Wednesday, 15 Dec 2004

Priority Questions.

Child Support.

Ceisteanna (12)

David Stanton

Ceist:

24 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of former spouses, and in the case of unmarried applicants, the other parent of the child, currently paying maintenance towards the support of their child; if he has satisfied himself that the maximum number of such liable relatives is contributing; the number of staff working in the recovery unit; his further plans to ensure that the maximum number of liable relatives contribute; and the action that he intends to take as a result. [33732/04]

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. Brennan)

Payment of maintenance is a private matter for the persons concerned and, if they cannot resolve the issue, for the family law courts. Under social welfare legislation, there is a statutory obligation on spouses to maintain each other and their children and on parents to maintain their children. Applicants for one-parent family payment are required to make ongoing efforts to seek adequate maintenance from their former spouses or, in the case of unmarried applicants, the other parent of their child. Normally, such maintenance is obtained by way of negotiation or by court order. In recent years, separated couples have increasingly used my Department's family mediation service to resolve differences.

Since 2001, one-parent family payment claimants are allowed to retain 50% of any maintenance received without reduction in their social welfare entitlements. This arrangement arose from a recommendation made in a review of the one-parent family payment scheme carried out by my Department in the context of the expenditure review programme which was designed to improve the incentive to seek maintenance.

Current records indicate that approximately 7,000 one-parent family payment recipients are in receipt of maintenance from their spouse or the other parent of their child. Where social welfare support is being provided to the one-parent family, the other parent is liable to contribute to the cost of this payment. In every case where a one-parent family payment is made, the maintenance recovery unit of my Department seeks to trace the liable relative involved to ascertain whether he or she is in a financial position to contribute towards the cost of the one-parent family payment. This follow-up activity takes place within two to three weeks of award of payment.

All liable relatives assessed with maintenance liability are notified by the Department and issued with a determination order setting out the amount of contribution assessed. The Department requires regular, normally weekly, payment of the contributions assessed in this way. The process of securing maintenance contributions from liable relatives can, however, be difficult and protracted. This is also the experience of all countries with similar systems in operation.

Nonetheless, my Department has realised significant savings through this system. There are 1,835 liable relatives contributing directly to my Department. As a result of maintenance recovery unit activity, savings of €8.5 million were achieved in 2002, €14.2 million in 2003 and savings for 2004 are estimated to be €14.9 million. As a result of maintenance recovery activity in 2004 to date, a total of 646 one-parent family payments were cancelled while a further 426 payments were reduced.

Legislation allows my Department to seek recovery from liable relatives through the courts in appropriate cases. To date, a total of 152 cases have been submitted for court action from 2001. The majority of these cases have resulted either in orders being written against the liable relative in court or in the liable relative agreeing to pay a contribution to either my Department or the lone parent. Further cases are in the course of preparation by my Department for court action.

The maintenance recovery unit of my Department is kept under review. A total of 12 staff work on maintenance recovery activity while a further five staff work on follow-up maintenance recovery-related work in the one-parent family payment scheme. The staffing levels in the unit are kept under review in the context of work priorities generally and available resources.

Mr. Stanton

How does the Department's maintenance recovery unit determine the amount of maintenance in each case? Has the Department worked out a formula and does it take into account time spent by a child with the other parent? In some cases children spend, for example, two days a week with the other parent.

Is account taken of the sensitivities of these issues in that there is a danger of driving fathers further away from their children and there is also a danger of revisiting hurt and pain as a result of a non-amicable break-up? Is the Minister satisfied that enough staff work in the Department? Does he intend to carry out any research in this area to see if there is a more progressive and up-to-date way of dealing with this issue?

Mr. Brennan

The method of assessment is based on a number of factors, including, for example, the minimum wage and the circumstances of the person who is liable to make a payment. If, for example, he or she is on social welfare, payment would not normally be required.

In many cases there is no trace of the other parent. A recent survey of 20,000 one-parent families revealed that 12% of single parents said there was no trace of the other parent. A further 13% of liable relatives were on social welfare. In 14% of cases the other parent was unknown. It was considered that no contribution was due from 47%. This category would include people in low paid employment. Determination orders were made in just 14% of the 20,000 cases. Approximately 20,000 cases are assessed every year. In round figures, the total number of individuals in receipt of lone parents allowance is 80,000. They are not all single parents in the sense of being unmarried. The figure also includes widows.

We take into account the sensitivities of the matter. I am keen to have further research undertaken in this area and to have a more focused and caring lone parents system. I have some reservations about the social benefit of the manner in which it is structured at present.

Mr. Stanton

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Has an estimate been established of the number of people who could contribute but are not doing so? I note that the position from the point of view of the Exchequer has improved in recent years, although I do not want to focus on the monetary aspect as much more is involved in this issue. Will the Minister inform the House of how many cases have been dealt with by the family mediation service to which he referred? Are there plans to extend the role of the service in the area of child support? Is the Minister aware of the major difficulties and problems which have occurred in other jurisdictions in this area which have lead to pressure being placed on fathers in particular, some of which have led to suicides? Will the Minister take such considerations into account when he addresses the issue to ensure a balance is achieved?

Mr. Brennan

The question asked by the Deputy is one of which I am trying to get to the bottom. Approximately 80,000 people are in receipt of lone parent allowances. If one allows for a figure of approximately 9,000 or 10,000 who are not the type of lone parents referred to here, but will still be on benefits such as widow's allowance and so on, approximately 70,000 individuals are involved. According to the survey of the 20,000 people, determination orders were made in respect of 14%. That does not sound like much but, when one deducts the other figures to which I referred, it ends up at 14%. The figure of 14% applied to the 70,000 people results in perhaps 10,000 people who, at this distance, should be liable and required to make payments, some of whom already do so.

The Deputy has assumed that when the 12% of people who cannot be traced are tracked down, they will all be liable to pay. However, one might find that when they are traced, the same percentages apply in regard to those who are unable to pay. Nevertheless, some 10,000 people should probably come forward and make a better effort. We need to get to the bottom of the issue. I spoke about this issue at a number of conferences and it is clear this is not merely a matter of finance but rather the connection between the child or children and, usually, the father. That connection must be supported by the State.

I do not have a figure for the number of people who attended mediation but I will supply it to the Deputy, although I do not think it is hugely significant. We have all spoken at length recently about the role of fathers and I am anxious that we correct the balance so that mothers and fathers have equal access to children as far as possible and are equally respected. Only in the past decade or so has society begun to recognise the role fathers play with their children. For a long time we only recognised the valuable role played by mothers.

Social Welfare Code.

Ceisteanna (13)

Willie Penrose

Ceist:

25 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will report on the conclusions of his review of the social welfare cutbacks announced in 2003; the estimated cost to his Department in one year of these changes; the likely impact on social welfare recipients of the recent amendments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33545/04]

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

Mr. Brennan

As Members of the House will already be aware, I began a review of the measures announced in November 2003 to assess their impact. During the course of the review to date, I listened carefully to the views expressed by Members of the House, the social partners, voluntary groups and others I have met since becoming Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

The new arrangements are as follows. The transitional payment for recipients of one parent family payment is being restored and will now be available for a period of six months where a recipient's income exceeds €293 per week. The qualifying period for the back to education allowance is being reduced from 15 months to 12 months and, in addition, the cost of education allowance is being increased by €254 to €400. The income limit for entitlement to half-rate child dependent increases for unemployment, disability and related schemes will be increased by €50 per week, to €350.

The saving of €700,000 arising from last year's money advice and budgeting service supplement measure is being redirected to the MABS service to enable it to further improve its services. A sum of €2.3 million, an amount equivalent to the savings achieved by the discontinuation of crèche supplements, is now being made available to ensure that vulnerable families can continue to have access to crèche supports, for example, in cases where a social worker or public health nurse deems this necessary as part of his or her work with the family. I am consulting my colleagues, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about the most appropriate way to channel this funding.

The diet supplement has been restored and €2 million is being made available to improve the diet supplement arrangements. Some €19 million in funding from the rent supplement scheme is being transferred to the local authorities as an initial measure to enable them to put long-term housing solutions in place. The six-month rule for entitlement to rent supplement has been abolished and has been replaced by new measures to ensure that bona fide tenants who experience a change of circumstances are not disadvantaged. Rent supplement will now remain in payment unless a third offer, as distinct from a second offer, of local authority accommodation has been refused. I am not raising the minimum contribution for rent supplement this year.

In addition, the measure relating to half rate payments for widows and widowers and allied payments has already been amended. These measures, combined with the remaining measures, will continue to be the subject of specific reviews in the coming months. Given the demand-led nature of the schemes involved, it is not possible to be definitive on cost but the full year estimate for all the measures I have detailed above is estimated at approximately €36 million.

Mr. Penrose

A sum of €55 million was taken away last year but €90 million has yet to be found to deal with the imposition of the savage 16 cutbacks, which were visited last year upon the people who could least afford them, namely, the marginalised and those with no resources. In that context, I thank the Minister for his reply and for what he has done. It would be churlish not to recognise the efforts he has made. The Minister has our support in trying to ensure the cutbacks will be reversed in full.

The Minister announced that the qualifying period for the back to education allowance is being reduced from 15 months to 12 months. He gave an undertaking or a commitment that he would try to ensure that period would be further reduced to nine months. Will he confirm that this is the case as it is very important and would be welcomed by many people?

In 1994, one-parent families or lone parents accounted for one in 20 households in consistent poverty but, by 2001, they accounted for one in five. This group forms the largest proportion of those in consistent poverty of all welfare categories. One of the cuts has been fully rescinded, ten have been amended and five have remained unchanged. Of the five which have remained unchanged, is it not the case that four of them relate to PRSI contributions and access to social insurance payments? Does the Minister agree that these changes will impact negatively on those who are made redundant and seek a social insurance payment? These obstacles to obtain a full rate of payment devalue the worth of the PRSI contribution.

Does the Minister agree with the recent assessment of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed that the PRSI system is a misnomer because not only is the amount one receives from the social insurance fund system no longer pay-related, it is difficult to obtain a full rate of payment? Does the Minister agree that one must earn more and be in employment longer to get the full benefit which impacts negatively on those involved in part-time work or seasonal employment? I am surprised that the social partners have not focused on this important area. What review will take place in respect of those cuts to try to ensure they are rescinded or brought back into line because they placed severe impositions, hardships and restrictions on people who have already paid their PRSI contributions?

Mr. Brennan

I confirm what I stated last night to Deputy Penrose. I am examining the back to education allowance with a view to seeing if I can identify the funding to bring the period back to nine months from 12 months. As the Deputy knows, I reduced the period from 15 to 12 months. Overnight, I made some calculations in preparation for today and the additional cost of reducing the period from 12 months to nine months is €1.4 million. That is the amount for a full year although that sum rolls on for the number of years spent in college. I have undertaken to identify that sum conscious we have time to do so given the academic year begins in September. I am not in a position to confirm the sum to the House today but undertake to report back on the matter as soon as possible.

The remaining changes are PRSI related. I want to ensure all the schemes are structured in a way that makes the transition from unemployment to full-time and part-time work or to education straightforward. While the system has improved in the past decade, it previously locked people into a situation which prevented them from getting out of the welfare system because to do so cost them too much money. It is important our schemes are transition-based to enable people to move seamlessly from unemployment to work or education. That is the principle I am trying to apply. Any review of the PRSI system will be informed by decisions taken in that regard.

The Deputy referred to PRSI as a misnomer. It is a social fund and is not operated in the same manner as an ordinary pension fund whereby moneys are invested by trustees and people live from profits made from the fund. PRSI is not a commercial fund. The State makes decisions in terms of moving around the levels of benefit from that fund based on considerations other than the size of the fund. While size is a major consideration, it is not a major one as would be the case were it a commercial fund. While the system may need to be reviewed, its basic principles are fairly sound.

Mr. Penrose

Does the Minister agree the money advice and budgeting service supplement is important in the context of its assisting people to get out from under the grip of moneylenders and thereby enabling them to reorganise their financial affairs in such a way as to ensure they do not fall prey to such people? How does he see the €700,000 additional funding being spent by MABS? Of what benefit will it be to those who lost the mortgage supplement payment which was critical to ensuring they planned their way out of debt?

Mr. Brennan

MABS does a superb job in providing financial advice and support to people under financial pressure. Rather than indicate how it should spend the additional €700,000 — the amount lost by it last year — I have allowed MABS to decide where the money could best be focused. There was some indication that the €700,000 previously granted was being used to top-up money paid to financial institutions rather than on removing pressure from clients. Given money was available, the financial institutions were being more aggressive in their claims. The money is now better directed and will be used wisely by MABS. The sum of €700,000 is in addition to MABS's normal budget of €12 million. Also, a further €300,000 is provided for other purposes. I am confident MABS will spend that money as best it can.

Social Welfare Benefits.

Ceisteanna (14)

Seán Crowe

Ceist:

26 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on whether serious hardship is being caused by the fact that temporary free travel passes which are granted to persons with serious ongoing illnesses and in other exceptional circumstances are granted for a six-month period only on a once-off basis regardless of a person’s ongoing illness or the continuation of the circumstances for which a pass was originally granted; and if he will review the restrictions on such passes with a view to the removal of the six-month limit. [33546/04]

Freagraí ó Béal (3 píosaí cainte)

Mr. Brennan

It is a long-standing feature of the free travel scheme that peak time access restrictions apply on Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann provincial city services in Cork and Limerick. The operators apply these restrictions owing to pressure on bus capacity at peak commuter times. The times involved are 7 a.m. to 9.45 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. Monday to Friday inclusive, with a restriction also applying from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Fridays on Bus Éireann long distance services within a 20 mile radius of Dublin, Cork and Limerick. There are no time restrictions on the DART, other rail services or Luas.

My Department, in consultation with CIE, has arranged in a small number of exceptional cases to issue a temporary unrestricted pass for a limited period of up to six months to facilitate unavoidable hospital appointments and to enable the passholder to re-arrange appointments outside peak hours. This arrangement is sustainable on a limited basis only for a small number of individual cases. Therefore, when the customers' temporary unrestricted pass expires, the normal travel pass is issued.

The question of extending the arrangement for customers with special needs has been discussed with CIE. However, the company continues to experience capacity problems in providing peak period services and with bus traffic flow at peak time. I will continue to keep this issue under review to examine the scope for extending the current arrangements as soon as this can be done.

Mr. Crowe

I thank the Minister for his reply. The difficulty is that the people who receive the pass do so based on exceptional circumstances such as attendance at hospital appointments. Those who receive such passes are usually seriously ill. I have received representations from a man whose pass will expire on 2 January 2005. The person concerned obtained the pass based on his medical situation. He has cancer and must attend two hospitals for treatment. It has been suggested that he and other people have their appointments rescheduled. However, the Minister is aware given the situation in our hospitals that it is not a realistic option.

I had anticipated the Minister's reply as I am aware of the difficulties being experienced by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. However, in this case we are dealing with people with exceptional needs given their serious illnesses. I am asking that the Minister re-enter negotiations with the two companies concerned to outline the serious needs of those involved. These people who may be on the road to recovery are being told that following a six month period, they will receive a restricted travel pass only. That creates great difficulties and results in many seriously ill people having to pay for taxis or the required bus fare.

I am aware of the positive steps taken by the Minister in this area. Will he re-enter negotiations with Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to seek an extension of the scheme? We also need to address the manner in which people are given information regarding the restricted travel pass. The number of people involved is not enormous. I do not accept the argument of pressure on bus capacity at peak times. There is room to cater for the small number of people involved.

Mr. Brennan

The total number of people in the State in receipt of free travel is 616,000. I do not have a difficulty with what the Deputy has to say on the matter. It is not a matter of finances. CIE has informed me — a company about which I know a little given that I worked with it for some years — that it cannot physically take on additional capacity at peak time. If required to do so, we would have to pay the company substantially more than we do at present. My Department pays CIE for travel by the 616,000 concerned at a formula-based price which is attractive to the taxpayer. It is also an attractive formula from the point of view of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I will keep the matter under review. I would like to apply the same benefits applicable to Luas and the DART whereby people are permitted unrestricted free travel. I would like that system to apply across the board. As CIE has many new buses, we will talk with it again to see if there are any other possibilities. The answer does not lie in building a bureaucracy based on issuing passes and then rechecking them to see if people are genuine in claiming to have hospital appointments. Such a scheme would only work in the short term. If it grew into a massive scheme, it would be an awful waste of resources. We are better off extending it to everyone rather than cherry-picking those with pressing needs which would require an army of officials just to manage it. I am interested in making progress on this issue, if the physical capacity matter that CIE informs me it has can be overcome.

Departmental Surveys.

Ceisteanna (15)

David Stanton

Ceist:

27 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the actions he is proposing to take following his comments at the launch of the report, Strengthening Families through Fathers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33733/04]

Freagraí ó Béal (8 píosaí cainte)

Mr. Brennan

This report in question was commissioned under my Department's families research programme and funded by my Department with the support of the Family Support Agency. Last month at the launch of this valuable report, I stated the findings from this research project were a valuable contribution to broadening our understanding of the role of fathers in an ever changing and challenging society. The findings make it clear that we should re-examine our attitudes to some fathers and their role in the family.

The report's findings and recommendations will be considered by all relevant Departments and will be taken into account in the development of the strategy on families, the preparation of which is co-ordinated by my Department. However, the changes affecting families are such that an adequate and effective response in Government policy is difficult to achieve through separate responses in individual policy areas. A strategic process is required that will facilitate the integrated development of policies to support and strengthen families in meeting the challenges they face.

One significant issue that has arisen is the position of fathers in situations of separation and family breakdown and their role, generally, in a changing society. Until recently, the predominant family formation consisted of the father as the breadwinner, with the mother full-time in the caring role. This is changing and, in the view of many commentators, is unlikely to be the norm in the future. More mothers are opting to participate, or continuing to participate, in paid employment, with the opportunities to develop their own careers and achieve financial independence this affords.

The perceived need for fathers to be more directly involved in the rearing of children is also an issue which needs to be considered. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

State parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.

Until recently, shared parental responsibility for children usually meant the father having the role of sole breadwinner and the mother of sole care giver. One profound social change is the increasing female participation in the workforce, resulting in both parents becoming joint breadwinners. However, the necessary adjustments in attitudes and in practical arrangements have been slower in bringing about more joint care giving. Research and consultation has shown particular difficulties exist in the case of families where the parents are separated.

There is no single solution to this. It raises issues relevant to many policy areas including, employment, income support, child care and related services. The purpose in developing the family strategy is to identify all key issues and to develop an appropriate response to the changes affecting families and family life generally. I intend to bring forward the strategy in the first half of 2005.

Mr. Stanton

I intended to ask the Minister when the strategy would be brought forward but he has given a date in his answer.

Is the Minister aware that the 2001 Government research document, Fathers and Families: Research and Reflection on Key Issues, contains the same recommendations as this report? I am concerned that nothing is done on these reports' recommendations. Will the Minister give two practical initiatives he wants to see occurring in this area shortly? What type of interdepartmental co-operation exists in this area? Several key Departments such as the Departments of Health and Children, Social and Family Affairs and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have a bearing on this matter. Will the Minister agree that fathers are being excluded in many cases from the rearing of their children? Will he agree that more shared parental responsibility is needed and that the State and Departments have a role in this? Instead of allowing these reports sit on departmental shelves, gathering dust, what practical steps does he intend to take in the near future on their recommendations?

Mr. Brennan

I am still getting my head around some of these issues as they are emotional, personal and complex. I suspect the Deputy is doing the same.

Yesterday, when I spent several hours meeting fathers' groups, I put the same questions to them. What can the State do in this area? Where is the law not satisfactory that I can amend in legislation? What instructions can I give officials in my Department that will make it better for fathers? What changes, by way of regulation and legislation, can I ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to introduce to make it easier for fathers? The groups undertook to examine these issues and to inform me in more precise terms what I can do for them.

This is a major cultural issue with no single solution. In the short term, I want the joined up Government approach to this issue rather the welfare one. This involves many issues, including employment, income support, child care, justice, guardianship, access and custody and maintenance. From what fathers' groups have told me, in the case of separated families, access to children is a critical issue and should not be linked to whether support payments have been made. Access is not a financial issue but a parenting one. If one is jointly parenting, one must have proper access to the children. I want to examine what can be done in the legal area to improve access for fathers to their children.

Many court hearings involving this issue are held in camera, as Deputy Penrose knows from his legal background. It may be possible, without breaking the in camera rule or intruding on individual privacy, to get statistical information on access. Rightly or wrongly, the courts are perceived by fathers’ groups to automatically favour the mother in these cases. Statistical information would prove if the perception is true or not. If it is true, then the need for the Legislature to bring about changes to social policies would be highlighted. I am examining whether court clerks could provide this information in an anonymous way.

This area is fraught but I am glad it has emerged from the shadows and is now being openly discussed. Shared parenting must become the order of the day and mothers and fathers must be equally respected with equal access to their children. Shared parenting must be supported by the State. I do not have all the answers in this area but look forward to working with the groups involved to improve their lot.

Mr. Stanton

The Minister wants joined up Government. Will he establish an interdepartmental working group with a deadline to respond on this issue? It is one thing to say he would like to see something happening but another to say what he will do. Does he agree that the role of fathers is crucial in providing male role models to young boys when growing up? He has called for support services to be more sensitive to the rights of fathers. Has the Minister issued an instruction in that regard to his Department or other officials working in this area?

Mr. Brennan

The Family Support Agency and the division in my Department which deals with family policy are extremely sensitive to these issues. In so far as I can encourage them to be even more sensitive, I will do so. I will ask them to take note of what was said at the various fathers' conferences held recently. I would like to be informed of lack of sensitivity.

Mr. Stanton

The Minister called for it.

Mr. Brennan

I will address any insensitivity that exists. However, it has not been brought to my attention that insensitivity exists, but I take the point the Deputy is making.

I will consider what the Deputy said about joined up Government. I do not know whether it is the most urgent way forward. There are many interdepartmental groups within the Department, including working groups on issues such as maintenance and so on. I do not want to set up another working group just for the sake of it. I need to review the working groups that exist so that we can bring about a Government response to this issue. I share the Deputy's view that the role of fathers must be more respected and that access must be improved. I take the Deputy's point on the role model for boys, even though I am sure the position is not much different in the case of daughters and fathers. However, we will not get into that argument or we will never finish it.

Mr. Stanton

I agree.

Social Welfare Benefits.

Ceisteanna (16)

Jerry Cowley

Ceist:

28 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will extend free travel to older Irish emigrants, at the very least to Irish pensioners living in the UK, when they return here on their holidays (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33766/04]

Freagraí ó Béal (3 píosaí cainte)

Mr. Brennan

The free travel scheme is available to all people living in the State aged 66 years and over. It is also available to carers and to people with disabilities who are in receipt of certain social welfare payments. It applies to travel within the State and cross-Border journeys between here and Northern Ireland. There have been a number of proposals for extending entitlement to free travel to people living outside Ireland, including a proposal in the report of the task force on policy regarding emigrants, which was submitted to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in 2002.

This issue was examined in the review of the free schemes, which was published by the Policy Institute, Trinity College, Dublin, in 2000. The review considered that the main objective of the free travel scheme is to encourage older people and people with disabilities to remain independent and active within the community, thereby reducing the need for institutional care. It noted that extending the scheme to visitors would have significant administrative and cost implications, even if it was confined to those in receipt of Irish social welfare pensions. In 2000, it was estimated that the extension of the free travel scheme to EU pensioners could incur expenditure in the order of between €10 million and €19 million, depending on the level of concession granted.

The free travel scheme, in conjunction with the Northern Ireland concessionary travel scheme, provides free travel on cross-Border routes for pass holders of both jurisdictions. This scheme applies to cross-Border journeys and not to travel exclusively within either jurisdiction. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to put in place an all-Ireland free travel scheme for pensioners resident in all parts of this island. Implementation of the scheme will require detailed discussion and agreement with the relevant authorities and transport providers in both jurisdictions.

My predecessor met the Minister of State at the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland to explore the potential for co-operation between the two Departments in regard to the proposal. They discussed the options and scope for co-funding the scheme and considered various technical issues that arise. Shortly after taking up this post, I wrote to the Minister indicating my wish to move the issue forward. I recently received a response and I am considering its contents.

The Deputy's proposal to make free travel available to persons in receipt of Irish pensions, but living in the UK, would have to be examined in a budgetary context, taking account of the other demands for extension of the free travel scheme, the cost, administrative and legal, and the possible wider implications involved. However, I am mindful that this matter has been raised in the House a number of times recently and I will continue to examine carefully the issues involved.

Dr. Cowley

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. The usual reasons given for not doing something in this regard are economic reasons. Our people who went abroad as economic migrants never used the excuse of a budget or economic circumstances to forget us, even though they had every reason to do so. Between 1975 and 1995, in excess of £2 billion sterling was sent back in emigrants' remittances, which is a lot of money. On the administrative aspect of the scheme, people are receiving pensions, partial pensions and pre-1953 pensions, therefore, they are already in the system. I recently met a delegation of older people from the DUP in Northern Ireland who travelled down here free of charge, while an impoverished group of people from London who travelled to Ireland this week had to pay for their travel. That is wrong considering the wonderful contribution these people made to this country.

On the issue of EU citizens, the reason for non-inclusion of these people should be overlooked. There is a common travel area between Ireland and England. We got an EU derogation in that regard, as did the UK, because of the arrangement that already existed. This arrangement enabled our emigrants to travel to Britain to help that country to run its farms and factories and build its roads, rail network and so on. The derogation should also allow our citizens to return to Ireland. There are compelling reasons the free travel scheme should be extended to these people.

The task force report recommended strongly that the scheme should be widened because it would be of symbolic significance. Article 2 of the Constitution provides a new definition of the Irish nation. It provides an opportunity to put in place a new approach to looking after Irish citizens. Does the Minister believe that, as the task force suggests, Irish citizens are being denied their constitutional rights if this facility continues to be refused to them?

Mr. Brennan

I pay tribute to Deputy Cowley for his well known work with emigrants and his leadership in this area, which is much admired. I said in my reply that I will continue to examine the matter. I do not have a closed mind on the matter, I just need to do some more homework on it. Some figures would help us to move the matter forward. The number of Irish people throughout the European Union in receipt of Irish pensions is approximately 40,000, about 30,000 of whom live in the UK or Northern Ireland. The cost of including these people in the scheme would be in the order of €10 million to €20 million. The aspect that must be considered is that free travel in this State is universal. Everyone over the age of 66 is entitled to free travel, irrespective of their means or whether they are in receipt of a pension. If one were to move in this direction, one would have to limit free travel to the 40,000 pensioners living abroad. One could not make free travel available to each citizen over the age of 66 throughout the European Union who travels here.

Another issue arises as to whether the EU would permit us to apply limitations outside Ireland that we do not apply in Ireland. I must research this matter because it is a tricky legal issue. In Ireland, free travel is not confined to pensioners, any citizen over the age of 66 is entitled to it. Confining free travel to 40,000 people at a cost of up to €20 million is obviously a policy option for the Government. The legal issue I must examine is whether we would be permitted to stop there. I do not think anyone would want to extend the scheme further, not that people would turn up in large numbers. I am conscious of the example the Deputy gave and I would like to facilitate emigrants who return home for particular reasons.

To clarify the issue, as there is a residency requirement, residents of the country are entitled to free travel in any event. Leaving aside the €20 million and the capacity of transport companies, the basic question is whether one can ring-fence the provision on a satisfactory legal basis, which is the issue I would like to research.