asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the major criticisms of national social policy expressed at the recent conference on poverty in Ireland organised by the Council for Social Welfare set up by the Catholic Hierarchy, he will state what steps the Government proposes to take to remedy the position.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Social Policy.
28.
I have had an account of the conference to which the Deputy refers from the representatives of my Department who were present. It was pointed out at the conference that the broad principles of the Government's approach to social development were as set out in the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development, 1969 to 1972. Chapter 16 of the programme lists the specific developments proposed in the spheres of education, health, housing and sanitary services, and income maintenance. In regard to income maintenance, which is my responsibility, the Deputy is, no doubt, aware that many of the specific proposals have already been implemented, for example, retirement pensions, invalidity pensions, death grants, allowances for deserted wives, et cetera. When introducing the Estimate for my Department recently, I indicated the action being taken in regard to other proposals in the Third Programme, such as pay-related benefits, examination of the children's allowances scheme and a wide-ranging review of the assistance services with particular reference to home assistance. I assured the House on that occassion that I would continue to effect improvements within the limits of available resources, and this represents Government policy in this field.
In the light of the report he has received from his staff and from the published reports of this conference, would the Minister be prepared to consider setting up an all-party committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas or, alternatively, a broadly based national commission, to review and to make recommendations on the current social policy in order to alleviate poverty and deprivation, lack of adequate income maintenance, and so on? I say that not in any party political sense. Would the Minister be prepared to consider such a review as being urgently necessary, as has been highlighted and spotlighted in a very objective manner by the proceedings of that conference and the papers presented at the conference? Perhaps the Minister might consult with the Council for Social Welfare and then take steps to set up such a review body.
We cannot discuss the whole matter at Question Time.
Would the Minister be in a position to state what percentage of the population are living at or below subsistence level at present? Would he consider having an investigation made in this area? He knows it is one of national importance and of great concern to the public. His Department might initiate an investigation so that we would know exactly what proportion of the population are living at or below subsistence level.
We cannot discuss the whole matter now. Deputy FitzGerald.
I would prefer the Minister to answer first. I do not want to prevent the Minister from answering.
Could I have a reply to the point I made first?
The definition of subsistence levels has never been established, so far as I know, because circumstances change rapidly from time to time. With regard to having an all-party committee to consider the matter, I think an inter-Departmental committee would be more competent to do it because a number of Departments are involved as well as mine. My Department is at present having an overall review in connection with the preparation of some schemes. I do not think that an overall review of the situation by an all-party committee would achieve anything.
Could I ask the Minister whether he has, in fact, received a report on this conference on poverty from his officials who were present there and, if not, whether he will ask them for a full report and for the texts of the papers delivered, and if he will study them, because, as a participant, I feel that all of us, and particularly the Minister responsible in this area, could benefit from the full effect of what was said on that occasion?
I have an abridged report here and I am getting a full report from my officials who attended and, mind you, it was not all gospel that was talked there.
A good deal of gospel was preached by several of the bishops there and it was not all favourable to our present social welfare system.
Some of them were more concerned with the Church than with the social welfare system.
In the light of the report he has received—and he will receive further copies of papers—would the Minister be prepared to discuss the matter and to debate the possibility of setting up such a national commission to bring forward major recommendations and to bring the matter outside the sphere of party political interest across the House?
Hear, hear. We would all appreciate that.
It might be necessary to do that but I would not answer that without consulting the Government. There is nothing in any way mysterious about the fundamentals involved here. It is a question of how far we are prepared to subscribe to the improvement of our welfare schemes.
It is a question of priorities.
Just a moment. I did not interrupt anybody. Every single year that I remember in which we increased the social welfare services above the amount that might be justified by the increase in the cost-of-living index——
That is not true.
——and we had to impose tax to do it, as far as I know, Fine Gael went into the lobbies on every single occasion and voted against that tax.
The Minister will appreciate we are trying to discuss this in a non-party atmosphere. Could I ask the Minister—there is no mystery about this—does he now agree that one of the papers delivered at that conference on the proportion of our people living in poverty and want reached the conclusion on an authoritative study that there was at least one-fifth and probably over one-quarter of our people living in poverty? Does that not give rise to sufficient concern for us to tackle this on a party basis and stop scoring political points?
I know who is scoring political points. I do not know how one could assess the percentage of those living in poverty in our population when the conference agreed that the poverty level was not defined.
The Minister has not read the papers. I suggest he does so. Then we can have a fruitful debate. We cannot have that at the moment.
The pig in the sty passes no heed on the hungry people passing by.
I have only three questions left.
If the House agrees to deal with them expeditiously, the Minister may answer.