My contribution to this Bill will be short. Like other speakers I welcome any effort to improve the lot of the weaker sections of our community. This Bill merely gives a new name to one of the oldest systems of public assistance we have. For as long as I can remember I have been hearing about home assistance, public assistance, and this Bill gives a new name to a system that has been in operation in this country since the days of the British occupation. Therefore it is a system that has been used expensively by the people. It is a tragedy in our society that in 1975 we have the people drawing public assistance whose parents and grandparents lived on public assistance. Something more is needed to correct that situation. A more positive effort must be made to induce these people to seek further education and to take up some form of worthwhile employment. It must be demoralising for them and it must also be frustrating for those who administer the scheme to see sons and daughters continuing on where there parents left off. Therefore it is very important to ensure that the scheme is administered properly. Senator O'Brien said yesterday, and I agree with him, that some form of crash course is needed to induce the officers who administer the scheme to adopt a different approach to the people who apply for public assistance or social welfare benefits. Unfortunately, we have many people still administering this scheme, which is a continuation of the older scheme, who have never received the proper training.
We must remember we are dealing with the weaker sections of our community, with people who are not in a position to "fight their corner", as the saying goes. They are often abused and humiliated by angry social welfare officers. As somebody said, one would think it was his own money he was paying out. Unfortunately, I also have experience of that. I have seen women in tears after meeting the social welfare officer, and being abused in public. That is a most degrading situation. I hope the Minister ensures that all the officers administering this scheme will receive specific instructions to deal with people in a more humane manner. That is much more important than the actual payment. I agree entirely with Senator Burton that we should use the post because many poor people are too embarrassed to go into a crowd, and they stand in the dispensary corridor. They would be happier to receive benefits through the post.
There are also people who are incapable of travelling to the dispensary to pick up their allowances. We must get away from that system of congregations at street corners or dispensary doors, this system of queuing for payment of this mere pittance which they have been receiving over the years. We need to instil some form of confidence in those people. They need reassurance that they are citizens, that they are wanted and respected in our society, and that there is need for them to be exposed to the abuses or moods of the welfare officer, or the health inspector, as they prefer to be called. To tell Mary so-and-so in front of a crowd "Come back on Friday and I will give you something. I have nothing for you now", is not the right way to treat people. The weaker sections of the community are entitled to sympathy and understanding and this needs to be instilled in the minds of the officers who administer this scheme.
The method of screening applicants for assistance is also worthy of comment. I have known cases where people applied through their public representatives for public assistance. Then the local officer visits the applicant's house. If it is clean, and he sees a radio or a television there, he claims there is no evidence of poverty. The son or daughter in England or America may have sent home the price of that television set or radio and may have sent some new items of household equipment. These people should not be penalised because they keep their homes clean, and show no evidence of poverty. The Parliamentary Secretary should ensure that the terms of reference given to those officers are based on human understanding. That is very important. There can be poverty in a house that is clean and tidy.
Another aspect in the administration of this scheme is that many officers are reluctant to cater for people who seek benefits through their local representatives. That is important, and worthy of comment. We are public representatives, and as members of local authorities are approached time and time again by people seeking public assistance and social welfare allowances. They are abused by the local officer because they went to Councillor, Deputy or Senator so-and-so. They are told "Why did you not come to me and keep away from those people?" That is entirely wrong. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me. As public representatives, people expect service from us and the only way we can give a service is by ensuring that those people get their right. Therefore a reminder should be given to the officers administering the scheme to humanise their activities as far as possible. By-passing public representatives cuts out the democratic process. That is very important today when we hear so much about bureaucracy, totalitarianism and dictatorships.
The administrators of this scheme should always heed the public representatives who are responsible people and who are, after all, only trying to help the weaker sections of the community. That is what this Bill is all about—helping the less well-off sections of our community who are unable to help themselves. The coming year in particular is going to be a critical one for this scheme. The costs of this Bill will soar. because of the very high figure of unemployed and the thousands of school-leavers unable to secure employment. Many of those school-leavers may very well be the sons and daughters of people already on public assistance.
This scheme will need to be well administered in order to change the old system. I believe that the full cooperation of everybody involved is necessary. I am slightly worried about this Bill because I feel it will create a more top-heavy administration. In the old days the scheme was administered by the county councils, or local authorities. The county manager usually had the last say. Controlled at local level meant dealing with the one county or borough and made administration easier. The function of the health board is becoming more difficult to administer because of the number of bodies involved—the local authority, the health board and the Department of Social Welfare. Therefore more administrative costs will be involved. I have always criticised the health boards because of their top-heavy administration. Senator Burton mentioned that fact earlier. Every effort should be made to simplify the methods of administering the scheme. A top-heavy administration involves more and more costs. As a result, the people for whom the scheme is meant may not derive the full benefit from it. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that maximum benefit goes to the people who require it.
Special instructions should be given to all the administrators of the scheme to speed up the methods of screening and processing. Only last year I heard of an application which took eight months to process. I made many phone calls, wrote many letters, and in the end I had to spend one full day travelling between the headquarters of the Midland Health Board in Tullamore and the local office in Mullingar. In the end I succeeded in getting a few bob for a man who was entitled to it. I also succeeded in having his arrears paid out as well. These things should not happen. I am convinced that, unless the Parliamentary Secretary gets tough with those people and tells them to cut out all the red tape, people will continue to suffer hardship because of these factors. We have many people in the social service who want their t's crossed and i's dotted. In other words; everything must be above board before they are prepared to sanction a payment.
The method of appeals is very important. In the old days if you were dissatisfied with a decision of the local health inspector you had to resort to the county manager, who, in most cases, was sympathetic and understanding. It is a little bit more difficult now to appeal, because in most cases the SAO will not override the decision of the local officer despite the fact that the evidence submitted by some local representative will be authentic and will be the truth. Nevertheless they will not yield or bow to a public representative. It is a sorry situation that is entering into the administration of any scheme.
This scheme will also make provision for people who have been refused unemployment assistance. It is very difficult to establish unemployment. You know all that is involved in the processing and screening of applicants for unemployment assistance. I discovered of late that people who do not qualify for unemployment assistance, because they failed to comply with the regulations which says they were not available for work and so on, are now going over to this new scheme and have been on it for some time. That is going to impose further liabilities on the different contributors to the scheme. I would like to see free travel provided for the beneficiaries under this Bill. They are an underprivileged section of our community and they should be entitled to the same facilities as old age pensioners and so on. It would help to give them a new confidence that they are being looked upon as equal citizens, and I believe that is worthy of further consideration by the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials in the Department.
Again there are many additional applicants on the list. A surprisingly large number of people have come back from England with their wives and families and they will increase the demand on the services available. These people have been working there for years, going from job to job. They have no social welfare benefits of any kind and they have nothing to draw from England. That imposes a further strain on our resources.
The question of the type of person who will get these benefits is very important. If a husband who is addicted to drink draws the allowance and gets no further than the local, his wife and family may be in great need. Therefore, it is important that the officers give the money to the person who will handle it in the most useful way, and in nine cases out of ten it is the mother in the home. The social welfare officer should be brought on a crash course to humanise their activities and to instruct them how to administer the scheme.
This Bill is a continuation of one of the oldest systems we have. One thing we must try to do is to create a situation whereby people will no longer need these social welfare benefits. The only way that it can be done is through job training and the creation of suitable employment, so that those people for whom unemployment has become a way of life, may be put back into productive employment. In County Westmeath I knew fathers and mothers who were on public assistance, and at this present time their sons and daughters are on public assistance. The only way such people can be uplifted is by retraining. It is unfortunate too that the sons and daughters of those people do not avail of secondary education despite the fact that it is there for them.
This scheme is going to be widely used this year because we have families who have returned from England, because school leavers will find it difficult to secure employment and because the numbers unemployed will continue to rise. The difficulty will arise continually in regard to the people who qualify for unemployment assistance and the people who qualify for public assistance under the various health boards.
Finally, I would say the scheme will go along towards serving people's needs while unemployed. However, in this day and age something more has to be done to convince those people that it is much more important to seek productive employment. The answer, of course, will be that the employment is not there for them, but some of them need to be convinced that there is much more to the dignity of the human being than living permanently on those benefits. Sons and daughters who are in comfortable employment and sheltered positions should be convinced that they have an obligation to help their elders.
In European countries in particular there is a greater awareness of family responsibility. People there make a special effort to look after the aged, sick and infirm. Unfortunately, that is not the situation here. The tendency is to put the responsibility on the State and that is not right. If some father or mother rears a family who are fortunate enough to secure sheltered positions, they have an obligation to provide for their parents, who have given them birth. Those people should be alerted to their responsibilities in life.