Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jun 1975

Vol. 282 No. 7

Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Bill, 1975: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Esmonde

Before Question Time I was referring to the "hurlers on the ditch" as having been critical in the past in relation to social welfare and assistance payments. I mentioned that these people were inclined to talk in generalities, in particular about their own area, in relation to cases they knew of. There seemed to be little information forthcoming in relation to the specific cases they were talking about. For fear that these people may have had further fuel added to their fears, be they real or unreal, I should like to point out that there are specific exclusions of certain categories for the purposes of relief under this Bill. When they are examined and brought to light on Committee Stage it will be seen that they are reasonable.

There is a provision in the Bill dealing with this matter and it was referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary who stated:

Subject to regulations to be made by the Minister, a health board may determine that a person shall not be entitled to the new allowance unless he is registered for employment.

As I understand it this is one of the complaints people have been voicing. They say that people are drawing relief while doing "nixers". These critics say that these people with the combined social payments, plus the earnings from "nixers" are better financially than they were if they had a full-time job. This provision is a necessary safeguard. It should put at rest the worries of certain people.

Basically, this Bill is an instrument to attack poverty. Poverty is a crime committed by the nation, if it is allowed to continue. It is not sufficient to say we will always have the poor with us; I do not think we have to accept that. When we use the word "poor" we are dealing in quantitative and quantity terms. It becomes a loose word to use when dealing with matters of poverty. The question that faces us is: are we going to allow poverty to continue? If we are not; what are we going to do about it? Are we going to adopt the attitude that what will be will be and let us have it as a running sore, a thing that politicians and social workers talk and declaim about?

When dealing with hardship and poverty we must realise that there are some who can help themselves. We have the means to improve our lot, but there are others who have not and will not have help to bring succour to themselves. This is a facet of human nature; a facet of the circumstances in which people find themselves. I hope poverty is not made the plaything of politics. Please God it will not be the plaything of politics and politicians in future. I am aware that certain politicians and public representatives cash in on hardship situations under the social welfare code and various pension committees. I know certain people make it their business to get advance information and dash out to tell the person involved that they have got them a pension. It is not they who have got the pension but the fact that certain standards have been complied with and that the person involved is entitled to the relief or pension award. It has nothing to do with the person who likes to cash in on other people's hardship.

As public representatives we should shake off the shadow of the social gaol that has heretofore surrounded and put in bondage the poor of our society. The Parliamentary Secretary at the outset made a deliberately restrained statement. The Bill is a small part of what the Parliamentary Secretary's ultimate ambitions are in this sphere. I am sure all Deputies will try and make this Bill a useful one and one that achieves something in real terms for those who incur hardship.

When I became a Member of this House the first Act of Parliament I looked at in the Library was the Assistance Act, 1939. I am amazed that although 35 years have passed our social thinking and action in this sphere have virtually stood still. People in hardship situations have to rely upon local authority charity. I should like to underline the word charity, spelt with a small "c". Wherever there was an entitlement to relief it was so circumscribed by limitations and prohibitions that it was virtually not of much assistance, if it could be called assistance at all.

This Bill is important in so far as it deals with the problem that has been experienced and observed by anybody who has taken any interest in this side of public policy. There must be no disparity in the application of the system where it is properly required. It has always been a service of last resort, and in some areas and circumstances where it was needed it was not worthwhile applying for it as it was so unrealistic and so minimal.

One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it will establish overall national standards. It will no longer be given on the basis of putting gruel in the poor house beggar's bowl. It will be given as a right to those justly entitled to it, and it will be given on the basis that the person receiving it will be treated as a human being with all the dignity and respect that is his just entitlement. There will not be this shadow of guilt and shame over it.

We have the evidence here in the Parliamentary Secretary's opening statement of the research workers coming across that invisible barrier of shame, where people were ashamed, if not afraid, to provide the material and the particulars that would enable a full and proper inquiry to be made in certain areas of poverty. It is a frightful indictment of us in this nation that we have allowed things to progress so far. One must bear in mind that the shame people feel where assistance is called for and sought very often originates from circumstances for which the applicant is in no way responsible. Very often the applicant for this assistance has been reduced to the circumstances by the acts or omissions of other people or by our society and our so-called standards. It is as well for the critics of our social welfare code to bear those facts in mind.

When I speak in those terms I do not speak as a person apart from the situation. I must, as a public representative dealing with my constituents, admit that I have come across those circumstances, and I do not think there is any Deputy who does his constituency work that has not experienced that situation, and it has been a sore indictment of our society that that situation should have been allowed to develop. This Bill, as I said, will establish overall national standards. Committees have been seen to take different standards, make different judgments, where the circumstances have been the same.

This Bill also speaks with a conscience in that it recognises the prime unit as being the family, and it recognises that members of a family have a duty to other near members of the family. There is a provision that a person should provide for his family and it enables the health board to compel those people to make a contribution. If they have not got a conscience there is provision in the Bill that enables people to have a conscience. It is unfortunate in what we regard as a Christian society that such a provision has to be inserted, but I suppose the frailty of human nature requires that these things be done. I am sure it is no pleasure for those responsible for such a Bill to have to insert such a provision, but the drafters of the Bill have exercised a proper conscience in their application to the problem.

In case people might have the idea that this Bill is one that provides purely monetary assistance, I want to dispel that idea, as there are provisions in the Bill for giving other assistance, and there is a certain elasticity which enables the Minister to exercise a discretion in circumstances that are possibly contemplated by the administrators of this Bill when it becomes law or also in other case where circumstances arise which have not been provided for or not thought of. In other words, it is not a static measure. It is one that intends to be a viable arm in providing assistance, and although in many cases it will be the assistance of last resort, there is ample provision for appeals and for the authorities to exercise discretion. As the Parliamentary Secretary says in his opening statement:

... an element of flexibility in the new scheme to enable it to meet a wide variety of individual needs and circumstances and to enable appropriate additional payments to be made over and above the basic weekly rates of allowance.

He instanced cases such as a rise in rent payments, heating or diet requirements in the case of a person living alone or dependent on an allowance over a prolonged period. Those of us who have experience of assistance to date know that, in the first instance, the assistance has very often been fixed for only a month, a further application being required for possibly extending it for three or six months depending on the circumstances of the case. All that necessary elasticity is provided for in this Bill.

Deputy Andrews referred to the question of burial in a pauper's grave. I do not think he should have said what he did say. Maybe I took him up wrongly, but, as I understood it, he criticised the Bill. I think any person who has lived his life is entitled to know that he is not going to be dependent on charity and that he will have the right to have his mortal remains put at rest with proper and due accord. That is provided for in this Bill. Previously it depended upon the charity of the local authority.

I have referred also to the question of finance. Finance will now be gauged on what the various local authorities will subscribe to assistance in 1975. I have said that great ease has been experienced and will be experienced by the local authorities in view of the further extension of unemployment assistance and relief that has been provided for in the recent Act. Despite the fact that national standards are incorporated in the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary has been careful to emphasise the requirement of local thinking and local administration because circumstances can differ from area to area and assistance may be required in an emergency due to some tragedy or difficulty in an area. This can be provided for under the Bill, in view of the very wide discretion allowed to health boards. It is good to see an overseer's right on the part of the Department to control and see to the administration of schemes under the Bill. It is only right that this should be so as part of the finance will come from the Central Fund.

One could speak about individual cases and individual circumstances but the message should go out clearly from this House that this is a Bill of conscience. Our conscience, possibly, has been somewhat tardy over the years. This Bill gives us the opportunity of making amends as all parties, I would hope, will give every assistance in getting the Bill through the House and making it as good as possible.

Mr. Callanan

I welcome the Bill, of course. Anybody who has any moral conscience must welcome the Bill as another step forward in the care of the under-privileged. Many Deputies have referred to the stigma attaching to home assistance at one time. As Deputy Tunney said, "assistance" means different things to different people. Years ago when a poor person would get a scholarship, some snob would come along later and say that the State had educated him. The State gives every form of assistance. State assistance has been given to industry and to farmers, by way of agricultural subsidies. The only case where there was a suggestion of a stigma was when a person received what was known as home assistance. I see in the Bill a change of name and a slight improvement in the allowances. Personally, I would never allow any reflection to be made because a person was in receipt of home assistance. Everyone gets some form of State assistance either directly or indirectly. The name will be "supplemental social welfare" henceforward.

I welcome the Bill and I am very interested to know the type of people it will cover. I understand that it is intended to supplement income which is not up to the standard required for a person to live on. Take, for instance, a person in receipt of small farm social welfare. When such a person was available for work and able to work he was entitled to £12.10 a week. I know of a case where the person got a heart attack and, subsequently, when he went to sign for the small farm social welfare he would not be allowed to do so because he was not available for work. He had to go on disability allowance. The net result was that his income dropped to £8.60. Does the supplemental social welfare cover such a case?

Mr. Cluskey

Yes.

Mr. Callanan

I am delighted. For that I am very grateful because there was an injustice.

There is another type of assistance that was operated by the Western Health Board—prescribed relative allowance. I have been informed that this allowance will be discontinued, that if persons do not qualify for the supplemental social welfare they cannot get the prescribed relative allowance. I want to be clear on that. The prescribed relative allowance was given in certain circumstances. I criticised the scheme on the ground that the person concerned had to be a relative. If a neighbour made a cup of tea for a person the health board would pay her something. A daughter-in-law who had six in family and looking after an aged parent got nothing if the person was not bedridden. I pointed out that sometimes it is more difficult to look after a person who is not bedridden. I understand that the prescribed relative allowance is being discontinued. Will there be a means test in regard to the supplemental social welfare?

Mr. Cluskey

This Bill does not interfere in any way with the prescribed relative allowance.

Mr. Callanan

It has nothing to do with it?

Mr. Cluskey

Absolutely nothing.

Mr. Callanan

I am informed that the allowance has been discontinued, that unless the person qualified for home assistance, the prescribed relative allowance was discontinued. There has been a hold-up. No decision has been made by the Western Health Board in regard to prescribed relative allowance.

Mr. Cluskey

Although it is not my Department and it is not in any way connected with this Bill, I am not aware that the prescribed relative allowance is being done away with. I do not think that is correct.

Mr. Callanan

There are two prescribed relative allowances. There was one that was added to the old age pension—a care-of-the-aged allowance. There was another one operated by the health board which was not a care-of-the-aged allowance. This is the one to which I am referring. The care-of-the-aged allowance has not been dropped; it was the one operated by the health board. These are the things I wanted to clarify. I am delighted that the person who was at a disadvantage by getting only disability benefit will now be able to supplement his income from supplementary social welfare benefit.

Deputy Bermingham spoke of the position when people fail to get their cheques and go to the social welfare officer, as he will now be known. Deputy Bermingham was right; this official does not know what to do about them. This may happen on a Saturday and it is unfair to him to be called on when he is off. He does not know what amount to give. There should be some system in the Department whereby some three or four weeks before a person's stamps are exhausted he would be notified to apply to his social welfare officer immediately so that he could switch over from unemployment benefit to social welfare on the very day on which his stamps were exhausted and so that there would be no break in payments and he would not, perhaps, have to wait a whole week. I must be a nuisance to the Parliamentary Secretary because of the number of letters I have had to write in such cases, some of them urgent cases with sheer poverty involved. This should not happen. The social welfare payment should come immediately the stamp payments finish. Deputy Bermingham covered this point so well that I would only be repeating what he said if I were to pursue the matter further.

We must be fair to those who operated the home assistance scheme. They did a good job and were very sympathetic although there may have been the odd exception. The provision for an appeal to the health board in the case where a person is dissatisfied, as provided for in the Bill, is an excellent idea. It is important to consider human nature. A person may think that he does not get on with the local officer or that he has a cause for grievance against him. These are facts although we may try to hide them here. They exist, as we all know. Such a person will now know that if the local officer does not give him fair treatment or what he considers is fair treatment, he can appeal and everybody cannot be against him. That man cannot blame the local official and say: "He never liked our family." That is a great advance in the Bill. I am not saying anything against assistance officers. I have been dealing with them since I became a public representative and they are a fine type of people who do their work well.

Taking the Bill as a whole I think all sides of the House will welcome it as a move forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. Since social welfare was initiated we have been moving gradually forward as we should be. We must keep up with inflation. I am delighted that this Bill has been introduced. My ambition has been to see the under-privileged getting a fair deal, and any legislation that will help to secure that aim will have my support and that of the majority of those on this side of the House. I welcome the right to appeal and the supplementary assistance to people who are ill and cannot work who were at a disadvantage previously when they lost social welfare and went on to DPA. Also, under the Bill the status of the former home assistance officer will be raised. Will his title be changed?

Mr. Cluskey

He will be an officer of the health board.

Mr. Callanan

That is what I thought. This is another advance in the Bill. In general, everybody in the House will welcome the Bill. We are all human beings and nobody stands up to make political capital out of the legislation; at least, I shall never do that. Where credit is due I shall always give it and I think this Bill is something we should all support. Having read the Bill I thought it was just the type of legislation that any progressive Government would introduce. If we were in Government I am positive we would be moving in the same direction. Successive Governments have moved with the times and this is a further move which is very welcome.

Mr. Hegarty

I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on this Bill which is an excellent piece of legislation. At a time like this when we are being asked to tighten our belts it is a good thing that the Parliamentary Secretary saw fit not to ask the more vulnerable section of the community to make any more sacrifices. They could teach us about belt-tightening. All of us working in our constituencies come in contact with these people and it is heart-rending at times to find that for one reason or another we cannot help them as we would like. Sometimes what we can do is very little and certainly not nearly enough.

The Bill is a step in the right direction, regardless of any economic problems or recessions, because this is the area in which a government with a social conscience must keep step with inflationary trends and look after the people in most need. To look at this in a cold, economic manner, it is good business to look after those people in this fashion. In the case of home assistance, prescribed relatives' allowances or whatever it may be, the money provided in this Bill will help people to help themselves in their own homes and it will help keep many out of institutions where they would be a much greater burden on the State.

I compliment Deputy Callanan on his reference to stigmas. We are all getting State help of one kind or another, whether we are industrialists or farmers, so none of us can point the finger at those who are getting social assistance. I particularly liked the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary about the effort to break the poverty link. That is what we have to aim at in all social legislation. If this money is to be paid out in the requisite amounts and if widows with young families get sufficient help at the right times—for instance, to put their children through school—then we will be going along a new road. We will be creating a new situation, like the Chinese proverb which stated that you can give a man a fish and he will live for a day, but teach him to fish and he will live for a long time.

This Bill is an effort to break the poverty link, and that should be our continuous ambition. I am not one who favours doling out money unnecessarily to anyone. We hear a lot about abuses but they will always be there. Where these benefits are being applied, however, the social welfare officer should not be tied to specific amounts or be over-hampered by regulations. It has been one of the faults in our social welfare legislation that genuine, deserving cases have been found not to be entitled to benefits. For instance, under the present regulations dealing with prescribed relatives' allowance, a 31st cousin looking after an old person is not entitled to benefit. Anybody who looks after an old person in his home should get this allowance. If necessary we should call it by another name. Otherwise we will have a situation where such old people will have to be put into institutions. It is from that point of view that legislation of this kind becomes logical.

I should like to see social welfare officers not being tied to firm decisions. The Parliamentary Secretary said that a young mother pointed out that one would think the social welfare officer was paying the money out of his own pocket. I am afraid that is a widespread comment, and I hope the new appeals system will eliminate a lot of the difficulties. It is hardly fair to ask any one man to sort out the legislation in regard to gray areas that exist, particularly in regard to social welfare. Perhaps local bodies like the old age pension committees would be a better idea.

I like this elasticity. In my travelling around I often find people being disqualified from benefit because they are a fraction above the regulated amount. This Bill should bring within its ambit many more people for supplementary social welfare payments. Some people spoke about changing the name "home assistance". I do not think there is any need to do that. Indeed I like the expression because the emphasis is on "home", and that is the important thing about this Bill: it helps people to look after their kinfolk and their families at home in a reasonable manner. I suppose it is as good as we can afford, and I am sure the fine social conscience of the Parliamentary Secretary will ensure that the poorer people will be looked after, the people whose voices rarely have been heard in an organised manner, people who have only me and those like me in the House to speak for them. In my short time in politics, living in a rural area I was not properly aware of the type of poverty and deprivation that has existed in our larger towns side by side with wealth, very often vulgar wealth.

In passing, I should mention that if it were left entirely to what the State could do I am convinced that help for the needy would be totally inadequate, and in this respect I compliment the various voluntary organisations such as St. Vincent de Paul, the good nuns and the groups who try to help out old people. At times we have heard them described as "do-gooders". Were it not for these people there would be many old people in want in my area.

We are a great nation for surveys, but we would do well to have carried out a survey on the problems of the aged. While this Bill is going a long way, it is not getting to the root of the problem. As a nation becomes more affluent, its people become very materialistic and do not often have enough regard for the problems of the aged. It may be that in the past old people were looked after better in their own homes than is the case today. Many old people would ask for nothing more than a little flat in which to spend the remainder of their days. I am glad that there is increasing development of this kind. It is something that should be encouraged as much as possible.

Other Deputies have spoken of the reluctance on the part of some people to seek help. Because of a sort of pride some old people would starve to death before letting anyone know of their plight. There is not much we can do about that except to make every effort to find out about such people and, having found them, to approach them gently with offers of help.

Very often old people live in houses that are inadequate. Sometimes these houses have no electricity, and in cases where this facility is available, one finds often that the appliances are out of order. Sometimes it is the ESB official who calls to read the meter who becomes aware first of a person's plight. This whole area is a very difficult one. It is one that will require all the expertise and help that can be applied if we are to help the people concerned. Every help, financial and otherwise, should be given to those people who are engaged voluntarily in work in this field. One million pounds would go a long way in this regard. Wonderful services are being provided at the geriatric hospitals, many of which are run by nuns and some which are under the control of the health authorities. The religious orders concerned have been carrying on work for many years which is the responsibility of the State. They should be given more financial aid.

Deputy Esmonde said it is not good enough to say that the poor will always be with us. I agree totally with him, because to accept that premise would be a negative attitude. The elimination of poverty must be a priority. It is a project which requires a massive injection of money but which requires such virtues, also, as concern for our aged. In this context, education is very important. Young people should be taught to be concerned for our senior citizens and should be encouraged to do everything possible to help them. We know that the Minister is doing everything possible to help this section, but in order to be successful he will need to have the interest of the younger generation. Very often it is the kind word that helps an old person most when he is depressed. I compliment the Minister and his team on producing this Bill. It is a further indication of the social conscience of this Government.

One small criticism of the system up to now is that it was hampered to some extent by petty regulations. Every situation should be assessed on its merits. One cannot work a cut-and-dried system. A person in need is a person in need. It is as simple as that and anybody in need should receive help from the State. Perhaps that is an over-simplification but that is my interpretation of it.

I would be in favour of giving plenty of latitude to what we might call the field men, the social welfare officers. I would not advocate coming down hard on them if they erred on the lenient side. Perhaps in the past their terms of reference stipulated that they should not be lenient. In future, whatever their terms of reference, they should be told to be lenient because I could recite a litany of individuals who were deprived of social welfare benefit because they were merely 25p or some such amount above the qualifying limit. I know we must draw the line somewhere but there are varying circumstances.

If this legislation does not measure up financially to its ambition, the Minister should not hesitate to come back to the House. He might come back every two months, if necessary, to help this section of the community to whom I am sure both sides of the House would be very happy to render assistance. In terms of total spending it is really pin-money only about which we are speaking today. If we could make a good job of it with an extra £1 million or £2 million, that amount should and must be found.

Mr. Dowling

We can all look back with a sense of shame at the manner in which we neglected the weaker sections of the community over the years. This Bill does not go far enough. Indeed, the changing of terms in a Bill of this nature is no real solution to the problem. A more comprehensive measure is required to deal with the problem and with those who served the nation so well during the dark, difficult days. I believe we should have made a more positive approach to the problem than is done in this Bill, worthy though it may be. In the past we did not do sufficient and, if we continue on the basis suggested in the Bill, we will not be doing sufficient either. Terms used in the past were objectionable to people and tended to turn them away from seeking that to which they were entitled. This is something that must be corrected now. Updating of legislation is something that must be done continuously. In order to do so we must carry out in-depth examinations and in any conclusions we may reach show that we have a positive approach. I do not feel this Bill measures up to what I believe to be necessary.

Taking various statements that have been made, we must deal first of all with the dignity of the human person, have a person feel that he or she has a stake in the community, that there are services available to them in their hour of need, freely administered and theirs by right.

The uniformity of any scheme is desirable also. The Parliamentary Secretary has made an effort under this Bill to ensure that there will be uniformity of approach to the benefits to be given in the future. That is a substantial advance on the past and means that those in need in the future can rest assured they will receive that to which they are entitled, with no scaling down of the benefits by officials. The terms used in the past, the poor house and others, have caused people to hesitate in their applications and their elimination is both necessary and desirable. It is necessary to update legislation in order to eliminate such objectionable terms or ones which tend to become objectionable in the modern usage of language. Let us examine some of the terms used in the past in relation to illnesses. When a person was told he had, for example, consumption he felt he was on the way to the grave. In time that has changed to a person being on the "decline" but, after a time, he figured out that it meant the same thing. Then he may have been told he had tuberculosis. Now he may be told he has a spot on the lung but it does not mean the same as did the terrifying terms of the past. Those terms mean the same thing. Some of them put terror into the hearts of some people when used in a certain context. The elimination of such terms will encourage people to make application where they feel they are entitled to benefit without having the tag applied in the past.

We know how people were treated in the past when they applied for help under the home assistance code. In many cases a probe was conducted into their lives or that of members of their families. People were refused benefit because, perhaps, their house was clean or because they may have had a television set or some other type of household appliance which was deemed to be something they could have done without because of their poor circumstances. But an individual's circumstances change rapidly from time to time. Therefore it is necessary to take into consideration items which are now part and parcel of every household, items that may be given by a kind son or daughter or, indeed, some organisation. Indeed, I have known of cases in the past where such items were taken into consideration in the assessment of a case. I hope the new system will eliminate that type of probe and that such things will not constitute an impediment to the obtaining of assistance. It has been said to me and to other public representatives frequently that if one has a dirty house one will certainly receive some assistance. Each case should be examined on its merits. The terms used in the past tended to colour the situation. I am glad to note the termination of that type of approach, which, indeed, prompted some official examining cases and dealing with them in a way never intended.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the inequalities that exist. I hope they will be eliminated in the future. We must all ensure that there is uniformity. However, we must indicate in very clear terms that a number of people have responsibilities in relation to the weaker sections of the community and those in need of different forms of assistance. There are many children who have pushed their parents aside and thrown them on to local authorities and the State for support. Many of them are in a position to assist their parents who in the past did everything for them. It is great shame on those people who neglect their parents.

Far too many parents rely on State assistance because they have been pushed aside by their children. Those of us who have served on hospital boards know of many such cases. I know of a case in this city where an old lady was dispossessed and her daughter, who was well married and lives in a very fashionable part of the city, would not allow her mother to go into accommodation offered to her by Dublin Corporation. She took her into her own home but only maintained her for a few days and then pushed her into hospital. When the time came for the discharge of that elderly person, who was suffering from fatigue and mental strain resulting from her being dispossessed, and the hospital contacted her daughter she did not respond. After a number of further contacts from the hospital asking the daughter to take her mother home, and her mother was finally presented at her door, she said: "That is not my mother". This is the unfortunate case of a woman who was taken away screaming: "Take me home, Mary" but her daughter denied her. Far too many parents have been denied by their families in this city and throughout the country. There is a responsibility on each and every one of us to meet our full responsibilities in relation to our families.

It is necessary to have services provided to meet the tragic case I have just referred to. It is also necessary to update the legislation to meet the crying needs we have from children neglecting their parents. We should do everything in our power to rouse the consciences of those who have responsibility for their parents.

The supplementary supports the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about and the changing attitudes are very laudable. There was also mention in the Parliamentary Secretary's brief of the right of appeal. I appeal to those who have to make decisions on important cases to err on the side of the applicant rather than push it aside and say the person has power to appeal. The time factor is very important in those cases because a decision must be made at the earliest possible moment in order to ensure that the applicant will not suffer from undue fatigue or undue want. I hope the officers who will be examining those cases in the future will ensure that decisions are made as early as possible and if there is a doubt in the officer's mind the person who makes the application will have the benefit of the doubt.

The updating of this legislation is very necessary and desirable. I feel it should have been more comprehensive to meet the real needs of the situation. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to those today as well as on other occasions when he spoke of the number of people living below the poverty line. I hope when we have a full assessment of the situation that this Bill will only be regarded as a stepping stone, one which normalises the situation at the moment and that we will have in the future additional legislation which will bring the problem into full focus so that we can have something which will give entire satisfaction to every Deputy in the House.

Dr. O'Connell

I have no hesitation in welcoming this Bill as one of the most progressive and enlightened pieces of legislation to appear before the House. One of the reasons I campaigned for a new Government was that I hoped we would bring in enlightened and progressive legislation such as this. It, therefore, gives me great pleasure to welcome the Bill. I hope it will be extended and will be followed by more progressive legislation.

Many Deputies have dealt with the terms of the home assistance regulations. I, like them, can say I have nothing but contempt for the system because it was left to the discretion of an officer who, if he did not like the look on the person's face, had the power to refuse home assistance to him. I have seen some very genuine cases of poverty deprived of home assistance by home assistance officers. I have also seen people humiliated in seeking home assistance who were turned away crying because the man said they might be getting assistance somewhere else.

Many people were inhibited from seeking home assistance because they found it a humiliating experience when their personal affairs were discussed in public. I know of many people in need of assistance who would not apply for it. They said they could not stand the humiliation of it and also that their neighbours might see them. These cases were sufficient to warrant changes to bring about a proper form of assistance to people in need. Despite what we hear about Ireland being a rich man's club and there being affluence in abundance I see a considerable amount of poverty. I have had conversations with lots of people who are afflicted with poverty and they disagree with the method whereby they clothe their children by calling to the health board office. It is humiliating for them. These people are told that they cannot have the money to buy these clothes.

Many families are in need of help, in need of clothing for their children going for First Communion but they are humiliated into seeking clothes from these depots. In many cases the clothes are not suited to the needs of the children. It all smacked of the poor law Act, an Act which was in need of reform. This Bill will be welcomed by those in need, by those who were inhibited from seeking home assistance who will now know that as a right they are entitled to this assistance. It will give some solace to those who are poverty stricken and who find they cannot get out of their state of despair and despondency. It will ensure that they can get this assistance as of right and will not have to beg for it.

I appreciate the limitations of home assistance officers and the fact that they have to operate the old system. However, what apparently is not known is the fact that the number of hours they worked is far short of the requisite 40 hours. One assistance officer told me that they work less than a 20-hour week in many cases. In other instances they provide money from their own resources. They use some of their salary to pay people and hope they can recoup it from the authority. The system was wrong and it could not operate properly. It amazed me that the Fianna Fáil Party who were in Government for 16 years did not see this and did not listen or harken to the request from Members for a change. I am pleased to know that the Government for which I campaigned have taken upon themselves to bring in this enlightened piece of legislation.

I should like to give an example of how badly the home assistance scheme worked. Recently a widow with a number of children was faced with a problem when one of her children died suddenly in a home. Unfortunately, most of these people are ignorant of the benefits they are entitled to. After a lot of representations on behalf of this widow the authorities concerned agreed to pay the cost of the funeral but the widow had to go on the bus to the graveyard to meet the hearse. That is an example of how this system operated. The official told me that was the only way he could operate the system. That is an indication of how damnable a system it was. I am sure other Members can recount instances where people were humiliated or found they could do nothing to break through that terrible system.

Under the old system a young bachelor who was unemployed and did not have stamps was subjected to a means test. That young man, if he was living with his father who was employed, could find himself in receipt of 15p a week. This happended in many cases in the city. I am worried that there will be a means test under this Bill. I hope it will not apply. We are told that the basic standard amount of supplementary welfare allowance which will be payable to a person without means will be equivalent to the maximum rate of unemployment assistance applicable in rural areas. I have a little doubt in this regard but the more I read this statement the more I believe this will not apply and that the person concerned will be entitled to a full allowance. Under the present system he could get as low as 15p to 30p a week.

We tried to get round this by suggesting that the person concerned go to a hostel but the cost of a hostel is such that if he got full unemployment assistance he could not pay his way there. This Bill will put an end to that system. It will be welcomed by those in need, those who are not able to articulate their needs or their wants. There is no problem for those who can lobby us on different legislation but we should be legislating for those who do not know their rights and who cannot put forward their case forcefully. For that reason I am surprised at the Opposition Member who described the Bill as not being progressive. It is progressive and it is one step in the line of progressive social legislation. The only extension of this I should like to see would be income supplements; that we might establish a poverty line and where a man's income falls below that it would be supplemented. We should aim at this and I hope it will follow. Knowing the Parliamentary Secretary, I am confident the time will not be far distant when he will introduce this.

Mr. Brennan

This Bill may be regarded as a necessary addition to the social welfare code. As Minister for Social Welfare, I had to deal with criticism from the Opposition which was centred around suggestions that we should have a new comprehensive social welfare code. I always countered by saying there was no such necessity, we had all the basics and it was only a matter of making up the gaps that were not filled. We had all the necessary things which a social welfare service requires.

No debate in this House was so full of hypocritical criticism as was the debate on social welfare. I hope I do not appear hypocritical in anything I say in relation to this Bill because up to now debates on social welfare smacked of somebody using the circumstances of the poorer sections of our community to exhibit a social conscience. All the talk about poverty and the poverty line—I am not referring to the last speaker— often has a lot of nonsense attached to it. Poverty is a relative thing. As time goes on people who might be regarded as in reasonably good circumstances today will be below the poverty line in ten or 20 years' time, that is, if there is the same rate of change in living standards as there has been in the last 20 years. As I say, poverty is a relative thing relating to what one section of the community can enjoy to what the other sections have. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill says in regard to persons eligible:

As a general rule any person in the State whose means are not sufficient to meet his needs and those of his dependants will be eligible for a supplementary welfare allowance.

That is only in the memorandum. If it was incorporated in the Bill we would all be eligible. I think we could all prove at any given time that our resources are not sufficient to meet our needs.

The change that has taken place now is necessitated, in the first instance, by the regional health boards being established. We have been working in a kind of dual capacity for some time in regard to home assistance, in that the different authorities were administering it and the health authorities were, in fact, the people responsible. While this is a change, it does not go as far as I thought it might have gone. I had been struggling for some time in the Department to find a means whereby something substantial or worthwhile might be done in relation to the whole field of unemployment assistance, home assistance and unemployment benefits. We did reach the stage in the Department where a memorandum was prepared for consideration by the Government, but I have to admit it did not contain the type of thing I visualised.

The question which everybody is asking himself today in relation to social welfare is, how does it come about that when you go into any district in any part of Ireland you will find thousands and thousands of necessary public amenities awaiting sanction and jobs for which there is no money available to carry them out, while at the same time thousands of people are queuing up to draw unemployment assistance. The Minister for Social Welfare who reconciles these two problems will be the man who will really provide the solutions for the most important aspects of the whole social welfare system. The present situation does not make sense when the economy is on its knees to the extent that emergency action has to be taken.

We talk about removing the stigma of the system. Any system that requires poor people to subject themselves to a means test and become the victims of cross-questioning by an official will in time take on a stigma irrespective of how we many change its name. Changing it does help for a time. With a new name it may look a little better, but it is the same wine in different bottles. We can only hope that, side by side with the necessary provision in the welfare code for the implementation of improvements from time to time, the best economic brains in the country will get down to the provision of the proper type of welfare, that, is the provision of opportunities for work for all the people that can avail of it and the reduction in the number of those who have to go hat in hand looking for State assistance. This is the real effort that should be made by any Government or any authority, local or otherwise, in order to eliminate the need for assistance of any type, call it what you will.

If the galloping inflation we have been experiencing for so long now is not kept in check we shall rapidly reach the stage where the number of people in the Department of Social Welfare will have to be trebled in order to provide assistance for the thousands who are progressively dropping below what might be regarded as the poverty line. The real way to tackle this is to create as many opportunities as possible and enlarge the source from which the redistribution of wealth will spring. In Government we are inclined to talk about money that has to be paid out as if we were paying it out of our own pockets. It is money taken from the Irish people to give to the less fortunate sections of the community, and we must do our utmost to create greater social consciousness, so that the contribution is not made grudgingly. As was pointed out as far back as the time of Rerum Novarum, people must realise it is part of their responsibility to society to give some of their wealth to the needy.

This Bill takes steps towards improving the home assistance code which is an essential part of the social welfare services. I was not in the House to hear whether the payment will be made directly through the post or whether the old queue will still form outside the home assistance officer's clinic or what form payment will take. I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary has arranged this, but until he can abolish this queue he will not have removed any stigma that might have been carried into the welfare system by the Home Assistance Act of 1847 and the amending Act of 1839.

In regard to the cost, if, as the last speaker suggested, there is a poverty line drawn, it will have to be drawn much higher than anything we have visualised in the past, because again poverty is a relative thing, and this Bill must ensure very big increases in home assistance payments, 40 per cent of which will have to be met out of local rates.

We had much discussion about the inequity of the rating system and before we proceed to load the rates with more payments and add to the responsibility of the local ratepayer we should first give a good deal of attention to the system of collecting rates, the most inequitable tax we have and get it on an equitable basis. Strictly speaking, under the terms and in the spirit of the Constitution I do not think we have the right to add to the rates burden with new charges. That 40 per cent of the cost of this scheme over the 1975 allocation could be quite a substantial sum. That is not a great prospect for those saddled with ever-increasing rates bills. However good the intentions of the Minister for Social Welfare and the Parliamentary Secretary may be in changing to this supplementary system, it is not in keeping with the 14-point programme—if we are to consider that document as a basis of Government policy any longer. It is certainly not in keeping with that part of the programme which pointed to the reduction that would take place in local rates and the removal of charges from them. This definitely adds a further charge to them.

The main benefit of the home assistance system was the fire-brigade effect, as we knew it, whereby you could quickly send somebody to bring immediate relief to a distressed family or person. That element is retained in this legislation which would not otherwise have the desired effect. Any system of applying, waiting weeks or months to know if you are qualified and in the end receiving some money or a notice that you are not qualified, would not have the effect of home assistance however much maligned it may have been and whatever stigma was associated with it. Nothing could replace it if the community element and the immediate approach were removed. When a misfortune such as a road accident befalls a family rendering them penniless or destitute overnight only something like the home assistance system can bring immediate relief. Irrespective of the future outlook it enabled payment to be made on the spot or as soon as possible and a chance to be taken on recoupment if this proved possible on further examination. That element is retained in the legislation now before the House. That is nothing new; it is one of the outstanding and most effective features of the home assistance code in the past. I hope this element will be retained because otherwise the legislation will be less beneficial.

I do not know to what extent one can remove discretionary power from any social welfare system which requires a means test: I do not think it is possible. Human nature being as it is, investigation officers experience so many devices and ruses that they become sceptical. They come to the people concerned giving the impression that they come to prevent them getting something rather than to find out for what assistance they would qualify and help them to a decision. I had occasion frequently to look at files and discuss with those responsible for investigation the interesting experiences they had. We have heard of the woman who set the dog on her own cattle pretending it was the neighbours' cattle that were trespassing when the investigation officer arrived. Incidents like that gave investigation officers a rather poor impression and often resulted in their carrying out their work rather severely.

Nobody can deny that a good deal of discretion is involved. One investigation officer may find an applicant entitled to benefit while another may take a completely different view. Uniformity is not always possible in this respect because it is not possible to set absolutely effective guidelines and conditions vary from county to county. I am not sure that any recent adjustment has taken account of conditions generally in regard to applicants for home assistance. A particular figure of income is mentioned in regard to means in the case of certain benefits. So far as farmers, particularly small farmers, are concerned, the number of cattle that would produce that income 20 years ago is quite different from what it is today.

Notice is not taken of the cost of what the applicant has to purchase while notice is taken of the actual income from the number of cattle sold. In simpler terms, the means test for the old age pension has been considerably eased but just as many people in rural Ireland today fail to get the old age pension as in the past.

Mr. Cluskey

That is not true. As a matter of fact, I think the Deputy is making one of the most dishonest speeches I have ever heard in this House from an ex-Minister.

Mr. Brennan

My reason for saying that a number of people fail to secure benefits is because of my empirical experience. There is no use in those of us who are in constant contact with the public denying that we meet a number of cases in which we have to make appeals or applications or contact the Department. It is mainly due to the belief that practically everybody now qualifies for one or other benefit. That is not true and if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks I am making a dishonest statement I can give him sufficient instances from my experiences to prove that I am not.

The benefits paid to social welfare applicants have been improved but the cost of the necessities of life has increased and we have got to keep it ahead of the posse. That is what we are doing here, to some extent, in a supplementary way. Provision is made in the Bill to compel people first of all to apply for any other benefits to which they may be entitled before falling back on the supplemental payments. We will be giving this closer examination on Committee Stage but it appears to me that if the home assistance officer finds that a person is entitled to unemployment assistance, disability allowance or anything else, he will compel that person to apply to receive such benefits first. Anything provided in the Bill will be supplemental to such social welfare benefits and if that is not sufficient to meet a person's circumstances at the time, payments may be made pending receipt of other benefits and then recoupment can be effected afterwards. That was always the position and, therefore, it is not a change in the Bill.

The main change in the Bill, apart from giving a new name to home assistance, is that it makes it possible for home assistance officers to bring to court a person responsible for the maintenance of an old person if he has shirked his responsibility in that respect or misused the payments made to him in respect of a dependant or dependants. That provision could be revolutionary if it is used in the way we hope it will be. It could be very far reaching if administered in the spirit as well as the letter because it will bring to heel those people who shirk their responsibilities in relation to the aged.

Most of the Bill can be discussed more effectively in Committee. One fault I have to find with it is that it does not lay down how payments will be made. I was not in the House for the Parliamentary Secretary's opening statement and I have not had time to study it properly. Therefore, I hope he will clarify that in his reply. I am referring to the queues drawing their weekly allowances outside home assistance offices. I trust that in future their allowances will be paid in the same way as other social welfare payments.

Another criticism I have is that 40 per cent of the expenditure over and above that of 1975 will fall on local rates. This is happening at a time when we should be seeking to take as much as possible off local charges. It is true that no matter how charges are made it is the taxpayer who will pay in the long run, but the taxpayers have a broader back than local ratepayers. There is also the haphazard valuation system. One house built last year could be valued at £25, whereas the house beside it of better quality but built 30 years ago could enjoy a valuation of £1. The rating system is, therefore, a most inequitable one and is not the system by which payments of this sort, which should be nationalised, should be financed.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy has such enlightened ideas that I am amazed he did not put such a system into operation when he was Minister. He had 16 long years to do it in.

Mr. Brennan

We did a lot.

Mr. Cluskey

Not in this area.

Mr. Brennan

The Parliamentary Secretary and his Government, in the short time they have been in office, have done more damage to the economy than any government in the world ever did.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy has raised some interesting points and I can assure him I will take full opportunity to reply to them.

Mr. Brennan

The least the people of the country expected was a nationalised social welfare service. The cost should be totally borne by the Exchequer so that the rates could be relieved of what they had to pay in the bad old days of Fianna Fáil when the economy was going well.

Debate adjourned.