task of determining the application.".

The Department of Social Welfare has come on in leaps and bounds over the last number of years.

Mr. Durkan

I thought Senator Kelleher was going to say "over the last 12 months".

Mr. Kelleher

The Minister has been complimenting himself so often that I do not think I must do it for him.

Mr. Cregan

The Senator does not deny it.

Mr. Kelleher

It has moved from being an archaic system, and rightly so, because it has advanced technology and modern telecommunications mechanisms at its disposal. It is time we ensured the Department of Social Welfare became consumer friendly, opened it doors and that its consumers should have a fair knowledge of their entitlements and rights. We know there is legislation in place and that social welfare consumers have rights as citizens, but there could be a clear guideline, a charter of rights, available to people who will avail of social welfare or who avail of it at present.

The amendment is detailed. For example. I believe "the right to be presumed honest" is important. We must ensure that the person is presumed honest when filling in an application form. It is up to the Department to prove otherwise. I am not saying that everybody is honest, but the vast majority fill in the form and answer the question "What is your source of income?". In particular, I have found that a person is refused a medical card because it is claimed they have money from a pension. Their source of income is the contributory pension, for example, but they might have some form of other means of income. It is a small point, but it is important we recognise that the vast majority of people in receipt of, or applying for, social welfare fill in the application forms honestly. It involves a certain coldness. It instils a certain fear in people. They are afraid of the system. They look on this and other Departments with fear. The Department of Social Welfare must recognise that and ensure it opens its doors. However, the Minister must first accept my amendments, which would ensure a charter of rights would be made available in the Department.

Because of the complexity of our social welfare system we must ensure that people are knowledgeable about the schemes that pertain to their needs. People have asked me many times about their entitlements. They may have heard about a change in the system, but are not sure if it affects them. For many reasons people are not informed. A mechanism must be put in place enabling those guidelines to be published and put into the public domain so that people would be made aware of their entitlements. The matter referred to by amendment No. 10 comes up regularly. Members of the other House are continually putting down Dáil questions on the reasons why applications from individuals were refused or not acknowledged in greater detail etc.

These are simple and straightforward amendments to ensure the Department of Social Welfare is more consumer friendly and that Deputies are not clogging it up by tabling Dáil questions on behalf of particular individuals. These amendments are worthwhile and would ensure the largest spending Department in the State — it spends £4.5 billion — will be more consumer friendly.

All these other amendments follow the same train of thought, but there must be some clarity on the issue of appeal. People are often refused and cannot understand why. There is a long delay involved. They may ask their public representatives, who go to and fro to the Department of Social Welfare. Why can there not be set guidelines pointing out the reasons why a person is refused, the mechanism for appeal and the appeal system, with a guideline laid down ensuring they will not be left waiting. How often have we sent letters from the Department to a claimant?

Because of the complexities of our social welfare system, its huge budget and that 1.5 million people benefit from it, I see no reason why we could not have a charter of rights and a publication of guidelines to ensure that all changes to any aspects of our social welfare code would be publicised in a full manner so that everybody is made aware of them. If at least these amendments were accepted we would have brought the social welfare system closer to the people, made it more consumer friendly and have put in place a structure where reasons for the refusal of a claim or appeal would have to be given.

These are genuine amendments and I do not see why they cannot be accepted; none of the others was. I consider these amendments worthwhile. They would genuinely save the Department and its officials much needless time in researching individual cases in reply to Dáil questions. They would put in place a charter of rights and a publication of guidelines and would give reasons for appeal decisions and I urge the Minister to accept them.

We often hear about social exclusion. People on social welfare and those who have been unemployed for a long time believe they are not adequately represented on these bodies. If the Minister established an advisory group which could consult with the various people involved in working with and representing those on social welfare, the issue would be brought nearer to the claimants. In establishing claimant service advisory groups and a social welfare advisory council we would have a group of knowledgeable people who could represent claimants and put their expertise at their disposal in legislative form. There is currently a quango of bodies in this area and it is fragmented and disjointed. For those reasons, these amendments are worthwhile. However, the amendment dealing with the charter of rights is noble and worthy and merits the Minister's consideration.

Mr. Durkan

I already referred to the large number of people catered for by the Department of Social Welfare on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis. Some 1.5 million people receive regular payments. In the vast majority of those cases payments are made, appeals dealt with, decisions are made and nobody hears about them any more. The number of cases where difficulties arise to which the Senator refers are very much in the minority. There will always be exceptions to rules in every situation. In an effort to deal with those exceptional cases we have an appeals system and a facility where Members can put down parliamentary questions, raise matters on the Adjournment in both Houses etc. However, a message should not be sent from this House that the system is in any way defective, because people resorted to those measures. While it is important that these measures should be there and used in special circumstances, the whole thrust of my Department is to eliminate people waiting for long periods of time.

The number of appeals has dropped dramatically. The reason for this is that a greater degree of information is available. People will know automatically when they make their application whether or not they will qualify. The number of appeals has also dropped in the last year. I originally thought the Senator was about to compliment me unnecessarily for this; I would have been embarrassed. Thankfully, he did not; neither did he compliment the Minister for Social Welfare. However, a great deal of work has been done in that area. I am responsible for the dissemination of information generally within the Department and that is made available as widely as possible to the vast bulk of the population, both to those in receipt of and those who might need to have recourse to payments. That information has been put to good use under this and previous administrations and the consequent number of appeals has been reduced considerably.

As regards claimant services advisory groups, the Senator must not be as well clued into the social welfare system in Cork as some other Senators because we already have those groups. Customer advisory panels have been set up for some considerable time to advise on exactly what the Senator mentioned — how the system affects the individual. No one can advise someone as well as the person who is directly affected. As the doctor said, the best person to diagnose the patient's problem is the patient him or herself because nobody else feels the pain.

In social welfare the object of the exercise is to draw a response from the people who are our customers. It has been decided to do that through customer panels which is a positive and effective method of bringing within the system the constructive advice of those who are directly affected. People were initially reluctant to get involved but they are now recognising that it is for their benefit as well as making the system more consumer friendly.

The presumption is that people are honest, and we have to assume that. The Senator said it appeared that the Department of Social Welfare thought otherwise but that is not the case. The application forms do not presume that the applicant is dishonest. Where a means tested payment is pending, however, one must ask questions to determine whether the applicant qualifies.

We have been considerably successful in that area. I do not accept that we encourage people to be dishonest or that we presume they are dishonest. It is presumed that everyone is entitled to a payment provided they fall within the relevant income or health category.

The social welfare budget is the biggest in the country and there is a huge responsibility on the Minister for Social Welfare to ensure that a good quality of service is provided efficiently. The strategic management initiative which is in vogue at the moment is the area that links the provision of a speedy and efficient service to the customer while at the same time being cost effective in administrative terms.

The points referred to by the Senator are important in that they come within the ambit of what he refers to in his amendment. We regard it as being unnecessary because we are already using the strategic management initiative for the Department and the customer. At the same time we are providing the information service and advice as well as the structures for customers to gain access to the information. As well as identifying new and improved methods for systematically measuring and responding to customers' needs, we provide published guidelines on an ongoing basis for customers who require advice from time to time.

We are also moving towards the one-stop-shop for which everybody in this House has called over the years. We have improved the quality of service in our social welfare offices around the country in terms of privacy and the type and extent of information available. A person going into one of our offices has ready access to a broad range of information which will enable them to determine what their entitlements are. A great deal of effort has been put into this and it is paying off.

The Senator referred to rates of budget information and how they apply. I have been in public life for 20 years and from an early age I took a keen interest in social welfare because it was an issue that arose on a regular basis. Public representatives deal with countless social welfare queries. Up to 1979 the number of queries was huge because the system had not been streamlined. The system changed over from stamp assisted to PRSI at that time and there were hiccups before it recovered. The social welfare system now employs 4,500 people and it is responsive, even though it is difficult to provide equal access to information for everyone.

No one can claim to have every aspect of social welfare information at their fingertips. The system represents a succession of legislation which has been built up block by block over a long number of years. In some years the introduction of legislation changes the qualification for payments in a positive way, and in other years other aspects change. No one can claim to be an expert in the social welfare area and even lawyers can spend hours pouring over the various aspects of welfare law on behalf of their clients.

The reasons for decisions are given in every case and that is as it should be. If a situation arises where that is not the case, it is the exception to the rule because provision is there for information to be given. It is also provided for in another section of the present Bill whereby it will be further improved. That is an indication of the thrust of the development of social welfare law. It is a recognition that we are moving towards providing the maximum information more readily to ensure that customers know their rights.

The question was raised whether the Department of Social Welfare is consumer friendly. With responsibility for a budget of £4.4 billion and the necessity to respond to a very large group of 1.5 million people who depend on the delivery of a weekly payment, I think the Department of Social Welfare is doing very well. Previous administrations in the Department have done equally well and we are improving all the time.

I pay tribute to the many people working at the coal face in the Department all over the country, meeting payments and making provision for the coming weeks. Nothing, not even holidays, can stand in the way of that work because the provision of these payments must be made on an ongoing basis. It is the biggest single area of responsibility within the budgetary system and the Department is accomplishing its task very well.

Mr. Kelleher

The Department is doing its job well. The people who work in the Department give and have given great service to many thousands of claimants throughout the country. In pointing out the Department's efficiency and responsiveness, there is no reason the Minister of State should not accept these amendments if they will not be an obstacle to the Department. The appeals procedure already exists so why not include it in legislation? Why not include the charter of rights and the right to appeal decisions? Why not also include the claimant service advisory groups and the social welfare advisory council? These are basic proposals to put a friendly and efficient face on the Department of Social Welfare and to enshrine that in legislation.

The Department is vast and diverse and has a huge amount of money to distribute to claimants. The Minister of State could accept these amendments in the spirit in which they are proposed. They will not cause great difficulty for the Department and they will ensure, regardless of what changes are made in the future, that we have a service that is friendly to the customer.

Mr. Durkan

It would be an admission that we do not provide those services at present if we were to accept the amendments. We already provide extremely well for all the situations referred to by the Senator. The Senator's suggestions are positive but they have been made about a year and half too late. We note his good intentions and his recognition of the services provided by the Department. However, it is unnecessary to accept amendments whose provisions are already operating within the Department.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Kelleher

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 36, before section 44, but in Part IX, to insert the following new section:

45.—All general guidelines issued by the Minister in relation to the operation of the social welfare system shall be published.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Kelleher

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 36, before section 44, but in Part IX, to insert the following new section:

46.—Whenever a Deciding Officer decides to refuse a person a benefit, assistance or allowance or part thereof, he or she shall forward to the said person within four working days of such decision a comprehensive statement in writing of the grounds of such refusal and the facts relied on in the decision and such statement shall include the following information:

(a) the right of appeal to an Appeals Officer;

(b) the procedures of an Appeals Officer and the means of lodging an appeal;

(c) the right to have an appeal determined within two months of lodgement; and

(d) the right to be advised within a period of four working days of lodging an appeal within the meaning of this section, to be advised of the identity of the person empowered with the task of determining the appeal.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Kelleher

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 36, before section 44, but in Part IX, to insert the following new section:

47.— Whenever an Appeals Officer decides to refuse a person a benefit, assistance or allowance or part thereof, he or she shall forward to the said person within four working days of such decision a comprehensive statement in writing of the grounds of such refusal and the facts relied on in the decision and such statement shall include the following information:

(a) the right to have the decision reviewed in the light of new evidence or new facts in accordance with section 262 of the Principal Act;

(b) the right to have the decision reviewed by the Chief Appeals Officer in accordance with section 263 of the Principal Act; and

(c) the right of appeal to the High Court in accordance with section 271 of the Principal Act.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Kelleher

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 36, before section 44, but in Part IX, to insert the following new section:

48.—(1) The Minister shall establish claimant service advisory groups at appropriate intervals in consultation with the social partners and organisations representing claimants.

(2) These groups shall enable representatives of claimants and providers of social welfare services to exchange views on the quality of service delivery.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Kelleher

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 36, before section 44, but in Part IX, to insert the following new section:

49.—The Minister shall establish a permanent Social Welfare Advisory Council representative of contributors, beneficiaries and administrators. The Council should publish an annual report.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

SECTION 44.

Mr. Kelleher

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 36, line 12, after "6 months" to insert "in total".

The Minister, in reply to this amendment, might explain the purpose of this section.

Mr. Durkan

Section 44 provides that the period within which the Combat Poverty Agency is required to submit its strategic plan may be extended by not more than six months. Senator Kelleher proposes that this provision should read "not more than six months in total". A review of the functions of the agency, which is the first such review since the agency was established, is currently being undertaken and the power to extend the period within which the agency must submit its strategic plan is provided for in the Bill so as to enable the agency to take account of the findings of the review in finalising its next plan.

Section 44 as drafted will enable the Minister to extend the period within which each three year strategic plan must be submitted by not more than six months. The inclusion of the words "in total" will mean that any extension of the period for submitting a strategic plan would have a cumulative effect for the purposes of the six month limit. If the Minister, for example, were to extend the period for submission of the current strategic plan by six months, the provisions of section 44 could not be applied in the case of any future strategic plan as the six month limit provided for in the section will have been exhausted. There would be a knock-on effect. This would mean that if in the future the Minister of the day thought it appropriate, in light of certain circumstances, to extend the period for submission of a strategic plan, he or she would have to introduce further legislation to enable this to be done. That is unnecessary and I oppose the amendment. There would be a domino effect.

Mr. Cregan

The Senator means well.

Mr. Kelleher

I always mean well. What is the purpose of providing for extending the period by not more than six months? The agency has been established to provide information and to assess situations. I cannot see why there must be a delay providing reports. What is the purpose of that? The agency has been functioning since 1986 but this section allows its reports to be delayed for a set period.

Mr. Durkan

This is provision for a review. If the amendment is accepted it might mean it would be impossible to have a review again. A review of the functions of the agency, which is the first such review since the agency was established, is currently being undertaken. The power to extend the period within which the agency must submit its strategic plan is provided for in the Bill to enable the agency to take account of the findings of the review in finalising its next plan. There would be no sense in accepting the amendment. It would have a domino effect and might torpedo some aspects of the section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 44 agreed to.

Sections 45 and 46 agreed to.

Schedule A agreed to.

Schedule B agreed to.

Schedule C agreed to.

Schedule D agreed to.

Schedule E agreed to.

Schedule F agreed to.

Schedule G agreed to.

Schedule H agreed to.

Schedule I agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Kelleher

I thank the Minister, who is always informative. The debate was less confrontational than the one last year because the Minister acknowledged his mistake in allocating 2.5 per cent, which was increased to 3 per cent with lower inflation this year. I hope the points I and other Senators made will be of benefit to the Minister in formulating policy at a later date.

Ms Honan

I congratulate the Minister on the passing of this Bill. We must address the problem of unemployment so that fewer people will depend on social welfare and that we can give them a better level of allowances. The Minister said there was some difficulty accepting Senator Kelleher's first amendment to change "adult dependant" to "qualified persons". I hope that a similar amendment could be given consideration before the Minister comes to this House again with social welfare legislation. It would not cost anything and it would mean a lot, particularly to women who depend on the present system.

Mr. Cregan

I congratulate the Minister and his staff. For many years we fought for everyone to be equal and this Bill recognises that. The Department of Social Welfare is becoming more work oriented. I congratulate the Minister on the enlightened role he is playing in the Department. He has been in public life for more than 20 years and he makes constructive decisions. I wish him well in the future.

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Mr. Durkan)

I thank all Members for their comments. It is important, from the point of view of future legislation, that issues are debated in this manner. When in Opposition I was always interested in what notes were taken during such debates. I concluded that those which did not reappear did not deserve to and those which did were taken on board. I thank Senator Kelleher and Senator Cregan, not because they are Cork men but because they adopted an innovative approach to this Bill. I thought it was the latitude Cork men usually take, but Senator Kelleher took a different attitude when Senator Fitzgerald, a Kerry man, sat beside him. This usually happens at Munster finals.

Mr. Cregan

Jealousy is a terrible thing.

Mr. Durkan

I do not wish to upset the Cork men on this occasion but the presence of a Kerry man is known to have a calming effect on a Cork man.

Senator Honan mentioned the definition of an adult dependant. I have already indicated that this will be taken into consideration in the next Social Welfare Bill. It could not be dealt with today because of the time constraints within which we must operate.

It was a pleasure to meet the Members and I hope that some of the information I received will be of benefit to the Department of Social Welfare.

Question put and agreed to.