I welcome the Minister of State to the House.
Social Welfare Bill, 1995: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It is very pleasant to be back in this House after so many years; I was, as you know, here for a very short time in the early 1980s. It is a privilege to address this very important body and I am quite sure that we will have an enjoyable and fruitful joust for the duration of the Bill.
The annual Social Welfare Bill is always an important piece of legislation. It is important to the 800,000 people and their 600,000 dependants who rely on the State's social welfare system for their weekly income. That is about 40 per cent of our population, and when child benefit recipients are included, it increases to over half our total population.
Right across the country social welfare touches the lives of every family in one way or another: the sick and disabled, the unemployed and retired, pensioners, widows and lone parents are all affected. Some commentators tend to criticise some of those on social welfare payments, but it must be remembered that one never knows when one may have to rely on social welfare payments oneself. It is then that there is full recognition of the very necessary role of the Department of Social Welfare.
That is why it is so important for the Government to get it right; to strike the right balance, in terms of social and economic objectives, between across the board social welfare increases, reforms aimed at improving the position of those at greatest risk of poverty, and tax and PRSI changes designed to do something about our unacceptable levels of unemployment.
And we are getting it right. I believe we have got the balance right in terms of meeting the needs of our social welfare customers. We have adopted a fundamental new approach which will benefit a wide cross section of Irish society. We have commenced a radical shift of income and resources within our society which we hope will ensure a high level of social solidarity between the haves and the have nots. At the same time we need to deal with increases in social welfare payments in a focused way and also tackle the traps in our system which prevent people from entering or re-entering the workforce.
In this regard the work of the expert group on the integration of the tax and social welfare systems, for which I have responsibility as Minister of State, is very important. I readily accept the complexity of this subject and I value very much the work already done by the group in this area and any constructive ideas which Members may put forward. There is a commitment in the programme, A Government of Renewal to publish the working group's report this year and I understand that the group hopes to report in good time to meet that commitment. I look forward very much to their report.
I will now move on to discuss the main provisions of the Bill before the Seanad. Sections 1 and 2 deal with the usual provisions relating to the short title of the Bill, construction and definitions.
Sections 3 and 4 provide for the general increase in the weekly personal and adult dependant rates of social assistance payments. These increases are being paid from early to mid June 1995, which is six weeks earlier than usual. Section 3 also provides for a further additional increase of £1.80 in the weekly adult dependant rate, payable where the dependant is under 66 years of age in the case of the old age (contributory) pension and retirement pension. In addition, the age at which the higher personal rate of invalidity pension is payable is being reduced from 66 years to 65 years.
I think that it is true to say that the general increase of 2.5 per cent in weekly payments provided for in this Bill has generated a fair amount of comment. I think it is also true to say that much of that comment has been ill informed and mischievous, to say the least. The 2.5 per cent increase in weekly personal and adult dependant payments guarantees that everyone getting a social welfare payment will keep pace with the predicted rate of inflation this year. The mid February figure for the consumer price index, just released last week, shows a 0.8 per cent increase over the mid November figure, which represents an annual rate of inflation of 2.5 per cent. This increase is also in line with the 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent increase which most employed workers will be receiving this year under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
To attempt to isolate the 2.5 per cent increase from the other improvements contained in the Social Welfare Bill gives an unbalanced and distorted picture of the impact of the general rate increase. It must also be noted that payment six weeks earlier than in previous years brings the increase in the current year to more than 3 per cent, which is the figure originally suggested by the Leader of the Opposition in his comments on the budget.
Let us look at a number of concrete examples which show the impact of the budget improvements as a whole. Reference was made in the other House to the position of a husband and wife with five children whom it was suggested would receive a total of £160 per week. This family on long term unemployment assistance will receive a new weekly payment of £200.62, including the child benefit increase. An important factor which must be borne in mind when discussing this Bill is that all of the increases in almost all areas contain an added benefit which must be taken into account when assessing the percentage increase. This weekly increase of £10.48 represents a 5.5 per cent increase, which is more than double the general increase of 2.5 per cent. If one of their children is 21 years of age and still in full time education, the family could benefit from a further £13.20 a week by way of the continuation of the child dependant allowance up to the age of 22 years. Similarly, if one of the children is 18 years of age, child benefit of either £27 or £32 a month will be payable for them from September until they reach 19 years of age — that, of course, depends on when their birthday is and so on. That is the reality of the situation.
A couple with three children on either disability benefit or unemployment benefit will get an extra £7.25 a week when account is taken of the child benefit increase. That is a 4.8 per cent increase on their current payment. In addition, as set out in the example above, this family could also benefit from the continuation of the child dependant allowances up to the age of 22 years and additional child benefit up to the age of 19 years.
Our universal support mechanism for children, child benefit, is receiving one of the biggest increases ever in the history of the State. The monthly payment for each child is being increased by £7, giving a new monthly rate for the first two children of £27 each, an increase of 35 per cent. The new monthly rate for the third and subsequent children will be £32 each, which is an increase of 28 per cent.
There are significant improvements for those beneficiaries without children also. For example, the minimum payment for a young person on unemployment assistance whose only means are assessed on the basis of parental income is being increased from £10 to £25, an increase of 150 per cent. I emphasise that on the basis that percentages seem to have become the order of the day when assessing the Social Welfare Bill. Therefore, it is no harm to emphasise the percentages as they give a true reflection of the import of the Bill.
A pensioner getting a contributory old age or retirement pension with a spouse under 66 years of age and additional income of £8 per week will get an 8.3 per cent increase to bring their new weekly payment to £125.90. This increase includes the fuel allowance of £5 per week. They will also get the benefit of a free colour television licence.
There are significant improvements also in the carer's allowance, which is being extended to those caring for nonsocial welfare pensioners aged 66 years or over. That is an important improvement. This will bring 1,000 new carers into the scheme, at a cost of £3 million in a full year. The means test for the allowance is also being improved. The earnings disregard of £100 a week in respect of working spouses is being increased to £150 a week, an increase of 50 per cent. Again, I emphasise the percentage increase in this case. The new earnings disregard will apply not only to earnings from work but to all types of income such as pensions and that is also an important aspect of that provision.
The back to school clothing and footwear allowance is being increased by 14 per cent for each primary school child and 10 per cent for each secondary school child from next summer. Students participating in the students summer jobs scheme this year will receive a total payment of £600 this year as compared to £540 last year, an increase of 11 per cent. I would again draw the Members' attention to this percentage increase. There is also an increase of £3 million, which represents a 43 per cent increase, in the amount to be provided this year for voluntary and community activity and to help disadvantaged communities improve the quality of their lives, and an increase of 25 per cent is being provided this year in the funding provided to the Combat Poverty Agency.
These examples demonstrate that the campaign to vilify this Government over the 2.5 per cent general increase will not succeed. Furthermore, as provided for in the Bill, the increases will be paid six weeks earlier this year, in early to mid June. This means that social welfare recipients will receive more money in 1995 than they would have received if 3 per cent had been paid in July, as in previous years. That is a simple but important aspect of the Bill.
I have already referred to the substantial increase in child benefit which is provided for in section 5 of the Bill. The increases will come into effect from next September. In addition, child benefit has been extended to 18 year olds who are in full time education or are physically or mentally disabled.
The opportunity has also been taken in this section to extend existing provisions whereby child benefit is payable to a qualified parent while serving abroad as a member of the Defence Forces or Civil Service to enable payment to be made to a qualified parent outside the State while his or her spouse or partner is serving abroad in either capacity.
This improvement in child benefit is just the first step in the Government's plans for major restructuring of the child income support system for the future. A Government for Renewal states that:
We will work towards a basic income system for children by systematic improvements in Child Benefit and the creation of a Child Benefit Supplement payable to all social welfare recipients and to low and middle income families.
Having got the basic child benefit payment structure right, the foundation is now laid for the development of the child benefit supplement which is the essential element in the development of a basic income for children. The child benefit supplement will eliminate some of the worst poverty and unemployment traps in the tax and social welfare systems. It will be payable in addition to the child benefit to all families whose income is below a certain level irrespective of the source of the income — for example, social welfare, employment or a combination of the two. Incidentally, that area also caused many problems in the past because people were caught on either side, or from a combination of both, and failed to qualify. The new supplement will incorporate both the child dependant allowances paid to people on social welfare and the family income supplement paid to people at work on low pay.
The implications of the new child benefit supplement are under consideration in my Department. At the same time, as announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement, the expert working group on the integration of tax and social welfare is also being asked to consider this proposal and to advise on the best overall strategy. It is best placed to do this, given the important work it has already done in this area. I look forward to its conclusions in due course.
The necessary legislative changes affecting PRSI are contained in sections 6 to 10 of the Bill, which will come into effect on 6 April 1995. The overall tax reforms announced in this year's budget are the most significant to have been introduced in many years. The PRSI changes, combined with those introduced last year, are directly focused at supporting jobs in labour intensive industries and easing the burden for those at work on low pay.
Among the PRSI measures in the Bill affecting both employees and employers are the following: the introduction of a new "PRSI Free Allowance" whereby employees insured at Class A will not be liable for PRSI in respect of the first £50 of weekly earnings; an increase in the ceiling up to which PRSI contributions are payable by employees and by the self-employed from £20,900 to £21,500 per annum; an increase from £173 to £231 in the amount of weekly earnings below which the reduced rate employer's contribution of 9 per cent applies — this is to remove a barrier to those seeking employment — an exemption from payment of PRSI contributions in respect of the first £520 of self-employed income and for a reduction from £250 to £230 in the minimum social insurance contribution payable by the self-employed; an exemption from payment of optional contributions in respect of the first £520 of annual reckonable income under the scheme of optional social insurance for share fishermen, which will be of interest to those in maritime counties; a reduction from £250 to £230 in the annual rate of voluntary contributions payable by voluntary contributors who were formerly self-employed contributors; and regulatory powers to cater for an ongoing employers' PRSI exemption scheme. Under this scheme employers who take on additional employees who constitute a net increase in their workforce above that applying on a specified date will not have to pay the employer element of PRSI contributions in respect of such employees for a full two year period.
Section 11 of the Bill provides for the introduction for the first time ever of a new adoptive benefit in the social welfare code for people who qualify for adoptive leave under the provisions of the Adoptive Leave Act, 1995. This section was amended on Committee Stage in the Dáil. The intention when introducing the Bill was to provide for regulatory powers to enable the new scheme to be introduced as soon as the Adoptive Leave Bill was enacted. That Bill has now been enacted and consequently the provisions in section 11 were amended to cater for the new scheme in primary legislation.
Under the scheme of adoptive benefit, the qualifying contribution conditions and the rates of payment will be the same as those currently applying in the case of maternity benefit. From next June a recipient will get between £75.70 and £162.80 per week, depending on earnings. The new adoptive benefit will last for a period of ten weeks in the case of persons who qualify for adoptive leave.
I have already referred to the significant improvements proposed in the carer's allowance which are provided for in section 12 of the Bill. This scheme is being extended to include carers of incapacitated pensioners over 66 years of age who are not in receipt of a social welfare pension — for example, those on an occupational pension. It is only fair that those on social welfare pensions and those on occupational pensions should be treated equally as regards access to the carer's allowance. Many of those who will benefit will be public service pensioners on relatively low pensions.
In addition, the means test for the carer's allowance is being significantly eased through an increase from £100 to £150 a week in the amount to be disregarded in respect of working spouses and the application of the disregard to income from all sources. Regulatory power is being taken in this section to provide for these changes.
Section 13 provides for certain changes to maternity benefit arising from the passage of the Maternity Protection Act, 1994. The net effect is to link entitlement to maternity benefit to entitlement to leave. This section also provides for the payment of a benefit to fathers who are awarded leave following the death of the mother within 14 weeks of the child's birth in accordance with the provisions of the Maternity Protection Act, 1994. This benefit is equivalent to maternity benefit, having the same contribution conditions and weekly rates of payment.
Section 14 implements an important measure announced in the budget. It provides for an amendment to the definition of qualified child under which increases for dependent children will be payable to recipients of long term social welfare payments up to age 22, as compared with age 21 at present, for those in full time education.
Section 15 provides for regulatory powers to enable an adult dependant allowance to be paid in respect of a spouse or partner who has a weekly income in excess of a prescribed amount. Senators will be aware of the difficulties caused in individual cases where the adult dependant allowance ceases to be payable because the adult dependant has earnings even marginally in excess of the earnings limit of £60 per week. With a view to resolving these difficulties, it is proposed to bring in new arrangements early next year which will provide a rate of adult dependent allowance related to earnings. It may be necessary for administrative reasons to introduce the new arrangements on a phased basis for different schemes. The overall objective is to permit a higher level of earnings before the full adult dependant allowance is withdrawn from the spouse. This improvement will be a significant contribution to removing one of the poverty traps which currently keep people out of employment or on very low pay.
Section 16 provides for another important measure announced in the budget and referred to earlier in my speech. It increases from £10 to £25 the minimum weekly rate of unemployment assistance payable to single people with means assessed solely on the basis of parental income. The section also provides for the payment of unemployment assistance at the long term rate in the case of a claimant who was previously in receipt of alone parent's allowance and the standardising of the provisions applied to married and cohabiting couples with regard to the having of means where the spouse of a partner is not an adult dependant.
Sections 17 to 23, inclusive, contain miscellaneous amendments to the existing legislation affecting a number of schemes. These include, first, the replacement of references in our legislation to the former social employment scheme and Teamwork, which are now obsolete following their integration into the new scheme of community employment. Second, provision that the insurance record of a self-employed contributor can only be used for the purposes of qualifying for old age contributory pension or survivor's pension where self-employment contributions for which the person was liable have been paid in respect of al least one contribution year before the date of death or reaching 66 years of age.
Third, changes to orphans' pensions affecting the definition of an orphan to include a child where one of the parents has abandoned, or failed or refused to provide for him or her and the other parent is unknown or has effectively abandoned him or her, and an increase from £2 to £6 in the initial means disregard applied in the case of orphan's, non-contributory, pension.
Fourth, provision to allow supplementary welfare allowance paid to a person while awaiting determination of a claim for social security from another EU member state to be recovered from the amount payable by the other member state. Fifth, regulatory power designed to standardise provisions governing payment of benefits or assistance to people who are absent from the State or are undergoing penal servitude, imprisonment or detention in legal custody. Sixth, a number of minor changes to the provisions for means assessment in the case of social assistance payments, including disregarding, in certain circumstances, the capital value of property where the property is not personally used for a limited period, for example, through illness.
Sections 24 and 25 provide for technical amendments to the Health Contribution Act, 1979, and to the Youth Employment Agency Act, 1981, respectively, which govern the administration of the two levies involved — the health contribution and the employment and training levy. The effect of the changes provided for in these sections are, first, an increase from £173 to £178 in the weekly earning thresholds below which employees are exempt from payment of the two levies involved. Second, an increase in the corresponding income levels for the self-employed from £9,000 to £9,250. Third, payments made to a spouse under maintenance agreements to be exempt from liability for the two levies, and finally, all recipients of survivor's pension and lone parent's allowance to be exempt from liability for the two levies.
The Social Welfare Bill before the House demonstrates the Government's commitment to look after the needs of the vulnerable and disadvantaged. This is none more evident when one considers the resources that have been provided for in the social welfare improvements in the budget amounting to a total of £212 million in a full year. This is 35 per cent higher than was allocated by the previous Government in 1994. What is more, it brings total social welfare spending to new heights with over £4 billion being spent for the first time ever on social welfare schemes.
At the outset I mentioned the vast number of people who are dependent in some way on social welfare. I did so to emphasise the importance of the Social Welfare Bill and the fact that, today, the Department of Social Welfare plays a huge role in the lives of many of our people. Through no fault of their own and by means beyond their control, a large number of people in this country find themselves dependent on social welfare payments of one kind or another. It is only when individuals themselves become dependent on these payments that we fully recognise the importance of ensuring first, that the scale of the service is adequate, or as near as possible to adequate, to meet requirements and, second, that the delivery of the services is such as to ensure that no hardship is caused to individuals or families by virtue of payments being late or other snags in the system.
The present system of social welfare, as encompassed within the Bill, is a comprehensive appraisal of the services to date and also incorporates many much sought after improvements which will be highly beneficial to the large sector of the population which depend on a social welfare service. I therefore commend the Bill to the House and look forward to constructive and innovative responses.
I welcome the Minister to the House. In his opening remarks he said that one never knows when one may have to rely on social welfare payments. I hope nobody in the House will ever have to rely on them if the Government continues its policy of providing a paltry 2.5 per cent increases in social welfare payments. At the outset, and watching the debate in the other House, everybody appeared to dismiss the fact that this increase of 2.5 per cent is the lowest within the last 30 years. This must be acknowledged. Yesterday, the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, was shocked that the Opposition was continually raising this issue. However, on the streets people are saying that the increase of 2.5 per cent is unacceptable in this day and age. It is a little disingenuous of the Government to say that because of child benefit increases, everybody will be better off, 800,000 people will not benefit from child benefit increases and they will be left with a 2.5 per cent increase in social welfare payments.
As spokesperson on Social Welfare, my first and unequivocal reaction to the budget was one of dismay. At a time when the Government had a major opportunity to provide real increases in the standard of living of those who are deprived in our society, it is beyond belief that it should treat their just and urgent needs with cruel indifference. Can anybody seriously defend a paltry increase of £1.50 per week for a person on a basic weekly income of £61? However, this is the extent of the consideration given by the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, and his Cabinet colleagues to recipients of the old age non-contributory pension, the blind pension and basic unemployment benefit and assistance.
How can the Minister advise the House today that the Government is caring and considerate when it announces the lowest increase in social welfare benefits in 30 years? It may have been expected that the presence of the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, and Democratic Left in the Department of Social Welfare would have ensured a real improvement in living standards for the poorer families, given that the Minister and his party have always highlighted the needs of the underprivileged in their public comments. It is clear that the Minister and his party have failed to deliver on the plethora of promises made from the safety of the Opposition benches.
It is ironic that last year, from the Government benches. I attempted to defend as best I could a 3 per cent increase in social welfare payments, and at that time inflation was considerably lower than 2.5 per cent. It is disingenuous to praise the Minister for bringing forward payments by six weeks because this will only benefit recipients this year. Will they be brought forward six weeks next year? It is impractical to suggest that because they are brought forward six weeks people will benefit in the long term; they will not. The recent ESRI report forecast that inflation will be at least 2.9 per cent this year.
It is disingenuous of the Minister to come to this House and praise the budget and the Social Welfare Bill as being great steps in raising the living standards of the most needy in society. There are social welfare increases of 2.5 per cent. What about such fundamentals as the cost of living? All of us, rich and poor, live in a world affected by inflation. Recently it was indicated that rising house prices are increasing inflation beyond the levels forecast by the Minister in his budget. The Minister's last opportunity to change the basic payment increase of 2.5 per cent is slowly slipping away. I urge him to bear that in mind.
In the current vibrant and healthy condition of the national finances — a condition that was emphasised in the last ERSI forecast and which is due in no small measure to the sound economic planning of the previous Government — it is bitterly disappointing to see the miserable 2.5 per cent increase granted for a wide range of social welfare recipients. This single statistic clearly demonstrates the powerlessness and ineffectiveness of the Government in tackling the serious issues of the marginalised and underprivileged.
When we examine what the Minister for Social Welfare is offering recipients of specific so-called benefits we see extreme miserliness. It is proposed to increase the survivors pension of £64.50 for widows and widowers by just £1.60. This is totally unacceptable. Deserted wives under 80 years of age are provided with the same increase — £1.60 per week. The personal rate of disability benefit has been increased by just £1.50. The same statistics apply to the carer's allowance and to the personal rate of pre-retirement and infectious disease maintenance allowances. A miserable increase of £1 is provided for orphans non-contributory pension. On budget day we witnessed the laughable and sad example of the living alone allowance being increased by 10 pence; from £4.80 to £4.90 — the price of a box of matches. It is totally unacceptable for any Member to stand up in this House and defend an increase of 10 pence per week to a person on carer's allowance when those people have contributed so much to society. While the increase in child benefit is welcome, there were no increases in child dependant allowances. This is the cruellest rub of all — a long term unemployed man with three dependants receives £139.60 compared with £137.20 last year, a rise of 1.75 per cent.
Bodies such as the National Organisation of the Unemployed and the Conference of Religious Superiors of Ireland have echoed our deep regrets about the 1995 budget. It is a budget of half measures and huge disappointments; a budget in which the real issues associated with poverty and unemployment were not addressed. Yet again it is those who can least afford it who end up bearing the brunt of the budget. The thousands on the edge of survival who depend on social welfare will carry the burden. This year more than ever the Government, as a result of the prudent work of the previous Administration, should have had the capacity to give substantial increases to those in receipt of low social welfare benefits. This budget could have made a difference.
There has been no attempt by the Government to make any advancement towards an adequate level of social welfare as set down by the Commission on Social Welfare in 1986. It must be acknowledged that the last Administration strove to increase social welfare and to bring it up to the levels recommended by the commission.
It did not do it though.
It advanced towards them with every budget. This budget will set the process back and it will be harder next year to bring social welfare closer to the proposals set down by the Commission on Social Welfare.
To be fair to the Minister, the increase in child benefit is welcome. Similarly, the proposals regarding back to school payments, free cross-Border journeys for all pensioners north and south of the Border, increased grants to various community and voluntary services and the further extension of the free colour television licence to all social welfare pensioners currently receiving electricity allowances are also welcome. There are some excellent provisions in the Bill and I look forward to dealing with it in detail on Committee Stage when I will make some proposals which I hope the Minister will take on board.
However, the increases I have welcomed are only a few increases in what is altogether a derisory Social Welfare Bill for those dependent on social welfare. For those thousands on the lowest rates of social welfare, the budget of 1995 and the Social Welfare Bill saw an abandonment of the strategy of giving increases above the level of inflation to those on lower rates of social welfare. The 1995 budget has given the lowest social welfare increases in 30 years.
On examining the entire Bill one realises that only people with children will benefit from it. There are many people totally dependent on social welfare who do not have children and are not in receipt of child benefit. It is disingenuous of Government spokespersons to continually laud this Bill as a great advance in removing people from the poverty trap when old age pensioners and those on survivors pensions will only get an increase of 2.5 per cent this year. On Committee Stage we will propose amendments. However, I urge the Minister of State to tell the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, and his colleagues in Government about the feelings of this House regarding these increases.
I will tell him.
The ESRI reports that the economy grew by a massive 6.8 per cent last year, but what about those who will never have the opportunity to share in this growth? The ESRI said that the recent budget could be regarded as a missed opportunity given the scale of economic growth. Given the ESRI forecast for 1995 which suggests that the economy will grow steadily, competitiveness will be maintained, interest rates and inflation levels will remain relatively low while business and consumer confidence will remain strong, why was more not done on 8 February for people on social welfare?
I wish to quote from a speech by the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, from the Official Report, of 1 March 1994, Vol. 439, Col. 1128:
The budget and this Bill were prepared against the background of the most favourable economic situation for two decades. Those on social welfare had a right to expect some measures to substantially improve their position but once again they were passed over and virtually forgotten. Most of those increases provided are minimalist and will do nothing to improve their living standards. The miserable levels of most of the increases tell their own story.... These same miserable increases have been applied to many on the lower rates, such as unemployment allowance and the carer's allowance. It is fair to anticipate that not too many bottles of champagne will be cracked open....
We definitely will not crack open any bottles of champagne today. Perhaps the special advisers on £800 per week might crack open bottles of champagne but old age pensioners will not do so.
The Taoiseach said recently that his rainbow coalition Government was giving historically low increases to enhance the incentive to work among people on social welfare. The Labour Party and the Democratic Left have supported this approach. Since when did an old age pensioner, a widow, those on invalidity benefit or the homeless need an incentive to work? These people depend on social welfare. For the Taoiseach to say he is giving historically low increases in order to encourage people back to work is a sad abandonment of the caring and just society that has been espoused for so long by those who are now in Government.
These people need an adequate level of basic support payments and the support of all the community if they are to survive. They are entitled to support. This Government did not give them a genuine increase to ensure that they would stay above the poverty levels. Vincent Browne recently commented that the poorer sections of society have little reason to rejoice. He said that the unemployed are now to be the sole members of society not to benefit from the growth that is projected while employed people will gain a 2.5 per cent increase in earnings as a result of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. The unemployed will gain nothing from that programme. As Vincent Browne put it: “This is the agenda to which the left-dominated Government is committed”.
What is the Government going to do? The fact that the current budget largely fails to cater for those most vulnerable in our society does not and cannot mean their cause will not be comprehensively addressed for another 12 months. We must ensure that necessary and effective caring policies are rapidly developed for implementation at the earliest possible time.
In this regard a number of issues must be taken into account. For example, we may not be fully aware of the degree of social welfare dependency in our society — in excess of 40 per cent of the community are in receipt of such payments. This means a high proportion of Government decisions have either a direct or an indirect relevance for the social welfare sector.
When attempting to address the issue of poverty, the critical point is that effective Government action is all-important; aspirations and sympathy are of no value. I continue to stress the failure of the budget and the Social Welfare Bill to attack the roots of marked social inequality, because nothing less than the future social cohesion of our society is at stake. What happened to the unprecedented opportunity inherited by the "rainbow coalition" as a legacy from the outgoing Fianna Fáil / Labour Administration?
How good was that legacy?
Senator Cregan should wait for Committee Stage; I have not invited him to interrupt me yet. I compliment the Government for continuing to reduce PRSI and for ensuring those in labour intensive industries and in the low paid sector will be able to seek employment. Given that, I cannot understand why the Government gave only a 2.5 per cent increase to those who can never work or who may never work again — those receiving the old age pension, invalidity benefit, etc. The irony is that there is nothing in the budget or this Bill whereby a childless person who through no fault of his or her own becomes dependent on social welfare will receive the 2.5 per cent increase. The Minister for Social Welfare became irate in the Dáil and accused our party of being hypocritical in attacking this budget.
That is because Fianna Fáil is knocking children.
Senator Kelleher without interruption.
He said we attacked the Bill and did not treat it fairly. I recognise the advancements in the Bill; child benefit must be encouraged and we must ensure those advances continue. A working body, which was set up to investigate ways of alleviating poverty, said child benefit was the best way to do so. That should not deflect us from the reality that over 800,000 people will receive only a 2.5 per cent increase in social welfare this year because of this Administration's blatant disregard of those who may have contributed to society for many years but who through old age, invalidity or serious ill health can no longer work.
I look forward to Committee Stage, when I shall take issue on many items and support others. I cannot support the Second Stage of the Bill because the Government has not recognised those in poverty and has done little to alleviate their condition. I hope the Minister accepts many of our amendments.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Durkan, to the House. I congratulate him on his appointment and his enlightened attitude to social welfare. I remember the short period when he was a Member of this House and I am delighted that since them he has improved his status in no small way.
I remember being a spokesman on social welfare when we were spending £3 million per day in payments and later when we spent £4 million per day — that was in 1985. In 1987 the figure reached £7 million per day and we were upset that the amount was not being reduced. We now spend £11 million per day on social welfare, £4 billion per year. We never thought we would have to spend that much taxpayers' money on people who need it most.
I have listened to the contributions of the Minister and of the previous speaker and I have read the Bill. Senator Kelleher made valid points about whether the 2.5 per cent increase was enough. In my view no amount is enough for people on social welfare, but unfortunately we have to see what is the best way to provide the money. The Senator readily agreed the report on poverty stated the money must be spent in such a way as to benefit those who need it most.
I have spoken on many Social Welfare Bills. There was a time when there were 32 types of payment for children — that is how complicated the social welfare legislation was. The number was reduced through the years to eight payments; and I compliment the former Minister, Deputy Woods, who recognised the need to restructure welfare payments, especially those for children. Now not only those on social welfare but taxpayers with children, whether they are cohabiting or married, get money more directly every month, although it still does not go far enough.
I make no apologies for saying there is no difference between PRSI and tax. I hope the report from the expert group on the integration of the tax and social welfare systems recognises there should be only one tax payment. There should not be separate PRSI and tax deduction, instead one deduction should be taken from taxpayers each week or month according to their earnings.
That should lead us to recognise the people who need it most. Supplementary benefit is paid to people on low pay in the workforce. That is embarrassing for the person who collects those benefits each week, often the woman of the house. There is no reason why a person should pay PRSI and tax while at the same time collecting money elsewhere. Why is that person paying PRSI or tax at all? That is how stupid the system is.
I am delighted the Minister is waiting for the report of the expert group, which I hope consists of people who understand the real benefits of social welfare. It is a sad reflection that we have to spend £11 million per day, £4 billion per year, on social welfare payments to 40 per cent of our people. We should also remember the number of people under 25 years of age who depend on these benefits.
It is also good that we are finally giving extra benefits to people on welfare who have the calibre to be educated further. I never thought the Government would give such benefits to people over 20, but they are now being given up to the age of 22. It should go further because if a person needs to be educated, then why not help him? Some parties have called for free education, but if a person on welfare is prepared to allow his or her child to go for further education, the child should receive the benefits. Nothing should hold the boy or girl back. I welcome that in particular. I welcome at long last the recognition of the person with children.
I ask Senator Kelleher not to forget who suggested that there should be no child benefit or tax allowances for children. We put ourselves in a situation where there was no recognition of the child. I would not like any party representing the people of Ireland to criticise a policy whereby people with children are getting more than people without children. They have to get more because they must look after the children. It is important that a child who does not have the benefit of someone earning £20,000 or £25,000 a year does not feel less well off, because that has been the case for far too long. It has to stop. I therefore welcome the increases going directly to the child.
I would go further. I do not carry the flag for any Government as regards social welfare. We must look at how we spend social welfare money and ask how we can spend it to get the best out of society. I do not agree entirely with saying that a 2.5 per cent increase is enough for anybody. It is not enough. If I had my way, the increases would be by amounts——
The Senator will have an opportunity at 4 p.m. He can vote with us.
I would point out to Senator Kelleher that there is an increase from £10 to £25 for an unemployed person who is means tested. That is the first time I have ever seen this in social welfare, as there have always been percentage increases. I am totally against percentage increases. If I had my way, a fixed amount would be given. Why should it not be that way? We must ask what is the real amount of payment people are getting.
Do we really think that the vast majority of our elders are not well off or that they are uncomfortable? Is every benefit possible not given to our elders? They have free travel. I am delighted that the majority of our elders travel to see their sons or daughters. The trains and buses are going anyway, so why not give the benefit? They also get free colour television licences, free light, free gas heating or free fuel, and long may it last. We should simplify it, however, and give it to every person over the age of 65.
We should also simplify the social welfare system. It is being simplified at present, but I would go further to create an environment where more people are working. If we are spending £11 million a day, we should give it to the people who need it most. We should create an atmosphere where, if we were not giving people money, we would be creating more work. There is the road we should take.
We had long discussions on the equality legislation. We are now talking about equality for a husband who, unfortunately, loses his wife. It is only right that he should get the benefits to which he is entitled but was not getting for some time. Every person is entitled to the benefit and there should be no discrimination. Money must now be paid to women who were entitled to benefits but had to go to the Supreme Court about it. We should be in a situation where everybody gets the same benefit.
If we are giving child benefit we should also be giving mothers' benefit. I ask the Minister to look at this. There is no reason why the expert group should not be looking at this, as we did at an earlier time. The Minister need not answer this point today; we can discuss it in the context of a particular section on Committee Stage. If we are giving child benefit, a mother who stays in the home should also be given a benefit. The taxpayers should be paying it. We would be recognising what the mother means in the home. She is the backbone of our society.
I have no objection to women in the workforce; indeed, I strongly welcome the idea. It is imperative that we advocate it, but also that we recognise the importance of a mother who does not go into the workplace but says she wants to stay at home. What benefits does that person get? We should look at that and make no apologies for it. We should look at the advantages of giving benefits to these people and not just ask how much it will cost or where the money will come from. I am sure the expert group will also recognise the need in this area. The backbone of our society is the mother in the home making sure that her children are well looked after. Under no circumstances am I saying that a mother who wants to go into the workplace is neglectful. I welcome it, if they so wish, but there is a benefit if they stay at home, and advantages can be given to other people who are looking for work. Social welfare benefits in this area should be examined.
The enormous increase in child benefit is very welcome. Looking at the Bill generally, I believe there is a consensus between the partners in Government. Senator Kelleher spoke about the rainbow. I must see different colours from him because I see a caring Government which is committed in particular to people in the less well off categories in our society. The Government is taking a long term view. The Members on the other side of the House should not get the impression that this is a short term situation. We should be looking at this in the long term because the Bill and the report we will get from the Minister are looking at the long term situation. There will be major restructuring in social welfare. When the Minister gets the report from the specialist group, we should look at ways of simplifying the system.
The key word is "simplify". Increases should be by fixed amounts rather than percentages. The Minister has started using amounts. For instance, the monthly child benefit payment for each child is being increased by £7, giving a new monthly rate for the first two children of £27 each, which is an increase of 35 per cent. That is very important to the person looking after the children. It may not be very important to the taxpayer, which is why PRSI and tax benefits should be combined. We should pay one benefit and one allowance and get total cover on that.
I could speak for a month on social welfare. We must never give the impression that we are looking at basic rates with a view to means testing. People outside these Houses are under the impression that there is a danger that the basic benefits to which they are entitled will now be means tested. Not alone was that impression given by the previous Government but it was being implemented by the previous Government. Any money coming in from elsewhere was means tested against the amount a person was getting from the State. We must never allow the State pension to be means tested. In the case of a person who paid his benefits, having worked for 30 or 40 years, his spouse and his family have a basic right to be entitled to these benefits. We must never give an impression of means testing. Means test anything else coming into the home, but under no circumstances must this become a means tested benefit. That must stop.
Unemployment assistance for a person living at home has increased from £10 to £25. I give credit here, because we argued for a long time in this House about the cost of an unemployed person leaving the family home, because means testing the family income meant they did not get any benefits. It has now been increased to £25. It is a solid recognition of the call that we would not be seen to be breaking up the family unit. We were doing that for far too long. Unfortunately, we were in a situation where it ultimately cost more when a person had to leave the family home because they were entitled to a landlord's allowance. The people who benefited most from this were the better off in society. At least, this is an advantage.
I welcome the 8 per cent increase in the old age contributory pension. The back to school and footwear allowance has been increased by 14 per cent. In simplistic terms, it is a discredit to say that some people are entitled to this benefit while others are not entitled. This should never be the case and we should not tell people that they are getting free clothing. People should receive a benefit, not a footwear allowance. Those days are long gone. People should be automatically entitled to this benefit and receive it directly. The current terms should no longer be used and we should not appear to demean people who are in need of this benefit. I do not mean that these people should not receive it, but rather that it should be paid as a direct benefit. We should not continue to give the impression that we are looking after people because they cannot look after themselves. We should give a benefit which people receive directly.
I welcome the summer jobs scheme. This is most successful and provides an opportunity to students who might otherwise have sought visas to work abroad. I wonder if further similar schemes could be created, given their advantages. Employers should be told that the opportunity exists during July, August and early September to give people part-time jobs. Perhaps somebody in the Minister's Department could examine this area to see if it could be broadened. We should avail of this opportunity and, if the scheme is successful, there is no reason its extension should not be considered.
For many years the Combat Poverty Agency has been informing the Department about the real poverty in our society. This organisation will receive a 25 per cent increase. However, if the organisation needs more at the start of next year, it should receive it. It deserves it, because this organisation deals on the ground with active community and voluntary groups. The former Minister, Deputy Woods, was very conscious of this point, but we should be more aware of what is happening in local areas. We should make no apologies for giving more money to such organisations.
The point was made that an unemployed person with five children will receive a total of approximately £260 a week when all the benefits are taken into account. However, the point is: how much would somebody with five children have to earn to come home with £200 a week net? Irrespective of who is in Government. I will always argue that until such time as the social welfare structure, in terms of PRSI and tax payments, is simplified, there will always be a situation where a person may not go to work because the probability is that he would be working for a difference of perhaps £10 or £20 a week. This is a sad reflection on our society. If that person was to come home from a job with £220 net a week, irrespective of whether he had one child or five children, he would have to be earning in the region of £370 a week, which is £18,500 a year. That fact demonstrates the position. Employees are not considered in terms of how many children they have. The direct benefits should be structured in such a way that a person receives a certain amount each week. However, this is not the position at present; it is paid indirectly.
For example, a person who has five children and a mortgage would be entitled to supplementary benefit, even though he is earning £15,000 a year. There is no logic in this situation. Why should he work and pay PRSI or taxes because when he comes home he receives a benefit elsewhere? The Minister should simplify the position. It is insulting to people that they must seek supplementary benefit just because they want to go to work. This is the point and different avenues should be examined. The Minister is concerned about this area. However, when the expert group produces its report, he must examine it in the context of other Departments. There is no reason there cannot be better integration between the Departments of Enterprise and Employment. Health and Education and the Department of Social Welfare. They should deal with this matter under one heading to ensure that people in the workforce benefit most.
This is not the position at present and the Minister is rightly concerned about it. The Department of Social Welfare pays out approximately £4 billion each year. It is now the second largest spending Department after the Department of Education which spends £4.5-£5 billion. When this area is considered, we should examine ways which would best benefit people in terms of going to work. We should be telling people with three or five children that we want them to go to work. It is nice for the man in the family unit to be at work. It is also important that young people get work. There are too many unemployed.
It greatly concerns me that we are not doing enough to make it clear that we want more people at work. I question the fact that we spend in the region of £2.3 billion a year on work schemes. If this matter was properly tied in between the Departments of Social Welfare and Enterprise and Employment, then we could deal with this matter of taking more money from employers who want to take on workers. I am not criticising employers. There are those who have expertise in terms of employing people and there are those who want to work, particularly young people. I emphasise this point. That is why I argue that every possible benefit should be given to people in the family unit. If more people were encouraged to stay at home, more places in the workforce could be created for their sons and daughters, nieces and cousins. We should consider this matter and have no objection to doing so.
I welcome the 35 per cent increase in child benefit. There was a time, not too long ago, when no benefits whatsoever were given to children. At long last, recognition is being given to this area. We are also recognising unmarried mothers by giving benefits which will ensure the children are properly looked after.
The Bill looks to the long term and envisages a major restructuring of the Department of Social Welfare. We should not have any hang ups about this because it is long overdue. The Bill's benefits should not be considered in the context of a two year term or a subsequent five year term. This is a seven year deal, which I welcome, and I congratulate the Minister. On Committee Stage we will argue about constructive ideas on how to change the Bill for the good of people who need benefits.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The Bill takes a constructive approach to the serious problems in this country. Senator Kelleher is correct when he says that a 2.5 per cent increase is not enough. However, Senator Cregan is also correct when he points out that with 40 per cent of the population currently on some form of benefit, we must try to spread the money available as equitably as possible. For me, however, one of the most important things that the Minister for Social Welfare said recently was not said within the context of this Bill. At the World Summit for Social Development he said that he wanted to bring forward a national anti-poverty strategy, that all Departments would be involved in this and that they should take poverty into account when they were making plans within their Departments.
This is extremely important because the poor people in our society cannot be just corralled into the Department of Social Welfare. All Departments must take account of them, because it has been pointed out previously that people go from affluence to poverty and, one hopes, back again. It is not a situation where one section of our population can be corralled into an area and be dealt with by one Department and be left there unless they are very lucky.
The social exclusion caused by poverty is never really properly addressed. I have spoken about this before because naturally, working within the health system, I see the enormous demands made on the health system. I have spoken in the past in regard to unemployment in particular. I have seen people in my surgery with a feeling of isolation and lack of self worth who would not be in with the doctor at all if they were in gainful employment or without the social problems which they have.
Poverty puts extra stress on other Departments as well. Far more resources are needed by the Department of Education, for example. We hope more resources will be given to schools within deprived areas. Far more help is needed for students coming from families where there is poverty. Even in the legal situation we have seen recently how shabbily treated are those who are from the less well off parts of society in this country, despite improvements which are being made.
It is quite cheerful to look at the fact that some of the Minister for Social Welfare's philosophy appears to have spilled over already into at least one other Ministry. This is the Department of Health, where the Minister for Health has told the health boards to extend the facilities for family planning within their remit so that medical card holders can avail of them. This is very welcome. When demographers ask whether economics was important in the decline of our fertility rate, I say I do not think they were, because those in the worst economic position were often the least able to take advantage of any family planning facilities which were available.
I welcome the spread of the philosophy from the Department of Social Welfare to the Department of Health and hope it will continue, because there are many areas there where poorer members of our population are in an invidious position regarding getting health care. I know the waiting list initiative has been undertaken but there are many other areas yet to be tackled.
This philosophy has not spilled over yet into the Department of Justice. In regard to the planning for the free legal aid services, while the extension to the Civil Legal Aid Bill is most welcome, I notice that debt collection, defamation and so forth will still not be covered. It is just as bad to be defamed if you are poor as if you are well off, so I am sorry to see that the philosophy has not yet gained as much acceptance in all Departments as I would like to see.
We are one of the poorest regions of the European Union. Our average income is about two thirds of that of the rest of Europe, but we have the particularly serious problem in that having a large population, we have a very large number of young people who are in great poverty, and of course this affects their future. It is good to see the extension of free education to third level, but it has been pointed out that so many of the poorer members of society are never likely to get far enough to avail of this education. When looking at statistics the severe results of poverty in childhood on the development of the adult are constantly to be seen. Stillbirth rates show that even before a child is born, poverty affects him or her. From the cradle onwards, all that we can do for children is essential to improve their ability to prosper as adults.
I welcome very much the increases in the child benefit. They have been generous and very much needed, and I also welcome the fact that the child benefit supplement will be applicable now to those on low incomes as well as those on social welfare. This was often a very important factor when people in low paid jobs decided it might be better not to work because of losing so many of the other allowances which were available and it is to be much welcomed.
Senator Cregan has a very good point when he talks about how little money women working within the home have. I have always been against the application of a means test to child benefit because of the fact that so many women working in the home, no matter what the income of the family may be, are getting extraordinarily little money into their hands. It is sad to think that a married woman has, in effect, to depend on her children for her income in these situations.
I know that in a previous Government involving Fine Gael and the Labour Party the possibility of giving the woman in the home an allowance was looked at. As I remember at the time, this fell on the tax implications because the whole family income would have to be looked at. Perhaps this should be seriously considered again when the committee which is reporting on the integration of tax and social welfare brings forward their proposals. It is very important.
I had thought we were trying to get away from describing an adult woman as a dependant, but it is in this legislation again. She is doing a pretty independent job within the home and it would be as well if we tried to get away from this, because very often the only adult dependants are married women and it would be better to look at them for their independent value rather than putting them in a situation which suggests that they are not quite so worthy as those who are independent. I think it is worth pointing that out. The extension of child benefit if children are in full time education until the age of 18 is to be much commended.
I hope the Department of Social Welfare will seriously look at the reports from the National Economic and Social Forum. I have been involved in this, not as much as I would have liked to have been, because sometimes the Seanad and the forum sit at the same time. However, there are very worthwhile suggestions in this regarding the delivery and quality of social services. We have talked about the money side of it here today, but the quality of what is delivered is also very important for the recipients.
We are not half as eager as we should be to take advantage of the information that recipients can give us about what causes problems for them. The forum has made an attempt to at least try to understand some of those. The comments made to us by the recipients of social welfare who spoke to the forum were very interesting. Improvements have been made in the signing on arrangements. The specification of very limited times and very limited days not only could have been very difficult for recipients but also was extremely difficult for staff. This is being improved and that is well worthwhile. The fact that travellers had to go to one place on a specific day is ridiculous. This sort of situation is not that costly to change and it is most important, since the travellers' situation has been improved in this Bill, that they should be considered.
It is important also that information should be made freely available to those receiving social welfare. The Department of Health does produce good, understandable guidelines and there is a big improvement in the guidelines being produced by the Department of Social Welfare. I give a lot of credit to a previous Minister, Deputy Woods, for having made a great improvement in that area. He was a most energetic Minister and did a lot to help.
It is very important that those who are in the Departments know exactly what information is correct, because we have done some surveys which showed that three people telephoned the same office on a certain day and received three different answers. If those in the Department do not have the proper information, it is extremely difficult for those trying to get information.
It is important that officials are proactive in giving information. The Department of Social Welfare has had advertisements on the radio encouraging people to take up benefits which they might not have known about. The Minister should stress to staff that all information should be made known to recipients. It will be to the benefit of all ultimately. The money is being well spent and will improve the lot of those who get it.
Accessibility to social welfare offices for recipients is important. I have known of social welfare offices which were upstairs: that is impossible for a woman with a baby buggy and toddlers or an elderly person who has difficulty with stairs. A little commonsense on the location of offices is important. The NESF also recommended the "one stop shop" facility should be made available for social welfare recipients and that they should have adequate privacy. Thank goodness the horse boxes are being removed where one had to put one's head through a door to explain one's case. The modern, purpose built offices are much improved and long may they continue to be built. People often have to give private information when they are being interviewed and they are entitled to privacy.
The complaints and appeals procedures are not as simple as they should be. Community welfare officers, for example, are powerful and it is important that people who have to deal with those in authority feel they have adequate means of appeal for their cases. If the Department of Social Welfare knows that people should be referred to other Departments it is important they refer them on, and if at all possible the facilities for these referrals should be in the same "one stop shop" office. Office facilities and staff training should be urgent priorities for the Department of Social Welfare.
I have to congratulate the officials of the Department. Shortly after being elected to the House I was contacted by the Forum of People with Disabilities which asked me if I could try to have responsibility for the disabled persons maintenance allowance transferred from the Department of Health and the health boards to the Department of Social Welfare. The first time I mentioned it to the then Minister, Deputy Woods, I do not think he thought about it. I mentioned it a second time in an Adjournment Matter and he said he would set up a pilot scheme, and to my pleasure it has now been transferred. At least the Department of Social Welfare can say that there are some people who want to get into its clutches. I hope the allowance will be well administered by it.
The transfer of responsibility for the National Social Services Board to the Department of Social Welfare from the Department of Health is to be welcomed as it is in a better position to have a broader view of social services. Being poor or out of work is not an illness; many people could improve their lot if given the facilities and encouragement. The Department of Social Welfare is more suitable to look after the NSSB. I hope its publication, Relate, will continue to be as good; it will be quite a responsibility for the Department to maintain the standard of what is one of the best State publications.
The integration of many social welfare payments is to be welcomed. As Senator Cregan said, he could remember 40 different payments for children some years ago and that figure is now down to eight. Such integration is to be welcomed for lone parents and deserted wives because they are entitled to the same sums of money, and payment should be made as uncomplicated as possible. I do not know exactly what integration means and I look forward to it being explained. I am glad that a woman no longer has to prove that she is deserted as the proof seemed to be a waste of time in a lot of cases.
Some anomalies still remain and the Minister should address them. I pointed out one of them last year and I compliment a former Minister for Education. Deputy O'Rourke, for rectifying it almost immediately. When the FÁS schemes were introduced one had to be on the live register to avail of them. I pointed out to her that lone parents would not be on the register and, therefore, would not be entitled to go on FÁS schemes and that was changed almost immediately. I omitted to point out that deserted wives are not on the register and are not entitled to go on FÁS schemes. If this Minister could implement this change as fast as that Minister implemented the other change I would be extremely pleased. Any deserted wife would like as much as any single parent to make herself economically viable. Only 12 per cent of single mothers are on long term unemployment benefit within five years of the birth of the child — in these times of high unemployment I doubt that is much worse than the father of the child.
Another strange anomaly of the social welfare code relates to job sharing and it arose under the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993. Senator Cregan talked about our underestimation of the work done by women in the home. If a woman job shares she is not eligible for family income supplement. She will already have taken a drop in income in deciding to job share because she feels it is important for her to be at home with her children. Yet, where the family income is low — hers may be the only income — she cannot get family income supplement. I would be grateful if the Minister could rectify that.
Such anomalies are unlikely to be expensive to rectify, and I doubt if anyone set out to create them. They indicate the importance of the recipients of the schemes letting us know the problems they have found with the schemes so that we can make improvements.
There has been a great deal of enthusiasm and effort to involve non-governmental organisations and community schemes in the delivery of social services. From the work I have seen in the NESF this cannot but be encouraged. I was delighted the Combat Poverty Agency got an increase of 25 per cent in funding, and I hope pro rata grant increases will be given to other agencies, such as the Paul Agency in Limerick or the Coolock Community Law Centre in Dublin. I know that improvements have been made in this regard. It is an example of the recipients of social welfare becoming involved with the State, the community and local business in helping themselves. There is an enormous amount of talent among people who are not in employment at present which can be harnessed. We have seen this in many areas and I hope the Government continues with this philosophy.
However, non-governmental organisations and community action groups have a serious problems in this area, that is, getting core funding. I speak with knowledge on this because I am proud to say I am president of Cherish. It is hard to get core funding for long term planning so one knows where one will be in three years. It is, however, less difficult to get money for running programmes, which is good. Many of these organisations have been in existence for years and they are unlikely to run off with funds.
I urge the Minister to try to get the Department to focus on giving core funding to such agencies because it is essential for planning ahead. How can one keep good staff in these jobs — although they may have great social commitment to them — if one cannot say what the plan is for the next five years? It would make such a difference if I could say to Cherish what the plan is for the next five years and that we can set up in Galway, etc., rather than having to say at the most we will get funding for a programme to carry out a training scheme. It is essential that the developments between statutory and non-statutory agencies are given more long term value by allowing them to plan ahead.
There are provisions in the Bill which will encourage and help the long term unemployed to get back to work. The exemption of the first £50 of weekly earnings from PRSI is important because it is ridiculous that people should pay it below that level. The removal of the levies on the lower paid is also worthwhile. One aspect of social welfare regulations which I do not understand is the fact that a person loses one day's social welfare benefit, if they work for one or eight hours, which counts as a day's work regardless. Perhaps a person is only in a position to get three hours work a day, but they cannot take it. This is particularly the case with women who are not in a position to take work because they will lose a day's pay for what may not even be the amount of their social welfare. I would like to see the Minister address that area. The removal of a sense of exclusion and isolation for those who go out to work, as well as the money, is important. Their self esteem is raised because they have landed a job for three hours each week.
We talk a lot about what we are going to do for children. However, the lack of child care facilities for the lower paid taking up employment is a serious problem. I know some young women who were single mothers who went to Northern Ireland on a cross-Border exchange under aegis of Co-operation North. In a way I was sorry that they went because when they came back the first thing they told me was that it cost them £70 per week for private child care here whereas someone in a similar situation in Northern Ireland could get child care for one-tenth of that amount. We must put our money where our month is in these situations. We should provide child care facilities or allow tax relief on a certain amount of the money spent on child care each week. This would perhaps provide more employment in the child care area, which we spoke about on another occasion. It would also raise the status of those involved in child care and bring them into the tax code, because many are outside it at present. It is fine to be outside the tax code when one is employed, but not when one needs to take advantage of social welfare payments in future years.
Changes in the carers allowance are an improvement. While the increase is an improvement, so too is the fact that it is being extended to those on occupational pensions. Many people who worked in the Civil Service or in private companies in the past are on occupational pensions which do not amount to a great deal of money. It was unfortunate that the carer's allowance was not extended to them in the past. Perhaps there should be tax relief for some of the money spent on caring for the elderly. I know people who had to give up quite well paid jobs because they were not in a position to pay for the care of an elderly parent. If they had had some tax relief, a local person might have been able to care for the elderly person.
It is important to look on people as being honest and not to think that they are going to do the system by claiming a carer's allowance which they do not need or do not pay. It would be worthwhile to start from the premise that people who claim are honest and then go from there. As Senator Cregan said, occupational pensions do not amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. We should see if we could extend benefits such as free telephone rental or television licences to those on occupational pensions which are at the same level as recipients of social welfare pensions.
Another area of concern relates to mortgage payments allowances. Those who are unemployed need to claim this allowance as do those who claim rental allowances. The latest figures I could find from 1993 indicated that £10 million was spent on rental allowances, while £45 million was spent on mortgage payment allowances, which seems to be escalating at an enormous rate. Some 80 per cent of houses are owner occupied. People are still encouraged to take out mortgages on a 20 to 25 year basis. This might have been all right in the employment situation which existed in the past but it is not so good today. Many people are on short term employment contracts. There is now a greater problem of people falling in and out of employment due to firms, international ones in particular, setting up in and pulling out of the country. We must look very carefully at this because the State's money is going straight to the banks.
That is right.
A sum of £45 million is a great deal for us to be giving the banks every year. No wonder they do not pursue people as enthusiastically as they did in the courts to foreclose on them, which looked appalling and gave them a very bad name. People who were doing the best they could to meet their repayments had their houses repossessed, even though they appeared to have paid their entire mortgages already. I am not sure how the Minister will deal with that. It should be recognised that this money is going straight to the banks.
I am delighted that there is tax relief on money given to Third World charities. To encourage the Irish population, which is already extraordinarily generous, to give to home charities, perhaps the Minister could consider extending the tax relief at the standard rate on money given to these charities as well.
I commend the Bill and am extremely pleased with some of the changes it proposes.
I welcome the Minister. As a constituency colleague, I sincerely congratulate him on his appointment. This is his just reward for all his years of service to the constituency. I compliment him on this Bill. I support it because it is pro-family, pro-child and pro-employment. It provides for the highest ever increase in social welfare spending. There is to be an increase of £212 million compared to last year's increase of £157 million.
The decision to bring forward the payment of social welfare by six weeks ensures that each social welfare recipient will benefit. In the past the first complaint made to public representatives by recipients was that they had to wait until September or October for their increases whereas they had to pay more in the interim for cigarettes, drink or other items, the prices of which were increased in the budget.
The Bill is pro-family in that it will help to keep families together. One of the briefs of the Department of Social Welfare is to ensure that the family sector is given priority. It does this by increasing children's allowance by 35 per cent or £7 a month, increasing carer's allowance and unemployment assistance for single people and expanding the summer jobs scheme. The Department intends to ensure that the family stays together.
As a person who has been involved with associations which have benefited from the summer jobs scheme, I have felt that it does not come on stream early enough in the year. Students plan their year earlier than many others in that they decide what they want to do in a particular year. The Department must organise the scheme so that the sponsors are known at an early stage in the year and students will be able to find out if there is employment in their areas by contacting sponsors to see if they can provide relevant employment.
The increase in carer's allowance is particularly welcome and is significant. I am very pleased that people who care for pensioners and are not in receipt of social welfare payments will be able to avail of this scheme this year.
The Bill also provides for voluntary and community activity. This ensures that communities can look after their relevant personnel and see that they benefit. The increase of 43 per cent, or £3 million, for such activity will assist the development and progress of communities and help them in their battle against poverty.
The decision to extend the age limit for recipients of long term social welfare payments who are in full time education to 22 years is appreciated.
The Department of Social Welfare, in tandem with the Department of Health, should make an effort to combine the carer's allowance and home help schemes. Some 10,000 home helps have worked for health boards. The one Department should be responsible for both schemes. The home help scheme is seen as a voluntary sector by some health boards. However, it can also be seen — on many occasions I and I am sure other Senators and the Minister have seen this — as being of financial help to households.
A problem is that in some cases the paltry sum involved has not been enough to encourage people to give up their jobs to become home helps. Many women cannot afford to give up jobs, such as working in shops or cleaning offices, to look after relatives. In many cases their husbands are on social welfare and they cannot afford to lose the small amount of money they earn to supplement the social welfare income of their households.
The Department of Health, in liaison with the Department of Social Welfare, should link both schemes so that in some cases relatives could work as home helps. In many cases carers work 24 hours a day to ensure the comfort of sick relatives. If the schemes were linked, the relative would be able to help the carer to have a better understanding of the situation. In many cases the home help comes at a certain time in the morning and stays for the regulated number of hours. As such they are not of benefit to the person being cared for. I hope that in the coming year the Department of Health — I know it is reviewing the home help scheme — would work with the Department of Social Welfare to overcome this problem.
The increase from £10 to £25 in the minimum rate paid to qualified young people in the family home is an incentive for them to live at home rather than in rented accommodation. As we all know, the draw upon relevant health boards due to the subsidised rent scheme could be anything up to £40 million. This demonstrates the relevance of such a family payment which will ensure that a family's sons and daughters have an income of their own.
A terrible aspect of the old system was that a parent would have to see one of their own leaving the household in order to receive payment from the Department of Social Welfare. That was against the whole basis of the society we live in. Previously, assessments included board and lodging, thus irritating many young people and leaving them virtually penniless while trying to seek employment. The expenses incurred in that process meant that many young people had to fall back on their families for support; yet many of them were living in unacceptable conditions. I am glad that this provision has been included by the Minister and I hope that it will be expanded upon in future.
I welcome the 43 per cent increase for the Combat Poverty Agency, an organisation which is doing tremendous work. The agency will avail of that £3 million to improve our society.
Another section of the Bill makes changes to the PRSI system, providing an incentive to employers and employees to ensure a reduction in the numbers of long term unemployed. Free travel and free television have made a difference for carers who previously were not entitled to such benefits. Equality payments are now to be dealt with for good and I compliment the Government on that decision.
Although Senator Cregan does not agree with me. I think the back-to-school footwear and clothing allowances are something that must be continued with. The increases of 14 per cent for each primary school child and 10 per cent for secondary school children are to be commended, although the figures should perhaps be reversed. Since a child attending secondary school has adult tendencies, the increases would be of far greater benefit had they been reversed.
As regards the summer job scheme. I hope it will be possible to ensure that the listing of sponsors will be brought forward at an earlier stage. The listing is important to everyone and should be placed in all colleges and third level institutions so that they are aware of the sponsors in each constituency.
The increase in the child benefit scheme is also welcome. Coming from a constituency where the Defence Forces are one of the mainstays of employment, the fact that the scheme will now cover Defence Forces personnel who are serving overseas is to be welcomed.
The increase in weekly earnings below which the reduced employer's contribution rate of 9 per cent applies has now gone from £173 to £131, which will remove a barrier to personnel seeking employment. A similar provision will apply to people going through the adoptive system, and the fact that the new adoptive benefit will last for a period of ten weeks is an extra benefit.
As well as being pro-employment, the Bill is pro-child and pro-family and thus recognises that, as the basic unit of society, the family is the most important sector in our community. This Bill will help to ensure the continued involvement of the Labour Party in Government by demonstrating that we are a caring party. As a caring society we must make every effort to reduce poverty and to ensure continued growth for family life.
I commend the Bill to the House.
As a constituency colleague of the Minister of State. I congratulate him on his appointment and hope that he has a long tenure.
Thank you very much.
I wish to join in congratulating the Minister of State, Deputy Durkan, whom I have known for many years. We are nearly always the last two out of the House in the evening. I know that the Minister has been committed to his constituency work and I am sure that he will bring the same level of commitment to his work in the Department. I spent a term in that Department and the Minister can be assured of having at his disposal a dedicated and committed staff who are professionals in their area. With expert knowledge at their disposal they are in a position to advise Ministers what they can and cannot do. This applies not only in the Department itself but equally to the committed and dedicated staff in the Department's regional offices, who work under great pressure. In my experience of over 20 years in the Oireachtas, I have always found the staff at every level in the Department of Social Welfare to be helpful, committed and diligent in their work. They endeavour to work within the political constraints that are placed upon them by yourself, Minister, and by others.
I wish to change my stance slightly here and say that the perception is that this budget has been miserly, especially in view of the expectations that many people had. I do not entirely blame this Government yet because, as many people will know, there are features of this Bill and its proposals which were being planned by the previous administration. Much of the work had gone into the preparation of the necessary detail before the change of Government. There are features of this Bill with which I would agree.
The Minister, Deputy De Rossa, criticised the Government's jet and the ministerial cars and advisers, but before he was a week in Government he was into the system. If ever there was a poacher turned gamekeeper, the Minister is one. It is not unusual for Democratic Left to make such transformations. However, the people who supported them are totally disillusioned. He was made aware of that during his recent radio broadcast when criticisms were made of his policies and the miserly way in which the Government is treating the less well off sections of our community was highlighted in no uncertain terms. I hope that he got the message and will take some action on it and that we will not see a total abandonment by Democratic Left of everything and everybody they supported and advocated here in the past number of years. I suggested earlier today that perhaps it is time that they thought about changing the name of the party to Democratic Right, as that seems to be the road which they are now travelling.
With regard to the provisions of the Bill, there are some matters with which I believe the Minister of State may be able to deal. He will be aware that over a number of years a very grave disservice has been done to many pensioners. They felt a certain grievance at the fact that contributions which they had made before a certain date — I think it was 1953 or 1954 — were not taken into account in the calculation of their pensions. It must be borne in mind that these people were very committed and dedicated to their work. They worked extremely long years and the record of insurance in relation to these previous years is there. It is not a case of some notional figure which cannot be arrived at.
I know that the previous Minister looked at how this might be taken care of in a review which took place in the Department. Unfortunately, many of the people who were involved in that campaign are no longer with us; they passed away without having resolved that issue. Perhaps, even at this late stage, as it still affects quite a number of people, it might be possible to see whether that grievance can be remedied. Some of the regulations proposed in this Bill, to which I will refer later, might be utilised to find a method to deal with this.
I compliment the Department on the summer work scheme for students. As we all know, this was introduced in an effort to save some money in the Department. However, the scheme has worked very successfully and I welcome the recent improvements which have been made to it. The Minister of State should look very positively at continuing that scheme on an all year round basis. Students come off this scheme but there is still a category of young people who find it very difficult to gain employment. They could be gainfully employed by these schemes if they were extended on an all year basis. Very little in the way of mechanisms or finance would be required to undertake that.
I wish to refer to the taxation of students' summer jobs which they largely undertake to get work experience related to their study. They are very heavily taxed at a time when they are endeavouring to pay their way through college. The Minister of State is aware that most families, with very few exceptions, find it very difficult to put students through college. Many students who undertake employment during the summer months in an effort to earn money for university fees, accommodation and so on are very heavily taxed and it takes quite a while before the tax is refunded. Balancing statements have been sent out in some cases where refunds of tax of up to £500 and £600 for the summer period were not made. This is a source of extreme difficulty for students who try to meet their university bills.
I will not make a big issue of that as it is probably a matter for the Minister for Finance rather than the Minister of State for Social Welfare. However, in the review which is being undertaken of the correlating of social welfare and taxation records, which should be finished by now, they might look at the taxation of students and student co-op schemes through the universities and find a way in which this could be minimised, probably along the lines of the summer job scheme.
Tributes have already been paid here to the work of the Combat Poverty Agency. We criticised it from time to time, largely because we felt that it was getting involved in areas for which it did not have responsibility. But by and large, it has done very good work and there are quite a number of projects which it is very interested in following through. I hope that it will become more involved in the regions; it tends to be regarded as a mainly city oriented organisation. The Minister of State will be aware that there is quite an amount of poverty in some rural areas and small towns, where moneylenders inflict misery on many families. The Combat Poverty Agency has done some work in that regard and the Minister has taken an initiative there which I want to see expanded.
Arrangements have been made on a partnership basis and home management schemes have been put in place and funded by the Department in a number of pilot schemes. These could be extended. We should find an effective way to eliminate and penalise the moneylenders who have wreaked havoc on many families who find it very difficult to survive. I compliment the Department on its work on these pilot projects, one of which has been operating in Kilrush. We would like to see some more transparency in relation to their activities and work. We know that they exist, but there is very little public awareness of their work. Perhaps the Minister of State might publish a report on their activities, or give us some indication of their involvement. I know that they are involved in the money management schemes which are run in co-operation with credit unions, the local St. Vincent de Paul Society and so on. Their very valuable work has been relatively under-appreciated and unnoticed. I hope that the Minister of State will take an interest in these, highlight their work and provide additional funding. I want to see the pilot schemes continue and I hope that they could be extended nationally.
The grant scheme for voluntary bodies, which has been a feature of the social welfare budget in recent years, is most welcome. I compliment the Minister of State on extending this and providing additional money for it this year. This is grant aid support for voluntary bodies working with less well off people and dealing with some of the problems I mentioned, such as moneylenders and bad financial and home management. These are very important matters and the voluntary grants scheme which the Minister has been providing has been of immense value to the voluntary organisations in helping them to provide the basic facilities to enable these schemes to develop and be effective. Up to now these schemes have been a tremendous success, and again one which the Department has not been highlighting to a large extent. These are some of the advantageous projects in which the Department has been involved and which could be made more effective.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Was the review of the carer's allowance which was under way some time ago completed? Some of the improvements in the Bill are directed towards easing the means test for the allowance and providing extensions. However, there were great expectations surrounding the introduction of the carer's allowance and many people were disappointed and disillusioned with the way the scheme developed. Perhaps the Minister will publish the review if it has been completed and let us know if it has indicated the manner in which the allowance should be managed from hereon.
In many respects, widows feel they have been unfairly treated under this budget, as in many previous budgets. While the allocation provided to deal with equality payments addresses the issue for many women, it creates further problems and anomalies for others. For example, widows in receipt of a widow's pension, as is their entitlement under the contributory pension scheme, are also entitled to half the disability benefits arising from their entitlement to claim disability benefit because they are not in a position to work. The expectation of many of these women is that they should be entitled to the full rate of disability benefit payment rather than half the payment, which is the position at present. Will the Minister of State indicate the volume of cases where further anomalies will arise with further disadvantage and discrimination being created for groups of women who expected that the equality payments would solve their difficulties? Where these women receive half the disability payment, will the Minister of State provide an assurance that they will receive full payments?
It often baffles me how the family income supplement is calculated. It is so complex and involved that it even deterred many people from claiming it. It is the experience of the Department that on many occasions the substantial funding provided for the supplement has not been drawn down. I am not aware if this situation has been remedied or if the full supplement is being drawn down. I understand that the Minister of State, or his predecessor, may have undertaken an advertisement campaign to highlight the scheme. One way to resolve this issue is to reduce the bureaucracy attached to the supplement and make it easier for people to qualify and claim it. Perhaps the Minister will address this when replying to the debate.
It appears that the Minister is attempting to achieve a basic minimum income for the unemployed. I am unsure if that is his objective or when he anticipates attaining it. Pitching this income at a very low rate would be an unsatisfactory approach. To a large extent, this relates to the ongoing campaign in the UK regarding the basic minimum wage. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the Government's priority with regard to this issue.
Many families who have elderly relatives in residential care or welfare homes are severely drained financially because of the burden of meeting large bills. These elderly people are in institutions, semi-private or private, because of the State's inability to provide the necessary beds and facilities, but no tax allowances or exemptions are granted to those paying these bills and they are finding the financial strain almost intolerable. The Minister must be aware of this category of people. Will he say how he proposes to deal with this issue?
Even though these institutions care for elderly people, they cannot get the benefit of free television licences and electricity, and this is one of the reasons they are so expensive. Will the Minister provide free electricity for institutions caring for old age pensioners because these people would be entitled to all these services if they were living in their own homes? This would relieve some of the pressures which force these institutions to charge such high fees.
I appreciate the attention to children shown in the budget and the Bill and the necessity for having a basic income for children by implementing systematic improvements in the child benefit scheme. The Minister should consider establishing a special child benefit fund, perhaps along the lines of the insurance fund, which would deal with specific hardship cases where the existing range of services is not capable of meeting and responding efficiently and quickly to these demands.
My attention has been increasingly drawn in recent times to the huge numbers of young people who are on the streets in this city and some of the bigger towns begging for money. I do not believe all of them are forced on to the streets, that somebody puts them there or that they are being used by others to collect money. I believe many of them are on the streets out of necessity. It is tragic to see the huge increase in the numbers of young children and teenagers who are now seeking financial assistance on the streets, especially at night. Some time the State services must look at what happens after office hours. Will the Minister of State consider establishing a special team to investigate this problem and see how it can be addressed? Despite those comments, we support the welcome contribution the Bill is making towards directing and focusing more attention on children and their needs.
I question the impact which section 13 will have and urge that the provisions in section 15 be expedited. Under this section, the Minister provides for adult dependant allowances to be addressed. However, he proposes another study which will cause delay and these matters should be proceeded with more speedily.
There are a number of provisions in sections 17 to 23 which are cost cutting measures. Some delay the expenditure involved in some provisions while others could be used as devices to curtail expenditure. Perhaps the Minister of State would indicate how many of the provisions in the Bill are really hidden methods of finding ways to cut back on payments. I am concerned about provisions for regulations to be made with regard to certain matters. While we have the opportunity to debate Bills in this House, we rarely get the opportunity to look at regulations. Regulations can often be damaging and they only come to light when people experience deprivation of some benefit they enjoyed previously. I hope to discuss this matter with the Minister on Committee Stage.
Some of the proposals in this Bill are reasonable and sensible. By and large, however, I must confess to a feeling of outrage and disillusionment at the lack of any real effort to tackle the problem of poverty in society. This Bill is a poor effort on the part of the new Government. It will be tolerated because the Government is fairly new in office. However, the patience of the people will not last indefinitely. They want to see that this Administration has a real commitment to the less well off sections of our community which would be demonstrated, not by 2.5 per cent increases with restrictions and complications but by a meaningful and decent effort to pay substantial payments to those who are caught in poverty and who are deprived and handicapped in many respects. People will want to see the Government taking positive action much quicker than has been the case up to now.
We are prepared to delay judgment on the Minister of State for a while. However, we are not prepared to give much time to his Minister.
I welcome the Minister of State and I congratulate him on his appointment to this Department. I shared an office with the Minister for almost eight years and there is nobody more competent to deal with social welfare issues in fine detail. The Minister is familiar with the details of social welfare and its defects. He was always able to argue the defects and difficulties with the powers that be in that Department. We are lucky to have his knowledge and expertise in the Department and his experience is evident from the detail of this Bill. The Bill attempts to address many of the inconsistencies and difficulties in the social welfare code.
It is frightening to think that almost 1.4 million people in this country are dependent on social welfare. That is an enormous number; it is almost 40 per cent of our population. Social welfare payments come from those who are working and generating income. These payments are a huge drain on the Exchequer. We must recognise the enormity of these figures. The Minister's task in the Department of Social Welfare is to contain the problem and address the issue of poverty. It is an enormous task which many people do not appreciate. People just accept that the Department of Social Welfare is there to hand out money. They do not appear to be concerned with where the money comes from and how it is disbursed until, of course, they are directly affected by it.
Many sections of this Bill are welcome. I particularly welcome the section that deals with unemployment assistance for dependent persons living at home. There are many cases of young people living at home who because of their parents' income receive small amounts of unemployment assistance. Their parents' income is assessed against them even though the young people have reached the age of majority. The result is that many such young people are forced to rent flats and draw rent allowances from the health board to pay for their accommodation. In effect, this costs the State a great deal of money.
The provision in this Bill is welcome because it will go some way towards preventing a continuation of that trend. The trend exists throughout the country. We constantly see young people being obliged to leave their homes, because they will not receive full unemployment assistance if they remain at home with their parents. If they rent a flat they will receive the full social welfare allowance in addition to health board assistance for payment of rent. I hope this provision will arrest that trend. I also hope that this is just the beginning of further consideration of this matter and that it will also be dealt with in the Social Welfare Bills of the next two years. The Department could save a great deal of money if the person was assessed in his or her own right and if the person's income was not reduced by huge amounts because of the parents' income.
In many instances these adults are in an invidious position. They are dependent on their parents. In some cases the parents are generous, accommodating and understanding. However, in other cases parents can be lacking in understanding and may refuse to give any assistance. Yet these people are being treated as if they are being provided with substantial assistance by their parents. Once the person has reached the age of majority his or her position as an individual must be taken into consideration.
There also does not appear to be a uniform approach by all social welfare officers. When assessing somebody who is living at home, one social welfare officer might reduce the assistance by £20 per week, another might reduce it by £12 per week while a third might reduce it by up to £35 per week. There are huge discrepancies across the country. A common code is necessary for such assessments. Nevertheless, the increase from a minimum of £10 to £25 in this section is welcome and will do much to defuse a situation that currently has got out of control.
We hear much criticism from the Opposition of the 2.5 per cent increase in basic social welfare allowances. However, nobody is highlighting the fact that the allowances will be paid in mid June rather than at the end of July, as was the case in previous years. Social welfare beneficiaries will receive their increase six weeks earlier. The net effect is——
Ten pounds for the year.
——a 3 per cent increase rather than a 2.5 increase when earlier payment is taken into account. The leader of the Opposition, when Minister for Finance, stated that 3 per cent was the ideal increase and that is what the Minister is introducing in this Bill.
I also welcome the section providing for changes in the PRSI system. It is extremely important. With our huge dependence on social welfare we must do something to encourage people back into employment and to encourage employers to provide work for employees. The change in the PRSI system in this Bill will make it more attractive for employers to take on employees. It will also make it more attractive for people on social welfare to go back into employment. We are fully aware of the reluctance on the part of many social welfare recipients to go back to work because by doing so they would become worse off in real terms. This section is extremely welcome and it shows the Minister and the Department are thinking about how to address the realities.
The increase in long term unemployment assistance is welcome and well deserved. It indicates the Government recognises the severe problems and difficulties experienced by the long term unemployed. Also welcome is the increase in the age limit for allowances for children in full-time education from 21 to 22 years of age. There may not be many children of the unemployed from that age group in full-time education, nevertheless the Government has acknowledged the need to extend the allowance.
The Bill is oriented towards improving the position of children. The Government has taken to heart the poverty that exists in large families, as is evident from the substantial increases in the child benefit allowances. This is important for the lower income groups and those on social welfare. I am delighted the Minister announced he would put in place a child benefit scheme. He has recognised that where severe poverty exists children are usually involved, and they can be the most acutely affected. I hope he is in a position to develop this in the future. The position of children is extremely important and a child will only get a fair and decent chance if he or she gets a good start in life. This budget has given an unprecedented increase in child benefit allowance and I commend the Government for that. I hope they can continue those improvements, especially for those on low income or receiving social welfare.
The announcement about the carer's allowance is welcome. Many people are being cared for by relatives, and in some instances friends, but unfortunately these carers did not get any benefit from the State, primarily because they did not fall into the right category. I am delighted the Minister has extended the carer's allowance to pensions other than social welfare pensions. Many people from the public service have retired on quite small pensions, sometimes only equal to social welfare pensions, and did not qualify for a carer's allowance. They now will be eligible.
Some years ago there was much publicity about an increase in the carer's allowance and many people thought they might be eligible for the scheme. On this occasion the measure has been prudently announced and managed; not everyone can be included but those who are most in need have been made eligible. We hope in years to come this can be expanded further and that the earning limit for those who provide the income for the carer's allowance can be increased also.
In some instances, particularly in rural areas, sons and daughters may be receiving social welfare and also minding aged parents. Some of them stay at home because there is no other choice. In the past one son or daughter remained on a small farm and did not qualify for the carer's allowance but needed some financial assistance. Consideration must be given to those people.
The increase in the students summer jobs schemes is also welcome. The Minister announced that this year they can receive a total payment of £600, compared to £540 last year. This is a move in the right direction. Many students, particularly those who do not come from a university town, badly need money to maintain themselves in residences when they go to study. I do not want to get into a debate about the grant scheme and the fees, but this scheme will go some way towards assisting those who do not reside in university towns. In future budgets the Minister should consider those who have to rent accommodation in such towns; the cost works out at a minimum of £90 per week. While this budget dealt with the fees, the maintenance issue must be addressed in future budgets. This section of the Social Welfare Bill will help those who find themselves in this invidious position.
When discussing this Bill we must remember job creation. Long-term unemployment poses a serious problem. Recently the National Economic and Social Forum published a report on the long term unemployed and the Department should examine its recommendations for getting those people back to work. Some aspects of the report could be usefully assessed by the Department.
I welcome section 13, dealing with maternity benefit, which also provides that this can be awarded to fathers, following the Maternity Protection Act passed here some months ago. Perhaps he can expand this in the future. Fathers should not just get benefit because the mother of the child dies within 14 weeks. Either the father or the mother should opt for the leave, it should not necessarily always be the mother who takes the leave. There is an opportunity for shared leave, so that the 14 weeks can be divided between the parents. This may be a dramatic suggestion and the more chauvinist may find this farfetched, but until fathers take equal responsibility for their children and the Government gives such an opportunity, it will always appear that the onus rests on the mother to care for children. We divide ourselves into providers and carers. The mother always takes responsibility as the carer and the chauvinist earns the bread. We should rethink that position in the future. The Minister, with his expertise and knowledge in that area, will fully appreciate what I am talking about.
I welcome the announcement of tax free allowances to generate money to combat poverty by helping Third World fund raising. I hope the Minister will consider all those organisations in this country who do valid fund raising. There are 77 of them and they generate employment for 60,000 people. The Minister might consider these agencies and organisations for tax allowances on the contributions made for the very good work they do. This is an important aspect which needs consideration by the Government and I hope the Minister will see fit to have the matter examined in the future.
In a very short time this Government, the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, and the Minister of State, Deputy Durkan, have done an extremely fine job in putting together a Social Welfare Bill that incorporates so many aspects and which, in effect, addresses many of the inconsistencies and pitfalls which have existed in the social welfare code over the years. In the first Bill they presented to this House, they have successfully addressed many areas of difficulty and are definitely proceeding in the right direction in relation to children, the long term unemployed and those who are most severely and harshly hit in the poverty trap. I commend them for the work they are doing and fully support the Bill.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and wish him well in his new portfolio. I know he is very enthusiastic and committed to this area and I have no doubt he will work very hard to bring about the many changes we would all like to see in the Department of Social Welfare. It is a difficult area and I am sure it will take a while to come to grips with all the areas involved. However, I have no doubt that, with his enthusiasm, he will do a lot while he is there.
The Bill provides for the increases in social welfare payments from early to mid-June as announced in the budget. It also provides for a number of other improvements in social welfare schemes. It provides for the introduction of an adoptive benefit scheme and extends the carer's allowance scheme to carers of incapacitated persons aged 66 or over who are not in receipt of social welfare payments. This is very welcome. It also provides for changes in the rates of PRSI contributions payable by employers, employees and the self-employed. The Bill gives legal effect to the whole package of social welfare measures which were announced on budget day, at an estimated cost of £215 million, and will bring the total social welfare payout this year to over £4 billion, a huge amount by any standard.
One of the important provisions in this year's Bill is the payment of the equality money due to thousands of women. I sincerely welcome this announcement. Even though the women were legally entitled to this payment, they had to campaign for a long number of years to get a response and a promise of payment. However, I am a little concerned about how the Government is proposing to make this payment. I ask the Minister to outline in some detail how it is proposed to do this. I know the local loans fund is being used but I am not sure of the exact details.
The Minister said that 1.4 million people in this country are wholly dependent on social welfare payments. If we acknowledge this we see that many of these people are living in poverty for most of their lives and this can lead to the marginalisation of a huge section of the population. Many of these people experience poverty and social exclusion on a long term basis. Some of them have, or believe they have, little hope of getting out of the social welfare system. This is regrettable because if people do not see themselves participating in the economic activities of the country, not only do they not have sufficient income, but they feel excluded. This is obvious in other areas such as housing, education and health.
The Social Welfare Bill is the main way of addressing the needs of people on social welfare once a year. We must look at what the Bill is doing for these 1.4 million people. To give them credit, the Minister and the Minister of State have addressed a large number of areas in the Bill. Given the economic circumstances, I am sure they are doing the best they can. I welcome particularly their efforts in relation to child benefit. An ESRI report published last year showed that one of the best ways of tackling poverty in families with children was to increase child benefit. The Commission on the Status of Women, of which I was a member, recommended that child benefit should be substantially increased. When we have limited resources and huge demands, as we have with such a large proportion of our population dependent on social welfare, targeting is obviously the way we have to go. I am not saying all the provisions in the Bill should be cast aside; many of them are very welcome.
I welcome section 16 which provides that social welfare assistance will be payable at the long term rate in the case of a claimant who was previously in receipt of the lone parents allowance. I welcome the section to which Senator Taylor-Quinn referred where there is an increase from £10 to £25 in the minimum weekly rate of unemployment assistance payable to single people living at home. We are all concerned about the number of young people moving out of the family home in order to qualify for full social welfare benefit and claiming rent allowance from the community welfare officers, which is a large drain on the social welfare system. This is a difficult problem. I talked to the previous Minister for Social Welfare about how we were effectively forcing people to move out of the family home in order to get the full rate of social welfare. What is being done in this Bill is very welcome. When single people are getting the full rate of social welfare benefit and a sometimes substantial rent allowance, it can act as a disincentive to taking up work. They would need to earn a good basic wage before they would be better off without social welfare and their rent allowance.
Last week I spoke with a young person who is on a community employment scheme. She is living in a flat and her rent allowance was reduced because she is on a community employment scheme. She ended up with effectively the same amount of money she had when she was on social welfare and had a full rent allowance. I found it difficult to explain this to her. She found it difficult to understand why, in monetary terms, she was not getting more than when she was not working. Obviously the community employment scheme is work and she is delighted to be on it but this is a difficulty. I realise that, because there are so many categories in the social welfare system and so many difficulties, it will be extremely difficult to arrive at a stage where everybody is happy.
We have not discussed social welfare in this House since the last Social Welfare Bill. A long term strategy for social welfare should be outlined to us. During the year, when we are not discussing the actual provisions of the Social Welfare Bill, we should have an opportunity to discuss social welfare generally in this House. I was going to ask the Minister about the group in his Department which is working on the integration of tax and social welfare. He said this morning that he is expecting the report to be published this year. We might then have an opportunity to discuss the social welfare system away from the actual Social Welfare Bill. We could get the philosophy of the Government on where social welfare is going and what strategy is being adopted to improve the lot of many people who are forced to live on social welfare. Obviously, we would like our social policy to assist individuals to take care of themselves as far as possible and to perform a useful role in society. However, we have to look at innovative combinations of work and welfare to achieve that goal.
The whole social welfare scene is changing. There used to be full employment. When people started work at 16 or 17 years of age they remained with the same employer for the rest of their working lives. They contributed to pension schemes, which became their income when they retired. However, the workforce is changing. Few people now start work at 17 or 18 years of age and remain in that job until they finish. Unfortunately, many will be made redundant or become unemployed. They will be in the social welfare system for a number of years before going back to part-time or contract work. We must examine the changes which are necessary in order to cater for the needs which now exist. The workplace and social welfare systems need to be changed to address current problems.
Part III of the Bill, sections 6 to 10, provide for changes relating to the payment of social insurance contributions. These include an exemption limit from the payment of PRSI in respect of the first £50 of weekly earnings and in the case of self-employed people in respect of the first £520 of annual income. The Minister has also provided for an increase in the income threshold below which the reduced rate of 9 per cent contribution will apply. There is a further provision in the Bill for an ongoing employers' PRSI exemption scheme.
The priority of the Progressive Democrats is to increase sustainable employment and reduce unemployment. This is a priority shared by all political parties. From looking at the characteristics of the labour market, we believe that reducing the cost of employing lower paid workers, in particular, relative to the cost of production is one way of reducing unemployment. The structure of the current PRSI system tends to be regressive and increases the cost of low paid labour more than that of high paid labour.
Any tax which makes the greatest impact on unskilled labour has two distinct disadvantages in seeking, as we all seek, to reduce the level of unemployment in this country. Workers classed as unskilled are over represented on the live register. Such workers are potential employees in very cost sensitive areas. Employers in this area must operate in a most competitive market and any reduction in employers' PRSI liability is to be welcomed. However, we must go further.
Unemployed people still consider it a risk to take up low paid employment. They are afraid if they move off social welfare and into low paid employment that they will lose secondary benefits. They feel secure at present because they know what they will get. They have their medical card and other benefits and they are terrified of losing them. I am aware of this from my experience of people coming to me. For example, they may be employed, but work in seasonal jobs or are made redundant. They go onto social welfare, but cannot get a medical card because of what they earned for half the year. Many of these people are in very difficult situations and they often come to me and say that it is hardly worth their while going back to work again. Nobody wants this type of situation. This area should be examined. It is most important that it is made easier for people to move in and out of the workforce when a work opportunity arises.
People come to me looking for medical cards because they have become unemployed. I examine what they have earned for perhaps nine months of the year and I tell them that medical cards are given on the basis of a means test, which is what the health board must go by. People say it would be great if they could have a medical card just for the few months that they are out of work. Many of these people are women with very young children, who tend to visit the doctor frequently. Many of them are concerned about these issues when they are considering going back to work. When one mentions having all these details on computer, to see when people move in and out of the workplace and giving people who are out of work secondary benefits, such as medical cards even for the few months they are unemployed, some people say it would be a Big Brother type scenario.
However, I am concerned about genuine people who want to try to improve their lot and work when they get an opportunity but who are scared of doing so. We should consider how we can help these people. I am not overly concerned about somebody who has a medical card and who then gets a wonderful job and is well able to pay their medical expenses. Many of these people can hold on to their medical cards until the review date comes up. One is supposed to notify the health board, but I doubt if many people do so. Unfortunately, we are all inclined to look for something and it is difficult to give it up once we have it.
We must try to devise some such system in order to be fair to everybody. Otherwise, people will not take up job opportunities which arise. We will continue to listen to employers talking about the difficulties of getting people to take up low paid jobs. We should also try to bring about a change in our attitude towards work. Certain jobs in this country are considered desirable. One almost considers it something to boast about if one has a certain job, whereas other jobs are not considered smart.
I have noticed recently that most of the staff in restaurants in Dublin tend to be foreigners. These are young people and students in Ireland for a number of months and they are quite prepared to work in these places. I cannot understand why it is not considered smart enough for many Irish people to work there. We have an attitude to certain categories of jobs. For example, if one works in the bank it is considered that one has a good job. However, it is not something to boast about if one is doing something which we consider is not smart enough and which is not considered an attractive job to take up. We should try to change our attitudes.
I went to the United States when I was a student and worked as a waitress for the summer. All the students there, including American students, did such work. It was not something one felt one should not be doing. I worked as a chambermaid in a hotel, but not many people would consider that ideal. Our whole attitude to work is open to question. I wonder if we as politicians are giving out the feeling that certain jobs are worth having, while others are not, and that one would almost be better off on the dole.
We should encourage people to work, regardless of the type of job, and make them believe that participating in the economic activity of the country is worthwhile. This must be encouraged, because otherwise we will never see an end to the problem of unemployment. The benefits to people from getting up every day and going out to work are enormous. It is not just the financial benefits, rather that the wellbeing of people improves when they are in the workforce.
I welcome the improvements under the child benefit sections of the Bill. The Minister mentioned child benefit and the child benefit supplement. However, we should move away from child dependency allowance and just pay child benefit for all children. This would effectively reduce poverty traps and also make the movement from social welfare back into the workforce much easier.
The Minister talked about the integration of the tax and social welfare systems and how he hoped to have the report published later on this year. He also said that if any of us had suggestions in that regard, we might come forward with them. The Progressive Democrats believe that mainstream policies aimed at integration include better adaptation of social programmes to avoid poverty and unemployment traps and unemployment compensation linked to training, job creation and incentives to work. Training is very important. The ESRI report published last year showed that the further people go in the educational process, the better chance they have of participating in the workforce.
Do we actually know what skills the unemployed have and what categories they fall into? Do we know what we should be training people to do so as to fulfil employer demand? Where are the jobs that people need workers to fill? I am interested to know whether the Department of Social Welfare has categorised people on the live register as to their skills and training.
A policy of equal opportunities is also very important because many women have been excluded from the workforce. We must take account of women's skills and needs in the labour market and in society generally. We also need to look at more flexible pension arrangements to allow for variable retirement ages and for a combination of retirement and part time working. It is also important to integrate disabled people into the mainstream of society and encourage them to participate in the workforce. Better training and education in areas where there is demand for workers should be looked at.
In Ireland we have a very high dependency rate. I understand that for every ten people working in this country there are 22 dependent people, whereas in Denmark for every ten people working there are ten dependent people. In Ireland, therefore, those in the workplace are supporting a very large group of people who are not working. If we look at the changes that will take place in the structure of our society over the years, we see that in the next 25 years the number of people over 66 is expected to increase by approximately 50 per cent, and with the fall in the birth rate even fewer people will be in the workforce generating an income to support those people dependent on pensions and social welfare payments, etc. When we are looking at a strategy for the social welfare area we have to take account of these changes that will definitely come about.
I wanted to raise some other issues which the Minister spoke about this morning. I already asked the Minister about the integration of the tax and social welfare systems. Under the household budget scheme, introduced in the Department of Social Welfare on a pilot basis, social welfare recipients can have deductions for their rent and ESB etc. made from their social welfare payments at source. I wish to ask the Minister how that scheme is progressing and what plans there are for its extension. There may have been some difficulties in that deductions could only be made under this scheme where recipients were receiving a social welfare payment from a computerised post office. I understand that the Department was making funding available to ensure that all post offices were computerised so that the programme could be extended on a national basis. The whole household budget scheme is a very welcome one within the Department and the early indications were that it would be extremely successful, but I wish to ask the Minister about progress there.
The other area that I know is being examined in the Department is the whole area of the black economy. Many people are concerned about this. Employers operating in the mainstream economy are concerned that those operating in the black economy make it very difficult for legitimate businesses to compete in the marketplace. I know the Department would be concerned about that too and I also know there is an ongoing investigation into employers throughout the country to see that they are operating effectively in deducting PRSI and PAYE payments and that this unfair competition does not arise.
I wish to ask the Minister about the VTOS scheme. How many people are involved in that? I understand that this scheme has been very successful. There was one other question. I know the Minister is reducing the levies on maintenance payments between spouses who are separated, but the basic PRSI element is still payable. That is unfair and I would like him to make a statement on that. As politicians, we have a duty to produce a long term strategy to limit poverty and I ask the Minister if he could outline the plans in the Department to produce that strategy.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I wish him well in his new portfolio. Hopefully, I will see him in Letterkenny on Monday night where he is coming to launch our new newsletter, which incidentally has been produced by a member of the staff up there in Letterkenny.
I will begin by praising the staff in the Department of Social Welfare at county and national level. These people must be complimented for the work they have done in recent years to make the system more user friendly. When the general public come to people within the social welfare service with problems — the social welfare area is sometimes very hard to understand — the staff there deal with them quickly and efficiently. Problems are usually solved speedily. The staff in the offices throughout the country as a whole are doing a very good job and deserve to be complimented.
Many problems were addressed in the budget and the Social Welfare Bill is a continuation of the improvements made in the budget. I will deal with a few of them in my contribution. I welcome the decision taken by the Government in regard to the 70,000 women who are due payments as a result of the equal treatment legislation. These people waited a long time for this payment and I am delighted that the Government has now found the money to pay them. Having listened to some of the Opposition spokespersons discussing financial issues here, it is hard to believe that they have only been out of Government for a few short weeks. Now they see everything wrong with the system. I have no doubt that most women will appreciate the fact that this Government has decided to pay the outstanding arrears due to them this year and I congratulate the Minister and the Government on this initiative.
If the previous Ministers for Social Welfare — most of them were Fianna Fáil Ministers — had dealt with the issue in 1979, the cost would have been something like £18 million and we would not have had the situation over the past number of years where women were forced to go into court to get their entitlements. We now have a bill of £260 million. This is a ridiculous situation which should have been dealt with at the time. Unfortunately, it was not.
In relation to the child benefit increases, the child benefit section of the Department is based in Letterkenny. It is one of the decentralised social welfare offices and is very welcome there. It brought a large number of jobs to Letterkenny. The increase of £7 is welcome because this benefit goes straight to women and the children they are looking after. It is marvellous that the Government has recognised that families need help and I am delighted to see that decent increases are being given this time. Everybody recognises the importance of child benefit. The increase brings child benefit payments to £27 per month for the first two children and £32 per month for subsequent children, but it does not end there. I welcome the decision to extend it to include 18 year olds in full time education, 18 year olds with disabilities and people on certain FÁS courses. It has made a contribution to addressing the problem of poverty and of people caught in the poverty trap. It is also significant that it is paid to women, who are the mainstay of the household, who manage finances in difficult circumstances and try to keep families in a state of reasonable comfort. When the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil were in Government there was an increase in child benefits of £20 per month and I complimented that decision. They have been further increased in the budget. I believe this gets to the heart of the problem.
The budget was examined in a fair way. The Minister said it was one of three budgets this Government intended introducing before the next general election containing three main objectives. The first was reward for work; second, the promotion of enterprise; and, third, the strengthening of social solidarity. He said that work is the key to our success. I have said on numerous occasions that this Government and the last one will be judged at the next election by the way in which they tackled the unemployment problem.
We create wealth for society through work and we must see that those at work are appropriately rewarded. However, we must also provide opportunities for those without work to get back to it. A man told me recently that he did a job training programme, a building course. When he had finished the course he was asked if he had learned anything and he replied that he now knew what kind of work he was out of. We must do all we can to provide work for people who have skills and who are learning skills through the FÁS courses.
There is a major problem with the black economy. One sometimes senses an unpleasant attitude of worker versus social welfare man. However, we must do all we can to ensure the black economy is tackled and that the system is not defrauded to any great degree.
This year alone the Department of Social Welfare will cost £2 billion, £801 million of which will be allocated to unemployment assistance. It is only a slight reduction on 1994, but I hope the reduction continues. It constitutes almost 37 per cent of total expenditure under the Estimate — we spend 37 per cent of our social welfare expenditure on unemployment payments. We will have to look at what prevents us increasing employment or what produces unemployment. A major social evil is the plight of the long term unemployed. We have 135,000 people in this category at present, some of whom are unemployed for much longer than a year. What hope have they of getting a job? Many men of around 50 years of age who are unemployed have given up hope of getting work at this stage.
We have had many schemes to solve our unemployment problems. We have had Leader, county enterprise boards, partnership programmes, FÁS, county development officers and the new localised unemployment services announced a number of weeks ago and there are now centres for the unemployed. Yet unemployment remains our greatest social evil and will have to be tackled. All Governments are to blame and this one will be no different. If we are to be serious about tackling the unemployment problem and reducing the amount of social welfare payments we must look at the structures we have set up for job creation in recent years to see if they are working. I get the impression that we have far too many bodies and boards and one should ask if they are delivering.
Fianna Fáil seems to have developed an obsession about the percentage increases in the general social welfare payments, but I remind it that every increase Fianna Fáil gave in social welfare was always at the expense of cutbacks in other areas of social welfare. When Deputy McCreevy, the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Finance, was Minister for Social Welfare he introduced the famous "dirty dozen" social welfare cuts. People who worked in the trade union field saw that the cuts were a major problem, especially for low paid workers whose benefits were cut dramatically. This Government is still trying to overcome the effects of these cuts, which were felt by workers and married women. Fianna Fáil has not been forgiven for that yet, but this Government has gone a long way in overturning most of the cuts. There are significant improvements in all areas of social welfare in the recent budget, and I commend the Government for them.
At a meeting of Donegal County Council last Monday we had to listen to a lot of nonsense from the Fianna Fáil members questioning where the Government got the money for the equality payments to married women due to them for many years. If one looks at the Dáil Order Papers over the past few days it is loaded with questions from Fianna Fáil Deputies asking when payments will be made and how many will benefit. They cannot have it both ways. The party was spreading false and incorrect information about the effects of the disposal of a portion of the local loans fund and it should not pour petrol on the fire at this stage. It will not change the relationship, the rate of payment, the length of time over which payments are made or the interest rate of payment. The only difference will be that instead of paying the money to the Department of Finance it will be paid to the agency which takes over that portion of the local loans fund which the Government has decided it may dispose of Fianna Fáil should discontinue such scaremongering.
I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the innovative decisions taken in this budget and I commend the Bill to the House.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and wish him well. Approximately 1.3 million people are in receipt of social welfare in one form or another and, therefore, it is not an area we can deal with lightly. We have to look at social welfare payments in a national context, how they fit into the national economy and how they might improve employment prospects.
I was in Brussels earlier this week and I was taken aback when a senior Commission official told the parliamentary group that it took a meeting in Brussels to bring together officials from the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Enterprise and Employment. As far as he was concerned, introductions were made on foreign soil. The co-ordination between the two should take place here and should be part of a national approach.
We were also taken aback at the Government's opposition to the protection of workers' rights in countries around Europe, including Irish workers' rights. The Government opposed a proposal for minimum wages and conditions for Irish workers working in other European countries. I found this disturbing. We agree that people should be entitled to certain benefits, but if we cannot provide jobs for them and they find employment in another European country, the least we can do is agree with a Commission proposal which would give them protection under the EU regulations. They should be entitled to the minimum wage in the EU countries and the full protection of their labour laws. Unfortunately, the Government saw fit not to support that proposal by the Commission. I hope there is a change of heart and that our workers who have had to emigrate will have protection and the support of Government so they can avail of these safeguards when they go to other EU countries.
Out of a population of 3.5 million, 1. 3 million people depend to some extent on the social welfare system. Another one million are in education, while others are in employment. Although I compliment the Minister on a number of aspects of the budget, I am not satisfied that it has been innovative enough in providing opportunities for employment. I hope that would be the intention of any Minister for Finance.
Many of those who do not want to continue in the education system do not want to be dependent on social welfare. A few weeks ago I was told that a person needed to sign on or be in receipt of social welfare to do a certain FÁS course. I am opposed to that. However, in the past few days I got information which suggests that that is only an intent in many cases. This policy should be discontinued because we should not encourage an 18, 21 or 22 year old to sign on so that they can qualify for a FÁS scheme. People have a right to do a FÁS scheme if they qualify and they should not have to sign on in their local social welfare office. We are asking young people to do something which in many instances they do not want to do and we are sending them all the wrong messages. I ask the Minister to look into that. While it is not directly related to his brief, it is something which impinges on the social welfare system.
I welcome a number of aspects of the Bill. I compliment the Minister for loosening up the carer's allowance. People expected a lot from the allowance when it was first announced, but it was not of as much benefit as expected. The changes in the carer's allowance will extend its benefits to a number of people and is to be welcomed. I am disappointed with the overall increase for the majority of those on social welfare, including those in receipt of unemployment assistance. Irrespective of what gloss is put on it — there have been arguments that certain sections have got further support, etc. — the bottom line is that there has been only a 2.5 per cent increase when people expected more, given the present economic state of the country. One cannot blame people for comparing it with increases in the past. Over the past eight years increases varied from 3 per cent upwards and in certain categories increases were as high as 11 per cent. This Government and budget will be remembered for the 2.5 per cent increase.
Some areas require change, although I do not know whether that will happen in this House. I do not know the Minister's intention in this regard. I would like to highlight a few anomalies at which the Minister might look. I understand some people on social welfare will not get an increase in the dependant's allowance for children. That is something I would like clarified, although I know the Minister might say in reply that there is an increase in child benefits.
I am disappointed that those on disability or unemployment benefit will not get payments for children in full-time education between the age of 18 and 21 years. I do not understand this because these children will cost the same as those in any other category. I am not an expert on social welfare and it is an area on which I rarely speak. However, I appreciate the difficulties parents with a number of children between the ages of 18 to 21 years in full-time third level education face, because they do not qualify for child benefit payments if they qualify for unemployment or disability benefit. I ask the Minister to comment on that in his reply.
I welcome the equality payments which will be made to married women entitled to them. I agree with Senator Maloney that this was let go too far. People must get what they are entitled to. While I know we cannot always give people what they might need, we have a responsibility to give entitlements; otherwise the State is not doing its duty. I welcome the fact that this payment will be made soon. It meets the just claim these people had.
I must refer to the source for that payment. There is an element of funny money involved in this deal. I have been involved in the local authority system for some time. I was a member of the General Council of County Councils for many years and was its chairman for a time. Over a period of ten years I put forward many papers on the funding of local authorities and the difficulties in their reform. I am very conscious of where money will be found to pay for this proposal. It is said that it makes no difference to the person making a contribution whether it goes into a bank, a building society or the Department of Finance. If that is the case, from where is the £200 million coming? It must come from somewhere. My understanding of the local loans fund is that it makes a major contribution to the Department of the Environment and it, in turn, makes a contribution to local authorities. That is in the region of £36 million a year. From where is this to come in the years ahead?
I also want to inquire about the opportunity which was available to county managers and finance officers to restructure their finances through the local loans fund. County managers with initiative had the discretion under the fund to proceed with schemes and, when their financial position subsequently improved, to restructure and reorganise their finances. Will they now be excluded from doing so?
Local authorities are in enough difficulty as it is, but it appears that the Government is piling difficulties on them. If the Government has an agenda for a definite funding system for local authorities, I will definitely support it. I have been a great advocate in the past of Governments providing proper funding for local authorities. They are the other arm of government. Many of their powers have been stripped away and they are not being used to their full advantage on a national basis. Their lack of funding and further interference with their opportunity for funding will hamstring them completely and will not in any way enhance their opportunities to act in the manner which they were originally intended to act.
The Commission on Social Welfare and the Conference of Major Religious Superiors have come forward with recommendations. Neither would be in favour of what is happening at the moment. They would not favour the present minimum payment of £61 for old age pensioners. They have recommended a payment of £67. We could have provided for a larger increase than £1.50. We are not making life better for this category of people.
This is the feedback I am getting from people who consider the increases provided for them in the budget to be very small. At meetings I have attended they have compared the reduction in corporation tax from 40 per cent to 38 per cent with these increases. Journalists who have an economic philosophy and have written about the economy over the years say that the banks could save about £40 million annually. People find it hard to reconcile this with the small increases provided for them. I ask the Minister to comment on this.
I welcome the increase in child benefit, which is important. I am a little perturbed about a statement in the budget about this matter. I have not since heard it denied. I understand that this matter and the integration of taxation and social welfare is being considered by a committee. Is it the intention to tax certain categories of child benefit in the future? This is being written about by some correspondents. It was a talking point on budget day and should be cleared up.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I have not had much opportunity to speak on social welfare. I welcome the steps forward taken by the Minister in certain areas. However, I would be unfair to the people with whom I have discussed these matters if I did not reflect what they have said to me. The underlying increase of 2.5 per cent is a talking point among the general public. They would say it is a reflection of the lack of concern by the Government for that section of our community.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire ar dtús. I wish him long life and happiness in his job and also some contentment from it. He has a difficult role to play. He has plenty of intelligence and enthusiasm and this will be a great asset to him as he tries to come to grips with the various elements involved in social welfare. Somebody should produce an encyclopaedia, which could be added to from time to time, to give us an opportunity to see all these elements at first hand. One would need an encyclopaedic mind to be able to grasp all the minutiae involved in social welfare.
I wish to briefly talk about the comments being made by people from the Opposition. They speak, without much thought for exactitude and veracity. about an apparent weakness in the system. A number of people believe they will receive only a 2.5 per cent increase in their social welfare payments this year. I am glad the Minister took a great deal of time and effort in his speech to prove that the increases are far higher than is being suggested. I welcome the decision to make the payments earlier. People feel aggrieved that some changes in the budget are instantaneous. The income tax elements come in fairly soon afterwards and then there is quite a long period before increases are paid to social welfare recipients. The fact that that fairly long span has been shortened this year is, in itself, worth a bit more money to the recipients. Although the elderly have been told that they are being badly treated this year, a number of additional supports are available for them. The additional elements involved in their payments, as well as supplementary increases in some other benefits, all add up to a substantial amount of additional money for the elderly this year.
Whereas the Minister and everybody in this House would agree that people should have more if the money is available, it must be recognised that old people will be better off than they were last year. Most of the elderly will receive a 20 per cent increase in their fuel allowance, and if they do not receive that it is because their incomes are higher than the basic social welfare payments. The fuel increase represents an additional income to every household in that category for 26 weeks of the year.
In addition, the elderly are now entitled to a free colour television licence, which is worth an extra £1 a week to people who up to now were only entitled to a black and white TV licence and who had to pay the difference themselves. Looking at the changes which have taken place across the board — particularly the massive increase in child benefit, which is directing money to the right places — it is clear that the Minister has achieved an awful lot for people on social welfare.
The carer's allowance has again been improved this year, and the set aside of £150 of income per household is both substantial and welcome. There have, however, always been anomalies in that scheme and I have been corresponding with the Minister about a few of them as they have arisen.
For example, a constituent of mine is suffering from multiple sclerosis. Her husband is a farmer who cannot farm anymore because of his wife's disability. His brother is helping him out and he has had to employ casual labour as well. The established income is around £5,100 per year, but the difficulty is that the health board has applied a means test to the income of the house. The health board has decided that the lady, who is suffering from advanced stages of multiple sclerosis, is not entitled to a payment from them under the disabled persons maintenance allowance and because of this the family is not entitled to a carer's allowance. This is an anomaly because the family should certainly be entitled to such a payment. Some latitude should be shown by health boards in order to ensure that a family like that can avail of the allowance. It is intended that they should get it and it is disappointing that they cannot. In this case the husband is looking after his wife 24 hours a day and he is also seeing to it that the farm is being run, so there is a huge cost involved, but they are not able to qualify for a carer's allowance.
Another case that came to my attention recently involved a lady on a widow's pension who became terminally ill. Her daughter decided to look after her, but because the woman was not in receipt of a qualifying payment her daughter could not avail of the carer's allowance. Surely someone who is terminally ill should be lawfully entitled to full-time care and attention.
Such anomalies are creating a disturbance for people. A person who is over 66 and has a certain disability gets an allowance and their carer will also get an allowance. Yet a person who is under 66 years of age with the same disability and the income coming into the house will not qualify. I am not sure what it would cost to spread the allowance a bit wider for people in those categories because I do not have the figures, but the Minister and his Department should examine the matter.
In the years ahead the carer's allowance will bring about a major change in the way the elderly are cared for, because many elderly people will be looked after by relatives rather than by the State, which will make huge savings. It is far better for the elderly to be in bosom of their families than elsewhere, now that a small payment is available to compensate a member of the family for giving up a part-time job to look after an elderly person. The scheme will pay dividends to carers for looking after parents and close relatives, who will be happier living in their own natural environment for the longest possible time. This wonderful intervention should be spread fairly across the board, and I would like to discuss that privately again with the Minister at a later date. I am sure that he will agree to that.
There are a number of other anomalies which involve marginal cases. Some women have contacted me asking whey they cannot work on the various community schemes and FÁS programmes around the country. One has sympathy for them. Their household income is not substantial, but because they would not qualify for 1p or 2p a week on unemployment assistance they cannot join these schemes. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is a plan for a quota of women to be brought in under schemes like this, although I do not know how it will work. I hope it will be the case because it would be welcome.
Many women want to work when their children get bigger. It can be a great opportunity for them to get onto a 20-hour weekly programme because it gets them out of the house and improves their lives. It can be the beginning of a whole new life for a woman in her forties who has reared her family, and many such women have a great contribution to make. The difficulty is that they do not have the opportunity now, so we should look at that situation.
I am perturbed about the attitude of Governments in the European Union towards job creation, which is central to social welfare. We are paying out huge amounts of money every week on social welfare. If we could reduce that bill and redirect that money, it would probably be spent in a far more productive manner. Job creation is the key to that. I am not happy with the attitude or the level of co-operation with regard to job creation at European level. We have a White Paper on job creation which has many good ideas. The member states operate the Common Agricultural Policy to which, generally speaking, there is total commitment. There is an agreement across the European Union that tax, PRSI and other Government charges have a great deal to do with job creation. It is generally accepted that reducing tax on work will result in more work.
It is also generally agreed that close to 90 per cent of the workforce in the European Union work in small and medium size enterprises. It does not require any in-depth analysis to realise that if that is the case, we should have more small and medium size enterprises. If there were more small and medium size enterprises spread across the European Union many more people would have jobs. One would assume that the member states could easily agree on a strategy to ensure that this would happen.
I assume that the tax system could easily be used as an incentive. Why do we not agree in the EU on a derogation from tax for new small enterprises for the first three years of their existence? If the EU decided to do that millions of jobs would be created over a few years. They talk about it, but there is no action on it. They can agree on many other things and do a great deal of talking about the deficiencies in relation to job creation and competitiveness. We are making efforts to improve our competitiveness. If we have a shortage of small and medium size enterprises, we should at least target that area for expansion and use the tax system to provide incentives there.
The Government has made excellent changes this year in relation to tax and PRSI. It is the first time that we have seen a strong move in that direction. The easing of the PRSI burden on workers earning under £230 a week and the easing of the PRSI burden on companies which rely on people rather than machines to do most of the work are very smart and good moves. The mix of tax and PRSI reforms this year has done a great deal to make it worth people's while to go to work who formerly would have been better off on social welfare. That was fundamental this year and I imagine that the Government is committed to continuing that kind of progress over the next two budgets at least. This will do a great deal to interest people in applying for jobs and creating jobs for themselves and others.
However, we need to put a great deal of resources into that. If a company does not exist it does not yield any tax, so why not give people a chance to set up companies? Instead of trying to squeeze as much revenue as possible out of them, let them start and get established for a period of, say, three years, after which they would then become part of the normal tax regime.
I am happy with the Minister's approach to social welfare. He fully understands what he is doing. He is operating as part of a very coherent plan and is trying to ensure that everybody in the country is well looked after in so far as the resources to do that are available. I commend him on the analysis in his speech, particularly on very clearly pointing out to us the exact position regarding the increases in social welfare this year, which have been bandied about in a way which gives people the wrong impression. I do not know if the Minister's intervention today will correct that — I am sure that it will be difficult to do that — but people will find when they get their payments that matters are somewhat different to what they are being told.
We are trying to create a caring society and the Government is giving a lead in that. When I travel around my constituency and talk to people, I am very impressed at how caring many people are. Mothers who do not go out to work spend all their day in the house looking after small children and never get a break. Recently, I spoke to a group of women about how to change that. I said to them that on a street by street basis we could change that very easily, because if neighbouring women who were in the same position co-operated they could easily improve the quality of their lives. If families shared the burden, women would get an opportunity to go into town for an hour, have a cup of coffee, chat to people and so on, which would make a wonderful change from the kind of slavery in which they are involved at present. One of the women in the group took it a stage further and rather shocked me, because she said that she was looking at the possibility of taking elderly people into her house as her family was reared and she had four bedrooms. I was shocked that at least one woman there was willing to take total strangers into her house and provide accommodation and meals for them.
There is a great pool of resources out there, and if the State showed the lead it would get an incredible pay back in terms of improved quality of life, happiness and contentment for many people. I know that the Minister is conscious of this and that some of the voluntary and community grants in the Social Welfare Bill are tailored in that direction. I would like to see people being empowered and given ideas. The Government is showing signs of going in that direction and I am happy with that.
I wish to share my time with Senator Townsend.
Is that agreed? Agreed. Senator Farrell has six minutes and Senator Townsend has five minutes.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach seo. I am sorry that the story is not better, but it is as good as he can make it. There are some positive aspects to it and many negative ones. I believe that we could have done a great deal of work this year because it was the first year that we had enough money in the kitty to do something.
The ANC said that when a man puts on a collar and tie and suit he sees the world from a different perspective. As far as giving money to the poor is concerned, the way that the Government preached about the poor and then gave it to the rich is unbelievable. I refer in particular to the 2 per cent reduction in the tax on corporate profits, giving £40 million extra to the banks, which already make between £400 million and £500 million in profits. That money could have been spent in a very positive manner. Deputy Smith provided £5 million last year to help councils pay off their debts. He called it a debt reduction sum, which he intended to increase this year.
We hear a lot about job creation. Local authorities have the infrastructure and the work to create real jobs, but they are not getting the money to do it. My council is paying up to £300,000 in bank charges. We would have created more jobs if some of the £40 million that was given to the banks had been given to local authorities.
Recently I saw a figure which stated that 3,600 people are employed in the commissions and groups that are telling us how to create jobs. With all due respect to them, not one of them can create a full time job for themselves that would lead to the creation of another job, and this saddens me. However, something could be done, even at this late stage, to help councils in financial difficulties. Since county councils lost the right to raise rates, their money has been reduced dramatically. This lack of money makes it difficult to maintain a proper workforce there and this will cause great problems in the future.
Some money was given for an increase in children's allowance and that is to be welcomed, but it is sad to see a young person living at home getting an increase of only 90p a week — the price of two cigarettes or a mini bar of chocolate. If he rented a flat, he would get a £70 allowance and up to £30 supplementary welfare a week. This discriminates against the youth in rural Ireland because it is encouraging them to leave their family homes. It is a pity that some Minister would not see the folly of their ways and ensure that these young people stay at home. It is ridiculous that if young people rent a flat in a town or city, they will get up to £90 a week to meet the cost, but they will get only a paltry sum if they stay at home. There is a great anomaly there and some Minister should deal with it. If this was done. it would be appreciated.
I was delighted to see a woman on television yesterday speaking out on the issue of women having to work. It made me glad to see that some women have the same opinion on this matter as myself. No woman should have to work because of necessity. Many women want to work for the honour and glory of working and good luck to them. I have no objection to that. They are doing a good job, earning their money honestly and paying their taxes. However, there are many mothers who would love to stay at home and rear their children. There should be a five year career leave of absence available to women. A refresher course could be run after that period to help them back into the work force. If they give up their jobs they cannot get them back. The one time a family needs money most is when their children begin their second or third level education and it is then that women want their pay packets. It is a great pity that we cannot provide for the family here. This year is the International Year of the Family and surely we should be doing something to keep it together, because we are not doing so at present.
The unemployed are getting a very bad deal. Someone has to reorganise the social welfare system.
Acting Chairman
There are only five minutes left, Senator. You agreed to share your time with Senator Townsend.
I will stop then. My word is my bond in all cases.
I thank Senator Farrell for sharing his time with me. It shows at least some small co-operation between the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil.
I welcome the 1995 Social Welfare Bill and there are certain aspects of it about which I am very happy. I welcome the raising of the carer's allowance disregard from £100 to £150. I checked out what that would mean. I know of one carer who currently receives £15 per week. Under this provision, that will be increased to £52 per week, an increase of £37. I also liked what the Minister did as regards invalidity pensioners under 65 years of age. When they reach this age, many of them do not have enough social welfare contributions to live comfortably on their old age pensions during retirement. The Minister has closed that poverty trap. Some of these people will get an extra £8 per week.
I welcome the £7 per week increase in child benefit. The minimum unemployment assistance increased from £1 to £25 per week, which is good. It is step in the right direction and will encourage more people to stay at home. I hope more will be done in that area in future budgets because it would save a lot of money.
I welcome the extension of the colour television licence scheme and the increase in the amount to be dis regarded for the fuel allowance from £5 to £10 per week. I know of some people getting £6 or £7 who did not get the fuel allowance, but that is also a step in the right direction. I also welcome the extension of the free travel scheme to include the whole of Ireland, PRSI allowance for the first £50 of PAYE workers' weekly earnings and the lower rate of 9 per cent applying to weekly earnings from £173 to £231 per week for employers.
Last year, when the last Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, introduced what was known as the tax on disability benefit and unemployment benefit, I was shocked at the amount of sanctimonious humbug and hypocrisy I heard about it. It was a hard decision. but the right one. The reason I say this is that I did not hear any campaign to help county council road workers who paid their superannuation and social welfare contributions. Both of them were added together when they retired and income tax had to be paid on both. It is the same in the case of a widow — her widow's pension was taken into account and added on if she went back to work — and for invalidity pensioners. However, Deputy Woods made the mistake — this has been rectified in this Bill — of taking in the child dependant allowance for people on disability or unemployment benefit for income tax purposes. It will now be disregarded under this Bill, which removes this anomaly.
Having seen all the improvements in the system, one must recognise that there are still some anomalies present. I have spoken to the Minister about this and he has indicated that he will examine and rectify them, if needs be. In future budgets. I know of an old age pensioner over 80 years of age who can not get a free companion pass. With all our improvements in the social welfare system, a situation like that is to be deplored. This lady might only want to travel two or three times in the year.
I also know of another lady on deserted wives' benefit who had a stroke. The deserted wives benefit was paid on her husband's contributions. She could not go on an invalidity pension because she did not make any contributions. She was trying to get access to the free schemes and her only option was to seek the disabled persons maintenance allowance, which was approved. When she was put on the disabled persons maintenance allowance, she get the free schemes but lost £3 per week. It was never meant to be that way. I will let the Minister know about these definite cases and I hope he can rectify them.
There is much talk about the bad treatment being given to old age pensioners. Having seen what old age pensioners get when they come back from England I think they are well treated in this country. However, there is one section of the community which is badly treated, or who at least find it hard to live. A single person on unemployment assistance living alone has approximately £64 per week on which to live. The Minister should consider this section also.
I could not possibly reply to all the points which were raised, and many constructive points were raised. I thank those who contributed to the debate. It has been informative in outlining to us the way in which the services are perceived and applied at local level. It is also important to be reassured as to the positive aspects of a Bill as well as to be advised of what is perceived in some quarters to be the negative aspects.
An aspect referred to by a number of speakers is that the present Administration has been in office for only a short time. I am not attempting to make excuses but since taking office it would be very difficult to achieve any degree of finality with regard to identifying many of the snags and trip wires in the system and dealing with them. I pay tribute to my colleague the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, and the Government for the manner in which the obvious problems have been addressed.
While we have not dealt in the manner in which we would wish with all the issues which have presented themselves, a positive start has been made. It must be emphasised with regard to the attitude of the Minister and the Government that this is a caring Bill and that those involved in drawing it up are caring and concerned people. This is fundamental in anything connected with social welfare. I am aware that criticisms have been made regarding the 2.5 per cent increase in payments — indeed there has been an over-emphasis on this aspect — but there has been little recognition from the Opposition of the total percentage increase in the social welfare budget of 35 per cent. A figure of 35 per cent is 35 per cent in anyone's language and it cannot be reduced to 2.5 per cent.
Undoubtedly there are elements within the system where the degree of increase which the Government would have wished to provide was not possible. This can be borne out by considering the total number of people who are dependent on social welfare payments. The ironic aspect is that, listening to the debate in both Houses, the one issue which did not arise was the taxation of social welfare benefits, a legacy we inherited.
This pleases me because, from my viewpoint and that of any public representative to whom I have spoken, serious problems have arisen with people beset with the taxation of their benefits. I am aware of the reasons social welfare benefits were taxed in the first instance, but the manner in which it was introduced was extraordinary and has created serious problems for many people. I will not elaborate on this point at present but I mention it in case it may have been forgotten.
Another aspect of the Bill, and the budget which preceded it, is that it is work-oriented. Some criticisms were made in the House that the Bill appeared to be targeted towards work. This is what it is supposed to do and it is a positive development. Surely the purpose of the exercise is to ensure that we achieve, so far as we can, full employment and where and when we cannot achieve this, we ensure that the needs of those who are not employed and who are otherwise disadvantaged are catered for by way of social welfare payments.
The Bill is targeted at those in greatest need. Research suggests that some families are in considerable need. For that reason, the child benefits were specifically identified as an area where direct intervention could be made which would be of immediate assistance to the family, and especially to women who, in 90 per cent of cases, run the family household. The improvement in this area can be made directly available to them in a positive and precise way.
Payments are being brought forward by six weeks in the current year. This is supplementary and complements the much maligned increase of 2.5 per cent in social welfare payments. One speaker mentioned that it was only a minimal sum. However, we should consider all the social welfare payments and ask what are the precise percentage payments which would be desirable at any given time? Everybody would like to see a much higher percentage increase than has ever been paid since the foundation of the State. In view of this, what is the cut off point?
It must be remembered that at present we spend more than £4 billion on social welfare. This is £4 billion of taxpayers' hard earned money. We must reflect on the fact that this £4 billion has to be provided for a sector of society which is dependent on social welfare.
There are those who will criticise various people who are in receipt of social welfare benefits, allowances etc., on the grounds that the system is being abused. I have been involved in public life for approximately 20 years and the number of abuses are not nearly as great as some people suggested. I have not come across such cases, but I have come across, as I am sure has everybody in the House, graphic instances where the absolute need was evident to anybody looking at the situation from the outside and where the payments were the minimum necessary to meet those requirements, very often at a vulnerable time for the family or the individual concerned.
The Bill takes a long term view. While on this occasion it does not set out to change the whole system, there are proposals mentioned by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare — not in the Bill itself but in the budget — with regard to the area in which I have specific responsibility, that is, the integration of the social welfare and taxation codes. These will have far-reaching effects. The report will hopefully be available towards the middle of the summer and will lay the groundwork for the taxation and social welfare codes for the future. Hopefully, also, all the pitfalls and traps which have existed heretofore will be identified and addressed.
Various speakers mentioned the concept of a basic income, a tax base, etc. The purpose of the exercise is to address these issues and there are a number of variations which can and are being examined at present. It is hoped that we will achieve something that has not been achieved to date — the unravelling of the multiplicity of inter-linking schemes, allowances, payments. counter-payments, balances and counter-balances that have become so intricate over the years. We know that simpler systems appear to work best and we hope to have achieved that before the end of the year.
It is not possible to deal with more than one or two points that were raised during the debate. I compliment Members on the quality of the contributions. It was obvious that the issues were raised by Members who have direct experience dealing with people on social welfare. They were not passing on information they heard second or third hand: they were speaking from practical experience.
Senator Honan inquired about the numbers on VTOs at present. There are about 6,500 people participating in the second chance education schemes at second and third level; they include long term unemployed and lone parents. A number of people asked about the qualifications for various schemes. In some cases there are strict guidelines, in others the guidelines are less strict. In some instances it is possible for health boards — I spent a number of years on one and other agencies to use the guidelines merely as guidelines while using some discretion as well. I cannot go into this issue in the time I have available but I will try to reply to points raised by individuals by way of correspondence.
The household budget scheme was also mentioned by Senator Honan. About 7,264 people are involved in that scheme, mainly people who are paid through the post draft system. About 165,000 people in total are paid under that heading. It would not be fair to deal with any more queries.
I thank the Members for their valuable contributions and I look forward to continuing our good work next week.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Henry, Mary.
- Kelly, Mary.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wilson, Gordon.
- Wilson, Gordon.
Níl
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lydon, Don.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Wright, G.V.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Wall; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Finneran.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4 April 1995.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit again at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 4 April 1995.