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.