Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 9 Mar 1994

Social Welfare Bill, 1994: Committee Stage.

Chairman

Before we commence consideration of the Bill we have to decide a timetable, I suggest that we sit until approximately 1 p.m., have a sos of one hour for lunch and resume until 4 p.m. On resuming at 2 p.m. we will discuss whether it will be necessary to continue later this evening. The Minister has a Cabinet meeting at 4 p.m. and his business there will take about one hour so he might be free to resume at about 5.15 p.m. or 5.30 p.m. if necessary.

The main purpose of the Social Welfare Bill, 1994, is to provide for increases in the rates of social welfare payments announced in the budget and for a number of other improvements in the social welfare code, including the introduction of a new social insurance survivor's pension which provides for equal treatment for widows and widowers; changes in the rates of PRSI contributions payable by employers and a new PRSI exemption scheme.

Part I of the Bill contains the usual provisions for short title, construction and interpretation. Part II provides for the increases in the rates of social welfare payments. There is an increase of 3 per cent generally in the weekly rates of social assistance and social insurance payments with effect from July next. The short term rates of payment are being further increased by an additional 3 per cent to bring them up to the priority rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. Following the discontinuation of pay related benefit payable with unemployment benefit, there is a further special increase in the personal rates of disability and unemployment benefits bringing the total increase in the personal weekly rate of these payments to 10 per cent, from £55.60 to £61. There is a special additional increase of £8.40 —£10.20 in total, in the personal weekly rate of invalidity pension payable to a person aged 66 or over.

The rate of child dependant increase for the third and subsequent children payable with invalidity, retirement and old age contributory pensions is being increased from £12.80 to £15.20, bringing it into line with the rate payable for the first two children. The rate of child benefit payable for the third child is being increased from £20 to £25 and from £23 to £25 for each child thereafter. The new rates will be payable from 1 September next.

The weekly income limits below which families can qualify for family income supplement are being increased by £10 from July next. The new weekly limits range from £185 for a family with one child to £324 for a family with eight children.

Part III of the Bill provides for changes in relation to the payment of social insurance contributions. From 6 April next employers will be liable for a reduced rate of contribution of 9 per cent, instead of the 12.2 per cent at present, in the case of employees earning up to £173 per week. The employers' contribution of 12.2 per cent will continue to be payable by employers in the case of employees earning over £173 per week. The earning ceilings up to which PRSI contributions are payable are being increased from £21,300 to 25,800 for employers and from £20,000 to £20,900 for employees and the self-employed. A new PRSI exemption scheme is being introduced whereby employers who take on additional employees between 6 April 1994 and 5 April 1995 will not be liable for the employers' PRSI contribution in respect of these employees for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 tax years.

Part IV of the Bill provides for the introduction of a new survivor's pension scheme which provides equal treatment for widows and widowers. Under the new scheme, widowers will qualify for a contributory pension under the same conditions as currently apply to the widow's contributory pension scheme. Part V of the Bill includes amendments to existing social welfare schemes. Part VI of the Bill provides for certain miscellaneous amendments to the social welfare code, including improvements to the six weeks payment after death provisions.

Part VII of the Bill provides for amendments to the Health Contributions Act, 1979 and the Youth Employment Agency Act, 1981, to exempt employees from liability for the health contributions and the employment and training levy where their earnings do not exceed £173 per week. A similar exemption is provided for self-employed people with incomes below £9,000 a year. Provision is also made to exempt employers from their liability for these levies in respect of employees holding medical cards.

As well as the Minister's amendments, amendments have been put down by Deputies Allen, Keogh and De Rossa.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, before section 3, but in Part I, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Where it is proposed to make regulations under this Act or under the Principal Act a draft shall be laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not come into effect until such time as a motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".

There is an increasing practice in regard to social welfare for the Minister to take on himself the power to make law by regulation; to interpret the laws made by the Houses in a way which, in many respects, can be disadvantageous to those on social welfare. This is also the case with regard to the Minister's power to issue circulars — which I will deal with in amendment No. 2.

The most glaring example of how this power has been misused in recent times has been the 1992 regulation which seeks effectively to deny women equality payments available under EU law. Yesterday a large number of women from Cork were outside the Dáil and in the public gallery protesting that not only had they been denied payments but had been denied the right to know their entitlements.

To a significant extent the Minister and his Department have relied on the complexity of the issue to hide the fact that women are entitled to payments of this kind under European Court decisions. Specifically, the transitional payments were introduced following considerable uproar when the then Minister for Social Welfare, the former Deputy Barry Desmond, introduced equality legislation as required by EC directives in the mid-1980s.

Because of that uproar it was decided to introduce a transitional or cushion payment but it was paid only to men. Recent court decisions have found that women were also entitled. The Minister has attempted to deny women that right in a regulation he introduced in June 1992. I had a question down yesterday to the Minister on this issue. He indicated in his reply that he has made eight payment on foot claims by women prior to the regulation and intends to fight all other claims that have been made.

He implied those other claims arise after the making of the regulation. That is not the case because FLAC is currently processing 1,800 claims with the Department which predate the regulation. The Department had agreed up to last week to pay them but suddenly decided to defend these claims, as well as the post-regulation claims, in the courts. Why has the Minister decided to do this? He admitted he paid eight women before the regulation was made and is now proposing to defend 1,800 claims made before the regulation. Why is he seeking to defend against these legitimate claims, whether they are made before or after the regulation?

That is the main reason for proposing this amendment to this Bill. It is time to call a halt to the right of the Minister effectively to make regulations in secret, when the Dáil has no power to amend them or address the issues contained in them. If it were not for the fact that a number of active local representatives became aware of the issue the women currently making claims would not be aware of their right to claim.

There are two issues involved. The first is the right of the Minister to make regulations and my amendment seeks to ensure that can only be done if approved in open debate in the Dáil. The second is the entitlement of social welfare recipients to know their rights and be informed of them. They should not be blocked from knowing them and the Minister should not pretend they do not have these rights. I have a copy of a letter from Stokes and Company, Solicitors, Cork address which reads:

Re equality payments: in 1984 the EC issued to directive that there must be equality of payments between married men and married women. This was adopted into Irish law in 1986. As a result of various legal actions the Government agreed to pay equality payments between 1984 and 1986 and many people have received these awards. The Department is still not admitting there are further claims for this period and that there are major claims of inequality between 1986 and 1992. We are enclosing herewith an authority for signature by you, authorising us to act for you, which we want you to sign and to return to us before we proceed further. We are also enclosing a questionnaire to assist us in making your claim. In the event of our being successful we will be looking for fees based on the amount we collected. If we collected £2,000 we will be looking for £200 plus VAT at 21 per cent. If we collect 34,000 we would be looking for twice that. In the unlikely event that we are not successful, we would not be looking for any fees.

It seems extraordinary that the Minister is virtually pushing women into the hands of solicitors to make claims to which they are legitimately entitled. I ask him to come clean on this issue. He should admit that the money will be paid and put in place a phased regime of payments in the same way that previous equality arrears payments were made. Then women can feel they are being treated equally by this Government, which claims to want to treat people equally and has appointed a Minister responsible for equality.

Mr. Allen

I support Deputy De Rossa's amendment. Over the past 12 months in the Dáil I have consistently tried to find the truth in this controversy. I have raised the matter during the debates on the Social Welfare Bill, 1993, during all Question Times on the Department of Social Welfare, in my contribution on the budget on 3 February, in my contribution on Second Stage of this Bill and through Dáil questions. The Minister is misusing the regulations to deny women their rights and we have little control over how those regulations are used. This amendment will at least give us an opportunity to examine in detail every regulation made. The Minister is regulating in a retrospective way to deny women their entitlements.

I met FLAC in recent days, as did Deputy De Rossa. The Minister must admit that 900 cases have already been settled in Cork. The High Court has made these decisions and although the terms of the settlements are being kept confidential the fact of them cannot be denied. As a result of the High Court decision FLAC submitted 1,800 cases in 1991. Those were due in the High Court yesterday, which ironically was International Women's Day.

Some weeks ago the Department made contact with FLAC and agreed to get involved in settlement talks and as a result FLAC asked that the hearings be deferred. The Department then went back on its word and last Thursday sought an adjournment which postpones the cases until next April.

Were the Minister's attempts to come to a settlement with the women vetoed by the Cabinet? I ask the Minister to explain why 900 settlements have already been made but 1,800 people are now being denied their rights. Their claims were submitted prior to the 1992 regulations. Since then, thousands of women have submitted claims but the Minister is saying that because he made regulations in 1992, he will not entertain these new claims.

Women are being denied the right to information. I raised the matter in the Dáil on 3 February during my budget contribution, and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fitzgerald, assured me that she was about to introduce a freedom of information Bill. She said that under that Bill women would have the right to information. She suggested that I resubmit questions to the Minister on this issue. She was confident I would receive the information on the Minister's attitude to these claims, but there is a more sinister aspect to it. Women who were denied their rights were forced to go to solicitors. In many instances, of the 900 cases that were settled, the terms of those settlements were kept confidential. Women cannot establish what payment was made by the Department on their behalf to the solicitor involved. The Department has denied them the information. It has also denied me that information. I submitted questions and was told that it is confidential. Some of the solicitors involved are denying women the information also. Neither the women nor the public representatives can get information on the level of settlement. It stinks to high heaven and it is open to serious exploitation.

Yesterday I put down a priority question. I asked the Minister for Social Welfare, in view of the commitments made in Dáil Éireann by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fitzgerald, regarding the availability of information and on advice to resubmit parliamentary questions on equality payments, if he will now make available up to date information with regard to claims made by women arising from the decision of the European Court, given on 13 March, 1991, in the case taken by Cotter and McDermott, and if he will disclose details of payments already made in individual cases. My question was ruled out of order because it was a repeat of a previous question put down on 2 February.

This is the type of bureaucratic impediment put in the way of people such as myself and other public representatives, such as Deputy De Rossa, who are attempting to establish the rights of thousands of women. The Minister and his officials are blocking access to the information that we require. From discussions that I had with departmental officials, and I will not name an official because the Chair would caution me but the Minister knows who I am talking about, I know that there is approximately £140-160 million worth of liabilities involved and the Minister is opposing the claims, not on legal points but because he feels that the range and extent of the claims is too large. If people are legally entitled to moneys, irrespective of the range of payments, they should get them and no legal inpediment should be put in their way.

The Government has seriously reneged on this issue. I have on record parliamentary questions regarding PRSI number 2268532, although I will not name the woman. She received £5,700 from her solicitor but she does not know what the Department paid the solicitor. With regard to a person whose PRSI number is 3496714 NW, again the response I received was that conditions as to confidentiality were provided for in relation to settlements made in these cases and for that reason, details of payments cannot be provided. That response was signed by a higher executive officer in the Department of Social Welfare. In the first case to which I referred, the response was signed by a Mr. Burke in the correspondence section. There is a web of secrecy surrounding this issue and it is ripe for exploitation. The Minister should, once and for all, come clean on the whole matter. The people who travelled from Cork yesterday did not do so just for the day out. They travelled because they feel seriously aggrieved and insulted by the attitude of the Minister. I also protest at the attitude of the junior Minister who seems to think that entitlements are perks that people receive. When questions were put to her during Second Stage of the Social Welfare Bill in the Dáil, she did not even attend to respond. It is without precedent that a junior Minister at the Department of Social Welfare did not address the Social Welfare Bill on Second Stage. She just indulged in heckling Members who were trying to make substantial points. Both Ministers are running away from this issue.

Ms Keogh

I support the amendment, as I am sure will other Members. It should be within the remit of the Houses of the Oireachtas to examine and pass regulations, rather than leave power in the hands of the Minister. As a principle, we should always address that point.

I also support all of the comments made in relation to the equality and transitional payments. I too have heard about the difficulties encountered by FLAC. They are extremely concerned about this whole issue. Individuals are asking questions as to whether the Cabinet or the Department made the decisions. People want to know what is happening. It is invidious and anti-women that people should have to go to court to get payments to which it is admitted they have entitlement. It is not good enough. It was extraordinary that a group had to come from Cork yesterday to highlight this issue. Women are enraged, and rightly so, that this should be allowed to continue. The Minister certainly has a case to answer. I am familiar with the questions Deputy Allen, and others such as my colleague, Deputy Quill, put down on this issue. It is most frustrating for any public representative to find that they are unable to deal with the difficulties of their constituents, people who have genuine claims on the State. I do not know if the Minister can defend the indefensible but I would like to hear what he has to say on the matter.

Mr. Penrose

It is clearly set out in a 1970 decision of the Supreme Court, in East Donegal Co-operative v. The Attorney General, that the power to exempt or dispense with the application of a statute belonged to the Oireachtas and could not be delegated to the Minister. The Oireachtas has to formulate policy and the implementation of the policy is by means of the Minister bringing in statutory instruments, etc. To extend the situation a little, in relation to benefit and privilege, there is no policy stated in the Act. It does not explain how benefit and privilege should be calculated and we must examine the Department guidelines in relation to this matter.

At the age of 18 years people should be entitled to be examined in their own right and the means of their parents or anybody else should not be assessed. There is an arguable cause under the Constitution as to whether the benefits and privileges of their parents and others should be taken into account. In this respect, perhaps the Minister could set out clear guidelines in terms of a statutory instrument as to how such calculations are made.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

The points raised by Deputies regarding equal treatment do not come under the terms of this Act or these Acts and, therefore, other than indirectly, they are out of place regarding this discussion. The equal treatment provisions were made under the EU Acts and there is separate provision for them. There was an opportunity to raise this issue on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities.

Many statements have been made on a number of occasions, and by groups representing women, regarding equal treatment payments for married women, which arise from the delay in implementing the EU Directive 79/7. As Deputies will be aware, the delays relate to the period 1984-86. On several occasions I explained that a number of court proceedings were initiated, in some cases as far back as 1985, seeking retrospective payments. In the absence of implementing measures, settlements were made in such cases.

Retrospective legislation was introduced in 1992 which, in general terms, entitled married women to the payments they would otherwise have received if the directive had been implemented on time. Deputies referred to this legislation, especially regarding cases taken before the legislation was enacted. The cases which the Department is defending are cases taken after that legislation was introduced.

These provisions addressed the problems arising from the delay in implementing the directive in a reasonable and equitable manner. All entitlements due under the retrospective legislation have now been paid.

Since the introduction of the retrospective legislation in 1992, legal proceedings have been initiated in approximately 60 cases involving some 5,000 plaintiffs. These proceedings are being defended by the Department of Social Welfare and ultimately, the matter will have to be determined by the courts.

Deputy Allen referred to a case involving up to 1,800 claimants. However, there are three cases which involve a large number of individuals and that——

Mr. Allen

These are the cases involving 1,800 women. Is that correct?

Dr. Woods

That is correct. A number of these cases will be heard in the High Court over the coming weeks. The Department of Social Welfare will not be making settlements in these cases. This means that, one way or another, these proceedings will determine whether women affected by the delay have any legal entitlements, over and above those provided for in the retrospective legislation. The legislation has been enacted and all the payments under this legislation have been made.

I am not entitled to make any payments outside the legislation, therefore this issue has now to be determined and is likely to be determined shortly. If the courts decide that no such entitlements exist, then this will finalise the matter. If the courts decide that the claimants have an entitlement, then the necessary payments will be made to all those involved, in accordance with the decision of the courts.

The Department of Social Welfare is not requiring married women to take procedings to secure their legal entitlements which are provided for in the retrospective legislation and all such payments have been made in full. The decisions of the European Court do not create any additional entitlements as these decisions were given in the absence of implementing measures.

The retrospective legislation enacted in June 1992 put in place implementing measures which made good the default. The question of transitional payments, which were paid between 1986 and 1992, were made to cushion families against the loss of increases for dependants suffered by men on the introduction of the new dependency in November 1986.

If these payments had not been made, the weekly income of certain families dependent on social welfare would have been reduced. However, married women did not suffer any loss of payment when equal treatment came into force; the opposite was the case. Married women received a higher personal rate of payment and they also qualified for increases for dependants. In other words, their payments were increased significantly and the Department of Social Welfare contends that there is no justification for making transitional payments in these circumstances.

To seek to have transitional payments paid to married women who have already benefited from the retrospective legislation would involve making double payments in certain circumstances. This would mean paying some couples two personal rates of payment, two adult dependant increases and double increases for children.

As Deputies will be aware, this is a complex issue and many arguments can be made to contest the claims made for payments over and above those provided for in the retrospective legislation. All legal entitlements have been paid. The claims currently being processed will be determined by the courts and if this gives rise to additional entitlements, then all those involved will be paid in accordance with the decision of the courts, as was the case in respect of the 1992 legislation.

The amendment is not relevant as it relates to legislation under the EU Acts. However, regarding amendment No. 1, many of the regulatory powers provided for under Social Welfare Acts require a resolution of approval by the Dáil and the Seanad. Deputy Keogh advised that, in principle, she supports this amendment, but to support it would be to create a situation leading to increased bureaucracy and, therefore, the Deputy must decide whether she wishes to increase administrative burdens and bureaucracy leading to the consequent delays in handling the affairs of people and their needs, or to work with an efficient and effective system which provides the opportunity to Deputies to make a challenge within 21 days, which is possible in current circumstances.

These amendments and regulations are placed on the table of the House and are open to challenge.

Mr. Allen

How can they be challenged?

Dr. Woods

They can be challenged in the House. The Deputy is familiar with the legislation. Regulatory powers of this nature are of major importance in that they effectively enable the Minister to amend the provisions——

Mr. Allen

They cannot be challenged. How can I challenge a regulation in the House within 21 days?

Dr. Woods

The Deputy can have such regulations annulled if he puts forward a resolution to this effect. That is the long standing procedure.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Woods

Has Deputy De Rossa ever put one forward?

Proinsias De Rossa

Yes. The Government has never agreed to debate it.

Dr. Woods

Did Deputy De Rossa have a substantive reason?

Proinsias De Rossa

Yes.

Dr. Woods

Section 4 (6) of the Consolidation Act, 1993, provides the opportunity to do that. If a proposal is not sensible or good, obviously it will be over-turned. That is democracy.

Proinsias De Rossa

No, it is not.

Dr. Woods

It is an effective system which works well.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is for the Minister.

Dr. Woods

It is for customers. I will not get involved in matters which are before the courts. Deputy De Rossa has expressed his view——

Proinsias De Rossa

I will continue to do so.

Dr. Woods

I am adopting an honest and logical approach to the legislation, but the Deputy is trying to obscure that fact for a number of reasons, which I will not go into. Regulatory powers of this nature are important because they effectively enable the Minister to amend the provisions of the Social Welfare Act. It is for this reason they require a motion of approval by both Houses of the Oireachtas, otherwise they could be held to be ultra vires.

Many other regulatory powers deal with matters which are mainly of an administrative nature. For example, the powers contained in section 205 provide for the time and manner of making a claim for a social welfare payment. Equivalent powers are contained in section 206 relating to the making of payments. Section 240 contains powers for the household budgeting scheme, which I introduced last year where clients can arrange to have part of their social welfare payments deducted at source and paid to the relevant bodies, such as the ESB, Bord Gáis and local authorities in respect of regular household expenses.

I do not consider that regulations such as these should require a motion of approval of the Dáil and Seanad. They merely fill in the details of the basic provisions enacted by the Oireachtas. Under the provisions of the Acts any such regulations may be annulled if a resolution to this effect is passed by either House within 21 sitting days from the date on which the regulations are laid before the Houses. I am opposed to this unnecessary amendment. It would delay payments and arrangements made by the Department and it would limit the flexibility of the system which Deputies frequently seek and which the Department tries to deliver to its customers.

Proinsias De Rossa

As regards the provisions in Standing Orders for motions which would annul regulations made by this, or any other Minister, while Deputies have the right to table a motion in the Dáil, they do not have the right to debate it. The Government allocates debating time in the House and it has consistently refused to provide time to debate motions which seek to annul regulations. Recently I tabled a motion on section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, but the Government refused to provide time to debate it. Previously, I tabled motions on equally serious matters, but again the Government refused to provide time.

If one looks at Dáil records, one will find no occasion — I have trawled through the past 20 years — where the Government provided time to debate a motion to annul a regulation, regardless of the concern of the House or the public. It is fictional for the Minister to argue that Deputies have the right to put down a motion to annul a regulation. Deputies have the right to put down a motion, but not to debate it. The Minister was right when he said the majority of regulations do not need to be debated in the Dáil because in many cases they are fairly minor.

I refer to a regulation of June 1992 which denies thousands of women the right to transitional payments, which the European Court decided they were entitled to. This regulation should have been debated in the Dáil before it was approved. The device currently used is that unless it is annulled by a motion of the Dáil. It automatically becomes law. There are many other examples which could be highlighted.

On other occasions I suggested that we should have a secondary legislation committee to look at regulations and to identify those of a serious nature which should be debated. It is not necessary to debate everything. Each week the Government puts down motions in the House seeking to have a regulation or other matter approved without debate because it is not important. The House usually approves, but the option is there to debate the matter. On occasion the Government is forced to debate issues it is obliged to bring before the House. It is not a question of increasing bureaucracy, but rather democracy. We must ensure the Minister does not slip in a regulation as he did in regard to transitional payments regulations, which denies rather than enhances people's rights.

The Minister said that although the European Community Social Welfare Regulation, 1992, is not dealt with in this Bill, Deputies could have raised it in the secondary legislation committee. There has been no secondary legislation committee since the Dáil collapsed two years ago, although the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs recently established a subcommittee. We did not have the option to debate this matter in 1992 in the European secondary legislation committee.

The Minister admitted — trying to get information from the Minister on transitional payments is like drawing teeth — that three cases are pending which involve 1,800 women. These cases are being processed by FLAC and all are being defended. Why are they being defended? Yesterday, in his reply to Question No. 38 the Minister said that he has made known on several previous occasions that a number of court proceedings were initiated seeking retrospective payments, in some cases as far back as 1985. In the absence of implementing measures settlements were made in 8 such cases. What is the global figure for settlement in those cases? If 8 cases were settled, pre regulation, why are 1,800 cases being pursued by people who have put in claims before the regulations? The Minister will probably say it is going to court. Why are he and the Government spending money defending cases which they have no right to defend? Why did they say a week ago they would settle and then change their minds? There is misuse of public funds involved in this issue.

Dr. Woods

Before the Deputy goes any further——

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister had his say and I intend to have mine.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is making a mistake.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister has misled the House, denied it information——

Dr. Woods

That is not true.

Proinsias De Rossa

——and treated its Members like fools. He pretended there was no issue in the first place, said he did not have the information and, after months of being harried, finally admitted, in reply to a question yesterday, that he has already paid in eight cases. My understanding is that he has paid many more than this. How many people are involved in these cases? Are there individual cases or are we talking about 800, 900 or 1,000 individuals who have been paid? How much money has been paid? Members are entitled to know what money is being spent by the Government on this issue.

Dr. Woods

The amount of money and the numbers paid have been stated on several occasion. The Deputy is making a mistake. These cases involve a grouping, for their own purposes, by legal people of 1,800 cases and are not post regulation cases.

Proinsias De Rossa

Pre-regulation cases, is what I said.

Dr. Woods

Post regulation cases are being defended. I clearly stated the position.

Mr. Allen

That is not true.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister is defending the pre-1991——

Mr. Allen

It is the 1991 ones he is defending.

Dr. Woods

I cannot explain it any further.

Mr. Allen

It is because he does not understand it.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is not prepared to listen. There are cases in court at the moment——

Mr. Allen

Pre-1992.

Dr. Woods

I will not deal with it any further here because it is before the courts. Deputy De Rossa is trying to get behind what is going on in the courts at the moment and I will not engage in that.

Proinsias De Rossa

On a point of information——

Mr. Flanagan

The Minister is hiding behind the courts. He is refusing to give reasons to the committee as to why——

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is a solicitor and should read the statement——

Mr. Flanagan

The Minister is denying the money is due and then paying it. He will settle every one of these cases.

Chairman

We are discussing amendment No. 1 and Members' remarks should be directly related to it.

Proinsias De Rossa

What I have been saying is directly related to it. The amendment seeks to establish that the Minister will, in future, have to bring forward regulations to the House and not put them through in secret. I gave an example of the sort of mess which occurs when the Minister does this in serious cases. I am trying to elicit from him the amount paid in these transitional payments cases before the regulations were made. He admitted that eight cases have been settled. How many people are involved and how much money has been paid? Why is the Minister defending not just post regulation cases but also pre-regulation cases involving 1,800 people?

Dr. Woods

I have explained this to the Deputy. He should read the record of what we said. We are not defending——

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister is.

Mr. Allen

The Minister clearly said "post".

Dr. Woods

Yes, but these cases arise from before——

Mr. Allen

The 1,800 cases are pre-regulation.

Proinsias De Rossa

Is the Minister saying he is not defending them?

Dr. Woods

I will read the statement again.

Mr. Allen

The Minister does not have to.

Dr. Woods

Deputies are being difficult about this. I went to great pains——

Mr. Allen

Have I any rights? The Minister is cutting in——

Chairman

Has the Chair any rights? Members are totally ignoring the Chair. Deputy De Rossa should finish his point and let other Members have their say.

Mr. Flanagan

I will speak briefly, in deference to my colleague, Deputy Allen, who has much more to say about this. Will the Minister clarify the matter? He has done so and there is still confusion. The Department of Social Welfare is denying that these funds are due but has proceeded to settle cases. How much interest has the Department of Social Welfare paid and how much has it set aside for interest due when these cases are settled? They will be settled at some stage, whether by court order or otherwise, because the money is due.

The Minister has not referred to the practice, or malpractice as far as members of the legal profession are concerned, where the Minister has forced women into legal actions. Legal advisers are deducting 10 per cent of the award to cover fees. Has the Minister any responsibility for this? Ultimately people whose cases have been settled, by court order or otherwise, are receiving only 90 per cent of what is lawfully due. Are the Department and the Minister prepared to compensate people for the remaining 10 per cent or is he prepared to comment on this widespread practice? Solicitors have advertised they will take cases against the Minister on the basis that if the case is successful they will take 10 per cent of the claim. Is this justice?

Proinsias De Rossa

Plus VAT.

Mr. Flanagan

Solicitors will also charge VAT if it can be charged. The Minister has a high burden of responsibility to the House and people. What he said this morning does little to help public confidence in this matter, which is low. The protest outside Leinster House yesterday was an indication of the confusion on the issue. People had to protest with placards to seek what the EU says is their lawful entitlement. The Minister should give the committee a clear statement of clarification as to what he will do in this regard.

Dr. O'Hanlon

It is unfair to the Minister to debate at length a case before the courts. He has been as forthcoming as he can. In his capacity as Minister, he is a party to the court proceedings, whereas none of the rest of us is. The Minister has explained the position as far as he could given that court proceedings are pending. I agree with him that the amendment would introduce an unnecessary element of bureaucracy.

Deputy Woods has been Minister for Social Welfare for a long time. In addition to important improvements he introduced, no other Minister for Social Welfare circulated as many documents explaining changes. I have a list of documents circulated in the same week. Hardly a week goes by that we do not receive documents from him pointing out in simple language, not in the legal terminology in the Bill, the changes being introduced. They are made available to the press and there is certainly no lack of information. I see no desire on the part of the Minister or the Department to hide information. I support the Minister in opposing the amendment.

Ms Keogh

The point we are making is that the Minister should not be a party to court proceedings. People should not have to go to the courts to obtain their entitlements. I refer to the Minister's reaction to our request that regulations should be debated in the Oireachtas and I do not agree that this would result in more bureaucracy.

We now have a system of legislative committees plus the foreign affairs committee which was heralded as a whole new deal for Deputies. I suggest that this is an opportunity to have regulations debated as requested by Members. I do not assume that every regulation should be debated. It is nonsense to suggest that. However, Deputies are right to say that we would not have this mess about this regulation if we had had the opportunity to debate it. I do not accept that this would result in a bureaucratic backlog. That should not be the case. The committee system could be a perfect forum to further examine regulations and so on.

I do not accept the reluctance of Ministers to debate regulations. Everybody knows that there is no opportunity for Opposition Deputies to have regulations debated. They can put down all the motions they like but it will not happen. If smaller parties in particular were to wait for their Private Members' Time they would be waiting for weeks or months. It is nonsense to suggest that there is an opportunity there.

Mr. Allen

I support the opinion put forward by Deputy De Rossa that, in effect, the Opposition parties have very little power to challenge regulations. They are passed without even a nod because we do not have the powers, in practice, to challenge them. The 1992 regulation on the equality payments is an example of how a regulation has gone through the House and is now affecting tens of thousands of women.

The Minister has side stepped and shadow boxed with the issue over the last 12 months. The figure of eight cases was given but between 800 and 900 women have been paid to date. My specific questions are first, the level of payments made to these women and, second, if the Minister will make information available to the women concerned with regard to the level of payment made to their solicitors. Many of them cannot establish that.

In the Minister's response he again tried to confuse the issue. I will put on record exactly what the issue is. This will be the biggest litigation ever taken before the Irish courts. It is estimated that 10,000 women have already consulted their solicitors and there is an estimated furhter 75,000 women involved. Many of them will lose out if they do not take the action which they are being forced to take through a solicitor.

The Minister tried to talk about the situation post and pre the 1992 regulation. EC Directive No. 79/7 required member states to implement equal treatment between men and women in matters of social welfare on or before 23 December 1984. The State did not implement the directive until various dates in 1986 during which time married women were discriminated against vis-�-vis married men. The discrimination were as follows.

Until May 1986 married women were paid a weekly basic rate which was approximately £4.50 less than married men, depending on the type of benefit. Thereafter, married women were paid the same basic rate as married men. Until November 1986 married men were entitled to an automatic adult dependency weekly increase of approximately £24 in respect of a spouse regardless of her income. Married women on welfare had to prove actual dependency before this increase would be payable. Subsequent to November 1986 actual dependency had to be proved by a married man before this increase was payable.

Until November 1986 married men were automatically entitled to weekly child dependency increases of approximately £8 per child. Such increases were only payable to married women if they were in receipt of an adult dependency payment. Subsequent to November 1986 half the child dependency rate is payable to both married men and women. Until May 1986 married men were entitled to receive unemployment benefit for 15 months whereas married women received it for only 12 months. Subsequent to May 1986 married women were entitled to receive it for 15 months. Furthermore, until November 1986 married women were not entitled to claim unemployment assistance.

With the elimination of the above discriminations at the end of 1986, married men on social welfare whose spouses were earning in excess of £50 per week or whose spouses were receiving a soical welfare payment in their own right could not prove actual dependency in respect of the said wife and, therefore, lost their adult dependency increase. To compensate such men S.I. No. 422 of 1986 provided for a weekly transitional payment of £20 per week where the wife was also on social welfare or £10 plus the second half of the child dependency increases where she was in employment. This transitional payment was payable for as long as such men were in continuous receipt of a social welfare payment. These payments to married men were a new discrimination against married women and were gradually reduced over the years and finally abolished in July 1992.

Also in July 1992 the State introduced S.I. No. 152 of 1992 under which married women are entitled to arrears in respect of the 1984-86 period. Under this Statutory Instrument married women are now being paid——

Dr. Woods

On a point of order, what is the Deputy's reference?

Mr. Allen

It is my own briefing note.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy should be clear about what the reference is because there are elements there which are not correct.

(Interruptions.)

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister always shouts across the Floor that this or that is not correct but he never actually proves it.

Dr. Woods

I often hear the Deputy in the Dáil asking for points of order. I am asking for a point of order just to have the record of——

Mr. Allen

It is just my own briefing note.

Dr. Woods

I now know what it is and that is fine.

Chairman

Deputy Allen to continue.

Mr. Allen

Under the Statutory Instrument married women are now being paid the weekly rate differential, which was £4.50 when I wrote this note; half the child dependency rate where the woman is earning in excess of £50 per week; the three months unemployment benefit shortfall, and unemployment assistance to those women who can satisfy the means test.

The proposed action would be in respect of the following matters for which there is no provision for payment in S.I. No. 152 of 1992: the automatic adult dependency increases which were payable to married men betwen 1984 and 1986; the full child dependency increase where a married woman's spouse was also in receipt of social welfare or the second half of the child dependency increase if her spouse was earning in excess of £50; the transitional payments which married men in continuous receipt of social welfare received between November 1986 and July 1992; interest on the above payments; and general damages for hardships suffered because of the Minister's inaction.

The Minister has confirmed that the State is defending these actions instituted subsequent to July 1992. As these cases have a history of being referred to the European Courts it could be a number of years before a final resolution is reached on the post 1992 cases. The Minister is likely to argue that women are prevented from pursuing their claims by virtue of their acceptance of sums under S.I. 152 of 1992. The State and the Minister will also defend the claims on the grounds of delay in instituting proceedings. However, the European Court of Justice judgment in Emmet v. The Minister for Social Welfare, No. 208 of 1990, held that time limits laid down by national law cannot run until the directive has been properly transposed into national law. July 1992 is the earliest date on which the State can argue the directive was properly transposed into national law.

With regard to the Minister's reference to S.I. No. 152 of 1992, the Minister is attempting to retrospectively change the social welfare code in its treatment of married men and women with effect from December 1984 by applying the current equal treatment code to that period. Consequently, the State and the Minister now maintain that married men were not entitled to the automatic adult dependency increase and the full child dependency increases they received between 1984 and 1986. S.I. 152 of 1992 goes on to give the Minister the discretion not to seek repayments from the married men who received these overpayments. This attempt to retrospectively change the law to maintain that no discrimination exioted after December 1984, and retrospectively change married men's rights in respect of the 1984 to 1986 period, is novel and unusual. I do not believe the State arguments will get sympathetic hearing.

The Minister continually refers to eight cases. There were in fact 900 cases settled which were brought pre-1992. The 1,800 cases that FLAC was, by sleight of hand, prevented from pursuing this week in the High Court were from prior to 1992. There are thousands of other cases post-1992 which the Minister is also trying to block by means of the 1992 regulation.

Dr. Woods

Deputy Flanagan raided the issue of solicitors and their arrangements. I emphasise that these are private arrangements between clients and solicitors over which I have no control. In my statement today, I made the position clear and in the latter part I said that all legal entitlements have been paid. The claims currently being processed will be determined by the courts and if this gives rise to additional entitlements, all those involved will be paid in accordance with the decision of the court as was done in the 1992 legislation. I cannot make that any clearer and I cannot dictate to people what they do or choose to do with solicitors. The position should be very clear.

Deputy O'Hanlon explained the current position. Deputy Keogh stressed I should not be party to these proceedings — the office of the Minister is party to the proceedings. She also said we would not be in this mess if the regulations were treated in the way in which Deputy De Rossa suggests. That is not true. This does not come within the remit of this legislation and has nothing to do with this Bill. The case arises through EC Statutory Instruments. Treating regulations in the suggested manner would have no bearing on this.

Deputy Allen supports Deputy De Rossa's amendment. He gives equal treatment as an example which is not part of this situation.

Mr. Allen

We know that.

Dr. Woods

It would be unfair to the customers and clients of the Department of Social Welfare if every time we wanted to do something of an administrative nature, we had to do what Deputy De Rossa suggests. He has been suggesting it for years.

Mr. Allen

It is called accountability.

Dr. Woods

Deputy De Rossa always proposes this amendment, it is obvious from the Official Report. This would effectively stymie and stifle the administration of the Department of Social Welfare and that is why I am opposed to it. I gave examples such as our household budgeting facility which his clients and our customers welcome and which has to be adjusted from time to time. If Deputy De Rossa had his way adjustments would all have to be laid before the House, we would then have to wait until the House was sitting, get it on the Order Paper and wait for agreement between the Whips.

If that is the way Deputy De Rossa wants to treat social welfare clients and customers he should say it. However, he should say it to them and not to me. He should tell people that he does not want to run an efficient, flexible, well organised system. We now have one of the best systems in the world and all Deputy De Rossa does is try to throw a spanner into the works.

Mr. Allen

He wants accountability in the system.

Dr. Woods

There already is accountability. A procedure exists whereby any regulation may be brought before the House within 21 days. There are two kinds of regulations, those which must receive the approval of the House in the first instance and those which deal with normal administrative matters.

I should not talk further about equal treatment because it is not relevant to this Bill. It is delaying the debate and we have spent much time on it already. A major Social Welfare Bill gives substantial benefits to social welfare recipients. We have spent an hour and 20 minutes on an issue not relevant to the Bill but certain Deputies want to raise it on every available occasion. I have given a very clear statement.

Deputy Allen said this happened due to the Minister's inaction. I am trying to resolve a problem created between 1984 and 1986 and most of which has been resolved. Further cases arise from it which we are trying to address and it is unfair to say it is due to inaction on the part of either the Department or the Minister.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister is correct in saying that I have, on numerous occasions, not just in relation to the Social Welfare Bill, proposed amendments seeking to have regulations dealt with in the House. I also proposed that we should have a Dáil Committee which would look at regulations so that the time of the House would not be taken up discussing them. The committee would sift through regulations to ensure that important ones, such as the one we have been debating here, would be addressed clearly and openly by the House. I make no apologies for that.

On the question of creating a more bureaucratic system, it is a question of creating a more accountable system. The 1992 regulation is a classic example of how a Minister, under current procedures, can put through a regulation which seeks to change the law going back to 1984. This regulation seeks to reach back and change the law as it affected people eight years ago without the matter being debated by the Dáil and without the issues and complexities concerned being dealt with by the Dáil. It is not proper that the Minister should have that power and that is why I am pressing the issue of the necessity to have regulations made by the House in a formal way, not in the way they have normally been made up to now. It is wrong for the Minister to imply that no regulations are brought before the House and debated. Some are.

Dr. Woods

I did not say that.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister is not saying that. He admits therefore——

Dr. Woods

I said in my first statement there were regulations——

Proinsias De Rossa

He implied, by saying that in order for——

Dr. Woods

I said there were two kinds of regulations. This relates purely to administrative work.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister is now admitting that bringing regulations before the House is not a bureaucratic procedure, that it is a proper procedure.

Dr. Woods

Certain kinds of regulations.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister continually refers to the June 1992 regulation as legislation. Technically, he is right. It is legislation, but it is legisaltion by regulation, by the stroke of the Minister's pen, not as a result of debate in the House on the detail of what he is bringing forward. The Minister has also said that he is not entitled to make payments. I am citing exactly what he said because I know he is very sensitive to being misquoted. He has said that he is not entitled to make payments outside legislation. That is true. He is not entitled to do that, but in this case he makes the legislation by regulation so that he can refuse to make payments, and not only that but he makes the regulation retrospective. He makes the legislation and then refuses to make payments to people who are claiming.

Deputy O'Hanlon claims that it is not fair to debate an issue that may come before the courts which the Minister cannot discuss. That the matter is going before the courts is a decision of the Minister's, not ours. It is not a decision of the people who are making the claims. They make their claim, are refused what they regard as a legitimate claim and have no option but to take the case to court and the Minister insists on defending it. The matter is going before the court as a result of the ministerial decision, not as a result of our efforts or those of the claimants themselves. That ought to be made clear. The Minister also says that all legal entitlements have been paid. That is only true in so far as the 1992 regulation is concerned. He has made the law by regulation, by the stroke of a pen, and then says all legal payments have been made, but he has persistently refused to tell us how much money has been paid, and how many people have been paid. Again I ask him a specific question. In his reply to my parliamentary question yesterday, he said settlements were made in eight such cases. I ask him again how many people were involved with those cases and how much money in total was paid out. I am not asking for the amounts of individual settlements, I am asking for the amount in total that the Department has paid in those eight cases. As Members we are entitled to that information.

The Minister is accountable to this House. It is not his money, it is tax payers' money and we are entitled to know how much has been paid. How many people have been paid and how much money has been paid? I also ask him to clarify whether the 1,800 cases which FLAC is currently processing are pre-June 1992 claims. He says he has clarified it but he has not. Could he clarify whether they are being defended by him and if so, why? If he has settled in eight cases why is he now refusing to pay the 1,800 people who made their claims before he made the regulation?

Mr. Allen

I presume the Minister, by not responding to the many questions I raised in my previous contribution, is accepting the accuracy of what I said.

Dr. Woods

I made it quite clear that I did not accept the accuracy.

Mr. Allen

Of course the Minister did not respond to any of the questions raised by me——

Dr. Woods

If the Deputy sends it to me I will certainly have it examined.

Mr. Allen

The Minister has it on the record. I do not have a staff.

Dr. Woods

It is very simply to operate a photocopier. I can even operate one myself——

Mr. Allen

I ask the Minister to respond and I also repeat my questions in relation to the number of individual cases settled and the total amount of money paid out. The Minister has consistently refused to give that information through correspondence or questions raised in the Dáil. If he will not give the answers today it is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Committee of Public Accounts. I will be asking the Committee of Public Accounts to call the Minister before that committee to answer questions which he has refused to answer to date. The individual rights of many people have been seriously infringed and the whole situation is ripe for exploitation by third parties.

Dr. Woods

I am not going into it any further. I have made the position clear. There are cases before the courts at the moment and I have responsibility as Minister which I am going to honour, notwithstanding the attempts of Deputies here this morning. I have made a clear statement on a matter which is not in the Bill or relevant to it. It is relevant to S.I. 152/92 which is a European Communities regulation under the European Communities Act, 1972. It is not relevant to this Act.

Mr. Allen

I will be asking the Committee of Public Accounts to call the Minister.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is welcome to do that.

Mr. Allen

The Minister is not inhibited in any way by the present court proceedings.

Dr. Woods

I have a responsibility as Minister——

Mr. Allen

I am not asking the Minister about pending cases. I am asking about cases which have already been settled. Some 900 cases involving tens of thousands of pounds have already been settled and the Minister is refusing to disclose information about taxpayers' money paid out by his Department. He is in serious breach of procedures of this House.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy has put down questions and has been given answers to those questions in the House. I am not going back at this stage.

(Interruptions.)

Proinsias De Rossa

I ask the Minister to stop stonewalling and to tell us the position. I had a reply from him yesterday stating there are eight cases. How many people and now much money is involved? Will the Minister tell us?

Dr. Woods

The Deputy knows these are confidential settlements. He has been told that again and again.

Proinsias De Rossa

The House is entitled to know how much money the Minister has paid out. How much money has he paid out?

Chairman

This matter has been more than adequately discussed.

Amendment put.

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 18.

Tá
Ahearn, Theresa.	Connaughton, Paul.
Allen, Bernard.	Creed, Michael.
Bradford, Paul.	De Rossa, Proinsias.
Fitzgerald, Frances.	Keogh, Helen.
Flanagan, Charles.	McGrath, Paul.

Níl.
Ahern, Michael.	Leonard, Jimmy.
Bell, Michael.	Moffat, Tom.
Brennan, Matt.	Morley, P. J.
Byrne, Hugh.	Moynihan, Donal.
Callely, Ivor.	O'Hanlon, Rory.
de Valera, Síle.	Pattison, Seamus.
Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).	Penrose, Willie.
Kenny, Sean.	Wallace, Mary.
Kitt, Michael.	Woods, Michael.

Amendment declared lost.

NEW SECTION.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, before section 3, but in Part I, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Where the Minister issues a circular, guideline, or code of practice to Community Welfare Officers relating to entitlements of persons to supplementary welfare allowance payments or regarding the interpretation to be placed by Community Welfare Officers on regulations relating to supplementary welfare payments, such circular, guideline or code of practice, shall be lodged in the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas.".

This amendment attempts to provide greater openness or transparency in the operation of the Department of Social Welfare. The Department is proud of the record it claims in this regard. However, the Minister regularly issues circulars which outline how legislation should be applied, particularly with regard to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. The circulars also apply to other areas. Members are aware of the controversy following the issuing of circulars. Circular 14/92, for example, related to changes in the supplementary welfare allowance scheme and effectively prevented community welfare officers from assisting people in paying their ESB bills.

The circular was one of the dirty dozen measures introduced by the former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy McCreevy, in 1992. A subsequent circular modified the circular 14/92 to some extent. However, the discretion of community welfare officers was still restricted. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, eventually withdrew both circulars. It is not commonly known, however, that he introduced a further circular which had virtually the same effect as the circulars which were withdrawn. While the Minister correctly claims that he withdrew the first two circulars, a new circular which had the same effect was issued. Guidelines were subsequently published which maintained the provisions introduced by the former Minister.

This amendment would oblige the Minister to publish circulars. At present Deputies do not have a right to see the circulars, the Minister is not obliged to publish them and he has steadfastly refused to do so except under extreme pressure. Deputies are entitled to know how the system — for which they are responsible — is being interpreted and, in some cases, amended. I can give an example. Circular 24/93 regarding unemployment assistance, was issued on 4 August 1993. It was not issued to community welfare officers but to all local office and regional managers. It effectively cut the amount of money which a person whose spouse was on unemployment assistance could earn. The circular was issued as clarification of a regulation which was that a person could earn £45 per week without loss of unemployment assistance by the spouse and reinterpreted the regulation to mean a £7.50 per day disregard of earnings. People may well lose out as a result. A family with two children could lose up to £20 per week because of this circular.

I do not hold the Minister personally responsible for this example — all Ministers have acted in this way. They make regulations which cannot be challenged — as we discussed earlier — and they issue circulars which cannot be challenged. Circulars do not even have the appearance of being open to challenge. At least in theory one has the right to challenge regulations in the Dáil. However, the Dáil has no right to challenge a circular which has the effect of reducing the income of a social welfare recipient. We should, at least, have the right to know the content of circulars when they are issued so that we can find ways within the structures of the Dáil to challenge them.

Mr. Allen

I support the amendment. The situation with regard to circulars which affect supplementary welfare is very murky for those who are most marginalised and dependent on the most basic means tested assistance available. The system is full of uncertainty and inconsistencies. At least we can monitor regulations to a degree but circulars are not seen by Deputies or Senators.

The most notorious circular of the dirty dozen which the Minister, specifically his silent partner the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, claim to have withdrawn, was circular 14/92 which cut back on exeptional needs payments. The Minister told the Dáil that the cutback would be reversed. However, another circular was issued which introduced a scheme to deal with ESB and gas bills. Some of the provisions of circular 14/92 are still in place.

I ask the Minister to come clean and to let some openness and fresh air into this area. I still do not know his stance on the treatment of those who, through no fault of their own, are in arrears with their local authority rents or with mortgages because of sickness or unemployment and who need help through the SWA. More specifically, I also want to know the Minister's stance on circulars sent out on the optional work schemes. Those seeking payments under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme for help towards communion and confirmation expenses for their chidlren are being denied the payments they would normally be entitled to. The reasons given are that they are now participating in FÁS or optional work schemes formulated by the Minister, with the assurances that people on those schemes would not have their secondary benefits affected. There is a direct example of people being affected by participating in the optional work programmes. I am not the only one pointing this out to the Minister. One of the Minister's councillors in the County Cork area has also highlighted it. The poorest of the poor who wanted to do something for themselves by taking on a work programme are now being penalised. They would have been entitled to those benefits if they stayed on the dole.

All these decisions are being made by community welfare officers of these health boards. The system is full of inconsistencies. It depends more often than not on the attitude of the community welfare officer. What circulars have been sent out on these work programmes, on the treatment of rent and mortgage arrears and of people at both confirmation and communion times?

The Minister has a good knack of picking a Monday to do a lot of PR by pumping out propaganda about his Department. Friday is also another good day for this practice. The Minister went to Cork city recently with his silent partner, the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, to a seminar organised to deal with loan sharks and moneylenders. At that conference, the Minister's junior partner heavily criticised local authorities. She alleged they were dragging people into the arms of money lenders by insisting that people either pay their rent arrears or face evictions. It is the failure of both the Minister and his junior partner to withdraw one of the dirtiest of the dirty dozen cuts that has put people at the mercy of loan sharks. The reality is totally different, irrespective of what propaganda the Minister uses.

In saying that, however, I am not being critical of the efforts being made by credit unions to deal with loan sharks and moneylending. I do not want to see innocent groups being scapegoated for the cuts the Minister is imposing under these circular letters to the health boards. This amendment attempts to come to grips with these letters, which are not open to scrutiny by Members of this House.

I support the motion, but I would like the Minister to bring some openness into this discussion and state clearly where he stands on these points. These are the issues affecting people, many of ill health, who are at the mercy of the State and are the victims of economic failures.

Mr. Bell

I referred to this issue during the debate on Second Stage and on a number of other occasions. The problem is in the interpretation of the regulations. Community welfare officers have a difficult job to do. They are dealing with public money. Naturally they have to handle it in a responsible way. One should not be critical of community welfare officers. They should get our greatest sympathy because they have to make decisions under difficult circumstances. I am sure it is not pleasant for them to say no to those who are desperate for money. This service obviously requires some measure of positive co-ordination.

The transfer of this function from the Department of Health to the Department of Social Welfare should be seriously considered. It is not logical for someone to sign at an unemployment exchange and then travel to either the health or community welfare offices. These women, often accompanied by young children, have to queue in two places for the same range of benefits. Setting up that service in the Department of Social Welfare would allow for better co-ordination. I cannot see why that cannot be done.

The Minister has always taken any positive proposals on board. I know that from being an Opposition spokesperson on social welfare for seven years. Any Member in Opposition who brought forward a reasonable proposal always got a fair hearing and a genuine attempt was made to meet it. Rather than carrying it through in legislation, the Minister could advise the Members of this House when regulations of this sort are being circulated to community welfare officers. We could then talk to them in our clinics and advise them of the criteria for the payment of these benefits. It would save an enormous amount of time. I ask the Minister to consider favourably that means of communication with the Members.

Ms Keogh

I am confident the Minister will accept this amendment; there is no reason he should not. It is straightforward and reasonable. In what was supposed to be the year of transparency and accountability within Government, it would send out the signal that some headway at least has been made in this specific area.

This issue has already been discussed in the Dáil. People consider decisions made by community welfare officers to be arbitrary because they are unaware of the directions those officers have been given. It is unfair both on the client and the official involved. It is extraordinary that elected Members of the Oireachtas should be left in the dark as to the reasoning behind certain directions that may have been given. This amendment should be accepted. I would find it extraordinary if the Minister could not accept it.

Dr. Woods

In that case, Deputy Keogh will find it extraordinary. The Library of the Oireachtas would not be large enough for the volume of paper that would be issued on the subject. There are circulars coming and going all the time relating to activities on matters such as the control of abuse. The amendment states:

Where the Minister issues a circular, guideline or code of practice to Community Welfare Officers relating to entitlements of persons to supplementary welfare allowance payments or regarding the interpretation to be placed by Community Welfare Oficers on regulations relating to supplementary welfare payments, such circular, guideline or code of practice, shall be lodged in the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas

In many cases, it would be possible to publish a leaflet based on this and I suggest the Deputies take that approach. Deputy De Rossa mentioned a code of practice.

Proinsias De Rossa

Some 12 months later.

Dr. Woods

It is not a simple matter. We arranged for the supervisors of all the health boards to come together and agree a measure of uniformity in their practice. This was a valuable exercise and clearly defined the two circumstances which each Deputy mentioned when this matter was discussed in the House, the once-off case, where a person is all right after the first visit, and the case where a person returns and for which a wider arrangement is necessary.

Mr. Allen

To what does that document relate?

Dr. Woods

It is a code of practice on fuel debts.

Mr. Allen

Only fuel debts?

Dr. Woods

It relates to the Department of Social Welfare, the Health Boards, the ESB and An Bord Gáis. The Deputy said earlier that a code of practice was required in this area. Leaflets should be provided where possible because such communications are more simple. Deputy Keogh believes this is an easy problem to solve. It is possible to provide leaflets in some areas and these are available to Deputies.

Mr. Allen

Are there any related to rent or mortgage arrears?

Dr. Woods

I will give the Deputy the formal reply to keep him happy. During the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, 1993, I advised Deputies that a code of practice for dealing with fuel debts was being prepared in my Department in consultation with the ESB and An Bord Gáis and I undertook to publish this code at the time it was issued to the health boards. The code of practice was subsequently published and made available. A press statement outlined its contents because it was a reasonably substantial issue. We discussed this matter in the Dáil because it merited a code of practice. I also made it known at the time that I intended to publish revised guidelines covering all aspects of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, following a review of the present arrangements by my Department. This review is being undertaken by an advisory group which includes superintendent community welfare officers from the various health boards. Revised guidelines relating to the payment of rent and mortgage interest supplements are at an advanced stage.

Mr. Allen

The Minister said that last year.

Dr. Woods

I did not. I referred the Deputy at the beginning of the discussion to what I said last year.

Mr. Allen

The Minister said he was issuing guidelines in relation to rent and mortgage arrears.

Dr. Woods

I wish the Deputy would stop interrupting. I expect to be in a position to publish these guidelines shortly. The next major area of the guidelines relating to supplementary welfare allowance to be reviewed by the advisory group will deal with the exceptional needs payments. I want to ensure that the health boards' discretion is exercised in a sensible way so that people in need are helped sympathetically, effectively and efficiently. At the same time the assistance available under the scheme must be widely publicised in such a way that people can readily understand their entitlements. The revision and publication of the guidelines is designed to achieve both these objectives.

It would not be possible to deal with all aspects of the scheme at one time, that is why it is being done in stages. I would like to see this task completed as quickly as possible, but it is important that those involved in the delivery of the service are consulted and given the opportunity to use their experience to ensure that the outcome of the various reviews will meet the needs of people who depend on the supplementary welfare allowance scheme for support.

I appreciate the intent behind the amendment proposed by Deputy De Rossa. I assure him that the various guidelines and codes of practice will be published and I will be happy to lodge copies of these in the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas, as he proposes. It is not necessary or appropriate to include a provision of this nature in Social Welfare Acts, and, for this reason, I oppose the amendment.

Deputy Bell made the point about the importance of the community welfare officers having——

Proinsias De Rossa

Should we not adjourn for lunch?

Chairman

I will adjourn when the Minister is finished.

Dr. Woods

We are trying to simplify the supplementary welfare allowance, but we will deal first with the disabled person's maintenance allowance.

Mr. Allen

Some of the dirty dozen are still in place.

Sitting suspended at 1.06 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Proinsias De Rossa

While the amendment relates specifically to the supplementary welfare allowance system, the principle of ensuring that circulars of this kind are made public remains. One of the examples I gave related to the circulars issued by the former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy McCreevy, as part of the dirty dozen, subsequently amended by him to some extent with a circular, and then amended again by the present Minister by another circular.

All those circulars had the effect of denying people assistance which they had prevously received. The Minister may give various reasons that was necessary, but the bottom line is that people were, as a result of these circulars, refused assistance to which they were entitled previously. Where the Minister has the power to do that under the current legislation those circulars should be available to the public and, specifically, to Members of the Oireachtas. As far as I am aware, none of the circulars I referred to has been made public by the Minister.

The guidelines subsequently introduced to replace the final circular on this issue have been made public and that is an advance. However, it is only a minor one in that the Minister still regards it as his prerogative to publish or not to publish as he sees fit.

It must also be borne in mind that the guidelines were only finally published after the Minister was harangued by Deputies every week for 18 months to do something about people being denied necessary assistance. While the Minister was wrestling with forces within the Department to sort out the matter, those who needed assistance did not receive it and some are still not receiving it under the new guidelines. That matter must be dealt with by further reform of the system. A legal obligation must be placed on the Minister to make public the changes he is introducing by way of a circular reducing some people's entitlements.

The Minister's name rarely appears on these circulars. They are usally under the name of a civil servant but the Minister is ultimately responsible for them. One circular was issued on 4 August 1993. No one knew about it except those to whom it was issued, local office and regional managers. They were instructed that the £45 per week allowance of earned income, which would be disregarded in assessing a spouse's income for long term unemployment assistance, would henceforth be calculated on the basis on a daily rate.

The net effect was that if someone worked for two or three days a week his or her spouse would lose unemployment assistance. One example is a family of husband, wife and two children on long term unemployment assistance of £165.30 per week, who, as a result of this circular would lose £22.50 per week. That is not being done by legislation, it is through this circular. Even if only one family was affected by this circular, it is not proper that there should not be accountability by the Minister or notification to Members of this House or the public. This cuts the income of people already living on the bare minimum needed to survive. I will press this point about circulars.

The Minister argues that the size of the library would have to be increased to hold all the circulars. That is true but it is a separate matter.

Mr. Allen

Microfilm could be used.

Proinsias De Rossa

It could be done by using microfilm, as Deputy Allen says; there are a variety of ways. The circulars could be given to Deputies or a list could be drawn up on a weekly or monthly basis so that Deputies could select those they want. We want a commitment from the Minister that he will make them available and will no longer use this facility adversely to affect incomes. His Department decides a regulation will be interpreted in a given way and there is no way to combat that. We do not even have the right to bring forward a motion to rescind the circular, as we do in respect of regulations. We are totally powerless. The only weapon we have is public opinion and we can only use that if the circulars are made public.

Mr. Allen

I will repeat some of the questions I put to the Minister before the break because he answered some in a selective way and deliberately ignored others. Does he realise Circular 14/92 was one of the original dirty dozen? Perhaps he chooses to forget. The glossy brochure he produced earlier relates only to the scheme for fuel payments. He chose to ignore the fact that since 1992 no scheme has existed to help people with arrears in mortgages in rent.

The Minister said a working group is examining the position but those in heavy debt, being driven into the grip of loan sharks, cannot wait. Why will he not restore the position which obtained prior to that circular? The working group could then continue deliberations while relief will be given to those under tremendous pressure. He also chose to ignore the position relating to the work schemes and the payment of supplementary welfare for first communion and confirmation. I have examples of payments being cut for participation in FÁS schemes; another issue he ignored. I support the amendment, otherwise the Minister can introduce cuts in an underhand way to the most basic requirements.

This Department uses its Monday and Friday press conferences to pretend it is open in giving information but it is the most secretive Department. The Minister will not answer questions, he gives half answers and refers to issues which have not been raised. I ask him to respond to these issues. Will he restore the position on mortgage arrears prior to Circular 14/92? What is the position on the payment of supplementary welfare allowance on training schemes?

Dr. Woods

There is no change in the position on rent and mortgage arrears. They are being examined as part of the review but they are still being paid and are currently quite substantial.

Proinsias De Rossa

That is not true for local authority tenants.

Mr. Allen

The Minister has not answered the question. That is another half truth.

Dr. Woods:

Deputy Allen asked about optional work schemes and the provisions in the Bill. Sections 24 and 25 deal with that matter and we will come to them in time. I have taken action, translated into legislation. We are making provision for people in education and in employment to keep their benefits. It is a little tiresome to listen to that being recited. These issues are addressed in the Bill and provisions are made which will allow for the drawing up of administrative arrangements to meet people's requirements. This point has been raised by Deputies.

The Deputy also raised the question of loan sharks. The level of such money lending is reducing in Cork and a great job is being done there by everybody concerned. The household budgeting scheme was introduced and this requires the flexibility I mentioned in relation to regulations. There are many other arrangements for the operation of the system which require increasing flexibility. If the House will not work with those type of arrangements so that they can be administratively flexible, it would be preferable if they were taken from the House and put out separately as in the case of semi-state bodies. If substantial problems arise, they are taken to the House and examined. If the House is to get into that type of detail regarding control of the Department's operation by officials, which is effectively what happens, it will not work. Perhaps this is why I am a little concerned about these amendments.

I accept Deputy De Rossa's point that there are particular situations and issues which require further clarification. I produce a fact sheet on everything we do and every change we make as Deputies noted. Internal circulars operate daily in the Department. The Deputy's suggestion would mean that Deputies could go to the library and link into the information system, they would have to be covered by the Data Protection Act and we would have to ensure that they kept details confidential. I accept the general intent of Deputy De Rossa's amendment but I do not agree that everything should be a matter for legislation because it is unworkable in practice.

The Deputy mentioned the £45 assessment per week. This was part of an internal instruction to tackle difficulties that had arisen regarding claims. We always have difficulty in this area because people draw claims and there are switches to other schemes. There is a sensitivity about how it should be handled and I agree that the matter should be the subject of a more substantial document. As I stated publicly, this is being examined and I hope to be in a position to make a statement soon in that regard. The Deputy is aware of this and it was highlighted recently.

During lunchtime, a Deputy told me that he was delighted with what I was doing in relation to another measure in the Bill. He said that he did not expect the detail to be set out here and that it would come later in regulations. This Deputy is not from my side of the House but he is delighted that I am tackling the problem. However, he understands that sensitivity is required in finding a balance to implement some of the generalised intentions. They will come in regulations which will be laid before the House. This amendment would require much more detailed communications regarding circulars and guidelines.

We did not administer the supplementary welfare allowance system. However, we have standardised a number of its elements. The problem with supplementary welfare is, and always will be, that utlimately individuals have to make decisions. I introduced a national fuel scheme and regularised it across the board. Nevertheless, there will still be eight to ten thousand cases where people do not fit into any standard situation and where, particularly for health reasons, a local person has to make a decision that it is a case that should be supported. That type of residual problem remains and it cannot be documented. It depends on experience and on the feedback of various people's experience.

The back to school clothing and footwear scheme is another example. This was consolidated into one scheme which is the same in each health board area. One of the difficulties was that practices varied significantly between health boards. My predecessor's action in relation to that matter, regarding exceptional needs, was mentioned. There was an initial attempt to regularise the varied practices and I withdrew those circulars. The code of practice was then introduced in consultation with the people who have responsibility in that area. Again, the difficulty is that when administrative responsibility is delegated, as in relation to health boards, those people are administratively responsible. I am not involved in the daily operations and one is depending, as Deputy Bell said, on interpretation by community welfare officers in many situations. They have a difficult job and this will always be the case because we can regularise many things but one needs people of their calibre to ultimately make the decisions. It is difficult to formulate circulars which meet all the circumstances without at times infringing on matters. If this happens, it becomes a matter for discussion.

I agree with the Deputy on the need for the code of practice and the adjustment in the £45 rate — changing it to a daily rate rather than a weekly disregard. Finding the solution is not as simple as changing it from one figure to another as many interactions and implications arise. It is simple if one does not have the constraints that apply to a Minister regarding the handling of funds, in addition to many other matters. I have much sympathy with Deputy De Rossa's amendment but it would excessively tie the hands of administrators. In some cases it would not appropriate because of the sensitivity of some of the areas with which they have to deal. Some of their work is sensitive and must be handled accordingly.

I am prepared to be as open as possible in this regard and to provide circulars, information and codes of practice. Several of the circulars which have arisen since the introduction of the coce of practice have been laid before the House.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister says he has sympathy and that he is prepared to be open. At the same time he advises that given the difficulties, complications and restraints, it would to too sensitive to make circulars available.

The problem is that there is no public restraint on the issue of circulars. The Minister admits that there were problems with the circular issued in August 1993 regarding the income disregard for the spouses of people on unemployment assistance. However, the problem which arose in 1993 continues and people are losing income in consequence.

I have difficulty accepting that the Minister is serious when he claims he is going to take action on this matter, first, because he is not prepared to make circulars of this kind available when they are issued and, second, because he has not indicated the precise steps he is taking to resolve the fact that people have lost income as a result of the circular to which I refer.

The fact that guidelines are published is welcome, but these were produced over a long period in consultation with, and drawing on the experience of, people who face their clients on a daily basis. However, these circulars are not issued in that way. Circulars are drafted at Department of Social Welfare level and issued to community welfare officers or unemployment office managers and there is virtually no consultation prior to their issue.

There is a possible way for the Minister to deal with this. Take, for example, the income disregard. Instead of the procedure whereby a circular such as this is issued in August 1993 and takes effect from the date of issue, would it not be better for the Minister to circulate draft circulars of this kind to ascertain the reaction on the grounds, from Deputies and those who deal with unemployed people on a daily basis, such as the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed or community welfare officers? This would make greater sense than plunging people into more poverty as a result of a circular, recognising the problem eight months later and seeking to redress it.

This circular has created a new poverty trap, yet the Government is on record as declaring that they wish to eliminate poverty traps. The effect of this circular is to prevent somebody increasing their income without losing income in consequence, which is the definition of a poverty trap. It is extraordinary that the Minister persists in his view that it is better that these circulars be kept confidential when, clearly, that approach is not working, certainly not in the interests of the claimant. This is despite the fact that the Minister has placed greater emphasis on the claimant and ensuring that he or she has an income adequate to needs.

The Minister claims that it is wearying to have these points constantly laboured by members of the Opposition.

Dr. Woods

That is not my point. One cannot speak two words on this Committee but somebody uses them for some other purpose.

Proinsias De Rossa

If the Minister would allow me finish my point, I was about to say my remarks were in regard to Deputy Allen's comments.

If it was not for the fact that Deputies on this side of the House laboured these points, and wearied the Minister on them, there would be no progress. For example, we would not have the guidelines on fuel under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. We continue to await the comprehensive guidelines which were promised a long time ago. Without such opposition the Minister would not be promising the Committee to take some action to resolve loss of income by people as a result of the circular issued last August in respect of income disregard.

All of this arises in consequence of the interplay between what the Minister is undertaking and what the Opposition argue for in terms of improvements. I appreciate that it is somewhat boring for the Minister, but it is nevertheless necessary if the system is to be improved. If the system is closed off and one is left to depend on the good intentions of the Department to issue fact sheets and communicate its decisions, the sytem will not improve as it will not benefit from legitimate criticism from Opposition Deputies, and from private criticism which Ministers receive from Deputies in his party and the Labour Party.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy has misrepresented my remarks in response to the comments by Deputy Allen. I mentioned that there are two sections to the Bill, which the Committee has yet to address, which deal with the points made by Deputy Allen regarding education and people in work schemes.

Mr. Allen

They do not.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy spoke of optional work schemes and these sections specifically deal with this issue.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is not the first time the Minister spoke on this.

Dr. Woods

That is correct, I mentioned sections 24 and 25 previously. I can debate these issues at this Committee indefinitely. However, if this Bill is not enacted, then 1.5 million people will lose substantial benefits, and that is an immediate prospect.

Mr. Allen

Is the Minister suggesting that if members of this Committee continue to question, people will suffer?

Dr. Woods

There are substantial elements of the Bill which the Committee has yet to address.

Mr. Allen

It would be easy for the Committee to nod the Bill through and allow the Minister to be elsewhere.

Dr. Woods

I will attend this Committee for as long as is necessary because I am anxious to have these measures implemented. I worked hard to get them for people in the budget.

The Deputy's amendment does not solve the problem, rather it will create more problems. That is my difficulty with it.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister has not introduced an alternative, which is his responsibility.

Dr. Woods

I am introducing alternatives, which are administrative in nature. I am establishing advisory groups. One may call them claimants, advisers, clients or whatever, but I like to refer to them as customers. The choice of terminology has implications.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am well aware of that.

Dr. Woods

The customer advisory groups will include pensioners, lone parents, the unemployed, families and so on and will obtain feedback on their satisfaction and relationship with the Department. This is one mechanism that can be used regarding the kind of changes that can take place within the entire system. They will also be used to move things forward as much as possible in an attempt to obtain any improvements.

There are difficulties regarding the provisions and the way in which they are operating. For example, difficulties arose regarding the £45 working allowance and it was noted that one way of dealing with the problem was to have a daily rate. It was considered to be a reasonable alternative and nobody complained about it for some time.

Proinsias De Rossa

It was a cost cutting measure.

Dr. Woods

It was not a cost cutting measure.

Proinsias De Rossa

It was and it was issued on the August weekend.

Dr. Woods

The saving would be negligible. It was not for that purpose. It was a long time before it became a problem because it was set in motion for a genuine reasons in the first instance. It is a classic example for the complex interactions in the system. We are examining the situation and we hope to change it in the next couple of weeks. I assure the Deputy in that regard. At one time when a Minister gave an assurance that a matter was being examined and dealt with, it was accepted by Deputies. I ask the Deputy to accept that assurance. I note points made about information and the feedback on changes in the system. Customer advisory groups could be one way of ensuring that with the customers.

Mr. Allen

As regards participants in work schemes, will exceptional needs payments be made in full under the supplementary welfare payments scheme, rather than partial payments?

Dr. Woods

That is provided for in the Bill.

Mr. Allen

It is not clear.

Dr. Woods

It is difficult to talk about sections 24 and 25 when——

Mr. Allen

The Minister referred to it.

Dr. Woods

Yes, in order to let the Deputy know it is provided for.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister said he will deal with Circular 24/93, issued on the August bank holiday weekend in 1993, which reduced the income of many people. The Minister has undertaken to deal with that in approximately two weeks. I welcome that commitment and I intend to hold him to it. I will table questions in two weeks about what steps he has taken on this matter. Does the Minister intend to deal with it by issuing another circular and will it be available to Deputies? The nub of the issue is that circulars are being sent out to change the entitlements of claimants in a way which reduces their income. Deputies do not know about them until they take effect and they have no way of reversing them. They are being denied information about the terms of circulars in the first place.

The Minister said fact sheets will be issued, but they do not contain details which circulars contain. This circular deals with other matters as well as the £45 working allowance. It deals with income from enterprise allowance schemes, VHI contributions and parental allowances in farm cases. There are other issues involved. I accept the Minister's promise, but I am not getting any further in relation to a commitment that important circulars will be available to Deputies and an acknowledgement that we have a right to see them.

Dr. Woods

I have no problem about that. Once a resolution is found. I will put it in the Library where it will be available to Deputies. I have no difficulty with other similar items which are substantial. We may argue about what is and what is not substantial, but I regard that item as such. I have no difficulty about putting those items before the House. Although certain information will be available, this will not be resolved by measures like that. We have codified the legislation and we have published a simple guide to the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act. We have also published a guide to assistance provisions and we are working on insurance provisions to bring them together in a simple and comprehensive form so they are available to those who are interested. I am trying to get that together so people may see changes more clearly and they may relate them to what was there before. This is often complicated by previous regulations. We are tackling that problem comprehensively.

Proinsias De Rossa

Given the Minister's commitment to make important circulars of this kind available. I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been ruled out of order.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.