Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be discussed together.
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"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 adverse financial effect to lone parents in returning to the workforce under the Fás Jobs Initiative Programme and to report on the number of lone parents who have seen a reduction in their weekly income as a result of recent wage increases under the Programme.".
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the same issue which was also debated in the other House on Committee Stage. It has to do with lone parents. The relatively small increases in payment given to those participating in FÁS schemes such as the community employment scheme and jobs initiative programme have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of lone parents participating. I recently attended a meeting in my constituency where many lone parents spoke to me about this issue. They said it was not worth their while participating in schemes because they had lost so much in their total payment. This anomaly must be corrected. The Minister said in the other House that she was prepared to examine the issue by way of FIS, family income supplement. I have tabled these amendments to see how the situation can be ameliorated. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that these are very good schemes which help many women return to the workforce. If a financial disincentive is created, people will not be inclined to take up these jobs.
The second amendment deals with a particular problem. Up to now a person working under the jobs initiative scheme did not pay any PRSI. The recent €10 increase under the scheme means that the PRSI ceiling has been breached for the first time for those in this category. They are now paying PRSI for the first time. The matter has been brought to my attention by three separate groups in my constituency. In the past there were incremental increases in the PRSI ceiling, so why is there no increase this year? People on JI schemes will now pay PRSI for the first time. It was never the intention that this should happen. These people will find themselves in the PRSI net, which is another disincentive for those trying to get back to work. I am interested in hearing the Minister's views on amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
There have been protracted discussions on the jobs initiative scheme. I am aware there were several public meetings, particularly in the Senator's constituency, because of the impact the scheme has had. This was to have been a one-year scheme which would lead to employment. As a consequence, it was seen as a pathway through which people could obtain work.
The issue of income thresholds is an aspect of social policy. The current threshold is €298.40 per week. Lone parents, in particular, have been able to retain their full benefit plus their jobs initiative funding, but a difficulty is created if they progress beyond the threshold.
I have debated the scheme on many occasions with colleagues in both Houses. There were newspaper headlines to the effect that people would lose €60 per week, which is not the case. It is a tiered system whereby people on the scheme would move down through the levels to 50% of their benefit, as well as retaining their jobs initiative funding. The family income supplement would then bring them up to a more reasonable level. In other words, the losses referred to would not occur. Changing one aspect in the Department would have huge consequences for other schemes.
The disregard aspect could create an equity problem because people on other schemes do not have such a high disregard. The emphasis at the time was on encouraging lone parents, in particular, to go back to work and education, which is why the disregard was provided. Once the tier clicked in on the one-parent family allowance, it would automatically bring up the FIS. There would, therefore, still be the equity aspect. If one lost out on the lone parent allowance, one would be compensated through the family income supplement.
I had to decide whether to increase the disregard. However, on considering the consequences on other schemes, it did not appear the correct thing to do. My officials and I have had numerous discussions with FÁS. I would like to progress further the impact of other Departments and agencies on social welfare benefits, in particular. Even though we were providing an increase in the jobs initiative scheme, it had a negative effect on people who are dependent on my Department.
This provision does not satisfy everyone. As a result of our discussions, FÁS will be talking to the partnership groups – including the Tallaght partnership group. I have written to these groups and to my colleagues in the Dáil – I can also write to Members of this House – indicating how matters will be organised. It is not a perfect solution. Some people may lose between €5 and €10. They will retain the rent supplement, including scheme funding, medical cards or any other secondary benefits to which they are entitled. Family income supplement is not taken into consideration for many other secondary benefits. It is the best way to address this specific issue.
We will have to take this issue into consideration when considering the thresholds. The cost in a full year of increasing the threshold would be in the region of €7 million, which I do not possess. I hope that supporting people by way of family income supplement will address their concerns. I will advise Senators how we propose to proceed. I have asked the Department to facilitate people in completing their application forms so that there will be no loss of income for those on the jobs initiative scheme.
The Senator referred to PRSI. With effect from the 2000-01 tax year, all employees covered under classes A, B, C, D, E and H, with reckonable earnings of not more than €287 per week, have been exempt from making an employee social insurance contribution. This was introduced under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. If the PRSI exemption threshold was increased to €290.40 per week to facilitate the 2,500 participants currently on the jobs initiative scheme, it would have to be introduced for all employees within the same earnings band. Obviously, the difference would be inequitable and it would discriminate against other categories of low paid workers. The most recent figures available indicate that to implement such a measure would affect approximately 21,300 employees and would cost in the region of €7.1 million in a full year. I have considered the matter and it is not proposed to adjust the threshold at this time. Participants in the jobs initiative scheme are affected by the application of the existing threshold in the same manner as other employees who, upon receiving an increase in reckonable earnings, may move from below the threshold to above it.
Class A employees with reckonable earnings of over €287 per week pay a social insurance contribution of 4% up to the employee earnings ceiling. We did not have an opportunity to increase the band this year and, therefore, many people on the jobs initiative scheme will not be exempt from paying social insurance. One can create poverty traps by setting ceilings but we must put a figure on disregards, including the stage at which people pay PRSI. We are not just dealing with those on the jobs initiative scheme, but with low paid workers.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept the Senator's amendments. I will try to address the concerns of people on the jobs initiative scheme through the family income supplement. I will advise Members on how the permutations will work. I will facilitate as quickly as possible people on the scheme in regard to their applications.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. On the lone parent allowance, the current maximum income for one parent families is €293. The €10 increase under the FÁS scheme, which would push people over the threshold, would mean that people would immediately lose 50%. There are 400 women nationwide in that category. Is the Minister suggesting that they can apply to her Department for FIS – I do not know whether people are aware that there is an ongoing debate about the supplement – and will that payment make up the difference of the 50% loss on the lone parent payment? This would involve their making separate applications. How is this to be communicated to what is a relatively small group of approximately 400 people?
I understand the Minister's problem with the PRSI ceiling and the jobs initiative scheme. This is a focused scheme in that it only applies to those who have been out of work for a total of five years. It effectively covers those who have been unable to function in the labour market for many years. It provides them with the opportunity to return to work. The Minister implies that this year just over 21,000 employees will come into the net. Some are on low income and not participants in the scheme. This means that those taken into the net this year are new participants. By raising the ceiling, the Minister will not only help those on the scheme but also those on low income who, for the first time, will have to pay PRSI, an additional burden for them. I suspect most of them are not aware of this. I ask the Minister to consider making improvements in this area. While the amendment seeks to help those involved in the jobs initiative scheme, it will also help those on low income.
Some 410 recipients of the one parent family allowance are included in the jobs initiative programme. Of these, 395 will benefit from the transitional arrangements available under the one parent family payment scheme. There will be a loss but it will not be of the kind envisaged by those not in receipt of family income supplement. Take the case of single parents with one child who are in receipt of the one parent family payment. In 2002 they would have earned €374.50 per week. This will be reduced to €362.95, a variation of approximately €11.
The FÁS payment increase is wiped out.
Unfortunately, that is the case. We were not aware that FÁS was going to increase the payment until we read about it in the newspapers. The decision could not be reversed. My Department will be in contact with recipients of the one parent family allowance. Approximately 400 will be advised on an individual basis to apply for family income supplement.
The tax bands were left unchanged in the budget. Benefits accrue to those who pay a social insurance contribution. I appreciate the ceiling has not increased but given the economic climate, I was not in a position to change the bands. As the tax bands did not change, there was no consequential increase in the PRSI exemption limits.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"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 number of Jobs Initiative Participants who as a result of the Acts implications are now liable to pay PRSI, the reasons why the threshold figure below which PRSI is not payable by workers was not changed and the cost projections in excluding this group of workers from the PRSI net.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"3.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a Report on the effects of abolishing the Back to Education Allowance for post graduate students and the implications of this decision concerning access to third level education."
On Second Stage I implored the Minister to revoke section 3. The amendment calls on her to report to the Oireachtas on the effects of the decision to abolish the back-to-education allowance scheme. This is a cruel and crude cutback.
On Second Stage the Minister indicated that a person with a primary degree had ample qualification for work. However, this fails to understand that many students returning to the education system do so in the belief they will be allowed to complete their studies. The vast majority of the courses in which they are involved necessitate continuing education. In most instances this will involve a postgraduate qualification. The author of this cutback failed to recognise this.
It is petty in the extreme that the Department which held out incentives to return to education is now saying it is a luxury that can no longer be afforded. That is very regrettable. In 2002 there were 3,679 participants in the scheme, which is a credit to themselves and the Department.
The Department has also targeted the important incentive which allowed for a continuation of the allowance during the summer holidays. If this was carried to its conclusion, it would mean participants would also lose their allowance during other holiday periods such as Christmas and Easter. Why has the summer break been singled out?
The Minister is acting in contradiction to the Minister for Education and Science. He is seeking to encourage the disadvantaged to participate in third level education and has cited this as a reason for the reintroduction of third level fees. It is illogical for the Minister to deny access to the disadvantaged at a time when her ministerial colleague is seeking to encourage it, although I do not agree with the reasons offered by the Minister for Education and Science for the reintroduction of third level fees.
The uncertainty in this area is a cause of concern to all parents and students. On Second Stage I referred to the example of a close friend of mine and neighbour. I outlined the reason, at the age of 14 years, he had dropped out of the education system. He was employed and lost his job but, with the encouragement of the Department and the then Minister, took the initiative and returned to education where he has flourished. Last week he told me he had done so to secure every possible qualification. Despite his achievements, he will lose because of this cutback. He is a father of eight children, six of whom are dependent on him, yet he will lose this allowance during the summer. The Minister said he could claim unemployment benefit or assistance. However, he wants to continue with his current allowance in order to complete his education.
The important fact is that he started on that allowance. Now it has been ended and he is literally on the rocks. He is so despondent that he says there is no point in continuing and he will go and get a job. The job he will get will not be related to the years he has spent on the back to education scheme. I fail to understand the thinking behind the halting of this initiative. It will discourage the disadvantaged people we encouraged into it. The ending of this scheme shows callous disregard for their initiative and for disadvantaged people. I cannot emphasise that fact enough.
I know the Minister's sympathy is with these people. If she considers the numbers of disadvantaged people attending courses in County Donegal, in the Sligo institute, the Galway-Mayo institute, NUIG and the third level institutes in Limerick, she will discover that the highest proportion of disadvantaged students participating in those schemes live in those areas. The Minister should immediately reverse the cruel decision that was made to halt this initiative because it affects the disadvantaged. She must allow these students to continue in their activities and must not disrupt their education. Many of those who now face imminent examinations cannot give of their best because of the uncertainty which is disrupting their studies and which is of great concern to them. They have lobbied every Member of the Houses because of the fear engendered in them by the abolition of this initiative.
It is essential that the Minister make a positive statement that this allowance will be restored immediately in order to allay their fears. Some of them are in a state of despondency and have the attitude that they should quit now because they have been forgotten by the Government which has decided to discontinue the scheme. I plead with the Minister to indicate a positive response for the disadvantaged students involved.
I regret this move by the Government and I hope the Minister will be in a position to reconsider it. The initiative was practical, worked and was of particular assistance to the disadvantaged. People on unemployment assistance, lone parents, people on farm assist schemes and blind people – the most vulnerable individuals in society – were taking up this opportunity. It is astonishing that this decision, which apparently – according to the voluminous correspondence I have received – was taken at Government level in January, has not yet been communicated to the people involved. This is confusing and worrying for these people as Senator Burke said. It is astonishing that people who are in the second year of their courses now find themselves in a situation where it is impossible for them to continue. That is regrettable and goes against the general trend.
I applaud the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Dempsey, in his attempts to target the available resources. He is quite correct. I agree with that on university level also. I support him on this because he is a courageous Minister. I do not mind tough decisions if they focus resources towards the people who need them most. I would certainly be happy to support those decisions. I know it would not make me popular with my electorate, but I would do it.
The good thing about this scheme was that there was a standard rate of payment applying to all participants. It was positive in that it was not means tested, was payable for the whole course and included a book allowance. The provision of the book allowance was particularly positive because people often find it difficult to access money for books, but on this scheme students were not just paid their allowance and left stranded. The scheme was particularly intended to address the problem of low participation in the educational system by people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
It is important for people to have access to higher degrees. The kind of academic qualifications I have would be damn all use in the open market and I am a senior lecturer. I threw my PhD out the window because I could not be bothered finishing it. I would probably be unemployable.
That would never happen to the Senator.
Seriously, people need to look at the situation of having to go to third level. We have all received correspondence from people affected by this. I will not recite the lot, but I would like to place on record the case history of a mature student from Galway. I ask the House and the Minister and her officials to consider the practical implications of this. The letter I received states:
In my case (a single BTEA student), my weekly allowance is €124.80 plus annual book allowance of €254. In addition to this I have a medical card and rent allowance. If I lose my BTEA benefit during the summer months, I automatically lose my rent allowance and medical card. I cannot cope with losing my rent allowance for the summer and furthermore when I return to college in September I will not be able to reclaim rent allowance as I have recently been informed that people paying rent over €65 per week cannot claim for rent allowance. I live in Galway City and I pay €85 a week, which is considered a fair rent. If I do try to find another cheaper place to rent I will face a long haul as most cheaper rooms do not accept rent allowance and are of substandard condition. I was only informed of this change this week and was never informed of the cut to my present rent allowance from €57.40 to €53.
So, instead of trying to work for the summer and keep my benefits I have no choice but to return to the dole queue for the summer.
It is ironic that one of the reasons the BTEA scheme was initiated was to remove people from the dole queue. I make the point, through the direct case history to which I referred, that cutting the scheme will actually cost the Exchequer money. People will be dislodged from something positive, which would place them in a situation where they could contribute to the economy to a situation where they will be bored, depressed, feel useless and get stuck on a dole queue and the State will pay for it. There is not even a financial benefit in abolishing this scheme. I know we are in a period when there must be close monitoring of accounts, but the abolition of this scheme will have the opposite effect to that desired and will actually cost money overall. It may save money in one Department, but the debts will be transferred to another. Let us look at this matter in an honest manner.
I will end with a bit of plámás. I am glad the Minister is in the House today because I know she is a decent, humane woman whose heart is in the right place. I know she will take the right decision if her wings have not been clipped by Cheltenham Charlie, as he was christened on the Order of Business this morning. I hope the Minister will be in a position to examine this matter, that she will take into account the facts laid before her today and consider the welfare of students on the scheme. The provision was generous and liberal, but we should not apologise for that. It is good that we should encourage people and give them a book allowance. It will be a real shame if this is taken away.
I hope it will not be necessary to force this to a vote. I will not be in a position to take further part in the debate because I have some distinguished guests in the Visitors Gallery who represent a country that is friendly to Ireland. I will be available for the vote, if it comes to that but I hope it will not do so.
Is the Senator going to Cheltenham?
No, and my guest is not President Bush.
The case for this amendment has been well put by Senators Burke and Norris. This is a crazy proposal. The Minister is a sensible, humane person who has her feet on the ground and knows the problem. This is a problem she can resolve. Will she state exactly the amount of money about which we are talking? The amount involved is small, but its loss will have a profound effect on the people who receive the allowance.
Those who make the transition to college at 18 or 19 years of age have every advantage. They leave secondary education and go to third level. Vast sums were spent on them before the introduction of free tuition fees. Four fifths of the total cost was paid by the State but now the total cost is paid. If one calculates how much the State pays for individuals, such as myself and others who went directly to college at 18 or 19 years of age, it is a massive investment. Some €100,000 is paid in direct subventions by the State to colleges for every student over a three or four year period.
The people about whom we are talking have taken the decision to go back to education. They are not looking for €100,000, €50,000 or €20,000 but for a small payment which will make a difference and enable them to remain in college and leave the education process better qualified and equipped to accept new jobs in the labour market. Anyone from any walk of life, irrespective of his or her qualifications, who takes a decision to go back to college is trodden on when it comes to getting the support to which he or she is entitled. He or she is constantly under the cosh when it comes to making financial payments to colleges for books or maintenance payments.
People at 18 or 19 years of age have it quite good because the State pays their way. If their parents' income is below a certain level, they will get a maintenance payment. They will be able to get a job in the labour market at 21 or 22 years of age. However, those who leave work to go back to college on a full-time basis are not supported, which is ludicrous. The investment I got as a student when I started college at 18 or 19 years of age was mammoth compared to the small sums people in their thirties or forties who want to go back to college are looking for.
There is cross-party support for this amendment. I congratulate those who made representations, particularly the lobby group from NUI Galway where I know the issue has greater significance than in other colleges. I ask the Minister to reconsider, even at this late stage, and do something significant for the people concerned who find themselves in this situation. Otherwise, we will send out all the wrong signals. It seems we will come down heavy on those from disadvantaged backgrounds who want to make a difference to their education and have shown huge initiative by going back to college at a difficult age. That is unacceptable in this day and age. I request the Minister's support for this amendment.
This seems to be another case of a lack of co-ordination between Departments. Other Senators have pointed out that the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is encouraging people to go back to education in order they can be usefully employed in the highly technical areas we want to promote, yet the Department of Social and Family Affairs is severely cutting the back-to-education allowance. This will affect women particularly badly. The Minister is aware of my involvement with Cherish, the single mothers organisation, because she kindly opened a large conference we organised last year. The back-to-education allowance has been extraordinarily important for the young women concerned. This will be a serious setback for many of them.
I am involved in the trust fund in Trinity College and we try, with our limited funds, to help students with financial difficulties, one of the major reasons they drop out of education. It is hard, as other Senators have pointed out, to see students who may be in second year wondering how they will complete their degree. More will call on us if this unfortunate cut is made.
I want to tell the Minister something she may not have heard. I know I am speaking to a discreet audience. Such decisions can be reversed. We had trouble last autumn because there was a postgraduate course in Trinity College for clinical psychologists, of which there is a ghastly shortage. Only approximately 50% of those needed are available and there has been a worldwide search to get them. It was decided by the Department of Education and Science that it would run a course for 20 postgraduates in clinical psychology. There must be posts in the health service and the course was organised by the Department of Health and Children with the North Western Area Health Board of the Eastern Regional Health Authority. However, two weeks before it was due to start and with those who were to teach the course in place and being paid, the Department of Health and Children decided it would not employ the postgraduate students, many of whom had given up jobs to do the course. I am delighted that all hell was raised by me and others and we managed to get the decision reversed.
This, therefore, is a decision the Minister can reverse. She could say she had terrible trouble in the Seanad and that she was told this was a serious mistake. It is not a huge fund or a staggering amount. As has been pointed out, many of the people concerned will draw unemployment money instead. I appeal to the Minister to say this is one decision she wants reversed. It has happened before and can happen again.
I support previous speakers. I appeal to the Minister to take on board the detailed comments eloquently expressed, particularly by Senators Norris and Ulick Burke. This cutback will affect the worst-off in our society. Those on low incomes are already marginalised by the system. This scheme was intended to eliminate social exclusion. The savings made by the Department of Social and Family Affairs will be cancelled out by the fact that some will find themselves back in the dole queue. This cutback is regressive and harsh. The Minister must make a case to the Department of Finance for funding for such schemes. It must be next to impossible for a Minister to negotiate with Cheltenham Charlie to obtain funding for a worthwhile and deserving scheme. I appeal to the Minister to use her better judgment, good nature and reasonable thinking acumen to plead with the Department of Finance and accept this amendment.
I am sure Members are not divided on the benefits of the back-to-education allowance scheme. Apart from the allowance received, there is also a strong education subsidy, of which participants can avail. I would not have any difficulty agreeing to continue the scheme for 12 months if we owned oilfields and there were not limitations on resources and revenue. However, where limited resources are available, choices must be made about where they are targeted.
Tell them to go to Iraq.
The argument that someone should retain the allowance during the four months of the summer when they are not in full-time education and are entitled to work and receive benefits is unfair to others in the same category who do not have the benefit of the allowance. While I support the arguments made about the benefits of the scheme, the other arguments are not as valid. The scheme is being retained. Anyone listening to the debate might think it was being abolished, which is not the case. If there were no constraints whatsoever on resources one might entertain this but in a scenario where the only moneys available to the Minister are obtained from the taxpayer, choices have to be made—
Cruel.
—with regard to the targeting of those resources. The change proposed here does not merit the amount of opposition it has received, bearing in mind that if one does not secure employment during the summer one can revert to all the other social welfare supports and benefits available to that category. The issue of equity must be looked at. If the scheme were to be continued for the summer the resources deployed in that area would have to be taken from other areas. In that context I am not sure the arguments made are as strong as the emotional sense behind them appears.
I am not taking for granted the sincerity of the views expressed but it is important to go back to the beginning and see why the schemes were set up in 1996 and 1997. The entire ethos of the scheme was to encourage people back into education and to give them the opportunity of second chance education. The scheme is not gone. That interpretation could be taken from the debate here. What has happened is that two changes have been made. I refute the argument that people were not made aware of the changes, given that they were issued in a press release in November 2002. The two changes refer to postgraduates and payments in the summer. Those already in the scheme are not affected by the changes.
The reason people are encouraged into second chance education is to improve their job prospects. Initially, job prospects can be improved if people have a second level qualification, such as a leaving certificate, and a primary degree. It then progresses to a masters or a PhD. There are very few people who have gone through the system as we did who would not have had a job prospect by having a primary degree. Those with a primary degree have access to the jobs market. At many of the courses people are encouraged to go out to work and, if necessary, to get additional qualifications, such as a masters, PhD or whatever. Some go through the entire streamline of academia.
At present 600 people on the back to education scheme are doing postgraduate courses. In the context of the economic climate, choices have to be made in reviewing any of the schemes. I agree with many of the arguments made by Senators. If I take the €3 million which is needed and put it back into the scheme I have to take that €3 million from somebody else. Nobody has suggested any bright ideas as to where I can find €3 million in my budget.
Give us a chance. We will make suggestions.
The prerogative of being in Opposition is that one can point out the inadequacies but there are never too many running up to tell me—
The Minister can borrow.
—that if I put the €3 million back into the postgraduate scheme I will be able to counterbalance it by taking it from somewhere else. There were choices to be made and I had to make them. The independent Estimates review committee evaluated the schemes and recommended that people should not be paid during the summer. This applies to the participants who were in receipt of unemployment payments prior to participation in the scheme. All other participants – for example, lone parents, people with disabilities – remain unaffected by this decision and will retain payment during the summer period.
What has happened is that people have been given the allowance on a weekly basis and in the main they were also working during the summer. That payment is not means tested. It has been decided that those who are unable to find work, and sometimes it is quite difficult to find summer work, will be paid by the Department. I appreciate the argument made by Senator Norris because it is just another section of my Department which will pay those people during the summer. Everything in life is not simple, and particularly in my Department. Somebody once said, "If I were starting again I would not start from here." The schemes have been added to and we have tweaked schemes to address concerns. Naturally there are knock-on effects in other sections of the Department.
I appreciate what has been said. I have been lobbied by the members of the Union of Students in Ireland, by Members of both Houses and the universities. At a time of economic constraints, second chance education, be it at second level or at primary degree level, should be seen as a stepping stone, the pathway to progression into the jobs market.
I will keep the issue under review. At present I am not in a position to tell Senators that I can change the scheme. If Senators can find €3 million for the scheme and a further €15 million or €16 million for another scheme I will be delighted to listen to them.
Get rid of the consultants.
And the spins.
Prioritise.
And the photographs.
Deputy Ring may not believe me and I have to open my heart to him at this stage—
Please do not do that.
—to tell him I have cut consultancies to the bone. We are now paying only what we signed up to in the past two years. All sections of the Department have been pared down.
Some €19.6 million.
It would not be that amount.
That is what he claims.
No.
In the last two years the Department spent over €19.6 million on consultants.
This year it is €4 million for the computer development which started in the child benefit section and is progressing into pension services. If we want to deliver on Delivering Better Government we have to invest in that delivery.
Under the new Grow project, which will be on line shortly, information on every child born will be processed. Instead of waiting five, six or seven weeks for child benefit people have only to inform the Department where and how they want the money paid. All other details will be on-line and payment will be made automatically. It is a ten year project. Instead of the customer having to react to personal circumstances, the Department will be in a position to react. That is a good scheme and will benefit the customer.
The money I have provided this year for consultancies has led to the start up of that new project in the pension services office in Sligo. Unfortunately the technical people in my Departments say they need more money because they will have to extend the delivery period of the scheme because I cut the funding for consultancies.
I have targeted the resources to the best of my ability. Tough decisions have been made on the basis of where they would least affect people and discussions are taking place. I appreciate the concerns expressed and I will keep the matter under review. I shall be reviewing all the schemes at the beginning of the summer and I shall take into consideration the concerns expressed. I am not in a position to accept the amendment.
The Minister has firmly slammed the door on the many people seeking to return to education. The Department has failed – I do not believe the Minister is that way inclined – to address the problems faced by those who re-enter the education system. Many of them, aged 21 years plus, having dropped out of education for various reasons, are going through hell on earth trying to fit in with their peers on various courses and do so very successfully as I outlined to the Minister.
The Minister has said we must prioritise in the moneys available and that she has done this, yet she does not see this disadvantaged group as a priority. I am baffled and saddened by this. Returning to education is a huge leap for the many hoping to get a qualification which will provide them with an opportunity to obtain gainful employment in the future.
Many are unsure of their position. I have instanced the case to the Minister of a man, two years into his course, who must now make a decision on whether to continue and do his degree and perhaps a postgraduate course later. The Minister said such people were not affected but they are. The abolition of the scheme has unsettled this man and his peer group at a time when they are due to take examinations. Unsettling students on the eve of an examination has a traumatic affect on them. I gave the Minister one example in that regard and there are many others. The man who came to me was deeply concerned about having to return to the social welfare scene. One might say he is still in it but the circumstances are different. He has received enormous support from his family over the last two years and has no other means of supporting his six dependent children.
The Minister asked where in her Department she would find the €3 million required. There is wasteful expenditure in the Department. Why was it necessary for it to rent part of a hotel for field officers reviewing social welfare recipients? The town in question has two social welfare offices which would have adequately accommodated the holding of interviews, yet the Department felt it necessary to rent accommodation at a four star hotel. I referred to this last night in the context of the lack of privacy afforded to those involved.
The Department sends out a great deal of promotional literature each year. Is the Minister saying she cannot make a €3 million saving in that area? We have already spoken about the photograph opportunities and consultancies. Where there is a will, there is a way. The author of this idea must be asked to return to reality and not allow the disadvantaged to suffer as a consequence of this cut. It is absolutely necessary that the Minister requests heads of sections in her Department to search for the €3 million required to support the 600 postgraduate students involved. It is not an impossible task. We would have a problem if we needed €30 million per annum but we are talking only about €3 million. The downside, whether the Minister accepts it, is that from here on people will see this as the thin end of the wedge. She has said this does not mean the end of the scheme but not many will be convinced. People will not participate if there is uncertainty. They will fear that what is available today will not be available tomorrow. We are dealing with one of the most disadvantaged groups in society.
Many Senators, including Senator Norris, referred to the contradictory message being sent by the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, regarding the introduction of fees to allow, specifically, access to education by the disadvantaged. What is the Minister for Social and Family Affairs doing? She has been used as a pawn on this issue. I hope she will give an indication that her Department will find the resources necessary to allow the continuation of this very satisfactory and worthwhile scheme. While it is not under threat, even those considering availing of it will have doubts. Many already participating in it have doubts. The scheme will become less attractive, which is a shame, particularly as it affects the disadvantaged, those who were back on the path to re-establishing themselves in the interests not of their ego but of bettering themselves. Many of those involved were denied work opportunities for various reasons. They have since made a special effort to re-establish themselves and the Minister is now taking that away from them. That is regrettable.
I hope we will not have to put the amendment to a vote and that the Minister will give a positive response and provide a glimmer of hope to those involved in what is a catch-22.
Acting Chairman
I remind Senators that we have already devoted almost three quarters of an hour to this amendment.
I am mindful of that. Senator Ulick Burke made the good suggestion that the Department cease availing of photograph opportunities. There is no need to take new photographs, the Minister is forever young wherever she appears.
The Senator will be taken as seriously as Deputy Ring if he continues making that kind of remark.
The Department could make huge savings in that area this year. One of the advantages of Committee Stage debate is that sometimes good ideas are taken on board by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Officials will remind the Minister that when I was spokesperson in this area I argued that those living in nursing homes should be given free telephone rental. Each year I tabled this amendment and each year it was voted down by the Government. Approximately one month ago the Minister proclaimed on the news the very idea I had brought forward. She had some temerity in suggesting that it was her idea.
The Senator is not in government.
There is no credit in the fact that I had to bang on about this subject for three years before the Government suddenly managed to gazump me on it.
There is a piece of legislation on that also.
I was delighted the Minister had decided to take on board my suggestions.
Acting Chairman
Could this have anything to do with the Senator changing House?
The point I was making was concerned with the importance of Committee Stage and others listening to Opposition spokespersons from time to time and eventually doing what they ask, which is always worthwhile.
The point has been made very eloquently by Senator Ulick Burke. This is a fundamental change to the scheme. Irrespective of the undergraduates involved, the Minister is abolishing the scheme for postgraduates. She should not suggest that this is a tweaking or an amendment; a fundamental review of the scheme is now under way.
The point has been made to me by many correspondents and those with an interest in this area that the notion that a degree will get a person the best job is absurd in today's economy. It is frequently postgraduate qualifications that give people the opportunity to compete for employment in the labour market. While the Minister puts to the House the idea that this is a small, incidental change that will not make any difference, it will make a huge difference. I note that she is to initiate a review but that is not what the amendment seeks.
This will have to be put to a vote unless, at one minute to midnight, the Minister changes her mind. People need to know that the Government has decided to virtually axe the scheme.
I thank God I provided a little extra money for hearing aids because Members on the other side of the House do not hear what I am saying.
We hear perfectly.
The scheme has been changed. Postgraduates will not now be facilitated and people will not be paid during the summer months.
Is the Minister satisfied with that?
I do not know of any person who has either been unemployed or left school and went straight into a postgraduate course. Even Senator Norris does not have a doctorate. People start at the beginning. That is the reason we have second chance education. The scheme was initially to ensure people had a second level qualification – in the main, the leaving certificate. Progression towards a primary degree then occurred.
I note and I am concerned that the attainment of a primary degree is now seen as futile. I disagree because, if that is so, many of us would be very futile. The majority of Members in the House only have and are very lucky to have a primary degree qualification. There are many in work who have no qualifications but have been very adapt at creating wealth for themselves, creating jobs and being entrepreneurial.
That is not the point.
It is very easy to throw up points regarding photographs, information and the rest. We are talking about one specific issue whereas several other amendments will look at other issues. They cannot all be dealt with. Even our Lord could not do everything that everybody in the world wanted, and I would not proclaim to have such high office presently.
Presently. The Taoiseach should watch out.
There is a God, they say. I hope, when I am six feet under, the Senators will say: "Well, at least she was a nice girl and she listened."
The Minister does not want to listen to us saying that, does she?
I have not got the judgment of Solomon but, when a decision had to be made, it was. I have made the necessary decisions.
Was the Minister happy with that decision?
In life, not everybody is happy with all the decisions they must make. I have done my utmost to target the scheme and ensure it is guaranteed and will facilitate people with a second level education and a third level primary degree, the initial reason the scheme was set up. It was to allow people into the market.
I agree with the Senators that many have taken huge personal initiatives. I appreciate that not many of us in this House would savour going back to education and being in a class of 18 and 19 year olds. The man about whom Senator Ulick Burke spoke would be better off to have a job in the summer. He would get family income supplement because he has six dependants and would be better off in a practical sense than on the money he would get under the—
On a point of information, his studies are ongoing. That is the kind of person he is.
He will complete his primary degree, of which I assume he has two years done. I hope he will have success in his examinations at the end of the academic year. He will be supported, in addition to having the book allowance, when he comes to the third or fourth parts of his primary degree, depending on whether it is a three or four year degree programme. Many who have benefited from the scheme never went beyond a primary degree. They started with the leaving certificate and would have, in the main, been supported for four or five years under the scheme.
Does the Minister not believe in excellence?
I do, I believe in attainment. However, I also believe a number of schemes that started off as very good ideas have lost the basis for their initiation. This has happened to many schemes because we have added to them during the years. There was a need for some schemes, such as this one, but there is not necessarily a need for all schemes. The philosophy behind the creation of some schemes has been lost.
The position changes because of the economic climate. It was very easy last year to suggest that no changes should be made to any of the schemes. There were increases in the number of schemes made available.
I hate to interrupt the Minister—
Acting Chairman
The Senator should not interrupt.
—but she spent more money promoting farm assist last year. That money would have allowed everybody in the scheme to continue.
That is very easy to say.
It is a fact.
I was told to cut the photographs. That is fine; I do not have a clue how much money is provided for my press service. However, nothing like €3 million is made available to the entire information service which includes Comhairle and all the services provided. This will not work that way. It would be fine if it was simple but a more long-term view must be considered. It would be very easy for me to say I will scrap Comhairle and the Combat Poverty Agency—
And the back-to-education allowance.
—cut the information services of my Department and scrap the Family Support Agency. If that was the case, as I stand on my two feet here, the Senators opposite would have the House tossed because that would be another issue to get worked up about. I am a realist on this issue. I am not, at the moment, in a position to change.
The Minister uses the words "at the moment". Is she considering a change?
Acting Chairman
Senator Burke should observe the rules of debate.
I am not in a position to change. I had to issue another press release early on, in November, to advise of changes with regard to the schemes. I am not in a position during this debate to accept the amendment proposed by the Senators. I have always said that when decisions are made I look at their implications and always consider reviews and pragmatic proposals. I did not realise that Senator Brian Hayes had professed for years on the issue of—
The Minister's officials could tell her that.
No matter what the Senators say, some listen and they have lists of things that must be done. When the opportunity arises, they will be done.
Three years is too late for many of those participating.
I do not think that my mind will be changed or that I will be able to persuade the Members of the Opposition to change theirs. We will leave it at that. I am not in a position to accept the amendment.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Bradford, Paul.Browne, Fergal.Burke, Ulick.Hayes, Brian.Henry, Mary.Higgins, Jim.McCarthy, Michael. |
McDowell, Derek.McHugh, Joe.Norris, David.Phelan, John.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Terry, Sheila. |
Níl
|
Bohan, Eddie.Brady, Cyprian.Brennan, Michael.Daly, Brendan.Dardis, John.Dooley, Timmy.Feeney, Geraldine.Fitzgerald, Liam.Glynn, Camillus.Hanafin, John.Kenneally, Brendan.Kett, Tony.Kitt, Michael P.Leyden, Terry.Lydon, Don. |
MacSharry, Marc.Mansergh, Martin.Minihan, John.Morrissey, Tom.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Rourke, Mary.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Scanlon, Eamon.Walsh, Jim.Walsh, Kate.White, Mary M.Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Browne and U. Burke; Níl, Senators Minihan and Moylan.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"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:
(a) contrasting the increase in 2002 of the Consumer Price Index with the increases paid to the entitled persons under the Act of 2002;
(b) evaluating the suitability and appropriateness of the items and weightings used by the Central Statistics Office in computing the rates of increase in the Consumer Price Index to the needs of the principal categories of entitled persons under the Principal Act;
(c) setting out the Department's assessment of those groups potentially most seriously affected by significant inflationary pressures which may arise because of internal and external factors in 2003.”.
We have about 45 minutes left in which to deal with the Bill, so we will probably make progress. As the Minister is probably aware, this is a long-standing amendment that has been tabled in respect of every Social Welfare Bill while I have been a Member. I am sure she has been advised that it cannot be accepted. Its objective is to ensure that the increases provided for in the Social Welfare Bill each year are indexed in respect of inflation. This year, the increases were in the region of €6 to €11. The increases already made, which bring themselves to bear on a range of services and goods, are such that it is difficult for those who have received them to make ends meet. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 attempt to introduce an indexing section in the Bill that will allow us to see at regular intervals how the increases are holding in respect of the groups that have received them at the end of December and in early January. This makes absolute sense.
Inflation is posing a problem. As I said on Second Stage, any junior economist could tell one that the first people affected by inflation are those on fixed incomes because they have no way of amending those incomes to account for the increased prices of many goods and services. Hyper-inflation affects poorer people more than any other group in the economy. The Minister should acknowledge that there is a need to accept my amendment. If I am ever in her place, I might accept such an amendment.
The amendments are self-explanatory and I urge the Minister to use her better judgment and take them on board. The increases in the budget are cancelled out by domestic inflation and one does not have to be a wizard at economics to understand this.
The CPI details are open to public scrutiny and are available to anybody who makes a simple request. I do not see the point in providing for this in a Bill.
I can see why this amendment is a hardy annual in discussions on the Social Welfare Bill. Heretofore, the rate of the increases has been well above that of inflation. Annual inflation is at 4.8%. The minimum rate increase is above that and takes inflation into consideration. I appreciate that there have been increases in some household expenditure but there have been reductions in many other essentials such as clothing and footwear.
It has been a key objective in all the Social Welfare Acts to protect and enhance the value of all rates of payment in relative terms. Further reports and analyses are not warranted. The consumer price index makes available to the public and my own Department the information requested. We also work closely with the ESRI and with the Combat Poverty Agency which analyses the impact of social welfare rates after each budget. Voluntary organisations do likewise. Even if inflation exceeded the budget projection of 4.8 per cent for this year, actual inflation to date will be fully taken into account when we consider revision of the rates for next year.
We are working on averages. Not all economists will agree, but we are going on a 4.8% inflation figure, and the social welfare rates increases have allowed for this, and for the necessities of people when unfortunately they find themselves dependent on my Department. Social welfare increases over the past years have well exceeded inflation, and many of this year's rates also exceed the projected inflation rate.
In reply to Senator's Brady question as to why we cannot accept the information on inflation in good faith, since we get it from the consumer price index, that is hardly the point. If, in legislation, there is an effective mechanism for reporting to both Houses, it means that something will result from it.
Three years ago the annual increase given to social welfare recipients was only 50% of the inflation level applying to the general cost of living at that time. There was massive inflation over a six-month period. I understand that the argument was made at the Cabinet table by the then Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, that he needed more funding for his Department to ensure that people's basic standard of living could be sustained for that six-month period. A provision in the Bill for a reporting mechanism to both Houses would ensure we could put pressure on the Minister and her Cabinet colleagues to find more money. That is the objective.
The Minister said to the House that prices of clothing and footwear have come down. She should point out the shops where this is so, to me and to those on small incomes. I do not know what shops she is referring to. Charges have risen for electricity, gas, transport and television licences. All the basic price indicators for people on low incomes are heading in the wrong direction. I put it to the Minister that at the end of this year, the increases provided in the budget will not have compensated people for the inflationary pressures in our economy. The data shows that inflation is heading sky-high. That will continue over the next six months.
The Minister for Finance would be delighted if he could get the crystal ball into which Senator Hayes is peering regarding inflation at the end of the year.
He could bet on a horse.
Yes. We could bet the whole Department on the horse and then we would have no problems.
We could find three winners.
Yes, and I would be a recipient from my own Department when finished. Many items have increased in price and others have decreased. The information made available through the household budget survey and through the CPI has indicated that prices of essential clothing and footwear have declined over the past year by 7.8%. Likewise, the costs of furnishings, household equipment and routine household maintenance have fallen by 0.4%.
If we recall what was said in the other House, and no doubt reiterated in this House, the Minister for Finance indicated that the average inflation rate would be 4.8%, and he also indicated that at times during the year it would increase, but would level out at 4.8%. Certain considerations lie outside our control – such as war and its influence on markets. We cannot know what effects these will have, but I am happy that the social welfare rates provided will address the issue of inflation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 13 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, discussed section 3, to insert the following new section:
"3.–The Minister shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on promises made by Government in An Agreed Programme for Government and the national anti-poverty strategy, the average annual increase in payments which would be required to meet the NAPS promises by 2007, and whether in any case this level of increase will be met in 2003, and if not what proposals, if any, are envisaged to phase in the increases required."
This amendment deals with the failure by the Government to deal with national anti-poverty strategy promises. A paper submitted to the tax strategy group by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs sets out promises made by the Government in An Agreed Programme for Government and in the national anti-poverty strategy. The Government then calculated what increases in social welfare rates would be required to meet these commitments. To meet the NAPS target, the lowest rate of social welfare should have been increased by €10.10 to make it €15.40. To meet a PPF commitment, an increase of €8.70 would have been required, and an increase of €6 was granted. To meet the old age pension commitments, an increase of €13.20 weekly was required; only €10 was granted. The Government also campaigned on a promise to increase child benefit by €31.59 monthly; instead it delivered €8. The commitments in the programme for Government and the NAPS were to be achieved by 2007 and the argument could be made by the Government that there is time to catch up. The figures I have given represent an abject failure.
I support Senator McCarthy's amendments. I said in the House last night that there was cross-party support for the revised national anti-poverty strategy when it was published just before the last general election. The targets for 2007 are about right, and I encourage all concerned to meet them. We are in the first year of trying to attain those 2007 targets, which, it states in the agreement, must be achieved earlier should financial circumstances permit.
The problem is that the social welfare increases that the Government announced in the budget mean it will not even come close to realising the targets by 2007. That sends out a very negative signal to those on extremely poor incomes. In the Minister's first year trying to attain that target we have seen a failure in her Department. If the national anti-poverty strategy is to be taken as a real Government commitment, we will have to do much better next year in ratcheting up the basic increases given to people who have to live, as the Minister well knows, on extremely small incomes.
I certainly take into consideration the Senator's view on the national anti-poverty strategy. The strategy has been very comprehensive, and most people, be they elected representatives or pillars of the community, have accepted it. A review of the strategy is now taking place, and will go before the European Commission by July 2003. That will afford an opportunity to me and anyone else interested to review the targets set. Those targets are, as Senator McCarthy has rightly said, to be met in 2007. I cannot therefore achieve them all in one year. It is like a game of football, where the first kick of the ball does not mean that you will win the game. You must wait until the end.
You do not know if you will score from the first ball.
You do not score any own goals along the way, though.
No, you try to avoid those if at all possible. We will not get into football, for Cork is doing quite well in the league at the moment, and Donegal is not doing particularly well anywhere. We are going to be relegated, so we will skip that analysis.
The review of the strategy will certainly be very helpful to us all when we examine what targets are to be set. The strategy covers not only social welfare but many other services, something which gives a more comprehensive view of how we can tackle the issues. I would certainly like, as I am sure would all the elected representatives in both Houses, to be able to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty. We must work towards that. We are making progress towards fulfilling those commitments, particularly that concerning old age pensions. The €10 increase will achieve our goal in the programme for Government, as well as attaining part of the national anti-poverty strategy. I certainly see us achieving our aims in that strategy.
Recently I have had the social inclusion office set up in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Its director will be co-ordinating the implementation of the national anti-poverty strategy and pushing other Departments as well as my own to achieve the goals that we have set ourselves. There is no need for another review or report on the issue, for we will have that in July 2003.
It is very important that I dispel the misconceptions about the tax strategy group, which has reviewed how social welfare payments should be realised in the five-year period to 2007. However, the Senator forgot to say that it was a matter for the Government rather than the group. All the group did was cost the overall commitment. It did not recommend to the Government what should be achieved. There is a misconception abroad that we have rejected something when it was never recommended in the first place.
I intend over the next five years of the Government that we shall do our utmost to achieve the targets set for 2007, which we have discussed here on numerous occasions and with which we are very familiar. We will have the opportunity to re-evaluate the achievement of those targets in the course of the current review.
I prefaced my contribution by saying that the Government could argue, probably justifiably in some cases, that the targets could be met between now and 2007. However, we should remember what was set out in the document that we mentioned. The figures were achievable and realistic, but they were not met. My point concerned the commitment to meet targets that were realistic and achievable. That has not been done. There was an abject failure by the Government to fulfil that commitment.
In the light of what the Minister has said, it would be appropriate to ask her for a statement on how the increases will be phased in over the period in question. She has made the point, as I predicted, that she could meet the targets between now and 2007. If that is to be so, can we have a statement explaining how those increases will be phased over the next four years?
Much as the Senator would love me to do that, he must also appreciate that those matters are for the budget. I cannot state how anything is to be achieved next year.
It was worth a try.
It certainly was. God loves those who try.
I am in no position to make such a statement. I have all the policies, strategies and targets in place. My Department and I intend to move towards achieving those targets. However, I cannot tell the House what will be in the next Social Welfare Bill, for we are only now finalising this one. I would hate to pre-empt the House's decision.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Bradford, Paul.Browne, Fergal.Burke, Ulick.Coghlan, Paul.Feighan, Frank.Finucane, Michael.Hayes, Brian.Henry, Mary. |
Higgins, Jim.McCarthy, Michael.McHugh, Joe.Norris, David.Phelan, John.Ryan, Brendan.Terry, Sheila. |
Níl
|
Bohan, Eddie.Brady, Cyprian.Brennan, Michael.Daly, Brendan.Dardis, John.Dooley, Timmy.Feeney, Geraldine.Fitzgerald, Liam.Glynn, Camillus.Hanafin, John.Kenneally, Brendan.Kett, Tony.Kitt, Michael P.Leyden, Terry. |
Lydon, Don.MacSharry, Marc.Mansergh, Martin.Minihan, John.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Rourke, Mary.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Scanlon, Eamon.Walsh, Jim.Walsh, Kate.White, Mary M.Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators McCarthy and J. Phelan; Níl, Senators Minihan and Moylan.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
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 expenditure on social protection in the State relative to that of other EU member states and particularising the precise statistical impact of the lower number of elderly and unemployed people in the State on the State's relative position as the member state with the lowest such expenditure.".
I ask the Minister to state how she intends to address the fact that expenditure on social protection is lower than that in any other EU country.
There is a very simple answer to that question; it is a demographic issue. In many European countries there is higher GDP expenditure on social protection because they have a greater number of elderly persons than we do at present.
In the seven year period, 1990 to 1996, EU social protection expenditure as a percentage of GDP rose on average by 2.9% from 25.5% to 28.4% as a result of the lower rate of economic growth and rising unemployment during the period. Four years on, the percentage had declined slightly to 27.3% due to renewed economic growth and an actual decline in social protection expenditure in some countries in the European Union, some of which would have been attributed to the decline in unemployment.
In Ireland, in the same seven year period, 1990 to 1996, expenditure on social protection as a percentage of GDP fell slightly from 18.4% to 17.8%. By the year 2000 the figure had fallen further to 14.1%, reflecting unprecedented levels of economic growth and job creation. Annual rates of growth ranged from 8% to 11% in the period 1994 to 2000 while levels of unemployment declined from 14.3% to less than 4%. Although there was a percentage decrease in social protection expenditure in relation to GDP, there was no reduction in the level of actual social protection expenditure during this period but rather a substantial increase.
EUROSTAT figures show a 21.4% increase in per capita expenditure on social protection in the period 1995 to 2000 compared to the EU average of 8.7%. Over the longer period 1990 to 1999 there was an increase of 50% in real terms compared to the EU average of 24%. This is reflected in the 62.5% increase in expenditure on sickness benefit and the 74.6% increase on invalidity and disability benefit and the 39.3% increase on old age benefits between 1995 and 2000.
While I will not be pressing the amendment, I ask the Minister to be cognisant of this statistic which is worrying in the European context. I ask her to consider dealing with the issue at some time in the future.
Our economic growth and success have shown the reason there has been a slight decrease in GDP expenditure. We have a system which is different from that in many of our European Union counterparts. The way in which social protection is evaluated is quite different from the way we look at it. The main areas of social protection in the European Union focus on old age which is not necessarily the case in Ireland. I appreciate the point made by the Senator. We have a different welfare system compared to that in many other EU countries.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"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 indicating the likely number of persons who would benefit if the carer's allowance was extended in whole or in part to persons already in receipt of payments under the Principal Act.".
I will be brief because there is a considerable time constraint. There are approximately 20,000 persons in receipt of carer's allowance but that number could easily be extended to 130,000 when those caring for people with disabilities are included. I wish to bring to the Minister's attention an anomaly that has arisen.
There is a regulation which states a person cannot work more than ten hours and receive carer's allowance. I am aware of three instances where farmers looking after 85 and 90 year old relatives have been disqualified on the basis that they are deemed to be working more than ten hours. Up to now the Department has operated with a degree of cop-on and discretion in relation to this regulation. However, there is now rigid implementation of the rule. If a person is deemed to be working more than one hour and 20 minutes each day outside the home, he or she cannot qualify for the allowance. I know people who are managing to combine both. They help their relative to get up in the morning, give them breakfast, check on them during the day, prepare lunch and an evening meal and settle them in bed for the night. They are now being disqualified. The alternative is to put the elderly or incapacitated person into a home at a cost of €400 to €500 per week. This is daft and absurd and gives the impression of being uncaring. It makes no sense.
I ask the Minister to examine the manner in which the regulation is being implemented. There are hundreds receiving the allowance on the assumption they can accommodate all duties. One can check on a relative nine or ten times a day and give them the care to which they are entitled while doing a diminished amount of farm work. As the Minister will be aware of such cases in her constituency, I ask her to reconsider the issue and revert to the old regime in terms of interpretation.
Acting Chairman
As it is now 1.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the House of this day: "That amendment No. 9 is negatived; that the undisposed sections of the Bill, the Schedule and the Title are hereby agreed to; that the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed; and that the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and agreed to.