The suggested timetable for today is intended to assist in discharging business in a businesslike fashion but there will be a little flexibility. I have asked Members for co-operation. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Today the Select Committee will consider Estimates for the Department of Social Welfare. I now call on the Minister to make his opening statement.
My Department's Estimate for 1994 is almost £2.1 billion. That is the sum provided by the Exchequer this year to fund social insurance and social assistance schemes and services, to provide for the increases in weekly rates of payments coming into effect from next month, increases in the monthly rates of child benefit from September and the introduction of a new contributory pensions scheme for widowers from October. The cost of the foregoing budget improvements amounts to £168 million in a full year and £75 million this year. In addition, an important £89 million package of PRSI reliefs, exemptions and supports for employment has been in place since last April. The main features of this year's budget improvements are a general 3 per cent increase in weekly social welfare rates, an increase of 6 per cent for those on the lowest short term rates and an increase of 10 per cent for those getting disability and unemployment benefits. In addition, child benefit is being improved through an increase from £20 to £25 per month for the third child and from £23 to £25 for each child thereafter.
Families on the family income supplement for low paid workers will be at least £6 a week better off through increases in the weekly income thresholds. Lone parents who take up employment and carers whose spouses are working will all benefit from new income disregards in the means test for those payments. For the first time in the history of the State, a contributory pension for widowers is being introduced from next October which will put widows and widowers on equal terms in relation to survivor's pension provisions.
The following are the main elements making up the Estimate for 1994. The main bulk of the Estimate derives from social assistance payments totally funded by the Exchequer. They comprise a comprehensive range of means tested payments, including payments for pensioners, widows, lone parents and families out of work and will cost £1.99 billion this year. The Exchequer payment to the social insurance fund is over £56 million this year. This payment represents the annual deficit between income received by way of PRSI contributions, social insurance benefits and pensions paid out. Administration costs for my Department's schemes and services, as covered by the administrative budget agreement, will amount to over £124 million. Receipts into the Vote as appropriations-in-aid, which show up as a credit figure on the balance sheet, amount to almost £74 million this year. Overall, this gives a net total of £2,096 million, which is the amount of the Estimate before the committee this morning.
Total Social Welfare spending this year is estimated at around £3.8 billion. Of that amount, the Exchequer will contribute almost £2.1 billion. The balance will be met mainly by employers, employees and the self-employed by way of PRSI contributions.
We now spend between £10 and £11 million every day on social welfare, providing a weekly payment to around 800,000 persons which in turn benefits almost 1.5 million persons when adult and child dependants are taken into account. This includes payments to elderly and retired people of £2,8 million per day for seven days a week; payments to unemployed people of £2.9 million per day; payments to the sick and the disabled of £1.1 million per day. For family income support including widows, one parents, carers, child benefit, families at work on low pay and other miscellaneous allowances, we pay £3 million per day. The balance, amounting to around 5 per cent of total expenditure, goes to cover administrative expenses.
The social insurance fund is the cornerstone of the social welfare system. It operates on a tripartite basis with workers, employers and the State all contributing their share. It provides protection across the board for one million plus workers, including part time workers and their families in terms of illness or in the event of occupational accidents, unemployment and maternity, dental and optical expenses. It provides for pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and have contributed to the growth and prosperity of our country, for about 120,000 self-employed people whom I brought into the PRSI system in 1988 and who now have the security of pensions for themselves and their widows, and for some 114,000 employers who see their contributions to the fund as meeting their responsibilities to their workforce.
The Government is committed to the maintenance of the social insurance fund and to its future development in the interests of the workers who contribute to it, their employers and the people who draw benefits from it.
The taxpayers' contribution to the deficit in the social insurance fund has been reduced from 30 per cent in 1987 to 4 per cent this year. This has been achieved through bringing more workers into the protection of social insurance cover and grater compliance with PRSI obligations. PRSI contributions from self-employed people will amount to £81 million this year, while part time workers, whom I also brought under social insurance protection in 1991, will contribute about £9 million. That is an extra £90 million per annum coming into the social insurance fund.
In my time as Minister for Social Welfare, we have put in train and sustained a solid record of achievement which has substantially improved the position of the less well off sections of our society. We have more than honoured our commitments under the national programmes over the past five years and will continue our progress in that regard.
We have achieved the Commission on Social Welfare's priority rate for all weekly social welfare rates with increases of up to 11 per cent, 5 per cent and 10 per cent over the past three years when inflation was running at 3 per cent, 1.5 per cent and under 2 per cent. For example, from next month the rate of unemployment payment of a family with three children will be £137.20.
We introduced a back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance benefiting one in three school going children. This year more than 260,000 children of families who are out of work, widowed or at work on low pay will benefit from the allowances which are £50 for second-level pupils and £35 for primary level pupils.
For the first time we introduced a carer's allowance for 4,500 full time carers worth £14.5 million a year, and a £500,000 respite care fund. This year's improvement will benefit an extra 1,000 carers, including 600 who will benefit from the allowance for the first time.
We gave new dignity and status to families with the introduction of the lone parent's allowance which replaced schemes based on criteria such as "deserted" or "unmarried" and encompassing for the first time families who are separated or otherwise left without the support of a partner.
From next October we will introduce a new survivor's pension which gives widowers entitlement to a contributory pension under the same terms and conditions as widows currently enjoy, thus putting us in the lead in Europe in survivor's pension provision. I am especially happy that we have been able to introduce this new survivor's pension in this the International Year of the Family.
We have boosted child benefit for more than one million children with new payments of £20 for each of the first two children and £25 for the third and subsequent children from this September. We have also continued each year to improve and enhance the family income supplement in order to support families at work on low pay. Some 10,000 families now benefit.
We have reviewed means testing arrangements and introduced new income disregards for carers and lone parents. From next month, a new weekly disregard of £100 will apply to the carer's allowance where the spouse is working. A new weekly disregard of £30 instead of the present £6 disregard and £6 per child will apply in the case of working lone parents. Thereafter, the lone parent's allowance will be reduced by £1 for every £2 earned instead of £1 for £1 as at present.
Huge strides have been made in transforming the social welfare system with the introduction of "one-stop-shops" providing real customer services, better information, and modern payment methods such as electronic fund transfer and postdrafts as well as facilities such as household budgeting on a local basis.
We are continuing our support of community initiatives through our scheme of grants for voluntary organisations, women's groups and a community development programme and a programme to help vulnerable families get out of the grip of illegal moneylenders.
Major policy changes have been initiated in helping unemployed people to get back into the workforce through "second-chance" education with places for nearly 7,000 people, and a back-to-work allowance scheme that has already created nearly 4,000 new jobs including self employment ventures.
We have introduced an innovative student's summer jobs scheme which has provided third level students with work during the summer which will be of benefit to the community. The take up on the scheme this year has already exceeded last year's very successful figures. Almost 9,400 jobs have been offered by 1,700 sponsors and more than 5,000 students have applied to participate in the scheme. Participating students this year can earn up to £540 as against a maximum of £400 last year.
We have continued to safeguard the position of pensioners through many improvements and extensions in the "free schemes" which are much valued by elderly people. Widows aged 60 can retain their late husband's free schemes provided they are qualified. The free telephone rental allowance now continues for pensioners being looked after by a carer and the free electricity allowance now includes night saver units. The free travel companion pass allows the pass holder to be accompanied free by another person when travelling.
Our record of achievement in reforming the social welfare system is characterised by our concern and our caring approach for people and their needs. Meeting those needs and responding to the challenges posed by our diverse society will remain the priorities of this Government. We can look forward to the future with confidence. We have a sound economy set to move into a new phase of economic growth and prosperity. Furthermore, we have the right policies to benefit from the fruits of that economic progress. We will continue to ensure that those dependent on social will also benefit and share in the fruits of our success.
I commend this Estimate to the committee.
If the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, wants to be assertive, he should immediately insist on a reversal of the "dirty dozen" cuts, for which he campaigned vigorously in the November 1992 election. He should also insist on the reversal of the decision to tax unemployment benefit because these cuts are damaging the incomes of thousands of families who cannot afford to pay them.
In a radio interview at the weekend Deputy Spring stated that the Labour Party would have to be more assertive in Government. Actions speak louder than words. So far, his party's record in social welfare along with the Minister's record since coming to Government has been of a cold-hearted and cynical approach to the victims of bad economic decisions for several years. The Labour Party in Government has failed to achieve a reversal of the "dirty dozen" social welfare cuts. Despite what is said week in and week out by the Minister of State, Deputy Joan Burton, a substantial number of the "dirty dozen" cuts are still in place. The Labour Party has been a party to the introduction of taxation on disability and unemployment benefit, and over the next few weeks we will see the abolition of the pay-related benefit. It was involved in the aborted attempt to means test widows' pensions which we dealt with in detail in the Dáil.
The combination of these measures has a devastating effect on thousands of families. The taxation of unemployment benefit in particular has seriously hurt part time, temporary and seasonal workers. This measure has added to the damage already inflicted by the "dirty dozen" cuts.
I failed to have a Private Members' motion debated in the Dáil last month because of the Chair's refusal to allow the motion on the grounds that the matter had been dealt with in the past six months when in February the Government pushed through the motion to tax unemployment benefit. The fall-out from this has been very serious and I am aware of many families whose subsistence level incomes have been reduced by anything between £20 and £40 per week. Taxation on unemployment benefit coupled with the erosion of relief on mortgage payments has meant disaster for a number of families. Many families are now in deep financial trouble and Ministers seem to be sadly out of touch with reality. Of course, the dizzy heights of the New York Waldorf Astoria do not allow people to come to grips with reality and have blurred Ministers' sense of reality. I hope that recent travelling throughout the country will make them realise that families are badly hurt by serious cutbacks. People in this House or the media do not realise the seriousness of the situation for thousands of families.
I attended a meeting in Cork this week where part-time, temporary and seasonal workers came together to protest and to organise a campaign against the social welfare taxation proposals. Their individual stories were frightening and I demand that the Government reconsider its position on this issue. I know we discussed this matter in the Dáil recently and the Minister will say he has introduced the recommendations in the Commission's report. He selectively implemented some of the recommendations but the realistic payment levels to social welfare dependants are still not at the level recommended by the Commission. The Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, at the Pretty Polly factory in Killarney promised workers that there would be a major review. This has not happened and she has rarely been in the Dáil Chamber to answer relevant questions on the statements made by her in Killarney. In any debates on social welfare in the House, she seemed to be conveniently absent. I have not seen her on any occasion in the House when these matters where discussed. Where is the Minister of State? We hear her on radio, we see her giving interviews on television, we read interviews in Sunday newspapers but when she should answer questions from people entitled to put them she is conveniently absent.
Protests about taxation of social welfare benefits will equal the level of protest raised on equality of payments for women when women travelled from all over the country to protest outside Dáil Éireann to get their entitlements. The Minister accused Opposition Deputies of playing politics with this issue leading up to the European elections. The elections are over but that issue is still live and the Minister is still not answering the relevant questions on it. I hope we will get answers today to the questions raised.
The Minister for Social Welfare behaved disgracefully by refusing to give information on the settlement to 800 women in Cork and by misleading the Dáil in stating that the free legal aid centres had agreed to a proposal to allow a confidentiality clause on the settlements made in a case brought by FLAC and settled on the steps of the High Court some months ago on behalf of 1,800 women. FLAC rejected the Minister's statement and it is now obvious that the Minister and his Department imposed this confidentiality clause.
When we are considering the Estimates and spending taxpayers' money, will the Minister say how much was paid to the 800 women in Cork through their solicitors? What was the average settlement in each case? Will he release details of individual settlements if public representatives put down Dáil questions and write to his Department? Up to now we were refused that information when women approached public representatives and asked for it. The time has come for the Minister to give us those details. He got the questions in writing in this room some months ago on Committee Stage of the Social Welfare Bill. We also want to know what legal costs were paid by his Department to the legal representatives of those women. What were the details of the settlement on the steps of the High Court with FLAC on behalf of the 1,800 in Dublin two months ago? If those questions are not answered I will oppose the Estimate on this issue alone even though there are other important issues where I can also justify opposing it.
I have already written to the chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts as that committee should investigate the affairs of the Minister and his Department because taxpayers' money has been spent and the Minister is not accounting to Dáil Éireann for it. I also demand that the Minister make a clear-cut and unambiguous statement on the settlement in relation to the FLAC case in Dublin. Will he make the records of the settlement with FLAC available so that we can establish clearly who imposed the confidentiality terms? There should not be confidentiality where taxpayers' money is being spent by the Minister. I want him to make a full declaration about it. He tried to hide behind the sub judicerule in the House during Question Time on Tuesday but he cannot do so now because my questions relate to settlements already made. I suffered a term of suspension from the Dáil because I tried to bring to the attention of the House the lack of disclosure by the Minister. Deputy De Rossa and I suffered insults and personalised attacks because of our probing. Journalists have suffered personalised attacks and were accused of having political affiliations because of their probing. One journalist was described as a ”thick". That is unbecoming behaviour for a Minister. The reason the Minister is stooping so low is that he is afraid of opening a can of worms. The time has come to open that can and let us have all the facts today. Let us also have the facts on women’s entitlements for which they are being forced to go through the courts. They are being forced to go to solicitors and pay percentages of payments made to them because of the Minister’s refusal to meet their entitlements.
I also demand that the Minister make a full statement on the recent study by FLAC which found that the appeals system for the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is in chaos because they vary enormously from one health board to another. The chance of winning an appeal ranges from 4 per cent in the Southern Health Board, to 50 per cent in the North Eastern Health Board. The other figures are 7 per cent for the Eastern Health Board, 20 per cent for the South Eastern Health Board and 35 per cent for the North Western Health Board. The Southern Health Board, in response to a statement I made, said it has an independent appeals system in operation but that is incorrect. The appeals are heard by another official of the health board who sits in judgment on a decision of his colleague. That is basically unjust and weak. What is required is an independent appeals system for the supplementary welfare scheme.
It is time to eliminate the serious discrepancies and the Minister's response at Question Time on Tuesday was inadequate. There is no point in telling marginalised people surviving at subsistence level that the situation is being reviewed. The Minister has been reviewing the situation for 18 months and no decisions have been made. The supplementary welfare scheme was introduced in the late 1970s by the late Minister Cluskey. It is the safety net for those without any income. While claiming supplementary welfare, a claimant may also seek relief for payments under these schemes such as rent or mortgage allowances. Payments are made through the community welfare officers and health board centres and the appeals system is not independent. The system is unique because other social welfare payment systems have an independent appeals office. In the case of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, the eight health boards have devised a range of ad hocprocedures to respond to aggrieved claimants. The results have been very uneven.
Since I made a statement on this issue recently, the Southern Health Board has said that an independent appeals system works in its area but this is not correct. There should be major changes in the system and increased proficiency in processing mainstream social welfare payments to make people less dependent on SWA in the interim. Basic social welfare payments must be brought into line with the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare, thereby making people less dependent on discretionary supplementary welfare allowance payments. Guidelines governing the operation of the social welfare allowance scheme should be published. Claimants should be given details of the guidelines and told why they were refused a payment.
The supplementary welfare appeals system should be taken out of the hands of the health boards and replaced by an independent appeals system such as that which operates for other social welfare benefits. There should be notification of a right to appeal, a right to an oral hearing and a right to bring a representative. The decision on the appeal should be given in writing to the appellant. The present system is unjust and unfair and individuals have been pushed beyond their limits by the insensitive handling of cases.
With regard to the manner in which the Minister makes payments to voluntary groups, I am extremely worried at his high profile approach to distributing cheques to them. Some of these cheques are small but they are important to the voluntary groups depending on them. Payments to voluntary groups are always welcome and I fully support and admire their efforts to come to grips with social problems. However, the practice developed by the Minister of travelling on Mondays with his programme manager, his press officer and his photographer to hand over the cheques is making groups feel very dependent on the political goodwill of the Minister of the day and the local Government TDs. That practice is unwelcome and I am very unhappy that voluntary groups feel dependent on the Minister's attitude to them. Support for voluntary groups swimming against the tide of poverty and deprivation should not be compromised in any way and should be theirs as a right, not as a favour.
The Minister spoke about dignity and status. Many people dependent on the social welfare system are not given the dignity and status they deserve and the system of dependency is being propagated by the Minister. He is sadly overestimating the impact of his recent very high profile announcement of relief to people dependent on loan sharks. Experience has shown that in areas of high unemployment, because of the restrictions introduced since 1992 on supplementary welfare and the unfair system I outlined earlier, people in increasing numbers are being driven into the arms of loan sharks. I support fully any move by the Minister to wean people from loan sharks but the restrictions imposed are having the reverse effect.
A system which is ideal in theory but which has a devastating impact at a personal level is where the Department is now requiring earning spouses to pay the maintenance for their deserted partners into the Department rather than to the families. That is being presented as making earning spouses live up to their responsibilities but the reality is that the Minister is sending forms to lone parents with dependent children demanding that they sign away maintenance payments made to the families in court, under threat that if they do not sign, the appropriate reduction will be made from their lone parent's allowances. The theory of it is great in that the earning spouse must pay part of the liabilities to the State but in practice it is reducing income to families on the breadline by anything up to £80 per week. The Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 1993 specified the obligation on people to maintain their spouses and children. That is fine in theory but women and children, while emotionally vulnerable after the desertion of a spouse, are being pressurised by these forms and declarations from the Minister and his Department, threatening massive reductions if the form is not signed. In Cork a woman was forced to sign over to the Department the maintenance of £80 per week she received from her deserting husband. She is now solely dependent on the lone parent's allowance. An overnight reduction of £80 per week is devastating for that person and for many people throughout the country.
Did the Deputy not say that the husband was paying her?
He was paying £80 through the courts to her and she was getting her lone parent's allowance also.
He is not paying it now?
He is still paying it but he is now paying it to the Minister.
What is wrong with that?
It means that she has taken a reduction of £80 per week. Would the Deputy be able to take a reduction of £80 per week in income if his only income for him and his children was in the region of £160?
The Deputy is saying that she should get her full social welfare deserted wife's benefit.
There should be a weaning off period and an alleviation payment to allow people adjust. To threaten a reduction in the lone parent's allowance is cold hearted and cynical and is another example of where things are great in theory but in practice have a terrible social impact on families in the Year of the Family. I ask the Minister to look at it again and to introduce some alleviation payment for families like this. It is a major issue. At times we tend to lose a sense of reality and this House is a cocoon. We are brought back to reality when we knock on doors or hold clinics. The reality is that people are hurt.
In theory what the Deputy is suggesting would provide a great incentive for everybody to desert their wives to get a bonus from the Department of Social Welfare.
It has been in existence for years. In theory it is fine.
I am in favour of it.
The reality behind the theory is that families are being hurt. There must be some compassion and understanding.
Will the Minister examine the question of introducing the principle of empowerment for people dependent on carers to allow them to have some control over their own situation? The Minister pointed out that he introduced improvements in the carers' allowance but the net result will be that only 600 people will be brought into the scheme this year. I am not aware of the number of applicants in the first year of its introduction but perhaps only 10 per cent of them were successful. I do not have the exact figures. However, the number of people who received it has gone up from 4,700 to 5,300. I venture to say that five to ten times that number applied and were unsuccessful. The means test is unreal.
I will check the figure; it is in the region of 13,000.
It may be, but the number of carers who do not qualify and have not applied because they are not eligible must be ten times that. Will the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Health, bring some co-ordination into the carers system? There should be some overall scheme to cover home helps——
Since its inception 13,294 carers applied.
Five thousand four hundred carers are getting it.
That is right.
We need a co-ordinated approach by the Minister, the Minister for Health and the Minister for the Environment. The new scheme introduced by the Minister for Health for the subvention for nursing homes is unreal. It takes into account the incomes not only of the patients themselves but of their sons and daughters and if any one of their sons or daughters exceeds the limit the patient does not qualify. I look forward to the Minister's views on this.
The Minister made a speech on the Estimate without once referring to the current dispute about social welfare equality arrears. The Minister and his junior Minister, Deputy Burton, have on various occasions claimed that the dirty dozen cuts have been reversed. The opposite has happened and the cuts have been added to but I do not want to deal with that today. I want to deal specifically with how this Minister sought to confuse and to draw a veil over how he has dealt with the estimated 75,000 married women in this State who are entitled under a European court decision to equality arrears.
The Department of Social Welfare is one of the most important Government Departments. Its budget is bigger than that of any other Department and more people are dependent on it and its decisions than any other section of Government. Close to one million people are in receipt of benefits paid by the Department, most of whom are among the poorest and most vulnerable in society. It is essential that the member of Government in charge of such a vital Department should have the confidence of the Members of this House and the people dependent on the Department. I do not believe that the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, has the confidence of the public and probably no other member of the Cabinet is held in such low regard on this side of the House.
Social welfare recipients have long had to endure the Minister's patronising and condescending attitude. However, what has been most revealing in recent weeks has been the insulting and abusive manner he has adopted to those inside and outside the House who dared to question his approach, especially in regard to the non-payment of social welfare transitional payments to tens of thousands of married women.
On a point of order, could we have a copy of the Deputy's press statement or speech since he seems to have a written, prepared speech?
No, the Minister may not. He is not entitled to it.
Thank you. I just wanted to make the point.
When a Minister is reduced to shouting terms of abuse such as "toe rag" at Opposition spokespersons across the floor of the Dáil and tells a journalist who puts a legitimate question to him which he does not want to answer to stop being a bit of a thick and to get lost, as happened recently with a Cork Examiner journalist, it is time to ask if the burdens of office have become too much for him. The manner in which this Minister handled the issue of the non-payment of the transitional payments to tens of thousands of married women render him unsuitable to hold office. It is not just that the Minister has used every device, trick and stratagem to attempt to deny Irish women moneys to which the European Court decided they were entitled, it is also the manner in which he attempted to draw a veil of silence over the issue by refusing to give information to which Members of the Dáil were entitled and, when this failed, his attempts to mislead the Dáil and the public.
As a result of repeated attempts by the Minister to cause confusion, it is necessary to again outline the basic facts involved in this issue. First, in a judgment on 13 March 1991 the European Court ruled that under European Union social welfare equalisation regulations two Irish women, Ann Cotter and Nora McDermott, were entitled to arrears of transitional payments. The Minister and his colleagues accepted this judgment and the Government paid up. Secondly, subsequent legal proceedings were initiated by FLAC in the Irish courts on behalf of 1,800 women also claiming arrears of transitional payments and, indeed other payments. Despite the Minister having insisted that the case would be vigorously contested by the Government, before it was heard the Department of Social Welfare settled out of court and agreed to pay up. Payments are to be made to the women concerned over the next few months. Thirdly, a number of other cases taken by solicitors on behalf of individuals or groups of women have also been conceded by the Department and settled out of court. We do not know how many women are involved but it is believed to be as many as 3,000. Fourth, despite having conceded the validity of the cases taken by these women and paid substantial amounts in settlements, including interest, the Department is now refusing to make similar payments to tens of thousands of other married women who meet exactly the same conditions and suffered the same discrimination as those who have been compensated.
The whole way in which this affair has been handled by the Minister has been characterised by a level of political dishonesty rare in Irish politics. The attempts to mislead have carried on right up to the present. The most outrageous recent example was the Minister's response to the issue of the confidentiality clause when it arose last month during the debate on the Democratic Left Private Members' motion. During the debate, several Deputies were strongly critical of the refusal of the Minster for Social Welfare to disclose information to Members, particularly in regard to amounts paid in the settlements already made by the Department in cases taken on behalf of 5,000 Irish women.
The Minister claimed he could not disclose this information because of a confidentiality clause inserted in the settlement terms. When it was put to him that this clause was included at his insistence, the Minister clearly stated that this condition was not set by him and implied that if it was not for the clause he would be glad to disclose the information. I have a copy of the blacks from that debate of the Minister's denial that he had anything to do with this confidentiality clause. However, I have written confirmation from FLAC, which negotiated the settlement on behalf of 1,800 women, confirming that the confidentiality clause was included at the insistence of the Department of Social Welfare. In a letter to me, the FLAC solicitor, Mary Johnson, says——
On a point of order——
If I might be allowed to continue——
A point or order has been raised, let us hear it.
No. A point of order can only be raised if I am out of order, which I am not.
The point of order is that Deputy De Rossa has referred to a letter. Could we have a copy of the letter?
I have no intention of allowing the Minister to interrupt me at this stage. I will read the letter:
Dear Deputy de Rossa, I refer to the above matter and confirm that the Settlement Agreement recently reached between the Department of Social Welfare and 1,800 married women represented by FLAC contains a confidentiality clause which precludes disclosure of the amounts of arrears payable to the Plaintiffs in this action.
FLAC has no wish to become involved in a political row over the terms of the Settlement Agreement. However, as the Minister for Social Welfare has raised the issue of which party to the Action inserted the confidentiality clause, I can confirm for the record that the confidentiality clause was a condition imposed by the Department of Social Welfare.
A copy of that letter was given to the official reporters on the night of the debate. I am prepared to give it to the official reporters again. It is already on the record of the House.
It is not. Deputy De Rossa did not show that letter to the House.
I will give the Minister a copy of the letter if he wants one. I will not give him the original because I do not know if I would get it back given the way this Minister has dealt with this matter. This provides clear prima facieevidence of a serious abuse of the privilege of the Dáil and is part of a wider pattern of contempt for the rights of Members of the Dáil, which has been a feature of this Government.
The Minister has now shifted ground on the issue and appears to be attempting to drive a wedge between taxpayers and welfare recipients on the matter. Having persistently denied that women had any case, the Minister now apparently concedes that he is likely to lose a number of pending cases in the High Court and is attempting to scare the public by warning of tax increases to pay for the settlements which he claims would cost £354 million.
I believe the Minister has deliberately inflated the costs to the Exchequer of settling these cases. When I raised the matter in the Dáil on Tuesday at Question Time he failed to give any rational explanation as to how this figure was computed and he blankly refused to give any figure for the number of potential claimants, saying that he did not have the information. If he does not know how many women may qualify, how can he put a reliable figure on the cost?
All the organisations campaigning for the payment of the arrears, such as Married Women for Equality, have made it clear that they are not looking for payments in one lump sum and that the money could be paid on a phased basis. Whatever the potential cost, the fact is that these married women are entitled to arrears under a judgment of the European Court. As a country, we must live up to our obligations as a member of the European Union by paying up.
If each of the 75,000 women believed to be eligible apply for and receive arrears, the amount will still be less than the £377 million paid to farmers under premium and headage scheme payments during 1993 alone. Yet we do not get scare stories from the Minister about how much this is costing the taxpayer. Efforts by the Government to turn this into a taxpayer versus social welfare recipient issue will fail. Many of the women claiming arrears have also been taxpayers and virtually all have family members who are also paying tax.
All those who believe in justice, whether they pay tax or receive social welfare, should stand firm and insist on the right of women to equal treatment under EU directives. Rather than wasting more public money defending cases which he knows he will lose, the Minister should settle the cases and set in place procedures for the phased payment of the arrears.
I want to make it clear that I have no intention of staying at this meeting and taking part in a charade of respectability for this Minister, unless he is prepared to answer some straightforward questions. I want him to tell this committee the number of claimants he believes would be entitled to money under the decision by the European Court of Justice, which he claims would accumulate to £354 million. I want the Minister to tell me how many claimants he alleges would receive a double payment. His statement that they would receive double payments is untrue. The women would not receive a double payment if they had received money previously. However, the Minister is trying to imply that those who have already received money will receive more. The fact is that it was men who received the transitional payments, not women.
I want the Minister to tell me how many will receive the transitional payment and how many will receive a double transitional payment, unless he believes women have no right to a separate existence from their spouse. I want him to tell this committee the legal costs involved in pursuing this nonsensical case and how much it has cost the State in legal fees and in terms of paying the legal costs of women who have brought cases. I want the Minister to tell me how much it will cost if he continues to pursue this non-sensical legal way of dealing with this issue.
I want the Minister to tell this committee how much interest has been paid as a result of delays and how much interest will be payable if all the women who are entitled are finally paid by the Department of Social Welfare. These are basic questions and the committee is entitled to answers. Unless we get answers, I do not intend to remain at this meeting. I intend to challenge this Social Welfare Estimate in the Dáil.
There is no point continuing with this charade if we do not get straight answers to the questions put by me and Deputy De Rossa. I will not stay here either. We want detailed answers to questions put.
We will now proceed to the general question and answer session on Vote 40.
The Minister has been asked questions. Could we hear the answers?
The Chair asked for questions relevant to the Estimate. I have no difficulty replying to contributions which have been made to date.
Will the Minister answer the questions which I put to him?
Deputy Allen asked questions first.
I would like to ask the Minister a simple straightforward question. Will he answer the questions I put to him?
Of course I will answer the questions which Deputy De Rossa has raised.
That is what I want to know.
Perhaps Deputy De Rossa might cool down a little bit and be a little less insulting. I have to think whether I should answer Deputy De Rossa——
Will the Minister answer the questions now?
——because he is in breach of the terms of reference of the House in relation to the allegations he is making against a Minister. That matter should be dealt with in a substantial way.
The evidence is there and it will be dealt with in due course. I ask the Minister to answer the questions.
Deputy Allen asked about the reversal of changes made during 1992. In practice, most of these have been changed and the improved position is reflected in this Estimate in that increases have been given to participants in the different areas. People are receiving allowances which had been taken from them at that time. The majority of the areas have been tackled.
Deputy Allen raised a question about the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Guidance was introduced in this area when dealing with supplementary welfare. The guidelines provide for instances relating to a special issue or an emergency which arises and for which the supplementary welfare allowance scheme was introduced.
I realise that within the eight health board areas there may be variations in the way in which guidelines are implemented because at the end of the day community welfare officers involved in a particular case have discretionary powers. However, there are two methods of approach, one involves tackling an immediate exceptional need, and the other involves tackling continuous or long running needs. There are arrangements to deal with those.
I appreciate that in some areas there may be difficulties in interpretation and application of what is included in the guidelines. We will look at that in the autumn when the demand on those services becomes heavy again. I stress that the expenditure in this area has been increased substantially this year which indicates the Government's commitment to this area.
The Deputy mentioned the abolition of pay related benefit. This benefit will not continue other than for people currently in receipt of it. The money saved will, with an additional £3 million, be used to increase the basic rates of unemployment and disability benefits. No money has been removed from the fund. All the money has been redirected to unemployment and disability benefit and, therefore, everybody in receipt of those will benefit from the increases.
The Deputy also mentioned the widower's scheme. These Estimates provide for a new scheme called a survivor's scheme which will operate on the same lines as the widow's scheme.
I said nothing about widowers.
Deputy Allen suggested a means test would be introduced for widows but none was. We provided an equal payment for widowers in which——
The Minister did propose a means test.
No means test was provided for widows. The widower's scheme was introduced——
The Minister proposed a means test for widows and then withdrew it.
These Estimates do not include——
Do not try to mislead us again.
——any means test for widows. I want to make that clear lest there is any confusion.
I said that the Minister proposed a means test but then withdrew it.
The Estimates include provision for a new survivor's pension which will commence in late October this year. This has been advertised and people are currently applying for it.
The Deputy also raised the issue of supplementary welfare appeals. This was debated at length during Question Time this week. There is scope for significant improvement in the supplementary welfare appeals system this can be achieved by introducing better quality information for clients, standardising the application forms and procedures and providing written decisions to the clients involved. The regulations, provided for in the Act, should set out the basic principles under which the appeals system operates, including the duties of appeals officers and the right of appellants.
The area of supplementary welfare appeals is currently being examined and I hope it will not be long before we have further developments in that area. One of the difficulties in the supplementary welfare appeals system is that it is the most urgent payment system. It has to be flexible and decisions have to be made immediately. It differs slightly from social welfare claims generally which are implemented by the various health boards and are currently being discussed with them. I will bring forward new proposals in this area in the not too distant future. I agree with the various points made by Deputy Allen.
Deputy Allen spoke about voluntary and other types of grants. There are various grants, many of which go out by post. In some instances there are requests for a Minister to attend an opening as happened recently in Cork at an event which the Deputy attended. This is probably the event to which the Deputy referred.
I did not mention any place.
I certainly do not have a photographer although one may be hired for the occasion.
By whom?
By the Department of Social Welfare for the occasion. If there is a major occasion in a local community the Department will give the service other Departments give to people in business or elsewhere. I have always put a high priority on local communities and the Deputy should be aware of that. This is welcomed by them. In many cases it is for their own records.
The number of places at which a Minister can attend during the year is very limited, especially in my situation. I welcome the invitations which I receive from voluntary organisations to attend and, in many cases, perform the opening of a local facility which is to assist the people with whom we work. We have developed that area to a great extent.
The Deputy asked a question about the increasing number of people going to loan sharks. I could not agree with him as that is not our experience or that of the people who work in this area. The experience is that the methods implemented to tackle money lending are very effective.
Local groups including credit unions, the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, the community welfare officers, social welfare officers and others involved on a voluntary or community basis are cooperating to tackle this problem and are increasingly demanding support for their efforts throughout the country. We now have a substantial number of these projects which are welcomed by local communities and are very effective.
Tackling money lending is a very complex and difficult issue as anyone involved in the area will know. The problem will not be solved overnight. It requires a great deal of attention from a number of different agencies as is happening at present. I pay tribute to the people involved in that work because they are doing it well.
The Deputy raised the question of errant and deserting spouses — principally deserting husbands. In the context of his contribution he said that the Act was grand in theory. In fact we are obliged to operate under the Acts. Under the Act, the Department of Social Welfare took responsibility for the area because far too many women could not repeatedly pursue maintenance through the courts and were having great difficulty. Some people of more substantial means are able to make appropriate arrangements through the courts and do not need our assistance, support or services.
Under the legislation, many of the people in that position had to pursue the deserting husband. They had to repeatedly pursue the husband in court and prove that they could not get the money. I changed this to enable the Department of Social Welfare to pay the deserted spouse. If the deserted spouse gets the maintenance, it is deducted from the payment. We also have the authority in certain circumstances to pursue a deserting spouse for payment and recoupment to the taxpayer.
We turned it into a generous system where we provide the support even though there may be great difficulty in getting any form of maintenance. I will examine the questions raised by the Deputy. This system is gradually moving into operation and if there are aspects which need to be improved, we will certainly examine them.
The clawback from deserting husbands rose to £200,000 this year, offsetting in a small way the moneys provided up-front by the taxpayer.
Deputy Allen also raised the question of the carer's allowance. In this year's Estimates there is provision for an improvement in the carer's allowance by waiving or disregarding the first £100 earned by a spouse. In effect this will mean that a carer who has a spouse who is working will be able to receive either partial payment or, in some cases, full payment. That will increase payments for approximately 400 people and it will give new payments to about 600 people. The increases are of the order of £29.50 or £30 a week for the approximately 400 people; they are getting a reasonably substantial increase in their payment. In the other cases it is the payment of the full £61.
Deputies Allen and De Rossa raised the question of equal treatment payments which was extensively covered in the Dáil recently. I did not want to delay the proceedings by going into matters which are certainly not substantially covered in these Estimates but I am prepared to answer questions. Deputy De Rossa talked about the arrears not being paid and, having uttered some insulting words, then accused me of refusing to pay the arrears. I too am a servant of the legislation and of Dáil Éireann. I am not entitled to pay moneys without authorisation.
Deputy De Rossa referred to a finding of the European Court of Justice of March 13 1991 in the Cotter v. McDermott case. He said the European Court ruled that people should be paid this money and has made much play of this recently in the House and outside. If the Deputy read the ruling carefully he might find that is not exactly the case. The Deputy refers to 1991 and, from memory, part of that ruling was that this ruling was ”in the absence of implementing measures.“ In 1992 the Government introduced the implementing measures to pay retrospective payments and arrears to everybody whom it thought might be entitled and as a result the Department of Social Welfare took great pains to notify the people involved. In addition to trying to find them in the records an advertising campaign was carried out to locate the people concerned irrespective of whether they were involved with solicitors.
The Department found a number of people who were due to be paid these arrears from 1992 to 1994. We managed to pay them by the end of 1993 — we got the extra moneys to do so from the savings made at the end of last year on fraud, abuse and general unwarranted claiming in the Department — with the exception of a small number of late applications which have continued to arrive. There is a provision in the Estimates which will cover those payments.
The Government brought in implementing measures, dealt with the European Court of Justice findings at that time, took legal advice, and paid all those, in excess of 70,000 people, who could be identified. Subsequent to the implementing measures and the payment of the arrears claims have been placed for further payments over and above the payments made under the arrangements in 1992. Questions on those claims will be raised in court next week and it is not appropriate for me, as Minister, to debate those issues here or in any other forum. They are complex legal issues involving European law and Irish law and potentially huge amounts of money.
These amounts, estimated on the basis of claims already received could be up to £400 million. The estimate I gave was that made by the officials of my Department of what was the likely cost in the event of the claims being paid and that was £354 million.
The Deputy said people are looking for the arrears which he alleges are due. That matter has yet to be resolved. These cases will be defended so that the matter can be fully resolved subsequent to the implementing measures being in place. That issue has to be sorted.
I have the letter.
The Deputy raised some of the cases which arose prior to the implementing measures and in which settlements were reached. Those settlements were reached on a confidential basis under terms agreed between the parties. The Deputy now says that the claims in court next week would only involve the payment of arrears which he alleges are due. However, the Deputy is incorrect because it does not only involve that. As I explained, and will explain again if necessary, the claims would involve double payments in many cases to the same household. In addition, the claimants also want these payments to be made immediately in a lump sum. The Deputy suggested that they can be phased payments. However, there is no suggestion in the claims that they could be phased. The claim is for a lump sum, damages, compensation and substantial amounts of money.
The Chair will understand that as Minister for Social Welfare I do not have authority to pay these moneys and that I have no legal basis on which to pay them. This matter is to be contested. I hope the position is clear. In my view, the matter is sub judice. It would not be appropriate for us as a committee of the House to undermine the position or to try to influence the discussions and deliberations about to take place in the courts next week.
I have made it clear that these matters are to be finalised in this process. It is difficult to explain exactly what this involves, given all the events since 1984-86 when this problem arose because the equal treatment was not paid at that time. Deputies are aware that there have been a number of complex cases. In light of that, there were no implementing measures until 1992 and this very much influences the present position. After 1992, further claims were lodged and these will have to be openly addressed so that the legal obligations of the State and the taxpayer are clearly defined. There is no point abusing any Minister. It is a factual, real situation that requires——
Was it not the Minister who did the abusing? The Minister abused people. Nobody abused him.
The Deputy is great at taking things out of context. I will not go back on what happened.
Did the Minister call a journalist a thick? Did the Minister call Deputy De Rossa a toe rag? Did the Minister describe me as unruly? The Minister abused people.
I described the Deputy as unruly and I think the Chair described him as unruly. I said that was why the Chair put him out of the House.
The Minister must answer a few questions today. He has not answered any yet.
I have made it very clear that I do not consider it appropriate for me——
The Minister is hiding behind the sub judice rule.
I am not hiding.
Payments have been made which do not relate to what will arise. The Minister has not answered those questions.
I wish to refute those allegations made by Deputy Allen on behalf of Fine Gael.
Will I put the question to the Minister again, in case he did not hear? Specific questions were put to the Minister which he has not answered and which have nothing to do with the court hearing next week. I regret very much that this matter is going to court. However, I accept that it and future claims are a matter for the court.
The questions I put and want answered are: how much money was paid to the 800 women in Cork, through their solicitors? What was the average settlement? Why is information being refused in reply to Dáil questions on those settlements? What were the legal costs paid to solicitors involved in those 800 cases? What were the terms of settlement in the FLAC case involving 1,800 people two months ago?
These matters are not sub judice.These moneys have been spent and are being spent by the Minister’s Department. We have a right to that information. No amount of hiding behind gobbledygook will get the Minister away from the facts. This money has been spent and he must account for it. I want specific answers to my specific questions. People have had settlements made. They have been forced to go through solicitors. I want to know what payments were made by the Minister’s Department to the lawyers and to the people themselves.
These matters are part of the same issue, which will be before the courts next week. Any settlements were made on a confidential basis, without prejudice to the case. The Deputy may feel that they should not have been settled at that time.
No, I did not say that. I want the details of the settlements.
The reality is that they were settled. The Deputy said, for example, that a woman should be able to find out the information on her own case. She can do that through her solicitor. In those cases they went through solicitors. It is part of the same issue.
Surely she is entitled to get it from the Department. We are not running a secret organisation.
I cannot——
Surely a women is entitled to know what was paid to her by the Minister's Department.
She does know.
She does not know.
She made her arrangements with her own solicitor and she knows.
One of the points the Minister is missing is that his Department refused to pay these women at all unless they engaged a solicitor. That was the first point. Will the Minister answer the very simple, straightforward questions I have put to him in relation to how he computed the £354 million which he alleges the settlement of claims will involve? There can be nothing sub judiceabout telling the committee how many women are likely to be liable or likely to be entitled if all of the claims are met. How many claimants are there?
The Minister can answer the questions today or he can deal with the Committee of Public Accounts. I have written to the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, seeking an investigation of this whole matter.
I have no problem with the Committee of Public Accounts.
The Minister is here again today refusing to answer questions.
I am working under the legislation and I have implemented it. I have no problem whatsoever and I am very happy to talk to the Committee of Public Accounts.
Will the Minister admit that he is working under legislation he put in place in order to avoid paying this money?
I think the Deputy——
Answer the question. We have heard enough gobbledygook.
The Deputy is inaccurate and incorrect. I did not——
Deputy McCreevy did it.
Why not be accurate?
Answer the questions.
May I continue with what I was saying? I wish to make it clear that these are part of the same issue. I cannot, as Minister, prejudice the proceedings which are——
Will the Minister answer the questions?
Will the Deputy allow me to answer, please?
The Minister has not indicated——
I have listened to much rubbish and abuse from the Deputy for quite some time.
The Minister will hear more unless he is straight and starts to fulfil his responsibilities as a Minister to this House.
The facts of the matter are as follows: (1), it is part of the same issue; (2), I cannot prejudice the proceedings which are to take place next week; (3), I have no difficulty accounting for any of the moneys and I would be very happy to do so. I wish to make that very clear. It is being put about by Democratic Left, and by Deputy Allen to some extent, that things are being hidden in some way or another.
Then tell us what moneys have been spent.
Is the Minister insisting on confidentiality?
I wish to make it clear that this issue is to be resolved totally and openly before the courts next week.
The Minister is insisting on confidentiality.
Will the Deputy supply the letter to the Chair, as promised, so that we can receive a copy of it?
Not the Chair. I said the official reporters.
Does the Deputy not trust the Chair now?
I do not trust the Minister.
The Deputy does not have to trust me.
I would probably never see the letter again.
Do not let me go back to the fellows printing money on the quays.
Will the Minister answer the questions that were put to him?
Is the Minister making an issue now about money on the quays?
Which party is the Deputy in now? He should be careful about what he is saying.
What is the Minister talking about?
Could we get back to the Estimate?
I ask the Minister to address the questions which were put to him about how the £354 million was computed.
I am answering them.
How was the £354 million computed? Will the Minister answer that question?
The Deputy should contain himself for a moment. Can he do that?
Will the Deputy answer the question?
First, it is the same issue. Secondly, I cannot prejudice what is happening——
The Minister is dodging again.
Thirdly, I am very happy to account to the Public Accounts Committee or whatever——
The Minister is a disgrace. I do not intend to stay and listen to this nonsense. He is treating this committee with contempt. Will the Minister answer the question?
I am about to answer it.
He is telling us why he will not answer it.
Well, that is what the Deputy thinks.
The Minister, without interruption.
I am quite used to interruptions from that quarter. They are quite normal, inside and outside the House.
Answer the question.
If the Deputy would let me finish——
Hurry up.
This is not an inquisition.
No, but there are many angry women out there.
This is a display of bad manners.
The Deputy just arrived, he knows nothing about it.
I know all about it and I know all about the Deputy.
These matters will all be discussed when they come before open court. I want to see this matter resolved.
Let us have an end to this, Minister. There is no point in us staying here as the Minister will not answer the questions.
The Deputy asked on what the £4 million is based.
Will we get the information now?
The Deputy should relax.
No, I will not relax. I want the information to which I am entitled.
Higher amounts have been postulated since that approximate amount was calculated. I have told the Deputy about the kinds of things involved in the claims.
How many claims? The Minister did not know on Tuesday.
I said the total pool.
The Minister said that he did not know on Tuesday and that he would have to check. Has he checked?
On the basis of meeting the claims which have been made, from the pool of people — something over 70,000 — the figure comes to £354 million.
So the figure is 70,000?.
How many claims have been made?
We will not know until the claims are made afterwards.
Is it based on a figure of 70,000?
The figure of £300 million must be based on something.
No, in so far as can be estimated it is based on a total pool of over 70,000.
Are 70,000 women affected?
No, there are not 70,000 claims.
How many claims are there?
The Deputy is trying to undermine the State's case and I do not intend to go further.
So the Minister will not answer.
He is covering up again.
How can the Minister honestly come to this House and say that it will cost £354 million when he will not tell us on how many claims it is based?
According to the latest estimates it could be more than that.
How many claims are there?
What is the estimate?
I have given the Deputies the pool of people from whom the claims will come and the basis on which the claims will be settled——
On a point of order, could we get an answer from the Minister to a specific question?
After that, the amount due will depend on the outcome of the case, if money is found to be due. I have made it clear that these matters will be resolved.
Will the Minister give the committee the other answers?
The Deputies should contain themselves and allow the courts to function and the due process to proceed.
The Minister should treat this committee with respect.
What is the Deputy's intention?
The Minister has given a figure of 70,000 women. I asked a specific question which he will not answer. He claimed that many will be double payments. How many?
We are not saying we will not resolve this matter. The matter will be resolved but it is extremely complex——
The Minister gave a figure of £354 million and said that 70,000 women are involved. How many of them will get double payments?
I do not have that figure here.
Why not? He put forward a figure of £354 million so he must know on how many that is based. He must know how many women are entitled to double payments and the interest and legal costs involved. It is all included in the figure of £354 million. The committee is entitled to know on what that is based. It has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with the information to which this committee is entitled.
We are talking about making payments to women over and above the retrospective payments on the basis of decisions taken by the Government in 1992. These claims are over and above the payment of arrears.
We know that already.
All arrears have been paid and the issue now——
All arrears have not been paid which is surely the basis of the case.
I can only act on the legislation and all the arrears——
The legislation was introduced to prevent further claims being made.
All the arrears have been paid. A small number are outstanding.
The Minister told this committee on 9 March that there were no further claims. However, within days of that he settled a further 1,800 cases before they were heard in the High Court. It is on record that those cases were settled.
If I remember correctly, at that meeting——
The clock will save the Minister in a few minutes.
——Deputy Allen and Deputy De Rossa were trying to press me to settle the cases and not have them go through the courts. The cases were settled.
The Minister said there were no cases and then he settled.
I explained the basis——
Will the Minister answer the question?
The pre-1992 cases, before the implementing measures, were settled and some remain to be settled.
Those are not the cases to which I am referring.
They are in exactly the same situation as the post 1992 cases.
What was the basis for settlement of the 800 cases in Cork and the 1,800 cases in Dublin? Money has been spent by the Department to settle these cases.
These cases are confidential.
They should not be confidential.
The Minister cannot withhold that information from the committee.
If the Minister resists giving this information he is unfit to hold office.
The Deputy should not run away with himself.
I am not running away with myself. The Minister is reduced to personal abuse, misinformation and lack of information.
If I broke the confidentiality clause of those settlements, then the Deputy could accuse me of that.
The Minister insisted on the confidentiality clause. There is evidence on the record of the House from FLAC that he insisted on it. The letter from FLAC was read into the Official Report on 17 May.
No, it was not. It was not supplied to Chair or to me.
It was read out in the House.
The whole letter was not.
Deputy De Rossa read it out again a few moments ago. The Minister is an absolute disgrace.
There cannot be an imposition on a settlement made by agreement.
FLAC alleged that the Minister imposed terms of confidentiality.
Let it allege that to me.
It also indicated it is prepared to allow the terms of settlement be made public. If it is agreeable to that, why will the Minister not agree?
Irrespective of who introduced the confidentiality clause, that is how it operates at present.
It was an out of court agreement.
Will the Minister answer the question about the number of double payments which are likely to be made and the interest due? Is this included in the £354 million?
It is only proper that there would be confidentiality. The Minister paid through a solicitor. Who would pay out money except through a legal representative?
Will the Minister answer the question about the number of double payments likely to be made as part of the £354 million and if the interest and legal costs are included in this amount? Is this a mythical figure?
To establish that one would first have to see the settlement, the agreed claims or the decision of the court case.
The Minister must have established that if he has a figure. On what is the figure based?
Second, one would have to find out where all the husbands were in those cases and what they were doing at the time.
The Minister produced a figure of £300 million. What is the basis of that figure?
In any event an estimate of the cost——
I cannot put up with this nonsense any longer.
We will manage without the Deputy.
I will see the Minister in the Dáil next week.
Have a nice day, Deputy.
I can assure the Minister I will be back.
I am sure the Deputy is in a hurry to go somewhere.
The Minister is a disgrace.
As it is past 1 p.m. I propose we adjourn until 2 p.m.
I hope the Minister will digest the questions during lunch and answer them.
I hope we get down to the Estimate in due course.
In resuming our discussion on Vote 40 Deputies may ask questions.
Will the Minister account for the moneys spent by his Department to pay 800 women in Cork city? I want to know the level of payment made to these women, the average payment per person, the legal costs involved, and the terms of the settlements made to the 1,800 women whose cases were taken by FLAC in the High Court. If I do not get those answers, I see no point in asking other questions on the Estimate. The Minister is in serious breach of his responsibilities in not accounting to this committee and to the Dáil for money spent and agreements made which involve taxpayers' money.
I dealt with most of the questions asked by Deputy Allen. He talked about the value of our payments and made disparaging remarks about them. Deputy Allen should realise that the payments have substantially increased. A couple with three children who are on unemployment or disability benefit will receive an extra £7.70 or £8.85, if child benefit is taken into consideration. This will bring their payment to £152.20 per week.
I did not ask that question.
I am answering the Deputy's questions.
I asked specific questions.
I am answering the questions the Deputy asked me before we left and this is one of them. I will come back to the other questions in a moment.
Before we pursue any of those questions please answer the three questions I asked.
This is not an inquisition. I am answering the questions the Deputy asked.
It is a question and answer session related to the Department of Social Welfare. Please answer the questions I asked.
I am answering them.
The Minister has dodged the issue for 12 months and is still dodging it.
I will come to those issues now, Deputy. Be patient. Try to control yourself.
I am very controlled.
These require a good deal of patience. In relation to what the Government has done and is currently doing, a couple with four children on short term unemployment assistance, including child benefit, will now have £169.07 per week. A couple on long term unemployment assistance will also receive considerable increases. In relation to payments in general I deny the allegations by the Deputy and will answer the questions he raised in that regard.
The Deputy once again raised the issue of the implementation of EC Directive 79/7 and all the matters relating to it. This is a very complex matter and it is important to be clear about the issues. The questions he raised are part of the total issue which is to be discussed in court next week. This will be the beginning of the process of getting a clear-cut decision on whether the taxpayer is to pay further payments over and above those which have been allowed for in the retrospective payments made under legislation in 1992, all of which have been paid at this stage. That is a very important question for a large number of women who are concerned about whether they are due further payment on top of retrospective payments which have already been made.
I made it clear that I have no authority to make those payments, any authority would have to be based on decisions of the Government and appropriate legislation. Consequently, there is no provision in these Estimates for such payments. I wish to be clear about that issue. That would be a separate decision relating to a substantial amount of money estimated at £354 million. This problem arises because equal treatment was not implemented when it should have been, by the end of 1984. All the preparations were made by the Department of Social Welfare and Ministers for Social Welfare——
The Minister is blaming Barry Desmond now.
——to ensure that the payments could be made in time. The then Fine Gael dominated Government and the Fine Gael Minister for Finance of the day decided that these payments would not be made at that time. They were delayed until considerably later.
Seven years.
Those delays, which were the responsibility of the Fine Gael Party in Government, led to a highly difficult and confused legal position in which numerous cases were taken. The whole sequence of events indicates that very clearly. Those cases were finally resolved in 1991 and the matter was still in the legal process up to that time. The payments made following 1992 and the implementing measures introduced were based on decisions in those cases and having regard to the obligations of the taxpayer in relation to the payments. The first issue involved was that of the payments being made in the first instance. Equal treatment was introduced eventually in 1986 and it was decided not to make retrospective payments. That was a decision of the Fine Gael led and dominated Government of the day. In 1992 the Government decided the payments which should be made. The present Government implemented those retrospective payments and almost all have been paid.
The question of further liability is before the courts and will be decided next week. I ask any reasonable Deputy who is genuinely concerned about the people involved to allow the court to resolve this issue. The Government will meet any obligations arising from whatever decisions are taken following the resolution of those issues through the courts. That is our current position. The Government of the day did not implement the equal treatment on time and it led to a very complex situation.
The Government in 1992 implemented fully as it understood them the measures which relate to retrospective payments and has made them. I have been asked why settlements were on a confidential basis by agreement between the parties. All the settlements have been on a confidential basis without prejudice.
Following those settlements the Government put in train the implementing measures and the situation is clear at present. Claims for payments beyond that will have to be determined openly and the matter will be resolved in due course. The sooner that happens the sooner these matters can be debated and discussed in an objective way. Then Members of both Houses will be in a position to decide what measures should be taken and how much the cost would be if it is determined that there is a further liability on the taxpayer. That is the position.
I have been as forthright in this regard as I can, given the constraints under which I must work. On that basis, the fact that the remaining issues will come before the courts next week should be welcomed, particularly by women who are concerned that the matter of whether further payments are due will be resolved in the not too distant future.
I hoped Deputy De Rossa might come back to the committee this afternoon because nobody in the House that is more familiar with the background to this matter than me. It goes back to November 1982 when I was first elected to the Dáil. When the Social Welfare Bill was introduced in 1983, I voted against it because of its proposed changes and because it did not provide for the payment of moneys due to women. In 1984 we convinced the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Desmond, to put a proposal to the Minister for Finance requesting that the payments be made in full. Two Fine Gael Ministers for Finance refused to allow the payment to be made, although the Department of Social Welfare had decided to do so. The present Minister for Social Welfare was then Opposition spokesperson in that portfolio.
When another row blew up over the same subject in 1986, our parliamentary party appointed a delegation, which included the present Chairman of this committee, then Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, the Minister of State responsible for tourism, Deputy Moynihan, and me. We approached the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Hussey, asking that measure be conceded. The Minister referred to it in her recent book because I often raised it in the Dáil and at her office. There was the possibility that the Labour Party would pull out of that Government as many Members at parliamentary party level were annoyed that these payments had still not been conceded. The Minister introduced the alleviating payment of £20, which was subsequently reduced by £2 per year until the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, finally eliminated it. That is the history of the measure.
Effectively, responsibility for the non-payment of that money does not rest with the Minister, but with his three predecessors, two of whom are still Members of the Dáil and one of whom is the Leader of the Fine Gael Party and Leader of the Opposition in the Dáil. The other was Deputy Dukes as Minister for Finance. It is unfair to blame this Minister when responsibility for it lies squarely with three Fine Gael Ministers.
I thank Deputy Bell and the Minister for the history lesson.
The insults thrown at the Minister and the attacks on him this morning left me with no alternative but to put the record straight.
I am prepared not to comment on what is happening in the courts. However, I want answers to the questions put to the Minister on settlements reached and on the claims that were submitted and finalised. I again ask the Minister to give the figures for those 800 cases in Cork that were settled with women through their solicitors and the details of the settlement made with FLAC on the 1,800 cases recently settled. The Minister has a responsibility to account to the Dáil for money spent in the settling of the 800 cases in Cork. He also has a responsibility to account for the settlements made with FLAC. If the Minister will not answer those questions, I have no option but to withdraw from this charade today.
I assure the Deputy that I am happy to account for the moneys expended by my Department at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place. This is a complex issue and the matters he has raised are part of it. These matters have been decided on confidentially and without prejudice to the resolution of the whole question.
FLAC stated that the Minister imposed terms of confidentiality and that is on record.
One cannot impose something on an agreement. This is a complex issue and these elements are part of the same issue. The cases were settled without prejudice to the resolution of the overall questions and problems, which remain to be resolved. The unfounded allegations by some Members of the Opposition have only served to add further to the confusion. I have repeatedly emphasised the constraints I am under in view of the pending legal proceedings. I want to set out the present position within these constraints.
First, all people affected by the delay by the Government in 1984 in implementing the directive have been paid in full, in accordance with the retrospective legislation introduced in 1992. Second, there are three cases due to be heard in the High Court next week. These proceedings will resolve the matter once and for all. I look forward to that, as indeed do others who are genuinely interested in the issue, as a final resolution of this complex matter. Third, the Government will meet in full any obligations arising from these proceedings. I have provided all the information I am at liberty to give within these constraints. The details on certain settlements were bound in confidentiality and were without prejudice to the resolution of the issues which will be before the courts next week. Any reasonable person would look for honest actions and explanations. I gave an honest and straightforward explanation of our current position.
Deputy Bell gave an accurate account of the history of events. I confirm what he said. The measures for equal treatment for women were introduced in 1986 and nothing would have emerged if retrospection had been paid then or had been phased in on a basis to be determined at the time. As the Deputy said, a Fine Gael Minister for Finance was directly involved when the decision was taken not to pay the retrospection. It was a disastrous decision and it lead to the complex problems which have arisen and have to be addressed. It ultimately resulted in retrospective payments being made in full in 1992 to everybody concerned who could be identified, which was more than 70,000 women.
The matter has further resulted in claims for payments over and above those made. Those claims have to be resolved in the courts on the basis of European legislation to determine finally what further moneys, if any, are due to be paid by the Irish taxpayer with regard to this tragic and unfortunate debacle for which I had no responsibility. I thank Deputy Bell for making that point clear.
Before these matters arose the then Department of Health and Social Welfare prepared implementing measures which subsequently have been seen to be comprehensive and would have met the requirements of the legislation on equal treatment. The Department was not permitted to go ahead with those solutions. I was not Minister at the time of this decision, but prior to that I ensured, as Minister, that all the homework was completed on the issue. An interdepartmental committee was set up and full consideration was given by my Department to implementation of the measures.
My successor pursued the same arrangements and methods which, if they had been accepted by the then Government and Minister for Finance, would have resolved all the issues at the time without further difficulty. The first mistake was made when implementation did not take place at the end of 1984. The second mistake occurred when implementation took place at two different stages in 1986, as no provision was made for retrospection.
Deputy Bell is correct in his remarks regarding the taking of that decision. The records show this to be the reality of the situation. Following those decisions, many thousands of women were denied equal treatment at the time when they should have received it, and retrospective payments when implementation was introduced at the end of 1986.
The issues which arose from this matter went through five different cases in the European Courts. Some Deputies like to quote one case, but the matter could not be simply illustrated by one case. There were at least five cases involving various legal complexities. The claims made are not simple, as Deputy De Rossa claimed earlier. They are complex and extensive claims which would have to be resolved in court. I could not take decisions on the claims before me at present. I assure the Deputy that this matter will be resolved openly through these proceedings and, having had them resolved, the Government will meet any obligations that arise.
Deputy De Rossa has withdrawn from these proceedings in protest at the manner in which the Minister is treating this serious issue. The Minister continues to throw a veil of secrecy over the settlements made in the case of 800 women in Cork and the settlement made with FLAC some weeks ago, and he refuses to provide the Committee with details of the number of claims pending before the courts. He has also mentioned figures in excess of £300 million which he cannot substantiate.
This whole exercise is a charade. I regret I must make the choice between staying and continuing with the charade or of withdrawing from these proceedings. I am withdrawing in protest at the Minister's disgraceful behaviour. He has been misleading, untruthful and evasive over a number of months and has been personally insulting to Deputies of this House.
The Deputy is not entitled——
The Deputy must withdraw the word "untruthful".
It has been established that misleading statements were made in the Dáil.
Are you withdrawing the word "untruthful", Deputy?
I am not withdrawing the word. I am withdrawing from these proceedings in protest at this charade.
We have made the position clear. The responsibility for this matter lies with the Fine Gael Party. I can understand why Deputy Allen wishes to withdraw from these proceedings over this matter. He must feel more than a little embarrassed that the decisions taken by the Fine Gael Party in Government have led to this massive loss on the part of women which has been corrected over the years in a number of different phases and steps, and which led to the hugely complex issues which are before the courts.
The Deputy spoke of a veil of secrecy and of the confidential nature of the settlements. I am not at liberty to breach the confidential settlements which were made without prejudice to the current proceedings.
Imposed by the Minister.
The Deputy is aware——
Either the Minister is lying or FLAC is lying. He cannot have it both ways.
I am pleased to note that the Deputy has returned to the Committee.
I never left.
The Deputy should follow his leader, Deputy De Rossa, and withdraw from the proceedings of the Committee.
The Minister is lying or FLAC is lying.
I have indicated several times already that there are three cases before the courts next week. These are the cases on which the issue will be determined.
Involving how many people?
The cases involve approximately 80 people. They will be determined in open court and defended because, having paid——
Is the Minister still refusing to give information on settlements made?
On the issue of settlements made, the Deputy knows——
Is the Minister refusing to account to this committee for moneys spent by his Department?
No. I am accounting for all the moneys.
The Committee spent three hours this morning attempting to get at the truth.
I am accounting for all the moneys.
The Minister has failed to do so.
I cannot breach the agreements made by the State's legal team on behalf of the State in these cases which were confidential and without prejudice to a settlement——
Terms of confidentiality imposed by the Minister.
Those matters are coming——
It is a complete charade and the Minister will pay for it.
The Deputy will be aware that an agreement cannot be imposed. The Deputy should consider his words carefully in that respect.
Everything is out in the open at this stage. I have refrained from pinpointing exactly where the problem originated. I can understand Deputy Allen wishing to withdraw from the proceedings of the Committee because he is being confronted with facts he does not like. These facts are that it was a Fine Gael Minister who prevented these measures moving ahead. Time and history have shown that the measures put in place by the Department of Social Welfare were correct and would have been successful if they had been allowed to proceed. It was not the then Minister for Social Welfare who did not allow them to proceed, but two former Ministers for Finance, both of whom were members of the Fine Gael Party.
It tests one's patience to hear a Fine Gael Deputy claiming that people have been adversely affected by developments over the years which were caused by the Fine Gael Party in Government. That party created such a complex situation that it took at least five European Court cases to resolve the matter. Now it has been resolved although payments have been made to people who made claims over and above the 1992 implementing measures. These cases will be sorted out through the courts. They are being defended so that all the implications can be dealt with fully and publicly to reach a resolution. As Minister for Social Welfare I am obliged to represent the taxpayer because an Estimate of approximately £354 million is involved. Whatever recommendations are made, the issues will be teased out prior to a decision being taken. The partnership Government will not shirk its responsibilities and will meet any obligations arising from these proceedings. However, the issues must be teased out because this was not done previously. We have dealt extensively with this matter and should now move on to other issues. This one is marginal and there is no money for future payments in the Estimates.
Are there any other questions on the Estimates?
We have received a detailed explanation under each heading which is quite satisfactory.
Does that conclude this matter?
It was laughable to see Deputy Allen rushing off for the Cork train after giving out to the Minister for Social Welfare. It shows the interest he has in what he was talking about. I welcome the weekly increase of £6 in the family income supplement which will leave people better off. I would like to know whether, if a household income is £100 per week or less, a carer will qualify for the full carer's allowance.
A person earning £100 or less would qualify for the full carer's allowance of a maximum of £61 per week. With earnings of £160 the person would get a reduced carer's allowance of £37.
Very good.
According to current estimates, some 400 people would receive an increase of about £30 per week and some 600 new people with separate means up to the limit would also become eligible. For the benefit of the public my Department is to produce a leaflet clearly outlining the means limits. This will show, for example, that if you earn £100 per week you will get the maximum carer's allowance of £61; if you earn £160 you will get £37 and if you earn £190 you will get X amount.
A further improvement for carers involves the free telephone rental allowance which will be retained by anyone previously living alone but now being cared for by the recipient of a carer's allowance. Previously, an elderly person living alone who had a free telephone allowance and who was subsequently looked after by a carer, lost their free telephone allowance because they were no longer living alone. In future, if someone goes to live with a designated carer they will retain the free telephone allowance. That improvement will commence next month.
I congratulate the Minister on that provision. Heretofore, a number of elderly people living with families who had an approximate income of £5,000 per year from farming were debarred from the carer's allowance. I welcome that move as a step in the right direction.
They will be included now, though I do not think people fully realise the implications.
Does the new provision become effective from 1 July 1994?
It is the same date as for the implementation of the increases which will be later in July. The date does not matter because it will apply to existing recipients as well as new ones. In other words existing carers will benefit as well. The Deputy raised another question about the family income supplement which has been debated a great deal. Deputy Allen also asked questions about it earlier and it is a pity he is not here to deal with the section more fully now that we have an opportunity to do so. In 1990 some 6,569 people were on the family income supplement, while in 1992 the figure had risen to 7,735. Last year the Government introduced substantial changes in the family income supplement qualifying levels. Our estimate for the number of people qualifying in 1994 was 10,000 but by the end of May it was already at 9,794. However, with increases coming in from July that figure will obviously go well above 10,000. The partnership Government has been concentrating on supporting people with children who are in low paid work, through the family income supplement. It took a fair deal of adjustment.
Last year we took some measures which I believed would be very effective and the Government supported them. The proof is that it is rising considerably, it increased by 40 per cent in that time, which is considerable, and looks as if it will go higher. That answers much of the criticism about the effectiveness of the scheme which benefits about 34,000 children.
That concludes our consideration of the Social Welfare Estimate. I thank the Minister, his officials and members of the committee for their constructive contributions. The Select Committee has now completed consideration of all the Estimates for public services referred to it by Dáil Éireann. I thank Members for their participation in the discussions and for their co-operation which enables us to complete consideration of the Estimates within the prescribed time.
Report of Select Committee.
I propose the adoption of the following draft report:
The Select Committee has considered the Estimates for Public Services, 1994 for the following Departments: Health, Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Social Welfare and all other Estimates relevant to these Departments.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
The Select Committee adjourned at 2.55 p.m.
