Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 to be discussed together by agreement.
Social Welfare Bill, 2001: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3)The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, issue a statement to both Houses of the Oireachtas, at intervals not exceeding two months duration, on the latest statistical information on the effects of inflation on the measures contained in Parts 2, 3 and 4 of this Act.".
I welcome the Minister and I am sure he missed me the last time. He will be pleased to hear that he will get two for the price of one because my esteemed colleague will be joining me shortly.
This amendment proposes to insert a new subsection. It is self-explanatory inasmuch as inflation affects every section of this Bill. This section is very important and it would behove the Minister to present such a report on the measures contained in Parts 2, 3 and 4. I will not waffle on. As I have an extremely heavy cold I will not be speaking very much. However, I will try to make as big a contribution as I can. I will not say anything more on it at the moment because my colleagues in the Labour Party have a similar motion and I may come back in.
Mr. Ryan
It was widely reported last year that when inflation took its fairly horrendous jump, the Minister sought and was refused a supplementary budget to compensate social welfare recipients for what for them must have been a fairly harrowing drop in their living standards. Given the degree to which people on social welfare are forced by the limited nature of our social assistance and social insurance schemes to live a hand to mouth existence, any change in their budgetary position is quite traumatic for them. The rest of us can afford to dispense with luxuries. In the case of people on social welfare it means leaving a gap in necessities.
In my view and that of my party, a report such as this would strengthen the Minister's hand in his argument with the less than sympathetic Minister for Finance about the level of funding needed. I therefore ask the Minister at least to address the issue. It would be naïve of me to assume that he will start accepting amendments at this stage but there are issues he can address either in the future or, if he really wants to be radical, now.
I thank the Senators for putting down this amendment and I guarantee that my Department and I keep a constant eye on the inflation rate. The CPI which comes out every month is an excellent production and when we frame our budget each year we do so on the basis of a projected figure for inflation for the subsequent 12 months as set down by the Department of Finance, which takes into account a myriad of things.
The expected rate of inflation for this year was 4.5% and last year's was 3%.
It was terribly wrong.
It was wrong. The previous year it was 2% and, equally, it was wrong in that the outturn for inflation was 1.6%, so people gained from a much lower figure than was anticipated. Senator Ryan and some of his colleagues in the other House referred to reports in the press and to him I say, do not always believe what you read in the paper.
Unless it suits you.
The Government looked at the issue of inflation, in relation to social welfare recipients and those in paid employment, on a constant basis – in the latter half of last year it did so on a weekly basis. The Government increased the Christmas bonus from 70% to 100% and it was made clear that it was not done to compensate for the rise in inflation but because a healthier economy meant for the first time the bonus could be increased by that much.
We also stated at that time, and I stated on many occasions in the Dáil on Question Time, both orally and in written answers, that in the context of framing the forthcoming budget we would take into account the issue of inflation and compensation, and we did so. The expected rate of inflation for 2001 is 4.5% and the weekly rates of social welfare as announced in the budget of last year, and provided for in this Bill, are between 9% and 14.5%. Thus, there are real increases of 4.3% and 9.6% based on the expected rate. In addition, payments to couples are being increased by 7.2% and 11.2% in real terms.
Since this Government took office it has absolutely adhered to the commitment to increase social welfare payments in real terms. We have done that particularly for pensioners over the age of 66 who have received total increases of between 36% and 41.5%, which represent a real increase of 19% and 24%. Increases generally would be the same, though probably not as stark.
There is no point to this amendment as my Department monitors the rate of inflation and when we frame the budget we take into account the difference between the expected rate of inflation and the outturn the previous year. I invite Senators who may be on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs to avail of the opportunity to raise the issue of inflation there.
The Minister's reply was rather long-winded. The essential point being made here is that in recent years the rate of inflation forecast at budget time has been wrong. Last year it was estimated at around 4% but it wound up at closer to 7%.
The correct figure is 5.6%.
It depends on the time you take it, I suppose.
No, the correct figure is 5.6%.
The important point is that social welfare recipients could incur a loss in real income of up to 2% as a result of inflation out stripping the forecast rate. Expenditure on social welfare has fallen from close to 10% of GDP three, four and five years ago, to 5%, a point made by Senator Ryan and me on Second Stage of this Bill. Those in receipt of social welfare are getting a smaller slice of the growing cake of this economy. The Government may say that the cost of social welfare has gone down as there are fewer people unemployed, but that is not the way to look at it. The reality is that the Government is spending less money and people are being cheated. When the economy grows, by the rules of natural justice, everybody is entitled to a share of that increased wealth, but unfortunately people who find themselves on social welfare are losing out as the Government diverts less of the available resources in that direction. That further reinforces the point of this amendment which seeks to protect people from the effects of inflation. We simply ask that the Minister monitor the rate of inflation during the year and if he finds that the forecast is 1% or 2% out, his Department has a duty to find a compensatory amount of money at that stage in the year to allow people to keep up with increases in the cost of living.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3)The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the rationale for the differing commencement dates of social welfare payment increases.".
I would like to hear the Minister comment on this. Bearing in mind our experience just before this debate commenced, I am not very hopeful of having amendments accepted by the Minister but I ask him to listen to the arguments made so that in the future he might be minded to change his tack in relation to points raised. It is very useful to listen to the experience of people who, in their weekly clinics, hear about the real difficulties people experience.
One only has to look at the figures and the dates to see that commencement dates have changed since this Government took office. Child benefit, which was paid in September, is this year to be paid in June. Social welfare payments which used to be paid in June are now being paid in April and the Government has promised that they will be brought forward in line with the tax year. If this amendment had been put forward four years ago, I would accept it, but at this stage we are probably dealing with the issue.
As ever, my esteemed colleague, Senator Leonard, is a great defender of the Minister. That is her job. I would be very interested in hearing at what stage all payments will be made at the same time, particularly in the context of the changes in the tax year. I welcome the fact that the Minister has rowed back very considerably on what were exceedingly long delays, with some people being paid in April, some in June or July and some having to wait until September. There is good news on the disbursement of largesse, but it would be very suitable if all the payments could be made at the same time rather than making sections of the community, often the most vulnerable, wait. Being totally practical, I would imagine this will probably take place immediately prior to the next election which will probably be in the autumn. I do not mind when it happens if it can be given a rationale from the point of view of the Minister agreeing that, in future, increases in benefits of any kind will all be paid on a given date with no first or last in the queue for lawful payments.
Senator Ridge would not like, any more than I, to have to knock on doors in a wet autumn, and I guarantee that if this Government has anything to do with it, she will not have to, and neither will I.
There are two issues here. Because there are 900,000 people who get paid on a weekly basis, not all the schemes are paid on exactly the same date. Some are paid in arrears and some in advance. That is not what Senators are referring to. The previous Government brought the budget back from February to early December. That meant that the changes in social welfare were even further divorced from the budget day announcement, being announced in the first week in December but not kicking in until the second week of June. We undertook to bring these payments back progressively over a number of years. This year is the first in which social welfare payments will be paid at the same time as tax increases on 5 April. We were criticised because some people got the benefit of tax changes on 5 April while other people did not get their social welfare payments until later, which was not fair. We have dealt with that. We are making the changes effective from 1 January next year, both in relation to tax and to social welfare payments, by bringing them forward by three months in one fell swoop. If my memory serves me correctly, that will cost about £85 million, and perhaps as much as £105 million, because of the increases in this year's budget. Let me put that into perspective. The increases granted in the 1997 budget were paid for 29 weeks in that year. We increased that by two weeks the following year and, two years later, we increased it by four weeks to 35 weeks. This year we are increasing it by another four weeks to 39 weeks, and as of 1 January in the coming year they will be paid for 52 weeks of the year. I would like to think the Senators would compliment this excellent Government on that achievement.
I thank the Minister for that most interesting information and would remind him that it was our good advice in the matter that made him do this.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be after passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of closing the differential between the rates of periodic benefit and assistance paid to an adult dependant and the rates paid to a qualifying adult, and of removing any limitation of the amount of payment made to a couple as opposed to a corresponding payment to two adults who are not living together.".
The Government has again made noises about using the dreaded word "individualisation". However, it is time we recognised that the myth that two people can live more cheaply than one is precisely that, that the distinction between qualifying people and adult dependants is wrong in principle, and that the terminology is quite invidious. Our amendment seeks that information be provided on the implications of closing that differential and that the Government recognise the anomaly of paying the full rate of benefit individually to two adults who live apart and do not cohabit while, in respect of adults who choose to live together, for reasons of company and all the other reasons human beings tend to live together, there is a financial penalty because one may become a dependant.
I would like the Minister to explore this because what we need to look at here are not percentages. To cheer him up a little, I concede that the percentages are impressive. However, given the state of the public finances, any Government could have got this far. The real issue is how far we could go with the resources we have, not what is being done. It would be interesting to get a report from this Department on the implications of closing these differentials. That is the purpose of this amendment.
The question of the qualified adult allowance has been an issue for some time. Based on research carried out by the ESRI, a working group which looked at this issue not so long ago suggested that the qualified adult allowance should be increased from an average of about 60% to 70%. The Government has given a commitment to do this over three budgets and has already started in the last two budgets by increasing it to 70%. This was also discussed at great length in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
Most Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas would agree that we should be moving towards individual payments to people in their own right. That will occur over time, given that so many people are now part of the social insurance system. In the meantime, there are people who do not qualify for payments in their own right. The PPF looked at this but did not come up with any earth shattering recommendations. It was agreed that working groups would be established under the PPF to produce proposals to implement administrative individualisation. That is a nice way of saying that where £100 goes to, say, the husband, and £60 to the wife in one payment, they can just split it and get £80 each. However, that is not what the majority of us mean. The PPF proposed that we should produce proposals for the development of a fully inclusive social insurance system. I referred to that earlier. The Government has gone even further than what was suggested in the PPF in respect of administrative individualisation in relation to qualified adults over 66.
This is one of the reasons the Government took the fairly major decision in cases where both qualified adults are over 66 years to increase the woman's payment up to the full non-contributory pension rate. We started this year by giving a special increase way above what is normally the case, by giving £15 to the qualified adult. This means, in effect, that an old age couple, where both are over 66 years and one is receiving a payment in his own right and the other is not, will get an extra £25 per week from 5 April. This is a fairly major sum, given that a similar couple in the UK only get an extra £8 per week. A couple who both have a book in their own right – in other words, two pensioners over 66 years who are both entitled to a pension – will get a minimum of £20.
We are moving in this direction and have given an undertaking in relation to those over 66 years. The issue of extending this to the under 66 categories is being examined under the PPF and we will return to it over the next year or two.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
What does the wording mean?
Section 3 will allow regulations made under the provisions of the Consolidation Act which have been amended by the Bill to continue. It is an enabling section.
Mr. Ryan
I maintain my campaign for the use of plain English and suggest that the Minister tell the parliamentary draftsperson that there are simpler ways of writing this. The history of obscure legal law goes back to the days of law clerks who used to get paid by the word and who, therefore, devised the most complex possible way of expressing anything as they got paid more. This is no longer the case and maybe it is time the message went back to the parliamentary draftsperson. The message will only go back from politicians because the drafters of legislation will continue to do it the way it was always done.
The explanation given by the Minister makes the purpose of the section perfectly clear. I do not accept that this cannot be said in legislation in exactly the same clear fashion.
The section is included in the first instance for the reason that law clerks and others in the legal profession might find a hole in the Bill and regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
We now come to amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 6 is related. Is it agreed to take amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3)The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the increases granted to unemployment benefit recipients, having regard to the impact of such increases on:
(a) the local authority differential rent scheme, and
(b) the rental subsidy scheme for private accommodation.”.
Having read the report, I appreciate that efforts are being made to do away with the remaining ridiculous anomalies in the scheme. It is not so long ago that people on a community employment scheme received their local authority rent increase while they were on an employment scheme for the same local authority. Whatever about law clerks and the unclear language they use, those who devise the reasons for removing payment from people while they are on different schemes should win a medal for—
Obfuscation.
My learned colleague has supplied the word for me.
Acting Chairman
Maybe the Senator should ask the Chief Parliamentary Counsel for a simpler word.
I am a great believer in the use of simple words, but on the odd occasion a rollicking big one adds emphasis. I presume the Minister is working to ensure that we will not continue to rob Peter to pay Paul or to give with one hand and take back with another. I am interested to hear his comments on the amendment.
The rental subsidy scheme is like an abcess which will, to put it crudely, shortly burst wide open into everyone's face because the cost of rented accommodation has gone through the roof, particularly in Dublin. I will not address this aspect, but I will address the payment of State money to, in many cases, unscrupulous landlords. I appreciate that the Department passes on the money to the health boards for disbursement but, given the vast amounts of money being disbursed, I query the system from beginning to end.
I am a member of a local authority – I am happy to say that I am still a holder of the dreadful dual mandate – and people come to me for advice. What advice can I give a person, given that in most cases the landlord is not registered and is still in receipt of funding from the health board and the State is, in effect, paying one citizen to treat another vulnerable citizen in a deplorable manner? Will the Department reassess the system in its entirety as it is not the way to go about housing people in any reasonable way? There is no rent control in the private sector and the bill to the Department is escalating every year. I cannot see any value for money in the scheme for those who operate it and recipients. The only people who are gaining are in many cases unscrupulous landlords.
I support the amendment, if only because it gives us an opportunity to refer to the appalling circumstances where people are chasing unhealthy accommodation where damp is running down the wall and fungus is growing. The conditions in such accommodation are disgusting. A few weeks ago I visited a woman in receipt of a rental subsidy who had to use a dehumidifier to take gallons of water out of the atmosphere. I accept that it is matter for the local authority to examine the property and say whether it is suitable, but this woman had nowhere else to go and she could not afford the high rents being demanded by other landlords. It is the responsibility of the Government and the Department of the Environment and Local Government to break the log-jam in relation to the provision of affordable public housing, a matter of concern to the most vulnerable people in society.
The issue of rent control in the private sector must also be examined. To date it has basically been ignored and has not been made a priority. People are entitled to shelter. I am not talking about a tent in the middle of a field or accommodation with a roof and walls but no windows to prevent the rain from coming in. Rather I am talking about basic decent, dry and warm accommodation where people do not shiver from the cold. The Minister knows these problems exist. This is only one small way of acknowledging it and saying something can be done for those victims in society.
I agree with Senators that there is a serious problem in relation to the rent subsidy scheme. Part of the problem is that while money is distributed from the Department, the responsibility is on health boards and local authorities. What is needed is a greater correlation of plans within local authorities and health boards to ensure the subsidy is distributed properly and to those most in need. If such strict regulations were to be imposed on landlords in regard to the quality of accommodation, which at times leaves much to be desired, people would be put out on the streets. Without wishing to take away the blame from the Department, the problem has to be addressed through the local authorities and health boards.
Mr. Ryan
I support the amendment and particularly the rental subsidy scheme for private accommodation which has become a necessity because of the absence of local authority housing and the increasing difficulties in procuring accommodation. The scale of the subsidy has to be increased. What is the basic income that the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs regards as untouchable in terms of rent payments? It used to insist that any income in excess of the supplementary welfare rate would have to be the contribution of the individual recipient towards the rent. At least that is how it used to be in the Southern Health Board area. Even if one had a social welfare income of, say, £95 per week, the only income the health board would leave one with is the £84.40 of the basic supplementary allowance and the balance would have to be one's contribution to the rent.
There is a big issue here. Does the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs believe people can live on what The Irish Times and most of our newspapers would regard as a good price for a meal for two? Does he really believe that anybody can live for a week on that amount? That is how we should look at this as a society. That health boards still say the basic reference point is the supplementary welfare allowance which means that one of the consequences of availing of the rent allowance is that one is catapulted back into a fundamental poverty stricken situation. I believe there is a possibility of sending guidelines. The income that should be regarded as untouchable ought to be what the Government regards as the target for all social welfare recipients in terms of its strategy and health boards should not expect people to pay out of their basic income towards the rent of their accommodation. The problem cannot be solved by subsidising people's accommodation and at the same time driving them back into the poverty we are trying to eliminate.
I thank Senators for their comments. This amendment relates to the clawback issue which has been exacerbated by the greater than normal increases in social welfare payments in recent years. The rent supplement was looked at recently in consultation with all the various groups involved – the health board officials and local authorities. The recommendation was that the scheme be taken over by local authorities so that, as Senators advocated, there would be a better connection between the payment of the rent allowance and delivery of the accommodation and also a better connection with the local authority on the basis of its duty to provide housing for those people.
The report has been accepted and it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The first year of a person's entitlement to rent allowance will be the responsibility of my Department but after 12 months it will become the responsibility of the local authority who will have to get funding from my Department to administer that scheme. The proposal to move the scheme out of my Department, which was welcomed by virtually every local authority, is caught by some difficult industrial relations issues because people in the health boards are on different scales from those in the local authorities. There are developments in that area and we are trying to bring the rent allowance into some better connection between local authorities and the delivery of housing accommodation needs.
This situation has been somewhat exacerbated by the greater than normal increases. Up to now pensioners who are on SWA rent or mortgage supplement did not get the benefit of the additional increase as it was automatically clawed back by way of reduction in the SWA supplement. As part of this year's budget, which is included in this Bill, I announced that the first £5 of these additional budget increases in social welfare pensions will be disregarded for rent and mortgage interest supplement. As a result, instead of a reduction of £2 per week in the rent and mortgage supplement, single pensioners will see an increase of £3 so that overall they will be £13 better off as opposed to £8 if there was a clawback. Instead of a reduction of £10 per week in the rent and mortgage supplement, pensioner couples will see a decrease of £5 per week, so that overall they will be £20 better off. All other payments – one parent family payments, unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and other schemes – are not affected by the issue of clawback. The rent and mortgage supplement will not be affected where the weekly payment rates are increased by £8 for a single person or £15 for a couple. It is an issue which caused some difficulty and we have endeavoured to address it in this year's budget.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to raise an issue in relation to disability benefit and disablement benefit because this is the section that deals with increases in all these benefits. Disablement benefit is a payment made for an occupational injury. I have in mind, since I come from County Roscommon, people who worked in the coal mining industry. Most of these people because they suffer from pneumoconiosis, a miner's lung disease, are paid a certain amount of disablement benefit along with the disability benefit to which they are entitled. Miners in Ballingarry and Castlecomer are also affected. While the number involved is not great, it affects hundreds of people in those three locations. The disease has to be prescribed under regulations made in 1983. Not only do some of these suffer from miner's lung disease but they also suffer from bronchitis, emphysema and asthma, all directly related, according to medical evidence, to the fact that they worked underground and inhaled coal dust or silica.
Pneumoconiosis is the only prescribed disease for miners. However, miners also suffer from related diseases for which they receive no additional disability benefits. Such benefits are paid at a percentage related to the incapacity resulting from the disease. A review of prescribed diseases will take place under the Occupational Injuries (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations, 1983, and I urge the Minister to carefully examine these issues. He has inherited this legislation.
I have attended appeals hearings with people who worked in the mining industry. The appeals officers were generally fair-minded and said they would like to help. They recognised that people had asthma or emphysema and that the medical evidence suggested that miners were suffering from miners' lung disease and related diseases. However, the legislation did not allow the officers to increase the level of disability benefits to take account of the incapacity suffered as a result of occupational injuries.
Will the Minister make an input into the review which is under way? I urge him or his officials to reflect the facts I have raised. The Minister and his predecessors inherited this situation as the matter has not been reviewed since 1983 which is a long time ago. Will the Minister examine this issue with as much sympathy as possible?
I thank the Senator for raising this issue in the House and for raising it privately with my officials in advance which allowed us to look at the matter. The Senator is correct that a working group, headed by the Department's chief medical adviser, has been set up to examine the list of prescribed diseases and occupations outlined in the 1983 regulations. Bronchitis is not a prescribed disease under the regulations nor is mining a prescribed employment in respect of occupational asthma.
The group will make recommendations on amendments, deletions or additions which could be made to the list and I assure the Senator that his concerns and the facts he outlined in at least one case he brought to our attention will be taken into account in the context of the review. I will keep a close eye on this issue.
Mr. Ryan
I wish to challenge society in general, but does the Minister think that £89 per week for a widow or widower is the sort of figure we should boast about? I would make this point no matter who was in Government but there is a need to lift our sights in terms of what constitutes the basic levels of income on which we expect people to live.
Percentage increases conceal many things, and I do not mean deliberately. We should state that a payment of £89.10 per week for a widow or widower is not acceptable and that it is a national objective to achieve an acceptable level of basic income for everyone which is higher than the Government is giving people on unemployment benefit. What is the problem with doing so quickly?
The country is awash with resources and the budget for unemployment benefit and assistance has been dramatically slashed. The Government thinks it achieved this on its own but we will not go off on that tangent. What are the political or other objections to the redistribution of those resources towards people, such as widows, whom we expect to live on £89.10 a week? I hope the Minister wishes to talk about this issue.
I do not wish to table silly motions about increasing payments as they will not be accepted. However, there is an issue of what we as a society regard as an acceptable income on which people should live. No one believes that £89 per week is acceptable any more than they believe that giving a widow or widower an additional £17 per week for a qualified child is a satisfactory figure. This is not a political issue but where are we, or the Government, going on this issue?
I have much sympathy with Senator Ryan's comments. The sad fact is that more than 20% of the population live below the 50% poverty line outlined in the national anti-poverty strategy. We must remember that those dealing on a daily basis with the effects of poverty, including the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, sought social welfare increases of £14 per week.
Our amendments cannot place a charge on the Exchequer but it should be incumbent on the Government to try to ensure that the anti-poverty strategy's objectives are achieved within the lifetime of the Government. Does the Minister believe this will happen? Everyone welcomes the increases but when faced with the stark realities and when we know of the difficulties with accommodation, a fundamental issue is the achievement of equity. Will the Minister expand on his beliefs in this regard?
There is no one better than I to give history lessons. Senator Ryan stated that percentages can disguise increases but I can quote him chapter and verse on this issue.
This is the first Government to set down targets for social welfare payments. When the Government took office four years ago the old age pension was £78 per week and we gave a commitment to increase it to £100 per week over the five years of the Government's term. There is still one year to go in that period and it is at a level of £106. We will go further in the coming budget which will well exceed the prediction of £100 over the lifetime of the Government.
We also agreed with the social partners that the lowest rate of social welfare payment will be £100. The increases announced in this budget are well on the way to reaching that figure over the lifetime of the PPF. The increases in social welfare payments in recent years are well ahead of anything we could have expected a couple of years ago. Senators should remember what it was like four years ago when the increases given were very small in comparison to those now being given.
At that time 9.5% of GDP was being spent on social welfare.
One only has to look at the yardstick for this country. Members of the Government, including myself, were accused of saying that the country is awash with money. However, it is the Opposition who keep saying the Government is awash with money.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, said it.
No, let us be fair about this. The Government has managed the surplus extremely well in that it is providing for a rainy day. Of the surplus we have had over the last two years, we have already put £5 billion into a fund which will pay for the pensions of all of us in years to come when the State will not be able to afford those pensions.
How about the recession?
Doing that might not win us the next election, or the election in 25 years' time—
Perish the thought.
—but it is the prudent thing to do. So this Government, which the Opposition says is awash with money, is providing for the future pensions of the country. It is not spending all the money but is keeping it for a rainy day. At the same time we are also providing increases in social welfare pensions which are well above the percentage increases in the rate of inflation over the period. I cited the figures earlier. We are looking after people today as well as potential future difficulties.
About 10,000 single invalidity pensioners and those on other smaller schemes, under 66 years of age, will be receiving an extra £14 per week. Couples will receive between £20 and £25 per week. Those figures should be compared to what is being given across the water in Britain. There is a huge surplus there but it is not being spent on their people. The poor old age pensioner in Britain has to put up with a meagre £5 per week and only £3 next year while a couple will receive £8 as opposed to our £20 to £25.
People appreciate that the increases we have given over the last four budgets have raised social welfare payments cumulatively. Despite what the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, CORI and others might say, there is a genuine acceptance that the increases have been extremely generous and well received.
Mr. Ryan
I am glad the Minister did not tempt me to go down the path of history.
I might do so yet.
Mr. Ryan
We could, if the Minister wishes.
Of course, the Senator can say that he was not a party to that party.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister has a good memory because I said that on Second Stage as well.
I was disappointed when the Senator took the soup and joined the Labour Party, but there it goes. Behind it all, I am a bit of a radical and an anarchist. I like an independent voice. The Senator may have seen that recently I picked my favourite Member of the Lower House as Deputy Joe Higgins, of all people. He is the real Opposition.
We do not have any of those in the Seanad.
We need a Joe Higgins in here.
Mr. Ryan
We in the Labour Party know from the way the Minister fires his big guns at us that he sees us as the real Opposition. We know that too well. The high level of firing at the Labour Party makes it quite clear who Fianna Fáil thinks is the real Opposition.
The heavy artillery turns on us as well.
It is very tiresome, is it not?
Mr. Ryan
I do not wish to be disrespectful to my Fine Gael colleagues, but obviously the Government has a view about where the pressure is coming from. Hopefully, we will confirm the Minister's view. One of the wonderful things about the Labour Party is that it has not inhibited me in any way from saying anything I want to say.
It is exactly the same in Fianna Fáil.
Acting Chairman
Looking into the soul of the Labour Party is not the subject of this debate.
Or into the Senator's soul either.
Mr. Ryan
To use a schoolboyish phrase, may I say that he started it? I agree with the Minister concerning my colleagues in the British Labour Party; they have been extraordinarily conservative in dealing with one of the biggest political issues. The state in which British pensioners were left by Thatcherism is a very sensitive issue and one on which British public opinion has strong views. The British Labour Party has been slow to do something fundamental about it. We agree on that. The figures suggest that, nominally, we are the fifth richest country in the world, although I do not think that is quite the case. We must look around us, not at Britain which seems to have walked away from social democracy, but at the civilised countries of northern Europe. We must examine the sort of incomes they give people, particularly the elderly. In spite of the gloom and doom warnings from the OECD, such countries still believe they can fund a generous system of support for their old people, even as their populations age a good deal more rapidly than ours.
The Minister has half conceded my point, which is that many of these payments are objectively far too low. It is not a matter of considerable weight to me that the PPF picked £100 per week as a figure. Nobody can argue that an income of £100 per week is sufficient to give somebody a dignified life, yet our target should be a figure that can give somebody a dignified life.
The level of inequality in this State is horrendously excessive. We need to take action at both ends of the scale, by raising the income of those at the lower end and by using the income of those at the upper end to fund that. Inequality is not just a convenient sociological topic; it brings with it strains in society for which future generations will pay. I have absolutely no doubt about that. It is one of the functions of Government to reduce the level of inequality. The most civilised societies of northern Europe, in particular the Scandinavian countries, have dramatically lower levels of inequality than we do. Before somebody says that inequality is the price we pay for economic performance, let us not underestimate the economic achievements of those countries with all the extra social concerns that their Governments take into consideration.
In 1999, Sweden was the most successful country in Europe at attracting direct foreign investment. It attracted investment equivalent to 25% of GDP. The way in which Sweden has targeted inequality as a social evil should make us ashamed. There is no correlation between our inequality and any of the other economic development objectives we seek. The Minister should address that point instead of addressing what should or could have been done four or five years ago. I do not understand why the Government believes it is necessary to phase in over a period of years the basic dignified income to which every citizen should be entitled. I could understand that approach being taken in times of budgetary stringency, but I cannot accept that the correct balance has been struck between prudence in dealing with the national debt and the medium-term concerns about our ageing population. We should not make provision for ourselves in future when it involves making inadequate provision for those who are currently poor. It could have been possible to do much more in the budget.
Percentages cloak the fact that we are talking about increases that are no more than most of us would spend, without thinking, on a bottle of wine. That is the gap in society between us – and I include myself, other Senators and the Minister – and people who have to live on less than £90 per week.
The Minister may not believe me, but I am trying not to be particularly political about this matter. The Bill has nearly passed all Stages and we are not going to change it now. We need to understand in greater depth what it is in the Government's philosophy that makes it necessary to phase in some of these increases. That is what I would like to know. I cannot understand why, because the country has considerable resources at its disposal. There would be few more popular issues than using some of those resources to ensure that nobody is expected to live on an income which we all recognise is inadequate.
I will not labour the point with the Senator, other than to say that, cumulatively over the period of this Government, those people who are at the lower end of the scale have done measurably better than over previous periods. It may be said that is a result of the better resources which we now have. That is true, but one must compare the level of increases which have been given with the previous levels.
The Senator referred to social welfare as a percentage of our gross national product. The reality is, as I have said many times in the other House, that the best way out of poverty is by giving people employment. That is what this Government has succeeded in doing over the last four years. Because huge numbers of people have gone into jobs, not only are they not a burden on the State in terms of social welfare payments, but they are now contributing productively to the State.
I take the Senator's point that percentages can tell one story or another. However, the reality is that the social welfare budget has increased from about £4.5 billion when I came to office to £6.2 billion this year. As a percentage, it has obviously fallen because national production has greatly increased. The Government stands on its record in this regard. We can discuss the issue of adequacy at another stage if that is permitted. This Bill relates to this year's increases, which must be seen in the context of this Government's full five year term of office.
The Minister has been boasting of the increases which the Government has given, but everything is relative. In real terms, this country is at least one quarter richer over the last five years since this Government came to office. We have enjoyed a net rate of economic growth greater than any of our European partners and this is seen as one of the best performances in the world. Every party in the House has contributed in some way to this achievement over a period of some 20 years. However, the fact is that people on social welfare are not 25% better off today than they were five years ago.
I know we do not live in an ideal world but, in a just society, everybody should get their fair share of the cake. If those at work benefit by 25% over a period, then those relying on social welfare payments should also get a 25% increase. That was the general theme of Senator Ryan's comments and it is certainly my philosophy and that of my colleagues. It is not valid for the Minister to boast of the increases given over the last few years when, in fact, the amounts given were less than what was justified by the level of real net growth in the economy. That money was spent elsewhere. This Government had other priorities. Tax concessions were given to people on the higher rates, to an unprecedented level. In many cases, we are giving more money to people who are already better off.
The Minister has said, and of course it is the philosophy of his party, that we must encourage more people to work and that we must reward people in responsible positions, because they are the motors and drivers in the economy. That is the theory, though not everybody fully agrees with it.
It works.
One can push that theory too far. It may be the philosophy of the Minister's party but those of the just society age in my party do not fully agree with it. We believe that provision has to be made for people who find themselves depending on social welfare, due to ill-health, unemployment or other reasons. I heard a debate on a radio programme last night on the introduction of social assistance for the first time by Lloyd George in 1909, when this enlightened thinking was met by benighted opposition, even as long ago as that. It is amazing that the ghosts of those arguments are still with us.
Mr. Ryan
We should not go off on too many tangents, however much the Minister may tantalise us. Economic growth began before this Government came into office. Tax cuts the Government has introduced, particularly in the top rate, have absolutely nothing to do with the continuation of that growth. I defy the Minister to find anybody else who thinks that tax rates are too high, outside of the ideological ranks of Irish economists, who have had that view for the past 30 years. Even in the United States, where tax rates are half ours, economists still say they are too high. That is just the position of economists and it is also the position of our Department of Finance. I heard a senior official say that reducing tax is always a good thing in itself. That is a tangential argument.
The Netherlands, which has an unemployment rate lower than the US and similar to ours, at about 3.9%, spends dramatically more than we do on social welfare, as a proportion of GDP. They are providing their old people with dignity and their children with a decent quality of life, while we are deciding otherwise. I do not just blame the Government, though I think they could be the leaders in this regard. They are followers and tokenists, rather than drivers towards equality.
The real issue is whether we believe that inequality is a bad thing and that we should do our best to minimise it. Are we to be a country of ostentatious affluence and embarrassing poverty, or a country in which there is less of both, for the sake of everybody?
I am not unduly concerned with amendments, as I do not believe in rehearsing issues which have been dealt with in the other House. There are philosophical issues which the Minister has not addressed. It is too trite to say that, because our unemployment fell, social welfare also fell as a percentage of GNP. Other European countries have similarly low levels of unemployment. The most appropriate example is the Netherlands, which has sustained much higher levels of social expenditure and has not got our level of child poverty.
They are regressing on that. The amount of social spending is being reduced, because they find that they cannot afford it.
Mr. Ryan
The Dutch were being condemned to obscurity 20 years ago by economists, who even coined the phrase "the Dutch disease". Despite what the economists said, a very compassionate society prevails there, which has managed to achieve lower levels of unemployment than the United States. What better performance can you get than a country which is growing, which has low unemployment, a balanced budget and provides a level of services that we do not even dream of? That is what we should aspire to.
I repeat what I said earlier. It has to be viewed in the context of what has been provided over the lifetime of this Government. I can only answer for my period in office and that of this Government. The Senator may be correct in saying that growth rates did not start with this Government. One must then ask what was the priority of the previous Government, who presided over a period when there was sizeable growth if, as claimed, it started before we came to office. What was the priority of each Government at a particular time? The previous Government decided to give £1.80 to old age pensioners. More importantly, however, it decided, as a matter of policy, that it would link social welfare increases for one year to the rate of inflation. When it has been in office, my party has – even during the bad times in the 1980s – endeavoured to give increases above the rate of inflation. I am not prepared to listen to lectures from Senators about my party's philosophy on catering for the needs of the less well off.
In the not too distant past, the rate of unemployment in Sweden rose to 10% which prompted the Government of that country to adopt a policy of retrenchment with regard to its social spending. It was forced to do so because it could not afford to continue with its existing level of spending. The same happened in the Netherlands in recent years.
We are rewarding people for their work while, at the same time, catering for those who cannot compete in the workplace. I refer here to old age pensioners, who have received massive increases. In fact, when one takes into account the various free schemes, etc., the level of those increases is probably the highest in Europe. A similar position obtains in respect of carers and those on disability payments, who have obtained more in terms of increases than their counterparts in other EU countries. We can debate this until midnight, but I stand on my record.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
I have no wish to revisit matters that have already been discussed. However, the fact that section 5 deals with social assistance amplifies the point I have been making, namely, that the definition of the income on which we assume a destitute person can live is £84.40 per week. That is the rate of supplementary welfare allowance payable to a single person. As a society, we should be embarrassed about that and no amount of discussion about the level of increases given excuses that fact. One of the problems of society in this country is the refusal to raise the targets at which we aim. I accept that the Government of the country to which the Minister referred reduced its social spending. However, its system, which was then three times better, is still twice as good as that which obtains here. That country has a philosophical commitment to minimising inequality which Ireland lacks.
The countries to which we are referring have been extremely rich for many decades. Ireland did not enjoy such wealth and experienced high unemployment and inflation and low growth rates. It is only in recent years that matters have changed. That is why we are trying to catch up with other countries. I reiterate that my party's record, particularly in relation to the less well off in society, is second to none in the State. Any objective examination of the position will bear out what I am saying.
Mr. Ryan
I was going to restrain myself but the introduction of the adjective "objective" is far too provocative. I take it the Minister believes that Seán Healy, CORI and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are not being objective when they state that there are problems with the Government's record? They state that things they thought could and should have been done were not done. CORI has actually indicated that it feels betrayed. I know that the Minister is not going to accept the validity of the criticisms put forward by Members of the Opposition. However, it is somewhat rich to state that there is some objective criterion of which the Minister is apparently aware but which the rest of us cannot find. The truth is that what could have been done was not done and what has been done is inadequate. Why is that the case?
Everyone knows that management of the national debt is important. However, someone took a decision that people on £84.40 per week should be obliged to wait at least another year before they are given their dignity. I do not know any objective commentator who believes that is a good idea.
CORI and the other organisations were part of the PPF negotiations and they signed up to the agreement. The commitments in the PPF agreement are quite stark and it clearly states that the lowest rate of social welfare would reach, over the period of the three budgets to which the agreement applies, a figure of £100. We are well on the way to achieving that. The public statements issued by CORI subsequent to the signing of the PPF agreement are not factually correct. Other organisations that were involved in the negotiations objectively agree that what the Government has achieved in the first budget relating to the period to which the PPF relates more than fulfils the commitments it made.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
"6.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of introducing a personal childcare payment of £20 per child per week.".
The Government took into account the various discussions that have taken place during the past 12 months in relation to child care payments, child poverty and assisting families in meeting their child rearing costs. I have stated on numerous occasions that there are as many views on how to proceed in this regard as there are Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas. On many of the occasions when I met representatives of lobby groups, they left my office arguing among themselves with regard to how we should proceed. The Government has decided that over the next two years £1 billion will be invested in the child benefit scheme, which, in its view, is the fairest way of assisting families in meeting their child rearing costs.
We have given a commitment that, in the next two years, there will be an increase in the rate of child benefit for each of the first two children of £25 per month and an increase of £30 per month for the third and subsequent children. A number of Senators and Deputies have inquired about the two rates of child benefit. Research carried out by the Combat Poverty Agency and other groups suggests that larger families are more likely to be on or below the poverty line and, therefore, the second rate is geared towards these families.
We must put the increases in child benefit in context. I have no intention of making a political point—
Mr. Ryan
No, not at all.
—but it is important to place on record the fact that four years ago the increase given for each of the first two children was £1, while that applying to the third and subsequent children was £5. In addition, as a result of complaints, we have moved back from September to June the date from which these increases will be made. The cost involved in doing this will be substantial. We have also undertaken to consider the possibility of bringing forward further the date from which child benefit increases are payable as time progresses. That is the Government's position in respect of this issue.
Proposals for a child care payment have been abroad for some time. The proposal in the amendment is along the lines of that put forward by a particular lobby group, but it does not include the proviso contained in that group's proposal that the payment should be taxed. For some reason, those who tabled the amendment did not adopt that approach. Perhaps it would not have been politically acceptable to do so.
Last year there was a substantial increase of £105 million, or 25%, in child benefit. This represents an increase of £8 and £10 in the monthly rates, which was not a huge amount. However, in conjunction with the £25 and £30 per month increases this year and next year, we will reach a stage where the ultimate payment for each of the first two children will be approximately £117 per month and £145 for the third and subsequent children. There will, therefore, be a massive repayment.
The Government decided on this because it was the fairest way in that the sum is tax free, it is money in the hand, mainly to the woman in the house, and it is paid to families irrespective of whether any of the family members work. All research has shown that it has a major effect on child poverty because it goes directly to the family as an untaxed payment.
Mr. Ryan
Since he mentioned it, perhaps the Minister will tell me where in the social welfare legislation there is reference to taxation to tie in with his comment that the reference to taxation in this amendment was missing. I have not found in social welfare legislation reference to items being taxed. That is a matter for Finance Acts so whatever the reasons for it being left out, it would have been a singularly inappropriate phrase to have included in a Social Welfare Bill, and the Minister knows that is the case.
The Senator could have said something when he moved the amendment but he let me speak first. I thought he might have concluded his proposal on taxation.
Mr. Ryan
I will be totally honest about that. One of the reasons I let the Minister do these—
I hate a politician who says he will be totally honest.
Mr. Ryan
I was landed in this at 2 o'clock and I have had to learn as I go along, dealing with these amendments.
The Senator is doing well.
Mr. Ryan
That is the truth. My personal position since I was elected to this House 20 years ago has been that child benefit should be dramatically increased far more than it has been and made taxable. I suspect I would lose that argument in the Labour Party but I have no intention at this stage in my political career of changing my mind. The Minister added to my knowledge by telling me who was the other member of the Labour Party who took a similar view. I had forgotten about that and I was delighted to know I was not alone on that issue. I do not want to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 is in the name of Senator Costello. Amendment No. 10 is related, so amendments Nos. 8 and 10 will be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6 before section 6, to insert the following new section:
"6.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of bringing the child benefit for twins into line with the provision for multiple births of 3 or more children.".
I do not want to delay the House on this matter but we recognise that people with triplets have additional difficulties and expenses. We suggest that as triplets are recognised, there should be some recognition that having twins is an additional problem. My late mother-in-law at one stage had six children under the age of six, including two pairs of twins, and I heard enough about the difficulties of that to have considerable sympathy with this amendment, apart from moving it.
I hope the Minister is finished tantalising Senator Ryan because this jousting means that the other Members, who are anxious to do the business of the day, are being ignored.
Mr. Ryan
The Senator should join in.
Enjoyable as it is, there are limits. The Minister has an encyclopaedic mind but it is possibly a little selective. The Minister and I have had very enjoyable exchanges on this matter for the past four years—
Yes.
—although he has not yet tantalised me. Will the Minister not deal with this matter once and for all? Obviously the Minister is not female but a multiple birth is more than one. I remember seeing a film a long time ago called "Three Into Two Won't Go", in which this matter was aptly demonstrated, although the film was not about twins. This is a small gesture to make and the lobbying for it has been consistent and extensive, and for persistence alone, Mrs. Hilliard in Lucan should run in the next local elections. I hope the Minister will accept that this is not an unjust or unreasonable request. A multiple birth is a multiple birth, whether it is two or four.
I thank the Senators for tabling this amendment. I inherited a situation where multiple births were treated differently. My predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Woods, gave an explicit commitment in our policy document prior to the last election that we would increase the child benefit for twins by 150%. That is what we did in my first budget – we did more because we changed the small grants that were made available previously to children of multiple births, particularly triple and other multiple births. I have made it clear over the intervening years that in my first Social Welfare Bill we complied fully with our pre-election promises but that it was an issue we would come back to over the lifetime of the Government. We had other commitments that we had to fulfil in our election manifestos.
I have already indicated on Committee and Report Stages in the other House that this is an issue which needs to be addressed and it is something that will be on my agenda over the next year or so. I echo the sentiments expressed by Senators in relation to the persistence of Mairead Hilliard who has written to me on more than one occasion and also to members of my parliamentary party. I will give a commitment to the Seanad that this issue will be on my agenda over the next while.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3)The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the extent of child poverty and the feasibility in the context of the existing surplus funds within the Exchequer, of increas ing child benefit to £100 per month per child.".
I thank the Minister for giving a commitment in relation to the previous amendment.
Child benefit is an important issue. To refer to the figures alluded to on Second Stage, 25% of children are living in poverty. We already talked about those people who are living below the poverty line, as described by the anti-poverty strategy committee. We have to see child benefit as the best way of providing a basic income for those children. There is confusion from time to time about child benefit versus child care. Child care costs are a separate issue. We are talking about the costs of rearing a child. Were we to examine the figure of £100 per month per child we would be well on the way towards alleviating the problem of poverty. We are talking about caring for the most vulnerable people in society so I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. I accept the argument that can be made in relation to the use of child benefit to address the problem of child poverty as opposed to the child care issue. The reality is that the Government had to examine all the difficult issues and we were keeping one eye closely on the issue of child poverty and all the research in that area. No more than Senator Ryan and others, I have been an unashamed proponent of the child benefit route in relation to assisting families with child rearing costs because it has the major effect of addressing the child poverty issue.
Consistent poverty over a relatively short period has dropped significantly, as has child poverty. More needs to be done on child poverty. This is being looked at in the national anti-poverty strategy and the benchmarking working group set up under the PPF is looking at the adequacy of child payments. Obviously, the Government decision to put all its funding into the child benefit route second-guesses what will come out of the benchmarking group. Child poverty is an issue which is firmly on the Government's agenda.
I accept that. I said before that on issues like this we are on the same side and are trying to alleviate something which is a disgrace in a society which is as wealthy as it is. Will the Minister give an indication when those bodies will report? Will it happen within the next couple of months or before the next budget?
The benchmarking group is due to make an interim report in April and the full report is due in the summer. It will be made in advance and that refers to all social welfare payments, not just child payments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Ryan
I want to raise an issue which is sometimes lost. The Minister is right in saying that child benefit is one of the most effective routes of dealing with child poverty. No one disputes that. The perception is that increasing child benefit is also the solution to the crisis in child care. Has the Government considered reminding employers that if they need an ever-increasing workforce, they have responsibilities towards family friendly provisions?
My recollection is that every single proposal to increase parental leave or anything to do with looking after children produces a howl of protest from IBEC. It is time that it moved on and the Government could encourage it to move on, if it wants an increasing level of participation in the workforce by men and women. The price to be paid is to accept that employees have responsibilities towards their children just as much as to their employment. It simply cannot be dealt with by funding for child care, however generous. There must be an acceptance that a child may get sick. Even in the most perfect of social welfare systems, like in one of my beloved Nordic countries, there is no way of legislating for provision of support all the time. My three children grew up in a household where both parents went out to work virtually all the time. We had good child care, but a child minder cannot miraculously appear if a child gets sick at six o'clock in the morning and needs someone to look after him or her.
We must arrive at a stage where, if social partnership means anything, there has to be a lot more than payment, although much payment is needed. Employers must accept that employees have a right and an obligation to look after their children.
I agree with the Senator on this occasion. A number of changes to the taxation code were made to assist major employers, particularly in providing child care facilities on their premises. Even though the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, made changes in the budget before last which did not entice them to do this, he made other changes which might have that effect.
Another leg of the Government's assistance to families is the commitment in the national development plan to provide about £300 million over the period, with £104 million fast-tracked or front-loaded this year to bring up the supply of child care places. At the end of the day, this is the only way in which the cost of child care will decrease for families. All research shows this. As I said before, we are starting from a low base on child care. One thing sadly lacking is the availability of child care places. That is why the Government has provided this heavy investment, probably more than can be spent in this year, to increase the supply and, to assist on the demand side, it is giving money to families irrespective of the choices they make in relation to their working life.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 11 and 22 are related and with the agreement of the House they will be discussed together.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 7, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
"8.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of extending the social welfare free schemes to widows and widowers with dependent children and of raising the widowed parent grant to £2,000.".
As I have said in the other House, representations from the Opposition and my own parliamentary party have been received about widows. We have looked high up and low down at what we could do. In one budget, we increased the bereavement grant from £100 to £500. In a subsequent budget we brought forward a widowed parent grant of £1,000 which means that a widow, or widower, with children on the death of a spouse gets £1,500.
We looked at the issue of free schemes but all the advice we got, particularly from the review of them, was that they were generally designed for people over 66. If we changed the position for widows it would cause difficulties with knock-on demands, particularly from other single parent families. For those reasons, we returned to an original proposal, to bring widow's payments up to the level of old age pensions. For that reason, the Government is giving a special increase this year to widows of £12.90. This is the first step in bringing widow's payment up to the level of the old age pension. This is the fairest way to proceed. Over the years it has been argued that widows ought to be paid at the old age pension rate. The budget and this Social Welfare Bill have started this process by giving them the special increase.
Having looked at all the issues, I ask the Senators to accept that it is not just a simple matter of allowing all widows to avail of free schemes. There are many knock-on effects which would cause difficulties in the entire social welfare system and would raise many anomalies. The fairest way is to increase the payments to the old age pension rate.
I am speaking on amendment No. 22 but I support the thrust of the Labour Party's amendment also. We refer specifically to the free travel pass, free electricity allowance and free telephone rental allowance. The Minister referred to the widows and widowers who have no income except social welfare. They merit special attention. I am conscious of the difficulties involved. One could write a major thesis on the anomalies and difficulties that pertain on the social welfare system. The executive summaries of the reports from the Department are difficult enough. The finer detail is unbelievably impenetrable on occasion, but I appreciate that is the nature of the system, much of which is inherited.
Perhaps a special reform committee could be established to work out a system to be applied on a yearly basis, and thus take care of some anomalies. I appreciate the Minister's positive comments in this regard and I hope he considers the difficulties of those who are widowed and find themselves on a limited income.
There is no heating in this House or in the ante-room at the moment. If we were in school, we would be sent home, although I am not asking for that to happen. Something is wrong in this House when staff, civil servants and Members are expected to sit in the cold. I am prepared to sit it out, but I trust something will be done to avoid a recurrence. The ante-room is like a morgue.
Acting Chairman
The Clerk will ask that something be done about the heating.
I support these amendments, although I do not want to repeat what has been said. During the debate on the Social Welfare Bill in previous years, I have said that widows are forgotten. I live in a rural area, where this phenomenon is most evident. Many widows live alone and depend on non-contributory widow's pensions, as their spouse may not have been in insurable employment, for example if he was a small farmer. The widow's source of income may be a farm which she is not very good at running, or the non-contributory widow's pension. She might not receive any fringe benefits like the living alone allowance, which is given to those over 65 or 66. It should be given to a widow living alone who is over 55.
A particular form of poverty can be attached to such people, who may never have worked outside the home and who suddenly find themselves tragically widowed. The same is true of many widowers in the countryside, whose wives die and leave them with young families. Their only income is the widower's or survivor's pension. The fact that most of these people are under the age of 65 or 66 means that they are not eligible for these schemes as a special concession.
The Minister's response today was positive. I have less experience of urban situations than rural ones. Widows often visit me at my clinic to talk about their low level of income, and there is nobody I understand better. It is clear that social welfare has only reached out to these people to the minimum degree, and I ask the Minister to look at this closely in future budgets. I do not know if he will have the opportunity, not that I wish him any ill.
I believe that widows are being forgotten to a greater extent than any other category of people who depend on social welfare. They are not a large group numerically. The widow or widower living in a rural area, who depends solely on a non-contributory payment, should be particularly considered. They may have been self-employed and were not making or could not make a self-employed contribution. The Minister should believe me when I say that they now find themselves in a bind, a true poverty trap.
Mr. Ryan
We could continue with wish lists forever, but in a time of increased prosperity it is time to look at the number of units covered by the free electricity allowance. It worries old people, particularly in cold weather, that they will exceed dramatically their allowance. It is not a huge allowance, as 200 units per month is a small amount of electricity, which many of us would barely notice at the end of a bill. There is a case for looking at this, as it is one of the simplest and least risky ways for old people to keep themselves warm. It is available to them easily, as they can buy electric heaters cheaply if they are sure they will not have an enormous and horrendous electricity bill.
I thank the Senators and I accept Senator Ryan's point in relation to heating, which is why we extended the fuel allowance. It can be argued that we should have increased it by more than £5, but I share the view of the fuel schemes review. It is better to give people more money in their weekly payments for 52 weeks every year than to give a higher increase for a shorter period of 26, now 29, weeks. I am also conscious of the sudden death phenomenon, whereby April comes and people lose the additional free fuel allowance of £5. The effect would be even bigger if the drop was £10. The review of schemes in relation to free fuel suggested we would be better off giving higher general weekly increases.
So that is the reason increases were given.
That is the rationale.
It was said that the reason was generosity.
In my view one is better off extending the period, and perhaps ultimately—
The cat is out of the bag.
—phasing the fuel allowance so that it is paid all year round. That is another issue, however. In relation to widows, I think Senators will accept we have committed ourselves to improving their plight over the coming budgets. No matter who is in office after the next election, whenever it comes, it will be the same.
Mr. Ryan
Do we really need to ask?
We will raise payments to widows and widowers over 66 to the level of payments to old age pensioners. We have already started by giving a special increase of £12.90 to 68,000 people over the age of 66. A special £1,000 grant, on top of the existing £500, has been given to widowed parents, who tend to be younger. We will continue to look at this area. There are about 117,000 widows in total.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.
Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Mr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 10, before section 12, but in part 3, to insert the following new section:
"12.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of making provision for the extended payment of maternity or adoptive benefit to women who take maternity or adoptive leave on or before the commencement of this section but after the making of regulations under the Maternity Protection Act, 1994, or the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995, extending the period of leave".
This amendment comes back to something I raised earlier about family-friendly work. Judging by the way international commentators look at us, we have achieved some of our prosperity because of the flexibility of labour in facilitating economic activity. Now that a level of prosperity has been achieved, we need to restore balance and give greater room for manoeuvre to those whose flexibility was a contributor to our prosperity. Women need such space when it comes to maternity leave. This amendment asks the Minister to look at the possibility of extended payment of maternity and adoptive benefit for women.
I thank the Senator. The changes we have made in the budget are along the lines suggested by the working group which was set up under the PPF to look at maternity benefit. I claim some credit in that adoptive benefit had been excluded from the examination.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister would not do that.
As a result of my suggestion, the adoptive benefit payment and the period were increased. For some reason it was not part of the examination under the PPF. Senators will know that we have increased the level of payment and the number of paid and non-paid weeks. That was according to the agreement set down by the social partners. Senator Ryan is correct that some groups want more and some want less. The Minister for Finance and the Government have already indicated that the issue of paid parental leave will be addressed. However, it must be done in conjunction with the social partners and subject to their agreement.
As regards the maternity and adoptive leave benefit, at my exhortation we endeavoured to introduce that earlier than was originally intended because representations were made by all sides of the House and by members of the public involved in this area. The original intention on budget day was that it would come into effect on 5 April. We introduced it as quickly as possible subject to various time limits set down by the leave legislation. The regulations were introduced immediately after the Christmas recess and passed by both Houses on 8 February. They came into force on 8 March, which was International Women's Day and a nice coincidence.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 10, after line 42, to insert the following new subsection:
"(5)The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report detailing the implications of:
(a) extending maternity leave to 20 weeks, and
(b) introducing paid paternal leave for 5 days.”.
There are similarities between these two amendments. This amendment refers to paid paternal leave for five days and to the extension of maternity leave to 20 weeks. I welcome the fact that maternity and adoptive leave have been increased from 14 to 18 weeks. However, I would like a greater acknowledgment of life in our communities. There would not be anyone complaining about child care but for the fact that it has become an economic imperative. There are honourable exceptions in the Oireachtas and among voluntary pressure groups which have called for the extension of maternity leave and the introduction of paid paternal leave. We would not be having a debate on child care benefits and payments but for the fact that women are needed in the workplace and we must entice them back. Children are usually cared for by the mother. However, that is not the way all couples want society to develop. An increasing number of men are more than willing to accept responsibility for looking after young children.
It is only a gesture to introduce paid paternal leave for five days. I do not accept the Minister's point that we must wait for the social partners to agree on this. It would not take much to contact a few bodies and find out that they would be only too delighted to agree to it. They might say they would like ten or 15 days, but they want an immediate response. We should acknowledge the role of parents. I am tired saying that children have parents, not just mothers. If the parents wish to accept the responsibilities which are rightly theirs, they should be encouraged to do so. Whatever about allowing unpaid parental leave, it is unrealistic to expect young people who are under severe pressure because of mortgages, etc., to take unpaid leave. It is fine if they choose to do so because they can afford it. I ask the Minister to examine this suggestion carefully and urgently. It is ridiculous to wait for a long discussion on this issue because people want an immediate response.
As regards paid parental leave, the Government has already indicated that it wishes to progress this matter. Despite what the Senator said, we must do that in conjunction with the social partners as that is the commitment we made under the PPF. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and a working group is due to be set up. He has sought nominations from various interested groups for the working group to carry out this review. It is expected the working group will commence its deliberations shortly. The question of paid parental leave will be examined in the context of that review.
As regards the Senator's proposal to introduce paid paternal leave for five days, paid parental leave can be made in a number of ways. Employers, the social welfare system or a combination of both might be required to carry the can. If the five day proposal was introduced, it would have to be paid by the employers because it would be extremely cumbersome and difficult to set up a system under the social welfare system to pay five days. It would be better for the employer to continue paying people. Under existing legislation they are obliged to pay three days parental leave for urgent family reasons. However, the Government is committed to examining this issue and to bringing forward proposals in the context of the social partnership.
The child care systems in some of the former repressed European countries and France, although not in Britain, were designed to support the mother and the family during the first year of a child's life. A number of years ago women who had babies stayed in hospital for almost a week which gave them time to recover their health. However, women now leave maternity hospitals after two or three days in a public hospital. They need the emotional and physical support of their partners.
I do not understand why we need to set up further commissions and advisory bodies. I am beginning to wonder why we need a Legislature when outside commissions and bodies seem to run the country and we cannot move forward until we get an agreement. I do not see any need to seek an agreement to provide a simple and basic necessity, such as five days paternal leave and extending maternity leave to 20 weeks.
We are probably so far behind because we were not industrialised and women did not work. That does not mean that we should not try to catch up as rapidly as we can. With the burgeoning costs of child care and the fact that it is quite difficult to secure an affordable and suitable place where a parent would be happy to leave their child, it is not excessive to give maternity leave of up to 20 weeks. I do not know who is on the commission or what advisory bodies are involved. However, I suggest that both adoptive mothers and mothers who have given birth be given 20 weeks, which in the European context is very small.
All Governments and this one in particular should be far more family supportive. Earlier today, Senator Ryan called for a debate on the quality of life. The quality of life is deteriorating in many ways due to outside factors over which we have no control. In the case of helping parents of newborn children, their quality of life can be improved by agreeing to our amendment.
This is one of the most important amendments we have had. We have to show that the Tánaiste is incorrect when she says we are spiritually nearer to Boston than to Berlin. We really must look at this from a European point of view. As Senator Ridge said, even ten years ago when I worked in a maternity hospital, women stayed in hospital for perhaps five days after the birth of a child. Now they are generally out in three days and frequently in two days.
The early discharge from hospital is not the only problem. The extended family is no longer there to help the mothers. It would be very useful for a mother going home to perhaps another small child to know at least that there is adjacent help from her family. It is quite interesting to talk to some of the refugees who come here. After they have given birth, they are absolutely astonished by the lack of support women here have from their extended family. They expect women, as they would in their own country, to be able to go out to a cherishing nurturing family who would receive them with the precious child. Here a mother may frequently return to her home, which may be miles away from any member of her family and if her husband or partner does not work for a sympathetic employer they may be totally isolated.
I know the Minister is sympathetic to these ideas, but I suggest the matter is quite urgent. Every survey that he must have read shows the importance of the bonding of the young child with its parents. It is at this early stage that we must put money into our society rather than wasting it and having to put in extra money to solve problems later on. There are good reasons for the child as well as the mother and the father to have as generous an allowance as we can provide at this time.
It is good that Senator Leonard is here. Family sizes are smaller so we will not constantly have to do this for families of six; it will be two to three children in general.
From listening to the discussion, one would think that this has been a contentious issue among the public. I have many friends working in maternity hospitals who are women of child bearing age. They are very pleased with the changes in this year's budget and particularly with the extra month of unpaid leave. They recognise the value that is being placed on them as women who wish to return to the workplace and are appreciative of the changes that have taken place. The Minister has said that he will look at paid parental leave.
Senator Keogh mentioned that children have two parents. However in the context of the mothers, the women who are gaining from this budget are extremely appreciative. That needs to be recognised.
While Senator Ridge may say we cannot set up more groups, the reality is that the changes in maternity benefit which are welcomed by people outside this House were agreed at partnership level because there are conflicting elements. The same is true of paid paternal leave. The Government will be pushing the issue of paid parental leave because we believe it is one that has to be tackled. We are starting from a low base and we are trying to catch up quickly with the paragons throughout northern Europe whose standards those with a social conscience would aspire to. It will take time and will need to be done on an incremental basis.
Mr. Ryan
I am glad to hear that the Minister is clearly closer to Berlin than to Boston.
To be fair, the Tánaiste was wrongly quoted in this House.
The Minister said that about many people.
She was wrongly quoted by Dick Walsh and all the socially conscious—
Mr. Ryan
I believe she said we are spiritually closer to Boston than to Berlin because we do not believe in a highly regulated anti-job creation society.
I do not think Berlin is anti-job.
Mr. Ryan
The Tánaiste seemed to think so. Anyhow, I am glad to hear the Minister defend the Tánaiste having left her out of his Second Stage speech, for which he was properly reprimanded by the Progressive Democrats. I shall tell Senator Quill that he is now defending the Progressive Democrats. She will be glad to hear that.
There is a huge issue over maternal and paternal leave that goes well beyond childbirth. Is it entirely a coincidence that Europe in general has lower levels of teenage pregnancy, teenage abortion and marital breakdown than the United States? People are able to sustain some kind of family life because they are not under the sort of pressures that arise in the United States where there is a perception of a flexible, mobile workforce. This is not just about the immediate period around childbirth.
I will never forget the first time that I was left responsible for a two week old baby, my daughter, and the sense of terror that one has when left in charge of a small baby for the first time. I have great sympathy for people who come home to large suburban estates.
How could the Senator be terrified? I loved it all.
Mr. Ryan
This is the anarchist streak that the Minister was talking about earlier.
I would love to be at home now rather than sitting in here. I am extremely jealous.
Mr. Ryan
He is not the only one who would love to be at home. I remember the former Tánaiste, Deputy Dick Spring, when asked how his youngest child was, said: "He is well, I believe". This was a salutary comment on the impact of politics on family life. I am simply saying there is a need to make work "family friendly" and not just in the period around childbirth. Employers must recognise that their employees have other obligations and they cannot be required to drop one set of obligations just because they arrive at the workplace.
Again, I do not disagree with the Senator.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Costello, Joe.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom.Henry, Mary. |
Keogh, Helen.McDonagh, Jarlath.Manning, Maurice.O'Toole, Joe.Quinn, Feargal.Ridge, Thérèse.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Níl
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim. |
Glynn, Camillus.Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Keogh and Ridge; Níl, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 12 agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
We now come to amendment No. 16 in the name of Senator Keogh. Amendments Nos. 17 and 21 are related. Amend ments Nos. 16, 17, and 21 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 16, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2)The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report considering the implications of:
(f2>a)increasing the respite care grant to £1,000 to all carers including those who are excluded by virtue of a means test, and
(f2>b)removing the disqualification, whereby carers in receipt of social welfare payments are excluded from qualifying for a carer's allowance in special circumstances.".
This amendment seeks information on the implications of increasing the respite care grant to £1,000 for all carers, including those who are currently excluded by virtue of a means test, and of removing the disqualification whereby carers in receipt of social welfare payments are excluded from qualifying for a carer's allowance in special circumstances.
According to the Department's estimate, there are over 50,000 carers, 20,000 of whom are eligible to receive the carer's allowance. I spoke at length about the respite care grant on Second Stage. I mentioned that I have some degree of personal experience of this, and I do not propose to refer to that again. What we do know is that time and time again it is the carers, those looking after people on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, who have the burden, the stress and the strain of looking after relatives and who find it a really difficult task who, as it is said colloquially, are the first to go. I know of one Alzheimer's patient who was cared for as long as possible within his own home by his wife. They were not particularly elderly, and it makes it even more sad that somebody who for many years was in reasonably good physical shape was deteriorating mentally. We all know how difficult it can be to cope with the fact that the sufferer is not recognisable as the person to whom one grew so close over many years, and how difficult that is for the carer to take.
I am aware that bad cases make bad law, but these are real tragedies for the people involved. They have to cope with the tragedy of dealing with somebody who has a disability when they at times feel quite helpless themselves. Many people believe they are not doing nearly enough and that they should do more. Such people need the benefit of respite care. A sum of £1,000 might buy a short holiday, but it is necessary to ensure that the household is looked after in one's absence. It really would be a humanitarian gesture to extend the grant to that extent and include those who are currently excluded by virtue of a means test. In the vast majority of cases we are talking about people on low incomes who are, perhaps, just above the income limit, and they are scraping along as best they can. The supports within the community are not as good as they might be. These people need respite from a very difficult job, and they need to know that the people for whom they care will receive very good care in their absence.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.