Deputy Lemass is in possession.
Private Members' Business. - Government's Economic Policies: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved on 10 November 1981 by Deputy Woods:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the economic policies of the Coalition Government which have greatly increased prices and the cost of living and which are causing severe hardship for social welfare recipients and those on lower incomes and calls on the Government to take special measures immediately to safeguard the welfare and the living standards of these sections of the community this winter.
Debate resumed on amendment No.1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute:—
"Dáil Éireann expresses its confidence in the policies of the Government, as set out in its Programme, to secure social justice for those who are dependent on social welfare."
—(Minister for Social Welfare).
Last night I was referring to the new ministry that the Taoiseach has set up, the ministry of poverty, and I was saying that it was the right thing to do, that this ministry under the present Government and the economic policies they are pursuing will be very necessary. The economic policies of this Government will cause untold hardship to the vast majority of the population of this country, not least the widows, the unemployed and the people referred to as the middle income group, who will certainly be a lot worse off than they have been. Consider a young married couple trying to buy their own home. They have taken out a mortgage of £20,000. We all know that you cannot buy a house for less than £22,000, £23,000 or £24,000 at the moment. These people now will be saddled with an increase in their mortgage repayments of between £40 and £50 per month. Can you image what is going to happen to the money that was promised during the election campaign to the stay-at-home wife, the £9.60? It is the husband's money. I have no objection whatsoever to women at home getting an allowance, but what about the woman who gets this money eventually and then finds that the mortgage repayment has increased by £40 per month? What will happen in that household? I am sure the husband is not going to hand out an extra £40 or £50 per month. Therefore, if the wife wants to keep a roof over her head, in the majority of cases she will have to give back that £40 per month. I would not mind this £9.60 if it were of any advantage, but the problem is that it will cost probably more than £9.60 to implement the scheme. What will happen? Without benefit of extra cash coming in, that household will have to pay in some way either in taxes or indirect taxation the cost of implementing the scheme. This absolutely crazy. We all know that the people working in the tax offices have refused to implement this scheme unless they get extra staff and more offices. On the one hand the Government have put an embargo on recruitment to the civil service and on the other hand they propose to introduce a scheme which will require a massive increase in the number of civil servants. People on very low incomes such as widows and social welfare recipients will not benefit at all but will contribute in some way to the cost of this scheme.
Many women voted for the Government parties because they thought they would receive a certain amount of cash to help them in running their homes or to use as pocket money. This will not happen and I hope these women realise that. This Government have a terrible cheek to offer such small amounts of money to social welfare beneficiaries to offset the inflation they will impose on us. A widow will get an extra 35p for a child and a person in receipt of an invalidity pension will get 20p for a child. This amount would not even buy a stamp, which now costs 22p. Some people are getting an extra 15p. It is horrific to think of the hardship which will be caused by the economic policies of the Government. I do not know how people will cope following the budget early next year when we expect that the rate of inflation will increase by another 8 per cent. It will cost £500 million to implement the income tax package with which almost everyone disagrees and about which the Government have been warned. Still they persist in going ahead with this plan and we will all have to pay for it, probably through indirect taxation.
Because negotiations on a new national wage agreement have broken down, I am wondering what will happen in the coming year. Who can blame people for seeking an increase of 20 per cent when inflation has risen by almost 13 per cent as a result of the Government's policies? How many strikes will occur? What will happen to the wives and children of men who may be on strike for two or three months? How will they manage if there is no strike pay and they are receiving some kind of social assistance amounting, perhaps to £45 per week for a husband, wife and two children?
I am basically concerned about the poorer sections such as old age pensioners, widows, deserted wives and single people. In our last budget at the beginning of this year there was an increase of 25 per cent in social welfare payments and I spoke to many old age pensioners shortly before the general election and asked how they were faring. I asked whether they had sufficient and if they found that the increase was helping them. and the response was very favourable. They assured me that they were being reasonably well looked after. These people who have given such service to the country should get as much as possible. They had sufficient then but due to the policies of this Government they are now experiencing very lean times. It is horrific that some of them were offered an increase of 3 per cent.
This is the year of the disabled and a supplementary allowance paid to a blind person in receipt of a pension will now be increased by 5p for a dependent child. What is the point of giving people 5p? It will probably cost more than 5p to print the bit of paper to inform them of the increase.
The Government have increased indirect taxation to a level previously unknown and this hits every person in the community. The people who can afford it have no problem but it hits hardest those on very low incomes, the widows, the disabled and those on unemployment assistance. The Government must take another look at what they are doing. People depend on the Government in power to look after their interests and I am beginning to think that this Government have no social conscience whatever. They obviously do not care about the lower-paid workers and social welfare recipients.
It has come to my attention that certain health boards have decided, in view of cutbacks, not to allow people to obtain spectacles on their medical cards. This would badly affect the elderly who need spectacles for reading during their recreation. Perhaps the Minister when replying would indicate whether it is true that some health boards are cutting back on this service. That would be the last straw.
The economic policies of the Government are causing more and more unemployment. More and more factories are being closed down. When you have a high rate of inflation and of direct taxation industry is automatically hit. What will happen? A situation will develop in which more and more people will be on the dole queues, and that in turn will mean we will have to raise more money by more taxes. The Government will be setting a spiral which will bring us down and down. The situation will get gravely worse in the coming months unless the Government do something drastic. We have a growing young population, a 40 per cent increase in those under 25 years of age. What will they do with factories closing and new factories not being opened because people cannot operate businesses due to spiralling inflation because of direct Government action.
In the middle income group the average person will have to pay a 1 per cent levy on incomes of more than £8,000. That is an extra cost of £80 per year. The VHI, in turn, will increase their charges. Where will it all end? The Government have been warned to turn back before they reach the point of no return. They are causing hardship and misery and high unemployment. Coalition Governments always have been the same: they always caused hardship and misery from the moment they were elected. This Government are moving in the same way. Inflation has increased from 17 per cent to 22 per cent almost overnight. At a time when we are trying to keep the economy stable, trying to keep wages steady and to have another national understanding, we are faced with the prospect of no national agreement because in order to combat inflation people must look for increases in their wages.
It was wrong of the Government not to try harder to get income talks going. They were not even seen to be doing something to keep the agreement intact, as we did last year when the Taoiseach called the various groups together and saved the agreement. As a result last year we had few strikes, wages remained steady, the people were not unhappy, workers and employers felt a sense of stability. It was extremely important to give that confidence to employers. They must know exactly where they stand on wages. In the free-for-all with which we are faced, workers will be looking for a 20 per cent increase which the employers will not be able to afford. What will happen? Great misery will be caused because all people will have to look forward to is a period of strife in the public and private sectors, without security for anyone.
The economic policy of the Government is crazy. They are going about everything in the wrong way. If they wanted to give some money to women working at home there was already a system through which they could do it without extra cost. We fought for a long time to get children's allowances payable in wives' names. The Government have promised to increase children's allowances. Why not add to these allowances the money it would cost to administer the £9.60 scheme? We are told it will cost an enormous sum to send out 80,000 cheques per week. When I asked the Minister for Finance last summer how much it would cost he told me he did not know.
If the Government want to do something for those in need they could use some of the money to help the battered wives, none of whom will be getting the £9.60. None of them has a home to go to. The Government could have used the money which will be spent on the administration of this senseless scheme to build or to buy premises for the accommodation of battered wives. There are premises at the moment available for a mere £200,000 but the Department of Health will not provide the money. At the moment battered wives have to run from nightshelters at nine o'clock in the morning to old premises during the day which, because of their conditions, they are not allowed to say in at night. If the Government had a social conscience, as the Taoiseach said they had, they should start immediately to spend this £200,000 to accommodate battered wives who are in dire need.
At the poverty conference recently the Taoiseach made some strange remarks. He said, "The wealthy are those people who own property or who have jobs". What did he mean by that? Does he mean that the wealthy man is a bus driver who owns a house in Ballyfermot and is paying all these extra taxes in indirect taxation? Is he calling him a wealthy man? To say that the wealthy were those who owned property and had a job is a strange statement. He also said: "We are committed to improving the real level of social welfare benefits". I should like to ask the Taoiseach, if he means that, not to think in future of offering any person on social welfare a sum between 5p and 20p because, as far as I am concerned, that does not amount to looking after those in need. I ask the Taoiseach to make a real effort to help those in receipt of social welfare benefits. It is because of the economic policies being pursued by the Government that those people need all the help they can get. I should like to wish the Minister responsible for poverty well in her task. She has a very difficult job ahead and will have plenty of work to do in the coming months.
I wish to express my confidence in the policies being pursued by the Government as set out in their programme to secure social justice for those dependent on social welfare. I am glad that the fate of social welfare recipients is in the hands of a new Government. The practice, the record and the residue of the last Government left us facing a task which is not easy for any sections of our community but is particularly difficult when it comes to protecting the position of those in receipt of social welfare benefits. The commitment of the Government to secure social justice can never be in doubt. Our activities to date, our commitments, our policies and our actions to deal with the immediate situation and plan for long-term solutions indicate that we take this task seriously and that we will continue to pursue the aims set out in our policy document.
There is great inequality in our society. That is patently obvious and it is the Government's intention to pursue policies that will give equal opportunity to all. This replaces the occasional thought given to the problem, the token increase in benefits which was the only answer conceived by the last Government to the problem of poverty. We hope, in the place of platitudes and high flown sentiments, to have concrete action as the order of the day. We cannot go on indefinitely preaching about the need to make the national cake bigger before we begin to divide it. That was the last Government's great hope for the elimination of poverty, need and inequality in our society, that one could gradually hope that we could produce more and at that point the fall-out would be shared out to all and all would benefit.
At the time of the handing over of power in June the level of poverty here was as high, if not higher, than it had been ten, 15 or 20 years before. The figures are shocking if we can talk of 25 per cent of our people living at levels that the vast majority of us would consider unacceptable. For all their preaching and their reaction the last Government have a great deal of responsibility for this. It is a great responsibility we regret that we had to take over but it is one that we are tackling enthusiastically. We are planning and working towards a situation where there will be a radical improvement in that in the next four years. There is evidence to suggest that while a rising economic tide may lift some boats there are plenty of other boats that get flooded and sink. They are the people we are concerned about, those who have been left aside in our society and those who may be left aside if action is not taken.
Any increase in social welfare benefits is not the final or radical answer to the problem. There is need for action on a multi-fronted level. The preoccupation with benefits, which are important, indicate the failure of the last Government to understand the depth of the problem, the extent of the inequality and the need for radical and multi-fronted action to tackle the question of poverty and inequality in our society. Social welfare payments are the only cushion and support for a large number of our people. Those payments are the vital life-support mechanisms for between one-third and one-quarter of the people here. If we close off support to these people then we are coming near to closing off their basic means for survival. It is utterly erroneous and irresponsible for the Opposition to suggest that we would, even in our most desperate moments, contemplate action like that. These are desperate moments and they are as a result of a situation we inherited from the last Government. The extent of the problem is known to the people and the Government and will become more obvious in the coming months. However, even in those difficult circumstances, in a circumstance where we accept that there may not be too many rising tides for a long time, we are totally committed to ensuring that in real terms social benefits will rise.
I was astonished last night to listen to the contribution of Deputy Woods in which he suggested that the burden of the Government's taxation policies would fall most heavily on the poor. The very point of our proposed tax reforms is to ensure that those people in most need of help are the ones who shall get it. At the poverty conference Dr. Kennedy examined our proposals and assessed that their overall impact was progressive, that it would bear more heavily on those who had and ease the burden on those who had less. It was ironic to hear Deputy Woods attacking our tax proposals when he was a member of the Fianna Fáil Government which introduced budgets that benefited the rich at the expense of the poor, a Government which came to power on a programme that involved direct benefits to the rich at a cost to the national Exchequer, a move which limited the possibility of providing for the poor.
Our shift in taxation from direct to indirect will not place indirect taxes on basic household goods essential for normal day-to-day living. In this way we are determined to ensure that those people who spend their money in large quantities on luxury goods, and they are not few in number, will pay their share in taxation. Likewise, those people who are in the lower income sections of the community will not be faced with tax on basic household purchases and will be spared carrying the burden of increased taxation.
The Opposition have laid much emphasis on the price rises there have been in many goods and commodities since we took office in June. These have taken place and some of them have been very steep, but I refuse to accept that these were introduced entirely as a result of our economic policies. I believe that message has gone out quite clearly to the public. There were reports in the newspapers, even before the change of Government took place, of price rise applications sitting on various desks waiting to be imposed. We have examples of other doubtful practices which committed the Government to economic measures which further limited our possibility for taking the type of action we would have liked to have taken. Many of the increases I spoke about in the course of my first speech were sought during the period of office of the last Government. They had been recommended by the National Prices Commission but, for purely political reasons, had not been sanctioned by the Minister responsible. Indeed, in their attempt to curry favour with the electorate the last Government effectively froze prices for four or five months before the election. I do not think that amounts to responsible economic management and I do not think it is honesty to the electorate. When we came into Government, however, the Opposition had the audacity to attack us for what they had no courage whatsoever to do. Their actions in this regard totally undermine the credibility of their attacks on the Government.
However, they also attacked us for letting social welfare recipients fall behind. That is false and misleading. The October increases were the first step in ensuring that social welfare recipients rise in real terms above the level of inflation. The Government are committed to the indexation of social welfare benefits and to the raising of benefits in real terms. It is a commitment which we have constantly reiterated and it is very damaging and irresponsible of the Opposition to try continually to put into the minds of the public that there is some question about this. This commitment was given prior to the election, during the election and since the election. It was given by myself three times yesterday in this House. It is extraordinary to still find Opposition Deputies suggesting that there may be any welshing on this promise.
Part of our commitment also involves the kind of understanding of the problem of poverty and of social welfare recipients that the Opposition never seemed to understand and certainly never articulated and, in this debate still fail to understand or articulate. That is the importance of giving people a voice, the importance of making the system accessible to people. Many of the people who are dependent on social welfare do not have a loud voice or belong to a very strong interest group. By not being able to get the ears of the Government at will they often feel left behind. It is important that they are consulted at times other than the four or five years from general election to general election. The system as it operates, supposedly for them, is in fact very complex and bureaucratic. Many of them do not understand; the forms are unnecessarily difficult. This sort of reform is something that we are committed to, to simplify the bureaucratic procedure, to clear up the anomalies that exist and to make sure that people know what is theirs and that the attitude to social welfare should be not that these people are beggars at the door of the Government but that they have a right and that if our society cannot provide them with employment that the least it must do is supply them with money to live on in a dignified and respectful way and whatever justice entails, not only giving them an adequate living income but also ensuring that they receive that income without any stigma or inadequacy or failure attached to it. The party who have been responsible for running this country for many of the past 50 years must take a lot of responsibility for the shape and the atmosphere of many of the services which are crying out for change.
Some points were raised last night by the Opposition speakers. Deputy Woods spoke at length about the effect of the July budget on social welfare recipients saying that the increase in indirect tax has increased the burden on the poor. The July budget was something that this Government had no desire to implement. There was no plan to implement it. The Government got no pleasure out of implementing the July budget. The need was obvious and those of us who are working from day to day with Departments can see that not only was there a need for that budget but, to be quite honest, that that budget will still leave many of the Departments in great difficulty in meeting services which were not adquately estimated for at the beginning of the year and for which even that budget, necessary as it was, will not fully fill the gap. This is an extraordinary indictment of the irresponsibility of the previous Government which not only left price increases aside for a great deal of time but produced Estimates which were seriously inadequate.
In bringing in the July budget the Government gave due consideration to social welfare recipients and in that an increase was given of 5 per cent to long-term beneficiaries and 3 per cent to all other beneficiaries and this was estimated on the basis that our budget at the time would raise the consumer price index by 3 per cent and would ensure that those on short-term benefits would at least maintain the standard that they could have expected prior to the budget and the 5 per cent increase effectively involved an actual increase in real terms for those on long-term benefits. In the responses here today to individual questions during Question Time one can see that in many cases the increases to persons with large families were indeed quite significant. If they are not significant then as much blame must go to those who set the levels for a 5 per cent increase and it would point to the need to re-examine the basic level of benefit rather than this destructive note of trying to score cheap points by looking at elements of a complete package.
The Opposition speakers have commented unfavourably on the level of the October increases. The increases provided by the previous Government in the January budget and brought into effect in April were intended to cover the situation for the year 1981—82 and to protect social welfare recipients against inevitable price increases during this year. There was no indication that any further increase would be given later this year and if the experience of 1980 is anything to go by there would have been no increases under a Fianna Fáil Government. They increased payments in April 1980 and gave no October increases. They increased payments by the same amount in April 1981, presumably with the intention of having no further increases in the rates until 1982. Their comments on the increases provided by this Government must be looked at in this light. These were extra increases which might not have been expected and would not have emerged under a Fianna Fáil Government. The Fianna Fáil Government were setting inflation at a rate which looked well set to reach a figure of over 20 per cent and which left us with no alternative but to bring in a budget which, in effect, realised that direction. When we look at what actually occurred in 1980 we can receive further enlightenment about the previous Government's approach. The increase in the consumer price index between February 1980 and August 1980 was 9.7 per cent and as I have said, no October increase in social welfare payments was considered necessary. This year the increase in the consumer price index for the corresponding period was only slightly higher at 10.5 per cent but the Government have given an October increase on this occasion and while this increase when taken on its own is fairly modest, it will, when taken with the increases which came into effect in April last, ensure that over the year as a whole, the position of social welfare beneficiaries will be fully protected.
This Government are fully committed to indexation of social welfare payments and in planning their expenditure for next year this commitment will be a primary concern. It is in the context of the January budget that rates of social welfare payments are fixed and the 1982 budget will indicate the Government's determination that the position of social welfare beneficiaries will be fully protected. More than that, this Government are also very much aware that the present level of social welfare payments is inadequate and have committed themselves to ensuring that those dependent on social welfare receive real increases in their income. This commitment will be honoured by this Government and the October increase can be seen as an earnest of their intentions in this regard.
When I started speaking I indicated that both in the short-term and in the long-term this Government are serious about their commitment to social justice and to secure, particularly for those who are dependent on social welfare and for those on lower incomes, a good standard of living. Some of the options we have taken already indicate our commitment to this. I have mentioned and dealt with the increases given in the July budget. I would also refer to the agreement to give a double payment at Christmas. Our decision to award double payment is an important one. Deputy Lemass suggested last night that the Government were shamed into awarding this double payment by the fact that it had been made by the previous Government. In fact the previous Government were forced to make that double payment by the commitment extracted from them in the second national understanding and it must be presumed that they agreed to that in view of the October increases. This year our social welfare beneficiaries have gained from the October increases and also from this agreement to the double payment which we are extremely glad to give. But a double payment of that nature is a short-term solution and I am especially interested in this Government's long-term commitment which I will come to later.
Deputy Woods referred to the cheap fuel scheme and said he was seeking to have the value of this voucher increased to £5 per week. The previous Government set the value in October 1980 at £2 and this Government, a year later, have set it at £4, an increase of 100 per cent. This provision to meet heating needs is only an interim measure pending, as promised in our programme, realistic heating provision for the elderly. This is to be pressed forward as quickly as possible.
On a point of information, it was £3 before it went to £4.
Yes. But it was £2 at the beginning of 1980. Deputies Woods and Lemass continued to refer to these mythical increases of 5p, 10p and 15p. I have made that point a number of times and I can only put it down to the most wicked intentions of Opposition Deputies to create this myth that that level of increase has been given. Nobody received an increase of only 5p, 10, or 15p in their pension. These increases were supplements to other payments made and the other payments were also increased.
The increase in ESB charges was referred to. As the Deputy knows, the long-term recipients of social welfare payments, such as old age pensioners, blind pensioners and invalidity pensioners and others over pension age, receive a free electricity allowance, including a fixed number of units free of charge, 300 in the winter months. This allowance is not affected by increases in charges and is additional to the increased levels of pension provided which, as I have said, represent real increases in the case of the elderly.
Petrol price increases and the effect on the economy were mentioned. Deputy Woods referred to an increase of 30p per gallon in the price of petrol between June and October of this year — from £1.90 a gallon to £2.26 a gallon. It must be remembered, however, that the application for 16p of the increase was made to the previous Government but a decision on the application was deferred until after the general election. Therefore, the actual increase in price under the present Government can be calculated as 20p or 10 per cent. It may be mentioned that the increase in the price of petrol in the calander year 1980 was 33p a gallon, or 27 per cent.
Deputy Woods referred to the position of social welfare beneficiaries in the light of tax changes to be made in the forthcoming budget. In this regard the House may be assured that the Government will honour their commitments in the programme to safeguard the position of these beneficiaries. As the Minister said last night, she will be concerned to see that further substantial increases are provided to those dependent on social welfare. I am especially interested in the proposals regarding the child benefit scheme next year. In her closing remarks, Deputy Lemass referred to the potential value of the children's allowance scheme. Its potential value and the importance to the mother, particularly the mother with a large family on a low income, has been recognised by the Government and it has led to one of the most progressive proposals in the Government's programme — the proposal to replace the existing children's allowance and tax allowance for children with a child benefit scheme. The present tax free allowance for children will be abolished and replaced by an augmented child benefit scheme, payable to all mothers of dependent children. The substantially improved payment of £3 per week and £4 a week for the sixth and subsequent children will represent a major improvement in the circumstances of low income families. What is involved is a radical approach which will take family income support out of the tax system, which is designed for collecting revenue and not as a mechanism for channeling support to less well-off sections of the community. Under the new scheme State income support for families generally will be concentrated in one scheme, children's allowances, making the support more visible, more unified and of more value in its impact to those whose need is greatest. The present system of a tax free allowance was regressive in nature, being of more value to those on the higher tax rates. People whose incomes are below the tax threshold, the very people who need help most, get no benefit at all from these tax free proposals.
There are such anomalies in our system. There are benefits that most people presume are going to those most in need but in general are benefiting those who are better off. This Government, in adopting such proposals, have shown their ingenuity, their commitment, and their ability to use the kind of research available in the area of progressive policies which will ensure the proper and full redistribution of wealth. This new scheme will result in some new redistribution of income from the higher paid to the less well off, but I should like to stress that the new benefits will apply to all families regardless of the income of the household. That is again recognising the importance of children, the maintenance of children and the role of the woman. The new benefit will represent a more realistic, independent income to the mother than the present children's allowance.
Deputy Lemass poured cold water on the £9.60. Whatever about its financial benefit, when it is added to the children's allowance it will effecitvely mean that the woman will have a significantly improved disposable income coming directly to her in recognition of her role as child-minder and of being in the home — a recognition long overdue and the least that women could expect. It will also benefit children for whom the mother still has the primary responsibility. The constant dig that this is coming from the husband's pocket is inaccurate. It is coming from an overall increase to the family through the new tax proposals. Instead of directing all the increase to the husband's pay packet, some of the increase is going directly to the wife. This will be extremely beneficial to low income families.
I should like to come to the area that concerns me most. It is the area which is in my title and which Deputy Lemass suggested only became relevant in the last two months. If Deputy Lemass can say that, it is a shocking indictment of the total lack of knowledge of the seriousness, the extent and the history of the problem of poverty. The appointment of a Minister for Poverty is not an indication of a new problem. It is, for the first time in the history of the State, a recognition of a very real problem. In the few months since I was appointed, regardless of what I have done, the acknowledgment of the problem by the creation of that Ministry and that responsibility has raised the consciousness and has developed the debate in an extraordinary way. It is great credit to the Taoiseach that, in outlining areas of responsibility, he, and his Government should have established a whole new Ministry. The Government's programme includes a commitment to tackle poverty in our society. Deputy Leyden, in a previous debate, commented on the paltry amount of £100,000 which had been given to this committee. If one expects that money to be spent on direct services, it is a paltry amount; but the Opposition do not seem to understand the importance of planning. This agency will have both a planning and an action role. The planning role is as important as the action role and that £100,000 is intended to establish an agency which will become the voice of the poor and a radical contribution to the whole debate on policies in this area. It will influence Departments and encourage Departments who spend a great deal more money to have a poverty responsibility in the finance which is already given to them for social spending. The £100,000 can influence a great deal more than the direct budget which it spends itself and in the budget there is a commitment to extending its scope. I consider the establishment of this committee as extremely important and I hope its role in the next few years will be one that will contribute to a radical change in our society.
The Taoiseach referred to the challenge involved in admitting the existence of poverty and the need for redistribution of resources from the haves and the have-nots. In a time of recession this challenge would be resisted in some quarters but we are determined that any pressure to cut social services will not succeed or be tolerated. An anti-poverty plan will be drawn up and implemented within the context of national, economic and social planning leading to a more just distribution of wealth and income. The main task of the new agency will be to increase the understanding of the nature and extent of poverty through research and public education. I hope in this task that party political divides will be forgotten, because I am sure that on all sides of the House there are people equally concerned about the problem. Perhaps, when people are faced with the facts for the first time and with statistics and continuing pressure to acknowledge it, it may be something which will bring us together. One of the areas in which the national committee made specific recommendations was in relation to development of constructive community action. This will be one element of the agency's work. The Government also acknowledge the importance of voluntary, community-based organisations tackling social problems. We will ensure that these organisations are given proper recognition. There is, very importantly, the establishment of a special anti-poverty unit in the Department of Social Welfare, which will extend and develop the activities of the committee.
In conclusion, in the short term and in their commitment to long-term planning this Government have shown that they are concerned with securing social justice for those who are dependent on social welfare, for those on very low incomes and with eliminating some of the inequality and injustice in our society.
Deputy Sherlock has five minutes.
I am thankful for five minutes in which to speak on this motion. A new Government comes into power and says that there is a huge deficit which makes it necessary to have a budget to reduce that deficit. The Opposition of the time say that that is not correct, that the deficit could not be as great as that. The fact of the matter is that the people of this country who are now very well aware — and politically aware — say that there must be a big deficit because, as far back as 1980, there were obvious cuts in public expenditure. That was a sign that the economic situation was not by any means good.
Having faced that situation, the Government went about rectifying it but, unfortunately, put the entire burden on one section of the community, the PAYE sector who are already over-burdened. They also imposed indirect taxation. In his budget speech the Taoiseach said:
I also want to make it clear that I intend to ensure that other measures, such as capital taxation, mentioned by the Minister will be introduced by this Government as soon as the complex provisions to do so equitably can be framed.
Whatever the complex provisions are, the situation should be rectified now. The way to rectify our economic situation is by capital taxation. We had evidence in the last few weeks of the Government's determination on this question. Five people were before the court charged with tax evasion and the amount involved was £2.7 million. That is only the tip of the iceberg. There is wholesale tax evasion and the machinery is not there to change that situation. At least there is evidence that some steps are being taken in that direction.
I am watching the situation very closely and I am inclined to the view that there is a commitment by the Government to introduce a policy programme for social justice. In Kilkenny, over the weekend, the Taoiseach, recognising that there is such great poverty in this country, said that the haves will have to share with the have nots. He included among the haves people in employment in unskilled jobs. I want to make it perfectly clear that people in employment in unskilled jobs are very little better off than those on social welfare benefits.
Next, I want the Minister for Social Welfare to bear in mind that the greatest injustice now being perpetrated by the Government on such people is that on the assessment of a person's eligibility for services, such as health services or educational grants, tax is not deductible. You have a situation where a person who applies for a medical card under the limit which refers to that person, does not have tax deducted in assessing his or her eligibility for that service. That is wrong. The dependants of social welfare recipients should benefit from free dental or optical treatment. These people are not able to avail of that treatment because they cannot afford to pay for it.
Finally, the motion condemns the Coalition policy for the hardship which it has imposed and there is no doubt that it has imposed hardship. The amendment says that Dáil Éireann expresses its confidence in the Government because it is determined to secure a policy of social justice, including the issues of taxation and employment and to tackle the problem of poverty. I was glad to hear the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, speaking on this question and I do not doubt her determination in this matter. It is in the next couple of months that the Government's progress in this direction will be measured. The Government will not deserve to continue to be in power if they do not do something to rectify the existing injustices and do not bring in a policy of full justice.
I congratulate the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare on her maiden speech in the House. As we are all aware, when a Member of this House makes a maiden speech we normally do not interrupt. However, there is a lot of material in this speech which will be quoted on many future occasions.
All I say, in constructive criticism, is that it differs very much from speeches which the Minister made a year or two ago about what should be done in Government and for Government. The motion in the name of Deputy Woods says:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the economic policies of the Coalition Government which have greatly increased prices and the cost of living and which are causing severe hardship for social welfare recipients and those on lower incomes and calls on the Government to take special measures immediately to safeguard the welfare and the living standards of these sections of the community this winter.
The amendment put down by the Minister for Social Welfare reads:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute:—
"Dáil Éireann expresses its confidence in the policies of the Government, as set out in its Programme, to secure social justice for those who are dependent on social welfare."
Apart from those who are receiving social welfare, there are a number of people, as mentioned by Deputy Woods in his motion, people in a lower income group, who have a very serious problem. Being a rural Deputy I refer to the small farmers and farmers in general, and to small shopkeepers who are practically out of business due to supermarkets.
I will deal, firstly, with the social welfare end of the problem. As a Deputy of long standing in this House I must say that when the budget of 21 July was introduced here I was amazed that any Government made up of Independents, of Labour and Fine Gael, would bring in a budget which would give only 5 per cent increase to social welfare recipients and 3 per cent to others, in view of the fact that in that very budget the most severe system of taxation which could ever be introduced was introduced — that is a 50 per cent increase in value-added tax.
The Minister of State said that the Coalition Government have subsidised people in the lower income bracket and those on social welfare. She said that people in the lower income groups were not affected. We all know that the 50 per cent increase in value-added tax affected people with families. There was a 50 per cent increase in VAT in relation to school books and there is no point in saying that people in a lower income group are not being affected when there is a 50 per cent increase in the price of school books.
We are also aware that the increase of petrol, the cost of cars, building materials, all the items right across the board that are affected by the 50 per cent increase in VAT have put the cost of living up considerably. I hope the rocket the Americans are sending up tomorrow will take this away. The cost of living and inflation have gone out of hand. Everybody must be informing Deputies on the Government side of what is happening to the cost of living.
I want to say, as a member of the previous Government, that Fianna Fáil decided, because we were in a recession period, that the most vulnerable section of the community were those in the lower income group and those in receipt of social welfare payments. We did not decide on 5 per cent or 3 per cent increases but on 25 per cent and 20 per cent increases to all those people. This ensured they got increases over and above the normal cost of living index and I am sure the Minister appreciates that.
I am sure the Minister is now discussing the estimates for the coming budget and I hope she will insist on an increase like that for the people I am talking about. We gave them this large increase last year and we gave the double payment at Christmas to the long-term social welfare recipients. I am sure the Minister will admit that it was because of the demands made by my colleague, Deputy Woods, who introduced this last year, that last week she decided she would do it. I congratulate the Minister on doing this but I must give credit to my colleague for insisting she do it.
We are all aware that there is a need to meet the cost of living index and we know that social welfare recipients in general have not sufficient money to pay for ESB charges and all the other charges made on them. One of the major problems in the Department of Social Welfare is the payment of disability benefits. Some people are waiting for two months and even three months for payment.
Last Saturday a man came to visit me at my home and he told me that his daughter had called into the Department of Social Welfare because he had not got benefit for five weeks. That man's daughter was informed in Aras Mhic Dhiarmada last week that certificates had not been sent in. I telephoned the Department on Monday and got through to the section where I was informed that a computer was out of order. It does not matter if a computer is out of order or if that man sent in the certificates. He is a married man with five children who has paid his pay-related contributions and for his insurance stamps over the years, but now that he needs to get disability benefit because he has been ill he cannot get it. I know that before we had supermarkets there was not a very great problem when there were cases like this because we had family grocers. If customers had problems they could go to their family grocers and get credit for a few weeks.
That position has changed because when people do their shopping they are not known in supermarkets. Everything is very impersonal in those supermarkets. They only want to see people with money. If a person has not money at the check-out the goods go back into the store. When we had family grocers Deputies were not pressurised by social welfare recipients to find out what happened to their benefits when they were not receiving payment. They knew they could get credit from their family grocers and could await payment of their social welfare benefits.
The Deputy will have to admit that the situation is much better now than it was some months ago.
Social welfare recipients are suffering hardship at the moment. Members of the Labour Party, of the Fine Gael Party and of the Fianna Fáil Party as well as Independent Members know that this is the case because most of their time is taken up with telephoning the Department of Social Welfare and writing letters to the Department asking them to do something for the people who are not receiving the benefit they are entitled to. I want to put it on the record of the House that I do not blame any official in the Department of Social Welfare for this problem. I want to see a political decision taken like the one that was taken during the postal strike when the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Minister for Social Welfare, asked the various voluntary organisations to ensure that those people got the money they were entitled to. The problem has got so serious that something must be done about it.
I must interrupt the Deputy because he knows well that the situation has improved very much since this Government came into office. The delays now are not nearly as serious as they were last June or July.
I would like to point out that the Minister of State pointed out quite clearly in June and July that the position was completely cleared up. I presume the Deputy is talking about problems which have arisen since.
Will the Deputy allow Deputy Nolan to proceed without interruption.
I allowed the Minister to interrupt for a minute only because my time is limited. I would like her to come down to Carlow and Kilkenny and meet the people who have sent in certificates of illness and who are awaiting social welfare benefits for weeks. I will send the Minister details tomorrow of people who are waiting three and four months for the benefits they are entitled to. Something will have to be done about this matter. In view of the problems that have arisen I suggest that we get the voluntary organisations to again ensure that those people get the money they are entitled to. There is the problem of the health boards paying an amount in social assistance to the social welfare recipients but now they are becoming reluctant to do this because they have paid out quite a lot of money. Some of the officers wonder if particular people have got their cheques. We had a problem mentioned by the Taoiseach in the House on the day he was elected that the health boards had no money either in 1980 or early in 1981. The accounts for the various Departments are not coming to light now.
I am sure the Minister has the document I have here with me, the Irish Medical Times. It was sent to me because I am a former Minister of State in her Department. It might be no harm to put on record the financial position of the Department of Health in 1980. I want to quote from the Irish Medical Times, volume 15, number 44, dated November 6 1981 and published every Friday:
Unspent Money Returned.
The Department of Health handed back over £2½ million of unspent money to the Central Exchequer last year, it is revealed in figures just published by the Department of Health.
In 1980 the Department estimated that its gross expenditure would be £721.011 million and its income £52.8 million, according to the Appropriation Accounts.
To meet this it received a grant from the Central Exchequer of £668.211 million to finance the running of the health services.
However, its actual gross expenditure of £72.819 million was £191,570 less than estimated and its income at £54.617 million was £1.817 million more than expected.
This left the Department at the end of the year with a surplus of just over 2½ million unspent which was handed back to the Department.
The Irish Medical Times have no political associations of which I am aware.
I want to come now to the question of the disabled. When I was Minister for Labour the Government made the decision that 3 per cent of all those employed in the public service would be disabled people who were qualified to do certain jobs in the public service. A disabled person in a wheelchair can do a certain amount of work. A person who is disabled from the neck down as a result of an accident can do a certain amount of work. As Minister for Labour I was glad that my colleagues in Government decided that 3 per cent of the total recruitment to the public service would be disabled people. Unfortunately since this Government took office they have stopped recruitment to the public service with the result that the recruitment of disabled people to the public service is far below what we anticipated.
Even though we are now in opposition I was invited down to a certain place in the South Eastern Health Board in my own area and I was delighted to see the development which has taken place there. I saw a man on crutches who is working in a factory. He was able to work on a forklift truck and was working as well as any person with the normal use of his legs. Even though there has been a cutback in recruitment to the public service I would ask the Minister to increase the percentage of recruitment of the disabled in this Year of Disabled Persons.
The Minister opened the poverty council in Kilkenny last Sunday and made a speech there. I am sure she will get all the documentation from everybody who spoke there. Sister Stanislaus is a very able member of society. I congratulate the Minister on appointing her as chairman. I can assure the Minister that she will be in her office quite often. We talk about financial poverty but there are other types of poverty. A man with a wife and two children with an income of £80 a week can live in comfort and happiness and with no problems while another man with a wife and two children and an income of £80 a week will be living in poverty. Poverty means more than money. It also means management. We must educate people to use the finances available to them properly.
There is also the poverty of loneliness. Old people living alone can be lonely. Sometimes a widow or a widower can be living alone and forgotten. There is another type of loneliness. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare I was given the title of Minister for Children. I had responsibility for family care and the child. I did quite a lot of work in that field. Even with our educational system and our pre-marriage courses we are inclined to forget that 60 to 80 per cent of everybody's time is spent in the home. When a girl is working in a factory she is working with 30 or 40 other girls. Another girl may be working in an office with four or five other girls. She gets married and goes to live in a large housing estate, a concrete jungle as somebody called it. She may not be a person who will mix with her neighbours. Suddenly she feels lonely. The day of the old family grocer has gone when he could introduce Mrs. Jones to Mrs. Murphy down at the corner and they would get to know each other.
On an examination of the report of the task force we find there is a lot of work which we in this House must do. There will be a tremendous amount of work to be done when the Minister introduces her Children's Bill this year. She can rest assured that we will give her all the help we can to ensure that the Bill will be a proper Bill. Many problems arise in our modern society. Changes are taking place in our society. How much more time have I got?
I understand the Deputy indicated that he would conclude at 8 o'clock.
At 8.01 p.m.
I understand some arrangement was made.
Five minutes was given at the beginning of the Deputy's time.
Since nobody else is offering the Deputy may carry on for a minute or two.
I have a couple of minutes. There is also the problem of young people who wish to get a local authority loan to buy a house. Under the previous administration there were certain conditions laid down in respect of loans. I agree that having regard to the limited amount of money available loans should not be given to every person who wishes to buy a house as in many cases these houses are converted into flats. When the Fianna Fáil Government were in office all an applicant had to do was to confirm through his clergyman or by some other means that he intended to get married. Under the new regulations the joint income of the couple are taken into account when arriving at the income limit for a loan. The income limits is £7,500 and it is obvious that in practically all cases the joint income of the couple will exceed that amount. In my opinion this regulation was introduced because the Government do not wish to give loans to young people to build houses. I ask them to withdraw that regulation.
Traditionally it has been the practice that on publication of unemployment figures the Government make a comment on the matter. Last Monday on the 6.30 p.m. radio news it was announced that 129,211 people were unemployed but the Government did not make any comment. I do not deny that when I was Minister for Labour there was an increase in unemployment but at least I gave some explanation. In the months of June, July, August, September and October there was a steady increase in the number unemployed and the media have reported that this will continue. The last time there was a decrease in the unemployment figures was in May, the last month of office of Fianna Fáil. At that time there was a decrease of 2,500. I ask the Minister present to note what I have said.
There are problems also in the area of industrial relations. People have been put into the Bridewell and there are a number of strikes in progress throughout the country. Somebody asked me recently who was the Minister for Labour.
The Deputy is departing from the matter before the House.
The motion deals with people on lower incomes.
I should like to remind the Deputy that the Minister for Social Welfare does not have responsibility for matters connected with the Department of Labour.
I am disappointed the Government will not introduce legislation to improve industrial relations in view of the fact that we have the report of the commission.
I should like to refer to some of the points raised by speakers in the debate, particularly to points raised by the Minister of State and by the Minister and to some of the matters referred to by Deputy Sherlock.
Deputy Sherlock mentioned that recently some tax evaders were before the courts and he was anxious to give the Government credit for that. I am sure the Deputy will realise that it has taken quite some time to bring these tax evaders before the courts and that the whole process started long before the change of Government. It was something about which my colleague in the Department of Finance was very concerned during his period in office. I would advise Deputy Sherlock to look at the reports of the Revenue Commissioners which show the numbers of people who were brought to court each year and the fact that an increasing effort has been made in that area.
From the comments of Deputy Sherlock it is obvious that he is prepared to wait and see. He has heard all the commitments given but he realises this is not reflected in what is happening on the ground. I do not think he is totally convinced. I think the Deputy is right to listen to what is happening on the ground because the ground may open up and swallow a number of people.
I listened to the comments of the Minister of State and the Minister. In opening the debate I raised the number of serious problems which have arisen because of the measures taken by the Government in their July budget. There is no escaping reality. I did not try to escape from problems that existed earlier in the year and which we dealt with as well as we could in management terms and I am prepared to debate that matter with anybody at any stage.
We are going through a difficult period. My real fear is that the policies being adopted are having and will continue to have a disastrous and detrimental effect particularly on those on lower incomes and those on social welfare benefits. I mention in particular people on lower incomes. Deputy Sherlock recognised that it is not all a question of people on social welfare benefits. Our motion refers clearly to those people on lower incomes also. In his short contribution Deputy Sherlock noted that people on lower incomes are suffering especially badly. In a way they will be the "sandwich" people in this massive scheme the Government are attempting to implement. They are doing this despite the advice coming from all sides, even from some leading economists who have had time to work out the real implications. These implications were pointed out when the package was put before the electorate in the general election.
It appears the Minister of State and the Minister are oblivious to all these matters. Their point is that they have a commitment but that everything will work out right in due course. I accept the sincerity of both Ministers in this respect but I fear it is all going wrong at the moment. Notwithstanding the sincerity, best wishes and commitment of the Ministers, this harsh reality will have to be faced in the very near future.
One of the planks or platforms on which the Ministers based much of their case was the improvement in the children's allowances planned for next April. I am very interested in this, as I was interested in it when it was put forward as an election promise. Apart from the fact that I felt it misled people in the short term, it is important to identify what this package means and what it will do. It will hit those in the middle income group hardest. The Government are clawing back a husband's tax-free allowance. Both the Minister and Minister of State made it quite clear that the child allowance is being clawed back. There is no question about that. It amounts to £195 per annum. If one has four children one gets four times £195 of a tax-free allowance. This is important as far as the working man is concerned. Under the new scheme proposed from next April a wife will receive £3 per week per child. That sounds very attractive and as an election promise was well presented. I congratulate the Government on the way it was done but it was misleading. That will come home to people when the scheme begins.
Take the case of a family with four children. They will receive £12 per week. The present position, as it exists since last April, entitles a family with four children to £33 per month. Many people use this money to pay ESB bills and so on and if the Minister does not know that she should visit people in the north city area. Four children at £33 per month is the equivalent of £8.25 per week. That is paid directly but, indirectly through a husband, there is a taxsaving of £195 per child. There are many workers on the lowest rate. It represents £3.80 per week to them. If we add £3.80 to £8.25 the total is £12.05. That is what the amount has been since last April. The family are 5p better off since last April than they will be from next April.
One could say that if people are paying tax they will not receive that benefit. That was true. However, they will still receive £12 per week. In the last two budgets children's allowance was increased by 30 per cent. If one takes that on top of the other, there was a 69 per cent increase in 18 months. Suppose Fianna Fáil increased it by 30 per cent in the next budget, as we did in the last two because it is an area where we had a particular interest, that would mean £2.47 per week added on to £12.05. In April 1982 a family with four children would have £14.52 per week. If we had only increased it in the budget immediately preceding the election people would have said we did it only because of the election but we have shown our real commitment by the fact that we increased it in the budget before that one.
People on the 25 per cent tax rate will be considerably worse off under the proposed package. The Government tried not to say anything about those people but spoke about those at the bottom level. These people will be 25p per child better off. That is an important equation and one most people overlook. The statements made by the Minister and the Minister of State about how wonderful this change would be prompted me to point out exactly what the position is. A husband will have £9.60 taken from him by virtue of a reduction of £2,000 per year in his tax-free allowance and in addition will have £195 taken from his tax-free allowance for each child. That will mean a husband will pay a great deal more tax than he does at present. If Fianna Fáil were in office and did nothing more than we did for the last two years, a family would get £14.52 from next April whereas the present Government have promised them £12 per week from next April. This is misunderstood by many people but it is important to recognise what is involved and the extent to which a clawback will be operated. It will be seen because husbands are not as dim as people take them for and will recognise that their tax-free allowances are significantly adjusted.
The main impact of the Government's policies will be on the poor and on families. We will create a new poor. At a recent conference there was mention of 25 per cent of people living in poverty. It will be considerably more when the Government are finished. The economic policies of the Government are hard and cold-blooded and will increase the number of poor especially those on social welfare and who benefited from tax improvements. The Minister of State said that people welcomed it as did Deputy Sherlock. However, people recognise that they will be badly affected and see no way of recouping their losses.
The Minister made no reference to the £9.60. For most no benefit will accrue to the family from this measure. It is a circular transfer from a husband to a wife and will mean extra administrative costs. I estimate a staff of 500 will be involved and together with buildings, paper and so on the cost will be in the region of £9 million. If it is less or more than that figure perhaps the Minister will tell us. But it is clear from the comments of the tax inspectors that they are concerned about the situation, that they see it as one which will create circular transfers. The question is whether the provision can be applied to everyone. The Minister of State said this evening that we can be assured that the commitment to the payment of this £9.60 will be honoured and that nobody will suffer. However, there is considerable confusion in the matter. According to the Gaiety Theatre document, the direct payment of the tax credit in respect of wives working in the family home will be payable in full even where the present family income is below £4,000 per annum and that this will aid the lower income families not liable for tax now. If that is the position, there are 280,000 wives who would not be liable to benefit otherwise but to pay them will cost £140 million per annum. This represents about £200 in respect of each taxpayer. Therefore, the honouring of this commitment will have a major impact on Government policies so far as the ordinary taxpayer is concerned.
Much has been said about prices but I shall take up just one aspect of this situation, that is, the surcharge of 80 per cent imposed by the Minister for Finance in respect of the fuel variation and which is reflected in a 25 per cent increase in ESB bills being delivered now. In effect this means an increase of from £15 to £20 in the average bill, an increase that is totally unjustified. The National Prices Commission in their report published on the last day of April recommended a 12 per cent increase in this regard. We said at the time that we did not consider the fuel variation to warrant such an increase and that we would like time to examine in detail the increase sought. The new Government ratified a 25 per cent increase. Shortly afterwards the ESB declared a profit of £6.3 million and a £58 million cash flow. This whole debacle on the part of the Minister for Finance, which was used in an effort to give the impression that Fianna Fáil in Government had been holding back on this increase for political reasons, was a total misjudgment on his part. The ordinary families are the ones who are suffering now. If the Minister of State were to visit some of the homes in any part of the country in which the families concerned are being affected by this 25 per cent increase, I am sure she would realise the hardship it is causing. I raised this question during a television debate with the Minister for Finance and I raised it on other occasions too, but there is no rush on the part of the Government to defend the increase. The reason is that it is indefensible. I say this because, as we anticipated, the fuel variation costs have stabilised greatly.
When the ESB annual report was published a spokesman for the company said that it might be possible in February next, on consideration of the situation, to reduce charges. Of course it will be possible to do that next February since the increase was not necessary in the first place. I hope the people will realise that the Government are the people who are responsible for this large increase.
Before you put the question, I should like to ask the Minister if she would arrange to let us have the documentation relating to the Estimate for Social Welfare before the debate begins to-morrow.
I will do that.
Question put: "That the amendment in the name of the Minister for Social Welfare be made."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 73.
Tá
- Alderman Dublin Bay-Rockall
- Loftus, Seán D.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh. (Dublin North-West).
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McCartin, John J.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Sémus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh. (Wexford).
- Callanan, John.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Joyce, Carey.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tully, James.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Mervyn Taylor; Níl, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 12 November 1981.