Is there any possibility of discussing my amendment No. 1?
Social Welfare Bill, 1991: Report and Final Stages.
I have conveyed my decision in relation to the matter. Your amendment is out of order for the obvious reason, it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
I always look forward to receiving communications from you, a Cheann Comhairle, but on this occasion I regret that you had to inform me that my amendment had been ruled out of order. May I address two very brief remarks to the Minister for Social Welfare in relation to this amendment?
As a result of the discussion which took place on Committee Stage, I believe the Minister is well aware of my concern, as voiced by Deputy Stagg, in regard to the differential treatment of people in the PAYE sector as opposed to those in the self-employed sector. I ask the Minister for Social Welfare, before the Bill is debated in the Seanad, to look at the disparity which exists. This is a moot point, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, that dependent spouses in the self-employed sector are entitled to have their allowances annualised over a 52 week period whereas spouses in the PAYE sector have any six week period in the year taken against them. Unfortunately, this discriminates against spouses in the PAYE sector. I ask the Minister to look at this issue before the Bill is debated in the Seanad.
Strictly speaking, I am out of order in replying to the Deputy because his amendment cannot be moved. The Deputy asked me if I would keep this issue in mind——
The Chair is anxious to have matters clarified in any event.
The position is that the adult dependant regulations are designed to take account of the most up-to-date earnings data in determining weekly earnings for the purposes of applying the limit. However, due to the different nature of employment and self-employment it is not possible to use the same periods in determining the most up-to-date earnings.
Sub-article (1) of article 5 of the 1985 Adult Dependant Regulations provides that the weekly earnings of an employed contributor are calculated by reference to the average earnings in the previous six or eight weeks, depending on the period for which the person is being paid. This six-eight week test is designed to provide the most up-to-date information concerning the current normal weekly earnings of employed persons. These earnings can be verified by the production of wage slips or statements from employers. A similar system is used in determining weekly earnings for entitlement to family income supplement.
However, such a system would not be practical in determining the current normal weekly earnings of self-employed persons. For this reason the earnings in the last complete income tax year which are the latest verifiable details of earnings of self-employed persons, are used.
Because different periods are used in determining the average weekly earnings of employed and self-employed contributors, sub-article (2) of article 5 of the regulations provide that, where a deciding officer or an appeals officer considers that the periods provided for in article 5 (1) are not appropriate for determining the average weekly earnings, he can take any other period which he considers appropriate into consideration. This provision is used where the periods specified in sub-article (1) of article 5 do not give an accurate reflection of normal weekly earnings of either employed or self-employed persons. Sub-article (2) of article 5 also ensures that a consistent approach is adopted in determining the average weekly earnings of employed and self-employed contributors. As the Deputy will be aware, this arrangement was introduced in 1985 because of the practicalities of implementing the regulations. In addition, these may arise in exceptional circumstances.
Deputy Spring rose.
I allowed the Deputy to seek clarification. A debate cannot arise on an amendment which is technically out of order.
I wish to make one final point but I do not wish to hold up the debate. The Minister is probably unaware that he has written to me on about three occasions during the past six to eight months stating what he has just said. Under the 1985 legislation, a self-employed person may earn up to £2,860 per year whereas if a PAYE taxpayer earns around £340 during a six week period they will be deemed ineligible for the allowance. This anomaly should be corrected. I ask the Minister to take a look at this before the Seanad debate.
I will do that.
I am now proceeding to amendment——
Could I ask your indulgence to look for a minute of the House's time? This is not entirely related to the point made by Deputy Spring but I would like to ask the House, and the Minister, in considering this legislation to spare a thought for people who are brothers and sisters and are, apparently, overlooked in the matter of welfare. We might consider, where appropriate, extending social welfare provisions to people who are called religious and who give their lives to other people but who, apparently, for some unknown reason, are excluded from the provisions of this legislation. I refer especially to the carer's allowance.
Religious in an institution or convent are not eligible to receive the carer's allowance. I appreciate the point made by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that a situation may arise where a member of a religious order would be cared for by another member. While there are differences in the case of an institution I will examine this matter.
Thank you.
May I ask a question?
The Chair is very anxious to get the debate on an even keel. I allowed Deputy Spring to seek clarification but I had hoped it would not give rise to a debate. However, if Deputy Connaughton has a comment to make I will be glad to hear him.
I am grateful to Deputy Tunney for raising this matter. May I take it that the religious, priests, nuns and so on are entitled to apply for the old age pension on reaching the age of 66, like everybody else?
Yes. An incapacitated person within an institution may receive the appropriate social welfare pension, which means that that side of the equation is covered, but the person providing the care is not covered even though that person may have no income. That is a question I can look at.
I have never seen a retired priest draw his pension at a post office.
Christian Brothers, who have given great service over the years, are an example. In some cases the person concerned is quite elderly and has virtually no income. I will look at the matter.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 9, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, make regulations in relation to Family Income Supplement to ensure that all persons qualified to receive payment under Family Income Supplement are automatically paid.'.".
I wish to thank your office, a Cheann Comhairle, for getting this amendment back in a form which is acceptable. I was puzzled by your ruling yesterday that the amendment, because of the way it was worded, involved a potential charge on the Revenue. The amendment proposes, and I think it finds favour with the Minister, that he should ensure that those entitled to a family income supplement receive that payment. Since yesterday, I checked what information the Revenue Commissioners require of a family or any applicant when they apply for a tax free allowance which they must do annually. The applicant must give details of his spouse, a partner, if any, the number and ages of children. The applicant is then given a tax free allowance. As a result of this information, the Revenue Commissioners are aware of the family's circumstances, gross income and net income, following deductions for PRSI and income tax.
The point I am trying to make is that, effectively, information is available to the Minister and the Government which would allow them to make the payment automatically. The information available to me indicated that there was only a 30 per cent uptake of the family income supplement but the Minister told me that my figure was not accurate and that in fact there is a 50 per cent uptake of this payment. However, there must be something radically wrong with the scheme which has been designed to be of assistance to families in need if there is only a 50 per cent uptake. I intend pressing my amendment to ensure that the payment is made automatically. I am also suggesting a modus operandi to facilitate the Minister in making the payment automatically.
There is a longstanding principle in relation to all social welfare payments that the claimant must make a claim. This need not necessarily be applied in all cases as we might come to the stage where it will be possible to facilitate people in making a claim by sending them a claim form to complete, sign or verify. That is one possibility in the medium term.
Second, as was pointed out yesterday, considerable difficulties could be encountered by the Revenue in seeking information on the family. Some families are separated, others claim their tax allowances separately and there can be a variety of differences in claims made to the Revenue as compared to claims made to us. The best thing to do is to inform people of their rights. I like to simplify things as much as possible. If applicants use the appropriate ready reckoner they will see exactly what they are entitled to. This will encourage them to make a claim. This is being done at present. Deputies will notice that a note is being included with tax forms to make people aware of the family income supplement. The Revenue Commissioners have also included a reference to the family income supplement in their advertisements and indicated clearly the amounts a person may be entitled to. It is not so much a question of people knowing about the scheme; a great deal of information has been issued on the scheme. We have found that certain conditions affect the take-up of the scheme and we are improving them at present. The scheme itself is very simple. People receive a book similar to the child benefit book we talked about yesterday. This matter has been discussed with the social partners, the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social Welfare and the various joint labour committees who have undertaken to contact people who, in their opinion, should apply for the scheme. That is being done currently and perhaps there will be some improvement from that.
I support the principle of Deputy Stagg's amendment. It makes a great deal of sense. I cannot see why it is not possible for the Department to know who is entitled to this supplement. If we take the issue of travel passes to old age pensioners on reaching the age of 66, it is my understanding that nobody has to apply for that pass. They receive it automatically on reaching that age. Deputy Stagg's amendment proposes that people who are entitled to the family income supplement should be so informed or they should receive it automatically. Perhaps the Department of Social Welfare should contact potential recipients and tell them the supplement is available to them. Why does the Minister think that 50 per cent of the potential applicants for family income supplement do not apply for it? He knows there are 6,500 families who do without this supplement. It is difficult to understand why so many people who are entitled to this supplement do not apply for it. It must be because they do not know the scheme is tailor made for them.
I must compliment the Minister — I forgot to do so yesterday — on the literature and pamphlets issued by his Department. There has been a huge improvement in that area over the years; another speaker also mentioned that matter earlier in the week. There is no doubt but the information is very graphic and quite easy to read. I understand the Minister has a great personal interest in that side of the business, but that is of little good to a person who does not have access to the information. There is little point talking about these pamphlets if the people do not know they are there. Obviously if families knew they were entitled to the supplement they would apply for it. That is why Deputy Stagg's amendment makes a great deal of sense.
Surely the Department of Social Welfare or the Revenue Commissioners must know the income of a family in the previous tax year. Will we ever arrive at the point where there will be a very close relationship between the Department of Social Welfare and the Revenue Commissioners in relation to this matter? What is the position in that regard? I assume this is something that cannot be done overnight, but what Deputy Stagg is speaking about is the principle of bringing this about in the near future. Nothing the Minister has said so far convinces me that this cannot be done.
I support the sentiments expressed by the previous speakers. We are trying to assist people by giving them this benefit. In attempting to target the poorest families we are failing miserably because there is only a 50 per cent take up. That indicates quite clearly that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way the scheme is administered. As only one out of every two families entitled to this supplement apply for it, it is time we looked at the issue to see where we are failing and why the system is not working as it was intended. Many poor families are entitled to money from the State but because of the way the system is devised, 50 per cent of them are not receiving it.
The Minister said that in order to receive this supplement people must apply and fill in an application form. He implied that the automatic payment system as advocated in the amendment is somehow flawed because we would be obliging people to make the claim in the first instance. Part of the reason people do not apply for this supplement is probably that they have difficulties dealing with bureaucracy and filling in forms. Some people find it difficult to deal with officials in Departments and this possibly prevents them from taking up the scheme.
We should, so far as we can, inform people of their right to claim for this supplement. That is being done to some degree but we have to resolve the problem of the 50 per cent of people who do not claim the supplement for whatever reason, through ignorance of the existence of the scheme, difficulty in complying with the scheme, filling in forms or communicating with the Department. I think the amendment would adequately address this problem and I support it.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): First I would advise you, a Cheann Comhairle, that instead of drinking plain water you should be drinking a hot whiskey to fight off the cold you are obviously suffering from. However that is not part of the Social Welfare Bill. I too agree with the principle of this amendment. Whether the take up of this scheme is 30 per cent or 50 per cent is immaterial. The fact is that only half the families who should be gaining from the scheme are doing so. We said yesterday that we must encourage people who are working to continue working. This scheme would be a bonus for the people entitled to it. The Minister suggested that the Revenue Commissioners might include an information slip when sending out the P60 forms and the scheme could be advertised in that way. Despite our educational system, many people do not read newspapers, much as we like to think that every speech printed in the paper is read very carefully by constituents.
Only the headlines are read. Some marvellous articles very often are not read.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Even local papers that outline special opinions are losing out. Local radio is one very effective means of communication. If the Minister undertakes an advertising campaign, I would ask him to consider including local radio. It is amazing what you hear at clinics as a result of people listening to local radio. I should also like to link this with the surreptitious discussion yesterday of the net income, not the gross income. It would not automatically lead to extra costs because, obviously, the figures can be adjusted. We will have to face the fact that net income is what counts because gross income is a complete distortion. I ask the Minister to advertise the fact that family income supplement is available and to include local radio in the campaign; of course an advertisement on television would also be very effective.
The points made are all relevant to the general problem and we know that there are difficulties in this regard. We have done many extra things to try to advertise the family income supplement and Deputy Browne put his finger on it when he talked about the difficulty of trying to get people to understand what you are saying, it is almost a one to one job in many cases. I find, as a local representative, that with the assistance of a ready reckoner it is easier to show people what is involved. The more inhibitors we remove, the better the scheme will be. In that context we did a pilot study in selected areas on medical card holders and we found, in practice, that many did not qualify because they were in receipt of another income. Fewer people than we expected qualified, not because people did not apply but because their income was higher than anticipated.
Our research was sizeable and took some time to complete; it showed that the main reason people on a low income did not apply for the family income supplement was that there was another income involved. People did not want to apply because they did not want to talk about the other income.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Was it because somebody in the same house was working?
Is the Minister talking about nixers?
No, I am talking about the applicant.
That income would be taxed.
The income was higher from other sources. We look at all these figures and things are not as perfect in practice as they might be. When we examined these questions we found that people were reluctant, for different reasons from the ones we considered relevant, to apply for the family income supplement. That may be why a strong link with the Revenue Commissioners may not be the best idea, although providing information through the Revenue Commissioners may be the most direct method from that point of view.
Deputy Browne said that we should advertise the scheme on local radio. I now insist that local radio is used for imparting most of our social welfare information. Indeed, some of our staff have been on radio stations round the country informing people of their rights. After we launch a scheme our staff try to get the message across throughout the country. Our campaign is now being improved which should result in higher numbers participating in the scheme. I have always felt that higher FIS payments were needed at the lower end of the scale and they have now been increased, which will bring more people into the scheme because it becomes worthwhile. The minimum amount of £5 at the lower end of the scale will also make it worthwhile. With the improvements in this Bill, I am confident that the numbers applying will increase still further, and we will also look at the other ideas suggested.
To rely directly on the Revenue Commissioners might suit some people—but not others — because you would be dealing with the last year's income, or maybe that of the year before; people may have had a high income in one year and very little in another. We found, in practice, that the best way to get people into the scheme was to allow them to declare their income for the last two months. If people run into a bad patch they can declare their income for that time and claim support; if their situation improves later they can drop out of the scheme.
I appreciate the point made by Deputy Stagg that if the system was perfect, it would be a very convenient way of delivering this scheme but I do not think it would work. Of course, the child related tax exemptions are being increased and will work through the tax system, but that too has its imperfections which were pointed out in the commission's report and are now coming to light. At present we are doing it both ways, we are delivering it through the tax system and separately.
I did not have a chance to reply in any detail last night to Deputy Connaughton's point about the self-employed and the farmers. We pay a farm income supplement to smallholders. If the family income supplement was also given its structures would have to be changed to accommodate self-employed people. As Members know, a sum of £1 million has been specifically allocated for small farms and discussions in relation to this are in progress. I am sure Deputy Connaughton will be very conscious that the——
On a point of order, what in the name of all that is parliamentary has that the Minister said to do with the amendment with which we are dealing?
I am talking about the family income supplement.
It has nothing to do with the amendment.
The Minister referred to this and I hope — as Deputy Stagg and the House hope—that it will not be an extended reference but just a passing one.
Many people would like to hear more about the family income supplement.
That would not make it in order.
I am just trying to be helpful. The amendment referred to the way we pay family income supplement and its automatic payment. Within those discussions on how best to support small farmers, we will be staying very closely in contact with it. We will consider the Deputy's point in that context. This issue is very much alive at the moment.
Finally, on the question of automatic payment by the Revenue, I do not think this is practical or realistic. I appreciate the point but I do not think it would meet the objective the Deputy has in mind. We have a very simple requirement in relation to the claims and what we are doing in this Bill will make it easier to avail of the scheme.
On Second Stage I mentioned families who run into a bad patch. Many families ran into a bad patch recently because of increases in rents and a family in a local authority house is not entitled to a family income supplement in that case. I stressed that point on Second Stage. Community welfare officers cannot supplement a family's income to meet rent increases and thousands of local authority tenants are now in dire need of that kind of help. I would like the Minister to comment on that. I know tenants who have to meet increases of £5, £6 and £8 and it would be futile for them to go to a community welfare officer and say they cannot afford to pay this rent and ask for a supplementary welfare allowance. Under the Bill they cannot get it.
Deputy Wyse, let me direct you to the amendment and advise you that you are only courting disorder if you invite the Minister to reply because he cannot do so. He has already made two contributions and he cannot reply.
We are talking about the family income supplement and I am referring to a very important and sensitive area for local authority tenants.
The recent increases are Government policy.
Deputy Stagg to reply and to refer only to what is relevant.
Sir, as a result of your assistance yesterday when in the Chair this amendment is in order today, and I would like to pay tribute to the Bills Office for assisting me in that matter.
I would draw the Minister's attention to the new amendment before us. It is not the old one that was before us yesterday. It is a nice new, shiny amendment and many of the things the Minister referred to as objectionable, undesirable and unacceptable are not in it; they have been taken out. All we are asking in this is that the Minister make regulations whenever he likes, before he retires as Minister if he wishes. There is no time delay, no cut off, no time span put on that. It is simply a matter of making regulations in consultation with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, which I believe is normally required, and that these regulations should make the payment automatic. We are looking for whatever system the Minister thinks is best.
The reason for the amendment is that at present we have a system under which people do not get their entitlements. On the Minister's word 50 per cent do not get their entitlements. The information available to me is that only 30 per cent are getting their entitlements under this heading. The arguments the Minister has made do not hold water, they do not stand up because he is arguing against a case that is not being made. He is rejecting the principle of automatic payment no matter what system might be agreed.
It is not true, as the Minister said, that this is a simple scheme. It is most complicated and people are confused about whether they are entitled to benefit under it. When they come to me, even if I use the ready reckoner I carry around with me, I am not sure if they qualify. Even if they bring me a pay slip I find it very difficult to work out whether they qualify. It is a complicated scheme.
We have computers nowadays and after the lessons I had on the machine over two days I am convinced I could write a programme which would deal with this, make it automatic and ensure 100 per cent would get their entitlement. We have all sorts of technical expertise in the Department of Social Welfare and other Government Departments and a programme could be written which would be fool-proof, would safeguard against all the things the Minister suggested and ensure people got their full entitlement.
All we are asking is that the Minister make regulations, without including a date, that would allow for the automatic payment. There is general acceptance of that principle on this side of the House. The Minister seems to recognise the problem but he is not putting forward a solution. In the meantime 50 per cent of those entitled to benefits under this heading are not getting them. In the absence of the Minister accepting the amendment I will be pressing it to a vote.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52, Níl, 64.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Nolan, M.J.
- O'Connell, John.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 7 is in the name of Deputy Stagg.
On a point of order, several times this morning and yesterday we touched on aid for families, particularly the carer's allowance. Could we be allowed to make a few points on the carer's allowance?
We are obliged to stick rigidly to the amendments before us. It would be a matter for the Deputy with whatever ingenuity he might apply in addressing himself to these amendments to keep himself within order in referring to any matter which is regarded as appropriate. We could not have a separate arrangement. If the House decided to expedite Report Stage, it would be possible on Fifth Stage to make those points.
I bow to your ruling.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The first amendment in Deputy Spring's name was out of order but the Ceann Comhairle allowed him to raise it and then allowed the Minister to be out of order because he wanted clarification. We have an amendment which has been ruled out of order. There is no difference. The Ceann Comhairle went out of his way to allow Deputy Spring to raise a matter which was out of order. Even the Minister acknowledged he was out of order. I do not see how the Chair can rule out reference to a very important amendment in those circumstances.
That is the problem we have if the Chair at any stage departs from the rigidity of Standing Orders. It would appear that if the Chair is considerate towards any Member—and that consideration often extends from side to side—it is taken as a precedent and the Chair gets very little thanks for it. The lesson for the Chair would be to apply the rule of Standing Orders rigidly without fear or favour on all sides from now on. That is what we will do. Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are related to amendment No. 7. It is proposed for discussion purposes to take amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 together, if that is satisfactory. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 13, line 6, to delete "£19,300" and substitute "the yearly income".
These amendments refer to the crazy situation where we have a form of tax called PRSI on income up to a certain level and not beyond that level. It is a most regressive form of taxation, arising from that cut-off point for people on higher incomes. All major reports on the issue from the Commission on Social Welfare, the Commission on Taxation and from NESC have recommended the abolition of the ceiling. NESC recently projected that if the ceiling were abolished this would fund the reduction of the PRSI levies and thereby help middle income groups. The abolition of the ceiling would also fund the exemption of the first £3,000 of income from PRSI levies, which would turn the PRSI levies system into a progressive income tax. At present it is a regressive form of taxation under which people on lower income pay a higher percentage of income on PRSI than those on high incomes.
The PRSI system introduces unacceptable regressive features into the overall taxation system. A married couple on £10,000 per annum face a marginal tax rate of nearly 37 per cent, while a couple with twice that income face a tax rate of about 31 per cent. The abolition of the ceiling would remove the regressive feature of the system. It would also allow the Minister the option of providing income relief through reform of the PRSI system.
I am also seeking to ensure that the first £60 of income is not just exempt as at present but should remain exempt regardless of whether earnings go beyond £60. This £60 exemption creates a particular poverty trap. If a person earns £61 per week he or she has to pay PRSI on that £61, not on £1. A person earning £60 a week who receives an increase of £1 will face a cost of £3.50. This is extraordinary. If my amendment were accepted and if the Minister were to take his courage in his hands and take this money which is available to him he could exempt completely from this taxation those on low income. He could reform it in the middle and taper it upwards.
There is no argument for the self-employed to be treated any differently from those in the PAYE sector. At one time there were many benefits available to the PAYE sector which were not available to the self-employed, particularly farmers. There is no good reason they should have a cut-off point. The same argument applies to the PAYE sector. We could have the farcical situation where somebody on £65 a week would be paying a considerably higher percentage of gross income in PRSI, which is effectively another form of taxation, than a consultant earning £38,000 a year from the State and at least £25,000 from private practice. That person earning about £60,000 per annum would pay a lesser amount of his income in PRSI under the present system than somebody earning £61 per week.
I am sure the Minister does not want that situation to continue, and I recommend that he take the opportunity to remove the ceiling on PRSI and introduce at the same time, without cost an exemption from PRSI on the first £60 per week or £3,000 per annum per person paying PRSI. I commend the amendments to the House.
The danger in these amendments is that we attempt a return of this year's budget. These are the considerations when the overall budget package is designed for the year. There are inter-related effects. We could decide that everybody was exempt from PRSI on income up to £60 instead of having an exemption for those whose income is below £60. The difficulty, and I can illustrate it very easily, is the cost——
On a point of order, Sir, I was probably out of order in referring to the £60 provision because my amendment had been ruled out of order and I may have misled the Minister.
Even though the amendment has been ruled out of order, a Deputy is entitled to make a passing reference to the contents of what was ruled out of order.
I am speaking in the context of the amendments. The provisions of the amendments cannot really be seen on their own ultimately. I am sure the Deputy does not want simply to impose additional charges on workers without that having some redistribution or reorganisational benefit from the point of view of the workers and the self-employed. For example, if the ceiling for PRSI contributions was increased to £30,000, the increased cost to the employer for each worker would be £1,305, and the increased cost to the employee would be £660. The Deputy will be aware that the ceiling on the health charges was removed in this year's budget, which of course means an increased health charge contribution. Obviously extra money was needed urgently for the health services. This was very necessary and the money can be directed to improving the health services generally.
My approach to these measures would be to take them within the context of the benefits that could be applied to the contributors. If we were to waive the PRSI on the first £3,000, it would cost £357 million whereas the effect of abolishing the ceiling on PRSI contributions, which is what the Deputy has proposed here, would bring in an additional £86 million. The Deputy will see straightaway that one would not balance out the other and we would be into the general question of a tax and PRSI package. This kind of development would have to be considered as part of a total package.
A number of changes have already taken place in that regard, but these are matters that must be considered further in other budgets. We must bear in mind the imposition these changes would place on employers and on employees and set that against the benefits that could be provided in the PRSI system generally. Naturally, as Minister for Social Welfare I have my own ideas about what could be done to improve the PRSI system. Needless to say, I have done costings on different aspects; but these are matters that fall to be considered within the budget and therefore they are not appropriate at this time. The Government have taken their steps for this year and have given us benefits in the form of reduced taxation and removed the ceiling from the health charges.
It has been the practice to increase the PRSI ceiling broadly in line with the movement in wages and inflation. This has been the practice in order to keep the social insurance fund intact and to ensure that it can meet the demands placed on it. The Bill provides for an increase of £700 in the ceilings. In the 1991-92 tax year the ceiling for employees will be £18,000 and £19,300 for employers. The total abolition of the ceilings would impose a very high additional cost on workers and indeed on employers, whose incomes were above the ceilings, without any corresponding increase in benefits. The amendments should be considered within that context.
In recent years very considerable progress has been made in reducing the income tax burden. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress contains a commitment to implement further tax reductions and in particular to reduce the standard rate of tax to 25 per cent and to move towards a single higher rate. If the PRSI ceiling was abolished the tax gains of the middle and higher income earners would be eroded by the increased PRSI. The abolition of the ceilings, particularly the ceiling on the employers' contribution, would have an adverse effect on costs and profitability in sectors where wages are high and this could affect employment in those industries. I mention these facts to make it clear to the Deputy that the type of change he is suggesting in the amendments cannot be considered on its own and must be taken within the overall budgetary context. These are matters to be considered in future budgets.
I can see a certain logic in much of what Deputy Stagg has said. I wish we could go a little further towards meeting the objectives he is seeking to achieve in his amendment. Unfortunately, there are practical as well as financial difficulties.
With regard to taxation generally, some politicians seem to have a tendency to emulate the sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm where “progressive” means good and “regressive” means bad. This is not necessarily so. It depends on what one is trying to achieve. Equity is one of the objectives we are trying to achieve.
I am always talking about "good progressive" measures.
Equity is one of the goals of any responsible Minister who is administering the tax system, but there are other competing goals. When you have conflicting objectives, everybody will understand that sometimes you will have to accept less of one and more of another.
One of our main economic problems is the problem of unemployment. Despite the better economic indicators, the containment of public expenditure, the stabilisation of the national debt and increased economic growth etc., we still have a stubbornly high unemployment level. One effect of abolishing the PRSI ceiling, as Deputy Stagg's amendment suggests, would be to increase considerably the tax on employment and this would increase considerably the cost of employers of taking on employees. Surely that is something that all parties in this House have no wish to do. To exempt the first £3,000 from PRSI would cost £357 million. The abolition of the ceiling would yield revenue of £86 million. The gains from abolishing the ceiling would be only a drop in the ocean compared with the cost of what Deputy Stagg seeks to achieve. Deputy Stagg may suggest instead exempting the first £1,000, but the lower we go the more likely it is that that income would be exempt from tax anyway in the hands of the taxpayer because of the exemption limits.
On a point of order, I am not arguing that at all. I am not allowed to argue it. I could only make a passing reference to it because it has been disallowed by the Ceann Comhairle's office. It is not before us for discussion so I am not arguing the case.
Deputy O'Dea has not gone too deeply into the discussion yet, but we would encourage him to move on to some other aspect.
The final point I want to make is in relation to the abolition of the ceiling. The people who would be affected by the abolition of the ceiling are invariably people who are on the top marginal tax rate of 52 per cent. Everybody applauded the Minister for Finance for reducing the top marginal tax rate in the budget. Indeed, we came in for a lot of criticism because the Minister did not reduce it further, and we all recognise the need to reduce it further to encourage initiative and create employment etc. Removing the ceiling and bringing down the top marginal rate are two conflicting objectives. From that point of view I would not support that proposal.
What we are doing here today is dealing with the budget from the point of social welfare. The Minister's annual Social Welfare Bill arises directly from the budget. As social welfare spokesman this is my opportunity to deal with the budget.
The Minister should not feel bound by amendments that have been ruled out of order. We will not be attempting at this stage to get them into legislation. The amendments before us are simply to remove the top ceiling for PRSI. Despite the professional advice from Deputy O'Dea, all of the Government agencies and commissions dealing with this area have recommended that this matter be dealt with in the way I am proposing. The Minister for Finance, in his Bill, has attempted to deal with the £60 margin and the Minister for Social Welfare has recognised the poverty trap by having a temporary cut-off where people, when they gain £1, pay £3.55. That is a very severe type of poverty trap. If they gain £2 they still have more than 100 per cent marginal tax rate but if they gain £3 in their income they will be losing because they got an increase. That is serious and something the Minister in charge of the abolition of poverty here should seek to redress.
The Government have taken a step in the right direction in regard to the health charges the Minister has referred to. If it is good sense in that regard, why is it not good sense for the rest of the PRSI? There seems to be a contradiction in the argument being made by the Minister. It also seems that he agrees in principle with this. In proposing taxation from these benches I am offering the Minister a gift horse — not a Trojan horse — that he should warmly welcome. I am offering him another £86 million which will be at the disposal of his Department to spend on any of the projects on which he would like to spend that money and we are not suggesting in our amendments how he should do it; we are giving him a free hand to use this money that he would take from people at about five per cent on the income they earn above £20,000 per annum.
I submit they can well afford to pay it. If the people earning less than £20,000 can afford to pay it, I do not see why the people above £20,000 cannot afford to pay. I strongly suggest to the Minister that he does not look a gift horse in the mouth, that he takes this additional revenue of £86 million and puts it to good use on many of the good projects the Minister has in mind that he has not enough money for. I propose that the amendments be accepted with whatever wording is required.
Question put: "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nolan, M.J.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Byrne, Eric.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Ferris.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
On a point of order, I thought amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 were being taken together.
They were discussed together but will now be put.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 13, line 8, to delete "£18,000" and substitute "the yearly income".
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Yes.
Question: "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Acting Chairman
We now come to amendment No. 10 which has already been discussed.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 13, to delete lines 48 to 51, and in page 14, to delete lines 1 to 3.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nolan, M.J.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Byrne, Eric.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Ferris.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, not moved.
We now proceed to deal with amendment No. 14 in the name of Deputy Eric Byrne.
On a point of order, I seek your guidance. On Committee Stage the Minister indicated that he would change the regulations concerning part-time workers by reducing the amount from £40 to £25. Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 which have been ruled out of order dealt with this section. How will this change be introduced——
I am anxious to help the Deputy but it is not one for the Chair.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.
The Bill provides for the benefits which will be applied. I already have the power by way of regulation to make the other amendment. Obviously this is related to the benefits.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 22, to delete lines 27 to 33 and substitute the following:
"(2) Where it is proposed to make an order under this section, a draft of the order shall be laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas, and shall not come into effect until a motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
I want to first assure the Minister that I am not being negative about Part IV. I welcome this Part of the Bill which provides for amendments to the contribution conditions for old age contributory pension and retirement pensions to enable PRSI contributions paid by public servants at the modified rates to be taken into account along with PRSI contributions at the full class A rate in determining entitlement to pension. The amended conditions which will be brought into operation by way of regulations provide that a pro rata pension will be payable to persons with a mix of social insurance records and that this will be proportionate to the periods of insurance completed at the full class A rate.
I think most TDs are familiar with the lobbying which has been carried out on behalf of the CIE workers. Many bus drivers and conductors who had paid their full stamp found when they were promoted to inspector and other grades that they did not have the full qualifying entitlements for a pension. I am glad that this problem is being addressed in this part of the Bill. The Commission on Social Welfare referred to this problem in their 1985 report. They said they were deeply concerned at the situation which permitted an individual who became a social insurance contributor for the first time in 1974 to qualify for a pension while an individual with a similar post-1974 insurance record might not qualify by reason of having made social insurance contributions before 1974. They considered this system to be inequitable and said it should be remedied.
While I welcome the Minister's attempt to rectify this inequity, I take exception to section 26 which gives the Minister power to remove difficulties. Section 26 is an extensive section. Given that a guillotine has been applied to this debate we cannot explore many of the areas covered by this section. Deputy Connaughton sought to refer to certain aspects of the legislation but was not allowed to do so. The purpose of my amendment is to delete subsection (2). Apart from the time factor, the reason I put forward this amendment is that the Minister has proposed giving himself the power in subsection (1) to make orders. That subsection reads:
If in any respect any difficulty arises in bringing this Part into operation, the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by order do anything which appears to be necessary or expedient for bringing this Part into operation....
It is unacceptable that the Minister can walk out of this House today and then come back, once the Bill has been passed, with an order. This in effect is putting the cart before the horse or working the legislation from back to front. Our amendment states that where it is proposed to make an order under this section, a draft of the order shall be laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas, and shall not come into effect until a motion approving of the draft has been passed by each House. I suggest that is the proper way to proceed. The Minister should remember that if any specific difficulty arises it would not be a difficulty which would face him alone, it would also face the House. Therefore, he should not have the right to produce an order automatically even though I am aware a certain procedure has to be gone through. However, the House will be put at a disadvantage. I ask the Minister to change that and accept the amendment.
First, I put it to Deputy Byrne that we would have had far more time to discuss amendments and sections if so many ridiculous votes had not been called on amendments. In effect it is only time wasting.
On a point of order, the amendments I have tabled have been judged by the Ceann Comhairle to be proper.
That is accepted by the Chair.
We were not wasting time.
I directed my comments to Deputy Byrne.
I have not pressed any amendment to a vote.
Acting Chairman
I would advise the Deputy that this is Report Stage and he should address the amendment.
I welcome this section of the Bill. The Minister should be given as much scope as possible as we are all very much aware of the problems associated with mixed insurance. Deputy Byrne made reference to CIE workers. I would like to pay tribute to the old age pensioners' association in Cork who campaigned for years on this issue. It would be a pity if we were to tie the Minister's hands, as he wants to accommodate those people and bring them within the social welfare system. The House should unite and give the Minister the power to introduce orders in trying to alleviate the problem we have faced over a long period.
I have no difficulty in agreeing with the Minister's proposal. However, I am concerned about the way in which he will use the power. I am grateful to Deputy Byrne for putting down the amendment as it gives us the chance to mention what the Minister might do once he has the power to make such orders.
In relation to the question of mixed insurance, I spoke at length on Second Stage about the extension of the PRSI scheme to provide cover for the self-employed. It now appears an anomaly exists in relation to the payment of the contributory old age pension to self-employed persons under the 1988 Act. Under the terms of that scheme, there is a minimum contribution period of ten years. It has now been acknowledged that about 15,000 self-employed persons, including farmers, carpenters and so on, were born too soon and will not have the required number of contributions on reaching the age of 66. They will still be required however under the law of the land, to pay their contributions. As I understand it, they will get a refund of these contributions but they will not qualify for a contributory old age pension.
Given that we cannot propose an amendment which would involve a potential charge on the Revenue, I ask the Minister to consider allowing these contributors to continue paying contributions, beyond the age of 66, until they have the required number of contributions. In other words, they would continue to pay contributions but would not be allowed to claim a pension until they have reached the age of 67, 68 or 70. That would be the penalty imposed on them. I understand, having consulted with a large cross-section of these people throughout the country, that the great majority would like to do this. Not long ago I asked the Minister if he had carried out an actuarial assessment of the cost involved. In reply to a parliamentary question the figure I was given was, I think, £734 million——
The figure was £756 million.
As far as I was concerned, it was a telephone number. I presume this figure was calculated by professional assessors on behalf of the Minister. If the figure that I have mentioned is correct — 15,000 — we may take it that in future years the figure will not be as high. More importantly, if the concession I propose is granted, most will not draw payments from the Exchequer for as long as those who have the required number of contributions at the age of 66. The matter would sort itself out in three to five years.
The system is a good one and it is time the self-employed were brought into the PRSI scheme. However these people, simply because they are the wrong age, will be deemed ineligible on reaching the age of 66. I have a bee in my bonnet about this and believe that someone will have to grasp the nettle. I am not suggesting that people should be allowed to buy into the scheme, because the net cost to the State would be enormous, but I cannot see the rationale in their not being allowed to continue to receive this money after the age of 66. They would then have to pay their minimum contribution in the same way as everybody else. These people are being fined, as it were, on the basis that they will have to wait two, three or four years for a pension which everybody else who is deemed eligible receives years earlier. If this suggestion is taken on board at least they will get value for money and will be treated equally. I would like the Minister to give some indication as to what he would like to see done in this area.
I would like to make a passing reference to an amendment that has been ruled out of order. I would ask the Minister to consider the subject of an amendment put down on Committee Stage in the names of Deputy Flaherty, Deputy Barnes and myself. In view of the fact that section 26 gives the Minister power to deal with difficulties where they occur, I would ask him to consider the army of women who had to leave public service employment by virtue of their marital status. Up to 1973 it was accepted that when women got married they would look after the home and their children and it was only in 1973 that the freedom of choice was given to women. Many women have suffered in the context of their entitlement to benefits. I know that submissions and recommendations have been made to the Minister to look fairly at this problem in view of the fact that it was through a discriminatory measure they had to leave their jobs. Many of these women are coming back into the workforce, and it is not correct that they should be so unfairly penalised. I would ask the Minister to indicate in his reply what he thinks is possible as regards this group of women.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I join with my colleague, Deputy Connaughton, regarding the ten-year limit for contributory pensions. I suggest that even if the Minister cannot accede to my colleague's request he might give a pro rata pension to these people — for example, if a person had seven years' contributions he would get seven-tenths of the pension. In the long run these people are in a position where they are neither fish nor flesh. They are paying contributions but may receive nothing at the end of the day. Therefore if they have contributed for seven-tenths of the time they should be given seven-tenths of the pension. I would ask the Minister to consider that matter.
I want to refer to an amendment that was ruled out of order, the amendment I had tabled concerning the standardisation of maternity provisions. A considerable number of women who previously were fully entitled to maternity benefit will not receive it in future unless they are working. Even if they have a good history of work, if they have become unemployed or have been on disability benefit they will now be disenfranchised by this measure. Perhaps this is not the Minister's intention because he seems to be improving the position for others. Quite a number of people will be affected by this measure because women are regularly ill before the maternity period. By my reading of this section, those people will now be excluded from the benefit, and this is a retrograde step.
The existing maternity allowance was more beneficial to more people. It is detrimental that women will now have to be working at least eight hours a week before they can receive this benefit. Many people have no income during this period and will have to pretend that they are available for work even though they are not capable of working. The dole offices and unemployment exchanges will probably turn a blind eye to the fact that they are in the late stages of pregnancy and unable to work for various health reasons arising from their condition. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter because it affects many people.
I also want to take the opportunity to refer to the amendment. We had hoped to be able to elaborate on it but unfortunately that is not possible. The Minister should be made aware of a particular group of people who are the victims of downright discrimination based on sex and marital status. The Minister is well aware that in all recent legislation regarding women in employment the bottom line is that any discrimination based on sex and marital status is illegal and is not acceptable. Previously women were discriminated against — this never occurred in any other member state — by virtue of their marital status and this practice was not changed until 1973. Women who have returned to the workforce find that the years previous to their dismissal — that is what is was because they had no choice — will be added to the years in which they paid their full contribution after reentry to the workforce, and this makes them ineligible for contributory old age pension. I have been made aware by many women paying full PRSI that they are not informed that that contribution is null and void because the years in the intervening period, when they were forced out of the workforce, will be taken into consideration.
In the light of recent judgments at European level on discrimination in regard to social security where compensation was granted retrospectively, this is a case that will be taken to Europe because it discriminates against women on the basis of sex and marital status. Women are being discriminated against by the State and this should be examined. I would ask the Minister to deal with this. We should remember that the number of women concerned is dwindling in so far as since 1973 women have had the choice of participating fully in the workforce and paying full contributions. For the women to whom that was denied by a State discrimination there is a glaring injustice. I have been informed by women threatened with this discrimination that they will take the case to Europe. I would like to think that once again we will not find ourselves embarrassed and ashamed that cases on behalf of women in this country have to be judged at European level. I appeal to the Minister to take this matter on board and do something about it as quickly as possible. I want to serve notice in this House today that if something is not done the matter will be taken to Europe.
I am sure the Chair will forgive me if I return briefly to the amendment. We have reverted more or less to a Second Stage debate, with wide-ranging discussion. I know I am out of order in replying to the points made by various speakers but I will just mention them briefly. Deputy Wallace rightly said that the pensioners in Cork have played a very prominent role in pursuing the question of mixed insurance. Deputy Connaughton referred to the ten-year period built into the provision of pensions for the self-employed. I should like to make it clear that this was not done by regulation, it has been in the system for everybody since 1961, when it was introduced. It is a feature of the whole system.
It can be changed.
Yes, but it has implications for the whole system, not just for those people. If I recall correctly, a sum of £156 million was provided but it was a net sum allowing for the contributions which would be made. I know it is hard to understand how people who are slightly in arrears can cost so much. The reason is that anyone who came in on a ten-year basis did exceptionally well because one really needs about 40 years' contributions to justify it. The whole package was of great benefit at that stage. However, it is something I will keep under consideration and if I can resolve any difficulties I will be anxious to do so. I appreciate Deputy Connaughton's concern in that respect.
Deputy Fennell and Deputy Barnes brought up the subject of women in that situation pre-1973; it is a very big question which would mean giving credits and pension entitlements over a long period which, obviously, would mean an enormous financial cost.
The years previous to 1973 should not be counted.
Acting Chairman
The Minister, without interruption, please.
Deputy Stagg raised the question of the extension of the maternity allowance but the number involved would be extremely small because we are now extending it to every woman, down to those earning £25 per week, which is a very large extension. At any rate, people in such situations may be covered by disability or other benefits. I am sure Deputy Stagg realises this is a major extension of the full benefits under the scheme.
Deputy Browne also raised the question of pro rata— he is getting smart at using the sections. He mentioned farmers in relation to pro rata, which is another possibility worthy of consideration. I will certainly bear his points in mind. Deputy Byrne has been very patient as we drifted from his amendment. However, there are two things I should like him to note, the first is that the subsection following the one to which he refers points out that this is just for one year because of the complexity and need to deal urgently with what would really be minute, technical matters. The relevant matters are identified and covered and we know what we will be dealing with. It is to avoid delay that there is a limitation of one year. It is a very important section in that we are solving, once and for all, the problem of people with mixed insurance which will be of great benefit to workers such as those in CIE who were mentioned by Deputy Byrne and Deputy Wallace.
The issues involved are very complex and there may not be sufficient time to have a sitting of the Dáil to discuss them. In practice, it is not necessary because they are largely minor, technical amendments. However, if Deputy Byrne, or any other Deputy, does not agree with an amendment there is power to have it brought back to this House. Deputy Byrne brings this up every time because, as I said before, he never trusts us in these situations, nevertheless he has never had to bring an amendment back to the House.
As I said, this will benefit workers in CIE who have lost out because of promotion over the years. The mixed insurance can also arise where a person has been insured for periods under Irish social welfare legislation and who goes to work in another EC member state. They must be facilitated under the new arrangements. There could also be people with a career spanning 40 years, who were insured in Ireland for maybe ten years and insured somewhere else for another period, within the EC. We have completed an agreement with Austria and Canada in relation to the interchange of pensions and I hope, by the time the Dáil again meets, to have signed an agreement with Australia; indeed, I hope it will not be too long before we sign an agreement with America. In doing all these things so urgently and rapidly, we need certain flexibility. These reciprocal arrangements are being fitted in on a pro rata basis.
There are many technical considerations and that is why the section is drafted in this way. I have a document on the real complexities but I will not bother Deputies with them because they are all minor, technical and administrative things——
We will leave it in the Minister's good hands.
We trust him.
Deputies have looked for a section of this kind for some time and it has been discussed many times in the past. It is 30 years this year since the old age contributory pension scheme was introduced in 1961 and I am happy to be introducing this reform in relation to people who have mixed insurance; it is a very valuable development and benefit and a nice way of commemorating the 30th anniversary of the introduction of a pension scheme. I know that Deputy Barnes and Deputy Fennell would like to see further developments and I will keep their points in mind. However, I oppose the amendment.
I welcome this opportunity to make three points. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister in the Bill is giving effect to the changes and extending pro rata pensions to the group of mixed contributors whose situation we debated at length the last time a Social Welfare Bill was before the House. I am glad the Minister was convinced by the telling arguments made by this side of the House and that he found a solution to the problems which he thought were insoluble.
I never thought the problems were insoluble.
The Minister previously said it was a very difficult problem. I was encouraged to come into the House and row in behind my colleagues who are now raising the issue of another group, women affected by the marriage bar. Inevitably in the rationalisation of pro rata pension entitlements and equivalent contributions, if we bring in one group every other group is excluded. It is anomalous.
We want to prioritise a group of women who have suffered from a bar from employment on marriage. We would like that looked at in the next round of improvements in this legislation. I was interested to hear Deputy Wallace localising it after I had had a phone call from one of the members of a Dublin pensioners group who is badly affected. Those members retired on a small pension and this will make a great difference to them. I tried to reassure them, and I would like the Minister to reassure us and them. Will he clarify the date he has in mind? I am sorry I was not involved in the detailed discussion but I ask him to indicate when he intends to implement this provision. It may be that all the contributors are entitled to this. They are concerned about the date in 1991 and its relationship to them. Will they qualify from the date of the implementation of the legislation for pro rata pensions exactly similar to the intermittent contributors who were awarded pro rata pensions? I hope that will be a reality for them during this financial year.
This debate has covered a wider range of issues than the amendment before us.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputies are looking resplendent sitting nicely over there. I am very conscious of the time. I disagree with the Minister but I am not going to fight with him. However, it is incorrect that we should give him the right to bring in orders on such an important issue. I will not be pushing this amendment to a vote; I will be pushing it to a verbal vote, if that is permissible.
I want to refer briefly to another matter which has been ruled out of order, a standardising of the maternity provision. I want to record my opposition to that move which provides for the abolition of an allowance. I feel it is in breach of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which calls for an increase in rates of social welfare benefits. The abolition of that scheme will affect many women who are clearly entitled to maternity——
Deputy Byrne, initially you were inclined to castigate people who went outside Standing Orders but your good resolution has disappeared.
May I add one final sentence? I have been so tolerant of everybody else. Many women will not be entitled to any payments at childbirth when they most need financial support.
The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
Amendment No. 16 has been ruled out of order and we were advised by the Ceann Comhairle——
We have not come to amendment No. 16 yet.
Question put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 22, line 40, to delete "proposes" and substitute "purposes".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 has been ruled out of order.
May I say one word?
The Ceann Comhairle ruled that we may make a passing reference to amendments that were ruled out of order.
That was in an exceptional case.
No, it was not. He made an exception early in the debate and said subsequently that Deputies who had amendments ruled out of order might make a passing reference to the amendments.
(Interruptions.)
The point I wish to make is that at present somebody may be deliberately misleading the Department of Social Welfare or giving false information. Over-payments cannot be recovered where the Department make a mistake and pay, say, £1 per week to somebody for ten years. The person may not know he or she was being overpaid. Will the Minister give a direction on that? It was dealt with in our amendment which was ruled——
The Deputy's is a voice crying in the wilderness. The Minister cannot reply.
He cannot hear.
The Deputy is using his ingenuity. It is entirely out of order that we address ourselves to amendments that are ruled out of order. The occupant of the Chair decides what is appropriate in the mind of the occupant of the Chair. The amendment is not in order now, bearing in mind that we have less than one hour to go to refer to what is in order.
I wish to record my opposition.
We are talking to the media. The Deputies are misrepresenting matters and I cannot reply to what they are saying. I am making a protest. We have rules and we should stay within those rules.
The Minister broke the rules on Second Stage and Committee Stage.
I suggest we stay within the rules now.
(Interruptions.)
Let us compose ourselves again for private meditation. Let him or her who is without sin——
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 28, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:
"41.—The Department of Social Welfare shall appoint an officer to counsel bereaved persons on the cost of funerals, especially in the Dublin region, and to assist them in any way possible.".
We had a wide-ranging debate yesterday and will have an even more wide ranging one now. We are going from womb to tomb.
(Interruptions.)
We will see to it that Deputy Connaughton does not spell that Tuam and localise it.
He would if he could.
This very serious amendment was tabled by my colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell who has been making noise about it for a long time. The amendment asks that the Department of Social Welfare appoint an officer to counsel bereaved persons on the costs of funerals especially in the Dublin region. I would extend that to the whole country and that the officer assist in any way possible. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that exorbitant profits are made on funerals. It would appear that at a time when families are extremely vulnerable and under great pressure and are not in a position to think straight, there are unnecessary costs. It has become the norm now to charge huge prices. There is no need for me to itemise the costs. People within the trade tell me that there is as much as £400 mark-up per coffin between the coffin maker and the undertaker who supplies it to the family. There is also the cost of supplying hackney cars and taxis, which must be the dearest taxi service in Europe per mile. We are not talking about a few pounds but about a couple of hundred pounds for taxis. The Department of Social Welfare are in a position to give information so that people would know to what extent they are being ripped off. It would be difficult to stop it if people wanted to pay that sort of money out, but some people do not.
Surely the Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trade should have a role where exorbitant profits are being made. While I am not calling for price control it seems that if this is left to market forces things will not improve because there does not appear to be real competition between undertakers. This is not confined to Dublin. It seems that undertakers are masters of their own patch and for some strange reason there is no competition in that area. I note that where undertakers tried to get off the ground, to give a new service in a new area, the failure rate is extremely high. It is almost impossible for a new undertaker to make a success of this business. They are nobbled before they get a chance to make a name for themselves. The lack of competition is a serious matter for families at their most vulnerable. I was told recently not to get upset about the cost of funerals having regard to what couples spend when they are getting married. One cannot equate the two because at the marriage stage, they have a choice.
A counselling service is very important. There should be some access to the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trade to ensure that people get value for money and that they are not ripped off. That is a reasonable request. I hope the Minister will take it on board and do what is possible, thousands of families will be ever grateful to him.
There are two things in Ireland that are taboo — death and the cost of funerals, graves and so on.
There are a couple of other taboos as well.
There is, Deputy, but we will not go into that today. Things relating to death are taboo probably out of respect for the after life, but a funeral is very costly at the moment. This issue should be taken extremely seriously. I have no doubt that if the Minister can do something about it he will only be too glad to do it.
I would advise the House that I have intimations from so many Deputies that if we do not have brevity the Report Stage will be buried with this amendment.
I agree with much of what Deputy Connaughton said, but I wonder if the amendment as drafted is the best way to solve this very real problem. Is it a proper function from the Department of Social Welfare to appoint an officer to advise people about the cost of funerals and so on? Deputy Connaughton suggested that there seems to be a cartel operating in various regions. If that is true, and there is a considerable body of evidence to support it, it is illogical to appoint an officer from the Department of Social Welfare to advise people. If a cartel is operating, and prices are fixed between these undertakers, what would be the function of the officer appointed by the Department?
I would argue that the amendment as drafted is unconstitutional because it is based on the supposition that Dublin was the equivalent of Ireland. I represent a city where we encounter the same type of problems to which Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Connaughton have rightly drawn attention. The cost of funerals in Limerick city has gone out of all proportion in the last few years. The best way to solve this is to increase the death grant and to increase the funeral grant for people who do not qualify for a death grant because of insurance record. We should bring the death grant more into line with the cost of the funeral. The cost in Limerick city bears no relationship to the amount of the death grant.
Would not that be a subsidy for the undertaker, Deputy?
Some other Minister might be able to do something to control prices. Perhaps this Minister can do something about it. However some sort of price control should be imposed in this area as it is causing a real problem. I want the Minister to bear that in mind.
The amendment was put down to deal with a specific Dublin situation described in detail in the House on Second Stage by Deputy Mitchell. He said there is a cartel operating in this city and a person can pay £2,500 for a funeral which should only cost £800 to £1,000. The amendment is to deal with that situation. I am not sure if it is appropriate, but I can see what the Deputy is trying to do. In Kildare there is decent competition among people who provide this service. We also have a system of putting the clamps on them if they do not do the right thing. There are a number of mortality societies who effectively put a curb on cartel activities. The mortality society in my area was 250 years old in 1975. They have quite a large membership and they vet the rates from various undertakers and their wares, on a voluntary basis. They then tell their members who provides the best value. We take in some Dublin undertakers as well. The price of a funeral is about £750 in Kildare.
When people are bereaved they certainly need assistance and they regularly get counselling assistance from public representatives. People may also visit them a few days after the funeral to look after their needs, but that does not always happen. Politicians do not know everybody who dies. Relatives are sometimes left without assistance. I would see health board social workers having a role rather than the Department of Social Welfare. The death grant is very welcome assistance towards costs. When supplementary welfare allowance is needed, the health board are involved. I am not sure that this amendment should be pressed.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I urge that the Minister should accept the first part of the suggestion, namely, that the Department of Social Welfare should appoint an officer to counsel bereaved persons. People are at their most vulnerable at a time of bereavement. Very intelligent people become almost irrational and unable to make decisions. There should be a person who can be called upon to help them. Health board officers may be over-worked but they are in a position to give advice. We can never prepare for death.
Deputy Ivor Callely.
On a point of order, with due respect I challenge your choice of speaker. I am the spokesman on Social Welfare for The Workers' Party. Spokesmen should be called before back benchers.
In respect of Report Stage debate, preference is given to the party in whose name an amendment appears. After that the proportion of Deputies in respect of the parties is taken into account. Having called a Deputy from the Government side, I will call Deputy Byrne. I have already called the spokesperson for the third major party. Surely what Deputy Byrne has to say will not go cold. I call Deputy Callely.
I appreciate the sentiments expressed in Deputy Mitchell's amendment and I congratulate him on his work in this area. We can all share Deputy Connaughton's sentiments with regard to the cost of funerals. Funeral costs in the Dublin area range from £1,500 to £2,500. It must be recognised that the cost is related to the services provided. Deputy Connaughton did not refer to that point. He quoted a figure of £400 as the profit on a coffin.
I agree that people may become irrational at a time of bereavement when organising a funeral. Members of the family may come from abroad and have to be provided with transport. This may necessitate hiring three mourning cars and a hearse and they may opt for additional services which are offered in the Dublin area. It must be recognised that many funeral undertakers are left with uncollected debts. Families arrange more elaborate funerals than they can afford and they then seek assistance in recovering the costs. Speakers have referred to the high profits made by undertakers but many of us recognise the good work they do. It might not be appropriate for the Department of Social Welfare to appoint an officer to counsel bereaved persons, but when families are organising funerals some indication of the costs should be given.
I would make a special plea to the Minister regarding money which most elderly people have saved to pay for their funerals. Perhaps this should not be taken into account by the Department of Social Welfare when carrying out means tests for non-contributory old age pensions. The Minister might accommodate that suggestion by allowing people to set aside a reasonable and appropriate amount to cover the cost of a funeral.
Community welfare officers will no doubt have briefed the Minister as to the incredible demand for assistance by bereaved families. The cost of funerals in Dublin city is astronomical and absolutely disproportionate to the expenses incurred by the funeral organisers. There is a sad commercialisation in the events surrounding a death. The bereaved are offered a wide range of fittings for coffins, at high prices. The coffins are very often veneered chipboard that looks like solid mahogany to the untrained eye. People are tempted by the salespersons in the funeral home with a range of items to adorn the coffin and it is only when the bills arrive after the funeral that they get the real shock and discover the cost. The irony is that the cost of dying is no problem to the rich but it is a problem for the poor. The old traditional method of carrying the coffin shoulder high to the church and often, depending on its proximity, to the cemetery has died out to a large degree. People have drifted towards using funeral parlours, where the body reposes for a number of days. People are offered all sorts of additional services, such as embalming and unfortunately they feel obliged to use these services. The poorer people in the community cannot afford cars and generally in their circle of family and friends, many people would not have motor cars at their disposal. By implication they are forced to use the funeral home's cars at an extremely prohibitive rate.
The amendment has merit. We should certainly examine why the death grant is disproportionate to the overall cost of burial. The death grant has fallen considerably. If there was a proper national insurance system covering everyone in the State, we might be able to overcome that problem. We might consider whether it is possible that the local authorities, who own and manage the cemeteries, might provide the whole range of services that are needed. Competition in this area should make the service more cost effective. This would be of great benefit to all, especially disadvantaged families, in burying their dead.
I hope we will not have to press this matter to a division. I hope there will be agreement in the House on it. I know I am right —"dead right" if I may use that term. In my amendment I refer to the cost of funerals "especially in the Dublin region". There may be a problem outside Dublin but I know it is a particular problem in Dublin.
The maximum cost of an average funeral in Dublin — although the undertakers will tell you there is no such thing as an average funeral — should be £800 for a hearse, one mourning car and a coffin. It should range somewhere between £600 and £800. There are undertakers on the periphery of Dublin, in Sallynoggin or Swords or outside the county in Blessington who will do a funeral for a maximum of £800 but people in the city are paying at a minimum twice or three times the amount. It is very difficult to break into the undertaking business and provide competition. If you were to set up as an undertaker in the morning you would have to hire limousines for occasional use because it would not be cost effective to buy them. That is what undertakers do, However, if somebody is honest enough to hire out their limousines to somebody new to the business, the other undertakers will have nothing more to do with him. That is how they freeze people out of the business and operate their monopoly.
I brought this matter to the attention to the House reluctantly, having failed to have a debate or a discussion with the funeral directors in Dublin who, I have to say were arrogant and treated me with disdain. They have given me licence to raise this matter in this way — and on their heads be it. I will not let this matter rest today. I intend to pursue this matter. It is outrageous that when people are at their lowest ebb and vulnerable and often alone, and when all they want is the best for their loved one who has passed away, they are not given the opportunity to have this service provided in Dublin city, in particular, at a reasonable cost. This is wholly unacceptable. I would advise people to shop around, to go to the periphery of the county or to adjoining counties and they will find they do not have to pay the huge sums one has to pay to undertakers in the city.
I would ask the undertakers to come clean. Why do they not open their books and say what they are charging? Why do they not debate this issue? Why have they this arrogant attitude that they have nothing to say on the matter and they intend to continue as they are? I do not intend that they be allowed to continue as they are. I ask the House to approve this amendment so that independent counselling will be available for bereaved persons and they can be advised about the funeral arrangements, instead of somebody with a funeral face, like a tailor's dummy, coming to them and offering them sympathy and taking their money. The funeral undertakers of Dublin city are taking money which they should not be taking in order to keep themselves in the lifestyle they have become used to.
The cost of a hearse and a mourning car in Dublin is about £420, as I have already said on Second Stage. The journeys in Dublin, unlike the country, are very short. The longest distance would be from the city centre to Deansgrange, more often it is Crumlin or somewhere on the south side to Mount Jerome, or somewhere on the north side of Glasnevin and these are very short distances. People are asked to pay £420 for what in reality is a short taxi ride — the hiring of a vehicle to carry the remains of the loved one and a vehicle for the others. In all honesty, if anybody asked you for £420 for a taxi ride, you would send for the Garda. It is really far too much. I regret having to raise this issue in this House because there are certain sensitivities in these matters. We have all been through bereavement, some more than others but every citizen will face it for certain, every family will face it at some time. I find it unacceptable that a sector in the city in particular can ignore this House and ignore public representatives and arrogate into themselves the power to decide what they will charge in a situation where citizens are vulnerable. That is not in the public interest. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
I am calling Deputy Kitt. I would like to remind him that I hope to call Deputies Browne, Wyse and Boylan and, of course, the Minister, before we conclude.
I appreciate that fact, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Deputy Mitchell has raised a very legitimate issue on which he will find agreement across party lines today. However, I question whether he is dealing with it in the right way by asking us to amend the Social Welfare Bill to deal with this issue. To his credit, by raising this issue both in the House and outside it, I hope he has gone some way in taking on the undertakers in the Dublin region who obviously are over-charging.
Are you excluding Deputy Stafford from that?
The Deputy has a reputation of taking on vested interests in his capacity as a Dáil Deputy. That is a legitimate thing to do and other Deputies should be encouraged to do so also. There is a problem with the cost of funerals in the Dublin region. Deputies in neighbouring counties have given examples of the minimal cost involved outside the Dublin region. Families are hit with this problem suddenly when a bereavement takes place and they are at their most vulnerable. It is not the role of a State Department to carry out this function which amounts, basically, to advising people on the cost of funerals. As other Deputies have also said, counselling is very important for a family faced with bereavement. Counselling should be extended after the bereavement to help a family overcome the loss of a loved one and the health boards should be involved in that area because the health board have staff on the ground who know the people locally. To involve the Department in a formal or statutory way would be going about it the wrong way. I say that while recognising that this is an important issue that should be addressed.
The health boards could fulfil this role in regard to costs in a very simple way by issuing a price list which the Minister for Social Welfare with his colleague the Minister for Health could draw up and have displayed in the local health centre so that people would be aware of what is involved. Counselling takes place afterwards in a natural way with priests, neighbours, family friends and, as Deputy Stagg said, politicians, who visit families after funerals. That type of conselling should be part and parcel of any service.
The undertakers themselves might take a look at the service they provide. I know many good undertakers and I certainly hope we are talking here about just a few who are taking advantage of the situation. The undertakers might look formally at the service they provide and include within that service some type of counselling in the aftermath.
I hope the Director of Consumer Affairs will be noting this debate. We are talking about the marketplace and, at the end of the day, I hope the public will be aware of the wide differences nationally in prices of funerals. I also feel that the tax system should be used in a more liberal and progressive way to ease the burden of the costs on those who have to pay these very astronomical bills. Deputy Mitchell has raised a legitimate point but I do not share his view that we should include this provision in a Bill. This is a lobby group for a particular area and there are others. The Social Welfare Bill is complex enough without including specific measures to involve a State Department in providing this counselling service. It is a desirable objective but not one that should be slotted into this type of statutory function.
I agree totally. I do not think this could be included in the Social Welfare Bill because it covers a very wide field now. However, I am glad that we are highlighting an abuse that is going on throughout the country where undertaking is concerned. Not all undertakers are involved.
I would like to see the voluntary community councils involving themselves in this kind of work. Community councils are parish organisations and they should be involved in educating the community about their rights and the cost of funerals within their own parish. I make this suggestion because I know the work of community associations who do so much on a vuluntary basis and they could be of tremendous help to people in this area.
(Wexford): This has been debated. There seems to be a serious problem in Dublin with regard to the cost of funerals. We should not, however, give the impression that this is widespread. In the south-east we have honourable and decent undertakers and the average cost of funerals in that region is about £700. For people in receipt of social welfare benefit funeral undertakers will do a funeral for as low as £450. If the problem is so widespread in Dublin perhaps Deputy Mitchell and the other Deputies should compile a list of those who are overcharging and have it publicly displayed so that people will know what undertakers not to deal with. I would not like the impression to go from this House that all undertakers around the country are ripping people off.
The Government are totally missing the point that Deputy Mitchell has made. He has put forward a valid case for counselling for families who are bereaved. Broadly speaking, undertakers are honourable and decent people. I certainly find that to be the case in my county of Cavan. They will do proper undertaking and so on for bereaved families and they will outline the costs involved.
There is a commendable desire on the part of families who are bereaved to do the decent thing and do it well and not to be seen to be shoddy in their treatment of the deceased person. In some cases, the undertaker having outlined the costs, people will go for the best when they cannot afford it and it is only in the weeks afterwards that the realisation that they went overboard dawns. That is where counselling at the time of bereavement would help to advise people of the costs involved. It would be wrong to comment specifically on families on social welfare, but they seem to be more vulnerable in cases like this and less aware of the fact that at the end of the day the total costs will have to be met. These people will later be coming back to the Department of Social Welfare looking for help to pay these costs, so counselling at the time of bereavement would save the taxpayer and the Department money.
There is an added problem in my county of Cavan. Previously when a person died at home the undertaker came and there was the usual organisation of the burial, the notification for the papers, organising the grave and the grave diggers, providing a hearse and a car if necessary, and all this is quite costly. Now there is the added expense of organising the road to the chapel and the road to the graveyard. It is now commonplace in Cavan for the undertaken, who takes on all the work involved in a funeral, to organise neighbours and Cavan County Council to come out and do a hurried job on the road to fill the potholes so that the hearse can travel with some dignity without hobbling and wobbling. Deputies may think this is a joke, but it is an added cost. Of course neighbours will sometimes do it voluntarily, but at the same time there has to be some appreciation of the work they have done by way of a few drinks or a few pounds set aside for them. That is an added cost because the Government do not care what is happening in the country. The social workers could get involved in that again because this is a fact of life now. Not to take away from Deputy Mitchell's case——
Whose motion is about Dublin only.
I am only developing the point for the Minister's benefit because there is a reluctance here to discuss any issue that concerns the country in this House. There is a problem which may not altogether be the making of the undertakers but of families who get carried away at a time when a counsellor would advise them to take it easy, that a certain amount will do and that they are doing the decent thing.
Had Deputy Boylan read the amendment he might have made a rather different contribution because we are being asked here to legislate for Dublin which we cannot do.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I do not have to take chastisement from Deputy Wallace.
I compliment Deputy Gay Mitchell — one of the most outspoken Members of this House — because it is important that an issue such as this be brought to the attention of the public, not necessarily the Minister. Sometimes when one speaks out the people involved, in this case the undertakers, do listen. If there is a particular problem in Dublin it should be dealt with.
I have heard no complaints in Cork. It could well be said that all aspects of funerals today have changed; probably the only aspect that has remained unchanged is the requiem mass. It would appear to me that some speakers have missed the point — talking about social workers, health boards and community welfare officers — because those people are responding already in a very positive manner to a very sensitive need.
Ireland is not composed of Dublin alone and, if there is a problem there it should be dealt with. Certainly it is not for the Minister to introduce legislation to deal with this problem. There are procedures to deal with people who are not sufficiently sensitive or caring in treating people at such times.
Unfortunately my constituency colleague is not here to represent his interests. Nonetheless I felt a few words would be appropriate to defend——
Is he offering bargains?
——undertakers who, from my experience, treat people with sensitivity and care at times of bereavement. Deputy Gay Mitchell's constituency, not being the premier one in the country, encounters problems with undertakers there. I can say they are excellent in my constituency.
I might add that the Department of Social Welfare, through their community welfare officers, help people in meeting undertakers' bills which may or may not be widely known. On occasion I have had to contact a community welfare officer on behalf of constituents and I have found them extremely helpful in a social and financial sense at such difficult times.
Deputy Kitt raised a question about the tax allowance. There is an extra tax allowance of £4,100 being granted this year to widows or widowers — as distinct from the immediate costs of a funeral — covering the period after the bereavement. I am quite sure Deputy Gay Mitchell will feel this amendment has been sufficiently aired and that there is a good deal of support for the views he was expressing.
As a number of Deputies have pointed out, in its entirety, this is not an appropriate amendment on this Bill. For instance, that part of it that refers to counselling I would regard as forming part of our information and support service as we develop our one-stop shops and general support for the community. I would see us having a very definite role there. On the competition aspect — which is what the Deputy is speaking of principally — it is a matter of the cost and the immediacy of the problem. No matter who is in a social welfare office or in a health board there will be a difficulty about the immediacy of the problem.
Deputy Stagg brought an interesting point to bear on the discussion when he spoke about mortality societies. Deputy Wyse also asked: what can the community itself do on a voluntary basis locally? In that way people may be advised or may receive information which can be passed around about prices and become involved in the competitive element. There is no doubt but that counselling is needed at the point of bereavement but a question does arise about costing. As some Members have said, through health boards and community welfare officers, arrangements can be made.
As I understand it, one of the difficulties encountered by health boards is that people do not approach them soon enough. Consequently, such bereaved people are not aware even of some of the contract-type arrangements health boards make; it may not be until after the event that somebody points them in the direction of the health board. This is all tied in with the very nature of bereavement and its attendant difficulties. We are doing a number of things to help people in those circumstances, for example, the continuing payments, following on death, for dependent spouses or children for six weeks. That recognises the need for assistance at the point of bereavement.
I am very much in tune with Deputy Gay Mitchell in that we need to increase the information available through our offices. This is the kind of matter I would see departmental officers being involved in, particularly immediately after the event but, because of the immediacy, it is very difficult for anyone to be right on the spot. We do everything we can to facilitate early and simple payment and to continue payments such as invalidity, or others, for six weeks. We have done quite a number of things in that regard.
Members may be interested to know that we have also undertaken a study, in conjunction with the National Association of Widows of Ireland, of bereavement and its effects, and what actually happens in practice. That was with a view to providing the right advice before and afterwards so far as we can. Incidentally, nowadays many parishes have bereavement counselling sessions, reverting to the point raised by Deputy Wyse. I would appeal to funeral undertakers to advise relatives at the time of death. Very often it will be a relative who will approach the undertaker saying: we want to do the best for the family which may entail three cars and various other services for them. I know that in some cases they have been very helpful where bills have had to be paid subsequently.
The major element of Deputy Mitchell's concern expressed in his amendment is competition. Some Members raised the question of there not being proper competition and control. As the House will know, price control was abolished by the then Government in 1986. Consequently people now feel that there is not the kind of control they would like to see obtain in given circumstances.
Even though I have a lot of sympathy with what Deputy Mitchell says, I cannot accept his amendment. As some Members on his side of the House have said, there are two aspects to it. On that of counselling we will be doing more to improve advice, assistance and the sensitivity of dealing with widows, widowers and bereaved people generally after the event once it is brought to our notice. The health boards have a statutory role to play in that regard. I have no doubt but that they will take on board the many points made here on this section. I would not want Deputy Gay Mitchell to think that I am not sympathetic to the views he has expressed. I am very sympathetic. I just do not think it is appropriate to incorporate his amendment in this Bill. As far as the general intent is concerned, I will do everything I can to progress the views he has expressed.
In accordance with the Order of the Dáil of this day, I must now put the following question: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Social Welfare and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- de Valera, Síle.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nolan, M.J.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.
Question declared carried.
íl
|
Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barry, Peter.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Byrne, Eric.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael Joe.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Doyle, Joe.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John V.Fennell, Nuala.Ferris, Michael.Flaherty, Mary.Flanagan, Charles.Garland, Roger.Gilmore, Eamon.Gregory, Tony.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan. |
Kavanagh, Liam.Kemmy, Jim.Lowry, Michael.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.Mac Giolla, Tomás.McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Gay.Nealon, Ted.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Gerry.O'Sullivan, Toddy.Owen, Nora.Pattison, Séamus.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerry.Ryan, Seán.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick J.Sherlock, Joe.Stagg, Emmet.Taylor, Mervyn.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.Timmins, Godfrey.Yates, Ivan. |