My contribution on the last occasion was very short having regard to the fact that I came in rather late in the evening. Consequently, it would be no harm to recall the initial observations of the Opposition in relation to this Bill on the basis that, if nothing else, repetition is the mother of study.
My general views on the Parliamentary Secretary's Second Reading speech were that the speech was excellent, that the documentation was easy to follow because of cross headings and so on; but, having said that, one must come to the Bill itself. The piece of legislation before us is extremely complex, lengthy and technical in content. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that one of the main planks on his platform as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare is to introduce comprehensibility into any legislation in this area which comes before the House. However this Bill, to say the least, is no indication of his intention to do away with the complexity and confusion of certain parliamentary instruments which come before us from time to time. Although the Bill contains only 14 sections, it is of a very technical nature. It is a Bill aimed at bringing about dramatic increases in penalties for abuses of the social welfare code. To that extent it might be regarded as a draconian piece of legislation were it not for the fact that it is directed at a very small group of people who, for reasons best known to themselves, think that social welfare is fair game. In those circumstances it would be our hope that the Bill would have the effect of deterring this minority. If it achieves even that much, it will be worthwhile.
However, we must question the need for the Bill in the light of abuses in the past and of the penalties that have been imposed for such abuses. I am talking about the recent past. When we were given notice of the Government's intention to introduce this Bill I tabled a series of questions to the Minister for Social Welfare in relation to abuses generally of the social welfare code. In my opening remarks last week I quoted these questions fully so I shall not burden the House with a repetition of them today. In so far as the Minister's replies were concerned it was good to learn that, for instance, few if any crimes had been committed in regard to children's allowances. The questions and the replies to them are reported at columns 13 to 16 of the Official Report for May 25, 1976. The replies showed that in respect of children's allowances for the year 1973 there was no prosecution, and that the information sought under the other headings—the number of dismissals, number of persons fined and amounts of fines, number of persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment, the amounts sought to be recovered and the amounts recovered—did not arise. For 1974 we were told that there was one prosecution under the heading of children's allowances and that there was no prosecution under that heading in 1975. It is good to note that people do not abuse their entitlement under the social welfare code in so far as children's allowances are concerned. Consequently one wonders why it is considered necessary to increase fines and the length of prison sentences for abuses under this heading. Is it not clear that there is no need for such action?
In regard to the old age non-contributory pension the replies to the questions indicated that the number of prosecutions in 1973 was one, that, by definition, there was one person fined and that the amount of the fine was £2. Again, in 1974, there was one person fined under this heading, the fine in that case being £5. There was no prosecution in 1975 under this heading. We were glad to learn that in this sphere, too, people did not abuse their entitlement.
When we come to the question of the payment of employment contributions we find that the situation is very serious and grave. It may be well to inform those people who have engaged in these very serious offences that this Bill provides for dramatic increases in fines and in terms of imprisonment for abuses of this system.
We come to the heading of the number of persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment and length of term arising out of the reply I received to my parliamentary question on 25th May. The number of prosecutions for failure to pay employment contributions in the year 1973 was 324; the number of dismissals three; the number of persons fined an amount and the amount of fine, 274 persons fined in 1973 and the total of those fines was £1,515.50; the number of persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment and length of terms, nil.
Again, we must query the need to increase prison terms on foot of the fact that 324 people have been prosecuted in 1973 and the number of persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment in that year is nil. One wonders at the reason for the dramatic increase in the terms of imprisonment imposed by this Bill in the light of the fact that, thank God, no persons have been sentenced to prison for abuses of the payment of employment contributions, and in this regard the Parliamentary Secretary might inform the House why the terms of imprisonment have been increased so dramatically despite the fact that again the courts obviously saw there were mitigating circumstances, very good reasons possibly why the people who abuse the social welfare code were not sent to prison. Why under those circumstances does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to increase the terms of imprisonment so dramatically?
In 1974 under the same heading of the failure to pay employment contributions we had 349 prosecutions, 13 dismissals and 306 fines totalling £1,980.50. Again, there were no terms of imprisonment under that heading. In 1975 the total prosecutions were 192; number of dismissals nil; 177 fines totalling £1,231.
It appears to us on this side of the House that we are dealing with legislation which fundamentally does require fairly stiff increases in fines, but whether in fact we should be dealing with a situation which is increasing terms of imprisonment which are non-existent under existing legislation in the past three years is a different matter, and whether we are being given a dose of Coalition law and order sunburstry, is a question which must be raised with some sincerity and is raised.
On the question of abuses relating to another area, disability benefit, in the year 1973 the number of prosecutions was seven, in 1974 the number of prosecutions was three and in 1975 the number of prosecutions four. Again, we must pay tribute to those people who are in receipt of this social welfare entitlement. These people are quite clearly not abusing their entitlement to any great degree but, again, we must query the need for increases in the fines and sentences of imprisonment, having regard to the fact that it appears that existing legislation is good enough.
Regarding unemployment benefit, I agree here with the Parliamentary Secretary that there is so much off the top of the head talk about abuses in the pay-related benefit, unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit schemes. People suggest that these are systems that are being abused up and down the country. I wish these people would put their facts where their mouth is and give us some examples of exactly what they are speaking about. Here we have a perfect example of the Department of Social Welfare doing their work in regard to abuses which come to their attention either by way of information they receive or by their own detective work and the abuses in the social welfare code are not all that bad. Certainly the last years indicate that. This is not to suggest for a moment that all the abuses are being brought to the attention of the Department of Social Welfare, and indeed the Department of Social Welfare themselves are actually detecting a number of abuses which no doubt are going on. Nevertheless, we can speak only of the record and the record is here for those people who would like to examine it. The abuses under the social welfare code are not all that bad having regard to the statistics available to us, particularly in relation to the following entitlements.
Unemployment benefit: year 1973, number of people prosecuted 67, number of dismissals, six, and there were 48 fines totalling £363 ranging from fines of £1 to £30. The number of persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment and the length of terms were two in that year of 1973. One was sentenced to prison for three months which in fact was suspended and one was sentenced to a term of two months imprisonment again which was suspended. So here we have a situation where out of the vast number of unemployed beneficiaries only 67—and I use the word "only" though of course the figure should be zero—in fact only 67 out of the vast army of unemployed under the heading of unemployment benefit abused the system. Only 67 people were detected in the abuse of the system.
In 1974 only 31 persons were prosecuted, again detected; 30 persons were fined and the total amount of the fines for that year was £405.50 ranging from fines of 50p to £60. There were no terms of imprisonment in that year.
Under the heading of unemployment benefit for the year 1975 there were only ten persons prosecuted and the number of dismissals in that year was two. Six persons were fined a total of £49 ranging from fines of £3 to £15. There were two persons sentenced to imprisonment. One of these was sentenced to 14 days which was suspended. The other person was sentenced to one month, again which was suspended.
We come to the heading of unemployment assistance and here the lie is finally nailed as far as the suggestion that there is that much abuse of the social welfare code is concerned. Let us not delude ourselves. There are abuses of the social welfare code but those persons who are so histrionic about these abuses might do well to research their facts before they make those statements and the facts and the statistics are here in front of us. These are the official statistics. These are the known statistics. This is what we go by. This is what we are guided by. Under the heading "Unemployment assistance", in the year 1973 the number of prosecutions was 11. There was one dismissal. Seven persons were fined. The fines totalled £87 ranging from £2 to £24. No term of imprisonment was given. In 1974, the number of prosecutions was nine. The number of dismissals was zero. Four persons were fined and the total of the fines was £66, ranging from £10 to £21. In 1975, the number of prosecutions amounted to the large total of two. There was no dismissal. Apparently there were no fines and no terms of imprisonment.
It behoves us all to be realistic about these hysterical outbursts against the suggestion that there are large-scale abuses of the social welfare code. My own view of these hysterical and histrionic outbursts is that they bring the code into disrepute and do harm to the confidence of those persons who are in legitimate receipt of their social welfare entitlements, particularly unemployment benefit and assistance. It is well that message should go from this House about those people who make statements condemning the social welfare code and its operability.
This code was introduced by successive Fianna Fáil Governments over the years and we were particularly proud of it when we were in Government. Undeniably that code is being developed, however piecemeal. We have been promised consolidation Bills and other matters which will make the social welfare code more comprehensible and more understandable to the man in the street. We have a pamphlet, a summary of social assistance and social insurance services, which is quite understandable. It outlines in a nutshell fashion and quite succinctly a person's entitlements under social welfare code. For that the Department deserve credit. This type of booklet has been in existence for a number of years. This is not a new idea. Naturally with the process of evolution the booklet becomes more understandable by virtue of the experience of the officials.
The Bill before us does not reflect the thinking of those who produced this pamphlet I have been speaking about. When he is replying to this debate, the Parliamentary Secretary might indicate to us the methods whereby the officials of the Department go about detecting abuses in the social welfare code. Has the Parliamentary Secretary any plans or any new ideas to increase the efficiency of the detection of abuses? This would concern us all. Any assistance he may want from the Opposition in this respect will be willingly forthcoming.
To come back to the question of understanding legislation, Bills are not the preserve of Dáil Éireann, or individual Deputies or groups of Deputies. Nor are they the preserve of the Government. As I understood it, the Government gave an undertaking that they would codify social welfare legislation. No doubt this is an ongoing situation. It will be a difficult and lengthy process without any shadow of doubt. This is a 14-section Bill. It is a highly technical, highly complex piece of legislation. It will add to the burden of the people who will be charged with the codification of social welfare legislation. We have already adverted to the fact that there are in excess of 350 separate pieces of social welfare legislation in existence.
Section 8 of this Bill has 161 lines. That is the record. Section 4 has 140 lines. This legislation touches the everyday life of individuals. The Parliamentary Secretary told us the number of people with social welfare entitlement of one type or another including children's allowances. The figure must be in excess of a million. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
There are, at present, approximately 88,000 recorded employers and about 500,000 claimants of the wide range of weekly payments available under either the insurance or assistance schemes together with——
I would have imagined that should be "in addition to".
——some 405,000 families in receipt of children's allowances.
My figure of a million people touched by the social welfare code in one way or another is not that far out. In fact, it might be an underestimate if the real truth were told.
We have an obligation to introduce understandable legislation, non-complex legislation. The legislation now before us flies in the face of that proposition. It is a most difficult piece of legislation. As I have already stated, legislation must be available to all. Lawyers are entitled to a living but if we become involved in litigation this involves added expense. The more legislation we can keep out of the hands of lawyers, as it were, the better from the point of view of expense, from the point of view of dealing with problems quickly, and so on.
I would imagine the most high-powered lawyer would find it very difficult, on a quick perusal of this legislation, to make sense out of it. He would have to burn the midnight oil for quite a number of evenings to arrive at any conclusions that might be demanded of him relative to whatever points might be brought to his attention. Therefore, the onus is on Dáil Éireann to introduce legislation which does not contain sections of 161 lines and 140 lines. Legislation coming before this House is open to all and must be understood by all. If it does not reach that minimum standard, then it might be described as not necessarily bad legislation but bad in a sense that it is difficult to understand. However, I do not want to labour that point. I would hope to make a constructive contribution to the debate on this Bill. It must be a short contribution in view of the need to bring forward much of the legislation which remains to be dealt with having regard to the legislative logjam which faces us.
The Bill, as I have already stated, appears to be increasing fines and prison sentences, under the heading of various social welfare entitlements, for non-existent abuses. For that reason alone the Bill reeks of illiberality. It is unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary who is a liberal person and has in the past, and more particularly when he was in Opposition expressed, along with his colleagues, the most dewy-eyed liberal sentiments, should introduce huge penalties, whether by way of fine or imprisonment, for abuses which do not exist or for actions which are not abuses to any great degree, having regard to parliamentary replies received to my questions in the Official Report of 25th May last.
This illiberal tendency on the part of the Government I described on the last occasion as an effort—and an effort that appears in some way to be succeeding—to clothe this Government with the law and order mantle, to engage in, as I have already stated, law and order sunburstry. It is all very well to be introducing penalties and to be giving the appearance of doing something, but that, in my respectful submission, recks of hypocrisy, because we have quite clearly shown during the contributions here to date on the Parliamentary Secretary's complex and highly technical Bill that, according to his records and according to the records produced by him for the three years of the Government's term of office, the abuses are not as large as was imagined.
One wonders why, in these circumstances, existing legislation is not adequate. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will reply—he is quite entitled to say what he will—that if these fines and draconian prison sentences frighten off the recidivist abuser, that is the person who continues to abuse the social welfare code despite the existing penalties and fines, then that is all to the good.
I would accept that the Parliamentary Secretary's processes in that direction are correct but again it would appear that there does not exist such a large problem in relation to social welfare abuses as was thought. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will disabuse my mind of that, but my proposition is taken from the information received from the Parliamentary Secretary in answer to my six questions in the Official Report of 25th May last. It is good to see that the social welfare system, according to the figures, is not being abused as much as we thought it had been abused. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that there may be hidden abuses going on daily, and it is to come to grips with this very small minority that I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to get his detection team out and about, because those people who consider the social welfare code fair game are anti-social citizens and what they are effectively doing is making less money available to those people who would be most in need. We all hope that social welfare benefits would increase to cope with inflation and with the reduction in money values. I think our philosophy is that the persons most in need should obtain most in terms of finance. Those people who consider the social welfare system a sort of gaming casino where they can have a bet that they will not be caught are the people who are doing damage to those we would wish to help most and who are taking money out of the pockets of the old age pensioners, contributory or otherwise, or of the person who is on unemployment assistance or the person who, to use the old expression, is in need of home assistance.
These anti-social creatures are engaging in an attack on the social welfare code, a code which is designed to help those most in need. The message cannot be sent out often enough from this House, that the social welfare abusers are a sorry lot who should be seen for what they are. Their anti-social behaviour is a credit to no one, least of all themselves. We re-echo what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that there is such a trend in this society. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me in reminding this small minority who practice this that the social welfare code is not fair game and must not be seen as fair game. The collection of unemployment assistance and not accepting work when it becomes available is an abominable and soul destroying abuse. I should like to make the point again that there is no open season on the social welfare code.
The people who have to pay for social welfare, apart from the moneys borrowed from external sources, are in the main ordinary taxpayers. It is well to remind these social welfare abusers, the anti-social citizens among us, that they might as well be putting their hands not alone into the pockets of the taxpayer who pays for social welfare but into the pockets of those most in need who could do with more social welfare assistance. They are lessening the entitlement of those people in need. The amount given in relation to social welfare payments weekly is incredible, £2 million per week, and I have no doubt that this figure will increase with inflation over the next two or three years. It will increase with the lack of job climate we are harassed by on a daily basis.
I should now like to advert to a section which may be dealt with in amendments tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary which have just come to hand, section 4. This is the tragedy; the unlicensed moneylender in society, the peculiar species who holds himself up as some sort of a do-gooder. We all know that there existed—I have no up to date evidence of its continuance—a practice where-by the children's allowance book changed hands. Section 4 is introduced to ensure that the people engaging in this practice will be stopped. Obviously, it was introduced to attempt to bring about a closure in relation to any person who buys, sells or offers for sale, takes or gives in exchange, or pawns or takes in pawn any insurance card or any used insurance stamp. The same applies in relation to children's allowance books. It appears unfair that both parties, the holder of the children's allowance book and the person who takes the book on the foot of some outstanding debt or on foot of some cash transaction, will be liable to the same penalties. After all, one is by nature the oppressor and the other is by definition the oppressed. It is a tragedy that this sort of situation exists in our society. Clearly, it must exist if the Parliamentary Secretary is introducing a section of this nature. It is proper that the penalties in this respect have been increased.
In the context of the example given it is a tragedy that the oppressed should have the same penalties hung around his or her neck as the oppressor. There should have been a clear distinction made in relation to that point. There are oppressors in our society, a small minority, a group of Christians who no doubt attend their services in a Christian fashion but at the same time abuse their fellow citizens with this sort of behaviour. I cannot think of anything more despicable than an unfortunate woman having to exchange her children's allowance book for the 30 pieces of silver and that is what it amounts to. It is an appalling prospect and it is an appalling commentary on a society that such a situation may exist.
I understand that the Bill must go through all its Stages and in this regard I should like to state that I was under the impression we would have an opportunity to place amendments in relation to it. I should now like to deal with a section which is of great concern to this side of the House, section 11. The section deals with the presumption regarding truth of information in applications for certain benefit, allowance, pension or assistance. Again, we must query this. I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will have an adequate answer but is the onus of proof being shifted under this section from the accused to the accuser? We understand the situation to be that if a person is reported, anonymously or otherwise, for abusing the social welfare code but more particularly where a person claims unemployment assistance or benefit while working, entitlement is cut off pending investigation. After that it is a matter for the person accused to prove his innocence on the basis of facts given to the Department. That is a fairly reasonable proposition but on closer scrutiny one finds that in a number of cases the report is made anonymously by somebody who has not the guts to make the allegation publicly against his or her neighbour. Now it appears that this is being given some form of legislative effect.
In this society our legal code is accusatorial. It now appears that the Government are introducing an inquisitorial system. The Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Government, seem to be copper-fastening in section 11 the inquisitorial form of accusation, which to us is not proper. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clear the legal air in this respect. The shifting of the onus of proof from the accuser to the accused is a very serious departure. We may be reading more into this than we should but if we are, naturally we will accept that position. Subsection 11 (2) reads:
Where in a prosecution for an offence under any of the Acts to which this applies...
The Acts to which this section applies are substantial in number. They are the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1976, the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1976, the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1976, the Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) Acts, 1942 to 1976, the Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Acts, 1944 to 1975, and the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1976. This is not only a substantial number of Acts but it could be described as a plethora of legislation so far as this section is concerned. Therefore, it becomes even more serious in the context of the reading of subsection 11 (1).
