I wish to share my time with Deputies Killeen, Finneran, Sexton, O'Connor and Callanan.
Private Members’ Business.
Social Welfare Cuts: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Penrose on Tuesday, 23 March 2004:
That Dáil Éireann:
—noting that there are approximately 120,000 persons in receipt of contributory or non-contributory widow/er's pensions;
—conscious of the enormous social and financial difficulties that they face following the loss of a spouse and that many are forced to work in order to provide for the welfare and education of their families;
—deplores the decision of the Government to end the entitlement of this group of recipients to the additional half-rate payment of disability benefit, injury benefit and unemployment benefit as part of the savage sixteen social welfare cuts, which was based on the social insurance contribution they had paid;
—further deplores the decision to apply these cuts to those on lone parent payments;
—notes that while the cutback will create severe difficulties for widow/ers and lone parents, the saving to the Government will be less than €6 million;
—calls for the reversal of this mean and miserly cut especially against the background of positive exchequer returns for the first two months of this year, which show tax returns running €430 million above the level forecast, and
—urges the Government to give a commitment to the early extension of the social welfare free schemes to widow/ers who do not currently quality.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"—notes the measure announced in November 2003 and introduced in the context of the Estimates for 2004 to discontinue entitlement to an additional half rate payment of some benefits where the recipient is already in receipt of widow/er's pensions, lone parent payments etc., for new claimants;
—notes that only a small fraction of the approximately 120,000 persons in receipt of contributory and non-contributory widow/er's pensions will be affected by the measure as it will not have an impact on those over 66 years of age and existing claimants;
—welcomes the Government's ongoing recognition of the particular difficulties facing people following the loss of a spouse and notes the improvements provided in recent years including:
—the substantial increase since 1997 of over 85% in the widow/er's contributory pension for those over 66 years, increasing the rate to €167.30;
—an increase of over 55% in the widow/er's contributory pension for those under 66 years, increasing the rate to €140.30;
—the introduction of a widowed parent grant in 1999 which was increased in budget 2004 to €2,700;
—notes that while only 7% of persons in receipt of widow/er's pension have dependant children the Government has increased substantially the support for children in the form of child benefit;
—notes in addition the special allowances provided in respect of widows/widowers, that is,
—that substantial special tax allowances are provided for widows/ers with children in the three year period following bereavement;
—that widow/ers pensioners are not liable to pay any social insurance contributions on their pension income;
—that widow/ers pensioners who are working are only liable to pay employee's social insurance contributions if their income from employment exceeds €287 per week;
—that widow/ers pensioners who are working are not liable for the 2% health contribution as is the case with other workers; and
—commends the Government's prudent management of the public finances which has allowed for a record allocation of €11.62 billion this year to provide real increases in social welfare payments and notes the Government's intention to make further improvements in the widow's/widower's pension in line with the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government and in Sustaining Progress."
—(Minister for Social and Family Affairs).
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am glad to have this opportunity to make a short contribution tonight in support of the amendment tabled by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan. We all know the Minister has obtained a substantial budget for social services for the coming year. That is evident when one realises that more than €11 billion will be provided this year for the social welfare budget. That provides real increases in social welfare payments which will make a difference in supporting the income position of many people who depend on social welfare for their income.
The specific issue before us tonight is of great importance. I am glad the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, has said she will review the issues which have caused some concern. The Minister said last night that approximately 120,000 widows are in receipt of a payment from her Department. The measure which came into effect recently will cause some difficulties for a number of people. None of us wants to underestimate their concerns about the new measure. A small proportion of widows are affected by the measure.
The loss of a spouse is traumatic and, in many cases, unexpected. The trauma and hardship which follows a sudden death is difficult for the families concerned. It is at that time that the spouse and children need the maximum possible support from an income point of view.
I welcome the substantial increases in all social welfare payments in recent years. Public representatives on all sides of the House have cited the difficulties which may arise for widows, particularly those with young children, as a result of these new measures. The income position of those families has been improved by a substantial increase in child benefit since 1997. The child benefit payments and the substantial increase in such payments delivered real income support and an improved income position in recent years, particularly for people on low incomes and people dependent on another social welfare income. Since 1997 the rates of child benefit for the first two children have been increased by almost €94 a month, which is almost 245%, while the rates for third and subsequent children have been increased by almost €116 a month, which is an increase of approximately 233%. The further increase next month will help to improve that situation.
The Government should back down.
Will the Minister review the situation as soon as possible and ensure that where there are cases of hardship her Department officials deal in the most compassionate manner possible with the difficulties arising for families? I also welcome the Minister's statement that working widows on low income may be eligible for family income supplement. I hope her Department officials ensure that the families affected will be given the necessary additional income support they require.
They should be given what they paid in.
The Deputy was glad to support the miserable increases a few years ago. There was an increase of £1.80 a week a few years ago when Deputy Howlin was a Minister.
The Minister did not give the Deputy a brief this time.
I do not need a brief.
The last brief the Deputy got from the Minister bounced back on him fairly badly.
There appears to be an impression that all 120,000 recipients of widow's and widower's pensions will be adversely affected by the changes.
It is the principle.
I join Deputy Brendan Smith and others in pointing out that this is not the case. While I had intended contributing to the debate in a fairly neutral fashion, it is difficult to resist the opportunity to compare and contrast the records of various parties on social welfare payments over recent years.
We cut nobody's pension.
It is a smokescreen.
We should be grateful to the sponsors of the motion for giving us another opportunity to outline some of the positive developments in social welfare payments since the bad old days of 1995 and 1996, when at least 18 of the signatories of this Private Members' motion were Ministers or Ministers of State. If the mudslinging is to begin, people in glass houses ought to be more careful than usual.
Aside from people over 66 years of age who cannot be affected by these measures, current claimants are exempt but, to be fair and accurate, only for the duration of their current claim. However, many employees are currently covered by company sick and maternity pay schemes and these, in general, co-ordinate with the social welfare provision. Under these schemes, employees are entitled to full pay or a proportion of full pay while absent from work in these circumstances. In many cases the loss of the half rate benefit will be offset by the increase in the level of occupational sick or maternity leave.
Unusually, this motion acknowledges in the sixth paragraph the Government's success in managing the economy by referring to positive Exchequer returns, and we should be grateful for that.
It learned a good lesson.
It is bad at spreading it out.
There is a significant drop in the rate of inflation. This more than any other factor contributes to the benefit of the payments which have been generously increased over recent years. It is incumbent on all Members of the House to bear in mind that the economic well-being of the country ultimately determines what type of provision can be made not just in the social welfare code but also in areas such as health, education and the other high spending Departments.
It is also reasonable to commend the Minister for her efforts to streamline and modernise the social welfare code and to target resources to those in most need. Her commitment to reforming the system is commendable, as is her willingness to evaluate the concerns of the widows association and to monitor the effects of various changes in the code.
It is just a simple cut of €76 per week.
Changes are made which have an unforeseen impact and these need to be addressed.
It is not difficult to evaluate that.
It is difficult to hear this from somebody who was a Minister of State in a previous Government whose own record does not stand up to scrutiny in these circumstances. It is worthwhile putting on record some of the achievements of this and the previous Governments.
Here we go again.
Here we go again is true.
How many broken promises? No cutbacks.
What about the social welfare cuts?
The facts stand up to scrutiny.
They do.
They certainly stand up to comparison with the record of the Opposition in government.
We cut no pensions.
What about the dirty dozen?
We did not single out widows.
A number of measures were outlined last night by the Minister which, if time permitted, I would be happy to discuss. Each of them improves the position of widows and widowers and each of them is valuable. The Minister outlined at least 15 new benefits which were introduced in last year's budget——
Crumbs.
——and since 1997 which have been enormously beneficial to social welfare recipients. In that context, we must examine how reform of the code can be achieved while ensuring that nobody is unduly adversely affected.
I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I acknowledge the Minister's statement last night that she had discussions with the Widows Association and that she will monitor the position.
That changes nothing.
There is not much monitoring on €76 a week.
I hope that will be the case——
She knows she made a mistake.
——and that if there is hardship, the matter will be addressed.
There is hardship and it needs to be addressed. There is no need to monitor it.
I do not want a lecture from Deputy Stagg. He will have his opportunity to speak if he has not done so already. He had his time in government, too, and we saw what he did then.
We did not cut the widow's pension anyway.
Over the past year, we have heard nothing but negativity and complaint from the Opposition. It is its business to oppose but negativity is a different matter. Over the past week, members of the Opposition have suddenly become extremely concerned about widows.
No, it was last November.
Nonsense.
Where was this concern when they were last in Government? Where was this concern when they gave widowers a mere £90.28 a week?
You were smothered with spin doctors.
Since then we have increased the widow's contributory pension by 85% to €167.30.
Did prices not go up since then?
Where was the concern for the lone parents when they expected them to live on a derisory £85.71 per week?
Come back to the real world.
We have increased this payment by 57% to €134.80.
Prices have doubled.
When the Opposition Members were last in government there was no such thing as a widowed parent grant. This Government introduced it in December 1999 for widows and widowers with children. The grant was last increased in the 2004 budget to €2,700. Opposition Members are experts at complaining and condemning while ignoring their failures when they were in government.
We rarely hear a positive idea or policy initiative uttered by the complainers.
Come on.
The Deputy should throw away that script and speak for himself.
They scream and shout about what Fianna Fáil in government has done wrong but they do not tell us what they would do instead. Since they refuse to enlighten us as to what they would do, we can only imagine——
The spin doctors are at it now.
——what a mishmash Government, comprising Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and the Green Party, they would produce. If we go by what they have done in the past, we would have a Government that would increase unemployment and disability benefits by a meagre €2.76.
Get your head out of the clouds.
This was the average rate of increase when Fine Gael and the Labour Party were last in government.
A thousand jobs a week were being created when we left office.
In comparison, Fianna Fáil in government has increased the minimum rates of payment by up to 43% since 1997. Judging by a £1.80 increase in pensions when last in government, I presume the Opposition would raid the pension fund and hold down pensions by linking them to the average industrial wage, as it promised in the last general election.
That is the spin doctors writing again for the Deputy.
We would have a Government which would implement a high tax rate of 50%, as suggested by Sinn Féin and the Green Party in their election manifestos. Since this Government came into office, the tax burden has been reduced by almost €5 billion——
For the big lads.
What about the people who do not pay tax?
For Magnier, McManus and the others.
——and this has been weighted heavily in favour of the less well off. The Government's prudent management of public finances has allowed for a record social welfare allocation of over €11 billion this year to provide real increases in social welfare payments. That is real money in people's pockets. The measures taken yielded savings which went into the substantial budget allocation of €630 million.
The improvements in the budget for widows include a special additional increase for widow's and widower's contributory pension for those over 66 years, bringing it up to the maximum rate of old age pension. That is an overall increase of €11.50. Compare that with what was done when the Opposition Members were in government. There is a €10 increase for all widow's and widower's contributory and non-contributory pensions, an increase of between 7.5% and 8%. That is more than three times the rate of inflation. I appreciate that it is still not enough.
There were cuts of €57 million in the social welfare budget. That is the bottom line.
These increases benefit all widows each week. Fianna Fáil in government has implemented the most generous social welfare improvements since the foundation of the welfare state.
The Deputy should check with the widows.
The Opposition constantly ignores this fact.
Why is the Visitors Gallery filled with widows?
Since the election, its only contribution to political debate in this country has been to bang the drum of discontent.
The Deputy should check his facts before making such a statement.
It has produced few constructive policies. The Opposition often offers no credible policies in the area of social welfare. It is time it acknowledged that there is more to politics than criticising, complaining and condemning.
The Deputy should sack his spin doctor.
There is more to politics than the rich.
The people of Ireland want action, not pontification. This is what Fianna Fáil in Government has done and will continue to do.
It looks after the rich.
I have no doubt that in any review that takes place the Minister will take on board and address the concerns of the National Association of Widows in Ireland and others under the social welfare code.
Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for the opportunity to speak on this motion.
The Deputy should speak up for women.
The social welfare package for this year amounts to more than €11 billion, the highest spending of any Department, even the Department of Health and Children. It represents an increase of more than €630 million on the figure for 2003. That is something of which we on this side of the House should be proud.
It is geared towards improving the lives of the less well-off and the most vulnerable members of our community.
By cutting their benefits.
It includes increases in unemployment and child benefit, respite care and death grants. These are good, positive developments of which we can be justifiably proud.
Why is the Gallery packed?
However, of the changes made to the entitlements of widows, widowers and lone parents we cannot say the same. The change will save the Exchequer almost €6 million for the remainder of this year and €12 million annually. That is short change when considered in the overall context of expenditure by the Exchequer.
This radical change in the benefit conditions undermines and weakens the position of one of society's most vulnerable groups, and it paints this Government as harsh and uncaring. The irony is that nothing could be further from the truth.
Everyone in this House acknowledges that the Minister is compassionate and dedicated to ensuring an equitable, fair and just social welfare system.
People are getting sick in the Gallery.
Since her appointment she has done great work in ensuring that money allocated to her Department is directed where it is most needed. Her commitment to ensuring the eradication of fraud within her Department has meant——
No wonder people are walking out of the Gallery.
I ask the Chair to ensure that the unruliness ceases.
Order, please. It is not in order to refer to people in the Gallery.
The Minister's commitment to ensuring the eradication of fraud has meant savings to her Department and to the taxpayer in tandem with making greater funds available for those in genuine need. It is regrettable, therefore, that in attempting to streamline the payments system and bring equity across the board regarding double social welfare benefit payments, hardship has been inadvertently inflicted on this group of widows, widowers and lone parents. This is a group in society that we all agree should be afforded additional protection, not undermined financially. To lose a spouse is a traumatic experience without the additional worry of how to cope financially in the event of personal illness, having found the resolve to return to work. If I found myself in the position of any of the group I would be considering a legal challenge to the measure, given that it is a contributory benefit.
Why did the Deputy vote for it?
For a Government with such a strong track record in terms of real increases in the value of pensions and child benefit, which introduced the minimum wage and increased carer's benefit across the board, to name but a few, the change makes little sense morally or financially. It affects a small and dispersed group of just 2,000 people, a group not generally considered to be either a vocal or aggressive lobby.
I pride myself on being a realist and I recognise that sometimes tough decisions must be made by Government. I also appreciate that in tough economic circumstances, savings must be made.
At the expense of the poor.
The truth is that the financial situation here has improved significantly since the budget was first framed. Tax receipts are up. In the first three months of this year income from taxation exceeded the Department of Finance estimates by €350 million. Nearly €90 million has been raised by Revenue from fines and penalties imposed and paid by non-compliant bogus non-resident account holders. Economic forecasts are being revised upwards. What seemed prudent and necessary six months or even three months ago may not necessarily hold true now. If economists can revise forecasts, surely we, as politicians and legislators, can do so too and amend decisions.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Nothing should ever be so binding that it cannot be changed.
What about the vote?
Hard cases should never be dismissed. I am glad the Minister has already met with the widows' and widowers' association. It demonstrates that this is a responsive Government that is prepared to listen and take on board legitimate concerns. The Tánaiste is correct in saying that the hallmark of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable and how it responds to challenges.
How will the Deputy vote?
I appreciate the Minister's comments last night and again today and take heart from them. In voting with the Government on this amendment tonight——
This was pure platitude.
That is typical of the PDs.
Common manners would dictate——
Order, please.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I conclude? I would like to allow Deputy O'Connor an opportunity to speak.
I appreciate the Minister's comments last night and again today and I take heart from them. In voting with the Government on this amendment tonight I trust and put my faith in this Administration that the issue will be re-examined and rectified in the near future to the satisfaction of widows, widowers and lone parents.
The Deputy could rectify it tonight. Now is her chance.
I have only a very short time and Members know I am a sensitive soul and might give me my two minutes. If they want to engage with me, they can do so on another day.
The Deputy should not forget the telephone call.
Regarding the telephone call, I am always embarrassed when I am mentioned in the media because I go about my business, keeping my head down, not looking for attention or publicity. I understand I was mentioned on "Liveline" today. That is fine because the whole country listens to Joe Duffy. I know everybody in Tallaght listens to him. I am glad a lady phoned the programme but I am sorry that a call she made to my office was not returned. I apologise for that because I take great care with the calls I get.
This debate is about the role of Deputies. I do not intend to go into history other than to remark on comments to the effect that Government Deputies sit at home watching television and never get out of bed. That is not why I was elected. Deputies must take the good with the bad. I am always prepared to listen to what people say to me. I listen very carefully to all my constituents. Many people in Tallaght, Greenhills, Templeogue and Firhouse have contacted me about this issue. I know many of the widows who contacted me and I knew their late spouses. It is a matter of grave concern. Opposition Deputies may taunt Government Deputies as much as they like for voting with the Government but they did exactly the same because that is how the system works.
They are voting against widows.
We are not voting against widows. The only way I can represent the concerns which are brought to my attention is to stand up in the Dáil or go to the parliamentary party and make my case.
There is a vote at 8.30 p.m.
There is an amendment as well.
This is the real world. If Deputy Stagg wants to go for the soundbite he can work away. I am not interested in soundbites. I am just as concerned as everybody in this House about this issue. I believe that in matters of Government policy mistakes are sometimes made.
Is this a mistake?
The Minister made it clear last night in her discussions with the National Association of Widows in Ireland that she would constantly review this. I join with my colleagues in calling for an acceleration of the review. Changing one's mind is not always popular. Opposition Members face the same challenges. I am very supportive of the Minister. I am a colleague of hers in the parliamentary party and on the social welfare policy group of my party. I am on the joint Oireachtas committee ably chaired by Deputy Penrose and I pay tribute to his work in this regard. However, the Minister should understand that while it is not always popular to rethink policy, this is an occasion where that should be done. If Opposition Members want to go for soundbites, they can do what they want at 8.30 p.m. The rest of us must deal with the real policy, and I am not afraid to say that.
We know the Deputy is embarrassed.
I will do what I have to do at 8.30 p.m., but it will not stop me representing my constituents in a genuine way.
It would send out a strong message.
I hope this policy is reversed as quickly as possible because the whole world should not revolve around Private Members' Business.
What about the widows?
There are many other issues at stake in this. Many people are upset about this issue, and I am not afraid to represent them.
The Deputy should vote with us.
As Minister of State with responsibility for older people I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I have listened to it with interest and I hold strong views in favour of providing appropriate supports, especially for widows, widowers and lone parents, which is the subject of this debate.
I acknowledge the huge interest expressed by the widows' association and the excellent discussion in the media, in particular the Joe Duffy show. I have put a strong case to my ministerial colleague, Deputy Coughlan, and I am pleased to note that the Minister has this matter under review.
She is reviewing the situation.
Just like the home helps.
Why introduce it in the first place?
The Government's record in caring for widows, widowers and other disadvantaged people contrasts starkly with the miserable increases provided by the rainbow Government.
Another history lesson.
This year's Estimates provide for social welfare spending of well over €11 billion, a doubling of the total social welfare expenditure over the period of this Government in office.
For example, increases of more than 85% have been provided since 1997 in the rate of widows and widowers' contributory pension for those over 66 years. This represents the largest increase granted to any group of social welfare recipients. For recipients of widows and widowers' non-contributory pension aged under 66, the weekly rate increased by more than 57%.
The Opposition Members have tried to give the impression that the measure being debated forms part of a wider attack on widows and widowers' entitlements.
It does.
Again, the Government's record in this area speaks for itself. We have also introduced a wide range of other improvements for widows and widowers. A new widowed parent grant of €1,270 introduced in 1999 for newly widowed persons with children has been more than doubled and was increased in the budget for 2004 to €2,700. The bereavement grant was introduced in 1999 and the rate has been increased substantially increased from €127 to €635 — a fivefold increase. The after death payment arrangements were enhanced in 2003 and 2004.
How much does a funeral cost in Dublin?
I hope everybody listening to this debate realises that what I have just outlined was implemented by this Fianna Fáil-led Administration.
And the cuts as well.
It cut €76 a week.
People who had the opportunity to deliver what I have just outlined — fivefold increases and so on — failed miserably.
Why is the Government taking it back? Leave the widows alone.
Order, please.
All widows and widowers aged 70 and over now have automatic entitlement to the household benefits package, regardless of the household composition.
That is a two-edged sword.
It must be remembered that it was a Fianna Fáil Minister who introduced the new widowers' contributory pension scheme in 1994.
They had no choice.
The Government is further committed in its agreed programme to implement improvements in widows and widowers' pensions to €200 by 2007.
It gives with one hand and takes away with the other.
My good friend and colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Mary Coughlan, is doing a tremendous job in social welfare.
The widows do not think so.
She has met many groups including, last night, the National Association of Widows in Ireland and undertook to keep the implementation of the reforms under review——
But not change it.
——to ensure that the total social welfare budget continues to be best spent in tackling disadvantage and inequality and in providing other social support.
A number of issues were touched on last night and I took note of some of them. Deputy Ring claimed that the Government has made the poor poorer.
That is true.
Deputy Ring is wrong again.
That is true. The Government is a disgrace.
The data on poverty levels contradict that.
The Minister of State should listen to the Combat Poverty Agency, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other State agencies.
The Deputy should listen to himself.
Order, please.
All the Government is good for is taking photographs but it does not deliver. It attacks the poor——
Order, please.
Has Deputy Ring any more to say?
Poverty levels among the population generally more than halved between 1997 and 2001. That is a fact.
Ask the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.
The Minister of State must conclude. His time is up.
That is the programme managers for you.
I regret that, because of the interruptions, I do not have sufficient time to answer all the questions posed, but I am satisfied that I have adequate answers to each of them.
What about home helps? That is the Minister of State's responsibility. He is taking from the poor again.
He should give the money back.
I wish to share time with Deputies Gregory, Finian McGrath, Cowley, Connolly and Seán Ryan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Listening to the debate on this motion, I realised, not for the first time, how similar every Private Members' Business is in this House. The Opposition motion is ridiculed by Government speakers who give us endless streams of carefully selected and edited figures. A Government backbencher will have been given instructions to attack the record in Government of two of the five Opposition parties. We will also be told what a great job this Government is doing. If we are lucky, and we were fortunate last night, the Minister will talk about setting up a committee, an implementation body or some type of "maybe when the economic climate improves" solution.
Last night we got a vague half nod that we may see something coming from the Minister, especially after her meeting with the national widows' association. This proposed announcement would be welcome news, especially if it came before the June elections. After all, this is a caring Government. Changes might be made over the next few months but, then again, they might not.
The Minister said that the Government had to make difficult choices. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that the Government has a choice? Does it mean it can fund the essential services by taxing those who can afford to pay rather than cut services? The Government has chosen to cut essential services that hurt the less well-off. We see it every day in our communities. The Government could have taken the difficult choice and made the extremely rich and wealthy pay a greater proportion of tax, but the choice to reduce their taxes was made. The difficult choice was to allow them continue to pay little or no tax.
I did not make that choice; the Minister did. The Government's choice was to follow a path that would inevitably hurt the less well off and the most vulnerable sections of society. The Government has made choices that have widened the gap between rich and poor. Widows and widowers can rest easy. Changes might be made over the next few months but, then again, they might not. Each hard luck story will be taken on its own merits.
The question widows and widowers might legitimately ask is when the Government, when faced with a choice, has ever stood up to the rich and powerful in society. Ordinary working people are being ground down daily with increases in essentials such as food, electricity, accommodation, transport, fuel, insurance and health care. According to CORI's justice commission, one in five Irish people now live below the poverty line. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has said that the number of calls for assistance to the Dublin office has increased by a staggering 94% in the past 12 months. A total of 20% of households live in poverty and the majority of other such households are pensioners, the disabled or those otherwise out of the workforce.
The other side of society is legalised tax evasion for the rich. In 2002, a survey of the top 400 earners revealed that one fifth paid less than 15% tax, and some do not bother paying any tax. There are so many tax breaks the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, does not know the cost of all of them. Hundreds of millions of euro have been given away on tax breaks, State cars, consultants, spin doctors, hand-outs for the wealthy——
The Deputy would know all about that. He had plenty of them.
——tax cuts for the wealthy, welfare cuts and increasing stealth taxes for workers, and increasing bank accounts for the wealthy. Is this the just society we occasionally hear about? Like other Deputies who spoke, local constituents have contacted me on these cuts. These people have suddenly discovered the effect of the sneaky hard-edged cuts the Minister introduced at the end of last year. With a stroke of her pen she ripped away and erased their hard-won entitlements. People cannot understand how a Government that prides itself on its touchy-feely, caring society platitudes could be so mean-hearted, deaf and blind to the problems it faces, so absolutely ignorant of hardship and the difficulties with which people must deal daily. Widows and widowers who worked hard all their lives are now faced with the fact that on losing their jobs or becoming seriously ill the Government has removed their welfare entitlements.
That is trite coming from a party that is in a precarious position with my Department.
Deputy Penrose best summed it up in his remarks last night when he said the motion is about an issue "that goes to the heart of determining the sort of society we want to create."
Sinn Féin might answer a few questions from my Department.
Sinn Féin will support this motion and the vision of society that it represents and oppose the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government amendment. The Opposition motion will no doubt be defeated. The Government backbenchers will take their places to vote and make their difficult choice in favour of this spiteful and mean cut in widow's and widower's entitlement.
What good would it do to vote down the amendment?
Will there be no amendment?
The applause from the gallery is the Minister's answer.
Sinn Féin should come over to my Department and answer a few questions.
Yes, maybe the Minister should ask me a few questions. The Minister is welcome to ask me any questions she likes, anywhere.
Let us open some files, then the Sinn Féin Deputies will be ashamed to be public representatives. They have a cheek.
I have only two minutes to speak and the Minister might allow me to use them. I abhor this most despicable decision of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government to remove from widows and widowers their entitlement to additional half-rate payments of disability and unemployment benefits. This is the pettiest of the pathetic record of the Government and the worst of its savage 16 social welfare cuts.
Widows and widowers are in a very special position, facing most distressing social and financial difficulties in the aftermath of losing a spouse. In many cases widows are first out to work to help provide for their own needs and those of their families. It is particularly repulsive to read in the Government's amendment a boast that it pays widows and widowers a contributory pension of €140 a week. What a sum on which to try to survive in a country with an extremely high cost of living. How could anyone have a decent quality of life on such a miserable allowance? This is the same Government that has increased payments to barristers at tribunals to several thousands of euro a day so that in three days a senior counsel earns from the taxpayer, through the Government, what a widow or widower is given to last a year.
This is yet another clear example of the unequal society created by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats philosophy. These cuts in social welfare must be seen in the context of an affluent Ireland whose per capita income is the second highest in the European Union yet which has the widest, and increasing, gap between rich and poor of any country in the Union. If the Government continues with this approach Ireland will become an even more deeply divided two-tier society. This is unfair, unjust, unacceptable and unsustainable.
Thank you for allowing me to speak on the motion on the working widows of this State losing out on social welfare benefits, and the withdrawal of sickness and unemployment benefit. This cut to more than 2,000 working widows nationwide, who have made a valuable contribution to our society, is a disgrace and a shame, particularly when last week we saw revenue running €430 million ahead of the level forecast. In a week when the Government got €430 million it attempted to cut €6 million from a group of deserving widows.
I offer my total support for the National Widows Association in this and their other policy areas. This affords me an opportunity to highlight other areas where the elderly are treated with contempt. Last week, a 94 year old widow in my constituency was told that she is to be allowed only one hour of home help per day. This is miserly in a booming economy but it is the reality for many elderly people and a direct result of the shallow social and economic policies of the Government. It is time for the Government's right wing policies to be exposed. Why does a Government hammer people who have lost a spouse and are forced to work to provide for the welfare and education of their families? I urge every Deputy to support widows and widowers. This is not a time for sitting on the fence, it is a time for leadership, vision and commitment to our people. Deputies who vote against this motion show their true colours to be a Tory blue.
I utterly deplore the decision by the Government to end the entitlement of this group of recipients to an additional half-rate payment of disability, injury and unemployment benefit as part of the savage 16 welfare cuts from their social insurance contributions. Furthermore, I demand that the Government give a commitment to the early extension of the social welfare free scheme to widows and widowers who do not qualify. This debate is about how we distribute the resources of the State. It is not a question of lacking funds or extra revenue, the Government seems to be obsessed with cuts, especially binge cutting of social services that seem to attack elderly and disabled persons. It forces families of children and adults with intellectual disabilities to go to the courts to get their rights and services. It squanders taxpayers' money on legal cases and holds back on an equality rights-based disability Bill. I urge the Deputies to support this motion tonight.
It seems wrong and immoral to reduce the income of vulnerable widows and widowers when the racehorses of Ireland are supported and pampered as if money was going out of fashion.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
This cut was made to save €6 million a year. Whatever excuse there was for visiting this cut on a vulnerable and defenceless population of widows and widowers, it is totally and utterly inexcusable not to reverse it now that the financial state of the country for the first quarter of this year is better than expected by €350 million. There is no shame in reversing this cut but there is in not doing so immediately in the face of a better financial climate. I hope the Government will do the honourable thing and reverse it. Tribunals and public inquiries cost €138 million up to last year. How many €6 millions could have been saved if Fianna Fáil had kept its house in order and avoided the tribunals altogether? The answer is that 6 million goes into 138 million 23 times. The Government might at least have kept some check on the exorbitant fees of €1,900 to €2,500 a day paid to senior counsel. Approximately €60 a week for someone who is ill pales into insignificance beside those fees. The Government is responsible for this.
People are being turned away from Mayo General Hospital because there are no beds. Sick people are told not to go there. How many beds could that money buy? The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment said today that the hallmark of a society is how it treats its weakest citizens. That was rich considering how widows have been treated. To hear the Government all day churning out figures on national health and social welfare expenditure is cold comfort. It is reminiscent of Marie Antoinette's comment "let them eat cake", coupled with the tighten-your-belt philosophy while racehorses run rampant and industry thrives. To paraphrase Hamlet, there is something rotten in the State of Ireland, and it is the Government.
A short time ago someone expressed pride in the Government side of the House. This is not a night to feel proud about anything, least of all this debate about taking €5.8 million from widows. I do not know how that person could feel proud. I was gobsmacked by the comment because it ran close to arrogance to make such a statement here.
We are beyond arrogance.
Last year, the Government introduced a plethora of savage cuts and increased many stealth taxes. What we did not know at the time was that last November the Minister for Social and Family Affairs was entering into her own stealth spirit with several cutbacks that radically affected the lives of some of the least protected citizens. Among these was the subject of tonight's motion, depriving widows, widowers and lone parents of an entitlement to a half-rate payment of disability, unemployment and injury benefits.
Many widows have given a lifetime of service to the State. They have paid their taxes and have sought nothing by way of recompense. They are a forgotten group in society. Many of them find it difficult to barely survive at subsistence level but they manage to retain their dignity and care for their families. It is conceivable that the Minister may not quite appreciate the difficulty and trauma visited on a widow on the loss of a partner or spouse, particularly in cases where there are young children. It is especially hard on these young families to have to beg to be fed, dressed or otherwise cared for, or to be adequately provided for in the case of children with special needs. These same people are providing the caring services which the State could not afford.
Widows face the prospect of grieving in private as they get on with the business of rearing their families. The job is made infinitely more difficult for them by the Minister's cut. Throughout this debate, which started yesterday evening, there has been somewhat of a backtracking exercise. I will compliment the Minister if she follows through on this. I urge the Minister to keep the issue under review and do the brave thing. The sum involved is only €5.8 million. The Minister can see the public reaction. It is not worthwhile making the cut. I would commend the Minister if she decided to reverse the cut and I hope she does.
I compliment Joe Duffy and his "Liveline" team on affording the widows of this country the opportunity to highlight their plight and the discrimination against them by Government. Other journalists did not deem this issue, which has been highlighted by the Labour Party since last December, a fit one on which to run. This campaign has been a new and eye-opening experience for the majority of people in the Gallery. They have been particularly angry and depressed with the performance of the Minister. They have come here in the hope and expectation that she will appreciate and respond to their legitimate grievances.
It was pathetic to hear the Minister and her backbenchers endeavour to justify the indefensible, the scrapping of the half rate of disability and unemployment benefit for widows and lone parents at a cost of €5.8 million per annum. This particular one of the 16 savage social welfare cuts has hit the most vulnerable in society — widows, lone parents and families in need of crèche and diet supports.
Ireland is one of the richest countries in the world for some. The growth and prosperity is due in no small way to the sacrifices made by ordinary working people, especially widows, over the years. Widows, with little support from the State, worked day and night to rear and educate their children on their own. What have they received from the State in return? A widow under 66 years of age is expected to live on €140.30 per week. The child dependant rate is €21.60 per week, a figure which has not been increased since 1994. Furthermore, the Minister has decided that working widows paying PRSI contributions will no longer be entitled to disability or unemployment benefit should they be struck down by illness or unemployment.
At the same time, this Government can justify policies which favour the rich and people with influence. At the time when the Minister made cutbacks of €58 million in social welfare payments, her colleague the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, provided an additional €67 million for the rich and famous in the racing industry. Over the past three years Ministers have spent over €100 million on consultancy fees and spin doctors in the hope they will be re-elected. This is an utter scandal.
In the Gallery tonight, for example, is a woman whose husband died at 28 years of age, leaving her with two children and expecting a third. She never remarried and she has worked since for over 21 years paying PRSI contributions. As a result of the Minister's cutbacks, if this widow becomes sick, she will not be entitled to disability benefit. Another person in the Gallery became a widow three years ago. Thankfully she got back to work. However, she has recently been made redundant. She contacted the Department and was informed that she could register as unemployed but that she was not entitled to unemployment benefit while she was seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding her and her spouse's contributions.
These cuts are totally unacceptable to the Labour Party and we will keep up the pressure, both inside and outside the Dáil, until the cuts are reviewed and changed.
I wish to share time with Deputy Moynihan-Cronin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Labour Party leader, Deputy Rabbitte, and my colleagues for tabling this timely motion which seeks the approval of the House for the reversal of one of the most unnecessary and meanest cuts ever seen in the State.
I want to bring home to the House and the Minister the reality of the existence of a widow and her family who are neighbours of mine. Duncan and Mary — not their real names — were married for 13 years and had two children aged 12 and ten. Duncan was employed as a meat worker and earned €650 per week. Their council house was on a purchase scheme and they also had a car. Their existence was comfortable until tragedy struck when Duncan died of a heart attack at work.
The lives of Mary and her two children were turned upside down. When the grief and shock subsided the stark reality sank home. The family income was reduced suddenly from €650 per week to €140 for Mary and €21.60 for each child, a weekly reduction of €467 per week. The family was suddenly on the breadline. Savings were quickly dissipated, the car was sold and the family's standard of living plummeted. Standards of diet, clothing and entertainment were dramatically reduced. Try as she would, Mary could not stretch the €183 per week to meet the family's basic needs. Mary was forced to seek employment outside the home to make ends meet.
Obliged to work family-friendly hours she got a part-time job in Maynooth college working early mornings and late nights. She does 30 hours cleaning work at the minimum rate of €7 per hour. Her gross pay is €210 per week. She pays full PRSI and her pension is taxable. She pays €36 per week more in tax than any of the others. She is exhausted but the money improves the food and clothing situation for the family. However, when the Easter and summer college breaks arrive she is laid off but up to now she could draw unemployment benefit to tide her over. She was entitled to half the normal rate, €76 per week. The same would apply if she got sick.
Now, this miserable mean-spirited Minister has taken away Mary's lifeline in the event of sickness and unemployment. She will no longer get the €76 per week. She will be reduced to the breadline by a Government awash with money. This Minister is mean, miserable and a disgrace. In her heartless and mean-spirited contribution to the debate last night, she identified a long list of minor benefits available to widowed persons. She did so with the usual sneering straois gháire and in a threatening manner. The implications of her remarks were that widows should be thankful for the crumbs that fall to them and that if they do not behave, some more crumbs will be removed.
It is nonsense to suggest that the Minister is some sort of political innocent. She is a senior Minister in this sovereign State and vested in her are the powers that go with that position. She alone is responsible for the mean, heartless decision that gave us the 16 savage cuts. She alone is responsible for the decision to remove the rights of widows and single parents to draw disability benefit if they are sick and for the decision to deny them the right to unemployment benefit when they are unemployed. It was this Minister's decision to hit viciously at the weakest and most deserving of our citizens.
In tonight's vote I ask for the support of Fianna Fáil backbenchers who have shadow-boxed around this issue. They should stop the forked tongue attitude and use the vote at 8.30 p.m. to show whether they are for or against widows.
They will vote for the amendment.
I am sure they will vote against widows. I have no confidence in them doing otherwise.
They will vote for widows by voting for the amendment.
I pay tribute to my party colleague, Deputy Penrose, for putting the motion before the House and for raising this issue last November. It is shameful that such a motion had to come before the House. Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Members are only too aware of the necessity to reverse the social welfare cuts that are having and, will have, such a devastating effect on widows, widowers and lone parents.
People in receipt of survivors' pensions or lone parent allowances, who also pay tax on these payments, are shocked to realise they are not entitled to what should be their rightful benefits if an accident, illness or unemployment befalls them. What about the contract these taxpayers have with the Department of Social and Family Affairs through the payment of PRSI contributions? Are they not correct in presuming that contract will entitle them to a benefit when they become ill or lose their employment? The Department is breaking its contract with these people. I have doubts about the legality of such a move. If these cuts were forced on any other sector, people would take to the streets, but, unfortunately, the people we are dealing with, widows, widowers and lone parents, do not have the time to protest, as they are on their own trying to look after their families and keep their homes together in difficult times on very little income.
Is the Government not aware that when someone loses a partner he or she also loses an income? However, the same bills come in week after week which need to be paid despite the dramatic drop in income.
On top of this we must consider the stealth taxes that have been forced on people since the last election which is making the plight of people in these situations more desperate. Such increases include, for example 13.5% in ESB bills, 18% in VHI premia, 9% in gas bills, 70% in third level registration fees, 12% extra for motor taxation and a 42% rise in the cost of attending accident and emergency departments. I could go on but I do not have the time. The Government has cut the income of the most vulnerable when they are at their lowest ebb.
Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will do what they do best. They will be both in Government and in Opposition at the same time. They outlined the difficulties for widows and widowers, but they will proceed to vote for the Government. They will not support the Labour Party motion. We will see who supports a fair society and who does not.
I hope the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, will do a U-turn on this. Such an action would not have occurred without this debate and the pressure from the widow's association.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I acknowledge its contribution. These cuts should have never been introduced.
That is not true.
That is true.
I brought this to the Minister's attention last December but she did not listen.
I wish to share time with Deputies Kenny and Rabbitte.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Green Party subscribes to the view that the greatness of a nation is judged by the way it treats it most vulnerable people. By that yardstick the Government is damned.
I thank the Labour Party for highlighting the mean spirited nature of the Government. We support the joint Labour Party, Fine Gael and Green Party motion to reverse these miserly cuts against widows, widowers and lone parents. This is all for the sake of clawing back less than €6 million against a background of tax returns running at €430 million above the level forecast. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has a strong case at Cabinet if she is interested in doing the job she was elected and appointed to do.
Many widows and widowers listening to the debate in the Visitors Gallery have been paying PRSI through the years and they are entitled to a pension. Some people in the Visitors Gallery have been paying €50 per week in combined employers' and employees' PRSI contributions. Many widows and widowers told me that in the 1980s they paid 56 pence in the pound in tax. They are entitled to the money. This is not a case of contingency based hand-outs, as the Minister suggested. These people did not ask or plan to become widows or widowers. Have they not been traumatised enough without these mean cuts? The Minister's heart of stone refusal to budge is a dangerous and hypocritical position.
That is not true.
The Minister argued for one payment per person in spite of the fact that many widows and widowers are doing the work of at least two people. They have to go out to work and look after their children. They are carers and, in many cases, are doing a great deal more than a person who has not been widowed.
It is strange to hear the Minister refer to one payment only. When she ceases to be a Minister — and who knows how soon that might be — she will have a Minister's and TD's pension. It is hypocritical to talk about people only being allowed to have one payment.
I spoke about social welfare.
It is important that we are consistent. It is also important that the Minister does not just cite increases in child benefit, as if people are getting payments hand over fist. As has been pointed out, the increased cost of child care, the accident and emergency service and the high cost of living in general far outweigh any increased payments from Government. In effect, a loss of payment applies rather than an increase when one takes the cost of living into account.
How can the Minister continue to serve in a Government which gave €16 million to Punchestown, more to the Kenmare marina project, which is in breach of basic planning law and continues to favour the rich, tribunal lawyers, land speculators and tax exiles while the less than €6 million saving out of €40 billion Government expenditure is snatched from the mouths of families traumatised by bereavement and disenfranchised by an uncaring Government?
If the Minister intends continuing in Government she must support this motion, otherwise there is no course of action but to resign.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Support the amendment.
The Fine Gael Party is happy to fully support the Labour Party motion on this appalling decision by Government. We call on the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Deputies to vote against this decision by Government which inflicts hardship on the most vulnerable section of our community. It is particularly appalling that this decision, striking directly at the heart of this category in society, comes under the seal of office of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs.
This is an important night. It is one for the public representatives of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to reveal their conscience in the Chamber by the way they vote. They can show they have a political conscience and that they are willing to use it. If they have the courage of their convictions, if they are truly outraged as we hear some of them are, by the Government's decision to give Ireland's widows the bureaucratic equivalent of "a belt of the crozier" then now is their chance to prove it. By voting against their parties on this despicable decision, one that demeans the House and society, they have an opportunity to redeem themselves to some extent.
The country would be reassured to know there are still a few good men and women closeted deep in the ranks of the Coalition, or among those passionate, no-nonsense Independents who support the Government. Perhaps they might like to declare themselves for something higher.
The Government's decision to treat widows of all groups with its trademark sneakiness is intriguing. This coalition usually reserves its special treatment for those in society who tend not to vote or who tend not to cast their ballot in favour of the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrat alliance. However, widows are in the category of those who vote regularly and in significant numbers. Intriguing or otherwise, the Government's strike against widows is disgraceful. We have ample evidence, as has been outlined by Deputies from all sides, of pet projects bankrolled without examination. The widows and widowers, however, just get steamrolled.
Widows are, by their nature, one of the most vulnerable groups in society, even in societies that would claim to be as developed as our own. The way the Government is treating Ireland's widows suggests that our societal evolution is far from complete. The Government obviously considers that the €100 million it spends on its spin machine is an investment. I do not trust its management of the economy, but things are not so bad that the only thing that will save us from economic ground zero is the €5.8 million that is to be wrested from the country's widows.
Let us put that in context. The ramp at Connolly station which must be demolished to make way for the Luas will cost the taxpayer €40 million. The legal costs of the cock-up the Government has made of the smoking ban will cost up to €1 million. The national stadium that never was in Abbottstown, which will go down in history as part of our mythology, has already cost €200 million. The failure and refusal of the Government to cap the deal with the religious orders could cost up to €1 billion. Up to 50% of the public is unhappy with the Government's decision to spend €40 million on electronic voting. In the context of that financial circus, profligate waste and wanton raid of public funds, €5.8 million is the quintessential widow's mite.
Saving this sum is not prudence. It personifies meanness, selfishness and downright arrogance. It demonstrates how out of touch with reality the Government has become. It is a mite to the State, but one that will cost 2,000 widows and many families in this country dear. Those who receive the pension and who pay tax on that pension and their earnings now face the hard and unnecessary fact that they are not entitled to benefit if they are unfortunate enough to be sick or have an accident. What a shameful way to treat these hard-working people. Our decency and conscience demand that we oppose this appalling decision and support the Labour Party motion. When we say that politics should make a difference to people's lives, we mean for the better. This decision of the Government is morally wrong. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Taoiseach's commitment at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis last year in Killarney when he stated that his Government would put the people first. Ba cheart go mbéadh náire ar fad orthu. Shame on the Government. Its actions will be bulldozed through by its vote but will not be forgotten by the people.
I thank the Fine Gael Party and the Green Party for endorsing this motion in the name of my colleague, Deputy Penrose, and thank Sinn Féin and the Independent Deputies on this side of the House for their support for the motion which is designed to persuade the Minister to change her mind.
Why has the Government decided to go after the widows of Ireland? Having listened to the debate, I do not understand why the Minister and her Cabinet colleagues and the Taoiseach have decided to target 2,000 widows and widowers in this country. What is the explanation? Have the widows not suffered enough trauma with the loss of a spouse without being punished when out of work or sick? Has the Minister done this for €5.8 million?
No.
If the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, shakes his head and says "No", why has the Minister done this?
It must have been done for malice.
All the Minister's colleagues are skulking in their offices because they are ashamed to be in the Chamber and to be seen to support the mean-spirited decision the Minister has made. Nonetheless they will slither down here and vote with her. As Deputy Kenny said, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
There is no explanation for this. It is not as if the country was on its uppers. The tax receipts for the first two months of this year are up by €430 million. The chairman of the Revenue Commissioners appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts a few weeks ago to say that €25 million has been retrieved from tax evasion alone in the past three months.
The same Minister for Finance who called the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to make this decision could give an increase to lawyers at the tribunals of €800 per day and then attend the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, profess great concern at the cost of tribunals and promise to do something about it. He is the man who increased the fee to lawyers at the tribunals while cutting the half-payment to widows and widowers in circumstances where they were out sick or unemployed.
That is a very one-sided argument.
Of course I am making a one-sided argument. What the Minister of State's Government colleagues have failed to do thus far is to make any side of an argument. I heard my constituency colleague, Deputy O'Connor, preening himself about getting an adverse mention on "Liveline" today. He is like the corncrake. One can hear him but not know on which side of the argument he is. He is usually on both sides. However, the fact is that the Minister made the cut.
The Government increased social welfare payments.
Untypical of me, I am on record in this House in expressing my personal high regard for the Minister of State, Deputy Callely. I do not like admitting I was wrong, but it would appear that my earlier conclusion that he was duped by the Minister for Finance because of his inexperience was incorrect. The Minister of State seems to take some kind of pleasure in singling out the most vulnerable, defenceless and voiceless groups in society for cuts. He has done it to those who have special dietary needs, are on rent supplement or are lone parents. He has levied €58 million in cuts on the people who do not matter electorally to Fianna Fáil. He has calculated that the 2,000 widows do not matter because they are scattered in 42 constituencies throughout Ireland. What is the explanation?
That is not fair.
Cuts are not fair either.
It is not as if the Government has not got the money. The Minister for Finance is finding a crock of gold from tax evasion every month and he did not anticipate this. He is the man who said there was no tax evasion. The purpose of the Labour Party motion is to get the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to change her mind.
The amendment does not rule that out.
Keep that ventriloquist quiet until I finish. I did not interrupt him.
The Minister of State has no choice but to have the courage to reverse his decision. If he does not do so, for as long as he is a Member of this House, he will be known as the Minister who robbed the widows of Ireland.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
This will be his legacy. He has imposed cuts on the most defenceless in society. He has not advanced an argument. He has had the audacity to repeat the Tánaiste's argument and give us lectures about the €11 billion in social welfare payments. What good is €11 billion to the widow whose plight Deputy Stagg described so graphically tonight? What is the point talking to her about €11 billion? Apparently Deputy Sexton thinks it is so bad that it ought to be legally challenged. I do not know what that means. She can legally challenge the Minister of State as a member of the Government parties by voting against the amendment, which is the only decent way to vote. I hope when his cowardly colleagues have the courage to come into this House now, they will take their courage in their hands, if they have any left, and reverse this disgraceful, mean-spirited and completely unnecessary lamentable cut.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided by electronic means.
Due to the importance of the issue at hand, and to ensure that all Deputies are seen when they are voting, as a teller, under Standing Order 69, I propose that the vote be taken by other than electronic means.
As Deputy Stagg is a Whip, under Standing Order 69 he is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.
Amendment again put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 54.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Murphy, Gerard.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Boyle and Harkin.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, Pat.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Murphy, Gerard.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Durkan.
Question declared carried.