Deputy McLaughlin, in concluding his remarks, said that he was sure that everybody would be glad to know that the name home assistance was changed to social welfare. In my view, there is not very much else changed. I must admit that I was disappointed with this Bill. I had hoped for much more fundamental changes in the system. While I accept that there are some good points in the Bill, which I welcome, I am unhappy that the problem has not been tackled in the manner in which it might have been. I fear that the measure was brought before the House before sufficient thought was given to it. It makes one suspicious that it may have been rushed through here to counterbalance in some way measures which may be introduced on Thursday.
The Fianna Fáil administration were actively considering a measure to secure changes in the home assistance scheme for some time before leaving office. A considerable amount of work was done on it by the then Minister for Social Welfare. Over the past few years under both Administrations many categories of persons who were dependent entirely on home assistance were brought under the social welfare code directly. For example, deserted wives and unmarried mothers. This was a considerable improvement in that these people were then getting assistance as of right from the State, and the emphasis is on "as of right". It did not necessarily mean they were much better off financially but the fact that they received their money through the post office by presenting their books was not only a change in the method of payment but also raised the status of the persons concerned. Those persons no longer had the feeling that they were getting something for which they had no real entitlement. I was pleased with the changes made in this respect although it might not be, and very often was not, that the person benefited financially. Very often they got an equal amount under the old home assistance scheme as they got under the new dispensation, but because it was being given to them as of right their morale was boosted and their self-respect and status improved immensely.
A greater effort should have been made in this Bill to give, as far as possible, the same consideration to those still dependent on home assistance as was given to those who had been on home assistance and who are now paid in a different fashion. The vast changes that have taken place in people's attitudes to this matter since the poor law system was first instituted in 1838 are noteworthy. At that time its purpose was to assist the destitute. An interesting aspect I noted when doing research into this matter was that it was not particularly out of concern for the destitute that the money was being made available but rather to curb the number of beggars in an area and to remove what might be termed an irritant to the better off.
From what I read in relation to this it did not appear that those who initiated it were particularly charitable. Their attitude was not anything like the attitude that people thankfully have today in relation to the same problem. At that time the relief could only be obtained in what was then known as the "workhouse". It is probably from that that the words indoor relief came.
Under the 1847 Act provision was made to grant relief outside the workhouse. This was mainly caused by the fact that there were so many people destitute as a result of the Famine that they probably had not sufficient institutions in which to put them all. Some time after the Famine they reverted to the old system of providing relief only in the workhouse. In 1898 the newly formed county councils took over the administration of the poor law and the Public Assistance Act, 1939, consolidated all the existing legislation relating to public assistance. We can all be thankful that the attitudes towards those who are less well off have changed so immeasurably over the years. It is recognised that in the various Bills brought before this House over the years the attitudes of not only Parliament but of society generally have changed for the better.
In the 1939 Act the Minister is expressly excluded from directing or withholding assistance in particular cases. This, more or less, continued the system as it related to the Poor Law Commissioners. There were probably good enough reasons for this but the effect of it appeared to be that it excluded the right of appeal. I am glad to note in this Bill that there is a right of appeal. Up to now the decision as to whether a person would be entitled to home assistance or not depended on the decision of one man. There was no appeal from this decision. The effect of this could be seen by the fact that most of those who were refused home assistance tended to leave it at that and not go any further. While I accept that the decisions made were in conformity with the regulation as laid down mistakes could be made and I am sure were made. I welcome the fact that there is a right of appeal here but there is a difficulty in my view in relation to this.
The explanatory memorandum states that claims will be decided by the chief executive officers of health boards who may delegate their functions. That part is all right but I wonder if it is decided by the Minister to appoint another officer of the health board as the appeals officer what will the situation be where he has to decide on an appeal in relation to a matter already decided on by the chief executive officer of the health board? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might let me know what the situation will be in relation to that aspect. Another aspect in which the change made in the Bill will be helpful is in relation to a national standard of assessment. Research shows that the poorer the area the less money was devoted to home assistance. In that respect we will have more conformity but the amount permissible— for example, a person without a dependant will get up to £7.35—is much too low in present inflationary circumstances. While I recognise that this amount is similar to that granted to a person on unemployment assistance nevertheless it is too low in respect of the home assistance and, equally, in respect of unemployment assistance.
While I know that there are provisions in the Bill to permit the home assistance officer to make a higher amount available in special circumstances, the fear I have is that once a particular amount of money is accepted that will become the maximum as well as the minimum. It is noteworthy that the amount that is at present payable to a person on home assistance in low circumstances is roughly the same as that which is laid down here in statutory form. From research I did on this matter I find that the home assistance officers tend to make about that amount available, so that, here again from the financial point of view the recipient will not be any better off than he has been.
With regard to the fact that most of the money will still come from the rates, I think that at a time when the general tendency is towards removing any further liabilities from rates this is a retrograde step. It is one thing to say that the money all came from the rates previous to this, but the fact of the matter is we could say the same about many other aspects of the financial provisions for various things which at one time came from some other source and at present come from the Exchequer. More consideration ought to have been given to providing a greater allocation from the Central Fund. As it is, the ratepayers will still have to bear the same amount as they bear this year, plus 40 per cent of any increases that are given in the future. When the general tendency is to accept that rates are not an equitable form of taxation, more consideration ought to have been given to transferring the cost to a much greater degree to the Central Fund.
There is one other aspect of that particular matter that I should like to mention, and that is that in some counties where they took their responsibilities to heart, the amount of money available was relatively high while in others it was very low. I should like to know how the Department proposes to deal with this type of situation, because in so far as the rates are concerned those who did their job well in the past would, under this particular section, be penalised in the sense that they would only get 40 per cent over and above the expenditure of 1975, which might possibly be reasonably high, while another area would get 40 per cent over the extra expenditure on a basic sum which would be relatively low. I should just like to know what is proposed in relation to that.
The home assistance officers have little training for the kind of work they have to do. It is very much to their credit that, taking a general view of the situation, they have worked the system as well as it has been worked. In the circumstances they have done an exceptionally good job. I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the officials themselves recognise the need for training and are very anxious that they should be given the opportunity to train. Training in this very delicate field is a matter of vital importance. Home assistance officers are dealing with groups of people who are in need and, in the main, are very sensitive as to their position. Sympathetic consideration of their cases is essential, and to achieve this one must have a deep understanding of the various problems which confront people in this situation, and they should be trained on how to approach these problems.
Very few people are happy to be in such circumstances as to need help, and a wrong approach can mean that the opportunity to provide psychological comfort as well as financial aid is lost. Indeed, it can result in the person concerned withdrawing the application and continuing to exist in, perhaps, serious deprivation. It should not be difficult to provide courses and refresher courses for existing officers and to lay down qualifications for future appointments which could ensure that well-trained social workers would be available and willing to enter this service and that the salaries of the home assistance officers would be commensurate with the very important work they do.
The vast majority of those who are in receipt of, or in need of, home assistance are over 60 years of age and very many of them are unable to provide for themselves because of age or ill health. A survey that I studied showed that a high percentage of the recipients were women, but I would take it that since the introduction of the special allowance for single women this number has been considerably reduced. I should like to point out that in this survey it was noted that many of these women lived alone and were never visited and, in some instances, were visited by neighbours, but even some of them who had families of their own were never visited by members of the family. Quite clearly there are many problems involved here which cannot be dealt with by the provisions of financial assistance alone. In our so-called affluent society it is true to say that those who are living alone are more alone than even their counterparts were in previous generations.
Another point that might be emphasised is that very often the loneliness of these people and the apparent neglect of them by society often forces them to adopt an aggressive attitude which is simply a protective shell and is often no indication at all of the real nature of the person underneath who is, very often, craving for sympathy and company. To the untrained eye this person is difficult, awkward and aggressive, but the trained person with the sympathetic approach can see underneath this crust and can often, by long and difficult endeavour, break it down and reveal the real person underneath and bring that person, as it were, back to life and perhaps, renew his place in humanity.
As I say, the home assistance officers whom I know are very dedicated people, are doing an exceptionally good job in the circumstances but even they recognise that they must be trained which they are entitled to and which would enable them to do a very much more effective job. No matter how good a natural bent a person may have in this direction, nevertheless, it can be very much improved by a proper course of training.
One of the big problems we have always had in relation to home assistance relates to the means test. An applicant for home assistance has to undergo a means test. Here again a careful approach is vital, and very sympathetic consideration should be given to an application. Very few people apply for home assistance for the purpose of getting easy money. The vast majority of applicants either have a very clear case or at least a case which is worthy of consideration.
I would like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that there are means tests for many different purposes—for medical cards, for differential rents, for non-contributory pensions, for unemployment assistance and for home assistance. Would it not be possible to rationalise this whole situation? In many instances, the same person has to undergo a number of means tests. It would be to the advantage of everyone concerned if we could have some form of co-ordination. If we did this we might find in many instances those who need to apply for home assistance had already undergone a means test for some other purpose. In that eventuality it would be a kindness to the applicant if a previous means test were taken as sufficient. Most of those in need of home assistance are in this situation.
With regard to the payment of home assistance, which has been mentioned by some other Deputies, the position is that in many instances particularly in towns, the people still have to queue up at the local dispensary for payment. There is often no shelter at the dispensaries, some of which are relatively small. There is no privacy and recipients of home assistance possibly need privacy more than any other facility. In the vast majority of cases, they are there for home assistance through no fault of their own. They are deserving of and perhaps more entitled to a sympathetic approach than their more fortunate neighbours. For that reason it is essential that this aspect of home assistance be reviewed immediately.
There is no reason why people who are on home assistance for quite a considerable time and quite obviously will be for the rest of their lives should not get payment in the same manner as those who are now fortunate enough to be in receipt of social welfare from other sources but who, at one time, were in need of home assistance themselves.
A dietitian should be appointed in each area to draw up a proper diet for particular categories of people eligible for home assistance—people in ill-health, people unemployed, with families and so on. The cost of food should be the first priority. Other needs should then be taken into consideration—the need for warmth, clothes and so on. All of these things should be considered in coming to a decision on the amount of money they ought to be paid and should be based on the cost of these various matters. We should also concern ourselves about including some little luxury to be purchased out of the total amount of money that is necessary to cover the various matters I mentioned.
In his speech the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that according to research done in urban areas one in four people would not admit that they were in receipt of home assistance. I came across that matter myself and would assume that we were both studying the same document. We have to face up to the fact that home assistance has not a particularly pleasant face. It is our duty to try and improve the appearance of that face. From what I have seen of the Bill, it is not likely to go anything like as far as I would like it to.
As I said earlier, a number of social welfare benefits and allowances operated by the Department of Social Welfare have taken the place of home assistance; nevertheless a considerable number of those in need of help are still dependent on home assistance and many more are in receipt of home assistance to supplement their incomes. Very often their income consists of some money from the State. The importance of home assistance in the lives of many of our people is obvious and so is the need to change the situation where so many are in receipt of payment to which they have no positive right, such as they have in relation to social welfare benefits. People who find themselves in such a situation are below the poverty line. If we are serious in efforts to accord to them the dignity which is the right of every human being then we must not only increase the income but change the procedures that go with it.
We have also the problem of inflation at present to contend with. When prices were relatively stable it was at least possible to decide on a figure which would bear a reasonable relation to prices. While it is far from saying that the amounts made available were sufficient, it was possible to make some assessment of the situation. But with prices constantly rising at a very rapid rate, and hitting those with low incomes, it is vitally necessary that we should decide on an amount which will at least keep the recipient of home assistance in reasonable comfort. I do not think the amounts specified in the table in the Bill are sufficient for that purpose.
It is very important that the home assistance scheme should remain flexible. If the approach to a scheme of this kind is too legalistic it defeats its purpose and the efforts to help those in need can be frustrated. Claimants have a right and this right is not just a legal right : they have social rights as well. They have rights as people, and it is true that society has often tended to forget these people simply because they happen to be poor in the way very often we tend to regard a person whom we do not know very well who is severely physically handicapped to be mentally handicapped as well and to treat him as such, even though the facts might be that our own intellects might fade into insignificance compared with his. Similarly, the strength of character of a person who has the misfortune to be poor may be something which those who look down on them might never hope to aspire to. Therefore, what I would be anxious to achieve is that we would have a humane approach to this matter. Because of my feeling in relation to the necessity that this scheme be flexible, I have some doubts about the list of payments described in the Bill. The fact that the same payments are prescribed for home assistance recipients says nothing for them because I have always regarded these payments as being too low in the present inflationary situation. I feel therefore that laying down these levels in the Bill will mean, as I said before, that they can easily become the maximum as well as the minimum payments. While I accept that there are discretionary powers in the Bill relating to the granting of higher amounts, our experience shows that this is very often the exception. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that the operation of the home assistance scheme would remain flexible so that it could be possible to make payments in particular circumstances which would be over and above the amounts which are laid down in the tables in the Bill.