Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FAMILY, COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Mar 2002

Vol. 5 No. 1

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his officials.

Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 14 may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.-The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the increase in the consumer price index since the commencement of the Act of 2001 and especially the increase consequent on the introduction of the euro currency and shall compare those increases with the increase in payments under the Act of 2001.".

This amendment refers to an issue which the Labour Party and our colleagues in Fine Gael have raised continuously. Looking back over the various Social Welfare Bills there was a general feeling that the impact of inflation on social welfare recipients has not been adequately measured at any stage. It is now quite clear that the introduction of the euro coincided with a major rip-off by certain greedy firms of consumers in relation to some of the basic necessities of life. We have heard of many examples and as I said on Second Stage there was very significant inflation in relation to groceries and services in the latter part of 2001. This was not measured by anybody because the survey carried out on behalf of The Irish Times at Christmas was a meaningless exercise in relation to the multiples. In the last nine or ten weeks since then, many constituents feel there has been major inflation of prices in services and in groceries and clothing. This Minister and this Government made no effort to prevent this inflation. Our partners in the European Union seem to have different regimes in place to deal with this which include a threat of price freezing and very close monitoring of prices. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Kitt, has not addressed the problem seriously. The content of the Social Welfare [No.2] Bill, 2001 and this Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 2002, have been seriously eroded by what has happened in recent weeks.

Many of us were talking to constituents in the last few weeks about this and other issues. I was told of many examples of inflation in the price of goods and services which people believe was happening under the cloak of the euro. The Minister sanctioned increases in invalidity benefits and in pensions which were backdated and the famous Government €10 is probably already worth less than half of what the Minister gave. I regret this Bill and the Pensions Bill, both of which are crucial, are being guillotined. I hope we will all be Members of the next Dáil and we should aim to discuss the Estimates for 2003 in the following summer or early autumn so that Opposition Deputies in particular are given the chance to make an input. This committee will be examining last year's Estimates in the final days of this Dáil. It is in a sense a total waste of time.

The euro was arguably the most important event in our economic history since 1922 and it has huge implications for this country in the context of European development. I ask the Minister to consider my amendment and the Department to examine the real impact of euro inflation on social welfare recipients. I commended the Minister for granting basic increases last year. In that context, I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. I commend Deputy Brian Hayes for introducing a similar amendment.

My amendment No. 14 is similar to Deputy Broughan's amendment. The Minister will be aware that we had an opportunity to deal with this matter during Priority Questions last week. I wish to tease out a number of issues to which Deputy Broughan has already referred. There is a direct responsibility on this select committee to closely monitor price inflation because it affects people on low incomes. As I have told the Minister on numerous occasions since I took over this brief, the effects of inflation are much more detrimental on such people because a substantial part of their incomes is spent directly on food. Poor people spend a much larger slice of income on basic necessities such as food and other household items than people on higher incomes. Therefore, this committee has a direct responsibility to closely assess the effects of the CPI and price inflation on the level of payments made by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs.

One of the issues raised by several commentators, NGOs and others, including Deputy Broughan in remarks to the House last week, is that price inflation did not arise at the end of the Christmas period as we transferred to the euro banknotes and coins. Since September and through October and November, people have observed a substantial rise in prices in the shops. Many unscrupulous businesses, particularly shops, used the introduction of the new currency to heap additional costs on to customers. What we observed during the past six months was an incremental increase in prices which ate into people's basic social welfare payments.

Again, I highlight the report published last week by the Consumers' Association of Ireland which contained a further tranche of work assessing the price of a basket of items before and after the introduction of the euro. The organisation reached fairly startling conclusions in respect of price increases. The Minister informed me in the House last week that the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Kitt, has asked an organ of the Government to investigate the matter. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment if the Minister gives a commitment to conduct his own investigation within a month to six weeks into the effects of the introduction of the euro on people who depend on social welfare payments.

This would be a good way to proceed as there needs to be exclusive research carried out on the effects of the euro on social welfare recipients, notwithstanding other work which may be taking place in other Departments. It is important because, as the Minister will be aware, his social welfare increases are predicated on a number of factors, including price inflation and general wage levels, coming together. We need to hear exactly what his plans are in respect of investigating the matter.

Although this problem may not be picked up directly in the CPI figures released today, it is certainly a problem on the streets because people say they have seen a dramatic rise in prices during the six months leading up to the introduction of the euro. I commend amendments Nos. 1 and 14 to the select committee.

I thank Deputies for giving me the opportunity to discuss some of the issues surrounding inflation vis-à-vis the euro and increases in social welfare payments. The fundamental point is that the social welfare increases are way ahead of and in many cases double the anticipated rate of inflation. It is important to provide figures to support this contention. Last year the inflation rate was 4.9%, down from 5.6% in 2000. Given that the main social welfare rates increased by 10.3% and 10.4% in April 2001, there were real increases of 5.1% and 5.2% last year in respect of the main rates. The CPI fell by 0.2% in January with the projected annual rate of inflation now 4.2% so, while people may say there has been an increase in the rate of inflation, we must rely on the CPI. Deputies who ask the Department to carry out its own investigation should note that we are not nor have we ever been in the business of doing this. We must, in effect, proceed on the basis of the benchmark agreed over the years, namely, the CPI.

On a point of information, one could consider, for example, the report by the Vincentian Partnership which examines the real case of the basket of goods bought by a woman in Tallaght and the income on which she lives. We all have questions about the CPI, which does not measure such things. I ask the Minister to measure this basket and inform the committee of the results.

No, this is not the remit of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. Organisations such as the Vincentian Partnership are entitled to carry out these kinds of studies, but the most comprehensive by far is the CPI. In 2002 if the average rate of inflation turns out to be 4.2%, one will again have real increases of between 5% and 6.9%.

Another issue which I must mention is the dramatic increases in child benefit in the past two years which, for some reason, are never considered when weekly incomes are being calculated. Last year the increase was above 50% and it will be in the region of 37% to 45% this year.

The change to the euro banknotes and coins has been raised. There is no evidence of an inflationary effect in the months preceding their introduction. Inflation was 0.8% in the three months to December 2001 which was less than the inflation rate of 1.2% for the equivalent period in 2000. As I stated earlier, inflation in January was down by 0.2% and the level of social welfare increases are roughly twice the anticipated rate of inflation, even more in many cases.

With regard to the survey by the Vincentians, the CPI is a comprehensive, professionally produced report based on the collection of more than 55,000 prices covering more than 1,000 items. As the prices of individual items rise and fall from month to month, it is a little misleading to use CPI figures when it suits and ignore them when it does not as some Deputies have done. According to the CPI, the price of a number of essential items has declined dramatically. I am sure the Deputies will agree that clothing and footwear are essential items, the price of which has fallen by 11.5% in the past month, 11.2% in the past three months and 3.1% in the past year. This is a fairly dramatic decline.

Similarly, price increases for many of the other items have not been significant, except health which rose by 2.7%. The price of clothing and footwear, as I said, fell by 11.5%, household equipment declined by 2.1%, communications increased by 1% and recreation and culture, which is not really an essential item, rose by0.9%. Generally speaking, therefore, prices of essential items have fallen.

I turn to the report of the Consumers' Association of Ireland to which Deputies referred. It is my understanding that it has not issued a report. All it has issued is a press release. Regarding the basket of goods it checked, which was last logged in December 2000, the average increase was 5% which is less than the increase of 6.1% recorded by the Central Statistics Office. I give a warning in respect of these types of surveys but the Deputy should not just take my word for it. There was a report in The Irish Times recently regarding the examples of the Consumers’ Association of Ireland and it said there was much less convincing evidence of price increases being slipped in during the currency changeover.

We have to go on the yearly consumer price index. I have said many times on Committee Stage of Bills that it is a case of swings and roundabouts. If people lose out one year, they gain in another and that losses will be taken into account in the calculations for the following year. It is a fact that people have gained dramatically in recent years from the increases in social welfare which have been way ahead of the rate of inflation, and that they have received real increases every year the Government has been in office.

Perhaps this is the type of area in which the Combat Poverty Agency, which made a submission to the committee recently, might engage. I referred to the Vincentians because the point they made at the end of their report was that it was not through inadequate management that the family of three I mentioned was not able to survive but because their welfare benefits were much too low, perhaps even by as much as €100. Even with the increases in child benefit, that family is probably still struggling. It could be within the remit of the Department to examine this.

The Minister referred to The Irish Times. It is a europhile newspaper and one of those media outlets which is desperately concerned in case the people vote “no” a second time to the Nice treaty. I take a slightly more sceptical view of some developments in Europe.

I also note that recreation and culture are not considered essential. I would have thought they would be.

They are not essential in the same sense as food, clothing and footwear.

Children might like to go swimming or play games.

Perhaps they should do what we used to do and go in the tide.

I hope the Minister is not recommending that.

I am. My children do it all the time.

Is this not the issue?

They could go out with the tide.

(Interruptions.)

This discloses a certain attitude. For example, one child in the family to which I referred might not like the Celtic football team's away strip.

That is hardly an essential. It is changed almost every three months.

I am not aware it is. However, this is about quality of life in the community.

I would rather see them wearing a Dundalk FC or a Louth jersey. It would be cheaper too.

There is a fundamental difference between us on this. I am still of the opinion that the Minister should accept the amendment. It would be helpful to the next Administration if he took this issue more seriously.

It is good to hear that inflation is falling and that, on the recreation and culture front, I can tell my constituents in west Tallaght to go to the ballet or the National Concert Hall in the next few weeks. The reality is that people are telling us that, in their own experience of shopping, they have seen an incremental rise in prices. I accept that is not reflected in the CPI.

Does the Minister have any input into the work the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, is undertaking? He is conducting the most extensive survey since the introduction of the euro. Would it be possible for part of that work to relate exclusively to social welfare payments? It would have some effect. I do not suggest it should be the most rigorous survey, but the committee would learn a great deal from part of the Minister of State's work being directly related to social welfare payments and how those have been affected by the introduction of the euro.

For the Minister to say he has given a net increase of 5% to social welfare recipients after a boom should not be a source of pride for him. Even in tough times Ministers gave increases in social welfare. We hear about the large increases people received, but 5% of £70 or £80 is nothing. The Minister has rattled out figures for all that social welfare recipients have received in recent years but this was at a time when we were able to repay our national debt. Whatever Minister is in office next year would do a marvellous job if he gave a net increase of 5% given that we do not appear to have the great economic boom we once had.

I support what my colleagues said. I do not know if people exaggerate because I do not go shopping. I met a couple last week who told me that, as far as they were concerned, their money was gobbled up by the increases. That might be a slight exaggeration but people are convinced prices have increased. The surveys conducted by the Vincentians and others are much like the argument which has been ongoing in recent weeks in that one can take one course of action or another and achieve the same end. Perhaps these surveys are confusing us as to what price increases have taken place in that they have their own slant.

As regards what the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, is doing, I know both he and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment will answer questions today relating to this issue. They say the figures clearly do not support suggestions that there has been widespread or excessive increases in prices during the changeover to the euro or because of its introduction. They also make the point that the Director of Consumer Affairs received 293 complaints in the first week of the changeover but these had reduced by the middle of February to 17 a week. Only 40 of these related to the implementation of the euro. No Government since the early 1980s has introduced price controls. They have tended to allow the competitive element of the market dictate prices.

Deputy Browne may find fault with that I say, but it is a fact that there have been real increases in social welfare payments, something which has not been the trend over the years. He may say more money was available, but it depends on how spending is prioritised. The Government has had the opportunity in its lifetime to prioritise substantial amounts of money for the social welfare budget which has increased from £4.5 billion to the equivalent of £7.5 billion today. This has meant more money in people's pockets.

Much of what people feel about price rises could have been engendered by certain media comments and by people who do not have any empirical evidence. The best evidence and indicator we have is the CPI which is time-honoured. No Government of whatever political hue has adopted any other yardstick. I gave the figures earlier for the CPI which were the result of a comprehensive survey. That is the best we can go on. I cannot stop the Combat Poverty Agency or anyone else conducting their own surveys, but I hazard a guess that they would not be as comprehensive as the CPI.

The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, is replying to a question in the House today. I thought he was conducting some research over the next two or three months in this area. Is the Minister saying this the outcome of the research?

No, it is in relation to the trends they have been looking at over the last three months of last year.

Can the Minister ensure in his discussions with Deputy Kitt that part of that work will relate specifically to the effects on social welfare recipients?

Perhaps the Deputy could table a parliamentary question to Deputy Tom Kitt and ask him that but we would not have any involvement in that because we are responsible for provision of social welfare. All income would be treated the same by a Department like his in connection with the examination of the CPI. There would be no difference and I do not know how they could pick it out.

Consumption patterns among social welfare recipients are totally different to others.

The items are food and alcoholic beverages, tobacco, clothing and footwear, housing, water, electricity, furnishings, health, transport, communications, recreation, culture and education, restaurants and hotels - which could be excluded - but it is swings and roundabouts. If one excluded non-essential items one would find that the CPI would go down much faster.

The proportion of income spent on basic items in the CPI basket is huge for families on low incomes. That is the problem. There are questions to be asked about the way the CPI measures housing costs and I have always had grave concerns about it, particularly when they moved to Cork. It would be a good exercise for Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs to take a special look at that area. How can they adequately advise the Minister on income increases if they do not look at the direct impact on the general groups of social welfare recipients and what has happened in the past year? There are countless examples.

From monitoring groceries I noted last summer and autumn the way prices increased. Some of the people working on the dispensing machines in various hotels and so on showed me how operators were adding two or three cents to the basic price of a given product. This was entirely due to the euro and was a totally unnecessary rip off. The Consumer's Association of Ireland, the Irish Independent and the Sunday Independent, who have been following this issue, are referring to “rip-off Ireland” and it is not just because we can at last see that the price of a pint is in Brussels is about half what it is in Dublin.

Is the Deputy saying the price of a pint in Brussels is half what it is in Dublin?

One of my colleagues said that a pint of lager is €1.80.

I will have to call witnesses who are in Brussels more often than we are.

We can see that many products - although cars are a special case - are more expensive here that in the UK and they have had numerous campaigns about "rip-off Britain". I do not want to continue with this subject because it is going into other territory but the Minister has responsibility.

Deputy Broughan mentioned the UK. I live five miles from the Border and I can assure him that about one in three people who shop in my town are from the North and they are shopping for petrol and other goods. The range of items that the CPI examines is very comprehensive. Health has gone up 2.7% - people on social welfare will inevitably have a medical card. Recreation and culture is significant, and alcohol is up 9%. They are all fairly dramatic increases. Tobacco is up 5%. Generally the ones showing a higher increase do not necessarily - this is not exclusive - refer to people on social welfare.

Insurance does.

Insurance is not included in the CPI and people on social welfare would not have major insurance costs in any case.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 25 are related and may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.-The Minister shall report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on a proposal that social welfare increases shall not be taken into account for income assessment purposes in medical card applications.".

This relates to the concerns everybody in this House has particularly for older medical card holders. For a considerable time it seemed the increases in social welfare were taking people above the upper limits for their family size in relation to medical cards. The Minister made a statement on this and we spoke about poverty proofing. As I said when we were talking about the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, the only poverty proofing exercise we got in the budget was the two pages that were stuck in the middle of the Budget Statement which were very uninformative. The Minister, in his review of the NAPS plan, has made a specific commitment to have a more serious poverty proofing exercise across the Government with social inclusion units in each Department led by the Minister's own office for social inclusion. I welcome that but it is a pity it has not operated up to now.

Medical card applications are at the discretion of the chief executive of the health board and various expenses can be taken into account. We saw many examples of this as the media covered pensioners in Dublin's south inner city who felt very hard done by in this regard. In future, the Minister might accept that the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs will not introduce increases - welcome as they are - without ensuring the Department of Health and Children and the health boards are up to speed and moving at the same pace towards improving people's entitlements.

I referred to this in the course of my remarks on Second Stage and there was a great deal of confusion, largely because of a failure by the Department of Health and Children to issue exact guidelines. In that respect, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs has a responsibility when he is increasing social welfare rates. Clearly there is a responsibility on all Departments in terms of new guidelines to ensure secondary benefits, such as medical cards, which are so important to poorer people are not lost. The fact is that for the first two months, they were. Relate published by Comhairle and sent to our offices has medical card income guidelines in the back and it says that "in practice the chief executive officers of health boards in consultation with the Department of Health and Children draw up income guidelines each year." There is, therefore, a direct responsibility on Government. Some weeks ago, when this hit the fan, there was an attempt at the heart of Government to dump on the health boards. The Department, which set the guidelines in the first week of January and issued them to the 11 health boards, got it wrong. Someone must take responsibility for that, either the Minister for Health and Children or the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs who is responsible for social welfare increases.

I join Deputy Broughan in congratulating the many organisations who contacted my office in early January. Members may be aware of a europhile paper in which Fintan O'Toole wrote about this issue referred in glowing terms to the Minister, as usual. As the Minister is aware, this was a real problem in January because of the failure of the Department of Health and Children to clarify the matter. There are three examples of this. Let us first look at the carer's allowance for people under 66 years of age. Prior to 1 January 2002, payment was €112.37 while the medical card income limit for single people aged up to 66 years and living with families amounted to €113.01. Prior to 1 January that person was entitled to a medical card. Subsequently, when the carer's allowance for people under 66 was introduced the Government stated that the new guidelines would be for a payment of €117, even though the social welfare increase had brought the payment up to €122. This is a classic example of where people lost out. Prior to 1 January, the old age contributory pension for people aged 66 to 69 was €134 but, as the medical card income limit was €138, these people qualified. Since 1 January, the payment increased to €147.30 while the new income threshold is €144.

This has caused absolute confusion. I echo Deputy Broughan's comments. Who is responsible for this? Is it the case that the Minister announces the new rates of social welfare and no one in his or other Departments are aware of the secondary benefits? This causes untold confusion and hardship for people with these important secondary benefits. I welcome the opportunity to flesh out this serious issue for people on small incomes who are discommoded as a result of this bureaucracy, which is what it is. I would be interested to hear the Minister's reply in this regard.

The increases were too generous. Does the Minister not realise all the trouble he caused?

I was just coming to that point. One the one hand, Deputies are complaining about the large increases being eroded by inflation and, on the other, that this has only become an issue in the last number of years because the increases have been way ahead of the rate of inflation. It is a fact that last year and this year there was agreement among the two Departments, including the two Ministers, that the impact of social welfare increases, which were twice the rate of inflation this year and more or less the same last year, would not impact on anyone's medical card. The Government's decision in this regard both last year and this year was communicated to the health boards. Unfortunately, there was some confusion. It probably came about because there had to be some balance in media reports. The news was so good in regard to the large increases and lump sums that the media almost felt honour bound to include some negativity. Therefore, they fleshed out and door-stepped a number of people who obviously did not know what they were talking about.

It seems like the Minister is saying people were invented.

As a result of those media reports the Minister for Health and Children decided to put out a statement from his Department confirming that the recent social welfare increases would not lead to the loss of medical cards for anyone. He basically said that medical card coverage would continue as set out under the national health strategy. I had a suspicion that some people in my constituency might have been affected. However, they did not come to anything because, in effect, the health board did not take these medical cards just as a result of the social welfare increases. I accept there was some confusion but people have a responsibility to check the facts before they put on air people who obviously do not know what they are talking about.

We all had people coming to us in regard to the renewal of their cards.

I hope the Deputy allayed their fears.

Absolutely.

I hope the Deputy told themthe dramatic increases the Government introduced——

The difference is they do not believe the Minister.

Obviously officials would listen to representations from politicians, some of whom might be members of the board in question. This is a grey area which is why some people, including my party, believe the system should be changed dramatically. The net point is that there should be clear guidelines regarding increased income limits from the Department of Health and Children, which is what members on this side are asking for. Apparently the Minister for Health and Children had a big row with the Minister for Finance on what should be done in regard to the health system prior to the general election. Clearly this is the number one issue. It is an issue for another committee because the bickering is continuing. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, put his foot down in regard to the cost of medical services for medical card holders, as we know from meeting people on a weekly basis. My demand before Christmas was for a basic social welfare payment of €127. The Minister, Deputy Martin, should have indicated clearly all the rates, including carer's allowance, contributory pensions for people aged over 66 and so on.

The review of the NAPS programme, which is an interesting document, indicates that the office for social inclusion should have a remit which would ensure this type of thing would never again happen. I believe people got on to the newspapers complaining they had lost their medical cards and that the Minister, Deputy Ahern, had left them in a worse off position. That is the bottom line. These people would have been worse off after receiving the €10 increase, which is not acceptable.

No one lost the medical card as a result of the social welfare increases. I challenge the Deputy to name someone who has lost the medical card purely as a result of the social welfare increases. In regard to the disparaging remarks about the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, it was a Government decision. He was adamant that the increases this year and last year, over twice the rate of inflation, would not have an impact on people with medical cards. Rather than showing negativity in regard to this matter, and adding to the confusion engendered by certain people, the Deputy should assure people they will not lose their medical cards. I accept people were worried. However, when the matter was looked into it was obvious people were not losing their medical cards.

I recall someone who had a heart transplant being concerned about this matter, which is unbelievable.

I cannot stop people being concerned. It is up to politicians to reassure people as to the facts. The facts are that people will not be deprived of their medical cards solely on the basis of the dramatic social welfare increases. There may be circumstances where other pensions or incomes may have increased but people will not lose their medical cards solely as a result of social welfare payments increasing by twice the rate of inflation.

As I said on Second Stage, the home carer's tax credit is a direct example of where people up to now——

That is a different issue.

It is an example.

That is a different issue.

It is not the same, but increasing social welfare rates, particularly in respect of the home carer's tax credit, means that some lose the credit which their spouse could get through their income. In respect of that credit, income from part-time work has put people over the limit. The income limit for the home carer's tax credit was not increased by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. It is not true to say that no one has lost out, because they have. I can provide the Minister with cases in point.

I expressed my opinion in relation to medical cards, about which we were talking.

On the issue of medical cards, the Minister has accepted that someone somewhere got it wrong. Presumably, he is pointing in the direction of the Department of Health and Children. As his own Department's publication states, the income guidelines are drawn up in consultation with the Department of Health and Children. Therefore, someone is responsible. We have tabled the amendments to highlight the fact that we do not have a sophisticated interdepartmental mechanism to work on issues such as this. We are also highlighting the need for greater prudence and concentration by all concerned to ensure this does not recur.

The only ones responsible for people being worried are those who engendered the confusion by incorrect information.

Is the Minister suggesting that the information given to me from the organisation in question was incorrect?

Which organisation?

It was the South Inner City Community Development Association which wrote to me, on 14 January, citing three specific cases where the income threshold was actually lower than the new rates of social welfare as outlined in the budget.

I do not know about the three individual cases, but the Government decision was that no one was to lose out. I expect that decision would have been transmitted to the health board. In my constituency I was contacted by a number of persons who believed they were going to lose out as a result. However, when I got down to the nitty-gritty I found that they were not losing out. If any of them did - I think one or two might have - it was not because of the increase in social welfare, but because of the increase in their additional income.

Does that not emphasise the point - first made by former Senator Joe Lee when I was a Member of the Seanad - that Government policy initiatives do not involve one Department, but frequently two, three or four?

It is really only relevant to last year and this year because the increases in social welfare were much larger than they had been prior to then. That is the reason the Government made a decision that it would not have implications for the secondary benefit of a medical card.

Clearly, that has not been communicated down the line.

I am responsible for social welfare. If the Deputy has any queries relating to other Departments, he should make them elsewhere.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.-The Minister shall report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on a proposal that social welfare increases shall not be taken into account for income assessment purposes in assessing local authority differential rents.".

This is closely related to the previous amendment. It concerns complaints that I frequently receive from constituents that what the Government gives with one hand, local authorities take away with the other. The Chairman and I are members of the same local authority and are well aware of how the system works. We had an input into framing the current differential rents scheme which operates at about 15% of an income increase. A significant part of a social welfare increase for low income families is diluted each year by additional housing costs. This applies, in particular, to constituencies on the north side of Dublin, even though the rent added to a local authority house could amount to a lot of money. In other words, the community significantly subsidises the rent of such properties in particular areas. Members of my party around the country believe the annual impact of housing costs should be re-examined because local authority housing departments are quick to jack up rents. On Dublin City Council there used to be an annual ritual when Deputy Gregory and others had a heated debate about rent increases. However, that does not happen any more since we introduced the current system. Nonetheless, rents do rise and can pose a serious problem to large families. The Minister should take this matter into account.

The Department of the Environment and Local Government and local authorities should take cognisance of this problem also. In the NAPS report the Minister made the point that social inclusion units were to be incorporated in local authorities. Over the past six months some authorities, including my own, Fingal County Council, have begun to deal with social inclusion issues in a coherent way. I welcome this work. When departmental officials are framing social welfare increases for next year they should liaise with local authorities, particularly concerning areas of grave deprivation in cities, towns and even rural areas. In that way the problems facing particular areas could be more readily identified. The situation is somewhat different in Dublin City Council which covers a population of 500,000. Perhaps the same regime does not suit all categories. I have moved the amendment because a number of my colleagues wished the Minister to consider it.

I tabled this amendment last December when we discussed the matter, but have not resubmitted it for Committee Stage. I agree with Deputy Broughan that the differential rents scheme does not make any difference to those on low incomes. The amount of rent an unemployed person pays can vary from one local authority to the next. Even though people receive universal benefits from the social welfare system, in many cases they lose out because of rent differences. This problem arises every year at local authority level. As it can take an inordinate amount of time to alter rents due to changed circumstances, those on low incomes can face huge rent arrears. The differential rents scheme operated by local authorities is very unsophisticated, which is a problem. At one level there is increased income, yet at another people lose out due to increasing rents.

As the Minister will be aware, for quite some time there has been a proposal that responsibility for the operation of the health board rent supplement scheme should be transferred to local authorities. However, because of IR difficulties that has not yet happened. That would be the most sensible route to take in order to bring housing benefits, whether in the public or private rented sector, under the one roof. It should happen in local authority housing departments. I support the amendment.

On the latter issue, the Government made a decision some time ago to transfer part of the responsibility for rent allowance or mortgage supplements to local authorities. However, as the Deputy said, there are major difficulties.

For four years.

No matter who is in government after the next general election, it will probably take even longer to resolve because they are quite difficult issues. One is dealing with two different cohorts of civil servants, public servants who are not on the same rate of pay and have different conditions. I raised the issue with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. I understand that in general, differential rents represent less than 11% of the social welfare payments. His Department has advised local authorities to ensure that rent increases do not absorb an excessive amount of increase in income from tenants on low incomes, in particular, old age pensioners. As a general guideline, local authorities were advised that no more than 15% of any increase in such pension income should be absorbed by an increase in rent.

There are nine social inclusion pilot project areas in tandem with the RAPID programme and they set out the strategic objectives relating to the issue of social inclusion strategies at local level. I agree with Deputy Broughan that it is probably the best way to ensure that people on low incomes and low rents enjoy as much of the benefit of the social welfare increases as is possible. One of the driving forces behind my view in backdating the payments to 1 January was that it would help social welfare recipients on differential rents. This would provide them with some additional income.

The Minister refers to bringing back the payments to 1 January. What will be the effect next January? Will it be necessary to bring it back to November in order to show a gain or is this just a once-off gain as it was a once-off loss when it was postponed to October? The impression is given that this will be a permanent gain but it will only be a gain in this year, provided the payments are made from January again next year. January to January is a twelve-month period as is April to April. I asked this question in my speech on Second Stage but the Minister did not explain that at the time because he was telling us about what he did as Minister.

January is still three months earlier than April and it will be the same next year.

How will that be? Perhaps the Minister will explain.

We are dealing with something which will be the subject of amendment later on. I wonder if the Deputy cannot see the benefit for people in budget year. I know the Deputy is retiring and he will not have to worry about the issue of budget year increases but I can assure him that it costs the taxpayer money to do what we have done. When I came to office the payments were made in mid-June. In my early years as Minister I had to battle with the Minister for Finance and his Department in relation to budget year costs. It cost about £80 million to bring the payments back to January this year. That money must be found in order for the payments to be paid at the earlier date. It will mean that when there is a budget takes in December of this year, people will be paid for 52 weeks of the year in the first year and thereafter for every 52 weeks of the year. People are gaining from this measure. If a future Government decided in the budget at the end of the year that the payments would be put forward again, then, obviously, the recipients would lose out.

Fianna Fáil did that before.

So did the Deputy's Government. I remind the Deputy that the only time the Christmas bonus was ever interfered with in a negative way was when his party was in office. The Deputy should therefore not lecture me now.

Clearly the Minister did not listen to what I said. I pointed out that there was a gain in the first year only. It cost the State money to bring the payments back from April to January. Many of the Minister's colleagues are giving the impression that this will be a bonanza every year. A payment from April to April is a twelve month payment.

It is being paid earlier.

It is being paid earlier this year but next year will not count as an earlier payment because the year will be from January to January. It is a great cock and bull story. A twelve month period of time is always twelve months.

The people who got the payments do not see it that way.

I acknowledge that they gained this year.

We were making that point in the year we did it.

The Minister did not hear what I said.

Deputy Ring was shouting too much at the time.

No, it was because the Minister was not listening.

The next Government will bring child benefit back to 1 January.

The Deputy's record is not great on that issue.

That is a pledge to the electorate.

The Deputy's record on child benefit payments is not one to be shouted from the rooftops.

I have only been here a few years but there is a presumption that there are votes to be got from this. I have long since come to the conclusion that there are no votes in this matter, one way or the other.

I suggest the Deputy has a little word with some of his pollsters doing private polls.

I speak to them all the time.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of introducing a system of benchmarking or indexation of all social welfare payments and benefits as advocated by the Final Report of the Social Welfare Benchmarking and Indexation Group.".

This amendment offers a last opportunity to ask the Minister about his position on the final report of the benchmarking and indexation group. I am interested to hear the Minister's views on the benchmarking of social welfare payments. A very serious proposal for the introduction of a basic income was put forward by Father Seán Healy and CORI in the period before the 1997 general election and different economists have passed judgment on that proposal. The Attorney General rubbished the concept that every citizen - man, woman and child - would start off with a basic income. It has been sad to watch how that proposal has been kicked around and every time it fell into the Minister's hands he kicked it into touch, as they say in rugby parlance.

The Minister at one stage mentioned a Green Paper on the subject. We on the Opposition benches have much less research resources to call on and it is very difficult to study how other countries have chosen to deal with this issue. We were looking forward to a Green Paper and a White Paper but at the end of five years nothing has happened except the report under the aegis of the PPF. I understand the voluntary sector and the trade unions insisted on the 27% target.

The Minister and the Taoiseach advocated a very low rate of basic social welfare increase by the year 2007. The trade union movement will enter the next partnership agreement - if there is one - with very strong demands and we will hear their opinion on last year's euro inflation when negotiations begin on the next programme. Despite the wails from IBEC there will be significant wage increases. What is the outgoing Government's commitment in this regard, given that it wasted five years and did not take seriously the proposal for a basic income. Basically, the Administration rejected it out of hand and only in its final weeks does it appear to be giving some commitment in this area.

I have given the Minister credit. I believe, for instance, that his allocation of social welfare increases has improved matters. As Mr. Jim Walsh and his colleagues in the Combat Poverty Agency informed the committee a few weeks ago, if the measures on poverty in this year's budget had been introduced in each of the past five years, the Minister would be fondly remembered. However, given that he let three and a half to four years pass before introducing these baseline figures, the overall result can be described as foot dragging and a disappointment.

What are the Minister's views on the fundamental benchmark? The positive feature of the measures he introduced this year and last year is that it will be very difficult for the next Government to introduce an annual increase of less than €10. This applies to every Government of whatever shape, including a Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael coalition with myself in opposition again, having been lucky enough to get re-elected. I give the Minister full credit for this because, clearly, every party in opposition will go ballistic if the €10 target is not reached. To that extent, he has established, at long last, something of an income related benchmark.

Nevertheless, the overall effect of the measures is somewhat disappointing given that Father Healy of CORI, the ESRI and other independent economists indicated beforehand that it was necessary to try to close the gap between the diverging sections of our society. While I do not what to stray from the matter in hand, the real issue the Minister failed to address in building an inclusive society is relative poverty. Unlike consistent poverty, which appears to be on the way out, relative poverty was not addressed. Is it possible he will accept this and give a clear indication, in the last weeks of the Administration, of where he stands on the issue of benchmarks for the next five years?

May we discuss amendmentNo. 5?

I have no objection.

As it is not officially linked to this amendment, we cannot discuss them together even though I accept they touch on one another.

The Deputy must promise not to speak on amendment No. 5.

I will speak on amendmentNo. 4 and refer to amendment No. 5 because they relate to the same issue. I agree with Deputy Broughan that the proportion of spending on social welfare this year was much higher than in other years. The reason was that the Government finally got the message, such was the outcry about many of the regressive tax proposals it has adopted to date.

During my Second Stage speech, I said we should recognise that the Minister managed to obtain greater funding for the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs this year. However, this occurred in the last year of the Government and, while we all recognise the radical reductions achieved in consistent poverty levels in the past five years or thereabouts, the big challenge facing the country in relation to poverty is the dramatic increase in relative income poverty.

As the Minister will be aware, two of his Cabinet colleagues dumped on the benchmark report when it was published. We then had a kind of interregnum period during which no decision was taken on the matter. On the face of it, the formulation on the commitment to achieve the 30% threshold between now and 2007, as outlined in the new national anti-poverty strategy, Building an Inclusive Society, seems clear, but on delving into it, one requires further clarity. We need to address the issue of potential growth in income because, until now, social welfare increases have been predicated on projected inflation over a defined period.

In his speeches to the House this year and last year, the Minister addressed wages for the first time. The problem is whether we will reach the 30% benchmark by 2007. As I understand it - perhaps the Minister will clarify the matter - the latest figures on the composition of average industrial earnings relate to September 2001. The lowest rates of social welfare payments on that date amounted, I believe, to about 25% of gross average industrial earnings. We need to increase this to about 30% by 2007 which, according to the NAPS review, would be between €148 and €154 in 2002 terms. The question is whether it is possible to reach the 30% threshold without a guarantee of a year on increase in social welfare payments in excess of the growth in industrial earnings. In other words, if wage inflation is supposed to be 8% or 9%, the Minister would have to commit himself to frame increases of 10% or 11% in social welfare payments in the budget to arrive at the 30% figure.

The explanation of this in the NAPS review is quite clumsy. Although the Minister has not stated whether he supports the majority recommendation, we know two of his colleagues do not. The formulation he used is neither clear nor to the point. He has an opportunity to inform the committee of his position. Unless there is an annual increase in social welfare rates ahead of projected growth in earnings for next year, we will not achieve the 30% threshold and we need further clarity on the matter.

While I recognise the improvements which would be brought about by the Minister's proposals to do something additional for people on the lowest rate of social welfare, that is, those on unemployment assistance, unless there are commitments for the next four to five years, we will not reach the 30% threshold.

The debate on my attitude to benchmarking has been described as the "phoney war". The big report was in December and fed into the NAPS as we were developing it. The Government very wisely chose the benchmark people who understand - the €150 in 2002 terms for 2007 - because generally speaking the ordinary punter does not understand percentages. It is very clear to people who have responded to the NAPS review, for instance, Father Sean Healy, who described it as a major breakthrough, and the National Women's Council, that the Government deserves to be complimented for, in effect, benchmarking social welfare payments. It is a fairly dramatic move and will, as Deputy Hayes stated, mean substantial increases in social welfare in the next few years, regardless of who is in government.

In recent years all social welfare payments, in particular pensions, have increased ahead of average industrial earnings. I have figures on the CPI which show, for example, that the income of a couple with two children who are receiving social welfare and child benefit has risen from a baseline of 100 points in 1992 to 183.1 points in 2002, whereas the CPI has risen to 132 from a baseline of 100 during the same period. This is a dramatic increase and I reiterate that the major increases in social welfare have occurred in the past four to five years and did not increase during the previous period.

On the issue of the national anti-poverty strategy and the direction we should take, it is very ambitious and I imagine that not even Opposition Deputies would have thought that we would have chosen what is, in effect, the equivalent of a 30% benchmark. I understand Fine Gael at one stage suggested that it would opt for 27%, but was perhaps outsmarted by the Labour Party which opted for 30%. No matter what Government is in office after the general election, I hope it accepts this benchmark, much as we did with the national anti-poverty strategy and the conservative benchmarks or issues targeted in that, although I accept that it was, to a certain extent, manoeuvring in the dark. Obviously the national anti-poverty strategy review target will form part of any renegotiation of or any new partnership agreement which will be put together at the end of the year or into the new year.

One aspect of the national anti-poverty strategy review which has not received much publicity is the issue of child income support, the appropriate equivalence level of which would be at 35% of the minimum adult social welfare payment rates. This again is a significant commitment over and above an already significant investment in the form of the three year programme on child benefit increases which has been implemented over the past two years and, I hope, will be next year.

I am not at odds with the Deputies. I agree with what they say. It will be a matter for the Government of the day to increase social welfare up to the level - €150 in 2002 terms - by 2007.

What does the Minister expect the figure to be in 2007? What is his best guess at this stage?

It will be 30% of gross average industrial earnings.

The estimate of costs is in the region of £1.5 billion for the overall rates. I am unsure as to the cost of child benefit, but it is not as large.

Can we take it from the Minister's reply that the Government agrees with the majority recommendation of the social welfare benchmarking report?

That is £1.5 billion in 2002 terms.

It is the issue, is it not?

We cannot forecast.

That is the problem.

It is not possible to forecast regarding 30% of average industrial earnings. Those may decrease. I would have thought the commitment of an actual equivalent amount in 2007 is a much more definite commitment than 30% of average industrial earnings. If we go into recession, which I do not believe we will, the increase in average industrial earnings would fall and people would lose out. The figure of €150 is a much higher bar for any Government to reach.

Is it correct that the Government accepts the majority recommendation of the benchmarking report?

The major report fed into the national anti-poverty strategy review and that document will supersede any other report which has been published.

Does the Government accept the recommendations?

Our benchmark is €150.

Is that in 2002 terms?

They are not the same. This is the point I have been making, that the Government's recommendation may not take into consideration the year-on-year uprating in the increase in gross average industrial earnings whereas the majority recommendation in the benchmarking report did. Is that not the difference?

That is why the Minister put it in euro. That was very clever.

Is the Deputy referring to the fact that we put the target into actual amounts?

We did so because ordinary people would understand it, just like they understood the commitment we gave prior to the previous election that we would——

They also understand percentages.

I am not sure they do. Fr. Seán Healy does not have a problem, and stated as much in an article he wrote. The Deputies present have often waved his yellow sheets at me after the budget. I remember in the first budget that I had to point out to him that his yellow sheets were wrong and that he had misread the budget. To be fair to the man, he accepted he had miscalculated.

Is this the article in the europhile newspaper?

He obviously misled the Deputies opposite by his miscalculation. They are quick to use his critique of the budget. He said the key target on income in NAPS states that the lowest rates of social welfare will reach €150 in 2002 terms by 2007. I hope the Deputy understands that.

I thank the Minister for sending me the report three days afterwards.

Surely the Deputy had the opportunity of a day to examine this document. He whittled out a press release, obviously without reading the contents of the report.

I did not receive a copy of the report. The Minister did not invite me to the launch. I would have been present.

The Minister did a Tánaiste on it.

I received it three days later. When did the Deputy receive it?

Deputy Hayes would have had an opportunity to examine my statement. Fr. Seán Healy said that, in 2002 terms, the sum of €150 euro is equivalent to 30% of gross average industrial earnings. Fr. Seán Healy accepts that.

If Fr. Seán Healy were present, we would ask him a few questions, but the Minister is present, so we will ask him instead. Does the Government accept the majority recommendation of the benchmarking report?

No, the Government has subsumed that document into its commitment to €150 euro which it believes——

That is how one makes changes in the Department of Finance.

We do not just blandly——

Why does the Government not accept the recommendation?

That is because certain views were expressed on different issues in this regard. There was not unanimity. The Government must ultimately make decisions. Many reports have fed into the national anti-poverty strategy, not all of which have been blandly accepted. That is perhaps the difference with this Government. We make our own decisions based on advice.

It should just keep doing that.

We do not blandly accept advice or suggestions given by outside bodies.

Am I correct in saying that, based on September figures, the lowest rate of social welfare at present represents 25% of average industrial earnings?

It was 25%.

Therefore, we must increase one percentage point each year for the next five years to get to 30%. There is a problem which begs a question, and if Deputy Broughan were to be the next Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, I would ask him the same question.

That would be great.

Deputy Hayes would be in charge of the Department of Finance and would not give him the money.

In the words of another, I will probably be growing chrysanthemums.

The Deputy is getting as bad as Senator O'Dowd.

When the Minister is framing——

Obviously my charms put a spoke in the wheel. All politics is local, obviously.

When the next Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs frames his budget——

——for the package of measures in social welfare, it will be predicated on the growth in industrial earnings for the next year. Is that not correct? Until now the package has been framed on the basis of the expectation for inflation. If we are to be serious in our commitment to this new benchmark, from now on, when the Minister makes his predictions for next year, he will have to include projected average industrial earnings increases for that year, if he is logical about the benchmarking. Is that not correct?

Sorry, what was the Deputy saying?

The point I make is that, when the Minister frames increases in future, it will not just be on the basis of the consumer price index but also on the projected increases in average industrial earnings for the year ahead. For example, if wage inflation is 8%, the Minister will have to give increases to the lowest social welfare recipients of more than 8%, that is, 9% or 10%. Is that not the logical consequences of what he said if one accepts the benchmark?

We estimate the increase in the cash target will, in effect, mean a 26% increase on the current level to be achieved over five years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implementation of the review of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy 'Building an Inclusive Society'.".

This relates to the new approach with the national office and so on. The Minister is probably the longest serving Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs in history. Since Deputy McCreevy is determined to get back into Finance——

We will not allow him back into the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs.

This could turn out to be a ten year term for the Minister of Social, Community and Family Affairs.

By public acclaim.

Many aspects of this strategy, which as the title suggests is a concise statement of the elements involved in building an inclusive society, are welcome. Is there any inclination in the Department, or was the Minister tempted to direct it, to make inclusion its central mission rather than administration, which consumes much of its time? There are 50 or so benefits, and rather than hiving NAPS into a special office, was there an effort to operate from the basis of an inclusive society? This is an area where the report is deficient. The issue of relative poverty is not addressed. If we are to have an inclusive and egalitarian society, why did the Minister not give any thought to that being the central mission?

People like Father Healy might not be familiar with spatial disadvantage but people around this table are. I was disappointed that there are pockets of grave deprivation around the country despite the increases of recent years. These are concentrated in urban areas and some rural areas, including in the midlands. Should we not give more attention to the spatial issue? I raised this last year in relation to the island grant. Maybe people in certain areas should receive a supplement because of their particular problems. Since all politics is local does the Minister regret not addressing the spatial issue?

It is disappointing for me and others in terms partnership and local development boards. The Chairman has a similar role to myself - I think the Minister is the only person here who——

I was on one of the first area partnerships, which was very successful one. I attended a meeting there last week.

It concerns everybody here in that case. There is concern among the very able workers that many of the RAPID programme developments in the 25 RAPID areas are not funded. This should not have been a separate programme but should have been run within the local government infrastructure. I was looking at my own RAPID report for part of Dublin north east and part of Dublin north central and it struck me that many of the plans had no funding - it is all in the remit of the next Government.

Should the mission of the Department have the theme of NAPS as its core value and should we have an increasingly spatial approach?

I will not labour the amendment but I wanted an opportunity to discuss it with the Minister since the NAPS report was published. He referred to Father Healy. Who once said "Who will free me from the turbulent priest"?

Is the Deputy saying I said that?

No, was it not King Henry who said it? On this occasion he was throwing a few bouquets in the Minister's direction. He also said a number of other things about the report and, given that the Minister referred to some of the positive things, I will outline the negatives.

Is this relevant to the amendment?

Yes, very much so - we are talking about the NAPS. He described it as vague and very general in some areas and as leaving a great deal to be decided in the coming years. He went on to say:

While we welcome the recognition of social, economic an cultural rights contained in the review, we are very disappointed by the narrow application of these rights in the remainder of the document . . . Ireland has very high levels of relative income poverty, with one in five people living in households with an income below the 50% relative income poverty line.

It was not all plaudits in the Minister's direction. There is good work in the NAPS on which to move forward but - this is true whoever is in Government - unless one Minister or the Cabinet subcommittee on social inclusion drives this programme over the next five years we will not see an appreciable difference for people at the margins of society.

One of the points I raised on Second Stage was that we still have 50,000 council houses without central heating which is quite Victorian. The figure is much better in Dublin City Council, I admit, but not so much in the new local authorities. It is appalling that 50,000 households have no central heating. I would like to see nugget issues like this resolved over the next three or four years. If we are part of the next Government, I will not sign up to any programme for Government unless there is a commitment——

The Deputy should not emulate Deputy Pat Rabbitte in that context.

A commitment must be given to ensure that over three years, every house is fitted with a decent heating system. Every household must have a heating system to take it out of poverty.

Does the Deputy mean private as well as public houses?

There are far more private houses without central heating.

The Deputy should check his figures before he starts——

I have, it will cost €200 million. Those issues affect poverty sometimes more than others. I welcome the Cabinet subcommittee on social inclusion chaired by the Taoiseach, but one Minister must drive the programme and pinpoint 50 or 60 actions over the lifetime of the NAPS. One of the good things about the health review was that it set out actions to be achieved over years one, two and three. We do not have that in the NAPS. This is something the Minister could consider because we have had increases in social welfare in recent years but in 1997 one could get a council house much easier, one could better afford to rent in the private rented sector and one had a better chance of getting a public bed in hospital than now. All these issues, and not just social welfare rates, relate to poverty. It is essential that the new NAPS, in order to be successful, is driven by one Minister, presumably the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs.

Regarding the new structures added to the significant existing structures, sometimes I wonder if we are - in deference to Deputy Broughan's party - tending to examine and contemplate our navels too much on issues. I would rather go and do it.

I want to clarify that. That is the first point I asked the Minister. In a sense it is another office but it should be the Department's role.

This followed the consideration of the social partners in the NAPS review where six different working groups fed into the framework document. I may have had some reservations about one or two aspects. However, I agree with Deputy Hayes that one Minister needs to drive it and that Minister should be the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. It is a bit like when the National Anti-Poverty Strategy began where one had to walk before running. Similarly in regard to driving NAPS through the various Departments, it has been good in some cases but patchy in others. To a certain extent the new national social inclusion committee, which will take over the functions of the NAPS unit, will still report to me. It will probably have a much higher profile than the NAPS unit within my Department, which is probably a good thing. That it is overseen by a management group of assistant secretaries from the relevant Departments is also a good thing. As the matter is not dealt with in some Departments at that level, perhaps assistant secretary level is probably a good level at which to drive it in the various Departments.

On the mission of the Department, my Department's mission statement is to promote social well-being through income and other supports which will enable people to participate in society in a positive way. I do not know how that can be improved on in regard to the social inclusion aspect referred to earlier. It has a social inclusion aspect, except that it is mainly driven by income. However, at the end of the day, a bit like Fr. Seán Healy's references to vagueness in his critique, the fact is that the key issues on which he and others have been fighting and the key targets we have picked out are the very ones that specifically matter to people. These are very significant targets which will demand very significant investment over the next five years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 2

Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 26 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare a report for both Houses of the Oireachtas on the implications of having the same commencement date for child benefit increases as for all other increases in benefits and assistance rates.".

We have already discussed this issue. Given the current rates, if the Government decides to bring next year's child benefit increases back to 1 January, what exactly will that cost given that we are coming towards the end of the three year programme of major increases in child benefit?

I spoke about this issue on Second Stage. I want to insert the word "effective" in line 8 because there is an element of play-acting going on in regard to child benefit. As I said on Second Stage, and I repeat it now, at no stage during the debate on this matter on the last Social Welfare Bill did the Minister tell the Dáil or the select committee exactly when the back-dated payment would be made. When I asked him directly at the select committee on 12 December when would this come about he said it would not make a difference because the payments would not be made until 1 April, and the budget dictated that. He did not say it would be May, even though the question related specifically to that matter. Similarly, on Second Stage in December he said the effective date of payments for child benefit would go from September 1997 to be effective from April 2002, the earliest date from which it was administratively possible to introduce these increases. The Minister for Finance, in his Budget Statement in December, did not refer to the back-dated May payment.

Was that the budget fact sheet?

Not exactly. Irrespective of the budget fact sheet, I would have thought that full and accurate information would be given by all concerned during the debate in the select committee or in the House. This matter was not referred to at any stage. The Minister is stringing out these increases as we approach a general election. We had his St. Valentine's Day love-bombing just two weeks ago and on the first Tuesday of May we will have this back-dated increase for the additional amounts of money for April and May, which is not the way to do business. The Minister said it could not be done any earlier. Why could he not introduce the back-dated payment by cheque on the first Tuesday in April? Why is it being delivered in May and not April? I accept what he said about the May-June timeframe for the books, but the additional back-dated payment could be paid in April, not May. That will not be the case because a general election is looming. It would be wrong of me not to highlight that fact. This is using taxpayers' money in a less than honest way and playing around with social welfare dates. There have been other examples in regard to tax this year. I am correct to highlight this fact by way of my amendment because it is possible for the Minister to deliver the increases in April and not May. As a member of the committee, I want to know why he has chosen May and not April.

To answer a number of specific questions, the cost of bringing forward child benefit payments by two months from June to April this year was €70 million. I said the first pay day in May would be the earliest day on which it would be possible for my Department to pay the increased rates. The extra cost of making them effective from the same date as the social welfare increases, that is, 1 January, is €103.5 million at the current rates.

Bringing back the payments to 1 January - this was the same in regard to bringing it back to 1 April and paying it in May - would have caused serious administrative difficulties for my Department. As my officials explained to members of the committee last November, the book-based system is the chosen payment option for the majority of pensioners and other long-term beneficiaries. As the majority of families receiving child benefit, almost one million recipients, are paid by this method, it is less flexible than other payment methods and requires a longer lead-in time to implement increases. Over a period between December and March and up to May, family income supplement books amounted to 11,500; lone parents and widows, 280,000 books and old age retirement pensions, 260,000 books. There are approximately 550,000 child benefit recipients. This is a fully crowded schedule into which the production of single vouchers for arrears of budget increases had to be squeezed. It was only as a result of significantly extra overtime that staff of the Department were able to deal with the February payments and the child benefit arrears. There were 380,000 child benefit vouchers. This is not playing around with money. There was a desire to pay people effective from 1 April. From a political point of view, it may have suited better if we were able to pay the money in April but it is not physically possible. I spent a long time discussing the matter with my officials who informed me that it was not possible to pay it earlier than June, even if we backdated it to 1 April.

To the first Tuesday in May.

The computer system used to pay child benefit, probably the oldest in the Department, is being replaced. One of the causes of the industrial relations problems in Letterkenny was the introduction of the new service delivery model to allow changes in child benefit to be made much quicker than has been the case heretofore. I reiterate that the earliest date for payment is in May.

Having gone to all this effort, what will happen if the Government collapses over the national aquatic centre and the general election is held earlier than May? The Minister's best laid plans will have gone astray.

I agree. My official informs me that this is the reason the Bill must be passed irrespective of who is in office. The Government has stated its intention to go to the country in the summer. The reason for the Department's action is to bring back the payment date of child benefit. With more money, we could have tried to backdate payments to 1 January. Given the huge administrative problems it would have caused, it may have proved impossible and we would have ended up making the payments in May. To backdate them by just two months would cost €70 million, a huge sum of money.

It is my intention to progressively bring back the payment date for increases. Like Opposition Deputies, I would like to bring it back further if returned to office. We have already shown cause by bringing it back from September to an effective date of 1 April. I state categorically that there was no machiavellian plot. The date chosen was the earliest at which the Department could pay the increases effective on 1 April. If the Deputy does not accept my word, I will ask my officials to make themselves available to the committee to explain the nuts and bolts of delivering on this issue.

On increased payments, if one is paid by means of the book, will the May payment include the new rate together with the additional amount for April or will the backdated payment for April and May be on a separate leaf?

My understanding is there will be a separate page.

I saw a pension book recently with the backdated payment on a separate leaf. Why not pay the increase for April and May on the first Tuesday of April? While I accept that the Bill must pass through the House, there was no question, given the numbers available to the Government, that it was going to happen. If it was possible to do it in May, why not do it in April? I have taken a great interest in child benefit in recent months and have become quite knowledgeable on the subject.

The Deputy should note that my wife's child benefit belongs to her alone and I do not interfere with it. He should not interfere with his wife's child benefit either.

I thank the Minister's officials for expediting my claim recently.

I asked them to do so.

When were the increases in child benefit and old age pensions paid in 1997? As they were so low then, I suppose it is very hard to remember.

This is the History Channel.

It is the Discovery Channel.

It does no harm to find out. Deputy Brady is absolutely correct, the meagre £1 increase for the first two children in 1997 was paid in September.

Does Deputy Brady know the price of nappies?

With regard to the child benefit arrears from early March to 26 April and payable on 7 May, the supplier has been working overtime every weekend since the start of the year to facilitate the production of 380,000 single vouchers and renewals and will be required to continue working overtime to enable production of the single voucher in time for May.

Did the industrial relations problem in some post offices which occurred on the first Tuesday of this month make it difficult for those who claim child benefit using the book to receive their payment? Has the matter been brought to the Minister's attention?

I presume the Deputy is referring to the industrial relations problem in An Post.

Yes, is it widespread?

I understand it is selective. In my local post office in Dundalk, for example, the stoppage began at 3.30 p.m. on Monday, whereas the office in Drogheda did not start until 11 a.m. It is a pay claim by the Communication Workers Union.

I understand the industrial relations problem in Letterkenny is connected with the change to a system which would ensure more prompt payment in a more effective manner. When the process is complete, will it be possible——

The process is still in train. The industrial relations problem was related to staff seeking promotions because of the work involved in the process.

When we have concluded the process surely it will be possible for me to collect my money from any post office on any day of the month using my book rather than being confined to one specific day in a month?

I suggest that the Deputy has the money paid into his bank account.

I will follow that advice.

Excuse me, his wife's bank account.

It is a joint account.

I would not allow it, I would make everyone collect it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Will we take a ten minute break now?

What is the timescale for making progress when we return?

I suggest we take a short break and then continue until 5.55 p.m. as there will be a vote at 6.50 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 4.30 p.m. and resumed at 4.40 p.m.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, subsection (2), line 8, after "into" to insert "effective".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of bringing child benefit for twins into line with the provision for multiple births of 3 or more children.".

For the last time in this Dáil I table this amendment on behalf of the parents of twins. I am informed that the Minister has still not lived up to his election promise in 1997.

That is not the case. We delivered on our pre-election commitment in our first budget. We delivered on the commitment made.

That is not what the parents of twins say.

That is not correct. I sent a letter and a copy of the documents that we issued before the election to her, where we gave specific commitments to increase it by 50%. We delivered that in the first budget. I indicated that, in the lifetime of the Government, I would like to bring it up but given that we have had such substantial increases in the past two years, which would have particularly benefited families with twins, to a certain extent that issue is off the agenda because of the increases across the board in child benefit.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 22 are related an may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the introduction of a non-means tested carer's allowance.".

This is an area we have discussed many times. It gives us a final opportunity to tell the Minister that, despite the improvements he has introduced in the incomes disregard for carer's allowance and despite the welcome respite increases in section 3, about 20,000 of the minimum of 50,000 carers identified in the Minister's Department's 1998 report are covered by the carer's allowance - just 40%. I tried to say on Second Stage that a number of carers, people with disability and leaders of the organisations representing them are considering standing as Independent candidates in the general election because there is a perception that the Government failed in a central part of its remit in relation to the 1997 programme for people with disability. The Government is leaving office without having brought forward a disability bill. There is a general perception that we have failed carers of people with disability.

Before Christmas, when we had the famous meeting, Deputy Wade was witness to an emissary from the Taoiseach arriving hotfoot in Limerick to say that the disregards would be brought up to average industrial wage in the budget. Sadly, this did not happen and although we reached the £300 or £150 mark, we still have a problem. The central point is an issue, not so much of the money but of recognition. Two weeks ago in the Labour Party parliamentary room, I met a delegation of 40 carers from Cork city. The problem was that they were not getting sufficient recognition in Irish society despite the improvements that have admittedly taken place in the past five years. They felt strongly about small issues such as those in the community care areas. One woman mentioned the provision of knee and elbow pads for her severely disabled daughter. They had a pad that adhered to her body and remained intact overnight but an official, on cost grounds, decided to introduce another pad which does not adhere properly. Some people who are full-time carers do not qualify for the allowance because of the means test. They feel this should be independent of means testing and that there should be a simple carer's payment payable to anyone who is caring on a full-time basis.

Why are people who are on a course for perhaps 20 hours per week not allowed more time? The definition of a carer which the Department of Health and Children gives is full time. This will become an issue as we approach the election. People feel that the whole Oireachtas has failed them, which is why they are standing as Independents. There is a feeling that the Minister has not delivered on this issue and that the improvements have not addressed the central point of recognition.

We have had a referendum today which the Taoiseach may be conceding on as we speak. We have had many constitutional referendums and it may go to that point in relation to needs assessment and recognition. It is bigger than money but as the Minister rightly says, money is the most important issue in terms of income maintenance. I hope the next Government will have a carer's payment which is not means tested for full-time carers because that is what people deserve.

What about the people on social welfare?

That is another issue and it is dealt with in another amendment.

It is a much bigger issue.

It is an important issue, particularly in relation to widows and lone parents, where it is not dealt with in having two benefits. What people are asking for is a carer's payment which acknowledges the role people play. I am aware of the financial aspects of this. We were talking about benchmarking and making commitments into the future and it is interesting that the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to the carer's allowance in his last report which I always read with interest because I was a member of the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Dáil. One always remembers its operation in relation to public expenditure. Everybody is watching the amounts of money that are spent. I commend the Minister for increasing spending rapidly in the area. Nonetheless, there are fundamental aspects of our society which we should address. In the past, up to 20 years ago, we treated carers disgracefully and we still treat them far less well than they should be treated. Perhaps this is one amendment the Minister should accept and allow pass so it is on the record as an issue we have tried to grapple with and that the Government is leaving for consideration.

I agree with Deputy Broughan's comments. The most glaring inequity in respect of dealing with carers is that someone who has an existing social welfare payment cannot get a half rate carer's allowance or some contribution in recognition of the fact that he or she is doing such a huge job in looking after a loved one or friend. This is an area in which we have seen no progress. The Minister regularly tells the committee that one cannot get two social welfare payments but carers regard this as a recognition of the work they are doing. It is not a monetary payment because we could not pay for the amount of work people are doing. This is an area we should focus on. People on social welfare payments should be entitled to a half rate carer's allowance or equivalent amount in recognition of what they are doing. That has been the biggest failure because while improvements have been made in the carer's allowance and the income threshold each year, we are still not getting close to the 50,000 that the Minister's Department estimates are providing full-time care. The new income thresholds which have been announced will bring the figure up to 25,000 this year——

The figure is 28,000.

We are still a long way short of the 50,000 who need to be supported. I support these amendments.

The Deputies are correct in that much has been done, and I accept and thank them for their compliments for what I have done during my stewardship. We all accept that more can be done.

I do not make this as a political point, but by far the most amendments to the carer's allowance scheme have been made during my stewardship. We gave a commitment that over time we would increase the means disregard to the average industrial wage. That is still the view. I do not accept we should abolish the means test. I would have a problem with that. I said previously it would mean people on relatively high incomes would get the exact same amount as those on low incomes. That would not be fair or equitable. I have always seen the limitation of the carer's allowance scheme on its own, in that the social welfare system is only designed to give low income families a basic income. The carer's allowance was not designed to pay people for particular caring duties. Given add-ons such as respite care, free schemes and so on, fortunately, we are reaching a stage where we can assist people.

It is the duty of all Deputies to plan how we will look after the elderly and infirm as the population gets older. The sooner we do so the better. That is one of the reasons the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, and I in the context of the health strategy are already taking part in discussions as to how we can put together all the strands in regard to financial support for people who are caring, whether it will mean a dove-tailing of schemes such as home help, nursing home subventions and carer's allowance. I accept there also needs to be a broader look at the other supports to which Deputy Broughan referred. These are small things which cause people difficulty. One of the reasons we looked at the issue of needs assessment, piloted by the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, was to give people a non-means tested care allowance. When looking at the needs assessment of both the carer and the person being cared for, many other aspects must also be considered.

I do not accept that we do not have a non-means tested payment. We have the carer's benefit which I set up and which over time will become an extremely beneficial scheme. Much has been done in this area but more can be done. I would like to think more can be done in regard to not just income and financial help but also other aspects. Perhaps we can marry many of the supports and try to address some of the gaps.

The Minister has made the point down through the years that he felt there should be a payment in relation to the Department of Health and Children and health boards. I can see where he is coming from in that regard. I note what the Minister for Health and Children has done in regard to long-term care. All the political parties were looking at the figures with great interest. The Comptroller and Auditor General began the debate on this issue. The report indicates that there is an insurance based system in Germany whereby we would all be compelled to provided for our own long-term care. On average, 40% of the current generation will need a period of care before we die. Would the Minister envisage a package of supports at local level such as a carer's payment for a job being done in each household and each locality which would not be part of the social welfare budget? In other words, traditional social welfare payments might not be used.

I envisage something along those lines in the future. Perhaps it might not necessarily be linked to social welfare. There might be an onus on us to put an onus on families, as in the German model, over their working lives to provide for when they may need care. We have already reached a situation where the extended family is no longer available to look after members of families. There is an onus on those of us in our middle years and in good employment to provide for our care in the future because we cannot rely on other people. That is why we need to consider issues of equity such as the release of property. The vast majority of Irish people own their houses. We should consider whether there is some way to assist people who become infirm in that respect? Perhaps we should consider a model such as the German one whereby we would make deductions from people's salaries. I agree with the Deputy that we must consider these aspects.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need to extend the free telephone allowance to elderly persons living in nursing homes, either for a fixed line or a mobile phone, particularly in cases where the allowance was previously obtained.".

This matter is regularly put to the Minister by way of written and oral parliamentary questions. It relates to elderly people living in nursing homes or other institutional care or people who are hospitalised for a period of time and can no longer get the free telephone allowance. The aunt of a woman in my constituency is 89 and was in receipt of the telephone allowance. When she went into a nursing home, not having received a huge subvention from the health board, her telephone allowance was taken from her. She wrote to me stating that the free telephone allowance scheme was seemingly introduced to encourage people to stay in their community. That would suggest that people, family and outside contacts would also keep in touch with their loved ones. As this lady moved to a community where she could only have daily contact and care, she is now being penalised as it appears the free telephone allowance is not available to elderly people living in such places of residence. It seems the free telephone regulations are being interpreted and enforced by the authorities in a most uncaring and discriminatory way. One must consider a situation where a well heeled couple, over 70, living with family members, is entitled to this allowance and someone living in a nursing home is not.

The free telephone allowance scheme is very good because it helps to connect people with their family and friends. However, just because one moves into a nursing home should not mean that person automatically loses the allowance. It is very important for someone living alone in a separate room in a nursing home to be able to keep in touch with family and friends. I do not think it would take a huge amount of imagination to change the scheme. I put this to the Minister on numerous occasions. I have received a considerable number of representations from people in nursing homes on this issue. As people are living longer and seeing the benefit of the scheme, I think we should extend it to nursing homes. Therefore, I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

I have a great deal of sympathy in regard to this issue and it is not that we are uncaring in the Department. The free schemes share common objectives in relation to the whole issue of social inclusion. They provide assistance to people living alone by targeting them for specific benefits and providing both income and social inclusion gains. They support older people and people with disabilities in their wish to remain in the community as opposed to in institutional care. They are also designed to support Government policy, which seeks to acknowledge the contribution of older people to society. The original objective of the telephone allowance is to provide an element of protection in their own home for older people and those with disabilities who are either living alone or with people who are unable to summon help in an emergency.

A second objective of the scheme was to encourage social contact and to assist in the prevention of social isolation for those living alone. Those living in nursing homes or other residential institutions have daily contact with and receive support from other residents and nursing staff. They are also in receipt of other State supports, either through the public health system or, in some cases, the nursing homes subvention scheme. In the circumstances, the proposal to extend the telephone rental scheme to residents in nursing homes does not fit easily with the objectives of the schemes which are, as already stated, to provide an element of personal security and assist in the prevention of isolation for those living alone.

Even if we wanted to brush aside the matters to which I have referred and proceed to extend the scheme to these people, there is the practical difficulty that other individuals could access these people's telephones.

What about mobile phones?

I would like to have extended the entire scheme of free telephone rental to mobile phones but that is easier said than done. There would be a number of major difficulties involved in extending the scheme to mobile phones. One would think it would be quite simple to do so, but it is the opposite. There would be enormous difficulties involved in extending the scheme to people in institutional care. I accept that people lost their free telephone rental when they entered homes.

That is the worst aspect of this matter.

As already stated, however, there would be practical difficulties in allowing such telephones to be placed in a room or rooms in institutions, particularly in terms of the fact that they would be accessible to other people.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report in relation to increasing the weekly allowance to those seeking asylum in this country.".

Amendments of this nature arise on a regular basis and relate to support given to asylum seekers. We have been dealing with this issue for approximately two and a half years. I have only been a member of the committee for a year but I read the reports of its previous proceedings and it is clear that we have made no progress on significantly increasing the rate of benefit payable to asylum seekers. I am aware that these people are entitled to claim child benefit and have, therefore, benefited from the increases provided in the past two budgets.

The Department produced a report on this matter on foot of a direction from the Minister. It is not good enough that, while welcome increases in the rates payable on many schemes were provided in the budget, the rate of payment on this scheme was not increased. It is time we took action on this issue. When officials of the Department appeared before the committee they pointed out that the rate is tied to the level of support given to people in institutional care, which has its own connotations.

There is a need to take action in respect of this matter because the level of payment these people receive is extremely low. There has been no movement in this area since the introduction of direct provision. It is time to act. Where is the report we were promised? For as long as I have held this portfolio on behalf of my party I have been hearing about the report but I have not seen the conclusions that were reached in it.

We expect to have the report in the near future. I accept that the working group has been going about its business for some time but, as the Deputy stated, under direct provision people receive their bed, board and lodgings. They are entitled to the payments but they are also entitled to exceptional needs payments. I understand that most of them receive such payments. As the Deputy also stated, many of them will have benefited from the increases in child benefit. Obviously we must wait until the report of the working group, comprising membership from my Department, the Departments of Finance, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Environment and Local Government and representatives of the chief executives of the health boards, is presented before we take action.

How long has the working group been in place?

It was established in April 2000.

Almost two years.

I support this amendment. Is the Minister in a position to indicate the average period people must wait before decisions are made on their cases?

I understand it is down to six months, which is a great deal better than in the past.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need to provide-

(a) a pension supplement to those pensioners who are solely dependent on either a contributory or non-contributory pension, and

(b) increased support for pensioners under the living alone allowance.”.

I tabled this amendment to draw the Minister out in respect of the substantial group of pensioners who are solely dependent on State pensions, contributory or non-contributory, and who do not have other occupational pensions. We will be dealing with this matter tomorrow and for the next number of weeks in the deliberations on the Pensions Bill. However, I want to discover what is the Minister's view about paying an additional pension supplement to those people who do not have another income through an occupational pension scheme.

It could be argued that the living alone allowance is a supplement of one type or other, albeit to people who are living on their own irrespective of whether they are in receipt of two pensions. However, this allowance has not been increased in recent years. In my opinion, it is time we gave consideration to this issue. Those people who are on contributory pensions have benefited from significant increases and we have reached the 32% threshold in this regard. Many of these people are also in receipt of occupational pensions. However, there are substantial numbers of people who are only in receipt of State pensions. We need to consider establishing a system under which a supplement could be given solely to these people, which would significantly increase their level of income.

I support the amendment. I do not want to pre-empt the debate tomorrow. As I informed the Taoiseach this morning, we are unhappy with the short period we have been given to prepare for the debate on the Pensions Bill. The Minister stated last July that it is the most important item of legislation that will come before the current Dáil and now the debate on it will be guillotined. We will be put to the pins of our collars in terms of trying to draft amendments we wish to table in respect of it. Anne Vaughan and the staff of the Department have done an outstanding job in relation to preparing the Bill. However, there are many fundamental issues which arise and the point made by Deputy Hayes will form part of the general debate.

We have all received the submission made by the Jesuit Centre for Social Justice which carried out an economy study that drew attention to the fact that tax relief on occupational pensions or the new PRSAs should be taken into account by comparison with the amount of money we spend on social welfare payments. In other words, we should be looking at the total pension package of society in general. Regardless of how one considers this matter, provision for pensions, whether it is what we will do tomorrow in respect of PRSAs or what we do today in relation to social welfare payments, is a charge on society. It is, therefore, as Deputy Hayes points out in amendment No. 12, the position of the most vulnerable pensioners at which we should look.

I understand our colleagues in the UK have been severely criticised because they introduced a draconian means testing system. What Deputy Hayes is seeking in this amendment is a pension credit system that would ensure that the poorest pensioners would be given that little bit extra. To be fair to the pensioners' representative bodies, particularly the trade union group, which is represented by the former Labour politician, Mick O'Halloran, the late Mattie Merrigan and others, they always drew attention to the fact that they represented workers who had occupational pensions. Deputy Hayes's amendment deals with those who are solely dependent on either contributory or non-contributory pensions. In particular, it relates to the situation of women who, in the past, were forced to leave work under a different and more sexist regime and pensioners on home duties who were left in a very vulnerable position. I refer to those in the non-contributory category. The Government deserves to be commended for reaching the target of £100 which it set in 1997 and perhaps it is now timely to deal with the situation to which I have just referred, either through the pension credit or some such device in accordance with amendment No. 12.

In effect, what is being suggested is the introduction of a pension supplement. That would involve additional means testing of people who are on contributory pensions, in their own right, based on their stamps, at a time when we are trying to get rid of means testing from the system. Over time, as the generation moves on, most people will qualify automatically for a contributory old age pension. While I introduced a change in the living alone allowance by extending it to people on invalidity pensions who were living alone - bringing in approximately an additional 11,000 people - I am not particularly in favour of bringing in the type of supplement which has been suggested, because it would bring in a whole new regime of means testing for people to whom it does not now apply. I would rather increase their pensions exponentially, as we have done.

The problem is that the poorer pensioner is not really being targeted. If a person has another pension to which he or she has contributed over X years, he or she has another income source, whereas those who are solely dependant on contributory pensions do not have that.

During our visit to Sweden last year, we saw another approach to this matter. Due to a shortage of workers, a new option had been introduced whereby people could either retire at age 66 or continue working for another year or two, with a deferred pension arrangement which provided for an increase equivalent to about £5 per week for each additional year of service. For example, a person could retire at 66 with a pension of £116 per week or at 68 with a pension of £126 per week.

Some EU background material available to us in relation to the Pensions Bill indicated that any form of ageism in relation to jobs is likely to be banned. It may be already in conflict with the Constitution and some aspects of the equality legislation. The concept of compulsory retirement at a certain age may be in its last few years of operation. Options will have to be available to people who wish to continue working.

People can work on past 66 and get their pensions without any problem.

Yes, but they cannot get insurance cover after age 66. My father continued working after 66 but he had no additional stamp contributions and no increase in pension.

Under the Swedish system, the pension payment was deferred until actual retirement, at which time it was increased by the equivalent of £10 or £15, in accordance with the number of years additional service.

Can the Minister say how many or what percentage of pensioners are solely dependant on the State pension as their only source of income?

I have not got that information with me.

Would it represent one-third?

The increase in old age pensions is very good but it does not target those who need it most.

The increases given over a number of years would benefit the less well off pensioners proportionately more than those who have additional income.

A significant number of senior citizens are still living in poverty and they are one of the most vulnerable groups, despite what has been done so far.

Their income has reduced in relative terms as incomes in the economy generally have expanded rapidly.

Of course.

That was bound to happen. However, the increases which we have specifically targeted to old age pensioners are a recognition that they are a very deserving category. They generally appreciate what has been given. While I agree there may be difficulties, what has been suggested in terms of a supplement would set up a whole new system of means testing and I am not sure that would be appreciated by old age pensioners.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need to provide a report on increasing the contributory widow's pension to the same rate as the contributory old age pension.".

We discussed this issue on a previous Social Welfare Bill and the Minister has made progress on the position of widows over 66 years, in bridging the gap between the contributory old age pension and the contributory widow's pension. The difference is currently in the region of €3 or €4. What would be the total cost of bringing the contributory widow's pension up to the same rate as the contributory old age pension? If one spouse dies early, that person has been paying insurance, through PRSI, for a number of years. This is an unexpected event and there should be no distinction between the contributory widow's pension for over 66 and the old age contributory pension.

Do I understand correctly that the Minister is committed to that?

What is the cost involved?

I will have that figure checked. I recall, from a previous occasion, that it was a very substantial figure. I do not accept any suggestion that I have done nothing for widows under 66 years. I introduced the widowed parent grant which is now quite substantial, in addition to the bereavement grant. On the Deputy's question, the widow's contributory pension, under 66 rate, is now €2.5 per week less than the old age contributory pension. The cost of equalising the two rates would be €9 million. I would have liked to bridge the gap in this year's budget but the money was not available.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the existing social welfare benefits and social insurance protection afforded to job sharers so as to reduce a number of anomalies that exist for job sharers in respect of PRSI contributions.".

If we are to encourage a more family friendly working environment, job sharing will have to be more widely used by families who wish to move in and out of the labour force as they choose. The difficulty is that, where people are working half time over a period of years, depending on their working conditions, they lose out on many benefits. For dental and optical treatment benefit, one must have 39 PRSI contributions paid or credited in the governing contribution year. Some job sharers may find they do not have the required number of contributions and, therefore, they cannot get the benefits.

The Minister has made a commitment, under the PPF, to establish a working group to look at these proposals. However, this issue has to be raised because, if one is trying to marry work and family requirements and encourage people to take up job sharing options, one cannot and should not offer the people concerned any reduction in the potential benefits they could get under the PRSI system. That point has to be made very strongly. Can the Minister indicate what is the time schedule of the working group? Can we take it that there will not be a two year delay, as in the case of the asylum workers? Do I understand correctly that there is a commitment, under the PPF, to establish a working group to look at the benefits given to job sharers?

Not that I am aware of.

I have a reply to a Parliamentary Question as follows:

In line with the commitment to PPF, a working group will be established this year to produce proposals for the development of a fully inclusive social insurance model, which would facilitate combining work and family responsibilities.

It is up and running and doing very good work. It is looking at the issue of coverage and contributions and the average test. There are big issues involved; it is not just about job sharers, who will be looked at and will be involved and in regard to whom, we have made some changes during the years. They can change their work pattern to ensure they work in every PRSI week and, therefore, obtain the 52 contributions required in a full year. They also qualify for the majority of social insurance benefits. The note states it is necessary to find the balance between the payment of sufficient contributions and the entitlement to benefits. It is believed that the current arrangements represent such a balance. If anyone has any difficulty in regard to what their entitlements are, they are advised to contact the Department's information section, which would give them further details.

The fully inclusive social insurance model is about to start. My staff were more heavily involved in the issue of the administrative individualisation model which is now well advanced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need to provide a derogation for those born between January and April 1936 or 1937 as such persons may be adversely affected, in terms of social welfare benefits, by the alignment of the contributory year with the calendar year.".

One of the aspects of being Opposition spokesperson on social welfare is that colleagues regularly send me information on perceived anomalies that they wish me to raise in the context of Bills, on the basis that the Minister, or whoever will be in his shoes next year, might bring forward enlightened legislation free of such anomalies. This is one such case where the Minister has brought forward payments to January this year. The amendment asks that a derogation be provided for a very small group of people born between January and April 1936 or 1937 on the basis that this change could affect their entitlements in terms of social welfare benefits. I am not sure if it was originally the Department's policy to propose a derogation, but it is possible that a small group will be affected by the backdating. I am not sure if any cases have come to light yet.

No cases have been made to date, but there is a possibility that the averages of people who find themselves in this situation may be brought down. The Pensions Board will monitor the situation to see if any changes are necessary.

Will cases be looked at sympathetically?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on improving the income limit for the back to work allowance scheme to account for family size of applicants so that secondary benefits would remain intact for the three years duration of the scheme.".

This amendment relates to the back-to-work allowance, a matter one of my colleagues asked me to raise with the Minister. The back-to-work allowance scheme is successful in that it allows for an additional financial boost for people in the first three years after moving back into the workplace following a period of unemployment. The Minister is aware that there was a commitment given to those involved in the scheme that their secondary benefits would remain intact for its three year duration. In the small print there is a clause whereby one's income must not exceed £250 per week. This income limit is in no way related to family size. Therefore, one could have one child or five and it would make no difference. A couple with no children could retain their benefits while a couple with five children would be penalised if they earned more than the specified sum. This matter was raised previously. I would be interested in hearing the Minister's views on whether amendments can be made to ensure secondary benefits are not lost for larger families.

I think I understand what the Deputy is saying, but I am not sure if my note addresses the point. Long-term unemployed persons who avail of the back-to-work allowance can retain their secondary benefits, provided their gross household weekly income does not exceed £250, €317.43. Retention of the medical card is not subject to the income limit in recognition that this income threshold could give rise to disincentives to participation in the scheme. I provided for two key improvements in this area in budget 2000. Provision was made for disregarded back-to-work allowance payments and family income supplement for the purposes of the gross household limit, and the maximum rent allowable of £250 per month was abolished in favour of a tapered withdrawal over a four year period. These measures came into effect in April 2000 to ensure that, in the case of families with children, substantially increased supports are provided in the critical early years of transition from unemployment to employment. Although the income limit does not vary according to family size, the arrangements I have outlined ensure the existence of dependants is taken into account. The question of further enhancing the income limit is a matter for consideration in a budgetary context.

The point is that it does not take account of the number of children in the family. I think I am right in saying that.

The Deputy is correct, but the point is that the disregard for back-to-work allowance and family income supplement is bigger for larger families. By adding them in, as we did in April 2000, that gives them an advantage.

In terms of getting the payment in the first place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on improving the co-ordination of policy between his Department and FÁS so that spouses who are not entitled to unemployment benefit in their own right could be entitled to participate in existing FÁS schemes".

This is in regard to a report calling for co-ordination between the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and FÁS in order that spouses not entitled to unemployment benefit in their own right could be entitled to participate in existing FÁS schemes. This matter was raised by a number of colleagues in my party who asked me to put it to the Minister again. It is regularly brought to the attention of a number of Departments that a married woman not entitled to sign on is also not entitled to participate in a FÁS scheme because the income of her husband excludes her from participation. Many married women feel aggrieved at this. Clearly, it would require both the Minister and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, to put pressure on FÁS to change these restrictive rules.

A P2000 working group on women's access to labour market opportunities chaired by my Department reported on 13 April 2000. One of its key recommendations was that access to the labour market should be extended to qualified adults or persons eligible to participate in labour market programmes. This recommendation has been implemented. If memory serves me correctly, most of the recommendations referred to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Only two were relevant to my Department which we subsequently implemented.

The Deputy will appreciate that the question of criteria governing access to FÁS courses lies with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, whose Department is responsible. The review of progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the working group is being carried out under the aegis of my Department in conjunction with a number of others. This lateral review will provide an opportunity to improve interdepartmental co-ordination.

A married woman over 35 who has been a dependent of an unemployed person, also over 35, who is in receipt of unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit is eligible to participate on a CE scheme for up to three years.

The issue brought to my attention was the ability to take part in FÁS courses.

Perhaps it is an issue that should be taken up with the Tánaiste.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need to revise the existing method of assessing pension provision for persons who emigrated, in respect of averaging their contributions.".

This is one of those quirky amendments that is sent to test us every so often. This arises for many people who emigrated. They worked, perhaps, for two or three years in Ireland and worked abroad for a number of years having been forced to emigrate. If they return to Ireland and recommence working here, when they come to pension age they will be assessed with the total years they could possibly have been part of the Irish work force, even though they were out of it for a number of years. I understand this affects quite a number of people who left in the mid-1950s. Their total record is divided by 45 years to give an average and they are awarded a pension at the appropriate rate and based on the average. However, if they did not accumulate any stamps in Ireland before they emigrated and then returned and accumulated stamps, they could qualify for the full rate of pension for very modest contributions because contributions are only averaged over the period in which they worked in Ireland. The Minister has said on previous discussions on social welfare Bills that he would look into this and give a report. I will be interested to hear his reply.

The issue the Deputy refers to is one that is currently looked at by my Department in connection with the examination of the whole area of contributions. We are hoping to work on a universal basis rather than an average test because the average test throws up huge inequities in that the earlier one starts work, the more difficult it is over the period——

Is that the exact number of years?

It is exacerbated if one leaves the country. To a certain extent I have eased the qualifying conditions in recent years. The pre-1953 issue would be somewhat relevant. Of the 18,000 who have qualified, quite a sizeable proportion are resident outside the State. Quite a number of old age pensioners in England have now qualified for a pre-1953 pension as of right. That takes care of some, but not all of the issues. Obviously if one is here one can pay the contribution but cannot do so if one is not here.

If one works in another country and pays contributions there, can those be transferred to help establish the average for the period of time one is there?

We have bilateral agreements with most of the major non-EU States such as the United States and Australia. We are currently drawing up an agreement with South Korea, the signing of which is due to take place in May or June.

The World Cup is being held there at that time.

I do not think I will be around to sign it. There are reciprocation agreements within the EU.

When is the report on the issue of contributions due?

I said "universal" but I meant "total contributions", people will get credit for their total contributions paid rather than calculating an average. I am not sure when the report is due to be published but it was progressing fairly rapidly.

What is the position for our pre-1953 emigrants to the United States? Has there been much take-up from there?

Yes. I do not know the figures but thousands of people in the UK have qualified while the number is smaller in the US. I would not like to tell the Department of Finance the number of countries where pre-1953 pensioners qualify.

The problem is that the total number of years one might work for is then used to average out one's contributions, even though one could have worked abroad from some of that 45 or 50 years.

Or one could have been working in the home and be affected if one did not get credit from the homemakers scheme. That is a big problem for married women who take time off work to work in the home. My wife started work very early and will have great difficulty qualifying for a pension. That is a bit unfair, but it is a common problem.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 5, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the effects of different stamp contributions, in respect of obtaining treatment benefits, for those under 25 years of age and for those over 25 years of age.".

This is quite a sore issue for many young people who leave college at 21 or 22, and start paying contributions. By age 25 they do not have the requisite number of contributions in order to draw down treatment benefits, particularly dental and optical treatments. There seems to be a considerable threshold when one turns 25 where the stamps required are quite considerable before one can receive treatment benefit. I do not know why that is. This has been brought to my attention by people who have been working for three or three and a half years and have been paying PRSI but when they need the treatment benefit, they cannot draw it.

Persons aged under 21 must have at least 39 weeks PRSI paid since first starting work in order to qualify. Persons aged 21 to 24 must have at least 39 weeks PRSI paid since first starting work, and 39 weeks paid or credited in the relevant tax year. In the case of those aged 25-65, the requirement is that they must have at least 260 weeks PRSI paid since first starting work, and 39 weeks PRSI paid or credited in the relevant tax year. Of the 724,000 claims to both dental and optical benefits received in 2000, some 646,000 - 89% - qualified for benefit. Some 78,000 - 11% - did not qualify because of insufficient insurance records or some other reasons.

There will always be cases where the insured person does not have the required number of minimum contributions. Persons can have gaps in their insurance record for many reasons. In 1999 some 5,000 persons aged 25-30 failed to qualify because of the 260 weeks paid contribution rule. In 1993 the age limit was extended from 23 to 25. There are no specific proposals at present for changing the qualifying conditions. The operation of this scheme is subject to ongoing monitoring by my Department. The question of further improvements would be a matter for budgetary policy changes.

This was last changed in 1993, but it has been brought to my attention as a particular problem for that category of young workers, recently graduated from college, who cannot draw this benefit. The Minister said that 11% of applicants could not qualify. Were the majority of those aged between 21 and 25?

I would not have thought so.

But it was due to applicants having insufficient stamps.

The 78,000 failed applications would come from across the entire age range. I would estimate that only a small proportion of that 78,000 would be people aged 21-25. The vast majority of workers are older than that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 5, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.-The Minister shall as soon as possible after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the extension of social welfare free schemes to widows and widowers with dependant children.".

This is a repeat of an amendment we tabled to the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 2001. At the time the Minister stated it would cost a significant amount of money and could be construed as discriminatory. Nonetheless the fundamental argument for this amendment is that one way of compensating for the trauma experienced by widows, and particularly young widows coping with the educational and other needs of a number of dependent children where previously there was an extra income in the household, is to ensure she would be entitled to the full range of household benefits. I am just reiterating the point in the context of this Bill.

The Minister made the point that household benefit is part of the social insurance fund. Part of the reason we were so vociferously opposed to the raid on the fund which took place last year was that it makes it more difficult to deliver additional benefits such as these.

During my tenure over the past number of years, I tried to see how I could ringfence assistance to widows. We introduced some measures such as the widowed parent grant, which we increased exponentially. The bereavement grant would also help and, in the case of widows over 66, we gave commitments to raise it to the old age contributory pension rate.

We looked very closely at the issue of free schemes but the strong advice, particularly from the report which was done on the review of free schemes, was that this was, by and large, a scheme designed for people aged 66 and over. Even though widows between the ages of 60 and 65 whose spouses had been in receipt of the free schemes before they died continue to qualify for the free schemes, there is very little scope to give the free schemes to groups such as widows. One might mention recipients of the carer's allowance in this context, but people would accept that their case is different. The problem is that one parent families would all claim that they are entitled to the free schemes and that lone parents would be no different to widows with children. If we were to extend the free schemes to widows, that is the difficulty from the point of view of equity which we would encounter.

Was the Minister thinking at one stage of abolishing the free schemes and replacing them with household benefit? The media picked up a report to that effect. I know the Minister did not intend to do that.

Never. That report was wrong. Unfortunately some person in the media picked up on that and misunderstood what we were saying about pulling them all together in a household budget. I would not dismantle the free schemes.

Was there anybody in the Department thinking in terms of a household benefit which could have gone to all families?

As money, no.

Was a study done?

Not by my Department. There was a study done on the free schemes.

Yes, by some graduate.

No, it was done by my Department in conjunction with Trinity College. What was picked up wrongly by one person in the media as a result of the launch of that document was that there was a value put on the free schemes. If somebody is in receipt of all the free schemes, the value put on it, if my memory serves me correctly, was between £9 and £10 extra a week. He then multiplied that figure by 52 and came up with a figure of more than £400. That was never the intention and, to the best of my knowledge, within the Department there is no policy even being suggested in that respect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 5, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of relaxing the rule that a recipient of a carer's allowance cannot claim another social welfare payment at the same time.".

I want to make a brief point.

Amendment No. 22 was already discussed with amendment No. 9.

We were discussing it mainly in the context of the carer's allowance means test. We continually come across people, whether they are senior citizens, young people or those on lone parent benefit, who are irate about this. In the 1998 study there was some suggestion that this would not work out as an expensive measure. Has any further research been done since then on the cost of providing a half-rate allowance, such as Deputy Hayes suggested earlier, in addition to lone parent benefit, for example, where the person was looking after a young adult on a full-time basis? Every week we meet such lone parents who feel they are totally excluded. Has the Minister looked again at the issue?

Is the Deputy referring to the carer's allowance?

Yes. The Department's 1998 report referred to the net cost of such a supplement.

For the carer?

Yes. I am referring to the case of a lone parent, for instance, who would qualify on the means test ground but who already is in receipt of a benefit. She should get half the rate of carer's allowance.

Such a person should be entitled to half the rate of carer's allowance.

It would be impossible to estimate the numbers concerned. I take it the Deputy is suggesting that the vast majority of existing recipients of the carer's allowance would be entitled to receive a social welfare payment as well.

Some of them would.

I agree, not all.

But then there would be a cohort of people who would never have bothered to apply because they knew they would not qualify for the additional payment.

Why would people on the carer's allowance qualify for social welfare?

For additional social welfare. That was the point the Deputy was making. This is the issue which does come up from time to time, that people must accept the higher allowance. What is being suggested is that one would accept the higher allowance and receive half the carer's allowance.

I do not know how often that would happen or what proportion of existing recipients would qualify. However, there would be others who would then apply, even for the basis carer's allowance, if we raised the disregard and they might qualify for other payments.

One could take the figure for the average time of caring. At the time, the authors tried to calculate a net value for the cost of such a scheme. Obviously one could calculate the cost of caring or the cost of disability. It is a difficult question, as the Chairman rightly indicated. To return to the previous amendment, is a caring supplement a more urgent requirement for the more deprived families whose only income is social welfare?

I agree with the Deputy. That is one of the reasons, as the Chairman has said, that raising the disregard actually favours higher income families, while at the same time people who solely rely on social welfare are being disadvantaged in relative terms. The more we raise the disregard or indeed do away with the means test the less well-off will be the carer's allowance recipients who are relying solely on social welfare.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 5, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report setting out the reasons for increasing the earnings disregard for one-parent families.".

I will withdraw this amendment because we had a discussion on it in respect of the last Social Welfare Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

The widowed parent grant is an excellent innovation and something that people appreciate.

The Deputy is referring to the next amendment.

I am sorry.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"5.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of bringing together the widowed parent grant and the bereavement grant for the purposes of the one application for widows/widowers.".

Is it the case that a widow with a dependant living with her who applies for a bereavement grant will automatically get the widowed parent grant or does she have to make two separate applications?

I think there should be two separate applications.

The amendment makes the point that there should be one. I have come across a significant number of widows who have children who should be getting it, but who are not.

I accept that. We have come across that problem. I do not know if the note addresses it but the Pension Services Office in Sligo and the bereavement grants section in Longford communicate regularly with funeral undertakers nation-wide with the objective of creating greater awareness of the bereavement payments and, from time to time, provide information updates to them. We issue press releases in that respect. The Department is also on the Internet and Aertel - teletext. Comhairle also publicises information. I have come across the issue to which the Deputy is referring.

If the grants could be brought together in the years ahead——

——it would make perfect sense.

I am not sure if it would be practically possible but it is a good suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 30 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"5.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of introducing a new infancy payment to cover the considerable capital and other costs associated with the birth of a child.".

I know we had a discussion on amendment No. 27 at the last meeting of the Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs when we were discussing the last social welfare Bill. A specific payment should be given to the parents or parent for their first child. Given the excessive costs in respect of the birth of a child we should move in that direction.

With regard to Amendment No. 28, we have huge anomalies in CDAs. The three rates that exist at the moment, applying to three different schemes, do not work to the advantage of people who live on social welfare. There is a need for one child dependant rate because it is still the only form of payment which can directly target people on social welfare who have the lowest income of all. The Minister needs to make improvements in that regard.

The Minister could have gone the whole hog in respect of amendment No. 30. I know the position in respect of the PPF. I understand that only £1 million is needed to make the commitment to allow CDAs to be extended to people up to 22 years of age. I know we made some improvements in the Bill in terms of this issue of allowing people to go up to a certain age - even if they are over 18 years of age, until the time that they leave the full-time course. With regard to amendment No. 30, relatively small sums of money were involved to make this commitment this year under the PPF. Clearly, it will be made next year as it is the last year in the PPF.

I support the three amendments. Is any work being done in the Department in respect of the target we mentioned earlier, pertaining to child income - the one-third figure given the fact that they were up to €35 or €38 per week through child benefit? In respect of children of the most deprived families in particular, given the unanimous desire not to tax child benefit, does the Minister foresee a——

The Deputy's party——

I think Deputy Michael Higgins called for it to be taxed.

I do not think he did. He can certainly speak, but——

——prioritise.

The Minister can look them up all he likes.

They would tax the ones——

The Stasi will be up late tonight.

The Minister can look them up all he likes, but one of the things he has presided over is that child benefit allowances have been frozen in his administration - basically frozen in the mists of time. I wonder if the Minister thinks we should examine this. Particularly after next year's budget, should we look again at enhancing the income of the most deprived children, given that we are working towards having a reasonable children's income?

I know that Minister was asked after the past two budgets by all the various voluntary groups - which were virtually unanimous - if he would consider increasing all the allowances to the highest level and increasing the widow's allowance in particular. This has not been addressed. I support the amendments, which deal with a matter that remains as unfinished business in the Minister's administration.

I will deal with the latter point raised by Deputy Brian Hayes first. I can well recall that in the final hours of my budget preparations this year I would have liked to have extended the benefit to 22 years, but the miracle of the loaves and fishes——

It is not very expensive.

It is not very expensive but I well recall there was a choice between that and the widows allowance, to a certain extent.

What about the jockeys and trainers Deputy McCreevy looked after? They are more important than——

This is out of a budget of £850 million and we worked on the basis that there was a budget left. I would like to think that the next Minister will implement that proposal.

With regard to the CDAs, I am only following a policy of freezing CDAs by the previous Government and Minister, which I agreed to. I said very early on when I became Minister that taking the CDA route, continuing on that route and allocating the increases that pertain thereto would mean that a lone parent would lose out if she married. Somebody entering employment would lose it, whereas he or she would continue to receive it in the case of child benefit. The strong advice, with which I agreed, was that resources should be concentrated on child benefit.

Maybe when the £1 billion investment over the three years is finalised, there will be some room to move in that direction. I would rather give people money in child benefit which would not be taken away irrespective of their life events, as opposed to the CDAs, which are taken away. It is to the disadvantage of people to rely on those payments only to have them taken away.

With regard to the infancy payment, a grant is payable in terms of multiple births at birth and when the children reach the ages of four and 12. Some countries do give birth grants. I do not know how many births there are per annum. Is it 50,000 per year?

It is 53,000.

The payment on this number would be significant. Given that child benefit has increased fairly dramatically - it has gone up from £400 million to somewhere in the region of £1.2 billion over the past two or three years - the issue of grants at birth might be less on the agenda in years to come. Again, it is a matter of money. Does one put the €25 million or whatever it costs to give birth grants into child benefit or into birth grants directly?

It might seem reactionary to say that many parents who are just above the bread line receiving into their houses either one or two incomes, need a huge amount of money when they have a child. There is a huge resentment against single parents in that there is some provision given to the health boards for prams etc. That is a perceived——

A couple as badly off as the Deputy says is equally entitled to apply for the exceptional payments as the lone parents, probably more deserving because there——

Are we referring to the first child?

Yes, I forgot about that. I do not know.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"7.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of introducing paternity benefit.".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 8, before section 10, to insert the following new section:

"10.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the introduction of a parental leave benefit to be funded from the social insurance fund.".

This is a central criticism of the major part of this year's social welfare budget dealt with in the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill before Christmas. The Minister told me then that to introduce parental leave benefit at the rate of disability benefit for four weeks would cost €28 million, while the payment equivalent in terms of maternity benefit would be in the region of €66 million. Nonetheless, it remains one of the key disappointments for the trade union movement. Having spoken to some senior members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions yesterday in respect of the pensions Bill, there is still a feeling that, in the spirit of the PPF, some progress might have been made on this matter this year. Also, there was a feeling that the massive resources the Minister had available to him before he broke into the social insurance fund would - as the general secretary, David Begg, said - have provided an ideal opportunity, even in a very small way, to have initiated parental leave benefit. This is because we can give ourselves a pat on the back for implementing European directives in respect of parental leave, but it is pretty hypocritical and derisory in terms of unpaid leave. Many of our other EU partners have parental leave systems that have been established for decades which are well funded and give both parents an opportunity to be present in the early, critical weeks of their child's life. I think this is something that will be done by the next Government. One way or another, maybe we should include it in this year's Bill as an encouragement to its happening.

I have just received the result of the referendum - 50.44% said "No" and 49.56% said "Yes". The difference is tiny.

It amounts to 6,000 votes.

The working group finalised its deliberations recently. Obviously, the issue of paid parental leave could not really have been addressed until that report was available. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will publish this report shortly. The issues involved in the report concern the introduction of social welfare payment, including parental benefit, to be funded through the social insurance fund or addressed in the report which will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I cannot say any more on the issue than that. All parties are of the view that we should do something in this regard.

Does the working group recommend that we go ahead?

I am not aware of that. I know there was some disagreement. People like——

The employers.

The employers, yes, and - surprise, surprise - the Department of Finance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 8, before section 10, to insert the following new section:

"10.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of increasing maternity benefit for mothers on the basis of current yearly income as against the assessment of income two years prior to the birth of a child.".

I made this point last year. There is an anomaly in respect of maternity benefit on the basis that it is assessed on income two years prior to the birth of the child. The Minister does not need to read out the reply that he has in his notes - he told me last year that the implementation of this proposal could affect women detrimentally. The point I was raising is that they should have the choice to have their income based on the current year as against that of two years prior to the birth of the child.

We have made changes in terms of maternity benefit in the Bill for the self-employed. The position on the matter Deputy Brian Hayes is raising is the same as last year. It is basically to mirror what was done in respect of employees.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.

Amendment No. 33 is in the name of Deputy Broughan and Brian Hayes. Amendments No. 34, 35 and 36 are related so they may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 10, to delete lines 22 to 25.

These amendments relate to the reservations which the Labour Party has about the management of the personal public service number. While we accept the basic rationale behind it and the extension, we feel there are areas of privacy and citizens rights which are important and need some protection. With regard to the some of the lines I have asked to be deleted, we are fearful that information would be collated that is not really necessary to maintain the public identity of a person, and that information would be swapped between agencies which have no business doing so. We should look at the general direction of progress in terms of ensuring reasonable privacy for citizens. I want to make it very clear that anything that contributes to social welfare fraud should be stamped out, as we discussed recently in questions. That would be an over-riding aim, as would easily identifying people working in a black economy.

This issue arises in all kinds of ways. The Chairman will know the discussions we have had about security and the rising crime rate and that there is so much crime and vandalism on the streets late at night etc. We all welcome CCTV cameras and, obviously, cameras controlling traffic, but one could have monitored virtually all one's movements from the time one leaves one's house until the time one arrives in one's workplace. There are areas we may need to look at. People who harass and vandalise in communities should be dealt with very seriously and directly through the court and punishment systems. I would be prepared to go that route rather than totally impinging on people's reasonable freedom to go about their business in a free society. There may be areas we need to look at and that is why the first amendment recommends the deletion of lines 22 to 25 in section 12(3)(a):

(xi) such other information as may be prescribed which, in the opinion of the Minister, is relevant to and necessary for the allocation of a personal public service number.

This seems to give future Ministers considerable power over what information they acquire. This is linked to one's own business at the moment in respect of one's social welfare or tax affairs or whatever. Everyone needs a certain element of privacy. Since the computer era arrived, there has been much more opportunity for people to avail of, and immediately call up, records of almost anybody without the knowledge of the person concerned.

Many citizens would have said they had tried to obtain information on themselves through the Freedom of Information Act and may not be clear on all the records the society holds. Perhaps it is time to reflect on the level of surveillance and interchange of information on citizens if there is to be a balance between reasonable information to prevent fraud and stamp it out and at the same time not intrude into people's private lives.

My amendment No. 34 seeks the deletion of subsection (5), lines 39 to 42, inclusive. That subsection reads: "Where a specified body collects from a person any of the information specified in subsection (3), that information shall also be collected for the purpose of maintaining the person's public service identity." That may be fair enough but on a first look at it I felt it could exceed the boundary.

Subsection (6) (a) reads: “Where a specified body has a transaction with a person, the Minister may share the person’s public service identity with the specified body to the extent necessary for authentication by the specified body of the person’s public service identity.” That subsection appears to give fairly significant powers to the Minister to swap information about a person’s identity with other agencies. It has been put in vague terms which could give future Governments power to maintain iron control over every aspect of citizens’ lives.

It is regrettable that three or four Bills have been combined in one, particularly the registration aspect, on which we have been awaiting a Bill for the past four and a half years. However, some of its key elements are contained in the Schedule. Perhaps, inappropriately, parts of it have had to be inserted into the Bill so that the Minister could say he had reformed the registration system as he leaves office. It would have been more preferable to have had the Bill. Like the Pensions Bill, we pass all kinds of Bills which may be important for some groups of citizens, but the areas of registration, privacy and people's basic civil rights are important areas of legislation on which other amendments have been tabled. In these amendments, I am proposing, on the legal advice of the Labour Party, that sufficient information would be available by means of the remainder of the section without the elements of amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35.

I agree with Deputy Broughan on the issue of balance. It is important to have this in place because it would help reduce social welfare fraud and ensure an element of streamlining between the Minister's Department and other Departments. I welcome it in that respect. When I first read the legislation, I considered that everything in subsection (3) makes sense. However, the extension under subparagraph (xi) goes too far and I ask the Minister to examine it in advance of Report Stage. From my limited experience of legislative work in the House since 1997 it is bad practice to stitch in subsections which give Ministers additional power to change willy nilly the information they were seeking. The paragraph states, “such other information as may be prescribed”. What other information would the Minister seek? If he cannot tell us what other information he seeks he should not proceed with subparagraph (xi). That is my observation, otherwise I support it. It is bad legislative practice not to prescribe the information being sought. That has been done in respect of subparagraphs (i) to (x) but he lobbed in subparagraph (xi) which does not add to it.

All the issues being proposed in the Bill fully comply with the data protection legislation. Section 12 defines the elements of the identity which will include, inter alia, a person’s name, address, date of birth, sex, nationality and his or her PPS number. This is not a huge issue. On the issue of “such other information”, my amendment No. 36 will, I hope, allay the fears of Deputies. It provides that any such regulation to extend will require a positive resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas before it becomes law. There would be other basic information, such as marital status, which we were going to include but decided that, perhaps, it was going too far. At some time in the future, marital status may have to be included. That is one issue I remember off the top of my head. That deals with amendment No. 33.

In regard to amendment No. 34, section 12 also provides that where information which forms part of a person's PSI is collected from customers in their dealings with a public service agency it will be used to maintain their identity in the event of a change of address. Section 12 provides that public service agencies may use the identity in carrying out its public functions relating to that person. I cannot agree with amendment No. 34 which has sought to remove this subsection. Once the public service identity is established it must be maintained or it will serve no purpose. If the identity is not kept up to date, its currency will be undermined and agencies will have no faith in it. In that event, the value of the PSI to the customer will be lost and they may be asked to produce documents or certificates to prove who they are.

In any event, the core principle of data protection is that information is kept up to date. Obviously, Deputy Broughan would agree with that. The principle of data protection legislation is that customers are informed as to the uses to which their data will be put and customers will be made aware that their identity is being made known by virtue of their dealings with any public service agency. With regard to the public service bodies using the PSI in carrying out their functions related to that person, I shall give the Deputy a concrete example of how it might operate. One of the proposals of the Bill is that my Department will be notified by the general registration office when a child is born. I hope in the near future to be in a position to automatically issue a claim form for child benefit to that child's mother as soon as notification of the birth is received. I can do that as I have the details of the mother's public service identity. I am sure Deputies will agree this is proactive public service, so often sought by members of the committee.

Section 12 provides that personal data collected at birth registration will be used for the purpose of allocating a PPS number for the newborn child. Amendment 35 seeks to remove this. Since 1998 a person transacting business with a public service agency must give their PPS number and the number of their spouse or children, where relevant. Therefore, the general registration office could already require the child's PPS number as part of the transaction. However, in practice, this would have meant that the child's parents would have to apply to my Department to have that number allocated to give it to the registrar for that transaction. While to date the General Registration Office has not adopted the PPS number as an identifier, that office is currently undergoing a modernisation programme which will see the introduction of electronic registration of events. As part of the programme, the PPS will be a key identifier. I am of the view that we have not gone as far as we might have originally intended when drafting the Bill.

We do not want to delay the rolling of the Reach project or the Grow project, which will probably come to fruition at the end of the year. If we were to wait until after the election it would delay implementation, particularly, of the Grow project.

There will still be a need for the civil registration Bill.

Yes. This is just to allow us to continue.

The Minister said that if he wants additional information he will have to bring a positive resolution before the House.

In other words, we would have to propose a resolution and if it was not objected to within 21 days——

That never happens.

It does. When my party was in opposition I remember, as Whip, we opposed one. There was a debate. If memory serves me correctly, it was to do with health insurance.

These are normally the resolutions taken without debate, if there is no opposition.

If one tables an amendment, to the effect that the resolution should not be implemented, it triggers a debate.

What is the Minister saying in relation to the amendment? Will there be an amendment?

Yes, there is an amendment.

Does amendment No. 36 cover this?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 10, to delete lines 43 to 45, and in page 11, to delete lines 1 to 10.".

This relates to the registration system. I have tabled an amendment recommended by the Adopted Peoples Association which is interested in reform of the registration system. Could there be a situation where, for example, if a researcher is researching somebody's origins or whatever, the public service number could be used to identify personal details?

That is already restricted. Personal information is restricted to the person concerned. No other person would be able to get it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 11, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Section 4(5) (as amended by section 14 of the Act of 1998) of the Principal Act is amended by substituting '223(1), 223(3), 223A(1)' for '223(1), 223A(1)'.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 12, before section 15 but in Part 1, to insert the following new section:

"15.-Section 82B(5) (as amended by section 26(1)(b) of the Act of 2001) of the Principal Act is amended by substituting ’34’ for ’38’.”.

This amendment seeks to ease conditions of entitlement to carer's benefit for certain job sharers and part-time workers. Under the current rules, an applicant for carer's benefit must work 38 hours in each period of a fortnight during the 13 weeks immediately prior to claiming carer's benefit. This condition disqualifies some job sharers and part-time workers from the scheme.

When introduced in the year 2000 this minimum threshold was chosen to ensure the applicant has a reasonable attachment to the workforce. It was recognised prior to introduction of the scheme that the caring contingency may affect all types of employees and in order to facilitate atypical workers, such as part-time and job sharing employees, the contribution conditions of the scheme were made as flexible as possible. However, in some cases job sharers are contracted to work for 34 to 36 hours per fortnight and, based on these working hours, are not eligible for carer's benefit. A number of such cases have come to light.

These difficulties were also highlighted by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Research has also shown that many companies and organisations, particularly in the public sector, have varying working arrangements and conditioned hours and that these can even differ between different workers within the same organisation. In local authorities, health boards and Aer Lingus, for example, some employees work less than 19 hours per week or 38 per fortnight and thus do not qualify for carer's benefit. As it is considered that this is not consistent with the original intention of the scheme to facilitate such workers, I am bringing forward this amendment to reduce the number of hours required to 17 hours per week or 34 per fortnight.

I welcome the amendment and thank the Minister for listening to the strong representations made on the issue. Part of the problem with carer's benefit is that there are still situations where, either because of the number of hours one works or due to other issues that arose in the discussion on the Carer's Leave Bill, the benefit cannot be accessed. On Second Stage I pointed out, in the context of carer's benefit, that the numbers are still low. The amendment will have an effect in that regard. Some believed the Minister should take a longer time period, such as over two or three months, to average the hours of part-time workers such as shop workers, workers on call and so forth who could have extremely varying hours of work per week over a month or two months. Therefore, some of them still might not be covered by the amendment. However, the Minister has come a long way towards meeting the requests in this regard and I thank him for putting forward the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amemdment No. 38:

In page 12, before section 15 but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:

"15.-The Minister shall report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the implications of enabling adopted persons to have a right of access to information relating to their identity.".

I am not sure if I have placed the amendment in the right position. It relates to what is, in effect, the mini registration Bill the Minister has inserted in Part 4. This is a long-standing request from the Adopted Peoples Association and various other representatives of adopted persons. We have been talking about civil rights, rights of privacy and so forth. The impression I received when I addressed the association and some of its groups was that they had a profound interest in an absolute right to their own identity. It is a matter that has become quite prominent again. I was representing some parents today who are on the waiting list, which is now about three years, for assessment for adoptions. As our health board does not have the necessary resources, people who have no children and desperately wish to have a family are waiting years for assessments to complete inter-country adoptions.

Most would accept that any child adopted should have an absolute right to his or her identity. The frustration of members of the Adopted Peoples Assocation is that the registration system in place so far colluded with certain authorities in creating a brick wall, as it were, between them and their fundamental identity and ancestry. The Bill provides for a mini version of the registration Bill. This issue probably goes beyond the Minister's remit into civil rights issues and so forth, but there is a fundamental demand in this regard. The members of the association also point out that in the Canadian provinces, for example, there is an absolute right to one's own identity. They also make the argument that sometimes it is critical to know one's identity, particularly if there are ancestral genetic disorders or other medical conditions. It is bad to be placed in a situation where one is not sure about one's genetic family. It could be serious, even life threatening, for the person concerned.

I have tabled the amendment in relation to the registration section to see if we can reach some kind of consensus on the matter. The strong view of adopted persons, as outlined at meetings on the issue during the years, is that they have a right to their identity, either with regard to the past or future adoptions. Somebody adopted from Vietnam or China, for example, should be able to return if he or she wishes and directly interface with his or her genetic family. It is an important issue for a significant minority of our constituents.

This is not an issue for me but for the Minister for Health and Children. I understand the Government has approved proposals for legislation on adoption information, post-adoption contact and associated issues. A Bill is being drafted by the parliamentary counsel and when approved by Government it will be published and all Members of the Oireachtas will have an opportunity to comment on it.

I entirely agree with the Deputy's comments. My personal view is that the information should be available on all occasions. We should do everything to assist this.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 13, after line 46, to insert the following:

"

2

Section 34 (as amended by section 11 of the Charities Act, 1973)(a)

Insert the follow ing after subsection (4):

’(4A) Every disposition being a lease authorised under subsection (1) shall be effected in such manner as the Board may approve and shall contain such covenants, conditions or other provisions, if any, as the Board shall require.’.

(b) In subsection (6), substitute the following for paragraph (d):

’(d) accepting a surrender of a lease or other contract of tenancy of it, or (e) leasing it.’.

".

This amendment was requested by the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests to address an anomaly in the 1961 Charities Act. Under section 34 of that Act the commissioners have the power to authorise a disposition of land held on charitable trust where a power of sale was not provided for in the original gift. The amendment proposed would empower the commissioners in such cases to authorise a lease rather than a disposition, as currently defined, where it would be of benefit to the charity. I agreed to bring forward the amendment as it is a useful one for charities because it enables the commissioners to allow a charity with land to put the property to a use not provided for in the original gift. A charity, for example, could lease rather than dispose of a property and, in doing so, could stipulate in a covenant the conditions for the upkeep of the property. That could prevent the property from falling into disrepair or dereliction and it permits the charity to retain ownership.

It allows a charity to lease a property. Will a new charities Bill be introduced?

A public consultation process is about to begin in that regard. We hope to introduce legislation, although it will be in the new Dáil. My Department will work closely with the commissioners and the various voluntary organisations to undertake a major reform of the charities legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 15, column 3, line 51, after "Act," to insert "before the coming into operation of item 5 of Part 4 of the Schedule to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002,”.

This is a technical amendment which was requested by the parliamentary counsel.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 are related to amendment No. 41. Amendments Nos. 41 to 44, inclusive, may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 18, column 3, to delete line 30.

We discussed this issue earlier. I want to delete "personal public service number". As regards the registration of birth, I want to delete "mother's personal public service number" and "father's personal public service number".

I will bring forward a number of further amendments in relation to the registration of births and deaths on Report Stage. There are one or two other issues about which we will let the Deputy know in advance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 42 to 44, inclusive, not moved.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE.

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 4, lines 10 to 13, to delete "THE REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (IRELAND) ACT, 1863, THE BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT, (IRELAND) 1880, THE REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS ACT, 1996" and substitute "THE BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION ACTS, 1863 TO 1996".

This is a technical amendment.

As regards the charities Bill, it would have been preferable if we had been able to discuss two Bills. Does the Minister see the need to go ahead with the original plans for the registration Bill?

Yes. It will be comprehensive civil registration legislation. It will ground the new system which is running quicker than the legislation.

When the changes are made to the legislation, how long will it be before it is up and running? One of the advantages of child benefit is that as soon as people have a baby, they automatically get the payment rather than having to wait for five or six months.

I am told it will start within two months.

That is for the registration of births.

Yes. I am talking about births and deaths on computer rather than on paper. It will then roll out as time goes on.

The advantage is that once a child is born, the length of time it currently takes to process child benefit will be reduced.

Yes. One will be able to get it on the Internet and buy it in places one would not have been able to buy it previously.

It will not be a paper trace. Will one still have to provide the long birth certificate as part of the application for child benefit?

The point of grow and reach together means that when a baby is born, one will not have to produce a certificate because it will already be linked to it. That is the point of marrying the two together. The Department will already have the information on the birth.

Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Barr
Roinn