In their early years this Government had little to complain of in relation to the publicity they got through their performance in the field of social welfare, and it is interesting to note that the brilliance attributed so liberally to the Government, which was at that stage known as the Government of all the talents, has now lost its lustre. The most recent casualty has been the Minister for the Gaeltacht since his somersault on Údarás na Gaeltachta.
It is not a matter of questioning the personal commitment of the Parliamentary Secretary to those who are in need; nor is it a matter of questioning his desire to overcome the very difficult problems involved. However, in my view, to be effective a personal commitment must have the support of the Government and particularly financial support to make the changes which are so necessary if we are to provide as we would wish for those who are unfortunate enough to be in need of social welfare benefit.
Looking at the work done in relation to the Department of Social Welfare over the past three years, I cannot say that any really worthwhile progress has been made. The flowery speeches of the Coalition Ministers on this subject, added to the lavish praise up to recently from the media, are not sufficient any more to hide this fact. The Coalition, before the election in 1973 and for some time afterwards, promised that there would be an in depth study of the whole question of social welfare. They proclaimed that the system as it was could not cope with the problems involved and that radical changes were necessary.
We were given to understand that from the study would evolve a complete new system conforming fully to the needs of those who had the misfortune, for one reason or another, to be dependent on social welfare. Nothing of the sort has happened. A committee was set up to do an in depth investigation into poverty, a committee which I welcomed at the time because I believed it would be helpful in giving us a full appreciation of the various types of poverty, how they impinged on the individual, and that with this clearer understanding of the problem in all its various facets we would know how to deal effectively with the problem.
I did express at the time a fear that the Government might use committees of this kind to slow up developments which were needed and which could very obviously be made, without any particular investigation. Little has been heard from this committee since then. Knowing the sense of commitment which permeated the individual members of the committee, I have no doubt that they are proceeding with their task with a will, but I cannot but suspect that the Government are by no means anxious to have the report submitted by the committee because of the build-up there would be to have the report implemented. In my view it should not be necessary for us to wait until the report of the committee is finalised. If the committee come up with worthwhile proposals on how certain types of poverty can be eliminated, they should be made public. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Department, having got this report, should consider what should be done to overcome the problems involved.
There have been no worthwhile basic changes made in our social welfare system in the past three years apart from a few minor adjustments and new schemes which were on a par with those introduced by us— assistance to prisoners' wives and single women. The Government, when they speak of their achievements in social welfare are, in my view, relying entirely on purely technical changes, such as, financial increases in existing benefits, pensions and assistance schemes. This point must be emphasised. As I said, nothing of fundamental value has been done in the field of social welfare. The increases granted to social welfare beneficiaries, particularly those in the lower income groups, have not succeeded in cushioning them from the raging rate of inflation we are experiencing.
It is very easy to boast about the amounts paid now as compared with those paid in 1972-73, but unless these amounts are related to the frightening inflation increases, and unless each type of social welfare payment is isolated and examined on its own, these percentages and amounts mean very little. This Government got a very good start with the £30 million saved on agricultural subsidies because of our entry to the EEC. This money was used, as all parties in the general election said it would be used, for social welfare purposes. Since then increases were granted each year, but as I pointed out on many occasions, they were not sufficient to meet increases in the cost of living.
I remember when the rate of inflation was 18 per cent that the Government tried to make us believe that if they gave an increase of 18 per cent to social welfare beneficiaries they were compensating them for the increase in the cost of living. As I pointed out then, this was far from being the case. From the moment the increase was granted the cost of living kept increasing week after week making it more difficult for the poorer sections to buy even the bare necessaries. It has been proved conclusively that the poorer people must buy in smaller quantities and, therefore, at greater cost, and that their diet is hit most by inflation and therefore, they have a much higher cost of living than the average person. I am not happy about the progress in social welfare. The main claim can be related to the technical financial increases which look reasonably large until they are compared with the real inflation rate and then they are quickly cut down to size.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that those in need must be cushioned against the effects of the economic recession for which the Government must take a share of the responsibility. I was amazed when he stated that the rate of increase being given this year is designed to maintain the real value of the payments operated by his Department. Surely he is not serious? If he had said that due to shortage of money he regretted that he was unable to cushion the social welfare beneficiaries, but was doing his best, we would be dealing with this Bill in a realistic way. But to state as the Parliamentary Secretary did in his speech that an increase of 10 per cent is cushioning social welfare beneficiaries against the shocking inflation and price increases we are experiencing, is ridiculous.
Before the budget was introduced it was reckoned that the rate of inflation for the coming year would be between 15 and 16 per cent. Since the introduction of the budget it is estimated that the inflation rate will increase by a further 5½ per cent. Therefore, the rate of inflation for the coming year is likely to be in the region of 20 per cent.
How can the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that he is cushioning the poorer sections from the 20 per cent increase in the cost of living by granting them a 10 per cent all round increase? The fact is that the poor will become very much poorer and this says very little for our social conscience. If we feel that percentages are not the best way of dealing with this matter, let us take instead the actual increases. The actual increase in benefits at the personal level is about £1 a week. In 1971-72 the previous Government granted an increase of £1 a week to old age pensioners. It is worthwhile noting the vast change which has taken place in the purchasing power of the pound since that time. It is only by considering the increase in that context that one can appreciate how miserly the allowances being given in this Bill are.
Try to visualise the value of a pound a week at the present time taking into account the increases in coal, electricity, gas, the recent exceptional food increases, culminating with the 5½p increase in the price of butter, and increases in other commodities. Taken together, they constitute a crushing burden on social welfare beneficiaries. Is it any wonder that many of our people who are dependent on the social welfare payments are physically frightened of the future? People in these circumstances dread falling into debt because they realise that once this happens there is little hope they will ever get out of it.
Therefore, we must show much more concern for those who are on the lower rungs of the social welfare system. Let us take, for instance, the position of a person who is dependent solely on social assistance. When the increases provided for in this Bill are taken into consideration he will be receiving £8.90 per week if he lives in an urban area and £8.55 per week if he is in a rural area. Out of this income he must pay rent, rates, fuel and electricity, food and other miscellaneous bills. At present day prices it is not possible for a person to meet his commitments on an income of that nature. If we consider the cost of even the main course meal in the Dáil restaurant, we can put an income of £8.55 per week into its proper perspective.
A man with a wife and three children and whose benefit had been exhausted was getting about £19 per week before the increases provided for here. Surely this is not a situation that any Government could be proud of. Admittedly, there may be some who fare out reasonably well on social welfare but these are emphasised by the Government, whereas those receiving puny amounts are left to struggle as best they can. We must show more concern for those who, through no fault of their own, have lost their employment and whose benefit has been exhausted. We know that some misdemeanours and frauds are perpetrated in regard to social welfare payments and it is important that the possibilities in this regard be eradicated. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what steps are being taken to deal with the problem. It must be remembered that the obtaining of money by fraud in this way reduces the amount which should be available to those who are really in need. I support strongly the Parliamentary Secretary in his contention that those who wish to live on social welfare benefits are few in number. I would tend to agree that those who are most critical in this regard are those in steady jobs and who have never known the indignity, the depression, and the sadness associated with unemployment. Those of us in public life have had far too much experience in recent times of the traumatic effects experienced by those who, having worked for years in what they considered "safe" employment found themselves suddenly out of work and, consequently joining the queue at the employment exchange. I wonder if the critics could appreciate the frame of mind of a man in my constituency, who, finding himself out of a job, left home every morning at the usual hour for five weeks afterwards so that his children would not be aware that he was no longer employed. It might be worthwhile trying to visualise the loss of morale and the nerve-racking fear of a man in that position. Without any hesitation, therefore, let us seek out the person who is defrauding in relation to public money but let us also display Christian charity for the vast majority of social welfare recipients whose one hope and ambition is to get back to work.
Another serious and depressing aspect of our present economic situation is that so many of our young people are unable to find employment. While appreciating that this is not the direct responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary. I should have thought that he would have made some reference to it in his speech, outlining plans for the future in this regard. I expected, too, to hear him refer to the discrimination which has been adverted to already by a number of Deputies. I refer to the situation whereby his Department are refusing unemployment assistance to girls in a certain age group while boys in the same age group are getting this assistance. In this age of equality one would not have expected the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government to contribute to inequality.
Another serious aspect of the situation in regard to these young people is the psychological effect of not being employed but of being in receipt of unemployment benefit at this early age. The problem may arise that in some instances they may tend not to work later with unfortunate consequences not only for themselves but for the nation as a whole.
I note that the unemployment assistance scheme for smallholders in specific areas has been changed, that the national multiplier has been increased in some cases from £20 to £30 and in other cases from £20 to £40. I was interested in this change but I do not propose to go into the merits or the demerits of it. However, I consider myself justified in recollecting the speeches of Coalition Deputies and Senators in rural Mayo at the time of the West-Mayo by-election campaign when they claimed credit for the benefits of this scheme and went out of their way in an effort to frighten voters into not voting for Fianna Fáil by asserting that if Fianna Fáil were to be returned to office, smallholders would lose these benefits. One wonders what are the sentiments of these smallholders now and whether they can ever again have any credence in what is being said by politicians. I wonder, too, how the Coalition Deputies from that constituency are explaining the statements made during the campaign. One must ask whether the electors are likely ever to believe in these people again.
The Parliamentary Secretary repeats his defence of the extension of the pay-related benefit scheme. I do not see any reason for such defence because we are in favour of the extension. The unemployment situation is frightening but it is obvious that the Government have neither the courage nor the leadership required to take the very difficult decisions that are necessary if we are to overcome this problem. Indeed, I would not expect such decisions from them any longer. Instead, as has been mentioned already during this debate, there is the ridiculous situation of Ministers calling on somebody or other to produce an economic plan while Coalition Senators and backbenchers, too, are calling for economic plans and asking that we break with sterling. It is my opinion that the principal reason for so much publicity being given to the question of a break with sterling is that it affords a badly-needed opportunity on the part of the Coalition to blame Britain for our economic ills. The whole situation is disastrous but the unemployed must be looked after. The pay-related benefit scheme introduced by Fianna Fáil is very worth while. It was intended to help those unfortunate enough to become unemployed to overcome the difficulties of that situation.
I was interested in hearing again the Parliamentary Secretary's defence, particularly when it was followed by a decision to restrict the total amount of benefits payable to wholly unemployed persons to 85 per cent of current earnings. In the course of his speech he gave us an example of a case where the decision produced no change. Perhaps in his reply he will give us an example of where a change will result from the decision, the estimated number of cases where a change will take place and the amount of money it is estimated will be saved as a result of the decision.
A problem which seems to be very much more acute in recent times is the question of the payment of unemployment benefit to married women. I am sure the same thing applies to all constituencies but I have had numerous complaints form married women who claim they are being refused unemployment benefit on the basis that they are unavailable for employment. No matter what type of case they make, no matter how genuine the case, no matter how they are able to prove that their families are looked after, they are simply turned down for unemployment benefit.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at this. I accept that, perhaps, some of the cases made may not be genuine but certainly many of them are. It would be worth while having a look at this to see, especially in cases where it is essential that the wife, because of economic necessity, must go out to work, that she is paid unemployment benefit.
I should like to refer to the increase in the cost of the stamp and the transferring of Exchequer responsibility to the worker and the employer. Deputy O'Connell referred to this change and pointed out that in comparision with other EEC countries the contribution by the employer here was lower and the contribution from the Exchequer here was higher. In any circumstances where a decision is made to transfer the responsibility from the Exchequer to the worker and the employer it should be done only at a time when things are stable. I believe that in present circumstances it is not conductive to the development of industry and to the provision of jobs to transfer responsibility from the Exchequer to the employer and the worker. The Government ought to slow up this transfer.
The increase in the cost of the stamp, so far as the worker is concerned, is a penal tax. Generally speaking, in the EEC countries the social welfare payment by the workers is recognised as a tax. I have no doubt, as Deputy Andrews has already said, that the Government will have some difficulty in getting agreement for wage restraint when they have increased the cost of the stamp to such an exceptional degree. The cost of the stamp for many years was relatively small. The total cost to the worker and to the employer until recent years was rarely regarded as a tax. While workers certainly demand an increase in their wages and salaries because of an increase in income tax they rarely concern themselves about the cost of the stamp. Now that its cost constitutes a tax, I have no doubt that in future it will be so regarded by workers and will be included in their calculation when they endeavour to work out the increase in their wages and salaries which they believe necessary in relation to rising costs.
It is a very serious matter to have increased the cost of the stamp at this stage because it is not simply the matter of an individual employer paying his share of the cost of the stamp. It is a question in many instances of a company struggling to exist and provide employment being able to continue in existence. Any changes of this kind which are made to the detriment of a company can have a very serious effect on that industry. In my constituency a number of industries have already closed down. Some industries are struggling to exist in order to safeguard the employment of their workers. When this very considerable increase in the cost of the insurance stamp is related to a large number of workers it can be the last straw that breaks the camel's back.
I impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the seriousness of the situation. I am convinced in present circumstances where industry, which is so vital in relation to employment prospects, is in the difficult situation we find it in today, the Exchequer should continue to bear its share of the cost of the stamp irrespective of what the conditions are in the other EEC countries. It is time enough to make the changes initiated last year and continued this year whereby the Exchequer is unloading its responsibility on to the worker and the employer. Our whole attitude at the moment must be geared towards not only safeguarding employment but increasing it. We should be extremely careful at this time about the added burden we put on industry, which is so important for the provision of employment. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider what is being done in relation to that aspect.
