On a point of information, will the Chair indicate what amendments are in order?
Social Welfare Bill, 1995: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Perhaps I will give those which are not in order. Amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 11a are deemed to be out of order.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 7:
In page 6, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"11.—Progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare will be reviewed by the Minister and a report will be laid before the House.".
—(Deputy J. Walsh).
In a pre-budget publication by the Combat Poverty Agency, "Bridging the Divide", it is stated that the benchmark for defining a minimally adequate welfare payment for adults was set by the Commission on Social Welfare in 1986, that it is almost a decade since the commission made its recommendations and that the key task now should be to bridge the outstanding gap to the minimally adequate rate over the long term unemployment assistance rate and the short term unemployment assistance rate. That is reasonable and I wish to press this amendment to highlight the existing gap and close it as quickly as possible.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Galagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies Barret and B. Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy Joe Walsh arises out of Committee proceedings. Amendment No. 10 is related so it is proposed that amendments Nos. 9 and 10 be taken together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 12, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(6) That the fine of £1,000 for a summary offence in the payment of unemployment assistance be increased to £1,500.".
This amendment will deter people from acting in a fraudulent way under the Social Welfare Acts. I can give examples of employers who do not pay their employees' contributions. In many cases, employees are too timid to raise this issue or they do not want to offend their employers for fear of losing their jobs. They subsequently experience difficulty when claiming social welfare benefits. There is also a problem with some companies who act illegally and when they go into liquidation there is no money in the fund to pay their employees' contributions. This area must be tightened up and an increase in the fines would be a further deterrent. Any moneys saved by the implementation of this measure could be used to benefit more deserving cases under the acts.
I thought the Minister might, in courtesy to the Members of the House, give his views and the views of the Department on the amendment. That is normal etiquette and procedure in this House. This is a fairly minor matter. Deputy Walsh is saying that the fine of £1,000 should be increased to £1,500.
When these fines were originally suggested it was proposed in the House that the fines on summary conviction should be say, £2,000. The arguments made against it at that time was that under the Constitution, the Attorney General felt we could not go beyond a fine of £1,000 for summary fines. That is why I thought that, for the sake of civility, the Minister would have communicated with the Opposition spokesperson on the present position. Since then fines of £1,500 have been introduced elsewhere by some of the Minister's colleagues in Government. There is obviously some difference in the view on that and the Minister should take the opportunity now to review the position. That is what Deputy Walsh is trying to do with this straightforward amendment which was not discussed on Committee Stage because there was not sufficient time.
Tackling fraud, abuse and unwarranted claiming is an important element of the social welfare system and dealing with those issues on a summary basis can be valuable in the normal operation of the system. On fraud and abuse of the system, the Minister might discover there is a sufficient level of fraud to provide the £3 million for the increases in supplementary welfare benefit and short term unemployment assistance required this year and which was recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. While everyone in this House supports increases and improvements in social welfare, we are mindful that fraud and unwarranted claiming takes place. That must be dealt with and, accordingly, I support the amendment.
I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 9 and 10. The Social Welfare Acts provide for a wide variety of offences and prosecutions are considered in the case of: employers who fail to carry out their statutory obligations and people who fraudulently receive social welfare payments. Conviction for an offence may have severe consequences for the individual concerned and for this reason discretion is exercised in determining which cases warrant prosecution.
The decision to prosecute is taken on the basis of: the circumstances of the case; the nature of the alleged offence; the available evidence; and the circumstances of the person concerned. The criteria applied in determining whether a prosecution should be taken include: the duration of the offence; whether the individual or employer is a persistent offender; the amount of money involved; the incidence of fraud in a particular firm, industry, or area; and the existence of collusion between employers and employees to defraud.
Prosecution involves gathering a large body of documentary evidence for each case. Only the more serious cases are pursued with a view to prosecution. The maximum penalties at present for cases heard summarily is a fine not exceeding £1,000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or both such fine and imprisonment. The maximum penalty for cases heard on indictment is a fine not exceeding £10,000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years or both such fine and imprisonment.
Social welfare cases are generally prosecuted summarily as the penalties which may be imposed by the District Court are seen as an adequately reflecting the seriousness of the offence. Ultimately, the penalty to be imposed in any case is a matter for the courts to determine. Generally speaking, the courts tend to impose fines below £200 and the maximum fine of £1,000 has been imposed only on vary rare occasions. In these circumstances, I see no point in increasing the maximum fines and in any event, I am satisfied that the existing penalties provided for in the Social Welfare Acts represent an adequate deterrent. Consequently, I oppose the amendments proposed by the Deputy.
That is a totally unsatisfactory reply as the abuse will continue. I intend to press my amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 11a are out of order in that they involve a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 11, 11a and 12 not moved.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On behalf of Fianna Fáil I welcome the improvements made by this Bill. Some of the amendments we put down on Committee and Report Stages were intended not to immediately bring increases but to highlight the gaps in the system, and it is regrettable that no amendment was accepted by the Minister. I hope that people who are most deserving will benefit most from the Bill.
The Bill will now move to the Seanad. There have been differences of opinion on various sections. We welcome the increases in child benefit and the further improvements for carers and employers in terms of PRSI. It is significant that the social insurance fund provides for these developments in the current climate. The main objective of the social insurance fund is to provide for the members who contribute to that fund. It is a pity the Minister was not prepared to accept any of the amendments put forward by this side of the House. Such behaviour is unusual and is probably a record on a Bill such as this. The Minister opposed Deputy Walsh's proposal for a review and that is unfortunate because he will obviously carry out a review.
I was disappointed the Minister took no action in regard to share fishermen. They will have to await wider analysis and I hope that will be made sooner rather than later.
The adoptive benefit scheme was introduced on Committee Stage without discussion. This measure is very welcome and is supported by everybody. It mirrors the adoptive leave scheme introduced by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. It is a weakness in the Bill that the adoptive benefit scheme does not provide for equal treatment for men and women. I understand the cost of providing equal treatment under this scheme would have been in the order of £200,000 per annum, therefore it is not a matter of money but of not being prepared to take that step at this stage. The Bill is open to legal challenge since it does not provide for equal treatment, but I hope it is not challenged.
Fathers play a more active part in child rearing nowadays, particularly in the case of adoption. The Adoption Board and those interested in adoption generally have called for equal treatment for men and women in terms of adoption. This is not a maternity or a medical matter and there should be equal treatment for men and women. I am disappointed the Bill makes no provision in this regard. It does, of course, cover situations where the father is the sole adopter and some other rare circumstances. Surely this is one of the places where the Minister should have taken the opportunity to provide for equal treatment. I know his colleague, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, resisted this also on the Adoptive Leave Bill. That is unfortunate. We did not have the opportunity to discuss this scheme during the passage of the Bill as it was introduced as a single amendment on Committee Stage and could not be reached. Deputy Walsh's attempt to have it discussed on Report Stage was ruled out of order even though he proposed that it should be done without additional cost to the Exchequer, with the adoptive leave divided between the two parents. That has not been done.
There is a number of beneficial things in the Bill and I am happy to support it on that basis. This Bill is relatively small compared with recent Social Welfare Bills. There was not a great deal of time for examination, given that it is to be implemented on 6 April. Some of the information we received in debate on the Bill was revealing and it showed that the money being allocated to all the insurance and assistance schemes was £20 million lower than allocated last year. That has annoyed, upset and aggravated the Opposition, but the Minister does not seem to understand that. It is a reasonable expression of the feelings of people who will be confined to a 2.5 per cent increase this year.
No steps have been taken on the report of the Commission on Social Welfare, which is regrettable. In addition the Minister has gone so far as to vote down, with his partners in Government, an amendment which Deputy Walsh tabled on Report Stage to call for a review of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. That is a very reasonable request but the Minister was not prepared to enter into a commitment, although he may well do it in practice. It was not so great a commitment to ask him to undertake because he should be doing so in any event. The urgency relates to the fact that progress on the Commission's recommendations has been left aside for the present.
The Minister said he would return to this point next year and see how things will have worked out. That is a dramatic change from his approach in Opposition. This Bill is a reflection of his changed views on these matters. People will find that quite extraordinary. He says all of this is to be overcome by the increases in child benefit. Welcome as they are, they do not apply to three-quarters of social welfare recipients.
We are happy to support the other developments provided for in the Bill and to support it at this stage.
I join with Deputies Walsh and Woods in wishing the Bill well. It has been a long teased out affair in every sense of the word. In one way or another 30 per cent of our population is in receipt of social welfare and they depend entirely on the Department for their income. It is not an income as such but merely allows them a meagre existence. I would have faith in the Minister's statement that he would be prepared to see if he could do things better next year and I hope he will do so. Many on social welfare will never have a job and they have to be treated fairly and with the height of respect.
I thank the Deputies for their participation in this debate. It has been an instructive first Bill. I bear no ill will against any Deputy for stating his or her views on it. Some Members attempted to address it honestly although some tended to distort the content for their own political reasons. That is par for the course. When you are dealing with Fianna Fáil you have to expect distortions of one kind or another.
The Minister would know all about that. He is a past master.
I have watched Fianna Fáil in charge of social welfare from 1987 up to December 1994 and have seen the damage it did to the Department of Social Welfare.
The 2.5 per cent increase will be remembered for a long time.
The answer to 2.5 per cent is the dirty dozen.
A Deputy
The Minister will have to do better than that.
I have done and intend to do so. The child benefit was increased to an unprecedented extent. Changes in the carer's allowance will bring in people who were previously not entitled to it and there are changes in the income disregard of the spouses of those who are carers. We have a 150 per cent increase in unemployment assistance for young people living at home, as well as an 11 per cent increase across the board for students who are participating in the summer jobs scheme and in addition a £200 increase for those students whose parents depend solely on social welfare. We have extended free travel to Northern Ireland for those who are currently entitled to it. We have provided for colour television licences for all those who currently qualify for black and white television licences. We have applied the general increases across the board six weeks earlier than has been the case in previous years and have made a commitment to bring it back further in coming budgets to the April deadline.
In addition we have two new Bills on track, one which will provide for changes in the social welfare code to guarantee that no one on social welfare will lose out as a result of divorce and a Bill which seeks to remove the obligation to prove that their spouse deserted them in order to qualify for support for themselves and their children.
This is a very good Bill. The record of this Minister in the few short months he has been in the Department is such that he cannot be described as having been unable to do anything for those living in poverty. What I have done is an important attack on the very root of poverty and I am quite proud of the fact that I have done that.
Question put and agreed to.