Vol. 598 No. 3
62 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons with disabilities, resident in institutions, who are in receipt of full and partial payments of the disability allowance; the number of persons with disabilities, residents in institutions, who do not receive the disability allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6227/05]
64 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will consider introducing controls to ensure that social welfare payments given to those in institutional care cannot be abused. [6340/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 62 and 64 together.
Disability allowance is a personal allowance payable to people between 16 and 66 years of age who satisfy certain medical eligibility conditions and a means test. Under existing social welfare legislation, disability allowance is not payable where a person is resident in an institution and where the cost of his or her care and maintenance is being funded in whole or in part by the Health Service Executive.
Since the introduction of the scheme in 1996, the restriction on payments to people in institutional care has been progressively relaxed. For example, the Social Welfare Act 1999 made provision for the retention of entitlement to disability allowance where a person is on disability allowance and subsequently goes into institutional care. My Department does not hold precise figures on the number of people who are resident in institutions at any given time and who are in receipt of disability allowance. There are many such institutions and recipients may move between institutional or community-based settings and their home, depending on their circumstances. My Department's role is, in the first instance, to ensure payment of the allowance to the person concerned or their appointed agent.
With regard to the number of people with disabilities who are resident in institutions and who do not receive disability allowance, the Deputy will be aware that in the context of budget 2005, I announced that I would remove the restriction on entitlement to disability allowance in such cases. With effect from 1 June 2005, I will introduce a new weekly personal payment of up to €35 to people resident in institutions who are not getting a disability allowance payment. This allowance will replace the existing pocket money allowance which is paid to such residents by the Health Service Executive. My Department has already completed an information gathering process with the Health Service Executive with a view to arranging the payment of this new allowance. This process has identified that 2,469 persons with disabilities between 16 and 66 years of age, who currently reside in an institution on a permanent basis, do not have a disability allowance. The provisions for this allowance are contained in the current Social Welfare and Pensions Bill which is before the House.
In regard to payments to people in institutional care, the practice generally has been that when social welfare pensioners took up residence in long-stay residential care centres operated by the health boards, the board was appointed as an agent for the purpose of cashing the person's weekly pension or allowance and any charges towards the maintenance of people in institutions were normally deducted from these payments. Following instructions in December to the Health Service Executive, no maintenance charges for long-stay care are now being levied. Until such time as alternative arrangements can be made, the Health Service Executive has continued, in a temporary capacity, to act as an agent for the purpose of cashing pension or allowance books. These pension payments are being lodged in all cases to a patient's private property account which is being maintained by the Health Service Executive for each individual resident. Pensioners have full access to this account whenever they wish.
I understand that the Health Service Executive is in the process of writing to all social welfare pensioners in its care to advise them that maintenance charges no longer apply and that pension payments belong in full to pensioners themselves. Where a pensioner is unable, for whatever reason, to manage his or her own financial affairs, the Health Service Executive is making arrangements to inform the next-of-kin of the position. The HSE is also advising pensioners of the various options open to them for receiving their pension payments. These comprise continuation of the existing arrangement whereby the HSE cashes the pension book on the pensioner's behalf and lodges the payment to the patient's private property account; payment of the pension into a bank or building society account or a post office pensions savings account; and cashing the pension at a post office by the pensioner or appointment of another person, such as a relative, to act as an agent to cash the pension book on the pensioner's behalf.
A national implementation group of the HSE is responsible for ensuring that pensioners are fully advised of these new arrangements and my Department is represented on this group. My Department has primary responsibility for issuing payments to pensioners and ensuring that they are satisfied with the method of payment and the security of their payments. I have asked my officials to liaise with the Department of Health and Children and the Health Service Executive to ensure that all appropriate arrangements are made in this regard.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Will he agree with me that two people with disabilities in adjoining beds in one of these institutions will receive two separate payments? One will be entitled to the full disability allowance and the other person, who is currently receiving a pocket money allowance, will receive €35 a week after 1 June. Both of these people are citizens of the State, yet both are being treated differently. Will the Minister agree that this is inequitable and unfair? Is it his intention in the long term to move to a situation where all patients will get the full disability allowance and, if so, will he give a timescale for it? Will he consider treating equally all patients in residential care and extending aid to all those who would be eligible if they were outside at this point? Following the Supreme Court ruling, what are the implications for people with disabilities living in long-term care who had part of their disability allowance taken from them as a charge for their care? Will the Statute of Limitations apply in that instance? Is the Minister's Department making repayments to these people and their families?
The Deputy and I had a brief discussion on this matter on committee yesterday and no doubt we will return to it later. The Deputy will be aware that these people were not included prior to the 1999 legislation. After 1999, people who went into an institution could bring their disability allowance with them, therefore, they were entitled to the full disability allowance by virtue of going into an institution. What I did in the budget, and what I am seeking to do in the legislation, is to ensure that the 2,400 or so people who were in institutions prior to 1999 will receive the first instalment of what should ultimately become the full disability allowance. It is my ambition to bring the current rate of €35 a week up to what over time will be equal to the full disability allowance, because these people have been left behind from an income point of view.
The Department of Health and Children is dealing with the other issue to which the Deputy referred. It relates to the proportion of one's allowance or pension that can be retained by the institution. The Department of Health and Children is drawing up legislation to deal with this issue. It will apply across the board, irrespective of the pace at which we get the €35 a week up to the full disability allowance level. I want people in adjoining beds in the same institution, with the same means, to get the same income, which is theirs alone. The proportion of that income which can be taken by the institution will be laid down in legislation. The payment of up to €35, which is a means-tested payment, is a step in the direction of catching up for these people who were pre-1999 and, therefore, did not have a disability allowance in the institution.
My questions to the Minister are threefold. While he has already answered some aspects of them, I will ask again in order to get more detailed information. Given the differing rates of payment he intends to introduce under the new Social Welfare and Pensions Bill, is the Minister satisfied that any constitutional implications have been satisfied? In light of the difficulty in which the Government has already found itself following the court decision, is he satisfied that the different rates of payment to people with similar entitlements will not cause further trouble in the future? Is the Minister able to put a cost implication on the aspect of people in receipt of disability payments, in particular, and other social welfare payments, other than pensioners, who have been affected by the court decision? Will the Minister indicate the cost implication of that element alone because media reportage on this area to date has been solely on the pensioners issue?
My question is broader than abuse in which the Government might have been involved through poor regulation and poor management. Some family members and people known to the social welfare recipients abuse social welfare payments to people in institutional care. To what extent has the Department identified this to be a problem and what suggestions has it made to ensure that people cannot remove cheque payments from books, cash them outside the institution in question, pocket the money received and not use it for what it was intended? We are all aware that potential abuses exist and abuse is practised. Is the Minister and his Department aware of such abuse and what steps are being taken to prevent it occurring?
I thank the Deputy for those questions. There are two parts to this issue. One is the income part, which is the property of the person in receipt of the disability allowance or this new allowance. The other part is the amount the institution is permitted to have paid to it, which will be dealt with under legislation going forward. The first part of the issue is not involved in the constitutional debate we have had because these are income payments made to individuals under law. Different payments are made to people under law depending on their various circumstances at the time. There are many cases where different rates of payment are made to people in broadly similar, but not identical, circumstances. Different rates can be paid in what appear to be similar circumstances but which are not quite the same. That is governed by legislation. Social welfare legislation laid down certain regulations in 1999 and prior to that such legislation laid down different rates.
The first part of this issue concerning disability allowances in residential institutions is the income side and in so far as that has been governed by law, it is legal and above board to have different rates. The second side of the issue, the charges for such care, is the side with which the Department of Health and Children deals. We have to separate those two issues. In so far as the second part of the issue has constitutional implications, they are the same as those that have been discussed by the Tánaiste and by other Members of the House in regard to payment for care. We have to separate the income side from the expenditure side, which is the constitutional area, and that is being dealt with.
I condemn any abuse by family members or anybody else — I assume that was what the Deputy was getting at — who do not play it fair with persons in residential institutions, be they relatives or persons for whom they are responsible or over whom they have some charge. I do not have any great statistics or information on that area. My Department tries to monitor, as best it can, how these arrangements work on the ground, but we do not have a great deal of information on that area.
63 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans for the reform of the social welfare provisions available to lone parents; if he has considered the recent statistics published by the CSO on the number of births occurring outside marriage; his views on the recent EU survey which found that lone parents are extremely vulnerable to poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6108/05]
Increases in the numbers of non-marital birth, as revealed in statistics, do not necessarily result in comparable increases in the incidence of lone parenthood. In many cases the parents of the children are living together and will parent together. A significant proportion marry soon after the birth of their first child. Others continue to cohabit for a period afterwards. For example, CSO figures reveal that up to 40% of cohabiting couples have children and that a significant proportion are in their twenties, many of whom may subsequently marry.
According to the census returns, there were 154,000 lone parent families in 2002, comprising one in six of all families, with 85% headed by females. In terms of marital status, 40% were headed by a widowed person, 32% by a separated or divorced person and 24% were headed by a single person.
The numbers in receipt of the one parent family payment in 2004, were 80,103, up from 58,960 in 1997, when the scheme in its current form was introduced. There were, in addition, 12,225 lone parents with children in receipt of payments under social insurance — 10,769 widowed persons and 1,456 deserted wives. In total, therefore, 92,328, or up to 60% approximately of, lone parents are receiving weekly payments under the social welfare system.
The social welfare system has provided income support and other services for lone parents and has adapted to the changes in recent decades that has seen, proportionately, a decline in the incidence of lone parenthood arising from widowhood, and a growth in the incidence arising from separation and divorce and from parents being unmarried.
The findings of the recent EU Standard of Living Conditions survey bear out the findings of previous surveys, and of experience in other developed countries also, that poverty rates tend to be higher among working age households with children than those without. This is mainly due both to the direct costs of rearing children, including child care costs, and the opportunity costs related to the reduced earning capacity of parents, arising from their care responsibilities. This applies particularly to larger families, and to one parent families which can face a higher poverty risk, as the lone parent has to be the main breadwinner and carer at the same time.
For people in working age households, the main route out of poverty is employment. Despite the huge increases in employment participation in Ireland in recent years and in employment opportunities generally, the proportion of lone parents in employment is low compared to other developed countries.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The earnings disregard introduced in 1997 has helped to increase employment participation, but many lone parents who avail of this disregard stick with the part-time employment it permits in order to retain entitlement to the one parent family payment. This is understandable as for many the benefit represents stable income security for themselves and their children, although at a relatively low level compared to the incomes a majority of other families derive from employment.
A first objective is to replace what may, in practice, be disincentives to full employment in the current schemes with more positive incentives to take up employment and avail of opportunities for education and training that can greatly increase the chances of obtaining more secure and well paid jobs.
Concern relating to the evolution of the income and other support arrangements for lone parent families has resulted in much research on the matter in recent years. These have included reports on the operation of the scheme by my Department, the NESF, consultations in 2003 and since in the context of preparation of a family strategy, and Ireland's participation in a major international comparative study by the OECD on reconciling work and family life. Ending child poverty, for which effective support for lone parent families is a key component, is also one of the special initiatives under Sustaining Progress.
It was in the context of work under this special initiative that the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion requested last November the senior officials group, which reports to it, to draw up a report on obstacles to employment for lone parents. The report will include not just an examination of the income support arrangements, but also child care, education and training, information, and employment and other relevant supports.
A sub-group has been established to progress the work with a view to completion of the report by mid-year. Full account will be taken, in drawing up the report, of the research carried out to date and the outcome of the extensive consultation on supports for families.
The group includes representatives of the Departments of the Taoiseach and Finance and my Department is directly involved with representatives of other Departments participating during consideration of policy issues for which they have responsibility. My Department will review the existing income support arrangements and provisions as an input to the work of the group.
It is also intended that the outcome of these reviews will contribute to final concrete proposals designed to better support and encourage lone parents in achieving a better standard of living, employment and education opportunities, and a better future for themselves and their children. These will be the main criteria against which recommendations in the reports will be judged.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Can we all accept that the best route out of poverty is through work, a proposition which is a mantra at this stage? Is it not ironic that some of the barriers to employment for lone parents and many other parents on low income have been put in place by the Minister's Department and by policy decisions taken in the Department, not by the Minister but by his predecessors in title? Will the Minister agree that some of the savage 16 cuts raised the barrier for self-sufficiency for single parents and extenuated their circumstances? The cuts were tinkered with but were not reversed.
Will the Minister agree that the abolition of the creche supplement, which allowed single parents to take up educational and training opportunities was a retrograde step? Will he agree that the cutback in the Back to Education scheme curtailed another important opportunity? There was a restriction on entitlement to the one parent family payment for those in receipt of modest earnings. There were also rent allowance restrictions.
Will the Minister agree that many lone parents and low income families will find to difficult to return to employment without assistance in terms of child care? Will he also agree that for low income earners and one parent families child care can cost all the income earned and leave such families no better off than when the parent is not working?
In respect of the one parent family payment, will he agree the income disregard which allowed lone parents to work and earn up to €146.50 was innovative? That was introduced in 1996 and people can earn up to €293 before losing that entitlement. Why was that disregard not increased? Surely the best way to tackle poverty is to ensure that as many people as possible qualify for benefit during their transition to work and that they do not lose their entitlement to ancillary benefits such as the Back to School allowance, clothing and footwear allowance, medical cards and others benefits? Is it not time we gave some substance to all the aspirational talk and ensured that those disregards, which are important in facilitating the transition from dependence on those welfare schemes to work, are all raised to facilitate that ultimately noble objective?
It is in that context that the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion last November requested the senior officials group which reports to it to draw up a report on obstacles to employment for lone parents. That report will include not just an examination of income support arrangements but also child care, education, training, information, employment and any other relevant supports. The group has been established to progress work with a view to completing it by the middle of the year. At that time full account can be taken of all the research carried out to date, and the points regarding various barriers that the Deputy has put to the House on many occasions. That group includes the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Finance, my Department and a number of other Departments that have an input into this area. We will examine the outcome of that work and that will allow us to review the existing income support arrangements, including the disregard. I am conscious the Deputy feels particularly strongly about the income disregard whereby lone parents who are working could earn from €146 to €293 before they lost benefit. The Deputy has made the point on a number of occasions that it has not been increased. I will keep that in mind as we go forward.
We have expressed our aspirations, dissatisfaction and ambitions in this area and it is time to get down to the hard work. The group is working strongly with very strong terms of reference. I look forward to hearing from it as soon as possible.
65 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he has proposals to reverse an anomaly whereby, when the tax and PRSI year starts on a Saturday or Sunday, job sharers who work on a week-on week-off Monday to Friday basis, only receive 26 PRSI contributions within the year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6228/05]
The concept of a week of insurable employment is a central feature of the operation of the social insurance system and is defined in legislation. PRSI contributions are paid by employees and their employers at the relevant contribution rate for each week of insurable employment. These contributions progressively build towards entitlement to social insurance payments.
Work sharing arrangements such as three-day week or week-on-week off are entered into voluntarily and are agreed between an employer and an employee. In many cases the attendance pattern will overlap with the pattern of contribution weeks and work sharers will receive contributions in respect of 52 weeks, as is the case with full-time workers. Work sharers with a Monday-Friday week-on-week-off pattern will accrue different numbers of contributions depending on the alignment between their working week and the contribution week. Depending on the exact work pattern, work sharers may work for 26, 39 or 52 insurable weeks. However, the worker may be entitled to a higher number of contributions on the basis of their entitlement to public holiday pay as provided for under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. During weeks off the work sharer is not entitled to credited contributions as he or she is not unemployed. He or she may, however, be entitled to home-maker credits which maintain entitlement to contributory old age pension, providing certain criteria are fulfilled.
A social partnership working group, which examined a range of social insurance issues, identified work sharing as one of a number of areas which could potentially lead to employees having gaps in their contribution records. The working group's examination of this issue found that the longer a person work shares, the more likely it is to affect their pension entitlement, although the net effect of this may be relatively small; while it could lead to a reduced rate of old age contributory pension, the consequential loss in monetary terms would be small; and in the case of short-term benefits most employees are fully covered for these benefits, on foot of changes made to the contribution conditions for short-term benefits in 2001 to cater specifically for work sharing employees. While this improves the situation for the generality of work sharers, any period of unpaid leave could potentially give rise to a reduced level of social protection.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The working group, which included representatives of trades unions and employers, did not consider that the potential incidence of persons not qualifying for benefits for this reason would warrant a fundamental review of the weekly contribution basis which underpins the social insurance system.
However, in its final report, which will be published shortly, it suggested that the situation be monitored closely to ensure work sharers were not being unduly disadvantaged by the weekly-based system, especially if they sought to pursue other forms of family-friendly arrangements such as parental leave. The working group recommended that data on the impact of work sharing arrangements on social insurance coverage be collated to inform any future examinations and developments.
My Department has published an information booklet which specifically deals with the issue and the interaction of the pattern of weeks of insurable employment and attendance patterns. That booklet refers to the working patterns and years wherein employees would be awarded a reduced number of contributions.
There are no plans to change the system of weeks of insurable contributions, which is at the heart of the social insurance system, but I will continue to monitor the impact of work sharing arrangements on entitlement to social welfare payments.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that this creates serious inequity between workers and that job sharers are at risk of losing out regarding social welfare benefits simply because of their choice of work pattern?
I am aware that workers in the public sector have been made aware of this. Has the Minister done anything to inform people in the private sector of this anomaly? Has he examined the possibility of introducing a PRSI top-up for people who work on a week-on week-off basis from Monday to Friday? It must be remembered that the problem only occurs usually every eight years when 1 January falls on a Saturday or Sunday. It has been suggested that people should stagger their work week but that is not always possible — for example, it may impact on child care arrangements. Will the Minister agree that there is an anomaly and give serious consideration to introducing measures to ensure that anybody who is job sharing gets equal treatment? We need to encourage people into the workplace and offering job sharing arrangements is one way of doing that.
There is no intention on the part of the State to put anyone at a disadvantage by virtue of their work pattern. However, I understand how that can happen. This is a complicated area. Social insurance is based on contributions, and the pattern of work can affect the number of contributions a person ends up with. The final report of the social partnership working group will be published shortly. It suggested that the situation be monitored closely to ensure work sharers were not unduly disadvantaged by the weekly based system, especially if they sought to pursue other forms of family friendly arrangements, such as parental leave. The working group recommended that data on the impact of work sharing arrangements on social insurance coverage should be collated to inform any future examination and developments.
The Department has published an information booklet which specifically deals with the issue and the interaction of the pattern of weeks of insurable employment and attendance patterns. There are no plans at the moment to do anything. We will await the reports and see whether any improvements can be made. A person who works part time two or three days a week could accumulate 52 contributions in the year, whereas a person who works week-on week-off, depending on the pattern of the week-on week-off arrangement, could end up with only 26 contributions in the year, even though each works a similar number of hours. Most people make their own arrangements if they can by having part-time working arrangements rather than working on a week-on week-off basis. I take the point that people need to be made aware they can do this.
We will further examine how the Department's booklet can be promulgated to a greater extent so that people will be aware that they can improve their ability to get contributions by the way they organise their work pattern. Whether they should have to do that is a broader issue. What is at the heart of the PRSI system is entitlement to contributions. Everyone should be aware that their pattern of work can affect the number of contributions they have if they are not working full-time. We will try to do more to get that message across. In addition, we need to examine the broader issue. I await the final report of the social partnership group.
66 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he has completed his considerations of a proposal to extend free travel here to Irish emigrant pensioners in Britain; the decision which has been reached in this respect; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6109/05]
The free travel scheme is available to all people living in the State aged 66 years, or over. It is also available to carers and to people with disability who are in receipt of certain social welfare payments. It applies to travel within the State and cross-Border journeys between here and Northern Ireland.
There have been a number of proposals for extending entitlement for free travel to people living outside Ireland including a proposal contained in the report of the task force on policy regarding emigrants, which was submitted to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in 2002. This issue was examined in the review of the free schemes which was published by the Policy Institute, Trinity College, Dublin, in 2000. The review considered that the main objective of the free travel scheme is to encourage older people and people with disability to remain independent and active within the community, thereby reducing the need for institutional care.
It noted that extending the scheme to visitors would have significant administrative and cost implications even if it was confined to those in receipt of Irish social welfare pensions. In 2000, it was estimated that the extension of the free travel scheme to EU pensioners could incur expenditure of the order of €10 million to €19 million, depending on the level of concession granted.
The proposal to make free travel available to Irish pensioners residing in the UK, would have to be examined in a budgetary context taking account of the other demands for extension of the free travel scheme, the cost, administrative and legal, and possible wider implications.
One of the issues for consideration regarding this proposal is Article 12 of the Treaty of the European Community which contains a general prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality. In other words, a member state can not treat its own nationals more favourably than nationals from the other member states. This may mean that if the scheme were extended along the lines suggested, it would have to be extended to all pensioners who are EU nationals coming to Ireland for temporary stays. Extending the free travel scheme to all retired citizens of the European Union would not be in keeping with the objectives of the scheme. However, I am mindful that this matter has been raised in the House a number of times recently and I am continuing my examination of the complex issues involved
I exhort the Minister to continue his examination of the free travel scheme and to arrive at a conclusion quickly. During the course of a recent visit by Deputy Stagg and I we met numerous groups from Coventry, Birmingham, Luton, London, Cricklewood and so on for whom this matter and access to RTE, TG4 and TV3 were the main issues of concern raised repeatedly at our meetings with them. I ask the Minister to examine the position. Is it not the case when the French want something they appear to throw the treaty out the window? As a member of an agricultural delegation I saw this first-hand when the French Government ensured that French beef was promoted above all else.
Given the important contribution made by thousands of immigrants who sent back €4.5 billion to €5 billion in the past which led to the growth of the State and many families, this would be a gesture of recognition for them. Even if it were to cost €30 million, it is only a small proportion of the €4 billion sent back. Given the importance of this issue to Irish people and Irish emigrants, in particular, I suggest it be raised at an EU meeting. Has any advice been taken by the Attorney General on this important means of access which would be available only for a couple of weeks per year when those people come home? While most may never come home, the important issue is that it would be available to them. We in the Labour Party will continue to campaign on this issue and to raise it in the House because it is fundamentally important to give back something to those emigrants who were good to us in the past. Their generosity saved many households in Ireland. I ask the Minister to revisit the matter and to bring forward a favourable reply which would tie in with the aspiration of so many of our emigrants and the diaspora across the Irish Sea.
There are two issues. One is affordability given that the extension of the scheme would cost between €10 million and €19 million approximately, and the other is a legal issue relating to the EU. We shall have to focus on the second issue to see what is possible. One could then see if one could afford it. I am sure the Deputy will not mind if I pay tribute to Deputy Stagg who has raised this issue with me on many occasions and has also done so privately. He feels strongly about this issue and asked whether it could be confined to pensioners pre-1953.
The free travel scheme is available to everyone here over the age of 66 years. Some 650,000 people are entitled to use it. It has nothing to do with pensions. Everybody over the age of 66 years, irrespective of pension or means, is entitled to free travel. If we were to take the worst case scenario and if the EU equality rule provides that all citizens be treated equally, we would then have to treat everybody over the age of 66 years in the EU to free travel in Ireland. The issue of whether it could be confined to all those over the age of 66 years who are Irish citizens has other legal implications for our membership of the Union. That is probably not practical either.
The Deputy asked if it could be confined to Irish pensioners abroad. It is not confined to Irish pensioners in Ireland but to those over 66 years of age. If it were to be confined to Irish pensioners abroad, then Irish citizens abroad who are not pensioners would not be entitled to it. There is a whole mosaic of questions which arise from the bigger picture. I have asked my officials to raise this matter with the EU with a view to making some progress. Approximately 40,000 Irish citizens in the UK are in receipt of Irish pensions. An extension of the scheme could not be confined to the UK but would have to include the rest of the EU. In the event that there are approximately 10,000 in other parts of the EU, there may be 50,000 or 60,000 in receipt of Irish pensions in the EU. If that number was added to the present stock of approximately 660,000 the increase would be of the order of 8% to 10%. That might be manageable if one was allowed confine it to Irish pensioners living in the European Union. One would then have to consider those in the US. How does one ring-fence it? Those are the issues involved. I have asked the Department to speed up its examination of those issues. Even before looking at the question of money we need to sort out what is permitted to us under the EU and where we draw the line. This happens not only in the area of free travel but right across the board in a whole range of concessions that we would like to extend to the Irish abroad. However, there are huge practical implications in trying to do it.
