Members will accept that if we hope to conclude the Estimate debate today we must adhere, as much as possible, to the suggested timetable. If we depart from it we will not succeed in concluding at 4 p.m. The timetable is not rigid but Members should bear that in mind. The Minister for Social Welfare has 15 minutes to make his opening statement.
Vote 40—Social Welfare.
My Department's Estimate for 1993 £2,121,515,000. This is the amount which the Exchequer provides for social insurance and social assistance services. The bulk of the cost of social insurance is met by PRSI contributions totalling £1.6 billion from employers, employees and the self-employed. The Exchequer meets the full cost of social assistance. The total expenditure on all social welfare services is £3.7 billion which is more than £10 million a day for each day of the year.
The Estimate includes the cost of this year's budget improvements which amount to almost £177 million in a full year and £74 million this year. This year social welfare payments increased by 3.5 per cent generally with higher increases of up to 11 per cent for those on the lower payments. Child benefit increases to £20 per month for each of the first three children from the beginning of September and that will cost an extra £16.6 million this year and it will cost some £50 million in a full year. Families on the family income supplement for low paid workers will all be at least £12 per week better off.
These substantial improvements, in line with the Programme for a Partnership Government, underline the Government's commitment to people who need the State's services.
The 1993 Estimate for my Department shows an increase of nearly £180 million or 9 per cent in expenditure when compared with the provisional figures for 1992. Income and expenditure are on target. The indications in the Social Welfare Vote are very encouraging for the first half of the year. PRSI income is buoyant and will certainly exceed the target set for end-June. At this stage, it is likely to be in the region of £10 million ahead. Expenditure also is well under control and will be well within target at the end of June. Evidence is emerging that the live register forecasts will be less than predicted, and that expenditure in this area will be somewhat less than forecast.
A breakdown of the Social Welfare Vote shows that 86 per cent of the Vote, or £1,877 million, is required for social assistance — the annual cost of all assistance or means-tested schemes, the full cost of which is borne by the Exchequer; that £197 million or 9 per cent goes to the social insurance fund to cover the cost of making good the annual deficit between contributions received and benefits paid out and that administration, which is the cost of administering the Department's schemes and services, comes to 5 per cent or £116 million.
When account is taken of receipts under Appropriations-in-Aid, the total Social Welfare Vote comes to £2.1 billion.
Since I became Minister for Social Welfare the taxpayer's contribution to the social insurance fund has been reduced from 30 per cent in 1987 to 12 per cent in 1993. This has been achieved through a more equitable spread of social insurance cover and greater compliance with PRSI obligations. PRSI contributions from self-employed people will amount to £73 million this year while part-time workers, whom I also brought into social insurance protection in 1991, will contribute approximately £9 million.
More than 800,000 people receive a weekly social welfare payment from my Department, covering 1.5 million beneficiaries. Support for retired people comes to £19.3 million a week, family income support for widows, lone parents, families where the breadwinner is on low pay, carers, supplementary welfare allowance and child benefit cost £18.6 million each week. Unemployed people receive £21.4 million a week and those who are ill receive £7.7 million a week.
The social insurance fund is the cornerstone of the social welfare system. It operates on a tripartite basis with workers, employers and the State contributing their share.
It provides protection for workers, including part-time workers, in times of illness or in the event of occupational accidents, unemployment, maternity and dental and optical expenses; for pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and contributed to the growth and prosperity of our country; for 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 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 development so that it works efficiently in the interests of the workers who contribute to it, their employers and the people who draw benefits from it. The one million plus workers who contribute their PRSI contributions every week have a right to expect that their financial position will be protected when they have need to claim from the fund. The 400,000 pensioners we pay every week have a right to feel secure about their pensions. The 114,000 employers paying into the fund on behalf of their workers have a right to know that their weekly contributions are managed properly, and only go to those people properly entitled to receive them.
Total PRSI income for this year is estimated to be £1,567 million. Expenditure on social insurance schemes this year will be of the order of £1,775 million. As its contribution to the tripartite funding arrangement, the Exchequer will contribute £197 million which represents a 12 per cent share of spending under the social insurance fund.
The social welfare system, funded as it is by workers, employers, self-employed people and the taxpayer, provides income support to people in time of need and makes payments where entitlements have been established through years of contributions to the social insurance fund. My Department pays more than £71 million a week for every week of the year to pensioners, families who are unemployed or sick, widows and lone parents. These people depend on us for their financial security so it is in everybody's interest that payments only go to those properly entitled to them. The vast majority of those claiming social welfare payments have a rightful entitlement to payments, but there still remains a core of people who abuse the system.
My Department has had considerable success in tackling fraud and abuse. Staff are continuously vigilant and all officers involved in the processing and payment of social welfare entitlements have a role in monitoring claims, and the prevention and detection of abuse. There are also specific investigation units, which work at local, regional and national level in the taxpayers' interest.
These units are systematically visiting every employer in the country and some employers will be revisited to ensure ongoing compliance. These investigations generally comprise inspections of employers in relation to their PRSI obligations, investigations of cases of concurrent working and claiming of social welfare benefits and the monitoring of ongoing entitlements to social welfare payments.
The important thing to remember is that these investigations, serve to protect the taxpayer's investment in social welfare and they safeguard jobs by tackling unfair competition.
Abuse of social welfare hurts taxpayers and harms business and jobs. The taxpayers are doubly penalised. First, they have to make the welfare payment and, secondly, they are denied the contributions that should be made to the tax and PRSI system. People who work in the black economy do not pay tax or PRSI and they harm honest business people by undercutting them. They are forcing honest companies into difficulties and causing more unemployment. I am determined that those abusing the social welfare system will be tracked down and prosecuted.
Our measures to prevent fraud, abuse and unwarranted claiming have been a success and the momentum of the operation will continue unabated. The current drive includes an intensified programme of inspections of employers to check that their workers PRSI is in order. By the end of this year, 40,000 employers will have been visited. The programme has been highly successful in bringing many employers into the PRSI system and in reducing black economy operations.
More than £200 million properly due is being saved for the taxpayer in the 1991-93 period. However, I want to achieve a system of co-operation with and compliance by defaulters than with imprisoning them. But let this message go out loud and clear, those who do not heed the warnings and come clean will face the full rigours of the law.
I am giving one final chance to those whose PRSI affairs are not in order to put them right now. The amnesty will not last forever. People illegally drawing payments and employers not paying their PRSI have only until the end of September to arrange their affairs.
I know that owning-up will create difficulties for some. My Department will take a sympathetic approach and will facilitate employers, self-employed persons and employees or social welfare recipients who may have difficulties with social welfare matters to regularise their position. Those who co-operate with the Department will find us both understanding and accommodating.
Employers who disclose PRSI irregularities and make reasonable arrangements to pay arrears will find a reasonable response forthcoming from my Department. They will not be prosecuted and will not be charged interest on arrears of PRSI. They will also be exempt from having to refund social welfare payments that their employees have fraudulently claimed. Equally those people who have received social welfare payments to which they were not entitled will not be prosecuted.
Self-employed people who have not registered or who have not paid the full amount of PRSI due will not be prosecuted if they disclose the facts and make reasonable arrangements to pay any arrears due. Once the amnesty is over, persons caught defrauding the social welfare system will face strict penalties including fines of up to £10,000 or up to three years imprisonment, or both.
Earlier this year the Oireachtas decided that full-time students in third level education would no longer be eligible for unemployment assistance during their summer holidays. I have introduced a new pilot scheme of summer jobs for those who otherwise cannot find work and who need to earn money. This scheme allows payments of up to £400 to be paid to students who undertake work of benefit to their community. The scheme will operate for ten weeks from 1 July to 30 September 1993. Students who would formerly have been eligible for unemployment assistance of at least £15 per week are eligible to participate.
I have publicised the details of the scheme and have invited applications from students to participate and from sponsors in voluntary, community and public sector bodies to make suitable employment available. To date 3,600 students have registered. The scheme has captured the imagination of the voluntary and community groups. I am glad to be able to report that 1,650 sponsors have come forward with 7,000 jobs. Sponsors ranging from local community based organisations, to voluntary and sporting groups and tourism and local heritage groups among others, are offering a wide variety of jobs to students.
Activities include: assisting the homeless; developing re-cycling schemes; promoting awareness of Third World issues; administration work related to youth education and community programmes; assisting people with disabilities on holidays and other administrative work and preparation and production for the Galway Arts Festival parade. A geographical breakdown of the sponsors will be available today in each of the social welfare regional offices around the country and some 2,000 students will receive certificates of approval and lists of sponsors in their areas over the next two days.
Every week my Department makes payment amounting to £71 million. Our offices throughout the country are staffed by some 4,017 officials. It is a credit to the staff that administration of the Department with growing numbers of customers and expanding services has been able, over successive years, to maintaining running costs below 5 per cent. This is an exceptional achievement and as Minister accountable to the taxpayer, I am always anxious to explore new ways of achieving efficiency while at the same time delivering the services people want.
We compare very favourably with other developed countries. This is evidenced by the interest shown by other countries and organisations in our system. My Department is recognised as leading the field particularly in developing services for customers backed up by the latest information technology. Indeed, it has been invited to make presentations on the Irish social security system and its administration to a number of international symposia. Also, a number of delegations from Europe, including the UK, and Asia have visited the Department to discuss the use of information technology to support social security administration and learn from the Department's experience. In addition the Department has been invited by a number of international consultancy firms and the World Bank to provide expert assistance on the development and implementation of social security systems in eastern Europe and Asia.
The continued delivery of service to my Department's customers at this level of efficiency has been brought about in large measure by the regional structure which I introduced in 1991. This approach to service delivery, where local needs are met locally, is the way to do business.
I have recently announced the appointment of 50 facilitators to help unemployed people. These people will be based in each office of my Department with the task of seeking out new opportunities for training, and work experience in voluntary, community and public bodies for unemployed people who want these options.
A significant investment has been made in improving social welfare premises over the past few years and good new local offices are coming on stream. Computerisation has increased the range of payment options to our customers who can now receive their entitlements by electronic fund transfer, post drafts and cheques. They also have access to a household budgeting facility in pilot areas. I plan to expand these facilities. My objective is a modern co-ordinated, well administered service at local level evolving into a comprehensive local service centred on the "one-stop-shop".
I said at the outset that social welfare spending this year is working out well within our targets. I believe that we can look forward to the future with confidence. We have ensured that, despite the need to control expenditure, special consideration has been given to the most vulnerable sections of society. We have been able to do that because we have a sound economy and the right policies to benefit from the fruits of a sound economy. We must continue to ensure, however, that those dependent on social welfare will also benefit and share in the fruits of our success.
I now call on the Fine Gael spokesperson to make her opening statement of 15 minutes.
I welcome the Minister, and his officials, and apologise for the absence of our party spokesman, Deputy Allen, who made valiant attempts to have this meeting rescheduled so that he could be present. Unfortunately, that was not possible due to conflicting requirements for the Dáil and Seanad Chambers last Friday. Deputy Allen apologises to the committee for his absence.
The business of today's meeting is important because we are examining the spending of £2.1 billion of the Irish taxpayers' money and a further £1.5 billion of moneys contributed to the social insurance fund by employers and employees throughout the country. This is a huge part of our GNP, close on 25 per cent, and deserves close analysis and scrutiny. While this is an intimidating sum it is worth noting that spending on our social welfare system has fallen in percentage terms since the mid-1980s at a time when unemployment and poverty have been on the increase. Even the priority targets for payment levels set out by the Commission on Social Welfare so many years ago have not yet been reached.
On the balance sheet, though not in this Estimate, we must deduct the substantial yields to the State of taxation of welfare benefits.
The committee should reflect on the fact that we have been tightening this budget at a time when the needs have never been greater. Over the past six years social insurance schemes have been removed, as in the case of pay-related benefit for those in receipt of disability benefit. Schemes which were previously free now require substantial contributions, such as the treatment benefits for insured workers. Insured workers have come to me in recent months and said if they had invested the money they paid in PRSI in an insurance fund, they could meet any eventuality that might come their way. They would be better covered for strikes, a serious medical illness, for which cover has gradually reduced, or for treatment benefits where the level of contribution required by an insured worker, who previously would have had these free, are quite substantial.
Unemployment payments following redundancy are being deferred for quite long periods. I am sure we will consider the substantial list when we deal with the Estimate in detail.
On the plus side, however, there has been substantial streamlining of benefits and rates of payments for children, especially for lone parents. Payments for the long term unemployed have been improved. There are also new categories of schemes, such as the carer's allowance, which are welcome although they have very limited application.
Given the increasing evidence of poverty amongst families with children Fine Gael do not believe that this problem has been adequately tackled. A radical new approach is needed. While the £5 increase in child benefit this year is welcome, a great deal more is required if it is to have serious impact on the situation of families with children. Many recent reports have indicated that this is the group which is most regularly and seriously exhibiting poverty arising out of long term unemployment and very long periods of inadequate income.
The doubling of child benefit would be a major step in improving support for families, along with the reintroduction of tax allowances for children. We alone in the EC have no such allowance and our level of child benefit, and indeed our general support for children, is among the lowest in the EC. Such changes would also reduce one of the major causes of the poverty trap, especially if over time child benefit became the major means of supporting children whether parents were or were not unemployed.
Fine Gael is also concerned about the concept of dependency in the social welfare code. This has been the subject of many studies and was referred to at length in the minority report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. It referred to serious problems with poverty and discrimination as women make up a large proportion of those most directly affected. We believe this needs serious review. Its elimination would be hugely expensive but could and should be phased in, particularly in the context of a radical restructuring such as proposed in relation to children. There is no evidence in this Estimate or a new direction or restructuring. There is further streamlining and tidying up but the system remains the same. There is no attempt to use the huge spending to in any way radically change society or the lives of people. Many people depend on social welfare for the quality and content of their lives.
Fine Gael remains very concerned about the restrictions placed on community welfare officers in assisting people with regular heavy bills. The Minister has been less than open in the Dáil and with the public on this. Unfortunate community welfare officers throughout the country are left abandoned on the frontline, taking the flak for the Minister. Earlier this month the Minister, with a great media assault, announced the withdrawal of the dreaded Circular 80/92, a move welcomed by all. I commended the Minister in my contribution on the Social Welfare Bill for his commitment on this and I welcomed his return as the surgeon replacing the hatchetman. I look forward to his rather more delicate touch in dealing with this Department. Unfortunately, the reality, as far as I can gather from dealing with queries in my constituency, is that the Minister has reaffirmed the original cuts and has tightened the restraints on community welfare officers.
It appears they have been instructed that all normal household bills, i.e., heating and rent bills, must be met out of the normal weekly incomes. The dirtiest of the "dirty dozen" cuts remain. It seems that the knife has actually been given a further twist. I spoke to a community welfare officer this week who explained that his hands were tied. I received correspondence in relation to another case where there was a serious ailment. I understood that in all cases where a person who had a medical problem required additional heat it would be considered as being outside the normal run of average household bills and that at least he or she would qualify. In this case a husband installed gas heating while he was working because his wife had a very serious arthritic condition. Following a period of unemployment he found it extremely difficult to manage the bills. When he contacted the Department of Social Welfare he was turned down by community welfare officers. When I contacted them again on his behalf, I received a letter confirming that because his bills were not exceptionally high, he would not be assisted. His bills are not exceptionally high because he cannot afford to let them run up and he cannot afford to use the heating he installed for the medical assistance of his family.
These problems have not gone away, and there is much concern. Many families who before that circular was issued in 1992 relied on additional subsistence to pay regular heavy bills — I know it may be a round about way of supplementing income and perhaps it was not what the community welfare system was intended for — have effectively suffered a net drop in their income. The indications are that instead of improving the situation, the new guidelines if anything, are more restrictive. I hope we will have time to hear the Minister explain exactly what instruction he has given to community welfare officers. I hope the Minister will prove me wrong. If I am wrong it proves that there is a huge communication gap between the Department and the local officers. The sooner that is sorted out the better.
In preparing for this meeting I examined the Estimates to see what was expected from the proposed social welfare amnesty. There is no reference to that in the Estimate and there is no anticipated income figure. Perhaps such an income would not be given in appropriations-in-aid. It may be shown simply as a reduction in the expected cost of social assistance schemes; it may be hard to target it.
The Minister indicated that he is setting September as a deadline. Is there to be any further public information programme in relation to this amnesty? What figure does the Minister expect the amnesty to yield? Presumably the Minister has some estimate of the amount of money which might be recovered in this way.
The Minister clarified a number of questions which I wished to ask him in relation to the nature of the amnesty, whether it will be open to employers and employees and I gather it will. Will it require — and this is not absolutely clear — full payment of all amounts due or will there be some writing-off of liabilities in the case of recipients of social welfare benefits? In the context of a major commitment to countering fraud, is the Minister happy that an amnesty can sustain, support and verify a serious commitment to countering fraud which has been so much a hallmark of his efforts in the Department over the years?
In the 1991 and 1992 Social Welfare Bills the Minister gave himself powers to pursue parents, usually fathers, to support their children. I did not see any reference to progress under this heading in the recent Social Welfare Bill. Such schemes in countries like Australia have been hugely successful, and support levels rose from 20 per cent to 80 per cent. While there would be difficulties with certain tensions and it would involve a radical change in attitude in relation to single parenting, this could be socially and economically beneficial, if property implimented. However, no progress seems to have been made and perhaps when we come to the detailed discussions of the Estimates, the Minister may be able to refer to this under the lone parent scheme. It is not really an area of fraud but more of evasion or neglect, where we have never expected anyone, other than the mother or the State, to be responsible for the maintenance of children. This would be desirable, both socially and economically.
Despite the Minister's statement today, we remain implacably opposed to the student workfare scheme. Our experience on the ground, coupled with what is being expected of the unfortunates and their families, in terms of evidence to qualify for the limited number of places available confirms this opposition. I am glad the Minister honestly presented this as a scheme which ends the entitlement to assistance for students, other than for a tiny minority but his earlier presentation was not as categorical or as honest. Effectively, it is an ending of an entitlement, other than for a limited group. We oppose the workfare scheme because, in eliminating a large group of students, it worsens the situation for the poorer students.
There are too many long term unemployed people. If there is this wonderful and worthwhile work to be done, these schemes should be offered to them. It is too tricky and too clever to provide these schemes so that a large number of students are excluded from benefit. If this work needs to be done, and undoubtedly it does, there are many among our short and long term unemployed who would love to be considered. To select students for these places does not do them a great service; they may get some interesting experience but, in the context of competing needs they are moving on to a third level course and their prospects are relatively bright. These places, if there are such State work schemes, should first be provided for the long term unemployed.
Secondly, those who do qualify — and usually they will be on grants or from the poorer homes and backgrounds and have the lowest incomes — may not get one of these places. I know some of my colleagues will want to detail the experiences some students are having with filling in forms and providing data to qualify for these limited number of places. These applications will not be decided until July so those who, on any criteria, would qualify for support will lose a month or five weeks of payment and benefit. This loss for the students — I know many of them, including a few from the working-class areas in my own constituency who get into third level education — is putting another obstacle in their way and is making their families question its worth. It would be much simpler, for them to go on the dole and receive all of their money. They are making huge sacrifices and this is making it even harder. These losses could mean the difference between being able to afford to continue their education or having to give it up. It is a nasty cut for those who are hardest hit.
Fine Gael also urges the Minister to bring some clarity and justice into the situation regarding women entitled to payments arising from equal treatment directives. I know there is substantial sums set aside both for the payment under the original award and from the second round of payments arising from the alleviation payments. There is a need for clarity concerning this second round, due for the period 1988-92, because it is not clear to many who qualify whether they initially have to individually engage in some form of legal process to get what should be a right. The Minister should use this opportunity to clarify this matter to ensure that women get their just entitlements and that they are not put through impossible hoops or have to incur the extra expenses of taking legal advice and going through legal channels. May I also ask the Minister about the sums provided this year. Do they relate to the gross amount of claims or are they anticipated or set at a level that the Department feels it can afford? By the end of this year, will all of the first round of payments be made and what kind of progress will there be on the second round of claims arising out of the alleviation payments?
Fine Gael is concerned that two schemes with great potential for developing employment and for creating work in the community are being totally underdeveloped and grossly under-funded in this Estimate. This includes the scheme for educational opportunities for the unemployed, referred to towards the end of the Estimates. While we seek a dramatic increase — it is 80 per cent — it is relatively small and is misleading in percentage terms. With 300,000 people unemployed, and with an Estimate of £3.7 billion, we are providing only £3 million. I tried to work out what percentage this is; it is not much to spend on one of the areas that may provide the most fruitful, valuable and the best long term results for the unemployed. It also gives people dignity and satisfaction and may make them employable in the long term.
In Finglas, which is one section of my constituency, a Programme for Economic and Social Progress partnership was set up and there is also another one in Ballymun. In Finglas, which represents approximately over half of my constituency, there are 5,000 unemployed and two thirds of the unemployed there could take all the available places nationally for this scheme. It is a tiny investment in this area and has grown slowly. The Minister knows this is a pet project of mine. When I started as spokesperson for Fine Gael there were only 60 people placed on the scheme but by urging the Minister over a number of years to widen the scheme it gradually rose to 2,500, and this year they are hoping to reach 3,000. However, this is still a tiny number. In Finglas, we have good vocational training and opportunities schemes. Enabling students to receive their benefits and go to school increases their sense of dignity, selfworth and confidence and improves their chances of employment. I want to see more of our unemployed being placed on this scheme.
The other area of great concern is grants for community development and women's groups. The Minister initiated this scheme some years back, but again, it has grown slowly. President Robinson, who was looking at the work of these community groups in Ballymun yesterday, has rightly identified them as one of the most significant regenerative forces in poor and deprived areas. They receive only the paltry sum of £1.5 million. In these times of desperate unemployment — it will be around for some time — a scheme like this deserves much greater attention. The potential to regenerate a community is enormous, and women's groups are often to the fore in all of this. I would like to make a plea for such schemes. I know the decisions have been made for this year but in the context of projected yields from amnesties, there could not be a better place to spend one's money than by increasing the educational opportunities for the unemployed and, helping develop these communities to help themselves.
It is a disappointing Estimate. The Minister suggests the spending shows an increase of almost 9 per cent but, sadly, it is due to an anticipated rise in the number of recipients under most categories and an anticipated rise in the number of unemployed. The Estimate shows no new direction and, therefore, we will not support it.
I welcome the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, to the Committee. The Minister has a good reputation in dealing with his work in the Department. He may well be using an inordinate amount of his talents making the social welfare system efficient and we may reach the stage that people from other countries may visit Ireland to see how our social welfare system operates. However, we should be working towards a stage where it will not be necessary for so many people to be on social welfare. One cannot run the social welfare system the way one might run the ESB or semi-State body.
It is interesting to note the figures mentioned by the Minister given that many people believe that spending on social welfare services is unsustainable. I do not believe this is the case but must consider alternative approaches to this problem. When one looks at the proportion of people in receipt of social welfare payments, old and retired people receive £19.3 million per week and the unemployed receive £21.4 million per week, the figures are almost the same. The main political problem which must be addressed is that £21.4 million per week is paid to 300,000 unemployed people. It has been recognised that unemployment is a major problem throughout the world. Although it has been said that 12 per cent of the European population is unemployed, we have greater cause for concern with 20 per cent of the population unemployed. It is accepted, and the Minister will agree, that this figure will continue to increase.
We must deal with the non-income aspects of social exclusion caused by unemployment. I agree with my colleague Deputy Flaherty who said that we must spend more money on anti-poverty strategies and educational opportunities for the unemployed rather than increasing payments annually. The non-income aspect of the problem must be addressed.
We must tackle the problem of integrating our social welfare system and our taxation system. Given the computerised technology available to the Department it should be possible to resolve the poverty and anti-enterprise trap. The Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton has been given the responsibility of setting up an expert group in an attempt to integrate the tax and social welfare systems. We cannot afford to waste time. This Government is six months in office and the Minister of State must present these proposals as soon as possible.
We are all familiar with the refrain, which is widely accepted, that some people are as well off on the dole as taking up low paid employment. This tragic and demoralising situation faces many families who are, in effect being paid not to work. Thousands of people who are eager to work, find that they may indeed be worse off by doing so than if they remained on welfare. This is not an argument for or defence of low paid employment but is an acknowledgement of a number of realities. The dole-employment trap does exist and not every job available is a highly paid one.
One aspect of the situation was graphically summed up, in part, by recent data from the Department of Finance which my colleague, Deputy Cox, elicited, and which reveals that under our existing welfare and taxation codes a married man with four children earning £15,000 gross is worse off in net terms than if he was earning £8,000. The Department of Finance data showed that he is £200 worse off on the higher salary due to the vagaries and anomalies in our tax and welfare codes.
On the lower income, the man qualifies for a number of valuable welfare benefits, including a medical card, family income support and other welfare benefits which help low income families. The particular case outlined is mirrored in the more straightforward situation of someone on the dole who is offered work but finds himself or herself no better off, and perhaps worse off, by taking up employment because of the loss of a medical card or other welfare benefits.
The key issue to resolving this trap is to devise a tapering system to ensure there is not an abrupt cancellation or loss of various welfare benefits, particularly the medical card. There should be graduated benefits which would be available to people who take up employment, and who would lose them gradually as their income improves. This is something which must be considered by the Department of Social Welfare.
The interest by the European Community in unemployment is welcome. However, it is not surprising given the anticipated unemployment figure of 20 million throughout Europe over the next few years. Some 20 per cent of our population is unemployed; therefore, we cannot afford the luxury of waiting for a lead in this regard. We must create community development opportunities for the unemployed. Deputy Flaherty mentioned this and we must move towards that system.
The summer work scheme for third level students is a good concept. However, it should be voluntary. If such a scheme is to be successful, it must receive support both from the unemployed, those who represent the unemployed and the trade unions. It should be well thought out and positively put forward. It is a great opportunity for this Government, if they are of that mind. I believe students are willing to work for dole. These schemes must be expertly managed, voluntary and with a proper rate of pay and those availing of them must not lose other benefits. Such schemes would be Exchequer neutral and the State would benefit from the non-income aspects of dealing with the long term unemployed.
The Combat Poverty Agency and the Conference of Major Religious Superiors are willing to move towards negotiations with the Government regarding the introduction of community development work. It must be fair and presented in a positive way, not in the negative way the student work for dole scheme was introduced. The Progressive Democrats would be supportive of such a scheme. It would provide the long term unemployed with an opportunity to have the human equivalent of the set aside scheme which is all we are offering them.
We must do more than increase welfare payments. Those of us in employment must introduce work opportunities for the unemployed. Many different people are unemployed from architects and engineers who design roads to people who sweep roads. These people want to contribute to the economic activity of this country. However, this Minister deals only with the money aspects of social welfare and with streamlining the system rather than having an integrated approach. I would like to see a more integrated approach to the problem of the long term unemployed, and particularly youth employment.
I agree with Deputy Flaherty that more finance must be given for education and training. The Minister opened a community information office in Tallaght last Friday. There is a good partnership with the Tallaght welfare service and that is an example of resourcing a community which has in itself resources to create employment and help itself. That is the best way forward and it does not foster dependence; it promotes strength where there is strength in local communities. As has been said, our President has been politically wise in highlighting this aspect of community development around the country. It is there waiting to be tapped into by the Government and I hope this Government will take that opportunity.
I would like to make a point in relation to the social welfare amnesty. This is an initiative which my party welcomes as a broadly based anti-fraud measure and a means of tackling abuse of the system. The terms of the proposed amnesty are in stark and welcome contrast to the Government's tax amnesty. Those wishing to avail of this welfare amnesty will not be prosecuted but they will have to pay the moneys due, by instalment if necessary. That is in sharp contrast to the tax amnesty because that amnesty is morally bankrupt, profligate and is totally unacceptable to most people. The social welfare amnesty is acceptable and politically acceptable because it does not waive people's responsibilities to pay their liabilities; it just absolves the prosecution and penalty aspects. That is fair and practical and my party will be supporting it.
I also wish to raise the increasing number of payments to single parents. I have raised this matter with the Minister for Health. There is a huge escalation in the numbers of unmarried mothers, in other words, young women raising children on their own. There is a failure to catch anybody's attention. I have tried to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Health and the Minister for Education. The Minister for Social Welfare just keeps throwing money at single parent families. We must look at the statistics and target particular areas of the country. If one looks at the figures, the vast majority of single parent families are in the Dublin Corporation area and in the county area and we must target education and health care towards women and their children in such areas. We are storing up sociological problems for ourselves, as supporters of these women and their children, and also for the women themselves and their children. Two thirds of the children are born to women between 16 and 25 years of age and most of them are in the large urban centres. We must target our resources to specific areas.
Social welfare fraud is a term that is on the lips of many people these days. In my experience, the biggest fraudsters in this area are the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister of State, Deputy Burton. As a public representative trying to represent the people of my constituency and as a spokesperson on social welfare, I find these Ministers the most unsatisfactory and frustrating members of this Government.
Deputy O'Donnell said that the Minister for Social Welfare has a good reputation. He may have a good reputation as a technocrat but, as a person dealing honestly and openly with the people who need social welfare, he is a failure as far as I am concerned. The Minister has a simple policy in regard to Dáil questions which he regards as potentially embarrassing. He claims he does not have the information, he simply ignores the question or he replies to questions he has not been asked. There is no other Minister, except perhaps the Taoiseach, who is as unsatisfactory when replying to Dáil questions. This Minister and the Minister of State have so consistently tried to mislead Members of the House and the public, withhold information and generally confuse that it can only be described as a form of social fraud. I have identified, what I regard as, five frauds by the current Minister for Social Welfare.
The first relates to the so-called "dirty dozen". The Minister and Minister of State have attempted to mislead the public with repeated claims that the so-called "dirty dozen", the social welfare cuts introduced by the former Minister, Deputy McCreevy, have been reversed. There have also been numerous claims by the Labour Ministers at the Labour Party Conference and in radio interviews that the cuts had been reversed but the reality is that they are continuing to cause severe hardship for those in need. The Minister of State, Deputy Burton, who now seems to have taken on the role as apologist in chief for the social welfare cuts, has made particularly sweeping statements in this regard but a systematic examination of the 12 cuts identified by her own party last year shows that all are still in place in one form or another and only minor changes have been made to a number of them. The following is the current status of the 12 cuts which were so strongly oppossed by the Labour Party during the general election campaign.
There is no change to maternity benefit and while there has been some easing of contribution requirements in the disability benefit, pay-related benefit remains abolished. There has been no change in relation to injury benefit or redundancy and some minor rolling back in the area of part-time workers. With regard to dental and optical benefit, treatment has been restored for the long term unemployed and some earners but a new charge of 30 per cent of cost of treatment remains. There has been no change in the deserted wife's benefit and no change in traditional transitional payments and disqualifications. In relation to health board payments, the Minister has said that the controversial circular restricting payments has been withdrawn but restrictions are still in place arising from the new circular issued by the current Minister. There are no changes in the areas of part-time fire fighters and pay-related benefit generally.
The second fraud is in relation to the alleviation payment entitlements to women. The Minister and the Minister of State have engaged in a conspiracy of silence aimed at depriving tens of thousands of Irishwomen of social welfare payments to which the European Court have ruled they are entitled. For several months I have been highlighting the fact that women are entitled to alleviation payments which were introduced in 1986 but paid only to men. I have tried to extract information from the Minister for Social Welfare as to how many claims for payment had been made by solicitors acting on behalf of women. It is common knowledge that hundreds, if not thousands — we do not know because the Minister will not tell us — of claims have been made by solicitors acting on behalf of women and have been settled by the Department.
Law firms have been advertising regularly in the Dublin and Cork evening newspapers offering to take cases on a no win, no fee, basis. However, the Minister and the Minister of State have simply refused to give any information either to women themselves or in response to Dáil questions and have responded only when legal action is threatened by claimants. When I tabled questions on the matter, the Minister claimed he was unable to give either the number of claims received from solicitors or the number of women on behalf of whom claims for alleviation payments were made. It is beyond belief that the Department would not have this information available but it is entirely in keeping with the approach of the Minister, Deputy Woods to this issue that he failed to provide it.
However the Minister and his colleague Deputy Burton are failing to diffuse this potential financial time bomb for the Government. The RTE "Prime Time" investigation earlier this month confirmed what I have been saying. Women are entitled to alleviation payments under the ruling of the European Court. Hundreds of claims have been made and conceded by the Department and thousands more are in the pipeline. Will the Minister today kindly tell us what is the position? The attempt to deny women payments to which they are entitled and to force them into the hands of solicitors to secure their entitlements is an affront to the principle that women are entitled to equal treatment in all areas of life.
The third fraud is the abolition of unemployment assistance for students, and indeed former students as I shall show. The Minister has abolished unemployment assistance. That is bad enough but he has called this a progressive development, describing it as a move to provide new job opportunities for students. The real purposes are to artificially reduce the numbers on the live register and to save money.
The whole scheme is a shambles and will not be able to cater for the minimum of 12,000 students who would normally qualify for unemployment assistance. Many voluntary organisations have said they will not be co-operating with the scheme or providing places and all sorts of bureaucratic obstacles are put in front of students applying for approval. The scheme was introduced only to give an air of respectability to saving money and to reducing the live register figures.
The effect will be to drive young people out of this country, chasing non-existent jobs in Britain and elsewhere. It is the sort of "stroke" one could expect from Fianna Fáil and is no less reprehensible for that, but it is a disgrace that Labour Party Ministers have been prepared to support this confidence trick on students and those parents who are struggling to keep their children in college.
Students who have applied to the Department of Social Welfare to participate in this scheme have found themselves excluded for various reasons. Forms were still not available only days before the original closing date for receipt of applications on 4 June. There is a strigent means test. Students who are repeating and, therefore, not doing examinations this year have been excluded. Former students who have finished in college but have still to submit a thesis as part of their examinations are denied unemployment assistance. Students are also being asked to accept as a condition of participation that the Department of Social Welfare will not be liable for any accidents or injuries occurring during the operation of the scheme. The net result is that many students reluctantly prepared to participate in the scheme will be excluded.
The vast majority of students will be left with the equally unattractive options either of staying at home and enduring unemployment without any social welfare support or taking their chances in the increasingly overcrowded and sometimes dangerous summer jobs market. The whole scheme should be scrapped and unemployment assistance restored to students who are available for work on the same basis as it is paid to others.
The fourth fraud is this so-called amnesty. The Minister has attempted to trick the public by pretending the last social welfare amnesty brought in up to £200 million and that the new amnesty announced by him will collect a similar amount. What is proposed is a repeat of the social welfare amnesty announced by Minister Woods to the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis in 1991 which produced negligible returns to the Exchequer. As on that occasion the principal intended beneficiaries will be employers and the self-employed who have failed to send in PRSI payments. That is another form of tax evasion; effectively, there will be two tax amnesties for tax cheats.
Suggestions that the amnesty would take in up to £200 million are a joke if the experience of the last amnesty is noted. The 1991 amnesty was a flop. When questions about it were tabled in February 1992 the Minister claimed he was unable to say how much had been collected as there was no way to distinguish between regular PRSI payments and those atttracted by the amnesty. The last report of the Comptroller and Auditor General pulled aside the veil of secrecy. I quote from page 70, paragraph 55 of that report:
"Although a total of 464 enquiries relating to the amnesty were received from employers only 17 employers took advantage of the amnesty".
If £876,000 was collected from recipients of social welfare, is the Minister saying 17 employers paid him £1.75 million? Clearly that is not the case.
It is now evident the social welfare amnesty was a political afterthought designed to give a bogus veneer of equity to the outrageous tax amnesty and an attempt to salve the consciences of Labour Party Ministers who so meekly went along with the Taoiseach's proposal to give exemptions to tax cheats. The social welfare amnesty will not in any way counter balance the basic injustice of the tax amnesty nor will it do anything to ease the sense of anger felt by PAYE workers and those in business who have been paying and meeting their tax obligations to the community.
The Minister said those who co-operate with the Department in this amnesty will find it understanding and accommodating. I know an 18 year old woman who has sought assistance under the tax amnesty. She works five days a week for two hours a day and gets £36 a week. She wanted to be truthful and admitted she was getting £52 in unemployment assistance and £30 in rent allowance. She has now lost her rent allowance and she has lost her unemployment assistance. She now has to pay £55 a week rent from a £36 a week income. Where is the understanding and co-operation in that? The Minister is either serious about this or he is not.
I wish the people who write the Deputy's contribution would come in and listen.
The Minister should await his chance to reply. Understanding people with such problems is useless. They need money to survive. The social welfare amnesty was badly thought out and it takes no account of people trying to survive on inadequate social welfare income.
The fifth fraud concerns the circulars that have been a matter of controversy for some time. The Minister has continually denied major changes have been made in regard to the exceptional needs of supplementary welfare recipients. In addition, he has continually refused to make available to Members of the Dáil copies of those circulars. I understand from my inquiries at the Department that staff are being given strict instructions not to give Deputies copies of those circulars. Community welfare officers have also been told no-one else is to see them. The Minister in replying to Dáil questions last Wednesday again failed to agree to make the circulars available so that Dáil Members can be aware of the precise circumstances under which their constituents can receive payments.
These payments are intended to assist those in need to cope with items such as ESB or gas bills that are beyond their means. Since the former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy McCreevy, issued a circular last July severely restricting these payments, the whole scheme has been in chaos. The public has been denied payments which were formerly available to them. Despite assurances by the Minister, Deputy Woods, and the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, that the McCreevy circulars were being withdrawn, and despite the promise of a new code of practice, people on and below the poverty line are being denied payments. The risk is that many of them may be forced into the hands of moneylenders.
I call on the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, to restore the full discretion that community welfare offices had up to last year to make payments to those in need, and to publish all the circulars and guidelines governing these payments. It is quite extraordinary that the Minister has been reluctant to make available the particular circular — a copy of which I have obtained. It is clear from that circular that people will still be denied assistance with their ESB or gas bills unless they have had a sudden illness or can show exceptional grounds. In the normal course of events simply not being able to pay an ESB bill is no longer sufficient to get assistance from the community welfare officer. That is a disgrace. It undermines the supplementary welfare assistance scheme which is intended to be a scheme of last resort.
On Vote 40, we will take subhead by subhead in sequence. The first heading is administration.
On subhead A.1 could the Minister give us more detail both on the provision for advisers and the additional staffing requirements referred to?
Deputy De Rossa charges that the Minister is withholding information.
Could we insist on a little order?
(Interruptions.)
I have been a Member of this House for 20 years and I am aware of the problems that beset the Department of Social Welfare down the years. The Minister, Deputy Woods, has improved the social welfare system over the last number of years and has brought in innovations and schemes. I am a public representative and I have proof in my files that he has a system in place in his office to ensure that representations are speedily dealt with, and that a fair and equitable distribution of what people are entitled to is made available. It is very hard to listen to people viciously attacking a Minister who has done so much to ensure that those entitled to benefits receive them.
The Minister mentions the one-stop shops and I hope that he proceeds in all areas with those shops. Over the years the system has improved greatly but we have people queuing with a card to sign on for their unemployment benefit. All of a claimant's entitlements would be available from the one-stop shops. The Minister for Social Welfare, along with the Minister for Health, should examine how supplementary welfare payments, administered at present by the health boards, could be paid through the Department of Social Welfare. In the past there were severe delays in processing disability benefit claims because in the interim period people were compelled to approach their community welfare officers for weekly money and when their disability benefit claim was processed there was a long delay in checking with the health board how much money had to be refunded out of payment. These payments are a matter for Social Welfare rather than Health. This should be examined. It would make co-ordination of payments easier. The system has been substantially improved and claimants do not experience these delays now.
I will conclude by congratulating the Minister on the system he has put in place to ensure that we as Deputies can contact the Department and that our representations are speedily dealt with. Admittedly the Minister has a difficult job. Many people claim social welfare benefits as the statistics suggest. This is mainly due to unemployment, and also to the substantial number of people who have come back to Ireland over the last number of years as a result of the downturn in the US and British economies. As a public representative meeting many of those people, I noted that in the late seventies and eighties people were returning home and buying a farm or going into business. Now most of those returning have no money. Their first call is to the local authority for a house, then they look for assistance from the Department of Social Welfare. I know the Minister is doing all he can to ensure that these people get as much help as possible.
Is it agreed to discuss all the subheads under administration, A.1 to A.8? Agreed.
Subhead A.2 details the anti-fraud activities in the regions. The Minister might take the opportunity of replying to some of the questions on the amnesty. The normal activities of these staff members will be reduced if we are giving an amnesty on Social Welfare fraud. They cannot investigate fraud while offering an amnesty. Deputy De Rossa raised certain questions about the success of the last amnesty and the likely income.
On Subhead A.3, there is a proposal to reduce the advertising provision. I am concerned that advertising initiatives be continued, because take-up of benefits is still a matter of serious concern. Many people are not receiving benefits for which they are entitled.
I am concerned that so few women who are seeking employment are registered for unemployment assistance. Many women are not registered as unemployed because this would not bring them any economic return and the Government will not encourage them to register as it wants to reduce the live register. This is unjust to women because if they are not registered as unemployed they are excluded from FÁS and many other schemes for which a period on the live register is a necessary qualification and are not represented in the labour force statistics properly. I am sure the Minister has no interest in expanding the live register, but, in justice, it is an issue which should not be let sit. That is why I raised this matter in Question Time last week.
As one who shadowed Deputy Woods for seven years out of the 11 I have been in the Dáil I have always found him most co-operative in dealing with suggestions and proposals I have made from the Opposition benches. They were always considered and he or somebody from his office always responded to my suggestions. I have to put this on the record because I have more experience of dealing with Deputy Woods as Minister for Social Welfare than anyone else in Dáil Éireann.
In anticipation of this discussion I had my private secretary research the records in my Drogheda constituency office. Since 1 January we have processed 556 applications under the equality measures. All the recipients on whose behalf we have applied were paid, with the exception of those who did not qualify and the Department of Social Welfare equality section gave a clear explanation, which I accept, of why they did not do so. We have dealt with over 1,500 applications since the scheme came into operation. Those Deputies whose constituency office are in Leinster House do not have the same time available for their constituents as I do, because I have an office open five to six days a week with full time staff where people can walk in at any time. I do not want the message to go out from this meeting, dealing with the Estimates for Social Welfare, that people are not receiving their rights. Perhaps they are not in some constituencies, but that does not apply in my constituency.
On A.3 can the Minister explain the figures of £20,000 for entertainment? Could the Minister also outline on A.5 the integrated short term payments system, ISIS, and how it contributes to an increase in the Estimate for this year?
On consultancy services, what consultants are employed at present and what functions are they fulfilling?
Could I ask the Minister to reply to the questions and comments made under the subheads A.1 to A.8 inclusive?
I would like to ask about student employment.
I believe that will come up later. These are the subheads for administration.
Deputy Flaherty asked about the staffing in the Department and the figure for salaries in the Estimates. The Minister and Secretariat comprise 24; there are 70 in the personnel unit; 82 in organisation and administration; 30 in voluntary communication services; 32 in the planning unit and 97 in the finance unit. The biggest area of staffing is the regional structure which deals with unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and investigations; there are 2,105 employed there. There are 776 in pensions and 572 in short term programmes, for example disability benefit. The total comes to 4,108.
I do not know if the Deputy mentioned the Minister of State. The only difference would be that each Minister of State has a normal complement of staff in the secretariat. Last year there was no Minister of State, but this year there is one in the Department.
The Minister referred to an additional staffing requirement. How many advisers have been appointed?
The number of advisers to Ministers of State is set but there is an addition to the Department, because the Department had no previous Minister of State. Each Minister of State is allowed to have one adviser and one personal assistant; that has not changed. The only change is that the Minister has a programme manager. Otherwise the number of advisers would be the same from year to year.
Does the additional staff refer only to the adviser at the office of the Minister of State?
It includes, for example the additional funds for staffing measures and overtime in respect of the integrated short term payment systems, the ISTS. There is also additional control work involved in that, accounting for about £1.25 million.
Is it intended to recruit additional people?
For the Minister's Office?
No, generally.
The increase in salary is accounted for by the increased costs of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress awards and there are additional funds for staffing for the ISTS. There are also some additional costs for branch managers. The cost of decentralisation to Longford is about £300,000. There are increments and carry over costs of grade awards made in the previous year. An additional pay day in 1992 is a partial offset. These are some of the other elements in the additional amounts.
There are additional staff in a number of areas, for example, in equal treatment, and in visiting employers. This year some 10,000 employers will be visited. There are additional staff in the computer section. It is all related to better management structure. Regionalisation has meant additional staff are required but it is basically providing a better service and dealing with bigger numbers. There are about 50 extra staff in the equal treatment section alone.
Is there a problem with the creation of additional jobs in worthwhile work?
No, not in this area. Deputy Leonard talked about the development of the one stop shops. That affects some aspects of the Estimates. For instance, we are building up a number of cashless offices. Therefore, the cost of the transport of cash will be reduced while the cost of staffing and building up these offices and regional development has meant an increase in staff. There are changes and it is our objective to move as quickly as possible to one stop shops. I am very anxious to get agreement with FÁS on as wide a basis as possible. We have good working relationships in some areas with the health boards and FÁS. Effectively, one stop shops are in operation but only in a number of individual cases throughout the country. We want them on an overall basis. By removing the cash from the offices we will be in a position to provide a strong one stop shop basis. In other words, one will not have the barriers which are required at present because of the security needed in relation to cash. We will be able to provide a much better service on the lines the Deputy mentioned.
I thank Members who pointed to some of the things which we have achieved over the years. The record speaks for itself. I never expected Deputy De Rossa to speak for us either now or in the future but particularly now, in view of the fact that there are elections in particular constituencies. In any event——
Typical of the Minister.
——the nature of the statements and the response by the Deputy are completely out of line——
The Minister is running away from the elections.
——with the work of the Department and its staff. It arises under the question of staffing. Deputy Leonard asked a very important question. Would it be better if the Department of Social Welfare took over the work on the supplementary welfare allowance? If Deputy De Rossa was approaching these questions in a constructive way he might have asked that question instead of the diatribe in which he engaged. I know it is written by others for him and he just trots it out here but that is the reality of politics and I am quite prepared to accept that situation.
Did the Minister write his own speech? I would like to see his hand written notes.
Yes, largely, I will show the Deputy the hand written parts if she wants to see them.
No assistance?
I did have assistance. Deputy Leonard's question is relevant. The supplementary welfare allowance is the last port of call. It is the basic payment for people who have fallen through all the nets and for whom there is no other cover. In that sense, I am particularly concerned about the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Deputy De Rossa criticised me on numerous occasions in the House, first, for not withdrawing the circulars immediately and he said that if the circulars were withdrawn, it would solve all the problems. It will not solve the problems because one needs a system that will work. We are in consultation with the supervisors in the health boards to devise a better system. As that system was not ready for 1 June, I said that we would in any event withdraw the two circulars and we did.
The Minister issued a new one.
The code of practice was not ready. I said I would withdraw them when the code of practice was ready and interim guidance was issued to be helpful. I will come back to what was said in the interim guidance. Deputy Leonard is far closer to the mark than Deputy De Rossa with all his filibustering. The interim guidance is meant to be helpful. It states:
New arrangements are being drawn up to help people with ESB and gas bill debt problems. These arrangements involve the drawing up of a code of practice in conjunction with the utility companies. The code of practice will outline arrangements for people who fall into difficulty in meeting their ESB and gas payments to be helped to address these difficulties both by the companies and the health boards. The code of practice is currently the subject of discussions with the ESB and An Bord Gáis and will be finalised after discussions with the advisory group on the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. In the meantime, pending the completion of the code of practice, health boards should ensure that clients who experience particular difficulty with fuel debt problems receive help by reference to the guidance set out below.
Deputies raised the question of people on——
Read the guidance.
I will continue "Health boards may make payments in respect of ESB and gas where there are exceptional circumstances." The whole legislation is about exceptional circumstances.
Read it. The Minister is getting to the most important part.
Let me read, please. If the Deputy did not continuously interrupt, I could read on.
This bumptious twaddle is frustrating.
Could we have the Minister without interruption?
The Minister refused to issue the circular.
The Deputy never wants to listen.
Read it into the record.
The Deputy never wants to listen. Let me read that into the record. I have repeatedly explained many things here for the Deputy. Somebody outside writes his speeches, they are not listening to what we are saying here and he comes back with the same stuff again and again. The health boards may make payments in respect of ESB and gas where there are exceptional circumstances giving rise to the need for such a payment. Has the Deputy absorbed that?
Read the rest of it. The Minister is not only bumptious, he is patronising as well.
The Deputy does not want to recognise a single thing.
Read the rest of it.
The Deputy does not want to recognise any single positive statement made by anybody in Government.
The Minister does not want to read it. I will read the rest of it for him "In general, payments will arise in circumstances which are unforeseen and where expenditure could not reasonably be met from the clients normal weekly income". Could the Minister explain what is unforeseen? Read the whole thing, Minister.
The Deputy disrupts everything and everybody. He only believes in chaos; that is the policy of his party and he is showing it here now.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, Deputy De Rossa indicated during his speech that he had various means of getting a copy of the circular. Why then waste time here asking the Minister to read out something of which he has a copy?
He does not want to read it.
I do not have a copy.
Would you allow the Minister to reply?
We should not have to put peoples' jobs at risk in order to get a copy of it.
The Official Secrets Act.
I want the other Members of the Committee to understand that the staff of my Department, in conjunction with the health board, have tried to implement an interim guidance until the code of practicee is fully agreed and available. It will be well in advance of the heating requirements for next season. In the interim health boards may make payments in respect of electricity and gas where there are exceptional circumstances giving rise to the need for such a payment.
Community welfare officers must implement this.
A further statement was an attempt by the officials to clarify the position further. Payments will arise in circumstnces which are unforeseen and where the expenditure could not reasonably be met from the client's normal weekly income. That is in general, but the first statement is clear as to what the exceptional needs are about. This is where the difficulty and confusion has arisen in relation to all these circulars.
The next section refers to supplements. Where there is evidence of regular recurring need, brought about by exceptional circumstances, for example, ill health which necessitates additional heating, health boards should consider payment of a supplement under section 209 of the Act. The Deputy referred earlier to people who are in ill health not being able to get payments.
No, I did not say that.
I mentioned a case which I dealt with this week.
There is a section where it is quite clear in the advice given — and this is only advice which goes with the legislation — that continuing payments may be made for additional heating for people who have difficulties because of ill health.
With regard to easy pay methods, it will be part of a code of practice that clients must register with the utility for an easy pay scheme and/or with the Department of Social Welfare household budgeting deduction facility where available. The implementation date and the terms of the circular should start from 1 June in line with the request made in the House. The remainder of the circular refers to acknowledging receipts of the circular and the fact that the other circulars have been withdrawn.
A difficulty arises that in practice we have tried to make it clear that, first, the two circulars were withdrawn, second, there will be a code of practice as soon as all those involved can have it concluded and put into operation, and third, that in the interim the need for exceptional payments and payments in situations of ill health is fully recognised.
The implementation is the next step, which is where Deputy Leonard's point comes in. Over recent years we have had difficulties with the implementation of various measures. How is one supposed to word these measures? The basic legislation has always said that there is discretion. Variations occurred throughout the country in the way in which moneys were paid. One health board could say that another health board was paying out far more than they were. Health boards are saying they want a uniform approach to this.
We made the footwear and clothing scheme a national scheme. It is an excellent scheme, which I set up and is bringing tremendous direct help to the people whom Deputies De Rossa, Flaherty and others talk about. I introduced the fuel scheme which we also made into a national scheme. I am increasingly convinced that the only solution to this supplementary welfare system is for me to take it over. Deputy Leonard, who looks constructively at the situation without getting into all the politicking of Deputy De Rossa, sees that it is probably the only possible approach at the end of the day.
I want to ensure, where a person who is not being catered for by the system, no matter how well that system is operated, that someone has discretion. We have had a great deal of difficulty with interpretation, and I think the time is coming very close when we will have to take over the operation. We pay for it but we do not administer it, and that is the difficulty. We will have to look at it much more closely. We are having discussions with the Department of Health and the health boards about this whole question. I am anxious to take over the disabled person's maintenance allowance at a very early stage. I have been pressed by people with disabilities to do that and I would see it as a priority. We will certainly continue to pursue it.
We were asked about entertainment and visits. The official entertainment budget for 1993 is £20,000 in a Department with 4,100 staff, and where many people come from abroad. There is a need to provide hospitality for visiting groups and so on, such as lunches, teas and coffees. It is a modest amount in the circumstances.
I was also asked about advertising. The advertising budget is down but will be increased somewhat by the decision to go ahead with the anti-fraud advertising campaign which will begin later this week. The confidential phone line which we introduced is already in operation and at the end of last week 50 people had made contact on that line. That is probably the biggest factor in relation to the drop in advertising. We are, of course, advertising the different schemes as normal.
The question of consultancy services was raised. The biggest element in consultancy is computerisation. The integrated short term payment system uses computer systems to register, process, maintain and pay all short term payments. The system includes a capability to identify and process tax payments due on short term benefits and computerisation of the supplementary welfare allowance system. That costs £284,000. Retention of contract programmers to augment the internal resources costs £184,000. The programming is done by bringing outside experts to back-up our own people for particular projects.
Then we have an architectural review, which involves expert advice and support in reviewing the resilience of the information technology structure and planning its evolution, given the projected demands, which costs £282,000. Technical support, advice, training, and support in the use of new computer development tools, productivity aids are estimated to cost £90,000. Localisation supports, implementation time on the approach and management of change involved in the localisation of services will cost £82,000; accounts personnel branch study, advice and assistance in definition of required systems to advance computerisation of accounts and personnel branch functions are estimated to cost £51,000. The bulk of these items are strategy studies, information technology operations supports, appeals office system and maintenance of that system, cost accounting controls and so on.
A sum of £15,000 relates to public relations advice on various issues involving communications with the public and the media. That includes Department of Social Welfare leaflets outlining various programmes being operated. An ESRI social policy research programme is estimated to cost £51,000. That is the total. Members will note that the vast majority of the consultancy costs are computer and technology related. The Department is in a big technology business, and an effective one which is delivering a much better service.
Regarding the administration of the student summer scheme, questions were asked about the voluntary organisations not participating. I mentioned earlier that 1,650 voluntary organisations are participating. I believe we have touched a nerve here which is fairly extensive and is going to grow even further. Approximately 7,200 jobs are being offered at present and I have compiled an interim list of sponsors. There will be a final list some days after the end of this week, which will cover the jobs that are on offer at present. It has been broken down for each of the regions and it is available for Members and in our offices from today. The extent of voluntary organisations participating in the scheme is apparent from this breakdown and I believe it will be valuable and useful to students wishing to participate. As I mentioned, 3,600 students have indicated an interest.
A question was raised about former students. We will adopt a flexible approach about students who have finished their final year and might be undertaking a project as a number of them have applied, and seem to prefer to enter this scheme, than to go on to unemployment assistance.
Such students are not allowed unemployment assistance.
They are allowed such assistance when they are finished their education.
Will the Minister clarify that?
I am suggesting that a number of people have applied, and, perhaps, the Member would stop trying to suggest——
Students who are undertaking a thesis are not entitled to unemployment assistance.
The Deputy is speaking of an individual case. I advised the Deputy in the Dáil that I would pursue that case if that has happened.
At present I am concerned with the student scheme. Students who have finished their studies are asking to go on this scheme. They would not be entitled to participate normally, however, we are taking flexible view on this issue. Such students were entitled to go on unemployment assistance but are asking to go on this scheme instead.
The question of insurance was raised also. We are providing the insurance for the J. 1 stamp, which provides cover for occupational injury. That stamp is being provided and paid for by the Department of Social Welfare, as would be the case for certain FÁS courses, and it is something the voluntary organisations requested. General public liability insurance is a matter for the voluntary organisations. When inquiries arise, the staff in the Department of Social Welfare make referrals to the insurance brokers association who have a number of agents who are providing keen prices for that kind of cover and it appears to be working satisfactorily. Regarding staffing and the areas that the staff are covering, perhaps, Chairman, I have said enough about that at this stage.
We will move on to subhead B. — Social Insurance.
May I ask one question under subhead A.2?
In the interests of order at this meeting I will take one quick question but I cannot allow elaboration as the Minister is entitled to reply.
It is important.
It should have been asked at the appropriate time.
The timetable does not state that.
On subhead A.2, Staff Training and Development, will the Minister explain the purpose of that? Is the Minister aware that the approach made to some applicants for social welfare benefits by the investigation officer can be intimidating? I refer in particular to those who apply for the old age pension. I have seen some applicants in panic and dread before being visited by an investigating officer and afterwards. In some isolated cases such applicants are almost made feel that they are being investigated for fraud rather than being investigated to ascertain if they are entitled to some social welfare benefit. I am saddened by the fact that old people, who are at a stage of their life when they feel insecure and are private about their financial affairs, may be subjected to this.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to raise this under the social assistance subhead.
I am asking the Minister if any more is spent on staff training in this area?
That is what this allocation is devoted to largely. Some additional money is allocated for health and safety legislation. We have a staff training and development unit. Training is going on. There is a need for great sensitivity in dealing with applicants such as elderly people, retired people and widows. It is an issue I will be giving more attention to. I hope the pensions office in Sligo will become more actively involved in this area. We have a general staff training unit and staff training is on going. I accept that more needs to be done.
We will proceed now to subhead B. — Social Insurance.
Will the Minister explain the situation with regard to women's entitlements to alleviation payments? The European Court of Justice decided that women were entitled to the alleviation payments which men got after 1986, even if in some circumstances it would result in a double payment to that family. I have made constant efforts to get the Minister to clarify what he was doing in this area, to find out how many women had applied for alleviation payments and how many solicitors had applied on behalf of women who failed to get a satisfactory response from the Minister or his Department.
Will the Minister tell us what precisely he is doing? I know he has abolished the alleviation payments since the court case, but that should not be confused, as Deputy Bell has done, with the equality payments. It is not that issue, it is the alleviation payments which were used as a cushion to assist people who lost payments as a result of the equality directive, which were received by men after 1986 and which the European Court has now decided should also be paid to women. I want to know how many applications have been received from women since the court case about alleviation payments, how many applications have been received from solicitors on behalf of women, and when, if ever, the Minister intends to make these payments to which the European Court has decided that women in Ireland are entitled?
I refer to subhead B. on disability benefit and the increase from £173 million to £179 million. Somebody who has been on disability benefit for a considerable period of time can be called for a medical review, and as a result of being deemed fit to work can lose benefit. A medical practitioner can examine up to 30 or 40 people on the same day with a range of complaints from gynaecological to vertigo, from loss of balance to back pains and migraine. On statistical analyses you will find that perhaps 20 people out of the 30 may lose benefit. That results in a merry-go-round where the person appeals against the decision and is awarded either an oral appeal or a further medical examination. Invariably politicians find that if you maintain enough sustained pressure eventually the person will get the benefit back. It is one hell of a drag because in some cases it takes between nine and 12 months. If the person is intimidated by the system, as happens sometimes, he or she abandons the attempt, ends up getting supplementary welfare or signing for unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit if he or she has enough stamps when in fact they are not available for work. I appreciate that there is a danger of people who are not entitled to it getting the benefit but there is a need to look at the regime because more money is spent on administration of this sort, calling people back for review after review, than if the person genuinely entitled to it had been allowed the benefit in the first place.
Widows or widowers are in a special category because the loss of a spouse is unique and traumatic. We could look at the possibilty of extending some of what we would regard as the peripheral benefits, for example, free travel or the free TV licence, to categories like young widows or widowers who are left with two or three children and have to stay at home where there is a feeling of social isolation.
(Laoighis-Offaly): Following the matter Deputy Higgins raised, I would like to raise the situation that we often come across where a deceased pensioner leaves a spouse who is under the eligible pension age. Apart from the trauma of having to cope with a bereavement, the surviving spouse suddenly finds that the fringe benefits, which were available to the household by virtue of the fact that the deceased was in receipt of an old age pension, are taken away. The trauma is bad enough without this benefit-in-kind, which the household has enjoyed, being removed. Something could be done to alleviate that situation without a lot of extra cost or inconvenience to the Department and the taxpayer.
Under the heading of equal treatment for payments, the Estimates for this year are up from £10.5 million to £27 million. I notice that there is a carry-over cost of £7 million from payments due from phase one and that 50 per cent of phase two is budgeted for this year. Will the Minister clarify when the first phase will be paid, what this year's timetable for the payment of half of phase two is, and whether people will have to apply for that all over again or treated on the basis of their original application?
Maternity allowance was increased marginally this year, but the question I want to raise is that of the ceiling imposed on the benefit to women on maternity leave. At the moment the rate of payment is 70 per cent of the claimant's reckonable earnings in the relevant tax year and the ceiling is £11,380. In the light of the EC directive on the protection of pregnant workers the Minister should look at these ceilings because it is an equality issue for women in the workforce. Many women have moved up, despite all the obstacles, to earn higher salaries in both the public and private sectors, but putting this ceiling on them and allowing them to take no more than £159 per week is, in fact, a penalty on those women for having children during their time in the workforce. We have to move in the spirit of equality, which has been espoused by this Government, towards recognising maternity as a foreseeable contingency for many women in the workforce, and ensure that women are not being penalised by this ceiling on their benefit. It is a short time in a woman's working life and, given that many women have mortgages and other liabilities arising out of their increased status and salaries, the State should take account of that and look upon it as an equality issue.
Sitting suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.
PRSI contributions have increased by approximately £10 million. Perhaps the Minister would comment on why the increase is in this region and the outcome for the year in question.
Income from PRSI has increased by £82 million and this can be seen from subhead B. It represents a sizeable increase in contributions from the working population. It is anticipated that the numbers of unemployed will increase, therefore the increase in contributions from PRSI is significant. Given that this is one of the factors which militates against the creation of employment, it is a figure which must be watched with some concern.
Earlier I raised a point about disability benefit. The introduction of taxation on disability and unemployment payments means that people, who have a family member in employment, are no longer encouraged to stay on disability benefit. However, some people who I sent application forms for disability pension and who are anxious to receive it because there is a net benefit to them are experiencing difficulties in this regard. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how many people have transferred to invalidity pension since the introduction of taxation on disability benefit, and if there is evidence of a substantial trend.
One of the reasons for the refusal of the double week payment to those on disability benefit at Christmas time was that many of them might have been receipt of other substantial family incomes. Many people in that category would have changed to invalidity pension. Disability benefit is one of the least adequate sources of income and people on disability benefit are most in need of the double payment. Will it be possible to include this category? Has this problem been resolved or will it be resolved? I was not present for the entire debate on the Social Welfare Bill, therefore I am not sure what commitments the Minister gave at that time.
There is public disquiet and dissatisfaction about treatment benefits, although there has been a significant increase in the cost of the scheme. This scheme is now more universal, but the level of contributions required from insured persons is wrong. People who need treatment for the first time in many years are being asked for large contributions. Prior to the reforms they would have been able to receive free treatment. This is a major change in social welfare entitlements and has led to tension with the trade unions. This is one of the areas which is causing a breakdown of good and harmonious relations, which were a feature of the Programme for National Recovery and the early years of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. One of the conditions of theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress was that social welfare payments would be maintained and improved in line with inflation. Many schemes, particularly disability benefit, pay-related benefit and treatment benefit, have been reduced significantly.
It seems strange to me that the numbers in the old age contributory group are set to decrease and yet those who reach 65 are set to increase substantially. According to the Minister, the additional costs of the old age contributory pension are partly offset by a decrease in the number of recipients. Suddenly there will be a larger number in the 65 age group than in the 66 age group. Perhaps there is a logical explanation for this. It is a minor matter, but it seems a little strange.
I note with some concern the expected increase in the number of recipients of unemployment benefit. What type of figures is the Minister working towards? In his opening speech he said that the increases were not taking place as quickly as had been anticipated. If the Minister is as skilful in reducing the number of people on unemployment benefit as he has been in reducing the number of students who would normally receive unemployment assistance, then this should be carefully considered. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what figure he is working towards, on the basis of the expected number of recipients he is providing for and the current figures or exceptions, which seem to be better than the original figures. Has the Minister revised that figure downwards and, if so, to what level?
I note again with some concern the expected increase in the number receiving deserted wife's benefit. This is a growing problem.
One of the issues I raised both in this context and in relation to assistance payments for lone parents was that of dependency. The concept of dependency means that it can be economically beneficial for people to be apart rather than together. That is a sad significant reality in the context of the extra strains on people trying to manage families on their own and the costs involved in setting up two households, as inevitably must happen where there is marriage breakdown. While it will not always be a major factor and will only be one factor among many, it is unfortunate that our welfare system is framed in such a way that there is an economic incentive both to stay unmarried and, if one is married and dependent on social welfare, to be separated since the net income received will be significantly higher for two separate units than for one family unit. This is unfortunate.
The figure for pay-related benefit is down. From a provisional £5.5 million in 1992 it is down now to £700,000. Presumably that is the death-knell of this scheme. The Minister might confirm that.
I have already asked the Minister about the alleviation payments. I have a further question regarding the student employment scheme. I made the point that students must sign a form releasing the Department of Social Welfare from any responsibility for injuries received at work on these schemes and the Minister responded by saying that he is providing for a class J stamp for occupational injuries. In view of the fact that the majority of people who participate in the scheme will not have a previous record of contributions, how many contributions would a person on this scheme require in order to qualify for occupational injuries benefit and what would be the governing year for receipt of such payments?
The provision for the equal treatment payment is obviously of concern to all speakers and needs to be clarified. The provision is increasing from £10 million to £27 million which in the context of the amounts that will be required to be paid out looks like small cheese. We are told £20 million represents 50 per cent of the amount estimated to be due under phase two and is payable in 1993, and the second 50 per cent falls due for payment in 1994. Does this relate to the first round of payments or the provision for the general payment arising out of the period 1986 to 1988, or does any of it relate specifically to the amounts coming due for the alleviation payment period? Could the Minister clarify that? There must be a provision for those payments and, if so, what numbers of people does he anticipate? Are all the people who were successful in having their claims dealt with under the first round of payments to be automatically considered for the alleviation payments or will they have to initiate a separate legal claim? In the last month or two I have become aware of cases which are not yet fully processed. Is the Department close to having processed all the claims that are with it?
Will the Minister outline the plans he has to bring the public service into contribution class A for social welfare purposes? Is that likely to happen in the foreseeable future or at what stage is this planned?
Deputy Bell raised the question of the public service. As the Deputies will know, I brought the self employed and part-time workers into the system but there are a number of groups still outside the system. The public service pays a reduced rate contribution. There should be basic cover for everybody and that would be to everybody's advantage. Obviously there are difficulties in transferring public servants to a system where they have the same kind of cover as people on the full rate of PRSI. That question is now the subject of discussions with the social partners to see if a solution can be found and to overcome the difficulties which arise there.
I am often approached, by retired public servants or public servants, who have been ill and who are out of the the public service system and cannot avail of the support which the PRSI system provides. There are many such cases and there is a need to cover their situation for the future. That matter is being discussed at present and we will have to await the outcome.
Deputy De Rossa raised the question of the students on the J1 stamp. The value of the J1 stamp is for occupational injuries and if they work one week they have one stamp and are covered. One cannot do much better than that. That is the way the occupational injuries system operates as distinct from other schemes which have various conditions.
Deputy Flaherty raised the question of disability benefit and invalidity. We were always aware of a number of people in receipt of disability benefit who were really invalidity pension cases, but who did not transfer to invalidity pension because it was taxed. I expect one will find more people transferring now. There is no change as yet and there are no particular indications in the figures as yet, but I would expect that we will gradually see people transferring and an increase on the invalidity pension side. Surveys previously showed that up to 40 per cent of the people at that time claiming disability benefit would have been better off on invalidity pension and would have qualified for an invalidity pension but were not transferring to invalidity pension because it did not suit them for tax reasons.
Deputy Flaherty also raised the question of the number of people on both unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit and the underlying figures. This relates to the matter which Deputy Moffatt also raised. Deputy Mofatt raised the question of the PRSI income and the reductions on the expenditure side. The numbers would be as follows: unemployment benefit would be based on an annual average of 84,000, unemployment assistance would be 201,900 and small holders 11,750. These are the annual averages. We are working on the money we spend in a year in this Estimate. Secondly, there are people on credits and they number about 11,350. That is the composition of the 309,000 figure.
As Deputy Moffat pointed out, the PRSI income is running ahead of the Estimates. Apart from anything considered in the Estimates, the position at the half year stage is that the income from PRSI to the social insurance fund is running at least £10 million ahead of the Estimates. This is due to a variety of factors which include greater compliance than estimated at the beginning of the year and other macro-economic elements. The full figures will not be available until early July. The position up to this point is very healthy.
On the other hand the number unemployed and the number registered as unemployed is definitely down on the Estimate. There are fewer people registered as unemployed. Taking the average figure for the year at 309,000, if we take it on what will soon be the half year figures, it looks almost certain that number will be down by a matter of thousands but I would not like to put a figure on it at this stage. It will, of course, keep the Estimate well in line and well inside the targets set. It is a good position from our point of view.
Deputy Flaherty raised the question of students and their effect on the register. That was taken into consideration at the beginning of the year and is already built into the Estimate. It does not arise in any change that is occurring now. It is important to bear in mind that when the Government and the Oireachtas made the changes earlier, allowance was made for the numbers and was included in the Estimate. Anything happening is over and above that.
In relation to the students, there has been a certain amount of adverse comment about what I consider is a very good scheme. The average payment to students would have been of the order of £35 to £37 per week. In paying £40 for 16 hours, the payment is actually higher than it was previously. I heard Deputies making the claim that students would receive less. They will not receive less if they are in the scheme; they will actually receive more because maintenance allowances were taken into consideration. Most of the people concerned would be receiving maintenance grants also. They were taken into consideration in assessing the unemployment payment that would have been made previously. That is how the average is worked out.
What about the month of June?
First, the students concerned will not receive anything for the month of June and will not receive anything after the ten weeks they have participated in the scheme. Is that not the situation? Many of the 12,000 students last year who were in receipt of unemployment assistance — and many of those were in receipt of less than £15 per week — are now excluded completely from unemployment assistance and from the scheme the Minister has introduced.
The vast majority of students are just finishing their examinations now as the Deputies know.
The leaving certificate is finishing now.
The examinations are on at different stages.
That is the leaving certificate. These students finished in May.
Detailed information about the 12,000 who have come and gone is not readily available, as to how much time they spent, etc. As regards the payments, I have given the average for those students. In fact, the average is £35 and £37 so in paying £40 for the ten weeks——
Many of the students who are receiving £40 this year would have received the full amount last year, assuming they qualified. This year those who are on less than £15 will receive nothing, neither a place on the scheme nor any money.
Most of the students we are discussing are on grants. They are the students with the lowest incomes. The maintenance element of the grant is taken into consideration and that is why the average is lower than you would have expected. It is the effect of the maintenance element, which applies to people who have, obviously the lowest income. Those people will receive more for the ten weeks. I wish to make it clear in relation to the register that the figures were taken into consideration already in compiling the register.
I think the Minister is not giving us the full picture in relation to the students who will be excluded from this scheme. There is a threshold figure of £15 per week. How many students will be ruled out as a result of that threshold?
The fact is that there are not many who are under £15. The tendency is for a student not to apply if they are at the very low level of £5, £10, £11 or £12 and to go and do something else instead. When dole was available for students in summer, it was basically saying there was no work of any kind that would earn that much. The numbers in any event are relatively small.
Tell us what they are.
I do not have the numbers.
The Minister is telling us they are relatively small. Tell us what they are.
We have one of the most sophisticated systems available but I do not have every figure for every person.
My point is that you either know or you do not know. You are able to tell us they are relatively small.
We are currently trying to computerise the local offices.
My only point is that you are telling us they are relatively small but you cannot tell us what they are.
No, because we do not have that degree of detail.
You do not know.
We know the numbers who claim overall. We know the numbers who claim below £15 are relatively small. We do not have exact figures to specify them in detail. If I say the figure is any number of hundreds or thousands, the Deputy will say it is that figure.
If you do not have the figure, fine, but you cannot claim in the same breath that it is relatively small.
You can, Deputy, quite easily. I wish you would get to understand figures and weighted avearges and how they operate.
I am trying. Perhaps it is the teacher who is wrong.
It would make life much easier for everybody if you would try to follow that. The Deputy questions everything my officials tell me and that I put forward.
That is why I am here.
You are not here solely to be disruptive and to question every figure put forward by civil servants.
Yes, I am.
I will just reject it.
You are caught out again in double-talk.
I am not caught out in any way, Deputy. Do not be ridiculous.
The Minister has the floor at the moment.
Deputy Higgins raised the question of disability benefit and the pressures that can exist in that system. We have done a good deal over the years to try and improve that system. We have provided two medical referees who have good qualifications. We have gone into that on numerous occasions. They give professional judgments. If one does not like the first professional judgment they can ask again and make sure they get better evidence and information the second time. The Deputy knows as well as I do that sometimes when people say they are sick they may not present their case as well as they should. The second time they may present more evidence.
From the Department's point of view, we provide two separate medical referees. If you get a negative response from the first referee, they are then provided with the second one and if they are still not happy with their conclusions they are given an administrative decision from the independent social welfare appeals office. This decision takes broader considerations into account, such as the workplace and the generality of the situation. We are currently operating this system and there should not be any intimidation but if anyone experiences intimidation, they should report it because I want to have it recorded and followed up. Indeed, I have come across cases of alleged intimidation and I make sure they are recorded and reported because there may be no evidence initially when a case comes up, but if the same allegations come up repeatedly against the same individual, then the administration can make a stronger case in dealing with the matter.
I am currently appointing a senior officer to oversee and review decisions with a view to providing the best possible decision-making process. I am sure that will be welcomed by Deputies. I have listened to the points that are made. We have tried to make sure the system is fair; by appointing this officer, I am trying to make sure the operation works as well as possible. I hope it will help in the whole decision-making process.
Deputy Gallagher raised the question of the spouse under 65 or 66, losing the extra benefits and the fringe benefits when the partner dies. The question here is essentially one of cost. The free schemes cost £117 million and there will be additional costs in these cases. I will certainly look at this because I appreciate the point the Deputy makes, it may especially relate to situations where the spouse may be over 60, for example. It is an issue that needs to be addressed at budget time and I will keep a note of the Deputy's points in that regard.
Deputy Gallagher referred to the phase 2 payments and when they will be introduced. There have been three European judgments in relation to equal treatment which said that women were entitled to equal treatment on a certain basis. In the absence of implementing measures — this is the crucial phrase — the Deputies will know the Oireachtas and the Government responded by introducing implementing measures of its own and these are the measures under which payments are being made. The total payment made under these measures is approximately £57 million; that is the estimate. These were introduced under the European Community Social Welfare Regulations 1992. They provide for equal treatment in various areas: increased rate of disability benefit; increased rate and duration of unemployment benefit; adult dependant allowance and child dependant allowance in the form of household supplement, where that is appropriate; the half-rate child dependant allowance, where the husband is earning more than £50 a week, and the entitlement to unemployment assistance. There was no question of withholding information, as Deputy De Rossa alleged. Everyone we could identify was written to and advised regarding their claim. In addition to this, an extensive media advertising campaign was conducted. We are determined to ensure that everyone gets their full entitlement under the regulations. If people feel what we are doing is not in accordance with equal treatment, they are free to go to the court again but we will defend our position.
The question of alleviating payments was raised specifically. These payments were introduced to compensate households who lost money — men who lost the adult dependant allowance — on the introduction of equal treatment. One is limited in discussing this area because there are cases which are sub judice at the moment. I do not want to prejudice any proceedings that may be under way but there are cases where there is currently no legal basis for paying alleviating payments. Furthermore, it would not be justified as the household did not actually suffer any loss.
In relation to the phasing of the payments, phase 1 — the increased rate and duration — is now complete, apart from a small number of complicated cases. The other elements are to be paid in two phases; half of the total for each individual being paid in 1993 and half in 1994. Where less than £100 is due, the amount will be paid in one instalment.
We are hoping to have all phase 2 payments paid by the end of 1993 and this means clearing some 1,800 cases a week. The last phase can then be paid early in 1994. There are 85,000 claims for payment and the amount is approximately £57 million.
Under the alleviation payments, may I ask the Minister to tell the Committee how many claims have been made for payment under the European Court decision. Will he indicate what regulations he has introduced to abolish alleviation payments from last year? Also, will he tell us what settlements have been made on claims for these payments before the new regulations were introduced?
The Minister indicated there were 85,000 claims. Does that figure indicate the total or the outstanding claims and, in the context of payments made to date, what is the total figure paid out including the Estimates for this year? In the context of the European court judgment indicating that alleviating payments are payable and that the Minister has made deals with certain groups of applicants, how can he say there is no legal basis for paying these payments?
I am acting under regulations contained in legislation passed by the Oireachtas. That is my function as Minister. Regarding the question raised by Deputy De Rossa about settlements, they are made on a confidential basis agreed in court.
What about alleviation payments?
I am not at liberty to make a statement on such payments.
Have alleviation payments been made since the European Court decision and before the Minister introduced regulations seeking to rule them out? That is what I wish to clarify.
I set out the legal basis clearly and if the Deputy reads the transcript he will see that. I have said that the three European Court judgments——
I seek to clarify what the Minister said. The Committee affords us the opportunity to clarify points. Given the decision of the European Court in relation to alleviation payments due to women, have payments been made on foot of claims, confidential or otherwise? Were payments made on the basis of that decision before the 1992 regulations were introduced?
I have made it clear that the court said, "in the absence of implementing measures" and the Government has implemented measures. That answers the Deputy's question.
It is a simple question.
The basis of the judgment was in the absence of implementing measures and that is the basis on which the regulations were drawn up and on which we are acting. Implementing measures are being put into operation.
Were alleviation payments made on the basis of the European Court decision and before the 1992 regulations were introduced? It is a straightforward question. I believe payments were made and that the 1992 regulations made it possible for the Department to avoid making further payments. Women who have applied for such payments are being refused.
Payments have only been made to those entitled to them.
Entitled under that basis?
Under the regulations.
Were payments made after the European Court decision and before the regulations were introduced to those entitled to alleviation payments?
To my knowledge, payments were not made to women. If the Deputy wishes to ask a specific question——
I have been trying to get answers from the Minister on this matter for some time.
I have answered the Deputy's question but he is not prepared to accept the answer. I have outlined the basis on which——
Will the Minister tell us if payments have not been made?
I am following decisions taken by the Government and am acting under the regulations which have been implemented. I have referred to the regulations and the basis for these regulations. I cannot give further information.
Have settlements been made confidentially?
It relates to the question — in the absence of implementing measures. Implementing measures have been adopted by the Government.
Subsequent to the court decision, women applied for alleviation payments and following that decision the Government introduced regulations to avoid making these payments. Have payments been made — confidentially, as the Minister said — to those who applied during the intervening period?
Only payments arising from court settlements were made. These settlements were made on a confidential basis.
I object. We are dealing with the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister is accountable to this House for money he spends on our behalf. He cannot hide behind the fact that a court may have made a decision or that out-of-court settlements may have been made and tell us he cannot inform us what payments were made. I am not asking for names and addresses. I am looking for information.
The Administration recognises the independence of the courts. The Deputy does not want to accept this point.
The independence of the court is one matter; however, the answerability of the Department of Social Welfare and the Minister as political head of that Department is another matter. Did the Minister pay public funds to those who applied for alleviation payments before he made these regulations after the European Court decision? We are entitled to an answer to that question. I am not asking for the names and addresses of the women or how much was paid to them. I want to know if money was paid.
I have answered the question several times. If the Deputy wishes to ask a specific question it will be answered. If the Deputy listens to what has been said, he will know I have answered the question several times. The answer does not suit the Deputy.
Of course it does not. I am asking a question about expenditure of public money and the Minister is not answering the question.
I suggest we move on. If the Deputy asks a specific question it will be answered.
I asked a specific question in relation to subhead B and this question has not been answered. I was not sure whether the Minister was referring to alleviation payments. Under this subhead, which has a £7 million carryover cost presumably from the past year, there is no reference at all to alleviation payments. If the Minister is paying sums of money by way of court awards, he must be accountable to the Dáil through this Committee. Under the subhead, equal treatment payments, is the figure of £179,000 the relevant figure?
I doubt if I can be of further assistance to the Deputy on this matter. However, settlements made in court are overall sums relating to the total claim involved. Regarding the interpretation of the three European Court judgments, the decision was made in the absence of implementing measures. The Government has introduced implementing measures.
Could we move on.
We have no option at this point when the Minister refuses to account for the expenditure of public money.
The Minister has concluded his statement on this matter.
I have tried to explain this matter to the Deputy, as has the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, in the Dáil but the Deputy is not prepared to accept explanations given in the Dáil or at this meeting. I cannot do any more about that. If people make further claims then the Government will have to defend its position in the Courts.
Has the Minister made any payments to those who applied for alleviation payments on foot of the European Court decision and prior to the introduction of regulations? It is a very important question but the Minister is refusing to account to this Committee.
I have consulted again with my officials. There is nothing I can add.
The Minister is refusing to answer.
I am giving the Deputy the answer but he refuses to accept the answer.
The Minister is refusing to answer the question.
We must proceed to subhead C.
The Minister is refusing to admit he has made the payments.
The Deputy wants to make use of me in court applications but he is not going to do it that simply.
Now we are getting to the bottom of it.
No, we are not getting to the bottom of it.
We now proceed to subhead C., social assistance. Any questions or comments on subhead C?
I wish to make some brief comments on subhead C.
There are a number of people in this country who have returned from the United Kingdom and are in receipt of DHSS payments. As this country could not provide employment for these people, they were forced to emigrate. They have returned to spend their retirement here and have brought an amount of sterling revenue with them. Every single penny they bring back to this country is means tested so, regardless of the size of their pensions, there is no exemption level. Those people were the victims of this country's inability to provide employment. They spent 30 to 40 years working in Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, London or other centres and returned with foreign revenue. We should, as a matter of social obligation to them, introduce a basic exemption level for them. There should be such exemption levels because the number of those affected is quite substantial. They receive some of the ancillary benefits such as free electricity.
However, many more Irish people overseas, who would bring foreign revenue to this country, would welcome the opportunity to return if we showed a little tolerance and flexibility.
The second matter I wish to comment on is insurance contributions. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation in relation to pro rata pensions, that as long as contributions have been made those contributions should be honoured to a certain extent. Our pension system is crazy. The pension is determined on calculations from the year in which the person entered insurable employment to the year in which the person retired. The total number of contributions is divided by the total number of years and if, as a result, the person misses the magical cut-off figure then they do not qualify for the pensions.
Finally, I think we should have discussed the work employment schemes for students under this subhead because I have sought in vain to find it under any of the previous subheads. I presume it comes under the figure for unemployment assistance?
We are on subhead C which is non-contributory old age and blind pensions.
That is correct, Chairman, but are we not taking subhead C in its entirety?
That is subhead C. I will take each subhead and get the Minister to reply at the end. Any comments on subhead D? Any comment on subhead E?
(Laoighis-Offaly): I had assumed, as there was no other specific heading, that the students’ work scheme came under this heading and I awaited this part of the agenda to raise some points about the scheme.
If unemployment assistance is not available to people in the educational system we should make provision through the educational system rather than through the social welfare system to support students through their period in full-time education. That is a better way to deal with the matter. As the scheme was introduced at a late stage, there has been a lack of information and co-ordination at local level in relation to it. I am glad to receive from the Minister further information about the scheme including details of sponsors in the various areas. However, I would have preferred if there was better preparation of the scheme as it is being introduced perhaps next year.
There is one anomaly I would like the Minister to comment on and it relates to students who are doing post-leaving certificate courses. Post-leaving certificate courses are a large element in further education. They are a continuation of second level so, in a sense, they could be considered as a third level. In some cases people have been informed by local offices that if they are doing a two year post-leaving certificate course they cannot apply for the student work scheme during the summer period. If that is correct — and I have been informed by officials that that is the effect of internal circulars they have received — it is a double blow for the students because they also do not qualify for higher education grants. A concession should be made and, even at a late stage, they should be allowed to apply for the summer work scheme.
I wish to raise two matters in relation to unemployment assistance and social assistance: one is the appeals system and the other is the social welfare amnesty. There is an inordinate delay in my constituency in the hearing of appeals from people claiming social assistance payments. It is most frustrating for them as the delay can be up to six months or longer. That situation should be examined and if more staff are necessary they should be provided.
In relation to the amnesty, I hope that those who choose to regularise their situation, whether they be employers or recipients of payments, will be dealt with in a speedy manner. I am familiar with a case in which a person on a widow's non-contributory pension since last October, who has part-time employment, has been trying to regularise her situation since that time. She is still awaiting a hearing of her case. The necessary facilities should be put in place to make this amnesty work and to avoid the inordinate delays in hearing appeals.
I note under this subhead that there is an increase from £719 million in 1992 to an Estimate of £785 million. When this Estimate was drafted, what was the estimated number of students wishing to avail of the course? The Minister has told us that the new work scheme has attracted 3,600 applicants and he gives the impression that this is a success. There are 90,000 fulltime students in the universities, in the ten regional technical colleges and in the six Dublin Colleges of Technology. Of the 90,000, 3,600 have applied so far and have met the deadline for applications. Now, 3,600 is 4 per cent and to consider 4 per cent as even a qualified success is slightly stretching credibility.
I know a person who sat the leaving certificate last year and qualified for 16 weeks unemployment assistance. The family are totally dependent on unemployment assistance since the father is signing on the dole. Last year, signing for 16 weeks, the student was entitled to £952 unemployment assistance because he was not then receiving a grant. The student then entered the third level system. This year he is entitled to join a scheme involving ten weeks work from 1 July at a weekly pay of £40; he will get £400. Therefore, there is a net loss of £552. That is hapening to many families on unemployment assistance and it is graduated downwards if a grant is received. There is a real loss to many students.
There has been a slippage in the previous helpful procedure which was followed for people receiving smallholder's unemployment assistance. Formerly, one weeks advance notice was given of the intention of the social welfare officer to call but this has not been given recently. We should revert to this system because it will save further investigation and administration later. Because of the complexity of farming people are entitled to know in advance that somebody is going to call, that they will be assessed on various matters and will be told their entitlements to expenses necessarily incurred in the running of the farm.
I plead for a change in the practice of unemployment assistance receipients signing on at Garda stations. It is not fair to the receipients or the Garda authorities who have much more important work to do.
I raise again a question I put to the Minister many times in the Dáil. Young people, some of them students completing their education, have trouble with money for board and lodgings when receiving unemployment assistance. A survey has recently been carried out in an area in my constituency and it was discovered substantial numbers of young people are leaving their homes to live in flats, caravans, or houses, often sharing with three or four other people. This creates serious social problems.
Young people are being parted from their parents and families. If they live with a relation such as a grandmother, aunt, uncle, sister or brother they will be paid full assistance. However if they live with their parents the total income is taken into account when means testing the young person. A simple modification could be made to set a figure for board and lodgings. A small sum for that purpose would encourage them to stay at home.
It is not only causing problems between young people and their families, it is also costing the State money because two offices of State, health boards and community welfare officers, are spending valuable time investigating claims for rent allowance and other payments, and checking old buildings and bad accommodation. The Minister for the Environment has issued regulations in that area but they will need time to take effect. Therefore for about the tenth time I ask the Minister to examine the problem, not alone in the interest of the young people but also in the interest of tightening up the administration of this scheme and the unusual and costly effects arising from this ridiculous state of affairs.
Many young people are leaving home to live in flats and I support the comments of Deputy Bell.
"New Age" travellers who are not getting unemployment assistance or benefit in the UK are coming to Ireland in bus loads. They have taken over a field belonging to Sligo County Council at a beautiful seaside resort. In the short term they have received money from the community welfare officer and medical cards and are now on unemployment assistance. They are being well looked after yet in the UK where they came from they were not entitled to any benefits. I would like to hear the Minister's view on this subject.
I support the comments of Deputy Bell. It is a serious issue because those affected are young people who should not be faced with unemployment. Not only have they to cope with a life they perhaps never envisaged but in order to try to get some kind of subsistence they are being forced out of their homes.
Further to that I had three cases over the past few months of young people not living at home who refused to give their parents' home as their address and were refused assistance for that reason. Not even the conditions of the home were taken into consideration. The parents of one of the three were separated. That young person did not have a fixed address and because of that social welfare was refused.
The system should not operate like this. It should operate on the basis that people deserving of social welfare get it. The ethos of the system should not be to rule out genuine people. It is regrettable young people are affected by this. Surely it would be in their interest from a social point of view that they continue to live in the family home. Unfortunately because of how the operation of the system they cannot afford to stay in the family home because it affects the income of the home.
There should be more co-ordination between the Department of Social Welfare and the health boards on social assistance payments. There should only be one means test for services but more than one is applied in a variety of areas. For example, a person tested and found eligible for social assistance has his or her means tested again by the community welfare officer. Even if such a person is within the permitted levels as a result of the social welfare investigation, he or she often may not receive a medical card after the health board investigation. There should be a single means test and variation between two means tests should be sorted out between the Department and the health board.
My colleague, Deputy Leonard, raised an issue I mentioned on the Estimate on Health last week. It would be more appropriate that the disabled person's maintenance allowance be handled by the Department of Social Welfare. Many other schemes could also be run by that Department; for example, the funeral grant. That is available only to contributory pensioners who retired after 1971. I ask the Minister, in this European Year of the Elderly, to consider whether this clause could be waived for the few people who are left — they would be over 90 years of age — who were contributory pensioners. People who are not eligible for the funeral grant from the Department of Social Welfare have received correspondence from the Department telling them they might be eligible for assistance from the health board. There is further duplication here. Perhaps the Minister would consider streamlining the social assistance schemes under the Department of Social Welfare instead of involving two Departments.
I confirm the general points made at the outset in regard to the workfare scheme. Fine Gael continues to oppose this because of the way it is directed and because it has a very negative economic effect on the vulnerable people who will qualify. Obviously many people are excluded. Is the workfare scheme the direct heading under which whatever provisions will be made for the payment of assistance to students will be approved? I take it they are still listed as unemployed. Will the workfare scheme be seen as a group within the unemployed? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that? Will they still be recorded as a group of people on assistance, or are the students as a category to be taken out completely? Are they one of these groups at the end of the list, on special employment schemes? What number of students — the Minister estimated it cost £8 million or thereabouts — are registered with the Department as qualifying for assistance last year? What is the number for which provision has been made this year? It would be helpful to spell out these figures clearly.
I join my colleagues in returning to the issue of board and lodging. My colleagues made the case very well for young people. This issue does not affect only young people. If a 40-year old single person becomes unemployed and runs out of benefit he or she suffers the indignity of being assessed against the means of his or her elderly parents, which is humiliating. This issue must be resolved. Fine Gael policy on this issue is that as an interim measure the age of 26 should be used as a cut off point after which a person cannot be assessed on their parents' income. I would like an indication from the Minister that he sees the justice of the case we have made in relation to that. The figures will be most helpful on the workfare scheme.
Will the Minister reflect on the sum of money about which we are speaking, unemployment assistance will cost £785 million in 1993? The size of the amount bears sad testimony to the extent of human misery due to unemployment. While this £785 million is used as a fire brigade measure to keep the situation under control, it is money which does not produce any long term dividend. Many problems are associated with student dole and the situation we have been debating here this morning. The scheme's only merit is that it will allow a limited number of people to do a limited amount of work.
The Minister is aware of the ongoing debate on the question of the cost of work versus the cost of unemployment. Cork County Council has been investigating this whole area for many years, and has been trying to make constructive suggestions. In 1981 or thereabouts we tried to set up a pilot scheme in County Cork whereby we would receive a certain amount of unemployment assistance from the Department of Social Welfare which we could use to take some people off the dole and put them to work with Cork County Council.
Unfortunately during the 1980s — my party had been in Government for some time so I cannot speak from the highest moral ground — this scheme was not set up. Recently we have again taken up the cudgels on its behalf and corresponded with the Department of Social Welfare, requesting that Cork County Council be allowed to begin a project on a pilot basis whereby people would be taken off the dole and given work. This would be subsidised by the Department of Social Welfare. It makes economic sense because our level of unemployment is much more than an economic scandal. There is human misery due to unemployment and the cost of unemployment assistance payments alone in 1993 will be almost £800 million.
If we are honest we know that this cannot continue. We cannot expect 300,000 people to remain silent. Once or twice a week these people march to the dole offices to sign their forms. A time will come when these people decide not to march to their local social welfare office, but to march on Leinster House. When 21 per cent or 22 per cent of the people are idle and subsisting on inadequate social welfare payments, we are not very far from social upheaval. We have taken huge sums of money from the taxpayer. We must look at different and better ways of utilising these resources. Cork County Council is trying to take a small step in the right direction and I ask the Minister to give favourable consideration to its request to transfer a tiny proportion of this huge sum into putting people back to work and taking them off the dole queues.
There is an urgent need to introduce a basic payment of a significant kind for people on unemployment assistance. I spoke last week to a man who has given a lot of service in the overseas development area, who is currently living at home. Because his spouse is earning money he gets the princely means tested sum of £11 per week. He is in his early 50s. This is a disgrace. We speak of the great work Irish people do abroad for the underdeveloped countries but when they come back here they are treated in this way. That is only one case which came to my attention last week.
In addition I understand — from a reply I received some months ago — that approximately 13,000 women who sign on for unemployment assistance, but do not get any money. Consequently, they are not entitled to a range of training and SES schemes. This area needs to be urgently addressed. The Minister for Equality and Law Reform is a member of the Government. He might address this area in terms of how people who have given life long service, at home or abroad, are treated.
The subhead on unemployment assistance is the category which includes youth unemployment and the long term unemployed. I and my party agree with Deputy Bradford that it is not enough for the State to keep throwing money at the problem and doing nothing else. We have not grasped the nettle of targeting schemes and strategies to deal with the social exclusion and human misery associated with long term unemployment. I call on the Minister to indicate if he has any plans to link up with local authorities and community development networks who are ready to take on long term unemployed people on a local basis. This would be of no cost to the Exchequer, but it would go some way towards alleviating the human misery of those who are long term unemployed. It is the way forward.
The Taoiseach announced 30,000 parttime jobs and I would like some information about that. We read about such matters in newspaper headlines but we get no further information or details. The plan is first announced and then the policy is worked, in a revisionist way, back to the headline. If the State is seriously thinking of moving towards the development of such local job schemes in lieu of dole money, let us do it positively and with great enthusiasm. There would be support for that throughout the House.
Deputy Higgins raised the matter of DHSS payments for people who retire here. The problem is that while £6 is disregarded, all benefits are means-tested for everyone living here. I agree with the Deputy it would be preferable to be able to increase the amount that is not taken into account. The problem is that at budget time substantial sums of money must go to increase pensions and do other things. By increasing pensions one benefits people on the lowest incomes, while by increasing the amount not taken into account one improves the position of those who have some additional income. In the future, I would like this amount to be increased for old age pensioners generally, including those mentioned by the Deputy. That is why I brought in extra benefits for returned pensioners who retire here. They have welcomed that and I know the Deputy and his colleagues have also done so. The other matter is one that will have to continue in line with what happens in the country.
Deputy Higgins also raised the matter of the Ombudsman and the pro rata pensions. I brought in pro rata pensions for a number of areas, including mixed insurance and have chipped away at a number of these areas in recent years. The National Pensions Board is presenting a final report and it will be available near the end of the summer before the House is back in full operation in the autumn. We will then be able to look at this matter together. We have made considerable progress in recent years in relation to pensions, although this is one area of difficulty.
A number of Deputies raised the question of the student scheme, including Deputy Gallagher who, raised the question of providing better support for the education system. I do not disagree with him. If there are students who need support to continue studying, education is the area where help should be given.
Deputy Gallagher pointed out he would prefer the scheme to be introduced next year. My difficulty was that the Government and the Oireachtas decided to do away with summer dole this year. It was not provided for in the Estimates or in the budget. I suggested it would be helpful to some students to have a summer work scheme. It is a pilot scheme this year. It would have been easier for my Department to have left it until everything was organised next year. However, it was preferable to go ahead with it this year and to take the abuse I have received from predictable quarters. I am happy the scheme is up and running fairly well now. I accept the Deputy's point that, all other things equal, a longer run-in would have been preferable. However, following the election there were only a couple of weeks before budgetary decisions had to be made. I managed to introduce this scheme immediately after the other scheme was removed.
The Deputy also raised the question — and I was not quite clear about this — about the two year post-leaving certificate courses. After the first year of such a course students can be in the scheme. If they are being turned down I would like to know about it and follow it up. It does not matter if they are in university or studying elsewhere as long as it is post second level education.
Deputy Gallagher also made a point about unemployment assistance appeals and the need to speed them up. There are some 18,000 appeals each year and some are quite complicated for a variety of reasons. I am doing what I can to improve the appeals situation and recently I appointed two extra appeals officers. They will help to alleviate the appeals situation in any event.
Deputy Higgins mentioned a figure of 90,000 students overall. The Departments figure is about 78,000 to 80,000. The number of students who participated in the previous scheme was 12,000. I am informed now that 3,700 students have applied for the new scheme. The Deputy also mentioned that students could previously get 16 weeks of unemployment assistance. It is hard to understand how a person in such a low income situation would not have a grant. Most people we are talking about get grants.
On a brief point of order, Minister, those who did the leaving certificate this year would not have qualified for a grant yet. The grant is retrospective.
I take the Deputy's point on the question of the Garda stations. We are gradually improving the methods of delivering payments and requiring less frequent signing on.
Deputy Bell made a point about board and lodgings. The main problem is the cost which is approximately £53 million if we were to do away with it. He suggested that a figure be set for board and lodgings and I will look at that in the context of the budget and Estimates for next year and see what can be done. It is an expensive area, but it is one that causes much difficulty. Deputy T. Ahearn also raised that point, as did Deputy Brennan.
Deputy Brennan also raised the question of New Age travellers. Under the legislation they have to meet the conditions of being available for work, actively seeking work and not being ill. They are the three basic conditions and they will be assessed the same as anybody else in that regard.
Deputy O'Hanlon raised the question of taking over the disabled person's maintenance allowance. I regard that as a priority. I mentioned earlier that subsequent to that the best way to sort out the SWA problems would be to do likewise. There are many changes taking place in a relatively short time and that is one of the limiting factors but I would aim to have the disabled person's maintenance allowance taken over as early as possible.
Deputy O'Hanlon also raised the question of the single means test. We are working on a common means test or means data base. The idea is that we would develop a group of integrated computer systems which would provide a coordinated approach to the various activities associated with social welfare claims. These include the assessment of entitlement, cross tracking claimants where they are coming from one scheme to another and making arrangements for a supplementary welfare allowance. The idea is to have a basic data base where one could say there is a basic means test but the means test will vary for different situations. It means if one has a common data base one would only have to measure limited things, for instance for the medical card or the old age pension or where a young person is looking for unemployment assistance. There are differences between old age pensioners and young people in that an old age pensioner requires more heat and allowances in particular ways that a young person will not need. There will be some variations in what is taken into consideration but there is a basic common means aspect. We are trying to get that basic grouping together so that it would facilitate the different groups involved as mentioned by Deputy O'Hanlon and others.
Deputy Flaherty asked about students. Because of the nature of this year and the fact that things happen fairly quickly at the beginning of the year, they will still be within the UA subhead. It is, however, a scheme so in that sense the Deputy is correct in saying that it might be treated separately as a scheme. They are not of course included in the figures for the unemployed. They will not show in those figures.
Another 12,000 off the register.
They are gone anyway. That debate took place in Dáil Éireann early in the year and everybody had the opportunity to put their view and vote on it and that is a democratic situation. I have to live with the practicalities and the realities and to deliver on them.
Deputy Bradford raised a question about the long term unemployed and unemployment generally. He pointed out that at least under this scheme students can get work and he pointed to what Cork County Council have been proposing. They made proposals to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment which was chaired by Brian Hillery. They made recommendations in that regard. One of the difficulties that arose, if I remember correctly, was the question of councils looking for administrative costs and that is back to another aspect of the problem. We examine these things because I want to have a very pro-active approach to the whole question of the unemployed. I want to help the unemployed people to get back into the workforce in any way I can and the Government have approved the appointment of 50 facilitators. Our purpose is to facilitate people in getting back into employment and work experience and any of the options that are available.
Deputy De Rossa raised the question of a floor payment for young people. He mentioned an individual case of £11 per week income and how he considered this was particularly disgraceful. The reality is that the whole means test system is going to leave some people inside it and some people outside it. The Deputy is basically making an argument in favour of raising the means levels but if a person is assessed at £11 on the means assessment it is only because the household has income. It is not because they have no income. That is an issue that arises very often. One can argue in favour of having higher thresholds generally but that is a matter for the budget and can be taken up on the budget. It would be giving a false impression to suggest that somebody was being asked to live on £11. It is part of the assessment of the household income. It is a matter for the budget as to how much further one can go in lifting the thresholds.
The Deputy also raised the question of credits. Certainly, credits are provided and he mentioned the question of 13,000 women claiming credits. Earlier we gave the actual figure of the number of women and men claiming credits currently at 11,300. It is part of the figure of the 309,000 average for the year. Deputy O'Donnell talked about the need for targeted schemes and the local community groups getting support. I introduced the first of these groups and, in fact, I am very much in favour of giving support to them. In the Structural Funds and in the arrangements which, I hope, will be forthcoming, we will be pressing to assistance for community-based initiatives and community-based local developments and to link them with the plans for the future. That is also related to the question of local job creation. I think that covers the points raised.
We will move on to subhead F. We will take subheads F and G together.
This is in relation to the lone-parent allowance. May I ask the Minister for the figures? I see there is an increase and it is one of the reasons the actual payments have increased substantially. May I have the figures for the applicants for 1993 as compared with 1992?
The figures are based on an estimate of an average over the year of 35,300. It is 4,200 more than the figure in 1992.
We will go on to subhead H and then subhead I.
On subhead I dealing with deserted wives, prisoners wives and dependent children, could the Minister briefly explain the conditions in relation to means testing for the deserted wife's allowances including income from ex-husbands and so on? Was there some toughening of the regulations in that scheme over the past 12 months or so?
No, there was previously but not currently. Last year, there was a change in relation to a deserted wife's benefit but not on the assistance. The assistance is already means tested.
Subhead K is one which the Minister often has cause to respond to at Dáil Question Time. I suppose this is partly because he was the Minister who, in fairness to him, initiated the scheme. I recall vividly his announcement and his strong expectation that approximately 28,000 people would qualify for the carer's allowance. Of course, sadly that has not transpired. On the figures here before us and the minimal average which I would imagine is being paid to each carer, I presume we are speaking of perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 who are in receipt of carer's allowance. Dr. O'Hanlon mentioned earlier that this is the European Year of the Elderly and, because of that, I hope we will look at schemes such as this in a slightly more favourable light.
If one reflects on the type of people the carers are caring for, the huge costs of nursing homes, district homes, hospitals and so on, a strong social and economic case can be made for relaxing the carer's allowance regulations in order to allow more people to benefit. For almost every extra person who will benefit from a carer's allowance, there is a strong like-lihood that an extra bed will become available in a district home, hospital or nursing home and the State may gain one side of the balance sheet what it loses on the other side.
The carer's allowance was an excellent idea but, unfortunately, under the present constraints it is not doing the job which we all hoped it would do. I give the Minister credit for establishing the scheme and I ask him to re-examine this and try to be more flexible than perhaps his Department has allowed him to date. I hope he will try to improve the scheme during the next 12 months and ensure that many more needy people will qualify for it.
I believe that if the scheme is to operate properly and fairly, it must be done in conjunction with the health boards, community care teams, district nurses and medical officers. If more discretion could be used in special cases, I believe it would prevent many people from being institutionalised. It is a scheme which needs more discretion especially at a time when the health boards are faced with very high costs per day for patients, and there is a strong emphasis at health board level on getting people back into the community rather than putting them into institutions. There is room for some liaison which would be of benefit to the Department of Social Welfare and the health boards.
I agree with the previous speaker. This is one of the areas where there is a need for more integration between the health and social services and the Department of Social Welfare, particularly in relation to the operation of this excellent scheme. It is one which continues to be warmly welcomed by the parties and by members of the public.
The major fault in the scheme is that the means test is set too low and, therefore, the vast majority of carers, the majority of whom are women, are not eligible for the allowance. There is a growing awareness that women have been an unpaid army of carers for all of these years, and continue to be. Many women are excluded, because of their husbands means, from availing of this excellent scheme. The Minister for Health has indicated a willingness to cooperate with the Minister for Social Welfare on this because he realises it is a major flaw in the scheme. This is the way forward if we are to continue the move to a more suitable and appropriate care of the elderly, the mentally handicapped and some sick people in their homes, but it should not be done on the backs of women who are not being paid adequately for their time and labour. I urge the Minister to think afresh, to liaise with the Minister for Health and work out an integrated policy in relation to the remuneration of carers in the home.
I should have done it before, but I would like to pay tribute to Dr. Woods in his long reign in the Department of Social Welfare. He has been a very caring Minister. Apart from introducing a number of beneficial schemes at a time when money was not plentiful he has also presided over the advent of information technology in his Department which has been of great benefit to people, in terms of processing applications for the various schemes. One need only look at the Estimates to realise there is a multitude of schemes nowadays.
On the carer's allowance, while I share the views of everybody else that we would like to see that scheme expanded, I recognise that the costs would be phenomenal. Giving the same benefit to everybody who is looking after an elderly person, would probably cost in the region of £200 million, which we all know is not available.
It is important to recap on what was there before the Minister introduced this scheme, which was the prescribed relatives allowance. The maximum amount payable under that allowance was £28 a week, which suddenly went up to £50 a week, quite a dramatic increase in one year. I think the Minister must be complimented on that.
Equally important is the fact that an extremely narrow range of people were eligible for the prescribed relatives allowance. I am aware of a situation where an elderly woman who was crippled with arthritis had an adopted son, who was looking after her full-time and could not get unemployment assistance because he was not available for work. However, he could not qualify for the prescribed relatives allowance because he was adopted and not a natural son.
The Minister's actions in increasing the rate of allowance and extending considerably the range of people who can qualify has been of tremendous benefit to elderly people. While I would like to see the scheme extended, I am conscious of the cost. However, I think the Minister might relax the means test in situations where there is an elderly person who is totally incapacitated. Generally, it is women who are at home looking after somebody and perhaps cannot leave the house because the person is bedridden, is in a wheelchair and totally incapacitated. I believe there is a case to be made there for relaxing the income limit. There is precedent in the Health (Nursing Homes) Bill 1989, where the allowance payable to a nursing home will be increased, depending on the degree of incapacity of the person in the nursing home. That is one area I would like the Minister to examine.
I agree with Deputy O'Donnell when she says when the carer's allowance was announced it was generally welcomed because we understood it would be a worthy recognition of a deserving group of people, women for the most part. Every carer believed they would be entitled to the allowance but, unfortunately, when the details of the scheme became known, these people were shocked and outraged, and rightly so. The carer's allowance does not pay the minimum number who qualify for it, for the work they do and it would be misleading and misguided to imply that it does.
It would be difficult to estimate an adequate payment for carers who do a job which is for 24 hours every day of the year in the majority of cases. For that reason I was devastated to find there was such a stringent means test because it is difficult to give the type of work involved the recognition it deserves in monetary terms. However, it would be some help to people who do this work if they received a reasonable allowance and if there was not such a stringent means test.
The other point we must remember is that for many of the people who need such care, it would be a tremendous help to them to know that those caring for them were receiving recognition for what they were doing and getting a monetary reward. Many elderly people not only have to cope with such an enormous incapacity, they also have to cope with the knowledge that they are a major burden perhaps on one member of their family. For those reasons I believe there should be realistic guidelines.
I do not agree with Deputy O'Hanlon's remarks about the cost of extending the scheme. Those who are being cared for at home would be in hospitals but for the work of the carer. They would be a far greater burden on the finances of this State, is there no comparison between the cost of support funding being paid to carers with the cost of keeping elderly people in nursing homes or hospitals. Carers are relieving the State of a burden which it has an obligation to fulfil.
I am angry about how this scheme is operated because I meet people every day who are carrying out an enormous service and are not entitled to the carer's allowance because of the stringent meeans test. In view of the nature of the work involved, the hours of care and the enormous costs they are saving the State, I ask the Minister to review the means testing for this allowance and to extend the eligibility of the allowance.
This is not the first time the Minister for Social Welfare has been put under the spotlight on the carer's allowance scheme. I do not believe there is anything laudable whatever in the scheme in its practical operation. The only laudable feature is its title. The scheme smacks of tokenism and I believe the Minister would explode the myth completely if he gave information on to the numbers of people who are benefiting from the scheme, the amount paid to each carers or the average amount that is received by them.
The hallmark of any society is the way it treats its elderly citizens. In this regard an inter-departmental approach between Health and Social Welfare on this issue is long overdue. The intentions of the Minister and his colleague in the Department of Health, who is proceeding with the introduction of subvention for private nursing homes are laudable but I am sceptical about whether that approach will work either, as it has failed in other juridictions. There the effect has been that private nursing home accommodation costs have increased in line with the amount of subvention available and it is a difficult issue to police.
In view of this the Minister should give a commitment that he will establish an inter-departmental review of care for the elderly where it impacts on both social welfare and health. This allowance smacks of tokenism and nothing more. The very small numbers of people who qualify is evidence of that and I believe a review of this scheme is long overdue. If the Minister has the figures available to him I believe it will highlight the ineffectiveness of the scheme in terms of the numbers benefiting and the average amount received.
I am not surprised at the attitude taken by some of the previous speakers from the Opposition. They have continued to perpetuate the view that this scheme is not worthwhile. There was £10.5 million spent in 1992 and it is going to increase up to £15,750,000 for the coming year. The facts are that there were many people who did not benefit for taking care of the elderly and the sick and the Minister introduced a scheme where such people are getting payments from the State for that work. It is a little invidious to suggest that the scheme is a token measure. I agree with Deputy Leonard, however, in that I believe there are cases where the health boards, doctors and community nurses and so on could be brought in to assess certain cases where questions arise. I ask the Minister to consider that proposal.
Firstly, the points made by Deputy Michael Ahern are relevant. This is a good scheme and is much welcomed. I was with carers this morning and they regard it as a good scheme.
They are the ones who qualified for assistance.
They are not. Deputy Michael Ahern raises the question dealing with certain cases where questions arise. I have made this point myself and in the Dáil when it was discussed. I would be happy to establish a basis on which the Department of Health will work with us to identify specific cases, irrespective of the means, where there is a heavy burden, and to consider such cases. That is something Deputy Ahern has mentioned here and indeed it was mentioned by another Member earlier.
Deputy Bradford raised this question in the first instance. At the time I was strongly advised not to introduce such a scheme, the reason being that there was no way it could cater for all carers. If the Minister for Social Welfare introduces a scheme for people who depend on social welfare, others will not see it that way and they will demand entitlement also.
I introduced a scheme to deal with people who had no money or very little money. I never put it forward as anything but that, as I had received information from Deputies, and I had seen myself, cases where people could not apply for unemployment assistance because they were not available for work and they had no income. Nevertheless, a start had to be made to deal with those situations. What does that start mean? It means that currently approximately 4,500 benefit from the scheme and the amount in these Estimates is £11.6 million. That is not a bad start to tackling a problem of this sort. It goes far beyond any suggestion of tokenism. It is a real support for people who have no income, or very little income.
I realise there are many other carers and many people providing care throughout our community. Deputy Bradford gave a figure of 28,000 full-time carers. That was the number suggested as the number of people providing full-time care and attention. It was not the number likely to come under the scheme we introduced, which was a social assistance scheme.
The number under the scheme is up approximately 10 per cent this year on last year. It is increasing all the time and in these Estimates we are increasing the benefit from £53 per week to £59.20 per week. I have been told today that this is a small amount of money, but that is the amount of money that a long term unemployed person receives as a basic payment. Therefore, we are moving from the short term unemployment payment to a long term unemployment payment. We are changing rates to the long term rate, an increase of 11.7 per cent. We are also providing in these Estimates for the after death payment to continue for six weeks for the persons providing care under this carers' scheme.
How many persons are in receipt of the maximum payment of £59?
The average would be just over £50 a week. A figure of 28,000 was put forward as the number of people providing full-time care and attention. There are people providing part-time care and attention for whom there are all sorts of figures, for example, 60,000, and some people suggest that it might even be above that figure. If we accept a figure of 28,000 and provide the carer's allowance for that number, we are talking about an extra £87 million straight off. We would have to look at that against other assistance payments. If, as some people suggest, the figure is 56,000 we are talking about approximately £174 million.
A number of Deputies, including Deputy Leonard, mentioned that we should be working with the health boards, and I agree with him that there should be more discretion in this area. That point was also raised by Deputy O'Hanlon who suggested that we should look at special situations where people are totally incapacitated, and Deputy Michael Ahern said we should be looking with the health board at these cases. If we break down the total care area a number of things are required. Some people with no income or very low incomes are provided for through the carer's allowance. Some people have special problems and special burdens and if the health boards can specify some of those — and we will certainly talk to them about that — then some of those people could be assisted. We are providing funds for respite care, which is a particularly important one. We have a number of other projects like the incare project where 25 unemployed people are being taken on to provide care and to act as assistants, and there are various other proxy carers receiving grants currently to help out.
The other aspect suggested by Deputy Leonard was that we should be combining health and social welfare, and I would add taxation to that because there is an allowance under the tax system for carers and that applies more to the kind of people mentioned by Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Theresa Ahearn. Such people may want to have some recognition for the work they do but are not, as a family or a household, in need of money to any great extent. There is a substantial tax allowance for taking on nursing care, but there is also a tax allowance for a person caring in the normal way for someone within the household. That is another area that will cover some of those people. All this area needs to be looked at urgently. Coming up to the next budget I will be looking at it in so far as it affects us and will be talking to the other Departments as well.
We have less than five minutes for subheads L, M, N, O and P, but if Members decide to forego their concluding statements we have 25 minutes or so to deal with the subheads, with the Minister having five minutes to reply to questions and any other comments on these subheads. Is it agreed to forego the concluding statements?
No, I think we can get through these subheads in time.
I have a question on the supplementary welfare allowance.
We have to call for a concluding statement from the Fine Gael Party at 3.40 and that is in four minutes time. We are discussing now subheads L, M, N, O and P.
On subhead L, supplementary welfare allowance, we had some questions earlier on Circular 79/93 which the Minister had circulated on 31 May 1993 relating to the community welfare officer's discretion to make payments in cases of exceptional need. This is a replacement circular for the McCreevy circulars of last year. Why does the Minister feel it necessary to have this circular issued? Surely he would agree that simple withdrawal of the McCreevy circulars would have left the situation as it existed pre-July of last year, and that the guidelines, whatever they are when they are implemented, could then resolve any problems which he and the community welfare officers see in the scheme. I presume when health grounds are referred to in this circular that it is sudden illness that is being described and not long term illness. Apart from health grounds what other exceptional, unforeseen circumstances will qualify a person for an exceptional needs payment? The information I received from people operating on the ground is that the circular is making the position worse for them. My concern is not to put the Minister on the spot but to ensure that the people who are in need of this service get it. My other question relates to the Estimate of £101,100,000 last year, increased to £113,600,000 this year. It is stated that the increase is mainly due to a continuing upward trend in expenditure. Can the Minister outline where he thinks this extra expenditure will be made this year? Is it as a result of increasing numbers of people claiming from the community welfare officer? What proportion of it is going to increased levels of payment per person?
On the question of withdrawing the circulars, we are waiting for a code of practice. The situation that existed beforehand was getting out of hand in certain respects. There was a problem and that is what led to the two circulars in the first instance. In changing to the new code of practice I would expect that going into this coming winter we will have a very effective and workable arrangement. I said earlier in the House that I would withdraw the circulars as soon as the code of practice was ready. In deference to the wishes of Members of the House and my understanding of the situation generally, I withdrew those circulars, notwithstanding that the code of practice was not ready on 1 June, for which I received very little thanks. We are providing an interim guidance since we could not open the door entirely because of the problems that were there previously. The interim guidance is helpful to community welfare officers in exercising their discretion. I wish Deputies and some community welfare officers would exercise the discretion they have and read things as they are intended by the Department in giving advice and guidance and not create unnecessary problems. The code of practice will be published and will be available to anybody. The code of practice will be made available.
The Deputy asked about circulars. They are internal management documents and the political emphasis placed on them indicates why they should not be circulated to everyone. People put their own interpretation on every word in these circulars and they highlight these things in the media. As a result, community welfare officers are afraid to use their discretion, which they are allowed to do by law and which is emphasised in the statements made in this interim guide.
Community welfare officers can use their discretion when making decisions on health or other grounds. Although we could discuss the question of discretion forever, at the end of the day we either allow these officers to use discretion or we do not. The legislation allows them to use discretion. This is re-emphasised here and these officers should exercise it, instead of looking to everybody else to make discretionary decisions on their behalf.
I want to discuss one earlier point made by the Deputy about a person providing him with a circular, at the risk of losing his job. This remark should be withdrawn from the record because it is a disgraceful suggestion that anyone would take such action, although they are internal circulars.
I call on the Fine Gael spokesperson to give a five minute concluding statement.
Our spokesperson, Deputy Flaherty, clearly outlined this morning our concerns about this Estimate. She indicated that we would have to oppose it.
The expenditure we are speaking about, £3.5 billion approximately, shows the extent of the social welfare problem. We are all — from the Taoiseach to backbench TDs — excited about the £8 billion which we will spend during the next five years. Yet, in one year alone we will spend almost half that on our social welfare budget. This shows the extent of the problem.
From an administrative point of view, and a lot of our discussion here today dealt with administration, the Minister is doing a relatively good job. The people who remark on the success of Deputy Woods in his Department during the past number of years argue that he has improved administration. It is difficult to disagree with this, but improving the administration system is not enough.
I am concerned that we are making a prison of our social welfare system. We have so many rules, red tape, bureaucracy and regulations that, while it is relatively easy for people to be included in the social welfare net, it is becoming more difficult to get out of it. PRSI is a disincentive to work and to employment creation. Our means testing system means that, in many instances, people are better off remaining idle than working. For these reasons, among others, the social welfare system imprisons people and is not helping to develop the country and the economy.
The social welfare system must be more than a lid on a difficult boiling pot. We should try to use it to regenerate economic activity, to employ people who do not have work and who are on social welfare. Innovation is urgently needed in all our schemes. There are no new measures in the Social Welfare Act this year or in our Estimates which will help to return people to the workforce. That is the main problem. The summer work scheme for third level students attempts to solve the problem, although it will only make figures look better by reducing the number of people who are supposed to be unemployed. That in itself is not enough. We must adopt a new approach to the social welfare area and try to utilise the considerable sum of money, £3.6 billion, to return people to work, rather than keeping them quiet in the system.
We dealt with some areas such as supplementary welfare allowance and the former "dirty dozen cuts" which may still be in operation, the summer work scheme for third level students, the means tested carer's allowance, etc. Problems continue in these areas and they must be addressed.
I was disappointed that the integration of the tax and social welfare systems was not dealt with in more detail. The Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, has specific responsibility for that area. However, the integration of the tax and social welfare systems is a low key area. It is creating numerous problems at present. In some cases it is causing people to remain idle. The Minister of State is working on policies, she has been in office for a number of months and I appeal to her to do everything possible to speed progress in this area.
We congratulate the Minister for presenting his Estimates in a constructive fashion. We have a lot of money to spend. However, there are still many areas where problems exist and the overall picture is one of a social welfare system which is only keeping people under control. It is keeping the lid on the pot, but that is not sufficient for the months and years ahead. We have a lot of money to spend and we must try to spend it better. We need to adopt a new approach.
The Progressive Democrats have five minutes to conclude.
The Minister must not allow his brief to cloud the fact that a large unemployment problem exists. Many of the measures which the Minister outlined today deal with streamlining a system which fosters dependency. There is little in the Estimate or in the Minister's response which indicates an innovative approach or an attempt to solve unemployment. Perhaps if the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, had been here, she would have shown a more balanced approach to the joint efforts of the Ministers in this area because she has responsibility for integrating the tax and social welfare systems and for antipoverty strategies. I am not complaining that the Minister of State was not here, but she might have introduced a more balanced approach to the overall problem of social welfare expenditure.
The Minister continuously referred to his "customers". The conclusion of his speech annoyed me because he gave the impression that we could look forward to the future with confidence and that we are working within our targets. However, the "customers" to which the Minister referred are not happy. They are poor people who are socially excluded. This is unacceptable in a country which has a good degree of wealth.
We should not be happy to accept the streamlining of the system, which will make it a cashless one, if we do not have a corresponding strategy to deal with the non-income aspects of long term unemployment. The Government has not tackled this issue. However, I will reserve my judgment. Perhaps the Government will introduce some useful measures, but this has not yet happened. There is a serious anomaly in the tax and social welfare systems when a married man with four children, who earns £15,000, is better off earning £8,000. We must improve the system, instead of regarding the Department of Social Welfare as eldorado.
I call Deputy De Rossa. You have five minutes to conclude.
I have no intention of withdrawing anything I said this morning in relation to the Minister's approach to the five areas I outlined where he is conning the public with regard to the cuts he has applied in social welfare. I have not accused him of being ignorant or stupid. He is deliberately stonewalling and being deliberately obtuse to avoid having to come to terms with the specific five areas I raised.
I draw the Deputy's attention to the use of the word "conning". It is a rather serious allegation, unparliamentary in my opinion. It should be withdrawn.
I do not intend to waste my time arguing about that. Misleading, we will say. I put it to the Minister that part of the way he is misleading the public is by arguing that the circular he has issued, 79/93, is simply for the guidance of community welfare officers. I want to make it clear that the copy of the circular I received was not from any community welfare officer in my constituency. I also want to make it clear that no community welfare officer in my constituency felt threatened. However, community welfare officers have indicated to me that they would not be prepared to give me a copy of the circular as they feared for their jobs. On inquiring from the Department if I could have a copy of the circular I was told that I could not, that there was a strict instruction, presumably from the Minister, that no Deputy was to get a copy of the circular. The Minister presented an argument today in relation to that circular which is an argument for closed Government.
I wish the Deputy would not use innuendo. It is all he ever does whenever he comes here.
It is not innuendo. It is fact.
It is not fact. There is not one single fact in that.
I beg your pardon. Everything I have stated is a fact. The Department told me specifically and the Minister's office told me specifically, they were under strict instructions that no Deputy was to get a copy of that circular. That is a fact.
I told the Deputy that myself. They are internal management documents.
May I finish what I want to say and let the Minister respond in his own time? I intend to make a complaint to the Comptroller and Auditor General that the Minister refused to answer questions about the expenditure of public money when I asked him specifically what money has been paid to women who applied for alleviation payments before he made his regulations in 1992 on foot of the European Court decisions. I intend formally to make a report and a complaint to the Comptroller and Auditor General about that. The Minister is refusing to account to this House for the expenditure of public moneys.
Furthermore, that decision of the Minister's is forcing women into the hands of solicitors to seek what they regard as rightly theirs as a result of the European Court decision. The Minister is not doing himself, his Department or the taxpayers any favour by ensuring that women have to incur these costs. I appeal to the Minister's common sense, if to nothing else, to drop this facade of pretending that women are not entitled to these alleviation payments and to stop deliberately trying to confuse the issue by constantly referring to the equality payments which, I have made clear from the beginning, I was not referring to. I am referring specifically to the alleviation payments which the European Court decided women are entitled to since 1986.
They are equality payments.
I am referring specifically to the alleviation payments. The Minister can confuse it all he likes. These are payments which the court decided women were entitled to in certain circumstances and the Minister is refusing to acknowledge that, except behind closed doors to those women who applied before he got a chance to make regulations ruling them out.
I would make one final point in relation to the community welfare allowance system. The Minister's circular refers to people using easy pay and budgetary deduction facilities. If people do not have sufficient money to meet their needs every week, easy pay and budgetary facilities are useless. A woman in my constituency has outgoings, without paying for food or clothing or anything else, of £90 a week on an income of £90 a week. The Minister may say that is because she built up problems in the past and that is true but that is the reality of her current situation.
In reply I have to answer a lot of opposing questions. Deputy O'Donnell tells me on the one hand that I am giving out too much money and Deputy De Rossa tells me I am not giving out enough money.
I did not say that the Minister was giving out too much money.
Deputy O'Donnell pointed out that as long as a husband and wife with four children can get as much as they are getting on social welfare there is a conflict with their going to work. I want to be clear about those statistics so that they do not keep coming up. One is talking about four per cent of the people on social welfare. That is what that survey related to. It is quite exceptional, it does not apply to the people on benefit generally and it is a problem which is relatively small. I will return to a point made by Deputy De Rossa. From July of this year a husband and wife with three children will receive long term unemployment assistance of £133.10 per week. That is a substantial payment in a small country which has a great deal of difficulty currently. With five children the amount is £158.70. On invalidity pension with three children the payment is £143.50, and with five children it is £169.10. That is apart from the child benefit which is being substantially increased.
I want to refer briefly to the initiatives which I have taken and to point out the initiatives taken by me as Minister since coming into office on policy measures introduced in 1992. With regard to disability benefit, the condition requiring at least 13 paid PRSI contributions in a recent contribution year was revoked. That affected long term unemployment assistance and pre-retirement allowance. With regard to treatment benefits, the conditions requiring at least 13 paid PRSI contributions in a recent contribution year was revoked. That benefited disability benefit recipients, invalidity pensions, long term unemployment assistance and people on pre-retirement allowance. With regard to treatment benefits, dental and optical benefits have been restored to workers earning up to £30,000 a year and £60,000 if the worker has a dependent spouse. Dental and optical benefits have also been restored to pensioners affected by the change in the contribution condition requiring five years paid contributions.
We made a number of improvements in unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and the supplementary welfare allowance, including additional moneys of some £12 million into supplementary welfare allowance. I have only outlined the improvements that I made and I have no time to discuss some of the other issues. Most of the issues in question have been addressed. I know Deputy De Rossa has sought on numerous occasions to confuse that situation but I want to make it clear that I have made substantial improvements in those measures.
I have introduced a pro-active approach to social welfare. I said on coming back into this Department that I would be pro-active particularly in relation to the unemployed. I introduced the educational opportunities that people are talking about, although we do not have much time to discuss them further here. I introduced many of the voluntary options and we are going to introduce many more of these options. We have introduced already 50 job facilitators specifically to encourage this pro-active approach. Regional and local development will be of huge benefit to those who depend on social welfare and those who work with us.
On the question of working within our targets, we are talking today about whether we are going to live within this Estimate. It is a budget and we are working within our budget. We are not going to be looking for a supplementary estimate on the basis of present progress. The Estimates taken at the beginning of the year are going quite well, in that our income is higher than anticipated and our expenditure is lower than anticipated.
In conclusion I would like to point out that this Estimate includes substantial improvements and benefits for those on social welfare. There is an overall 3.5 per cent increase. Priority rates were mentioned. All the long term rates are beyond the priority rates, as are some of the short term rates, and it will be possible by next year to bring all the short term rates up to the level set by the Commission on Social Welfare. In addition, short term rates received a higher rate of increase than the long term rates.
Child benefit has been very substantially increased and that will be welcomed by people generally. The family income supplement package is very substantial and involves a £12 increase per week to those who are receiving the supplement. I mentioned the carer's allowance, improvements in maternity benefit and a number of other areas. I also mentioned increases in the numbers availing of third level education. I will make payments available to anyone who comes within the terms and who wishes to attend any course. That is the way we are operating that scheme. The number of those who have applied so far and have gone into VTOS and other schemes has been given today.
The free colour television licence has been introduced. Community and special grants have been substantially increased, as has the grant to the poverty agency. A considerable number of the policy measures from 1992 have been reviewed. This has been a very good Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare and significant improvements have been covered in it.
I thank the Deputies who spoke today. I do not think I will ever find common ground with Deputy De Rossa. That does not upset me unduly because I know that this political approach differs somewhat from mine. He is welcome to his approach in that regard. I find some of his comments objectionable and quite hard to take in some respects because he continually misleads people in relation to what I am doing by picking out a word or some other aspect. That is something that I as Minister will have to get used to but it does not bother me very much. I assure Deputies that I have noted the comments they made and I will pursue the issues that were raised over the coming months.
That concludes our consideration of the Social Welfare Estimates.
What about a vote?
There is no provision under Standing Orders for a vote at this committee. The Deputy may do that in the Dáil when the report goes back there.
When will we get an opportunity to do that?
A date in July when there is a plenary session to give reports from the various committees. I understand that is when a vote can be challenged.
I thank the Minister and his officials and the Members of the committee for their valuable and constructive contributions to the debate. The committee has now completed consideration of all the Estimates referred to it by Dáil Éireann. I thank Members for their active participation in the discussions, for their attention and their co-operation which enabled us to complete consideration of the Estimates within the precribed time.
I now propose the adoption of the report of the Select Committee on Social Affairs on Estimates for Public Services 1993 which will go before the Dáil:
The Select Committee has considered the Estimates for Public Services 1993 for the following Departments: Art, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Health, Education, Social Welfare, and all other Estimates relevant to these Departments. The Estimates are hereby reported to Dáil Éireann.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
In relation to the next meeting, we have been told by the Whips office that we may have Committee Stage of a Bill. It might not be prudent today to fix a date because if the Bill is not ready for us we will have to send out notices cancelling a date. I can give a suggested date and that is Thursday, 15 July. Members will be notified if it is decided to go ahead with the meeting on that date. That would appear to be the likely date of our next meeting and that will be to consider Committee Stage, possibly of the proposed matrimonial homes Bill. Matters will be confirmed by formal notification in due course.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.05 p.m.