Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jun 1975

Vol. 282 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Bill, 1975: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Brennan

I was coming to the conclusion of what I had to say about the Bill in relation to what I thought it might contain rather than what it contains. That is not to say that I do not welcome the provisions in the Bill particularly the legal provision compelling the person responsible for dependants, under court order, to contribute to the dependants who may be neglected. This would possibly go a long way to meet some of the demands made by community organisations that have been advocating this type of thing from time to time. On examination on Committee Stage one would be in a better position to get an interpretation of each section. In that respect I do not propose to make statements regarding the Bill now which might not be absolutely correct, on closer examination.

The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that the necessity for the home assistance scheme was to a great extent eroded by the coming into effect of the various social welfare schemes, which did not exist when home assistance legislation was first provided. This is quite true. The evolution of social welfare, particularly since the end of the last war, has been fairly dramatic in that it encompassed most of the people who should be brought under the community umbrella in relation to the obligations of society to the less well off members. At the same time, it was found necessary to retain the home assistance scheme in order to give on the spot assistance and give ad hoc assistance in relation to temporary destitution and in circumstances which were not covered by any of the other social welfare schemes.

I have always felt that a national assistance scheme would have to replace the home assistance scheme as we knew it up to now. I was always of the opinion that those chronically unemployed persons who were receiving unemployment assistance but who on a strict interpretation of the unemployment assistance legislation would not actually qualify for unemployment assistance at all should be brought within the scope of another type of payment, a national assistance payment which would not require them to fulfil the usual requirement of the weekly certificate in order to qualify for unemployment benefit. That would remove from the register of unemployed those chronic cases who are not in a position to accept work even if it were offered to them tomorrow.

I had personal experience of this when I brought back the employment period orders. We provided at that time £500,000 extra for amenity schemes in rural areas which would to some extent affect the losses sustained by the categories of single men who were held under the employment period orders not to be qualified during certain months for unemployment assistance. It was a very interesting experiment. It provided a certain amount of useful information. We found that many people to whom this extra money was directed by way of employment did not or could not avail of it. Many of them at the time, when there was a good deal of protest about the employment period orders being restored, admitted that no system of employment would suit them. They were actually availing themselves of a scheme for which they were not quite, on a strict interpretation of the legislation and the legal requirements, qualified. If this payment were taken from them they would be left in severe stress. It would be better if they could be brought within the scope of the national assistance scheme and thereby removed from the unemployed register entirely. There is a limited number of such people. A scheme like this could easily reach out to them.

There is a provision in this Bill which makes it essential for the assistance officer to require the applicant to apply for any other benefits to which he may be entitled under the social welfare code. He, too, could easily have re-examined cases of persons, now that the payments will be equal in both cases, who are chronically unemployed or, perhaps, using the scheme for the purpose of getting some means to meet the necessities of life and they would change to this scheme. That is one of the reasons why I basically object to the rates having to carry 40 per cent of the added cost. If this new supplementary benefit scheme is availed of to the fullest extent, I think it can be used to take in those chronically unemployed who, under a strict interpretation of the Act, are not unemployed. It could cost considerably more and add a considerable amount to the basic 1975 figure at which the cost to the rates has been frozen. The 40 per cent could represent a very heavy contribution for the taxpayer. If the scheme is used to the fullest extent. These are important factors and possibilities within the ambit of this legislation and the Parliamentary Secretary might explain them to us. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary also to deal with the method of payment and the legal provisions in the Bill compelling persons to contribute for those for whom they are responsible. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to a community body carrying out a pilot scheme to see to what extent this legislation might be used for the elimination of poverty. What will the pilot scheme be? Will an area within an electoral division or county be chosen or will he use the overall application of the legislation for the purpose of deriving the information they think would be helpful to them under their terms of reference?

Other speakers complimented the Parliamentary Secretary on carrying out another advance in the social welfare code. I welcome it as one of the many steps taken to improve the social welfare code down through the years. I hope it is not the last. The Parliamentary Secretary may accuse the former Government and previous Minister for not doing everything, but I can assure him that when he leaves office there will be things left to be done by his successors.

This is an evolving code which turns up new problems requiring new remedies and new approaches which will be interminable as far as the improvement of the scheme is concerned. I am glad that those people who used approach debates in my time on the grounds that they wanted a new social welfare code, are found to be completely incorrect in their assumption as I thought then. We have the basics of a good sound social welfare code and to add the cosmetics to it is not a difficult job. It only requires the resources to do it. So far as the social conscience of the people are concerned, we have that in plenty. It was never lacking. The approach to social welfare is not any different from that in any other period. The question of the poverty line is purely a relative one. If we have, as has been advocated by Deputy O'Connell, the establishment of a poverty line it would not need to be static but moveable, because as the general standard of living improves one is inclined to put the line higher. I am talking about relativity in the matter of means and the enjoyment of standards in life. It is the question of the difference between two or a variety of people in social standing and circumstances and the right of a particular sector to enjoy certain privileges and benefits enjoyed by another. The poverty line set here 50 years ago would be a very different one from that which we would set today. Those held to be below the poverty line today would be regarded as being in the middle income group 50 years ago. Any line set in relation to people's standards of living would need to be moveable.

The provisions of the Bill will come under close scrutiny on a Committee Stage. I hope the necessary time will be permitted to enable their spokesman on social welfare on this side to submit any amendment he may see fit. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not be deaf to any proposal made in that respect. He should seriously consider going the whole hog and nationalising the scheme. He should take it from the broader base of taxation rather than from local rates and have the payments made through the post. I believe he will have those payments made through the post. This is essential if the old stigma is to be removed in so far as home assistance is concerned. The humiliating feature about home assistance payments was having to queue up for payments on appointed days.

Many other things could be in the Bill but I welcome anything that is in it. There will be other opportunities to have other matters inserted and I hope the problem, so far as social welfare payments are concerned—the declining standards of living—will not be too long with us. By resorting to the progress and expansion of the economic system, as we were experiencing in the past, the line will be shortened in so far as those in need of assistance are concerned and the general improvement in living standards will resume its progress. Fewer people will be left below the poverty line, which nobody, as yet, has really established. The Minister can rest assured of full assistance from this side of the House in any legislation of that kind, but we deem it our duty to point out what we think are the defects at any time.

Mr. White

I should like to welcome this very progressive piece of legislation. It is distressing to find that the Public Assistance Act, commonly known as home assistance, has not been revised since 1939, over 36 years ago. No better word than "stigma" can describe the old home assistance. We also had that type of stigma as far as the county homes were concerned and we are delighted to see that since the name was changed from county homes to welfare homes and the buildings modernised the older people in our society do not feel the same stigma as they did in the past.

The kernel of this Bill is that people who are not by their own means able to provide their needs will get benefit. There were loopholes in the social welfare code whereby people did not get assistance they were entitled to. Now they will get this assistance.

I would like to refer to the single women under the age of 58. Every Deputy in this House has had cases of women in the 30 to 40 age group who have had good steady jobs in Dublin and London and other places but have had to leave these jobs and come home to look after an old person. They find they are not entitled to benefit, and the reason is that there are probably two or three brothers working at home and that person, in her own right, is not entitled to the care allowance. I hope that under this Bill such persons will now be entitled to the benefit which they have for so long needed and deserved.

The second type of person who has not been covered up to this under the social welfare benefits has been the deserted wife. The problem is that the deserted wife has to wait for three months after her husband has left her before she is entitled to benefit. Admittedly she is entitled to home assistance but once again a lot of these people are proud, and quite rightly so, and do not want to go to the local assistance officer to be told, as his whim, how much she will get until the three months is up.

The third person that I found not entitled to benefit particularly in our constituency is the person who claims unemployment benefit but has not got enough stamps in this country and therefore a check has to be made with Newcastle-on-Tyne as well. That person might have to wait 12 or even 15 weeks before he can benefit. Once again, admittedly, that person is entitled to go to the local assistance officer and claim home assistance but usually he does not wish to do that. I have seen people with practically nothing in the house on a Friday who will not go to claim home assistance under the old stigma. I would like to welcome this Bill as further progressive legislation from the National Coalition Government.

The one criticism I have of the Bill is that, as set out in paragraph (8) (d) of the explanatory memorandum, any person who has the benefit of free board will have its value deducted from assistance. Take the case of a single woman who has come home from, say, Dublin and is living with a crippled mother and two brothers. Is it right that this person would not be entitled to money under this Bill? I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at this and see if an amendment could be put down entitling such a person to full benefit.

One of the anomalies under the old Home Assistance Act was that local assistance officers decided at their own whim, how much applicants would get. It is not unknown in cases which are exactly the same to have one person receiving £1.50 per week more than some other person living in a different district, because the local assistance officers at their whim so decide. This is wrong, and I am glad to see that this new legislation will be administered by the health boards.

In many cases disability allowance is now being paid by cheque, and I would suggest, like the speakers before me, that the new payment should be made by cheque posted to the person's home. It is absolutely demoralising for people to have to queue up at the home assistance office.

I must agree with my counterpart from Donegal on his point about unemployable people. When new industrialists come to towns, say, on the western seaboard, the one thing they are interested in finding out is how many people are on the unemployment register. It is very misleading at the present time. You could have 200 or 300 people entitled to unemployment assistance. If the figure is 200, that industrialist goes away with the idea that there are 200 people available for work in that district. This is wrong.

If we are to be realistic about it, we will all agree that about 40 per cent of the people on the unemployment register are probably not employable. Therefore a new scheme, as I have stated many times before, should be brought in to cover this type of people so that industrialists, in particular, will not be fooled in any way with regard to the number of employable people in an area.

In the country at the present time there is a climate of opinion against unemployment assistance as such. I have a lot of reservations about granting unemployment assistance on farm valuation. It is not uncommon that people earning perhaps £4,000 or £5,000 from their farm, quite legally and rightly so, are, at the same time, collecting unemployment assistance. This Bill is to help the weakest section of our community. I am delighted to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on his progressive legislation. I am also delighted to see that all parties in this House seem to welcome the Bill. It is high time it was introduced.

Mrs. Desmond

I too would like to add my voice to the voices of those who have already welcomed this new Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Bill, 1975. It is a measure which has been called for from all sides of the House and by all who have experience of the very great need that some of the population have found themselves in down through the years. It can truly be said that this legislation is long overdue. It is, as the Parliamentary Secretary said in reading his introductory speech, designed to remove the remaining vestiges of the poor law in this country. For that all of us must have a hearty welcome. There must be a new philosophy in regard to our attitudes towards these people in our society who, because of the society structure and very often by the actions of other human beings in society, have not been allowed to enjoy the standard of living which many of us in this House and outside the House consider our due. We have said with justification down through the years that the home assistance programme which was operated in this country was one which had scant respect for the dignity of the human being. It was operated in a most arbitrary manner. The unfortunate person and, perhaps, that person's family were totally dependent on the judgment of an officer of the health board or of the public authority to decide whether they were in need of the assistance doled out to them.

The poor, who are dependent on this scheme of payments, feel a sense of shame and, indeed, a very unnecessary sense of shame because poverty is something one should not be ashamed of. Our society was so structured that all the aid we had down through the years to relieve poverty was based on the thought that it was a crime to be poor. Bit by bit we are getting away from that. I sincerely hope that this legislation before the House is the final step in the removal of the stigma that has existed within the social welfare code with regard to those who are in dire need in our society. There is built into this new legislation a device for appeal which will enable the person who will from now on get this allowance, to get it by right rather than as charity. This is a very welcome development.

It is very important that those who are framing the device for appeal should make this a simple device and that it should be readily available to people concerned and that its existence should be made known to those who need it. I was not surprised, in listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to hear that a quarter of those surveyed did not admit to being in receipt of home assistance allowances. This, as a public representative, has been my experience. Unfortunately, people have tended to regard receipt of home assistance as something to be ashamed of. I think it was Deputy Brennan who said in his speech that he hoped they would be paid by cheque and that there would not be queues for home assistance as there were in the past. I am happy to report that in the area I come from the queues have ceased for quite some time. Cash is paid on request only to meet a very immediate need and in the ordinary course where the payment of home assistance is established, that payment is made through the post as has been done for some time past. I am quite sure that when the Parliamentary Secretary is replying to the query, he will make the point that payment will be made through the post and that there will be no need for the recipient to queue. That would be completely contrary to the spirit of the measure the Parliamentary Secretary has introduced.

It does appear to me that there is a very good concept in that legislation which the Parliamentary Secretary has put before us. There should be a basic rate and supplementary supports.

In many of the allowances we have for a single person the rates at all levels seem extremely low. Admitting, however, that considerable improvement has been made in recent years, particularly since the present Parliamentary Secretary took office, in all areas of social welfare, yet we have the situation where the person living alone will get the present rate of £7.34 a week. This is in keeping with other allowances of that nature. It seems to me that in the case of the allowance for a single person, particularly if it is not a person in the old age category who would not therefore qualify for free transport, free electricity and the other supports they get, the supplementary supports should apply to them to cover these basic needs. If this happens—and I presume that the Parliamentary Secretary when replying will elucidate that point and let us know that that is the intention—it will meet a very great need in society at this time because as a public representative I come across daily cases of people in receipt of allowances such as single women's allowances, unmarried mothers' allowance and indeed, other such allowances, and persons who are not yet in the age bracket where they qualify for the facilities such as free electricity, which is a very substantial cost to them. They find electricity bills a tremendous draw on their resources. I would anticipate the extension of these supplementary supports to cover such items as electricity charges, transport charges, and so on.

There have been people operating the old home assistance code who have been very humane and have done their best within a very bad system to provide the best services possible for the people who are dependent on them. There have been others who have been pretty draconian in their attitude towards the unfortunates dependent on them. That is the experience of everybody who has had experience of this system.

As well as the shame of which I spoke earlier there is also this mistrust in the minds of the people receiving this assistance. The home assistance officer is very often wrongly accused of being biased on political grounds or on other grounds. Sometimes there was some justification in that; sometimes there was not, but a system should not have existed where this could have been suspected.

In so far as the central authority is concerned we had a very pecuniary attitude towards those who received assistance. I have one case in mind where a lady lived in a small wooden bunglow which had a very bad roof. She had some employment on and off during her life, sometimes qualified for unemployment benefit, sometimes home assistance. When she became 50 and was lucky enough to be able to qualify for the recently-introduced scheme of allowances for such women, she applied for her single women's allowance and that was duly granted. When it was granted to her some arrears were due to her and these totalled £50 to £53. This was very welcome news to this woman and she looked forward to repairing the roof of her house with the money from the arrears. But her delight was short-lived because, as soon as her allowance came through she was notified by the home assistance authority that out of the £53 arrears which were due to her since her single woman's allowance came through, she had to pay back such home assistance as had been paid to her in the interval. We tried by every means in our power —everyone concerned in community affairs and I, as her public representative—to reverse that decision. We knew that that £53 meant the difference between a roof over her head and the rain coming down on her. But we were met with this attitude, that is to say, it was the home assistance code that had gone on for so many years. We are getting away from that and for that reason we are praising this measure.

The Parliamentary Secretary told us that this is part of a comprehensive code of legislation on social services. I am glad of that. It is notable that in the paragraph where he speaks about the residual and support role of this Bill, he spoke of those who will be exempted from the regulation and that a person must be registered for employment. It is intended to make provision for exemptions in respect of persons incapable of work, mothers with children to care for, persons over pensionable age and others where the condition of applying for work would be inappropriate. It is an important development and it has meant that people, the man for instance who cannot even read, has the same right to benefit as those who are more favourably situated in society. I am very glad of that being catered for in this measure.

We must have new thinking in this area of financial support. This Bill supplants the 1939 Home Assistance Act. Since that Act was passed we have had a reduction from 75,000 to 30,000 in the number of beneficiaries under schemes to supplement payments under other services. There have been three substantial reductions in the term of office of Deputy Cluskey as Parliamentary Secretary. During those years we have had added to the lists of those persons dependent on assistance such people as those who had devoted their lives to the care of elderly parents or others and who during those years were unable to take up employment and who had nobody to turn to but the assistance officer, when the parents died or when the families they had ceased to be. The many people in that category are now being catered for.

Up to very recently unmarried mothers had to depend on social welfare until the Parliamentary Secretary provided for a special allowance for them. There is now provision for special assistance for widows in the early days of widowhood. During that period, between widowhood and the widow's pension becoming payable, the only recourse they had up to very recently was to their local home assistance officer. This applies particularly in cases of widows whose husbands had been ill for quite a considerable time before their deaths. This had reduced the family resources considerably and left wives ill-equipped to meet the additional burdens of widowhood at that time. The extension of the payment of disability and unemployment benefit to such widows for a period of six weeks after their husbands' deaths has met a very real need and has removed these people from the list of those who had to depend on home assistance. We had the raising of the income limit for all the other social welfare payments and this brought more people into the net and it has reduced considerably the number of persons solely dependent on home assistance.

Bit by bit the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary have reduced the number of persons who were dependent on home assistance. While the old code remains, it will be necessary to introduce more Bills of this kind.

We are very pleased that today the Parliamentary Secretary has honoured a pledge which he gave in 1974 and has introduced this measure. No scheme is perfect but this is certainly a big step in the right direction and because of that I want to add my voice to those who have already given it a warm welcome.

Mr. McDonald

I join with the other Deputies in complimenting the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department and through them the Government on the progress that has been made in the entire field of social welfare and I welcome this Bill. It is most desirable legislation. It is good to see that the Department have got around to thinking in this new way about the problems of people who are poor and, we hope, temporarily in the under-privileged class. It is a healthy philosophy to give these supplementary allowances a new description and a new heading. This measure removes many of the anomalies we have had to contend with over the years. Great strides have been made in the past two years by the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary in this field. Everybody is anxious to see people being well looked after, especially those who are not able to care for or look after themselves.

A greater effort needs to be made to explain to a large percentage of the public who are themselves hard working and industrious the social philosophy of helping the underprivileged and those who temporarily cannot look after themselves. I am glad to see that there are extra moneys being made available for supplementary welfare allowances and that every effort is being made to provide the maximum assistance for people who are unable to fully look after themselves and their dependants.

At the same time, we need to look at the entire problem of social welfare assistance and the various schemes more in depth. In many parts of the world we have examples of great strides and varying degrees of progress being made in the social welfare State. There are many areas in many countries that we, having regard to our outlook on life and to our basic philosophy, would not wish to follow.

I welcome the benefits and assistance but I would like to see them being raised to a higher extent. Perhaps, too, we could request county councils to introduce direct labour works in order to offer people chances of obtaining work, whether on water or forestry schemes, so that they can become fully independent. There is what has been referred to in many cases as the English disease where you have a small minority of people who would appear, by careful examination of the various schemes, to be able to work along much better than if they were employed in a job paying the minimum wage. It is important to look on these kind of schemes and at the same time have regard to the minimum wage that is obtaining throughout the country. Many workers and indeed the taxpayers are of the opinion that there might be greater supervision in areas of the dole and assistance. There are a very small number of people who appear to be working full time while drawing benefits. It is a disincentive to the people who are working hard full time and contributing their normal rates of taxation to see these other people enjoying, perhaps, a higher standard of living because of being in a position to draw unemployment benefit and being able to do nixers. these are a small minority but they upset some people who find it difficult to meet their tax demands, their mortgages and their weekly social welfare contributions. However, I sympathise with all those people who find themselves unemployed for whatever reason.

Many problems appear to arise and a lot of people take an unfortunate view of the farm dole. The fact that some people presently qualifying for small farm dole appear to enjoy the trappings of a modest wealth is misunderstood by many people. I would like to see the regulations being changed so that this category of deserving people would come under a wider-spread disadvantaged area type scheme. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might consider looking at the completely wider categories and endeavour to change the system radically.

While I appreciate the vast amount of work the Department undertake, every effort should be made to expedite adjudication on claims, especially in the case of widows. While I welcome the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has for some time now continued the payment of whatever allowances were being paid to a family for the six weeks' period, there is always additional anxiety to widows until they get everything straightened out in their own names. I would ask the Department to pay special consideration to this category of deserving cases. Perhaps in the occasional unfortunate case where the husband and wife may not be hitting it off together, there should be an easier form of dividing the allowances. It is important that where this happens there should be a simple and a very fast way of apportioning the allowances accruing to a family. This is not a very common complaint but occasionally one comes across a situation like this. I would hope that the people concerned would take a sympathetic view to such applications.

Section 13 of the Bill is a very worthwhile and important one. I hope that the people who will be putting it into force will use the fullest discretion possible. It is important that the people for whom this provision is designed to help should get the maximum benefit from it. There will be quite a number of people, perhaps disabled or retarded, and it is most desirable that they should get the maximum benefit from whatever assistance is made available to them.

Under section 14 would it be possible to use the section to supplement the special reconstruction grants that are available to disabled categories of persons so that these people may be able to remain in their own homes even if these fall into disrepair? It is very important to maintain people in their own homes for as long as possible and to assist them in every way. It is rather difficult for a person living on a small income to be able to undertake repairs to any great extent. Under section 14 I would hope that repairs to a house of a person qualifying under this Bill might be included. Granted it would only be a once and for all contribution but nevertheless it would be an important one.

I should like to avail of this opportunity to pay tribute to the home assistance officers. Over the years these people have done a remarkable job with very limited funds. I should hope we would have the closest co-operation and co-ordination between these officers and, perhaps, the public health nurses or people working full-time looking after people in all these categories.

I am glad to see that the health boards are being given the task of operating the provisions of this Bill because this will allow for the maximum co-ordination of effort. Through the general administration of these funds it should be possible to greatly assist the people who will qualify for this. Unfortunately, in the past, and this has been said already on many occasions, supplementary allowances such as these have been given in a very niggardly fashion. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will insist that this kind of attitude towards the people who qualify under this Bill will be changed, that we will be able to sell the idea to the health boards, if they are to implement these provisions, that the people for whom these funds and assistance are intended have a right to the moneys that are set out in the Bill or under whatever regulations the Parliamentary Secretary may from time to time introduce.

Again, I compliment Deputy Cluskey on the tremendous advances and great progress he has made in his Department since he was charged with responsibility for that office. Over the last two years, with the many perhaps, novel provisions he has introduced, completely new headings under which he is paying assistance, he has taken a very brave step. He has shown great Christian charity towards many categories of people who in the past Irish society was not too brave in recognising. This has been long overdue in our society. I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on introducing a great degree of justice and humanity in our social service structure. I wish him continued success in the valuable work he is doing. I hope in so doing he will have the support of the entire House.

Mr. McLaughlin

I shall not delay the House very long but I must compliment the Parliamentary Secretary for having introduced this Bill. In the past home assistance carried a certain stigma because if a man was on home assistance that classified him among the poorer members of the community.

That was changed in 1939. Before that it carried an even greater stigma when it was known as outdoor relief. We can all be very happy to learn that the change is coming gradually but surely to improve the dimensions of those payments and eliminate the stigma it carried. The very words used to describe it were sufficient to classify some people among the poorer classes.

When interviews were carried out, it was noticeable that more than a quarter of the people who had been interviewed denied they had been recipients of home assistance for no other reason than that they were ashamed to think that they were home assistance recipients. With the change introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare and his Parliamentary Secretary we can look forward to a substantial increase in the amount of money being paid to those people. I congratulate both the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary on this. The numbers involved in former days were considerable. Later than 1939—30 years ago—we had 75,000 people in receipt of home assistance. That meant there was a very heavy drain on the finances of the local authorities. The ratepayers had to meet a very heavy demand from the home assistance scheme. We are, indeed, glad to note that it has come down to 30,000. I can see this being reduced further because when the last budget was introduced, the position had improved considerably. There were sections of our community included for benefit never before included. At present there are people throughout the country receiving home assistance. Unfortunately, we have too many people today seeking unemployment benefit because of the unemployment figures.

The number of old age pensioners has been increased considerably because such people are now eligible at 67 years of age. We hope that in two years' time we will be able to grant them old age pensions at 65 years of age. That must take very heavy pressure off the people who will have to administer the scheme we are now debating.

We have also a large number of people who are in receipt of blind pensions. There are pensions for single women. Heretofore, many such people were ineligible for home assistance because they had lived with their father, mother or some invalid sister or brother and found themselves almost deserted later in life. Today such people are eligible and receiving a comfortable allowance. There are widows' pensions, Old IRA pensions, care allowances, deserted wife's allowances, children's allowances, disabled persons' allowances and so on. This is bound to reduce the demand on this new supplementary welfare allowance. That is all for the better. It will save a demand on the county councils.

I would like to emphasise at this stage that I should like to see this scheme retained for administration by local authorities because quite an amount of power has been handed over to the regional health boards. This is a scheme where the elected representatives are very much in touch with the local authorities and with the officials who administer those schemes. I should like to pay tribute to the home assistance superintendents and to the home assistance officers throughout the country for the trojan work they have done. The further we go back on this scheme the more dedicated were the home assistance officers. In those days we had roads of a very inferior type and transport was usually the bicycle.

I know one home assistance officer who gave 38 years' service to the Leitrim County Council and for many years his bicycle was his only transport. He is alive and enjoying his pension today. It is only right that we should pay tribute to those types of people and to the lads who are administering the scheme today. The superintendents and the home assistance officers are men whom we can approach as county councillors or as TDs or whoever we may be. We can discuss a problem with them. That will not be the case if this scheme is handed over to the regional health boards. I strongly urge on the Minister, if it is within his power, to retain that power and let it be left in the hands of the county councils.

Deputy Brennan, the former Minister for Social Welfare, mentioned earlier about the number of people who are now being denied old age pensions and widows' pensions due to the means tests. I cannot agree with that because I am on a pensions committee and at those committee meetings we usually sign old age pension allowances for a number ranging between 30 and 40 each month. In almost all cases they qualify for the maximum allowance. That speaks for itself. Those people find little difficulty in many parts of the country today as far as the means test is concerned. They are free to have an income of £6 per week and get the maximum old age pension. Many of those people who reach 67 are eligible and have no problems in getting the old age pension. My experience is that we have a very considerable increase in the number qualifying today.

I should like to say that the allowance to be allocated is certainly very generous to most people. I remember in years gone by when times were not as good as they are today this money was given in shillings, not in pounds. It is good to see that the change has come. As other speakers have said, all of us would like to see it being sent out to the recipients by cheque through the post. I remember the time when those unfortunate people were lucky enough to get their small allowance but it meant that they were expected to travel a journey of eight or ten miles. The home assistance officer usually used his good offices to have this money sent out to those people.

According to the rules and regulations, those people were expected to travel to the centre where payment was due to them. I know that under present circumstances and with the generous allowance that is being given, that will not be expected of those people in future. Those people had to travel to town on a Thursday morning. If they got seats in cars they were all right but if they did not they could not pay for car fares.

In the past, of course, we must admit that home assistance was payable to an old age pensioner if he was able to prove that his circumstances were poor and that the old age pension was not able to maintain him. Very rarely did old age pensioners get such an allowance. They were not encouraged to apply for home assistance because it would be added to the rates. If they had anything at all they were told they could not get home assistance.

Everybody is very satisfied to see the name of this scheme being changed from home assistance because it certainly carried a stigma that most people did not like. In conclusion, I should like to mention that recently I was told of widows who were notified that their pensions had ceased even though they are not old age pension age until well into July.

Mr. Faulkner

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.

Mr. E. Collins

This Bill must be seen as a further step in the National Coalition's ongoing battle with poverty. This might have been welcomed by the Opposition at this time of special hardship. Those of us who are in public life, especially those of us in Dáil Éireann, come across very sad cases of people in poor circumstances day after day. We are only too well aware of the attitude that has been adopted right through the 19th and 20th centuries on the part of Government in relation to those who needed our help most with the help of the social welfare services of this State. The laissez faire attitude of the 19th century continued on to the 20th century has been one which looked upon poverty as something wrong and something which should be blamed on the person involved. This of course is not true and never was.

The whole House welcomes this Bill which has enshrined in it that a person has an entitlement to money by right rather than by the benevolence of some social welfare officer. Far too many times I have gone into houses, either by request or to canvass to find people living in circumstances which would shame any person in this House. We still have many people living in hovels. They should not be allowed to live in them at all. They are damp, falling down, the sanitary conditions have long been condemned. They live on an income most undeserving of any Christian Government. It may be too late for a Christian country such as Ireland to move as we are moving. We should have tackled the problem of the real poor years ago. The real poor need our help now more than ever because of the inflation raging in the country. We seem to be still hesitant in tacking their problems. We still seem to be slow to move in and to really eradicate them.

Now and again it is reported in the newspapers where a person has starved to death in Ireland. I know many people who are living below the poverty line, below the level of income which is necessary to maintain health. We have made some such small progress. We have given free electricity to old age pensioners and we have given single women's allowances.

One of the Government's main achievements to date has been their thought on poverty. This Bill is another move in that direction and is one which strikes at the whole philosophy of poverty. The central theme of the Bill is stated quite clearly in section 2. That section states:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet his needs and the needs of any adult or child dependent of his shall be entitled to supplementary welfare allowance.

The assistance officers throughout the country have done a good job. It has been a thankless job up to now because they were the sole arbiters and the sole judges of who should or should not get money. The task is not an enviable one and I am sure they welcome this Bill where people's rights are correctly enshrined in our legislation with the right of appeal to a second authority. This Bill is an attempt to ensure that every person and family in the State will have a minimum weekly income which will help them to maintain some kind of living standard. As the last speaker has said, the weekly supplementary welfare allowances in the Bill are not high by any means. Indeed, I would doubt whether they are sufficient to maintain a person above the poverty line but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will see to it that they are changed when it is obvious that they need to be changed.

The Bill is a flexible one. It provides that the Minister may make an order under section 10 subsection (3) which can change the rates of allowance. I am confident that he would not hesitate to use this clause, if necessary. The Bill empowers the health board authorities to be very flexible in their approach whether the payment be on a weekly basis or a once-only payment in certain circumstances.

I am wondering why the responsibility for the administration of this scheme is to be placed on the health boards. I would prefer that it be operated by the Department of Social Welfare because the health boards, to a certain extent, are local organisations. The Department are more anonymous and less open to public scrutiny. The Bill could have provided an opportunity for the Government to reorganise the Department of Social Welfare and, perhaps, to rename it as Department of Health and Social Security.

Many of the recipients of home assistance are wives of husbands who are drunkards or, maybe, drug addicts. I want the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that where necessary the allowances will be paid, either in kind or in money, to the mother of the household as opposed to the legal head of the household. It is very important that the money be channelled to the person who needs it most and who has most control over the standard of living or the management of the family.

We are still a matriarchal society in many ways. It is the mother who, time and again, keeps the family together in very needy and humiliating circumstances where the father of the household is not, in effect, the manager of the family. It is very important that the Bill ensures that the mother will get the money where and when this is necessary. The question of the administration of this is important because there has been a system in existence whereby the local assistance officers had a depth of knowledge and information which they used widely and in accordance with the direction of the scheme. I expect that the existing officers and staff who administered the home assistance scheme will be transferred to the health boards with all the necessary protection of the pension and status rights they have under the present structure. It is important that there will be no radical change in this respect and that no one suffers because of the introduction of the Bill. There is need for a change in the philosophy in the administration of the scheme and, perhaps, it is a good opportunity of changing the premises where the allowances will be paid. It is correct and proper that people should be allowed go to offices, not wholly connected with the supplementary welfare allowances but offices which deal with the other schemes administered by the Department of Social Welfare and by the health boards.

I say this because it is essential in getting rid of the atmosphere of receiving something as a gift or as something to which people are not entitled. It is important to remove the atmosphere which at present surrounds the payment of home assistance. In changing the philosophy and the central core of our approach to this problem there is a very good case for ensuring that the places where the scheme will be administered will be modern and can be associated with many other schemes. If the Bill were to be operated by the Department, it could have been merged with the administration of existing schemes and would allow the Parliamentary Secretary to develop thoroughly his policy in relation to social care and security.

One of the interesting aspects in relation to the war on poverty is the national committee on pilot schemes to combat poverty. This committee have very interesting, urgent and desirable work to do. I hope they will be given the necessary moneys to carry out an examination and analysis of the problem and the in-depth study which is needed to help us get to the root of the problem. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, and indeed the Government, will act on its recommendation because the Government have a strong will to combat poverty. I hope the Government will not shirk their responsibility in tackling the problem.

The last speaker discussed the question of the training of assistance officers—a very valid point. There is an on-going need for adequate training of assistance officers and for the continuing re-training of officers in the field. We have much to learn from the experience of richer countries. We should not hesitate to send our assistance officers to England, France or America to learn how they tackle their poverty problems. We can learn a lot from other countries. We always have been, and I trust always will be intelligent enough to learn from other people's mistakes.

Nevertheless the question remains as to how much a person needs. I would not accept that if a person had the maximum allowance under the Bill his needs would be met adequately. I would rather regard the maximum allowances as being something of an emergency measure to get a person over a short period before he would be properly dealt with by another of the State's schemes. This is the intention of the Bill. I have genuine reservations about the amounts of money provided for in the Bill because we are dealing with very genuine poverty cases. If one examines the figures involved I do not think they would be of much help to very genuine cases and would fall short of what is needed.

It was said in relation to other schemes, such as the redundancy payments scheme and the unemployment benefits scheme, that in certain cases the incentive to work has been overcome by the high continuing level of unemployment benefit, plus redundancy payments. I have heard the argument put very forcibly on a number of occasions by very responsible people, employers and others. It is difficult to assess the strength of the argument. I do not think we should create schemes which do away with the incentive to work. On the other hand, we have a responsibility to ensure that people who are not working and who want to work have a sufficient income to ensure that they and their families live in a reasonable standard of living. We must balance both sides of the question.

Another problem is that some people who live on social welfare payments do not want to work. Whether they should be punished or pitied is another valid question. When a person reaches a stage in life where he does not want to work, where he does not want to do anything—perhaps he wants to drink or walk around the town all day—and has grown cynical about everything, he is more to be pitied than criticised because a waste of one's talents is something of which every person is aware whether it be intentional or not. I have heard arguments that the State should initiate compulsory working schemes. I do not think I could support that attitude. The integrity of a human being is very much damaged by looking on him as somebody to be punished. In a Christian community I do not think we should try to punish people who, obviously, have suffered a very demoralising decrease in their standard of living and in incentive to work, whether on a temporary or permanent basis. They are more to be pitied and helped—I mean helped in a very practical way—in overcoming their mental state. The Department of Social Welfare should be more active in seeking out the reasons why people do not want to work, why we have if you like, long-term unemployment recipients in our society. Perhaps society is to blame.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would say a few words about this whole question because it is a very live one, and one which is not being tackled. Perhaps it is one which the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty should examine in depth. We owe it to these people to examine their plight and to help them in any way possible to become active, and to want to become active, to get employment and realise their importance to their families and to the society in which they live.

The remaining point I want to make is that the Minister foresees the payments under the scheme increase from £2 million to perhaps £4.5 million. I am not sure if that is exact or merely an estimate the Parliamentary Secretary gave. Not only will the present level of expenditure which the local authorities are undertaking have to be met in future years, but 40 per cent of any increase in the expenditure under the scheme will also have to be met by the local authorities. I do not know if this is wise. The rates system is one which is seen to be inequitable. This Government are trying to reduce and to mitigate its effectiveness. Unfortunately their attempts to do so have not been altogether successful because of inflation. Therefore, I wonder at the wisdom of allowing local authorities to continue financing the scheme to such an extent.

There is just one other point I wish to make which is of a technical nature. Under section 27 of the Bill there is power to remove difficulties. The Minister may "with the sanction of the Minister for Finance and the consent of the Minister for Health by order do anything which appears to be necessary or expedient for bringing this Act into operation and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act". I wonder at the legal correctness of this. Can an order modify the provisions of an Act of Parliament? I doubt very much the legality or the wisdom of it. If the Act is to be an Act of Parliament an order cannot modify the Act. I feel that the Act should be supreme. However, it may be a matter of interpretation but it struck me as most unusual, to say the least of it.

Mr. Kelly

It is the so-called Henry VIII clause.

Mr. E. Collins

I am not familiar with Henry VIII. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might say something about the interpretation of it. In conclusion, I would like to welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. I we come the change in philosophy which ensures that a person has by right an entitlement to an income. I look on the Bill as a step in the on-going battle against poverty. As the Minister says this is only a beginning in the National Coalition Government's fight to mitigate the effects of real poverty which can be seen in every city, village and on many farms throughout the country. It is a step to mitigate the gnawing disease of poverty. It is also a step to ensure that man's dignity is seen to prevail and that the system is not superior to the man, that the system serves mankind. The Parlimentary Secretary is to be complimented on his foresight in introducing this Bill.

Mr. Nolan

It is not my intention to delay the House but I would like to say a few words on this Bill, particularly because it is one that is very important to all public representatives and in particular to members of local authorities, county councils, urban councils and health boards. I regret very much that before this Bill was presented in this House we had not a system similar to the one that was planned by the Minister for Health, when the Health Act of 1970 was first introduced, whereby he went to each county council and had a discussion at the table of a council meeting with the members of the local authority and got their views on the problems they saw in health services. This home assistance compares with the health services. It is a very local problem. It is local to county councillors and members of urban councils.

I note in the Parliamentary Secretary's brief that there are still ten local authorities who have decided not to have home assistance administered by the health boards. The reason for that I imagine is because members of county councils, as far as home assistance and as far as the Health Act are concerned, feel that it is a very human problem. I disagree completely with the provisions in this Bill where the administration of home assistance will be handed over to the health boards because we must look at home assistance as a fire brigade system, in other words where the Department of Social Welfare, due to the fact that the certificate has not arrived, because somebody forgot to post a cheque to somebody in receipt of unemployment benefit or for some other reason a man, his wife and his family are denied on whatever day they are supposed to receive it their unemployment benefit from the local exchange, they have to go to the home assistance officer for money. That is what I mean by a fire brigade service. That is why it should be as local as we as legislators can make it. A health board, whether it be the South Eastern Health Board or the Eastern Health Board, is too big a unit and the CEO of a health board is too far removed from the ordinary people of his area. It is the county manager, the county secretary, the chief superintendent assistance officer who should be dealing with it. They are the people who are near to a county councillor, who can pick up a telephone and possibly for a 4p call at his own expense ring the county secretary or the chief executive officer. When you think of the South Eastern Health Board, the Midland Health Board and so on you are getting further and further away from the people. With home assistance you must be closer to the people. The public representatives understand the problem of home assistance.

No doubt there are wonderful things in this Bill, as far as trying to get away from the stigma of home assistance is concerned. The stigma of home assistance is probably the reason why this Bill was introduced. At the moment it is only a support service for the social welfare. I will be critical of the Department of Social Welfare. I know very well that because you have 103,000 unemployed and because of pay-related benefits, national health benefits, unemployment benefits, occupational injuries benefits and all the different benefits that have been introduced in this House certain problems can arise. How many Deputies in this House will agree that every week they have to pick up their telephones from their constituencies to ring up to say that Mrs. Jones, Mrs. Murphy, Jim Murphy or Tom Murphy have not got their national health benefit, their occupational injuries benefit or something like that? They may get a reply on the telephone saying that the particular person will have a cheque tomorrow morning. If this person does not get the cheque the next morning he will probably have to telephone the local home assistance officer, and he will give money. You have all this administration then that when he gets his national health cheque or unemployment benefit part of it has to be paid back to the local authority. That is the support service for the social welfare problem.

Another point that I would like to mention is the fact that under the Health Act of 1970, thank God, we got away from the situation where the person in receipt of disabled persons' maintenance allowance had to wait for the home assistance officer to call with the cash. Today the health boards are sending out by cheque these benefits similar to the way a person receives his national health cheque. I can see no reason, whether this Act is administered by the county council, as I think it should be, or by the health boards why it should not be paid by cheque, particularly in rural areas, because a home assistance officer generally speaking calls to the local dispensary. Again, Mrs. Murphy or Mrs. Jones has probably to walk two or three miles or cycle two or three miles to get her home assistance money. I hope that situation will change and that they will get their cheques the same as anybody else. I hope we can do away with the stigma we have always associated with home assistance.

The Parliamentary Secretary should ask local authorities when a person, who owns a vested cottage, and perhaps 30 or 40 years ago was paid £15 home assistance by the county council dies and leaves the cottage to a nephew or niece, to burn the records of that payment and not send bills to the person who gets the cottage. It is a disgrace to administration to have that happening in 1975.

Mr. Griffin

I should like to preface my remarks by paying a well deserved tribute and compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary for the amount of work he has done in his short period of office. He has shown that he is personally committed to this anti-poverty and social injustice war. He has revitalised the Department of Social Welfare and has introduced reform legislation in connection with social welfare schemes. Our people value his worth and his contribution to the battle to eliminate poverty. We look forward to further social improvements. At the end of this Government's term in office, we will have gone a long way towards eradicating poverty and social injustices.

Tribute must also be paid to the officers in the Department of Social Welfare. I should like to compliment the clerical staff of the Department. We all realise the big number of people in receipt of social welfare allowances and benefits and the vast number of cheques issued daily and weekly. Naturally, an odd mistake is made and a recipient is left without his cheque on occasions.

Mr. Nolan

To correct the record, I did not blame the officials. I said delays occur in the issuing of them and I am sure the Deputy will admit that.

An Ceann Comhairle

As the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary is responsible no blame may be attached to officials. The Chair would prefer if neither blame nor praise be attached to officials as such.

Mr. Griffin

I should like to remind the last speaker that on Holy Thursday the officers of the Department of Social Welfare did not take a free day because had they done so thousands of social welfare recipients would have been without their cheques that week. I should like to put on the record of the House the debt we owe them for their attention to duty.

I am glad to be associated with the Government that introduced this Bill, especially as it removes the last vestige of the poor law. The home assistance system conjures up in our minds something akin to the term "poor house". It is one of the most hated terms in rural Ireland. The recipients of home assistance are conscious of the stigma that attaches to it. If this legislation did nothing more than remove these words "home assistance" from our social welfare code I would welcome it. It is doing much more; it is giving to each of our citizens a basic and minimum standard of living. The fear of dying in poverty, of being left totally without any income need not be held any longer by any of our citizens.

Some of the allowances may be meagre and possibly they will be increased with each subsequent budget, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, this is a starting point. Down through the years our home assistance officers have been much maligned. Like the Parliamentary Secretary I should like to pay tribute to these officers who worked an archaic, Victorian system that was meant for the last century to the best of their ability with limited funds. No standards were set, no standards of pay with eligibility varying from area to area. Despite all these handicaps our social assistance officers in the past worked this system conscientiously and, as a result, those in dire need got some minimum allowance. There were some home assistance officers, I suppose, who availed of their position for political reasons. That is human nature. We all know some of those but by and large the home assistance officers have given a service to our poor and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

This is a reform piece of legislation. It removes from our social welfare system the term "home assistance" and the term "home assistance officer", and we welcome that. In its implementation I hope our social workers, particularly those involved in voluntary social work in the community, will get more involved. They are complementary to each other. The person in need of home assistance is often in need of other assistance. I hope that side by side with the new officer we will have the public welfare nurse and others who are there to give advice, perhaps to a young harassed housewife who is unable to manage. We could include a home economist who would advise such a housewife as to the proper management of her home. I hope we will have a wider look at the system and incorporate the social services, social workers, all the voluntary groups, so that we can get the best return for the moneys used.

I hope that this scheme is well publicised so that those in need will know of their entitlements. Those most in need are often not aware of their full entitlements. All Deputies have come up against the position where a person was unaware of his or her entitlements. I hope that our public health nurses, all our voluntary groups and our community groups, will be given this information so that they in turn can feed it back to the home assistance officer.

Speakers expressed the fear that we were going too far in our social welfare benefits. All Deputies, I have no doubt, have come up against this. People claim that the incentive to work has been reduced or completely removed. No later than today I was speaking to an employer who said his workman did not turn in last Monday. The employer mentioned it to his employee. The employee said he would be better off on social welfare. It is a pity that that attitude should be adopted. I suppose our taxpayers are concerned that people no longer have the desire to work and they do not feel it is worth their while to work. If the margin between social welfare allowances and a worker's wage is being continually reduced, almost equated, then the people will not work.

I cannot truthfully say that all the cases that have been referred to me are genuine cases, but no matter what system or what welfare allowance is introduced you will always find a person who will abuse it. Perhaps our Parliamentary Secretary would try to ensure that those who receive social welfare benefits are entitled to them and cut out those who are availing of it without entitlement. No one will deny that more should be done for the really needy, but what is causing a certain amount of anxiety is that ablebodied men who are capable and can work but have not the incentive to work are now drawing unemployment assistance and perhaps in the meantime doing what is known as a "nixer" job. At the end of the week such a man is much better off financially than his hard-working neighbour who has to get up in the morning and work hard and diligently all day until 6 in the evening. These are some of the pitfalls, and I know that our Parliamentary Secretary is fully aware of that. I suppose it is better that one deserving client should get what he is entitled to even if four or five non-deserving recipients abuse it.

Perhaps our Parliamentary Secretary would give that point his attention to ensure that those who are in receipt of any social welfare benefit or allowance are entitled to it. I think our Irish people will accept that and would even wish that higher rates be given to the deserving people if the undeserving recipients would be eliminated. I mention that because it has been drawn to my attention that we as a government are going too far in our social welfare benefits. The position having been explained to those who are very critical of it, I hope they will see the justice of our case. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary when replying will refer to that and allay the doubts and suspicions of the hardpressed taxpayer.

Returning to the Bill, I would like to see better facilities in these centres. When a young mother or young married man approaches a home assistance officer it is often on a very personal level. He would not like his private and personal matters overheard and a little room should be set aside, each person in turn being interviewed by the home assistance officer and the whole problem discussed with the discretion it deserves. In some cases it is impossible with no accommodation available. I would like all the services to be housed as far as possible in one building, so that if the home assistance officer thought fit he could refer a particular case to a public health nurse or some other social worker or voluntary worker who would try to solve the problems of that person. Criticism has come from the other side of the House about giving these matters to the local regional board to manage. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps in areas it is a bit unwieldy, but I myself cannot find fault with it. At least health boards are more central to the areas concerned and perhaps more accessible and are not quite as fussy with files as the Department of Social Welfare. I trust that by taking it under the charge of the local health boards home assistance can be worked out satisfactorily.

The issuing of cheques is a more dignified method of payment. There is something demeaning about paying out actual cash. To hand money to a person puts him in the same class as a beggar or a recipient of charity. There is a little more pride in receiving a cheque than in being handed cash.

There are some sections, especially section 13 (2), where there is provision for meeting sudden and urgent need. That is a very valuable subsection because often an unexpected death arises, or a debt, and it is a once-and-for-all situation. It will be much more helpful to everyone concerned. Section 14 says that an allowance shall be paid to a person by way of a single payment to meet an exceptional need. I welcome those two sections because they introduce flexibility whereby the home assistance officer can give an allowance to meet a particular problem. That is the mentality we should have with regard to any future legislation, to leave a certain discretion to the officer in charge to meet a family crisis or a particular situation. I welcome those two sections.

Finally, I should like again to welcome this Bill, especially a clause in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech when he said that this allowance should be available as of right. That sums up the whole philosophy behind this Bill: that people should have a right and need not go cringing or bowing to local home assistance officers. If they qualify on the means test they have a right to this money and it is not given at a whim or at the discretion of the home assistance officers.

I should like to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government on their on-going fight against poverty and social injustice. With the Parliamentary Secretary so committed to solving the social problems we have in our country, I have no doubt that this is only a prelude to further progressive legislation.

Mr. Cluskey

We have had a very good discussion on this Bill. I recall that in my speech last year on the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare, I said that in order to tackle some of the social injustices in our society it was necessary that full and open and, at times, controversial discussion should take place. I am very encouraged by the general level of the debate and informed comments that we have had during the Second Reading. There are some exceptions but, in general, I think we have had a very informed and concerned discussion. Some were extremely good contributions, and two of them come from the far side of the House, from Deputy Callanan and Deputy Tunney. I also think that the contribution of Deputy Esmonde on this side of the House was a very constructive contribution and one that was the result of considerable thought in the whole area of home assistance and the way it has operated and the great need for a reform of the Home Assistance Act.

As I said, there were some exceptions. In the main, Deputies did not try to play politics with the Bill. Their approach was one of concern and they were objective in their comments. They expressed their unreserved welcome for the reform embodied in the Bill, which does remove the old poor law approach, the last vestige of the poor law in the area of social welfare. In my opening remarks, I also said that I regarded this as a beginning and not an end, and it is true to say that while I rightly regard this as a major step in the Government's programme for a comprehensive social welfare assistance code and as a very necessary first step in the fight against poverty, it is only a beginning.

Contributions broke down into two classes. I regret to say, some of the more senior Deputies on the far side of the House, who held office in the previous Administration, did play politics with the Bill. I should like to reply on two levels. I must answer some of the political charges that were made but at the same time I am anxious that the major part of my reply would be concerned with those Deputies who did show concern and did successfully endeavour to be objective in their approach. I shall confine the vast bulk of my reply to them. I am going to deal with some of the political comment that was made and the accuracy or otherwise of that comment from the far side of the House. I am doing so particularly because most of it came from people who had direct responsibility in this area of social welfare and who did nothing in this area over 16 unbroken years in office. They come in here now and try to distort the actual proposals in an effort to justify their total neglect in this area over that long period of time.

Deputy Brennan, the former Minister for Social Welfare up to March, 1973, told us that he was disappointed in the Bill; that the Bill did not go far enough; that he would envisage a much wider concept in relation to this area; that he would have introduced a Bill that would have had far more generous provisions than those in this Bill. Honestly, it is extremely hard to sit here and take that from a man who was Minister for Social Welfare for a considerable number of years and who did absolutely nothing in this area during all those years.

The occasion of the introduction of this legislation dealing with home assistance is the first time since 1939 that any such legislation has been introduced into this House, and yet we have this kind of comment from a man who was directly responsible in that particular area. This Bill is repealing an Act that has been considerably criticised over the years. It has been criticised by everyone and anyone who has any connection with people who, through force of circumstances, were obliged to resort to home assistance. It has been criticised by politicians inside and outside this House. It has been criticised by social workers. It has been criticised by clergy. It has been criticised by recipients. As a matter of fact, it would be very difficult to find any category or group of persons who have not over all those years criticised that Act. All that criticism, all the defects, all the humiliations that were involved for people who had to resort to that service were unknown, apparently, to Deputy Brennan and some of his colleagues until he went into Opposition. If going into Opposition brought home to those gentlemen the light of the injustices that were inherent in that Act it was well worth their while going over there. God knows, it was worth our while putting them over there.

I sat here today and I listened to speakers, former Ministers in the Fianna Fáil Administration, talking about the large numbers of unemployed we have in this country. We know that and I accept that there are exceptionally high numbers of people, unfortunately, unemployed. But even by their tone of voice, never mind the content of their contributions, one would think that they had handed over to this Government a situation in which we enjoyed full employment.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 25th June, 1975.