Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Mar 1978

Vol. 304 No. 6

Social Welfare Bill, 1978: Second Stage.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Haughey)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main purpose of the Bill is to implement the 10 per cent increase in the weekly rates of social welfare payments and other improvements in the social welfare code announced in the budget. Provision is also made for consequential changes in the occupational injuries scheme and for the necessary increases in the contributions payable under the social insurance and occupational injuries schemes.

In addition to the changes announced in the budget a number of further improvements are being made in particular schemes to remove inequities which have come to my notice since I took office as Minister for Social Welfare.

In order to clarify the provisions of the Bill and to assist Deputies in their examination of it an explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the text of the Bill.

The Government are committed to maintaining living standards of social welfare recipients by regular adjustments of the level of payments at least in line with the cost of living. The 10 per cent increase provided in this Bill, on the basis of the estimated increase in the cost of living in 1978, represents an increase in real terms of some 6 per cent. The new levels of social welfare payments will consequently ensure a real improvement in the living standards of social welfare recipients.

The 10 per cent increase and the other improvements announced in the budget will involve a total cost of approximately £36.5 million in 1978 and £53 million in a full year. The overall outlay on social welfare benefits and allowances will be approximately £594 million in 1978 or £610 million annually.

Turning to the increases provided in individual payments the maximum weekly personal rate of non-contributory old age pension is being increased from £12.35 to £13.60 for persons aged under 80 years and from £13.30 to £14.65 for persons aged 80 years or over. The reduced rates of pension payable where the weekly means exceed £6 but do not exceed £15 are also being increased. For a pensioner with qualified children, of course, the means limit is greater than £15.

The maximum rate of payment in respect of an adult dependant under pensionable age is increased to £6.75. Therefore the overall payment for a pensioner with a dependent spouse will at the maximum rate be increased from £18.50 to £20.35 and, where the pensioner is 80 years of age or over from £19.45 to £21.40.

The allowance payable in respect of a prescribed relative giving full-time care and attention to an incapacitated pensioner is being increased from £6.90 to £7.60 and the addition to pension for a pensioner living alone will be raised to £1.10.

For pensioners who have qualified children the increases of pension payable are being raised by 35p to £3.65 a week for each of the first two children and by 25p to £2.75 a week for each other child.

Section 2 of the Bill sets out in Table A the weekly means and rates of pension.

Section 4 of the Bill provides for increases in the rates of unemployment assistance. The maximum personal weekly rate of assistance is being raised from £10.70 to £11.75 in an urban area and from £10.30 to £11.35 in a rural area. The rates for adult dependants are being increased to £8.55 and £8.35 respectively and the rates in respect of dependent children to £3.65 for each of the first two and £2.75 for others. Thus the rate of assistance for a married couple with two children is being increased from £25.05 to £27.60 in an urban area and from £24.50 to £27.00 in a rural area.

In the case of smallholders whose means for unemployment assistance purposes are assessed notionally by reference to rateable land valuation the new rate of assistance will be as I have outlined where the valuation is £10 or less. Those whose valuation is between £10 and £15 did not benefit from any increase in 1977 and are currently in receipt of assistance at rates established in 1976. These rates are now being increased by 10 per cent and the new rates are set out separately in section 4. Unemployment assistance rates for those smallholders whose valuations are between £15 and £20 are, as announced in the budget, excluded from the 10 per cent increase, due to the continuing growth in farm incomes. These smallholders did not receive any increase in 1976 or in 1977 and the rates payable to them are those established in October 1975. Landholders with valuations of more than £20 are no longer since 1977 eligible to have their means assessed on the notional basis but these, and any landholders below £20 valuation who feel it would be to their advantage, may have their means assessed on a factual basis in which case they would receive the current rate of payment appropriate to their means as so assessed.

The increases in non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions are provided in sections 7 and 9 of the Bill. The maximum weekly personal rate of widows' non-contributory pension is increased from £12.35 to £13.60 and the amount payable in respect of each qualified child is being raised from £4.10 to £4.50. As in the case of non-contributory old age pension, reduced rates of pension are payable where the widow's weekly means exceed £6 but do not exceed £15 if she has no qualified child, higher means limits applying if she has qualified children. The increases in widows' pensions automatically apply to the social assistance allowances for deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives. Orphans' non-contributory pension is increased from £8.05 to £8.85 a week.

The allowance for single women aged between 58 and 66 is being increased in section 10 of the Bill from £10.70 to £11.75.

Section 12 provides for increases in the rates of supplementary welfare allowances. The maximum personal weekly rate of the allowance is being increased from £10.30 to £11.35, the rate for an adult dependant from £7.60 to £8.35 and the rates for dependent children to £3.65 for each of the first two and £2.75 for each other child. These increases will maintain the parity between the rates of supplementary welfare allowance and the rural rates of unemployment assistance.

I turn now to the increases in the rates of contributory benefits and pensions under the social insurance system which are set out in section 14 of the Bill. The personal rates of disability and unemployment benefit and invalidity pension are being increased from £13.05 to £14.35 and the rate for an adult dependant from £8.50 to £9.35. Maternity allowance is also being increased from £13.05 to £14.35.

The personal rates of contributory old-age and retirement pensions for persons under age 80 are increased from £14.60 to £16.05 and for those over 80, from £15.50 to £17.05. The rates for adult dependants are also increased so that a married couple both over pensionable age will get £28.15 as compared with £25.60 at present or £29.15 as compared with £26.50 if the pensioner is aged 80 or over.

The personal rates of widows' contributory pensions are being increased from £13.25 to £14.60 in the case of those under age 80 and from £14.30 to £15.75 for those aged 80 or over. Deserted wife's benefit is also being increased from £13.25 to £14.60.

Increases for children under the various social insurance schemes are being raised from £4.45 to £4.90 for each child in the case of widows and deserted wives and, in the case of other benefits and pensions, from £3.75 to £4.15 for each of the first two children and from £3.10 to £3.40 for each other child. A widow or deserted wife with four qualified children will now get £34.20 as compared with £31.05 at present.

On this occasion also provision is being made for increases in the grants payable under the social insurance system. Maternity grant is increased from £4 to £8 and the maximum rate of death grant is increased from £35 to £50.

In line with the improvements in the general social insurance system the Bill provides also in sections 19 and 20 for increases in the rates of benefit payable under the occupational injuries scheme. The increases are broadly in line with those provided for in the general social insurance schemes.

The impact of the increases provided can be illustrated by giving an indication of the numbers of persons who will benefit. There are about 330,000 recipients of long-term benefits and pensions under the social insurance and social assistance code and these, with their adult and child dependants, make up a total of over 440,000. On the short-term benefit side there are some 245,000 beneficiaries with almost 300,000 adult and child beneficiaries. In all, almost 990,000 persons will benefit from the provisions of this Bill.

In addition to the increases in rates of benefits the Bill also provides for a number of other improvements in social welfare schemes. It is my intention to keep all social welfare schemes under continuous review and to deal with anomalies and defects and to close any gaps in the services as they come to light. A number of inequities have come to my notice since I took office as Minister for Social Welfare and, where appropriate, provision is made to deal with them in this Bill.

The Government have undertaken to work towards the elimination of discrimination against women throughout the social welfare code and, as announced in the budget, a very substantial step forward in that programme is being taken by giving single women and widows full and unrestricted access to unemployment assistance on the same terms as men from October next by removing the requirement of having a dependant or having paid a certain minimum number of contributions. This is provided for in section 5. It is estimated that there will be over 50,000 applicants for unemployment assistance as a result of this change and, in order to make the operation as smooth as possible, section 6 of the Bill will enable such women, from the date of enactment of the Bill, to apply for a qualification certificate. This certificate sets out the holder's weekly means and, while it does not confer entitlement to assistance, it is a necessary requirement for such entitlement and if the women concerned obtain the certificates before October, it will facilitate the speedy clearance of applications for assistance at that stage.

In the case of old age pensions the residence requirements are being eased under section 3 of the Bill. The residence test in its present form requires that to qualify for a non-contributory old age pension a person must have lived in the State for an aggregate period of 15 years, at least five of them after attaining the age of 50. Section 3 provides for the abolition of the requirement of five years' residence after age 50 so that an aggregate of 15 years at any time will now suffice. A number of Irish people who have lived abroad, such as teachers, social workers, missionaries and the like, and who return home late in life have been prevented from qualifying for pension by the existing conditions and the provisions of section 3 will be of benefit mainly to such people.

Section 8 of the Bill provides for the abolition of the condition requiring applicants for widows' non-contributory pension to have at least two years' residence in the State. Application of the test has in some cases caused a delay in the award of pension resulting in the person concerned having to serve the required period before becoming entitled to pension. The similiar residence condition in the case of deserted wife's allowance, social assistance allowance for unmarried mothers and prisoner's wife's allowance is being removed by appropriate changes in the relevant regulations.

Another important problem for which provision is being made in section 16 of this Bill is the problem which arises where, on the death of a deserted wife, the father of the children does not resume responsibility for them.

Cases have come to light where a woman in receipt of deserted wife's benefit or deserted wife's allowance dies and her children, for whom she had been receiving increases in her benefit or allowance, are left with no income. In such cases the deserted wife's benefit or allowance, including the increases for the children, ceases to be payable. In some cases the father may return home following the death of the wife and resume his responsibilities in regard to his children. In many cases, however, the whereabouts of the father of the children may be unknown, or he may be failing to support his family. In these cases the children are effectively in the same position as orphans but, as the death of the father cannot be presumed, they do not qualify for orphan's non-contributory pension or orphan's contributory allowance. To relieve hardship and to assist in keeping the children concerned out of institutions section 16 provides that these children will in future be treated as orphans and that orphans' pensions or allowances will be paid to a relative or some other suitable person so as to avoid the necessity of having to send the children to an institution.

Last year provision was made that the increase in certain benefits payable to single men and widowers in respect of a woman looking after their children would be extended to single women, widows and deserted wives. The benefits involved were unemployment benefit and assistance, disability benefit, injury benefit under the occupational injuries scheme and invalidity pension. Provision for a similar increase to single men and widowers is made under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme which came into operation in July 1977 and section 13 of the Bill extends the provision to cover single women, widows and deserted wives who are in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance.

Section 21 of the Bill regularises an arrangement which has existed since 1973 whereby an old age pension may be paid on a provisional basis pending the formal decision of a pension committee where a social welfare officer is satisfied that the statutory conditions for receipt of the pension are fulfilled. In all cases the subsequent decision of the old age pension committee or appeals officer will supersede the provisional payment. The making of a provisional payment in this way overcomes the delay which can occur in obtaining decisions from pension committees and the consequent hardship to pensioners.

Another aspect of existing legislation which I find iniquitous arises where a person has been in receipt of old age pension to which he was not entitled or at a higher rate than he was entitled to. This could arise if, for example, the person did not disclose his means fully to an investigating officer. Under existing legislation the amount overpaid may be recovered not only from the pensioner himself but it may be deducted from specified social welfare payments due to the spouse, widow or widower of the pensioner or, if any other person so consents, from payments due to that person. Section 22 of the Bill abolishes the provision whereby recovery may be effected by deduction from benefits payable to other persons. The effect of this will be to restrict the power of recovery to deduction from the pensioner himself or from his estate.

I would now like to mention a number of improvements in social welfare services which are to be provided independently of this Bill.

As announced in the budget, it is intended to arrange for the provision of bottled gas for certain pensioners though it does not require a specific provision in this Bill. The free electricity scheme which was introduced in 1967 has been of considerable benefit to old age pensioners particularly in providing them with a reasonable standard of heating. Unfortunately there are numbers of pensioners who cannot avail of the scheme, mainly persons in remote rural areas who are not yet connected to the ESB system. We are therefore introducing a scheme of allowances for bottled gas which will be equivalent to the free electricity allowance.

Also, as already announced, old age pensioners living alone will from April have the annual telephone rental charge fully paid for and this will be of considerable benefit to these people.

Another serious problem relates to the provision of increases of social welfare payments in respect of children where the parents are separated. At present, under the normal residence regulations no payments on the father's claim can be made to either parent where the children are residing with the mother. I have recently amended these regulations to provide that, as from 1 April 1978, an increase of benefit, pension or assistance in respect of such children may be paid on the father's claim where the father is contributing substantially to the children. Once entitlement to payment is established it will be possible to exercise existing powers to make payment direct to the mother.

I said earlier that the overall cost of the improvements being provided for is £36.5 million in 1978. Of this, social assistance accounts for over £16 million, all of which is borne by the Exchequer. The total cost on the social insurance side is £20.44 million and this must be met out of the social insurance fund, which is financed by contributions from employers and employees with an annual subvention from the Exchequer. On the basis of a 20 per cent Exchequer subvention the amount to be raised from contributions is £16.35 million. To this must be added the sum of £10.4 million to cover mainly the full year cost of the October 1977 increases, making a total of £26.75 million to be raised from increased contributions.

The cost of this year's improvements in the social services would require an increase of 82p in the ordinary rate of contribution, of which, on the usual two to one allocation, the employer would bear 55p and the employee 27p.

To meet the additional £10.4 million, which I have referred to as representing mainly a "carry-over" from last year, the ordinary contribution has to be increased by a further 52p. This will be shared 35p on the employer and 17p on the employee, bringing the increase of contribution to £1.34 broken down into 90p from the employer and 44p from the employee.

The contribution for occupational injuries which is borne in full by the employer is being increased by 5p making the employer's share of the increase 95p.

In addition, under the provisions of the Health Contributions (Amendment) Bill, 1978, recently before the House, the health contribution, which is normally borne in full by the employee, will be increased by 11p bringing the employee's share of the increase to 55p. Accordingly, the total increase in the overall contribution will be £1.50 of which the employer will bear 95p and the employees 55p.

Further special provision is being made for lower paid workers. It will be remembered that in accordance with the Government's election manifesto, contribution rates were reduced from January 1978 by £1 a week for persons earning under £50 a week. This measure has been of considerable benefit and in the Bill a further deduction of 50p is made from the contributions payable in respect of such employees. The increase in respect of lower paid workers, accordingly, will not be £1.50 but rather £1. Taking into account the existing £1 reduction, the contribution for lower paid workers will be £1.50 less than the full rate. This reduction is shared £1.16 to the employee and 34p to the employer.

From 3 April next the total contribution, including social insurance, occupational injuries, health and redundancy will be £8.68 for men of which the employer will pay £5.26 and the employee £3.42. The corresponding rate for a man earning less than £50 a week will be £7.18 of which the employer will pay £4.92 and the employee £2.26.

The cost of the additional concession to lower paid workers is estimated at £4.25 million in 1978 which will be borne entirely by the Exchequer.

I should also mention here that these rates include the special increase of 31p in the social insurance contribution introduced by my predecessor in 1975 which is being retained for a further 12 months to help meet the cost of the high level of unemployment claims still being experienced.

The rates of voluntary contributions are being increased to £1.46 at the low rate and £3.76 at the high rate—an increase of 26p and 66p respectively. The special voluntary contribution in respect of a certain category of insured persons affected by the abolition of the remuneration limit from April 1974, is being increased by 40p to £2.30.

I appreciate that, despite the reductions we have made in the case of workers under £50 a week, the flat-rate contribution system is basically inequitable and I have already announced that a fully pay-related contributions system will be introduced from April 1979. This will be a far more equitable arrangement and will substantially benefit lower-paid workers including a large number of women, and will be of particular assistance to labour-intensive industries. I have recently received the report of the interdepartmental working group established to work out the administrative details and the legislative changes required and action will be taken immediately on these matters.

I have now covered the areas of improvement provided for in this Bill. I think it will be agreed that even in a year when the Government's main effort had to be devoted to the solution of our economic problems, real advances are being made in the social welfare system and this process of development will go on. Apart from the introduction of fully pay-related contributions, major developments are under consideration in the area of pensions and in relation to social insurance for the self-employed. A detailed examination of the means tests operated by my Department has been carried out and I expect to be in a position in the near future to formulate proposals for the removal of anomalies in this area.

My main concern now, however, is to ensure that the increases provided for in this Bill come into operation as planned from the beginning of April next and I, therefore, commend the Bill to Dáil Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Mr. Boland

I understand there is a brand of detergent known as "Three Hands". When the package of legislation which the Minister for Health and Social Welfare presented to the House last week and again this week is complete he will be in danger of being known as "Three Hands Haughey". Whatever he may have put into the pocket of social welfare recipients with one hand he took out of the other pocket with the health contribution last week and they will need to have a hip pocket so that he may remove the additional increases this week by way of social welfare contributions.

Last week I said I was afraid the Minister was endeavouring to introduce his own budget. I did not realise at the time that he was trying within a fortnight to introduce too many budgets. That is exactly what he has done. Last week the largest single annual increase was demanded for health contributions and this week the House is being asked to agree to a Bill that contains a provision for an increase that is double the level of last year's increase for the employee and is more than double last year's increase for the employer in respect of social welfare contributions. This is being done at a time when employees are being urged to exercise moderation in their wage claims and employers are being urged to increase output and to reduce inflation.

Is there anything less likely to encourage an employer to employ additional men than to tell a firm employing 100 people that their bill will be increased by £5,000? There are a number of large employers throughout the country who employ 1,000 men. Is there anything less likely to encourage them to increase their work-force than to tell them that they will have to pay £50,000 extra per year in respect of social welfare contributions? That is what the employers are being told by the Government.

The employee is being told that the Government want him to accept a wage increase of 8 per cent in order to reduce inflation, to bring about moderation and to restore sanity to the economy but, on the other hand, they tell him that they propose increasing his social welfare contribution by 18 per cent. In addition they propose to increase his health contribution by 28 per cent and he is supposed to sit back and like it. This is being done at a time when he is asked to agree to an increase in his wages of only 8 per cent.

Last November in the House the Minister introduced a regulation that had the effect of reducing the social welfare contribution by £1 per week for employees who were earning less than £50 per week. The Minister heralded this measure as a real contribution to people on low incomes. At columns 1321 and 1322 of the Official Report of 17 November 1977 I stated:

I am surprised, too, to note that the change in the regulations is being introduced as and from January. Up to now any such change was always introduced either in March or in the autumn of the year concerned. I wonder if the Minister is in a position to give an under-taking to the House that there would be no increase in Social Welfare contributions announced in the budget which also will be in January, an increase that might have the effect of negating the reduction we are talking of here. The question we must ask is, how illusory is this scheme and how much more illusory will it be if there are upward changes in the January budget in respect of social welfare contributions? Is the Minister in a position to guarantee to the people whom he alleges will benefit from this change that the benefit will continue to the same degree after the budget of 1978?

Not surprisingly the Minister did not answer. Incidentally, he could have given the guarantee because I asked if a guarantee would be given that no increase in social welfare contributions would be announced in the budget. I might have guessed that the increase would not be in the budget, that it would be done by sleight-of-hand, to quote the Minister's own words, "in a petty, deceitful sort of way" later on in the year. What surprises me is the statement by the Minister at columns 1340 and 1341 of the Official Report of the same date. He said:

It will become operative on the 2nd January and I hope that workers and their trade union representative will recognise it as a positive gesture, a contribution from the Government towards creating a climate in which the very crucial and important pay negotiations can take place.

Three months later, when that discussion is still in our minds, we are being asked to agree to an increase of 28p per week in respect of workers earning less than £50 per week.

Would it not have been more honest in November to have said to the lower paid workers earning less than £50 per week: "We intend to reduce your social welfare stamp by 70p or 72p or whatever"? Surely it was deceitful to tell workers in November: "We are honouring our election commitment; we are reducing the social welfare stamp for those earning less than £50 per week by £1, but three months later we will increase it by 28p"?

The Minister referred to a pay-related scheme in the last part of his speech. If such a fair and equitable scheme could be introduced, and especially if it did not screw the middleman, or nail to the ground the unfortunate man in the middle income group who appears to have been the main sufferer, the straw in the wind which has been buffeted and tossed about on the sea of inflation over the past number of years, that scheme would meet with the wholehearted approval of my party. It would be in keeping with our philosophy on the financing of health and social welfare.

A social insurance scheme and, most important of all, a retirement scheme introduced in a fair and compassionate way for the self-employed, arising out of a report made to the Minister some time ago possibly with amendments, would also be in keeping with the philosophy which is very dear to the heart of my party and would meet with their unqualified support depending, of course, on the terms of those schemes when they are introduced.

Both the reports to which the Minister referred were commissioned by the previous Government. They are of outstanding importance. They could have the effect of revolutionising the approach to the financing of health and social welfare, eligibility and the range of benefits made available over a number of years. I hope they will be introduced with the extreme care and with the maximum amount of forethought and consideration of their effect on all classes.

Bearing in mind the very high cost of services I do not think a pay-related scheme can be introduced in which the contributor would be asked to pay the entire amount. I do not think that would be acceptable to the man-in-the-street. It would be unfair and it would bear harshly on the middle-income groups, those who appear to pay for everything and seem to be getting little or nothing in return. In the introduction of any such scheme, full consideration should be given to a cut-off point above which the contribution would not increase. Fair and favourable consideration should be given to the ordinary worker. I hope we will have an opportunity of discussing the proposed introduction of these schemes over the next 12 months. I hope the House will approach this matter in a reasonable and non-contentious and dare I suggest possibly in a non-party political way. The two suggestions in these reports are essential to the development of health and social security services over the next few decades.

In a year in which everyone is being urged towards moderation, in a year in which employers are being asked to pay 90p more per week per employee and an additional 5p in respect of occupational injuries and the unfortunate employee is being asked to pay 55p more per week, the increases being levied on employers and employees are more than double the increases sought and granted by the Dáil last year, and vehemently opposed and criticised by the Minister's colleagues in Opposition, despite the fact that inflation, external factors and the level of wage agreements were all running at a much higher rate. The level of increases last year was much nearer to the level of real increases in the cost of living than it will be this year if the targets set by the Minister's colleague, the Minister for "Economic Promises" are attained.

I am particularly upset that people earning less than £50 per week—and if I were in their position I might also have been attracted—were attracted by the offer made by the then Opposition of a reduction of £1 per week in their social welfare stamp. I presume they were attracted by that offer into voting for the Fianna Fáil Party and now they have had to witness the cynical action whereby they were granted a reduction of £1 from the beginning of January and they will have to pay back 28p of that from the beginning of April.

Whether the Minister likes it or not —and I am sure he does not—there was an element in it of a three-card trick merchant: "Now you see it, now you do not. There is your £1. We are taking more than a quarter of it back in a couple of months' time. We honoured our election promise. Do not say we did not. We kept that promise even if only for a short time." People on very low incomes and people on the verge of unemployment will not continue to have faith in democratic institutions when they witness such a cynical exercise. As I said last week in my contribution on the budget, I do not think people who are on very low incomes or people who are unemployed for long periods should be manipulated in this cynical way.

I am opposed to the entire concept of this Bill in the same way as I am opposed to the concept of any percentage, across-the-board increase granted by any Government, irrespective of who are in power. I do not think the right way to approach social welfare recipients, the way to keep recipients in line, the way to improve a lot of certain social welfare groups who are falling slowly behind, the poor who are getting poorer, is to adopt the lazy man's approach of saying: "Let us give them X per cent across the board." If blind pensioners living alone get a 10 per cent increase, what does it amount to? Ten miserable pence. They get £1 extra because they are blind and live alone. You would not give ten miserable pence to a car park attendant for minding your car while you went in to spend 50p to buy a packet of cigarettes. You would be embarrassed, and you know what he would tell you. Your car might not be there when you came back. That is what was done by this concerned Government who were committed in their manifesto to keep social welfare beneficiaries at least in line with the increase in the cost of living.

Mr. Haughey

I do not understand——

Mr. Boland

I will permit the Minister to interrupt as long as the Chair does not get upset if I interrupt him when he is replying.

I do not think that the concept of a percentage increase across the board to social welfare beneficiaries at any time by any Government is the right way to approach this. There is a large body of opinion that certain classes are obtaining too much through social welfare benefits. Those people who must pay for a stamp every week object to what they term as the wasters and the fellows who hang around street corners getting such benefits. I do not subscribe to or accept that idea. If we were put out of power partly because some people felt we had done too much for the social welfare classes, then it was a most honourable cause to be defeated on. It is understandable to an extent that many people who are working and finding it difficult to make ends meet should be resentful of having to pay more in social welfare and health contributions in return for no real appreciable gains as far as they can see when they know of so many people who are obtaining unemployment benefit while at the same time are in gainful employment.

I find it difficult to accept the excuses put forward by various Ministers over recent years that it is not worth trying to catch the people who are abusing the system because it would cost more to catch them than would be saved in the benefits being paid out unfairly. That is not the point. The point is that the entire system is being brought into disrepute when a Minister for Social Welfare can make an announcement in the House that he is asking employers and employees to make an extra contribution to the cost of the stamp. It is no wonder that employees pay it grudgingly if they know of a number of neighbours who are earning more than they are by way of the combined income from unemployment benefit and the work they are doing which is not officially registered. For as long as that is allowed to continue people will become increasingly resentful of the social welfare code. Consequently, those really in need, the old, the widows and the deprived, those who are not organised and do not have an organised voice to speak on their behalf, those who are not pressure groups in a position to influence political parties enough to get them to make offers in the hope of winning their votes—all those people are made to suffer.

There are thousands anxious to obtain gainful employment here and I believe a lot more gainful employment could be offered to them if those who are cheating the system, those who are earning £150 tax free and who break off on Thursdays to sign at their local labour exchanges, were stopped and put back to working properly. A great number of additional jobs would then be available to those who are presently unemployed but are desperately seeking employment. That would be a great contribution on the part of any Minister to an improvement of the social welfare system and a respect for it in the eyes of the general public. It might not be the most realistic way for the Minister for "Economic Promises" and his colleagues to bring about a reduction in the number of unemployed but it is a good one.

The difficulty in relation to a Bill like this is that virtually any amendment a Member wishes to introduce will be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Orders because every section of it involves the spending or the gathering of money. To change the Bill in any way in order to improve it would involve a change in the financial structure which would lead to a charge or possible charge on State funds. For that reason such amendments would be ruled out of order. I presume that the only amendments which would be acceptable would be those which would propose to reduce the level of benefits to certain classes. I do not think any Member is likely to enter amendments of that type. It is a pity that Members are so hamstrung. They cannot make changes in the entire financial structure of the social welfare system by way of amendments which could be discussed here. For that reason I find that I am restricted in the contribution I can make.

An across the board increase is a lazy man's approach to this matter. It is most unfair to old people, widows, deserted wives and so on. An old person is not likely to benefit by the abolition of rates because for many years all local authorities operated a waiver of rates scheme and old age pensioners and widows in receipt of a small income qualified under that scheme. It is unlikely that old people or widows run cars and, consequently, they did not benefit for the abolition of car tax. It is almost certain that people at that end of the social welfare scale do not pay income tax so that the proposed increases in the rate of personal allowances will not help them.

To suggest that they should be given a 10 per cent increase when people who are in gainful employment are to be given an 8 per cent increase is making them worse off relative to their colleagues in the work force. On the calculations I have done based on an 8 per cent increase for workers it would have been necessary to have given social welfare recipients an increase of 15 per cent if they were to be kept in line with their equivalent in the work force. As a result of the Minister's decision social welfare recipients will again fall behind. While figures can be thrown out to justify the 10 per cent increase by the Minister I believe that the real effect of this will be that at the end of 12 months social welfare recipients will be poorer relative to the work force than they were at the outset. From that point of view the Bill is a bad one.

There are a number of other matters which militate against the disadvantaged. We are aware that the subsidy on cheese has been abolished. Subsidies such as that on cheese are introduced during times of inflation in support of the poorer sections of the community and whenever those subsidies on basic foodstuffs are reduced or abolished the poorer sections suffer most. When foods subsidies are abolished, in toto, the man on £15 a week finds that it hits his pocket much harder than the man on £150 a week. I am afraid the abolition of the subsidy on cheese is the forerunner to the abolition of the remainder of the food subsidies right across the range of essential foodstuffs. If that happens it will mean the social welfare classes will suffer most. Consequently, I believe the concept of a 10 per cent across-the-board increase for our social welfare recipients is wrong and they will be put into a more disadvantageous position.

I am surprised that provision was not made for an increase in the autumn, if it was seen to be necessary, to keep the rates of payment in line with the movement in the cost of living. If the prognostications of the Government in relation to holding the cost of living come true it would not be necessary to implement the autumn increases. If they do not come true or if it becomes apparent that the social welfare recipients are falling behind in relation to the rest of the community then, having made provisions for the autumn increases, it would at least have meant that there would be a second opportunity during 1978 of remedying the shortfall which I believe is contained in the existing Social Welfare Bill.

There are good aspects of this Bill and there are certain small changes from a financial point of view, with the exception of bringing single women into eligibility for payment of unemployment assistance, which may amount to a fairly large sum of money per annum. I do not believe the other minor changes referred to by the Minister today or by the Minister for Finance in the budget will affect the cost of the operation of the social welfare system. It is a good thing to have changed the residential qualification in respect of pensioners returning from abroad before they can be eligible for pension here. I am also in favour of the change which will relax the residential restrictions in relation to widows and deserted wives. It is only realistic that the death grant be increased from £35 to £50. It is certainly less than realistic to increase the maternity grant from an absurd £4 to an equally absurd £8. If people can manage to have children as cheaply as that I believe the levels of unemployment might be higher than they are.

All those things are very welcome. I especially welcome the idea of making payment available in respect of abandoned children where a mother who was a deserted wife dies and the father does not take charge of the children and a relative is prepared to look after them. A ridiculous situation exists at present in the case of a mother and father who are separated. If the children are not living with the father neither the father nor the mother receive an allowance in respect of those children. I understand that the Minister intends to remove that ridiculous anomaly.

Those things are very welcome but they do not go to the root of poverty. The cost of those changes is derisory in comparison with the entire cost of the services. The one area where there will be increased expenses this year is in regard to the inclusion of single girls and women for eligibility for unemployment assistance. That will only be from the autumn. The Minister's excuse is that this will be a major task and it will take a number of months to implement it. I do not accept that. Major changes were made during the last few years at shorter notice than this. I am afraid the inclusion of those categories only in the autumn is merely a financial measure to soften the cost of the inclusion of those categories.

Mr. Haughey

We have to get new premises in Dublin.

Mr. Boland

Perhaps it is just as well that the official record does not include facial expressions because I am afraid mine would have spoken half an hour's worth. I do not accept that. I also welcome the idea of the change to allow certain pensioners to receive an allowance in respect of bottled gas. Those things are very welcome. I am sorry to say that no attempt has been made, in conjunction with those minor changes, to reduce further the qualifying age for the old age pension. A concerted effort was made by the previous Government to bring down the age and it was brought down to the present level of 66 years. I am disappointed no effort has been made to reduce it further this year and to make a commitment to continue to reduce it, not only from the point of view of the benefit it would be to the people who would qualify but also as one of the methods which would help towards the contribution of further employment places.

Mr. Haughey

Below 65 years?

Mr. Boland

Yes. I believe, because of the great range of problems caused by the lack of employment we will have to tackle this matter from all angles. It is not good enough for any Minister for Social Welfare to say that those are not really his problems, that they are matters for the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. The Minister for social Welfare will have to get involved in those matters. When I suggest that the social welfare stamp should be abolished in respect of people under 21 years of age in order to stimulate employers to offer employment to young people, to give them job opportunities, and when I suggest that there should be a scaled social welfare stamp paid by people who do not work a full week to encourage employers to give part-time jobs to people when they have not got full 40-hour week jobs available, it is not good enough for the Minister for Social Welfare to say:

"They are not really social welfare matters, they are employment matters and they belong to my colleague." He should be involved also. He should suggest that apart from the help it would be to middle-aged people to see the qualifying age for old age pensions reduced it would also offer a real help to the employment scene. If people were encouraged to retire earlier, because of being eligible for a State pension, it would also make further jobs available.

The Government in their election manifesto promised to keep all levels of social welfare payments to social welfare recipients at least in line with the cost of living. As I understand it the Minister for Social Welfare is responsible for children's allowances. As a social welfare measure children's allowances appear to be the most demonstrable area where the Government have broken their election promises. The Government promised to keep all social welfare payments in line with increases in the cost of living and yet nowhere in the budget speech and nowhere in the Social Welfare Bill are increases in the rate of payment for children's allowances announced. If children's allowances are not going to be increased the Government have failed to honour their commitment to keep social welfare payments adjusted in line with cost of living increases.

The Minister's colleagues confidently predicted a sharp fall in the level of unemployment. I am surprised that that confidence is not echoed by the removal in the Social Welfare Bill of the temporary provision introduced some years ago whereby those in employment were asked to pay about 31p per week towards the cost of providing unemployment benefit for their colleagues who were not working. This was introduced as a short-term measure for as long as the rates of unemployment were operating at an abnormally high rate. The Minister's colleagues consistently are confidently predicted a sharp fall in unemployment during 1978 yet this Social Welfare Bill contains a provision extending for 1978 the payment by all employees of a special rate of contribution because of the exceptionally high rate of unemployment. I do not understand how that can be continued if the promises given are to be honoured.

There is also provision in the Bill for an increase in supplementary welfare allowances. In page 4 of his speech the Minister said that

These increases will maintain the parity between the rates of supplementary welfare allowance and the rural rates of unemployment assistance.

I am unhappy about the method in which the Supplementary Welfare Allowance Scheme is being operated. This has been the subject of exchanges during Question Time and we might now take the opportunity to examine the scheme and how it is operating. Members of the House have said that the scheme is not operating equitably throughout the country, and that there appears to be confusion in the minds of recipients and operatives as to how the scheme ought to operate, as to who is eligible and as to the rates of eligibility and so on. A flat ten per cent increase in supplementary welfare allowances as outlined in this Bill is not the way to approach this problem. Criticism has consistently been made, that a number of people entitled to payments under this scheme are not aware of their eligibility that some are paid a rate which is less than many people think it should be, and that they are not informed of their rights of appeal and that if they appeal the appeals authority are members of the same health board as the officer who refused to pay or paid the lower rate and that this is unfair. The whole principle behind supplementary welfare allowances was that it should abolish the concept of the Victorian poor law and that people would be paid, as of right, a certain amount of money, if in the opinion of the welfare officer they needed that money to provide a decent basic standard of living for themselves and their dependants. Recently I received a letter from a person engaged in this field who asked that if that was the concept of the Supplementary Welfare Allowance Act which is supposed to be in operation for some time, why do thousands of destitute people and their dependants have to request aid from charitable institutions so as to obtain shelter, clothing, food and occasionally finance? He also asked why do destitute men and women have to beg in the streets for money for tickets to go into night shelters if the social welfare supplementary allowances scheme is operating properly and why do the eight health boards not make provision for adequate financial funding of the scheme when compiling their annual budgets; why have officials from the Department never issued to the health boards sufficient detailed instructions as to how the scheme was to operate, and why has the Department not informed clerks in the labour exchanges that they should inform people who go there of their entitlements under the supplementary welfare scheme? I know that in the last few weeks advertisements have been placed in the national press and sent to health centres around the country. I hope that will improve the situation. This Bill gives us an opportunity to look at how that scheme has been operating or, more correctly, how it appears not to have been operating in certain ways.

Perhaps the most telling question of all is that if the social welfare supplementary allowances scheme is to provide financial and other aid for people who have no income, who are not entitled to unemployment benefit or who are not entitled to unemployment assistance because they cannot really be described as being available for employment, why should hundreds of destitute and homeless men and women in Dublin and in other places have to exist on such a small rate per week? The suggestion is that very often the officers administering this scheme appear to pay out less than the minimum that the scheme provides for. I find that suggestion incomprehensible and I hope that the Minister will be in a position to say categorically that that suggestion is incorrect. That suggestion has been made in documents submitted to the Minister. After the people receiving less than the minimum provided for, have paid out the average charge of £7 per week for the Iveagh Hostel they are left with £3 or £4 a week on which to subsist. They have that amount of money to feed and to clothe themselves and to keep themselves out of trouble during the hours in which they cannot get into the Iveagh Hostel.

The document goes on to suggest:

Even the most elementary practice of hygiene is unattaintable and from 2 p.m. on Friday until noon on the following Monday these people are unable in the majority of cases to partake of even one full hot meal because the food centres, with one exception, are closed. The exception is the Mendicity Institute but it can only cater for a small percentage of the poor. A similar situation exists in most large cities and towns in Ireland.

If there is any grain of truth in that suggestion from a social worker with several years' experience then the Supplementary Welfare Allowances Act designed to abolish the Victorian poor law concept is not working properly and the Minister should do something, and do it quickly, to repeal that Act and replace it with an Act that will work, an Act capable of implementation, properly financed and operated by expert trained personnel.

There is need to examine into the categories requiring benefit, to look at those who are really poor and deprived. Some attempt should be made to define poverty and deprivation and an all-out effort should be made to discover how we can help. It is not just a question of financial assistance. Education is involved and so is backup support. Giving 10 per cent to the blind pensioner living alone is not the way to solve his problem.

A group which is not getting a fair deal is that constituted of middle-aged single women. Over 58 years these women may qualify for a hopelessly inadequate allowance. They may have spent the best years of their lives looking after parents or helping to rear younger brothers or sisters. They are untrained. They have little or no prospect of marriage and possibly no income. Until recently they got no help whatsoever. They now receive a pittance. I regularly get letters from these middle-aged women. They feel they have been by-passed and ignored. They are not organised and they have no political muscle wherewith to bribe political parties into making attractive electoral offers to them.

A change in the fabric of social welfare is required. Better education is needed as are more workers in the field. If a worth-while effort is not made now then whoever stands here will have the right—it is not a nice right to have—to come in and criticise and object to the lazy man's concept of giving an across-the-board increase in social welfare.

To summarise, I am unhappy with the size of the increase from both the employer and the employee in regard to the social welfare stamp. I am opposed to it. I am opposed to the concept of an across-the-board increase because it is the lazy man's approach and it militates against the poorest of social welfare recipients. I am against the 10 per cent increase in the light of current percentages. I believe it should be 15 per cent if we really want it to hold the position of social welfare recipients relative to that of the rest of the community. I am disappointed as the lack of an autumn increase because such an increase may well be necessary. I am disappointed that we are not really doing anything as a christian-caring community to improve the lot of social welfare recipients. This Bill does nothing more than make an inadequate attempt to hold the position relative to the better-off sections of the community. For that reason I am bitterly disappointed with it.

Dr. O'Connell

It is important in a debate like this to be guided in our observations, opinions and criticisms by some kind of philosophy, some idea as to what these benefits and allowances are about, and what they are meant to achieve and how. I should like now to outline briefly my philosophy on this Bill from the point of view of the principles and the objectives guiding that philosophy.

In developing a proper social welfare system we should be guided by four basic principles: planning for social development, the rights of social welfare recipients, State responsibility in financing and administering a social welfare system and equality for all recipients. I was not given an opportunity on an earlier occasion to discuss these and so I should like to say something about them today in order to underline the provisions in this Bill.

There is no use having principles without a final objective or a goal towards which to direct our efforts. The goal I would set is that of securing for all recipients a basic standard of living in terms of income and services and the elimination once and for all of the dire poverty that exists. It is against these this Bill must be measured. How far does it go along the road to the elimination of poverty? How far does it go in providing a decent standard of living for the underprivileged, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled, the deserted wife, the orphan? How far does it advance social justice? These are the questions that must be asked. Are we really a Christian society catering adequately for the disadvantaged? Here we are debating the amount we say we must provide. Are we able to do enough for them? Are we doing enough? Will this 10 per cent increase go any distance along the road to helping these people?

The Minister in the budget debate put the cost of these benefits for a full year at £55 million. The Minister for Finance put the cost for a full year at £33 million. I find it difficult to understand the discrepancy. The Minister for Finance said:

The social welfare measures which I have announced will cost the Exchequer £21 million in 1978 and £33.2 million in a full year.

The Minister said that the total costs of these social welfare measures will be £38 million in 1978 and £55 million in a full year. Perhaps the Minister for Social Welfare would explain this discrepancy which has me somewhat baffled. Assuming the £55 million announced by the Minister for Social Welfare, how far does it go towards improving the lot of social welfare recipients? According to the Economic and Social Research Institute the projected inflation rate for 1978 is 8 per cent. So, of the £55 million increase, £44 million is required to cover the expected rate of inflation in 1978, leaving us with a mere £10 million for the real increase which is just over 1 per cent. If you spread that across the 900,000 recipients of social welfare benefits and allowances it represents a real increase of £11 per head per annum.

I do not want to get bogged down in statistical arguments on this 10 per cent increase but I want to focus the attention of the Dáil on the scale of social welfare increases embodied in this Bill. The increase will give just over 1 per cent. We should ask ourselves if this is sufficient, given the extent of the problem faced by our society. My argument is that it is grossly inadequate in the face of the massive need of the underprivileged and constitutes a clear indictment of our priorities as a nation. In that regard it is appropriate to quote a passage from the pastoral letter of the Irish bishops on the working of justice and social justice. They said that if we are to assure basic human rights to everyone, quite deliberately we shall have to discriminate in favour of the poor. A real transfer of money and opportunity must be made by the better-off sections of society to the poorer groups if the latter are to be raised to minimum standards of human dignity and if we are to lay claim to being a just and a Christian society. In the light of that, can we honestly say that this Bill discriminates in favour of the poor and underprivileged in our society? Does it involve a real transfer of money from the better-off sections to the poorer groups? Can we claim to be a Christian society in what we are doing? I do not think so.

The benefits in the recent budget were distributed in proportion to wealth, not to need. The 5,000 liable for wealth tax get an extra £2,000 per head. A family of four earning £10,000 a year get an extra £1,000. An average family on an average wage prior to the 8 per cent wage agreement will get an extra £600 per year. The widow, the deserted wife, and the unmarried mother on social welfare get an extra £70 per year. A family of four on employment benefit get an extra £250 a year while a family of four on unemployment assistance will get an extra £2.60 a week. The disparity is very obvious. Before clapping ourselves on the back for these increases we should consider these facts and say quite categorically that the 10 per cent increase is not enough.

I do not want to knock these increases or what is being done here with the 10 per cent without offering some constructive suggestions. I do not wish to be critical just for the sake of being critical; that would be grossly unfair and it would not serve any purpose here to do that. Poverty has been with us through successive governments. When we were in office we did not do enough; there is no use in being dishonest about it. A whole new approach and commitment is needed. I spoke earlier about planning for social development but with all the talk about economic planning there has been too little talk of social planning. We must ensure that economic planning goes hand in hand with the establishment of goals and targets for social services and allocation of finances to help these people. Social welfare policy must mean more than annual increases just to keep in line with inflation. It must embody a commitment to the elimination of poverty through the redistribution of wealth. This is the only way we can have any proper social policy.

I think we should have a five-year plan for a social welfare system and that this should be established forth-with laying down priorities and objectives. It should have two dimensions. There should be statutory linkage of all social welfare benefits to the cost of living. We must take the whole issue of increases to meet inflation out of the realm of party politics. We have this disgraceful charade each year of governments coming here clapping themselves on the back for increases in line with inflation. This is absurd and should be abolished. This is the absolute minimum that any self-respecting government should provide; it represents no real advance in social welfare services. It is merely running to stand still. No political capital should be allowed to be made about such increases. These should be automatically computed on the basis of the CPI and should be administered by the civil service at six monthly intervals. That is the first dimension and that should be done without any government.

The second dimension of the five-year plan would be an agreed proportion of the gross national product added to the social welfare increases over and above inflation to provide for a significant expansion of our social welfare services. This is the only way we can achieve anything in social services. The White Paper predicts an increase in gross national product of 7 per cent in 1978. A significant slice of that should be allocated to our social welfare services over and above increases to cope with inflation. This sort of policy would represent a commitment to transfer wealth to the poorer sections of the community and this is what social welfare planning should be about. This is what the Bishops are talking about, positive discrimination in favour of the poor.

The Minister for Fianance in his budget statement said he was satisfied that social welfare recipients should participate in the prospective growth in the wealth of the community generally. If he would accept the principle of planning for the social dimension. I think this would be achieved, first, by statutory linkage of social benefits to inflation and secondly, by earmarking a proportion of the growth in gross national product for the expansion of social welfare services. I appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare to take this case to his colleague, the Minister for Finance, and quote Deputy Colley's words from the budget speech and insist that as the figures for economic growth in 1978 begin to come in, an October increase will be introduced to ensure that social welfare recipients will participate in the growth in wealth of the community generally. This is what would be needed in the October budget.

Before ending my general observations on the 10 per cent increase I wish to make one more suggestion to the Minister, that he consider a minimum income for every household, this to be linked to the CPI. This should be a right for every household. At the moment the patchwork of benefits, allowances and pensions leaves too many gaps in coverage that the present system is unable to plug.

This bits and pieces approach to the whole social services policy since the beginning of the State has made no impact on the problem of poverty and it is time something new was established. That is why I am suggesting that there be a guaranteed minimum income for every household. This could be a very effective anti-poverty measure and could be considered in the context of the National Economic and Social Council report.

It spoke about an integrated approach to personal income taxes and transfers. It proposed a system whereby the tax and social welfare bureaucracy would be harmonised. This would simplify the whole range of transfers of income between the citizen and the State. This good idea should be discussed and the Minister should not delay too long before bringing this report before the House for discussion.

The report also calls for a guaranteed minimum income. This involves a payment to everyone in the State as of right, the amount varying according to age, whether one is an employee or self-employed and a payment for each child in the family. This guaranteed minimum income could have a real effect on the problem of poverty and would help to eliminate this abominable system of taxing social welfare benefits.

People at the bottom of the social welfare scale are obliged to pay tax. This is abominable and certainly inequitable because the State is giving with one hand and taking away with the other and hiring an army of civil servants to administer this crazy system. The harmonisation of the income tax and social welfare systems could reduce enormously, in administrative terms, the cost of running two separate Departments which in many cases are running at cross-purposes. I would ask the Minister to champion at Cabinet level some form of minimum guaranteed income linked to the cost of living. This whole topic of guaranteed minimum income is germane to this Bill, especially the reference in section 17 which increases the rates of contribution for the employer and the employee to the social insurance fund.

Another point mentioned is the question of extending the grant and tax scheme, widening the tax base to include all farmers and self-employed. This would be a major blow not only for tax equality but it would reduce the burden on the PAYE worker and the employer who together have absorbed most of the cost of the social insurance fund.

As we all know, the cost of the stamp has risen by nearly 150 per cent in the last four years and that is not an insignificant amount. Whether we like to admit it or not, the social welfare contribution is a social welfare tax and accounts for almost one-third of the total taxes on personal income. In spite of the fact that the yield from income tax has been increasing over the years we are inclined to pay very little attention to it as a tax on personal income. In my opinion this is because social welfare contributions are considered in the Social Welfare Bill rather than in the budget. In all other countries the insurance contributions are considered a form of tax first, because they are compulsory and second, because they are non-refundable and do not give rise to benefits in relation to the contribution made.

The increase of £1.34 is to be regretted. I am not saying the Minister is not following his predecessors by increasing this amount. I noticed that in 1974 there was a 26.4 per cent increase, a 43.2 per cent increase in 1975, a 37.5 per cent increase in 1976, an 11 per cent increase in 1977 and now a 21 per cent increase. Both Governments were guilty of increasing this contribution. The Coalition Minister for Finance on 15 January 1975 at column 224 of the Official Report said:

The Exchequer share of income maintenance expenditure here is over 60 per cent, which is abnormally high by western European standards. One of the main explanations for this is that employers and employees together contribute a far lower proportion than is normal elsewhere of the cost of the social insurance element in this expenditure. The Government have there-fore decided in principle to transfer the Exchequer contribution towards the cost of social insurance to the other contributors to the social insurance fund over a period of six years or so. This will have the effect of bringing the Exchequer's overall share of income maintenance expenditure more into line with practice in other EEC countries and of making the social insurance fund more self-financing.

This Government are following exactly the practice of their predecessors. Deputy Boland should examine what the Coalition Minister for Finance said—that it was the intention of the Government to reduce progressively the Government contribution to the social insurance fund so that over six years it would be self-supporting and the Government would not have to pay anything towards it. He also said that that was in line with EEC policy. At that time I was amazed to hear that and wondered if this EEC policy was imposed on the Government.

I consider this a penal tax on workers already suffering the gross injustice of the PAYE system. I am being objective. I opposed these increases then and I oppose this increase now. This is a disincentive to employers. If we are to encourage more employment we should be giving employers incentives to employ more people. I proposed to the Coalition, and I propose it again now, that we abolish the social insurance stamp for those between the ages of 16 and 21—let the State pay for it; it would be an incentive to employers to take on young people—but my proposal was ignored. I am asking the Minister to consider it now. I do not want to shift the burden on to the employer and the employee and make the social insurance fund self-supporting.

I noticed that the Exchequer contributions dropped from 30 per cent in 1973-74 to 19 per cent in 1977. In my view we should not do things simply because that is the trend in the EEC countries. They do not have tax and social insurance systems like ours. They do not have so many farmers and self-employed, in other words so much wealth, outside the system. With the exception of Italy, we are the only EEC country with such a high percentage of self-employed. This means the insurance system falls on a small proportion of our society. In no other country is nearly one-third of the personal income in the State outside the social insurance scheme. In this country the burden inevitably falls on those who pay PAYE. The base for the social welfare contributions is too narrow and there is a basic injustice as a result. The benefits for insured persons are financed by their own and employers' contributions, but the financing of benefits for the self-employed is spread over all sections of the community. Insured persons and their employers finance a major proportion of the cost of social assistance for the self-employed who finance only a minor proportion of the cost of benefits for the insured workers. The widening of the social insurance base to include the self-employed would make for a much more equitable system because then the self-employed would be contributing directly to the social insurance fund.

There is an urgent need for a review of the Exchequer's level of contribution to the social insurance fund, and I suggest to the Minister that pending the introduction of a pay-related scheme he might consider asking his colleagues in the Cabinet, as a temporary measure, that the Exchequer increase significantly its proportion to the social insurance fund. This would help to provide some incentive to employers to take on more workers, particularly in the labour-intensive industries.

There are a few points I wish to make on section 17. There is the case of the employer who does not stamp his employees' cards and either refuses or is unavailable to make a statement to the Department. I have knowledge of a number of cases where benefits for employees are being held up pending statements by the employers. I suggest that in such cases the State is shirking its responsibility. The Social Welfare Acts provide that the State assume responsibility for paying an employee in a situation like that, but unfortunately what we legislate for and what is done in practice are two different matters. At the moment I am aware of a case of a company going into liquidation and the employees have been waiting about four months for their benefits. They cannot ascertain whether their cards have been stamped. This is a serious matter. It is provided in the Social Welfare Acts that the State sue the employer and pay the employee directly, but this has not been done.

The present situation whereby an employee can ascertain whether his cards have been stamped is unsatisfactory and inadequate. He can go to the employer and check once a month, but if an employee pesters an employer he is liable to be dismissed. I suggest that the Department should register all employees under their insurance numbers and ensure that their cards are up to date by a check at six monthly intervals. Where an employee is not in benefit according to the computer, the State could take action against the employer. Such a system is long overdue and I would ask the Minister to remedy a situation that has been causing a lot of hardship.

Section 17 also deals with what I call the 31 per cent unemployment surcharge. Is it intended that this will be a permanent feature of the social welfare code? I did not like it in the first place because I do not think that the employed should be burdened to provide benefits for the unemployed. I ask the Minister to comment on this. It is not his fault because he inherited it, but he is perpetuating it and I should like him to indicate when it will be stopped.

On the question of contributions for part-time work, would the Minister consider a proportionate reduction in the cost of stamps for work undertaken on a part-time basis? This needs to be looked at seriously. I wish to comment on the increased rate of the employment contribution. I should prefer to see this in the budget, if possible, because I consider it to be a form of taxation.

I turn my attention now to section 4 dealing with unemployment assistance. More and more people are unemployed for longer periods and are moving from unemployment benefit to unemployment assistance, a much lower rate and subject to a strict means test on savings, value of board and lodgings and so on. The insurance stamp provides cover for only 15 months of unemployment, and at present more than one-third of males on the unemployment register have been unemployed for more than a year, and half have been unemployed for more than six months. The result is an increasing transfer of people from benefit to assistance.

Figures released by Mr. Murray of the National Social Service Council show that in the period October 1976 to October 1977 the numbers receiving benefit dropped by more than 9,000 and the numbers on assistance went up by 4,000. In previous years there were more people on benefit than assistance, but in 1977 the pattern changed. Of those who received payments in 1976, 45 per cent were on assistance, but by October 1977 the figure had jumped to 52 per cent on assistance. Therefore, when we include dependants we can say that 110,000 people here are living on assistance and this, at the princely sum of £25 per week for husband, wife and two children will give some indication of the extent of the poverty there is. Because of the outrageous number who are living at or below poverty level it is urgent that the Minister would review the shifting pattern in relation to the unemployed. Because of our massive unemployment people are staying on the register for two years or more. In the circumstances I suggest that the Minister publish monthly returns of payments so that we can gauge the trend.

The NSSC and Mr. Murray deserve thanks for alerting us to the developments in this respect, shattering the myth that the unemployed are living in the lap of luxury. In fact far too many of them are living in poverty. It is a shame that the Press did not devote as much space to the figures presented by Mr. Murray as to the unfounded allegations in regard to social welfare abuses and fraud. I refer to the figure of £2.5 million mentioned by the Minister and repeated at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis as the figure to be saved by elimination of social welfare fraud. I suggest that the Minister should indicate how that figure was arrived at, because £2.5 million is a precise figure and it should be backed up by precise evidence. The topic is too emotive to be bandied about lightly. I should like to remind the Minister that between 1973 and 1975 criminal prosecutions for the failure of employers to stamp cards outnumbered offences relating to payment of unemployment benefit and assistance by roughly eight to one.

One of the problems regarding section 4 and unemployment assistance is the means test. It is overly restrictive. I ask the Minister earnestly to consider a man of say 18, 19 or 20 years living at home who, by virtue of family income, is deprived of unemployment assistance. The Minister knows of such cases. It is grossly unfair that a man of 18 or 19 cannot obtain any unemployment assistance where the means of the household are above the limit. He is a man in his own right, and the Minister, as Minister for Health, recognises this right in that he will give that man a medical card and disregard the means of the household. He says that that man is entitled to a medical card in his own right. But, as Minister for Social Welfare, he says: "No, I will not recognise that he is a man in his own right. He is not eligible for social welfare assistance."

I cannot understand why this anomaly exists. You may say that the man can move out. He can, but where will he live? He could qualify if he moved out and went into some hostel. There are many cases of this kind where people are suffering serious hardship. It is not that they do not want jobs. They cannot get them at the moment, although things will improve. These people are living like parasites on their families, and it is demoralising for a man not to have some means of his own. We should review this. There have been cases of people going to collect unemployment assistance and receiving the princely sum of 10p and that is not an exaggeration. I have come across such cases. The Minister sees more of them than I do and he knows what I am talking about. Students over the age of 16 are considered to be men in their own right and qualify for a medical card, but when it comes to unemployment assistance there is absurdity.

One principle which should guide social welfare assistance is that of equality for all social welfare recipients under the law. Section 5 of the Bill abolishes discrimination in social welfare assistance against single women and widows. That deserves the highest praise, and I congratulate the Minister on it. It was a bold innovatory move on his part and he has my gratitude for it. I have spoken about this matter for years. I would not agree with what his colleague in Government said on the question of income tax and women, but I must acknowledge the major moves being made by the Minister in this respect. This is a very important advance in the cause of rights for women.

The measures in this Bill abolishing some of the awkward residency requirements for old age pensioners and widows is good and must be welcomed as an effort to expand people's access to benefits. I would like to refer to section 7 and widows' pensions. There is a condition in relation to this that unless a claim is made within three months the widow will not qualify for back payment. It is a small issue, but in the light of what happens in a bereavement this three months qualification is rather restrictive. When a woman loses her husband she suffers a tragic loss. There is inconvenience, bereavement and sadness. Very often she does not realise what is happening and is late in applying. She does not even think of it at the time. I ask the Minister to eliminate that restrictive clause. The State would not lose anything by this and it would help people. I think the Minister will look at this, but I am bringing it to his attention.

I want to mention social welfare entitlements. For too long these have been stigmatised as the hand-outs of a benevolent State. I believe in people's rights in this. We must eliminate once and for all this question of political patronage or the fact that these benefits seem to be obtained only through access to a TD and so on. If we are to be self-respecting members of the community as TDs we must eliminate that. The purpose of the Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Act was to eliminate these charitable hand-outs. The intent was to recognise for the first time that the recipients had a right to social welfare payments, and an appeals machinery was to be established to defend this right. The old poor law mentality to which Deputy Boland referred and the home assistance scheme were to be declared dead.

It sometimes happens with progressive legislation passed in this House that entitlements on paper are not necessarily those which work out in practice. Section 12 of this Bill is concerned with supplementary welfare allowances. When the Act was passed in 1975 it was estimated that over 30,000 people would qualify, but the statistics released by the Minister to me in reply to a parliamentary question last December revealed that only 14,000 people qualified and they received an average of only £6 a week. These are the people most in need of help. This is not the performance we were expecting from this so-called fire brigade of a social welfare system. This was to be a measure to provide some kind of barrier against poverty, but the small number of people qualifying and the small payments being made showed that the scheme simply is not working, and certainly not as envisaged when we passed the Bill three years ago.

The Minister said that adequate information is available to anyone who wishes to obtain it. This is not the correct approach. People should be told of their rights. The Department should not adopt the attitude of "information only on request". There is need for a full-blooded publicity drive to get this scheme on its feet. The Minister has said he has the training facilities and the needs of the community welfare officers under review. I hope he has them under rigorous review, because complaints are mounting about the way in which the scheme is being run. I ask the Minister if he will give some indication of the average length of time it takes to process a claim on the supplementary allowance scheme. Just a week ago I had a case of a family who were impoverished and had literally nothing. They were three weeks waiting and there was still no money coming. That is a long time to have to wait when you have no money. The Minister has introduced this fire brigade measure on the question of pensions, and it is wonderful, but some way of speeding up the process of providing emergency funds for people in need must be examined very urgently.

The whole fate of this effort lies in the hands of those first-point-of-contact officials who administer the scheme. But there is a need for the urgent training of these persons. The poor law mentality still applies, but it must be got rid of. I had occasion to explain the scheme to a person in need who came to see me and who knew nothing about the scheme. Regardless of whether the personnel are called community welfare officers, home assistance officers or anything else, they are acting with the same type of mentality as that which was applied to the operation of the home assistance scheme. The application forms in respect of this scheme are quite complicated. Indeed, I had some difficulty in filling one for somebody who had sought my help in that regard. Perhaps the Minister would make an effort to have the forms simplified.

The Minister has said that these officers are expected to inform applicants of their right to appeal, to inform them of how their means are assessed and to give reasons in the event of an application being refused, but he did not say that this is being done on a regular basis in each health board area throughout the country. This is the kind of thing we must know about.

There remains the question of appeals machinery. Informal appeals, though time saving, can dilute seriously an applicant's right under the Act. We must know how appeals are being conducted, whether they are on a consistent basis in every health board area and whether it is the intention to introduce a more formal appeals system. We must keep in mind always the question of discretionary powers in an area such as this. Such powers can be and have been abused. The provision in the Act for non-financial aid —aid such as essential furniture, clothing and food—is non-existent so far as many health board areas are concerned. That is another matter that the Minister might look into.

There are persistent allegations that community welfare officers are not making an attempt to ascertain the real needs of the individual as required by the Act. I am aware that the Minister is moving on the scheme and that already he has made an attempt to rationalise it, but there are big problems remaining still.

I should like to finish my contribution with a few remarks on our attitude to the problem of poverty, the elimination of which must be a fundamental objective of our social welfare service. In this context I quote the Minister who, while speaking on a Supplementary Estimate for his Department said, as reported at column 649 of the Official Report of 1 December 1977:

We would all like to think that such a situation could be brought about. It is our ultimate objective to eliminate the last vestige of poverty from our society, but whether that can be achieved in a modern community is a question to which different people will give different answers... human frailty will always be with us.

I should like to contrast that with the view put forward in a pastoral letter from the Irish bishops. They said that in a society aspiring to be Christian it should be a consistent aim of social policy to work steadily towards the reduction and the ultimate elimination of poverty. They said that the virtual elimination of poverty is not beyond our capacity even during the present recession and that the causes which generate poverty can be identified, foreseen, often checked and prevented. They are quite positive in their thinking. It is not enough to say that the poor will always be with us. Without wishing to be arrogant, I caution the Minister against becoming resigned to the existence of poverty. We must be determined to eliminate poverty and to say that it can and will be eliminated. Half-hearted efforts will not work. We must continue the battle against poverty. Our efforts in this sphere are a test of our political will and of our claim to being a Christian society. There should be no compromise. I ask the Minister to bear this philosophy in mind.

There is one last point that I wish to put to the Minister by way of suggestion. This relates to a considerable number of people who are in receipt of social welfare disability benefit but who, perhaps, should not be in receipt of this benefit. When these people are declared fit by medical referees considerable trauma can result. Much of their illness is psycho-genic in origin. I appreciate that the scheme is costing the State a lot of money but perhaps, in an effort to solve the problem to which I have referred and with a view to redistributing the money in a better way, the Minister would provide that where these people are declared fit after being out of work for a long time, they could transfer to the social welfare supplementary allowances system for a number of weeks in order to give them the opportunity to readjust. Perhaps I am looking for something that is unorthodox or that is even illegal, but if the system could be changed in the way I suggest it would be of enormous benefit to the people concerned. In addition, it would help the Department of Social Welfare and would make more money available for distribution to those in need.

Another point I must not omit to refer to is that of married women being declared ineligible for unemployment benefit. I interpret the reason for this to be that a woman has a child. This provision represents gross discrimination against the people concerned, especially in modern life when there are available creches or a woman's mother or somebody else to mind children. We must eliminate this discrimination. There is no provision for appeal in the Social Welfare Act of 1952 against the decision of an appeals officer. The Minister has no power in this area but there is need to amend the Act as it is causing gross injustice.

It is not my wish to appear to be critical for the sake of being critical. My criticism is offered by way of constructive suggestions. A suggestion the Minister might consider in relation to this question of married women and unemployment benefit is that the applicants for benefit would have to produce proof of having sought employment—for example, letters from people from whom the women had sought work. I do not know whether the Minister would have the power to make this suggestion but something should be done to rectify the situation as it is.

Mr. Callanan

I had not intended speaking on this Bill because it is important that it go through quickly. However, I shall not detain the House very long. I have listened to the speeches so far because I am very interested in social welfare. I congratulate the Minister on his brief. He has forgotten nobody in this Bill. The speeches from both Opposition parties were constructive, particularly the speech from Deputy O'Connell for whom I have the greatest respect. He is a man with a great social conscience.

We have had here today the sort of debate that is desirable—giving credit where credit is due and offering constructive criticism where such is considered necessary. I, too, wish to give all the credit that is due in so far as the system goes but there are a few points on which I may be critical. The Minister has a social conscience and because of that I am confident that he will give sympathetic consideration to the points we raise.

Let me say first that I disagree totally with a system which provides for percentage increases for any group, but it is rather strange that the Opposition are complaining about percentage increases in social welfare because all wage agreements are negotiated on a percentage basis which gives greater amounts of money to those in the higher income groups. I am against percentage increases because the lower income groups receive least. I am consistent in my view on this matter. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If one criticises percentage increases in social welfare, one must also consider that percentage increases should not be given under national wage agreements. If the increases were given on a different system some people would fare better.

Various increases in old age pensions have been given by various Governments but the income limit for receipt of an old age pension has not been changed. To qualify for a full old age non-contributory pension the limit for a single person is £6 and for a married couple it is £12. This is wrong, and it would be impossible to live on such sums. The increases which have been given are quite good but the Minister should take a look at the income limits. There is no better man to do this than the present Minister. A single person who has more than £15 per week cannot get an old age pension. Who could live on that? It is not realistic in 1978.

I should like to mention another sore point. I do not know if the Minister will come around to my point of view but if I continue talking somebody may give me a hearing. I had been pressing the Minister's predecessor in regard to the allowance for the care of the aged. This has now been increased, and I congratulate the Minister. However, it is completely unfair that if the person being cared for is a relative an allowance is not payable if there is anyone living in the house other than the person caring for that relative. I have raised this point many times before and it is on the record of the House. A young woman may be caring for an aged relative and keeping him out of an institution but she will not qualify for an allowance if her husband lives in the house. It appears that there must be only one physically fit person in the house and that person must be minding the aged relative. In order to qualify for the allowance there must not be another physically fit person in the house.

A very attractive young girl came to me recently and complained bitterly that her husband had lost the allowance which he had been receiving for caring for his father. I told her that her husband had a choice to make. I said: "He has either to do without the allowance or do without you, and I would choose you any day." As soon as this man got married he lost the allowance because there was a second person in the house and the person for whom he was caring was a relative. I believe there would be fewer people in homes and institutions if a reasonable amount of money was paid, irrespective of whether they are relatives or not. Anyone who takes in a person from the street will be paid provided that person is not a relative. I would ask the Minister to consider this very carefully.

There has been much talk about this Government doing away with the entitlement of farmers to social welfare. This is certainly not so. Deputy O'Connell said he did not want to consider that the poor will be always with us. Farmers with the type of valuation mentioned here will always be with us because unless they can get land they cannot make a living. There are no increases for anybody with a valuation in excess of £15. They are still on the notional system but there is no social welfare increase. I do not know anybody who wants to be on social welfare. Farmers would prefer to get good incentives to improve their land rather than social welfare benefits. People with valuations between £15 and £20 now find it very hard to get any social welfare. Many people think that farmers who get social welfare go into the pub and spend it on drink. That is not so. If they have a few bob left they put it back into their farms in order to increase production. I am disappointed that the people who are losing social welfare are not getting incentives from another Department. We will talk about that on the Estimate. I do not like to hear it said that people who are drawing assistance are spending it in bars.

I congratulate the Minister on the fact that single women will now get unemployment assistance. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister, as Deputy O'Connell has done, to the case of a person living with a brother who is fairly well off. The means of that person are taken into account in assessing eligibility for unemployment assistance but are not taken into account with regard to medical care. Some of these people get nothing but abuse from those with whom they are living and they are in the terrible position of not getting unemployment assistance because they are part of a family. I would ask the Minister to have a look at this.

I do not intend to delay the House because I understand it is absolutely important that this Bill should go through quickly. I congratulate the Minister on having a social conscience and I bring to his notice the points on which he could go further—as I know he will—to eliminate unfair rules against people in regard to old age pensions and social welfare. I would ask him to consider seriously raising the income for receipt of the old age pension and doing away with the rules regarding the relatives' allowance. A decent allowance should be paid to keep aged people at home where they want to be and where they want to die and I assure the Minister that he would gain money. I said this to the previous Minister and I will take a gamble on it. I congratulate the Minister on what I consider to be a very good Bill.

Mr. F. O'Brien

It is a pleasure to follow Deputy Callanan, who appears to be the social conscience of the Fianna Fáil Party. I say that sincerely, not lightly, just in case Deputy Callanan might think I would say something derogatory. This is another mini-budget. In the budget the Government said the people would get a 10 per cent increase but they should spell out quite clearly where the money will come from. If we want to spend additional moneys they must be raised in some way. That is a matter for the Minister for Finance but apparently he does not like delivering the coup de grâce. He does not like to tell the bad news. Apparently he wants to leave that to the Minister for Health and Social Welfare. It appears that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development are out to make life uncomfortable for the Minister for Health and Social Welfare. I did not blame the Minister for not going on television the other night. He was quite right. Why should he have to face criticism for the increases when he was not responsible for them? Quite rightly he put in the Minister for Economic Planning and Development to answer the criticism. The Minister for Health and Social Welfare said it was not his business to deliver bad news to the nation, it was his business to look after social welfare and health. His attitude was that the people who formulate this policy should go on television and deliver the bad news themselves. Why should he do somebody else's dirty work?

However, he has come to the Dáil to do precisely that. On the one hand we are told about a reduction of £1 in the price of the social welfare stamp for a certain category while on the other hand people now find out they have to pay more. It is necessary to highlight the gross dishonesty of Fianna Fáil and their dishonest approach in their manifesto. This is showing itself day after day. They tell the people they are their great benefactors, that they are removing £1 from the cost of the stamp. That is in the large print but in the small print—or in print that cannot be read which is even worse because even the shoddy salesman has small print—it is a different story.

Now that they have been elected and will remain in office for the next few years they do not mind asking for additional funds to meet the commitments made by them. Many false promises were made. It is sad to have to come to this House week after week and to say this. All of the increases should have been incorporated in the budget but that did not happen.

The workers were told of the great benefits they would get. That was necessary in order to sell the national wage agreement. What is attractive about this measure, and about the increase of 44p in the price of the stamp? That is a direct taxation on the worker. Fianna Fáil have set out in a very glossy document what they are giving to the workers but they are not told of the deceitful way the Government are coming to this House week after week with Bills whose purpose is to extract money to meet the promises of Fianna Fáil. These promises were given in order to buy the votes of the people.

I realise that we will have to pay for extra benefits. My concern is with regard to the attitude of Fianna Fáil in this matter. They came before the electorate last June and told them they would get benefits for nothing. Any benefit that may have been given has been eroded by the additional increases since then. Last week a Bill before this House made provision for an additional 11p on the worker and this week it is 44p making a total of 55p. So much for a new era, so much for the great new horizons we were told about. Last July I knew there were no economic miracles, there were no short-cuts and nobody had found a way of printing the kind of money to meet the promises of Fianna Fáil.

The Government now tell us that this Bill must be put through quickly in order that the money will be paid in April. They have brought in the Bill in the closing weeks of this session so that the House will not have time to talk about it. If the Opposition attempt to debate the matter they will be accused of holding up a 10 per cent payment to social welfare recipients. That is an insult to the House. We do not intend to delay payment of 10 per cent to anybody but we have a right to debate the matter. It is wrong for anybody to say this Bill must go through in a cavalier and quick fashion. We must debate it, examine it, and be critical of it. This Bill means only one thing: people will pay more to work.

Social welfare increases are a right and should be accepted as a right. The Government should not set people against one another. They are setting those who work and old age pensioners against each other and one group cannot say anything because the others are getting a 10 per cent increase. This is ludicrous. It is the type of nebulous thinking we get from the far side of the House. I am very disturbed that such an increase should be contemplated, given that the Government removed car tax. There was no demand for its removal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has mentioned car tax on three or four occasions. It cannot be discussed on this Bill.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Excuse me——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in this Bill about car tax.

Mr. F. O'Brien

If I feel it is relevant I will mention it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. F. O'Brien

It is relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy, please do not argue with the Chair. It is not relevant to this Bill. I have told the Deputy that before.

Mr. F. O'Brien

It is relevant. I am telling the Chair it is relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Car tax and budgetary matters are not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. F. O'Brien

This Bill raises money. It surcharges people who cannot afford to pay as against people who can afford to pay. That is what it does.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not argue with the Chair.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am pointing out to the Chair——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have told the Deputy he may not discuss car tax on this Bill. Will the Deputy please obey the Chair?

Mr. F. O'Brien

I was trying to show the analogy between one group and another. If you are trying to protect that side of the House, so be it. That is your business.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy continues on those lines——

Mr. F. O'Brien

So be it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

——I will ask him to resume his seat. If he makes charges against the Chair, I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Time and time again you have taken sides against Deputies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

With-draw that, Deputy. That is a charge against the Chair. I will not have the Chair charged by the Deputy in that fashion. The Chair will be fair to everybody.

Mr. F. O'Brien

You have asked me to refrain from mentioning car tax.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On this Bill.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Excuse me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy on the Bill before the House. The Deputy may not continue on those lines.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Would the Leas-Cheann Comhairle please hear me? I am saying that had the Government not done that they would not necessarily have had to put 44p on the social welfare stamp. That is a valid comparison which I am entitled to make. I am disappointed that I cannot make a valid comparison in this House. Apparently we cannot make valid comparisons any more.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to make valid comparisons, but he has been talking about car tax, the budget and other matters in the budget which do not arise on this Bill. The Deputy knows that as well as the Chair.

Mr. F. O'Brien

If the Minister for Finance and company had been doing their job, these increases should have been included in the budget. If they were not included in the budget, it is my right as a Deputy to make comparisons. It is dishonest that these increases were not in the budget. Any increase in revenue should be in the budget. If not, when it comes here as a separate entity it opens up a new area. I looked at the debate on this type of Bill last year and the year before and if you talk about precedents —and we seem to be hidebound about precedents—the then Opposition spoke about job creation and what Deputy Lynch would do when he was in Government. If the Chair wants precedents I am prepared to quote precedents.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All I am asking the Deputy to do is to obey the rulings of the Chair, nothing more. There is no question of precedents or anything else. The Deputy can talk on what is in the Bill and what he thinks should be in the Bill.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I accept that, and I want to abide by your ruling. If I have said anything to offend you it was not meant as a personal affront.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I accept that, but the Deputy is continuing to question the rulings of the Chair.

Mr. F. O'Brien

If we cannot speak in this House, it is better for us all to move out of it. The issues I raised are relevant. The comparisons I made are important. These increases mean that the less well off in our society will have to pay for the better off. I reject that very strongly. It is sad that we should have this type of argument. I want to highlight the hypocrisy of the people on the far side of the House who are pretending they have goodwill for the people. Of course they have not. They have been elected and, from now on, we can look forward to additional charges week after week under various subheads.

To get back to the practical reality of the Bill, I want to mention a few items which concern me about widows' pensions being paid quickly. I know there is a fire brigade action in some aspects of social welfare. I will mention a case which happened a few weeks ago in my own constituency. A married man with five children came out of a pub one Saturday night, was knocked down and killed. Four weeks later it came to my notice that his widow had not received one penny. This is not an indictment of the Minister or anybody else. I am merely saying a system which allows that to happen is wrong. There should be some simple mechanism whereby a widow, particularly with a family, would have quick access to money. We can talk about the supplementary allowances, and so on, but it takes too long to process these pensions.

When the form is filled up and the necessary certificates have been authenticated on the spot, which can be done, some sort of voucher should be issued straight away for payment of the money. People should be able to go in and say: "There are all my documents and there is the death certificate." They should be examined and checked, and the cheque should be paid to the widow on the spot. It is a traumatic experience for any woman to lose her husband. She should receive the payment promptly.

It is sad that this kind of bureaucratic attitude of no concern exists, that there is an insistence on fulfilling the terms of certain regulations. Something should be done about this. Administrators are not there to talk down to people; they are there to serve people and make the system work. If a person has to wait four of five weeks without money the system is not working. I want the system to work quickly particularly in the case of young widows with children who are in need of money. When a breadwinner dies there is an instant cessation of income. The traumatic experience of the death of a breadwinner often leaves bewilderment in a house. This regulation should be looked at in a humane manner.

What annoys me about this is that a regulation is often introduced to stop one misdemeanour in a million. I accept that we may have breakdowns but it is always possible to claw-back or to write-off. The State is big enough to write-off. We should not penalise everybody because a person has drawn money he was not entitled to. While I accept that rates on private houses have been abolished I feel obliged to point out that if one form of taxation is eliminated another method must be found to raise that money. Elderly people with a small income did benefit from the waiver of rates scheme. That was a bonus for them but now that all are benefiting by the abolition of rates that benefit has disappeared. I accept that they will not be obliged to pay rates but the finance must be raised in another way. For instance, the subsidy on cheese has been withdrawn with a consequent saving to the State. The price of bread has been increased and so also have rents on local authority houses. A lot of items have been increased in price to pay for the removal of rates.

The fact that the burden of raising this tax is placed across-the-board militates against widows, old age pensioners and others on small incomes who benefited from the waiver of rates scheme. Those people will suffer. This is the type of philosophy being promulgated by the Government because there are not many votes to be gained. That is a sad situation. Schemes like the waiver of rates scheme were introduced to make life easier for those less well-off in our community but there is nothing in the Bill to give them any additional assistance. The Bill will merely mean that they will maintain their level of subsistence and I do not think anybody could be proud of that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of rates has nothing to do with this Minister.

Mr. F. O'Brien

He has power to award benefits-in-kind to old age pensioners and he has done this by giving telephones free of rent to people living alone.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the responsibility of the Minister but he has nothing to do with rates.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Was the introduction of the scheme giving free electricity to such people his responsibility?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It was.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The waiver of rates scheme was his responsibility but I accept it is not his responsibility now because rates on private houses have been abolished. The fact that rates have been abolished means that the less well-off will be hit hardest when the Government increases taxes in other directions. Measures should have been taken to protect such people. This highlights the lack of foresight and imagination on the part of the Minister. There is no imagination in the Bill and it does not open up any new avenues in relation to the payment of social welfare benefits.

It appears that a gullotine has fallen and the Minister has drawn a line across a 10 per cent increase in the hope that he will make everybody happy but that will not happen. Obviously, some people will be happy but in my view the increase is not sufficient. I welcome the new scheme in relation to telephone rentals and I hope it is the start of an effort to install telephones in the houses of those who live alone. It is a great ordeal to live alone particularly if one is in poor health. If the Department are satisfied that a person living alone is in bad health they should make arrangements to pay the cost of the installation as well as providing the telephone free of rent.

Some people can come to grips with living alone but others cannot. If a person living alone has a telephone he or she can speak to a relation or a friend and discuss his or her problems. If that person is not well help can be obtained quickly. A person living alone in a room without this type of communication is isolated. I compliment the Minister in doing what he did because it is a very comprehensive step. I hope he will be able to go further in this matter. We should always keep the elderly in mind because they are the people who worked so hard at the beginning of this State. We should make life as easy as possible for them in their old age.

Supplementary rent benefits should be given to the elderly. I mentioned this on another occasion and you ruled me out of order. I do not think you can do so now because I think it is in order on this Bill. I hope the Minister will look at this matter. Elderly people who have houses of their own have a waiver of rates so they are basically living rent free now. The people living in local authority accommodation are living on highly subsidised rents. The people living in private accommodation, which may be a bedsitter on Rathmines Road or somewhere else, have to pay the going rate. It is sad to see people under pressure from landlords with regard to additional rent which they cannot afford to pay. The local authorities are doing as much as they can to help those people but there is not sufficient accommodation to meet all the problems. It is important to devise some type of supplementary rent benefit for those people. The increases given to old age pensioners are being absorbed by landlords. The Minister should do something for those people.

We hear a lot of talk about fraud in the Department of Social Welfare. The people who make those charges are possibly the people who get benefit from tax evasion. While the Minister must be vigilent at all times he must not take the attitude that everybody drawing social welfare is a potential dodger, a person who might want to draw social welfare payment without being entitled to it. If we adopt that type of attitude people might feel that we are only concerned about preventing people from getting payment and not looking to see where we can give people additional payments. People in receipt of social welfare money are on the poverty line. I believe that most people will agree that the benefit those people are getting is very poor.

Children's allowances come under the Department of Social Welfare although they do not come under this Bill. No additional money was made available in the budget for children's allowances. I ask the Minister to use his good offices at the Cabinet table to see that some increase in children's allowances is given in the near future. This money gives an income to the wife who remains at home. Greater emphasis should be given to providing an income for the married woman who lives at home.

Mr. Begley

They are not the "well-heeled, articulate women".

Mr. F. O'Brien

I will let the Minister for Finance deal with that. He mentioned well-heeled, articulate women. I did not say it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy would not be in order in saying it and neither would Deputy Begley, on this Bill. He will get other opportunities of saying it I am sure. Deputy O'Brien on the Bill.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The Minister should try to provide a special payment for the married woman who remains at home. Those people are the backbone of our society, the people who make society tick over. We have allowed married women to obtain children's allowances. We should look into the tax mechanism with regard to the married woman who stays at home. This would have a very dramatic effect on our society and on the attitude towards wage increases. I believe this comes within the Minister's ambit. I have no doubt he will look at this matter during his term of office.

There is poverty today, but whether it is self-inflicted or because of the systems we have evolved it should be examined. We must recognise the problem. The last Government considered the problem and set up pilot committees to see what could be done. I do not ask the Minister to eliminate poverty. Poverty cannot be eliminated through social welfare, but it should be examined within the ambit of social welfare.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On the Estimate, Deputy.

Mr. F. O'Brien

We are not talking about an Estimate now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am suggesting to the Deputy that the right time to discuss poverty would be on the general Estimate and not on this Bill.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Other speakers raised this question. A Social Welfare Bill gives reasonably wide scope that should encompass poverty. Through social welfare we are trying to eliminate poverty. While that may not be achieved through social welfare, nevertheless it is our aim.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to refer to poverty in passing but a general debate on poverty would be better left to the Estimate. The Deputy appreciates that?

Mr. F. O'Brien

I do. I will not go into the whole question of poverty. We could spend the night talking about poverty and still get nowhere, but when the opportunity arises it is important to make a few comments on it. It will not necessarily be done away with through social welfare, but the Minister in his pilot schemes will have to look at the attitude of society to poverty and should work to eliminate this evil. A society that accepts poverty without question is an indolent society. Any social welfare programme should deal with the person who has no fixed abode. In my area there are a number of hostels.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is definitely getting away from the Bill. Homeless persons and such like can be discussed on the Estimate. It does not arise on this Bill except as far as they receive social welfare benefits.

Mr. F. O'Brien

That is exactly the point I am going to make.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not making that point. He is going on to hostels, homeless persons and all the rest. Their rehousing is another matter.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I did not mention housing; I mentioned the payment of social welfare benefit to them. Homeless persons should be looked at as a separate category in relation to social welfare. They are known as NFA's. It is a terrible expression to use—no fixed abodes. I doubt if the expression has been heard in the House but it is no harm to have it aired that we have the problem.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On the Estimate, I would suggest.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is leaving a lot for me to say on the Estimate and I will say it on the Estimate. I would ask the Minister to look at the question of homeless people to see what can be done to provide extra social welfare payments for them, be it through health boards or through private bodies. I know this might come under the Estimate but we are talking about social welfare improvements and this is a needed improvement.

Deputy Dr. O'Connell referred to the question of married women who have to give up work for a short time to have a baby or for health reasons. When they decide to go back to work after having a baby and cannot find work they cannot seek social welfare benefit even though they can give an assurance that the baby will be looked after by some other person. It is dishonest for the Department to operate in that manner. These women are entitled to social welfare payments, but because they have a baby they will not be paid. If a person is eligible for employment and can prove it she is entitled to benefit. I heard of a case recently where this occurred and where the person subsequently got work. Prior to that she was denied social welfare payment because she was told she did not want work, that she was not eligible for work. This is a pathetic way for the Department to operate. The Minister should have a look at this. I will conclude—I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be delighted——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has as much time as he wants.

Mr. F. O'Brien

——with the free fuel scheme. That comes under this Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Sorry, Deputy.

Mr. F. O'Brien

It does not?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. The Deputy is now getting into administrative matters. I think the Deputy would have been wise to conclude when he was concluding.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I will conclude on the free fuel. I know the Minister is sympathetic about this. The whole system needs to be looked at so that we can get heat for the elderly by whatever means they wish, whether it is turf or gas. I saw something about this in the Minister's speech——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is thinking about bottled gas. Free fuel is provided in the Act.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The Minister stated:

As announced in the budget, it is intended to arrange for the provision of bottled gas for certain pensioners though it does not require a specific provision in this Bill. The free electricity scheme which was introduced in 1967 has been of considerable benefit to old age pensioners particularly in providing them with a reasonable standard of heating. Unfortunately there are a number of pensioners who cannot avail of the scheme—mainly persons in remote rural areas who are not yet connected to the ESB system. We are, therefore, introducing a scheme of allowances for bottled gas which will be equivalent to the free electricity allowance.

That is in the Minister's own statement so I am entitled to comment on it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Certainly, but the Deputy is getting into the administration of the scheme. The provision of the scheme and the administration of it are two different things.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I said I was going to talk about free fuel. Right. And you said I could not go into that. I know the Minister is sympathetic. We all are. It is a question of what we want done and I do not think we should be in the business of subsidising Bord na Móna just for the sake of Bord na Móna. What we should be doing is concerning ourselves with the elderly and asking ourselves if they are getting the benefit we want them to get, namely, some form of heating. Heating must be available to them and they must have easy access to that heating. The turf scheme was a start but a whole new scheme must now be evolved. I think the present system is disastrous. It does not meet the need. There is no proper delivery system. A proper scheme must be devised. I would ask the Minister to have another look at the scheme before next winter and ensure adequate provision is made to meet the needs of those entitled to free fuel.

Mr. Begley

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and I wish him well. It is regrettable that he should increase the cost of the social welfare stamp and it is also regrettable that we have had no Fianna Fáil speaker this afternoon——

Mr. F. O'Brien

We had.

Mr. Begley

In the budget debate we had them coming in with back-up scripts prepared by the Minister for Finance's think-tank. On this Bill we had only one Fianna Fáil speaker with the Minister. That speaks for itself. They are already beginning to feel the shock and the vibrations from that shock that went through the community when the Minister for Health and Social Welfare went on television, on radio and into the newspapers saying the stamp would be only £1 and in a matter of weeks he has raised it to £1.30. We might as well look at it, I suppose, from the Minister's point of view. He himself is in a quandary. It is a well-known fact there is a clash of personalities in the Cabinet with the Minister for Finance and the Public Service on one side and the Minister for Health and Social Welfare on the other side. The Minister for Finance would not loosen the purse strings and he told the Minister for Health and Social Welfare that he himself would have to get the lolly because the Minister for Finance would not give it to him.

With regard to the Department of Social Welfare, as a public representative sees it, it is ridiculous that there should be such long delays in processing claims for old age pensions. We are fortunate in having the privilege here of tabling parliamentary questions asking why these delays occur. Recently I tabled a question about a man and his wife who had been waiting for over 12 months for old age non-contributory pensions. The moment the question was tabled I had a reply saying the books had been forwarded four days before the question was to be answered. Brilliant. But that husband and wife would still be waiting had that question not been tabled. When a small farmer with a valuation of £15 signs over that holding to a relative and a receipt comes from the Land Registry following the lodging of the deeds that should be good enough for the Department to issue a pension book. It is hard enough on these people signing over their property without having another institute of the State delaying registration thereby depriving them of their pension. The Minister should take a good hard look at this. He should pick out 60 or 70 cases and see for himself the delay that takes place.

In regard to long-stay patients in hospitals or homes run by voluntary organisations the Minister should insist that these patients should have at least £6 or £7 a week pocket money. In some of these institutions these people get a paltry £3 or £4 a week. A pint of stout and 20 cigarettes cost £1 a day and that means £7 per week of seven days. These old people should not be compelled to walk the streets waiting for a neighbour to buy them a pint.

Mr. Boland

Sure, the Minister would not give them a drink or a cigarette. He is trying to stop all of us having a drink or a smoke.

Mr. Begley

The Minister was talking then to the soldiers of destiny.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter the Deputy is raising now is scarcely relevant.

Mr. Haughey

Once they reach old age pension age drinking and smoking does not do them any harm.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would remind Deputy Begley these are administration matters.

Mr. Begley

It is a concrete suggestion and I am sure the Minister will be sympathetic.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He will, of course, but these are really matters for the Estimate.

Mr. Begley

If the Minister does what I suggest he will be doing something concrete and something that will be remembered for him. I remember when I made the same point to Kevin Boland when he was Minister for Local Government and the county homes were under Local Government, he introduced the allowance. All credit to him for doing that but I would ask the present Minister to go one better now and insist these people get adequate pocket money. I was listening to the Minister at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy was not in the hall.

Mr. Begley

There were many things said in that hallowed place. Many things were said there.

Mr. Haughey

I never saw the Deputy there.

Mr. Begley

The Minister made sure he was seen. Congratulations on that. The Minister stated that he will save £2.5 million on social welfare. Is he insinuating that there is wholesale swindling going on there at present? In the next breath he said he would appoint many social welfare officers who would save the State £2.5 million. If the Fianna Fáil manifesto is going so badly that they have to go after the social welfare recipients to save £2.5 million, God help Ireland.

I suggest that these social welfare officers should follow a course such as an ordinary social welfare officer would follow. I have known social welfare officers who are pleasant to deal with. They sit down, chat with the person and get to know the problems, but the new breed of social welfare officer that has emerged in the last six months is an arrogant, dictatorial type.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not in order in discussing these matters.

Mr. Begley

This comes under the Social Welfare Bill. If I cannot make criticisms of the way in which an Act is being implemented down the country there is no point in bringing any Bill before the Dáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may make criticisms so long as they are in order.

Mr. Begley

I am criticising people who are being paid by the State to do a job where there should be kindness and humility, not arrogance and dictatorial manners such as are used at present. As far as Kerry is concerned, it seems that the Minister has already appointed these new social welfare officers because in the case of the smallholders in receipt of unemployment assistance, some of the social welfare officers are going into the cow-houses and counting the cows——

An Ceann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.

Mr. Begley

Oh, yes; it says here: "In the case of smallholders whose means for unemployment assistance purposes are assessed notionally by reference to rateable land valuation the new rate of assistance will be as I have outlined where the valuation is £10 or less". If this does not come under the Bill——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing——

Mr. Begley

I shall not go on very long if you leave me uninterrupted. I merely wanted to make five or six points. There are only about two minutes left.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has no objection to the Deputy speaking for as long as he likes provided he is in order.

Mr. Begley

I was never out of order in my life and I can say the same for yourself. We are told that these smallholders are assessed for dole purposes by reference to their land valuation. That is far from being the case. The Ceann Comhairle probably knows that in Donegal the pension officers now want to know the quantity of milk going to the creamery and the number of cattle going to the mart, three or four calves perhaps. All these things are being added up. We are blandly told by the Minister that assistance is given out on the notional system. With due respect to the Minister, I would say that a secret message has gone out to these people to knock off as many as possible from the farmers' dole by hook or by crook. That feeling is shared generally by all the smallholders in County Kerry and the Minister need only ask Deputy O'Connor, his esteemed friend, to tell him what is going on there. I am sure he would hear it fairly clearly if he had been listening to Deputy O'Connor complaining because we have many complaints coming in loud and clear at our political clinics all over the county.

The most important point I can make is about the delay in processing old age pension claims. It should be good enough for the Minister and the social welfare officer that the receipt for the transfer of the land from the Land Registry Office is lodged with the Department of Social Welfare; the book could be issued then if everything else is in order.

Mr. Kenny

I should like to compliment the Minister on his fine delivery. As a native of my own town, I am sure I shall be approaching him about problems in the not-too-distant future. The Minister stated that:

I think it will be agreed that even in a year when the Government's main effort had to be devoted to the solution of our economic problems, real advances are being made in the social welfare system.

That is followed by a remarkable sentence saying:

And this process of development will go on.

And on and on, we hope. The social welfare bill for 1978 comes to approximately £610 million and the 10 per cent increases across the board come to approximately £53 million in a full year. Looking at this as a rural representative, there is no provision for a second increase in the autumn. The 10 per cent increase does not take into account any sudden increase in the cost of living which may occur between this and then. There is no protection for social welfare recipients if such a thing happens and it is not entirely outside the bounds of possibility since we have had some 200 price increases since last June.

Successive Governments down the years have increased old age pensions but the criticism I make is that the means test has not changed. In western areas quite a large number of eligible people from the point of view of age for old age pensions are not receiving their pensions because their incomes from their property or what-ever finance they have are being assessed at too high a level. There seems to be a return to the old days when every item of property is being taken into consideration in the estimation of means. The Minister could have taken a step to increase the level of means for eligibility for old age pensions.

Debate adjourned.