Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Mar 1978

Vol. 304 No. 7

Social Welfare Bill, 1978: Committee Stage.

Section I agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

I should like some clarification on the effects of subsection (2) (a) (ii). I do not know how we can reconcile this with our talk about equality between the sexes. Part (A) refers to a situation where the pensioner is a man. It states:

if the pensioner is a man, in respect of his wife if he is living with or wholly or mainly maintaining her and she is not in receipt of pension under the Acts or any benefit or pension under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1978,

The following paragraph states "and he is incapable of self-support...". Why is that division in one and not in the other?

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Haughey)

That has been enshrined in our social welfare legislation from the beginning. In Ireland we have our own concept of dependency and there is a difference between men and women in that context. It is one of the inequalities we will have to deal with in an EEC context.

Mr. Boland

The inclusion of that sentence appears to emphasise a basic inequality in our legislation and I am surprised we are repeating it this year. The Minister has not explained the effect of subsection (2) (ii). I find it difficult to follow.

Mr. Haughey

It provides the mechanism by which the scale of means and rates is extended to cover large families.

Mr. Boland

It is repeated in paragraph (iii) and in other parts of the Bill. It is an example of why across-the-board increases are wrong. That paragraph provides that for blind people of pensionable age and old age pensioners living alone there is a special allowance of £1 per week. Because of the device of having a simple 10 per cent increase on all payments, this means that the extra £1 in these cases is being increased by 10p. Because of the necessity to change pension books and so forth that ridiculous increase of 10p per week will cost a lot more.

Mr. Haughey

I am sure the Deputy realises that the £1 is a supplement.

Mr. Boland

I appreciate that but it is ridiculous to be increasing anything by 10p in this day and age.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

This is one of the sections Members from all sides of the House welcomed. It deals with the existing provision that people looking for old age pensions must have been living in the State for at least five years after they had reached 50 years of age. We all went out of our way to welcome this and we thanked the Minister for its introduction. Later in the Bill there is a modification in relation to a residential qualification for deserted wives and widows. The provision which that eliminates was very harsh. The Minister is to be congratulated on these two changes.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

This is the famous or infamous section whereby single women will be allowed, if they qualify, to apply for unemployment assistance. I want to register our objection to this provision being deferred until October. The Minister said earlier that the reason was staff difficulties and that there were some difficulties in relation to accommodation for staff— that they were the only reasons why these people are not being brought in until the autumn. That is very difficult to accept. All parties during the election promised they would remove this anomaly but the promise is being implemented belatedly purely, I am afraid, as a cost-saving device.

Mr. Haughey

I can only repeat the factual explanation I have given. We are short of premises in Dublin city. If any Deputy can suggest, anywhere in Dublin, a suitable site for an employment exchange I should be glad to hear of it. We are short of sites for exchanges. The Board of Works are doing the best they can for us but it is a serious restriction.

In the case of the removal of the inequality of single women and widows in relation to unemployment assistance I do not think that the major groups who have been fighting for this reform will be unduly perturbed that it will not be coming in until October. We would all like it to come in as quickly as possible but there are administrative difficulties. There will be 56,000 applicants and we calculate that only about 14,000 of those applicants will succeed, but they all have to be processed. What we are doing is to prove to the House that there is substance in what I am saying about administrative difficulties. I want to explain that from the moment this Bill becomes law we will start work processing these 56,000 applicants. Any one of these women will be entitled to apply for a qualification certificate straight away so that by the time benefit comes to be payable in October there will be no delay at that point. The postponement until October is due to the administrative difficulties involved in taking these extra 56,000 applications into our machine and processing them. The fact that the reform is being made, even though it will not come in until October, will satisfy those people who are concerned about the matter.

Mr. Boland

The Minister has given his explanation clearly now and I will of course accept it. However, arising from his explanation, I am rather taken aback to discover that of his estimate of the 56,000 unemployed women and young girls who will apply for unemployment benefit only 14,000, that is exactly one in four of those who apply, will qualify for payment. I would have thought the number would be much higher. Should we take it from that explanation that the very stringent regulations which apply to young boys, school leavers who have not been in employment, will also apply to the girls? In other words, will there be a notional assessment of the value of their board and lodgings, which are of course provided for them by their parents in the majority of cases? Are we to take it that that same notional estimate of board and lodgings will be used to disbar effectively a vast proportion of these young unemployed people from unemployment assistance as well? How otherwise does the Minister estimate that three out of four of the new unemployed female applicants will be ruled to be ineligible?

Mr. Haughey

Exactly the same rules and regulations will have to apply for male and female applicants. That is what the whole thing is all about. Any element of discrimination against either sex has to be removed, so precisely the same conditions will apply. There is a statutory requirement that any benefits of which a person is in receipt have to be taken into account in the calculation of means, and we are not proposing to change that statutory requirement at present at any rate. The incoming female applicants will be dealt with on exactly the same basis as male applicants are dealt with at present.

Mr. Boland

Would the Minister not accept that any unemployed young person, male or female, who does not get a job after coming out of school and to whom the parents can no longer afford to give pocket-money—after all such people are young adults—ought to qualify for some level of unemployment assistance? To have them ruled out completely as they are in the vast majority of cases, is not encouraging.

Mr. Haughey

It is not hard and fast. Each case is dealt with on its merits. There will be a system of appeals and an appeals officer.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

A question was raised by two speakers in this House and perhaps the Minister will give his views now on this section. If a widow does not apply for the widow's pension within three months of becoming a widow she is not eligible for the arrears of payment.

Mr. Haughey

It can be extended up to six months.

Mr. Boland

The suggestion was that there was a three months requirement and that it was being implemented.

Mr. Haughey

It can be extended on appeal up to six months.

Mr. Boland

Is the Minister accepting that that is a fair enough interpretation of the Bill?

Mr. Haughey

I do not think it is unreasonable, but I will have a look at it.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

I was a little disappointed that the Minister in his reply did not give more attention to the comments about section 12. I accept that there were a lot of points raised on Second Stage but section 12 refers to a very big scheme about which a lot of us have expressed unhappiness. That is the new supplementary welfare allowance scheme designed to replace the old poor law system. It has been suggested both here in the House and outside that the new scheme is not working properly and that its intention is not being implemented on the ground. I quoted from a document which I think a number of us have received and which asked a number of questions.

The Minister had a lot of questions hurled at him during Second Stage but I was sorry that he did not deal with this question of how the replacement for the Victorian poor law home assistance is operating. People working in this field seem to feel that the officers who had over the years been implementing the home assistance schemes have been inclined to continue to approach the new supplementary welfare allowance scheme as if they were still operating the home assistance scheme. The suggestion which yesterday I said I found incomprehensible was that in certain cases the new community welfare officers, as they are now called, were paying people less than the minimum amount of money which is provided for under the Supplementary Welfare Allowances Act. I hope the Minister will be in a position to say categorically that that is not true.

I also find distressing the number of complaints regarding information not being supplied to people about their entitlement to the social welfare allowance, and also about the appeals procedure which has been set up. There were also complaints about the appeals procedure. There was a complaint about the budgeting procedures which a number of the health boards had adopted in relation to the social welfare scheme and a suggestion that they had not provided adequate moneys for its implementation. There was the suggestion that providing an increase in this section for the allowance would have the effect only of compounding that inadequate budgeting on the part of the health boards. The very stark example of the hundreds of destitute men and women has been given and should be dealt with by the Minister. Who would suggest that after these people pay £7 per week for a bed in the Iveagh Hostel there is enough left out of their £10, or, as it will be now, £11.35 to feed them, clothe them and allow them basic hygiene? These are the people who have no organised voice to speak on their behalf. It was pointed out that if this supplementary allowances scheme was working properly it would not be necessary for the people concerned to have recourse to the various charitable institutions seeking basic help in the provision of food and clothing. There is something wrong with a situation whereby from 2 p.m. on Friday until noon on Monday these people are unable in the majority of cases to partake of even one full hot meal. With the exception of the Mendicity Institute the other charitable organisations are closed at weekends.

Mr. Haughey

Perhaps this is relevant to my Health hat.

Mr. Boland

The scheme is implemented by the health boards but it is a supplementary welfare scheme introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare.

Mr. Haughey

It is for homeless people.

Mr. Boland

Those people are entitled to supplementary welfare allowances but the point is that after paying for their hostel accommodation they are left with £3 or £4 per week to feed and clothe themselves. But at weekends those charitable institutions that provide these people with cheap meals and who are doing wonderful work are closed and the people concerned cannot be expected to be able to afford full-priced meals at weekends. Therefore some attention must be given to the entire supplementary welfare allowances legislation to see if it is operating properly, if some of the basic levels are correct and to ascertain whether the entire approach is correct. There is a need, too, to examine the suggestion that instead of having a basic figure which an officer will work towards giving or, apparently as is alleged in some instances, will work towards not giving, there should be an assessment of how much a person needs to maintain him at the minimum level of food, clothing, accommodation and hygiene. The figure decided on should be the amount that the officer is allowed to pay rather than having enshrined in legislation a statutory figure of £11.35.

Supplementary allowances are paid only to people who have nothing else. In most cases they are unemployable and do not qualify for unemployment allowance by reason of their not being described as being available for work. There are some who will complain about those people being on the streets of the city in such a condition and interfering with the respectable populace. That attitude is a sad reflection on us. I trust that when the Minister during the next 12 months is conducting the review he has promised, attention will be given to the whole question of the levels of the rates of benefit paid under this scheme. Having regard to the allegations made to some of us that in some cases these people are paid less than the minimum provided for in the Statute—I find this incomprehensible—the Minister should deal with this question.

Mr. Haughey

This scheme has had a lot of teething trouble. There have been many complaints about it. There seems to have been difficulty in getting details of it across to the public and to the various people concerned. But we are doing everything possible to let people know of the scheme and how it operates. We have had a conference of the superintendent officers concerned. In addition we have advertised the scheme in the papers and have distributed leaflets to 2,000 health centres throughout the country. We are endeavouring continuously to ensure that the scheme is administered fully and properly. We monitor it and take whatever action we can to ensure that it is administered on an even basis throughout the different regions.

There is no question of anything less than the basic rate being paid. It must be paid in full to a person without means but if Deputy Boland or any other Deputy has a specific complaint in this regard or knows of a specific case in which it is thought that the scheme is not operating satisfactorily, I should be grateful to have details. We are anxious to monitor the scheme in as comprehensive a manner as possible and to eradicate any anomaly, discrepancy or difficulty that may arise.

Mr. Boland

I do not wish to identify particularly the document on which I based most of my remarks on Second Stage and again now but it is a document that was sent to the Minister as well as to me asking fairly specific questions. These questions do not seem to be dealt with. The Minister has dealt with the suggestion that people are not paid the statutory amount. I am glad to hear that this is not so. I found the suggestion very difficult to accept.

However, other questions were raised in that document. For instance, there was the suggestion that non-contributory old age pensioners will be paid so little that they will not be able to maintain themselves properly and consequently should be eligible for payment under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme but that they are not advised of their rights.

I accept entirely that the Minister has circulated details of the scheme to the health centres and that an extensive campaign has been carried out in the Press during the past month with a view to making people aware of the scheme. I trust that to some extent that effort has improved the operation of the Act. But the suggestion is made also that officers at the employment exchanges should be given full briefing as to the details of the scheme and should be requested and encouraged to give information about it to the people with whom they are dealing and that whenever they see an applicant who they think might be entitled to this extra allowance, they should so inform him and help him in his application.

The Minister will have received complaints from other bodies including the largest single trade union in the country, the ITGWU. A statement issued by the union was as follows:

Information at the union's disposal indicates that the community welfare officers are not taking any decisions on applications under the scheme and are instead referring them for approval to superintendents above them. In addition to the fact that no payments may generally be made before a community welfare officer has visited homes of applicants, this means that there is a substantial delay in dealing with their applications.

The statement continued:

Furthermore, it would appear that not all community welfare officers have received guidelines for administering the scheme. Indeed the claim form published by the Department was drawn up without consultation with the Health Boards. As a result the Boards are refusing to handle the forms.

That was some time ago, and I understand there has been some clarification of that. The general complaint is that the scheme has not got off the ground. While it is essentially different from the poor law concept, it is being implemented by the people who previously implemented the old home assistance scheme, and those who were formerly called relieving officers are now being called community welfare officers. These officers have not been sufficiently briefed about the range and scope of the new Act and they approach their new role in society in the manner they traditionally adopted in dealing with home assistance. Consequently many people it was intended would be brought into the supplementary welfare allowance net are not being brought in because the people on the ground do not know that the Oireachtas intended that additional people should be given these benefits as a right and that the old concept of grudging charity should be wiped away. That has not been happening because the same people are being asked to implement a newer and better Act. The Minister should deal with that point.

While the Minister has dealt with the matter of informing the public through the health centres, he has not referred to the dissemination of information through the employment exchanges. He has not dealt with the matter of giving a full briefing to the officers implementing the complete scheme under the Supplementary Welfare Allowance Act, 1975.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

Part of this section appears to be quite discriminatory. The explanatory memorandum says that section 13 extends to single women, widows and recipients of deserted wife's benefit or allowance the "housekeeper" allowance at present payable by way of an increase of supplementary welfare allowance to single men and widowers in respect of a woman who is looking after their child dependants. It is specified in the section that in order to qualify for this housekeeper allowance the person minding the children must be female. We have heard much talk about discrimination written into legislation and the explanation given is that the legislation is relatively old and was written at a time when old, traditional values applied and that as soon as opportunities arise these anomalies will be removed. It has been accepted for the most part that the legislation complained about is discriminatory. This is the second time in the course of a few minutes I have had to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that he appears to be writing into this legislation a basic discrimination. The housekeeper allowance will be paid only if the housekeeper is female. I think that stipulation would not stand up in any court.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy has it all wrong.

Mr. Boland

In view of the decisions made in Europe I do not see that this section would last.

Mr. Haughey

It is exactly the opposite. The only reason this has to be brought in now is that when the Social Welfare Act, 1977, was brought in the supplementary welfare allowance scheme was not in existence. This section is simply extending what was done in the Social Welfare Act, 1977, to the supplementary welfare allowances. This section extends to single women, widows and deserted wives the housekeeper allowance which is at present payable by way of an increase of supplementary welfare allowance to single men and widowers.

Mr. Boland

I am referring to line 20 on page 9. The section outlines the people to whom this allowance may be paid but only if a female person is employed to mind the children.

Mr. Haughey

It is already there for single men and widowers.

Mr. Boland

There is provision that men and women, widows and widowers, may be eligible for payment of this allowance but only if the person whom they employ to mind the children is female. I do not see how this can be described as anything but discriminatory. The Oireachtas is being asked to write in a clause which deliberately discriminates. The allowance will not be paid if a male person is employed to mind the children. The Minister agreed some minutes ago that part of section 2 (3) has an element of discrimination which will have to be removed in good time. In the same way this will also have to be removed.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

It is a good thing that the death grant has been increased from £35 to £50 and the Minister is to be congratulated on this. One of the Minister's colleagues has been living a charmed life since his appointment to the Cabinet by operating on percentages rather than on actual figures. The Minister can say that the maternity grant has been increased by 100 per cent from £4 to £8. A maternity grant of £8 is nearly as farcical as a grant of £4.

Mr. Haughey

I think that neither the Deputy nor myself would be prepared to undergo the pangs of child-birth for either £4 or £8.

Mr. Boland

I accept that entirely——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is hardly possible, and certainly it is not possible on this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

Perhaps the Minister would explain the section?

Mr. Haughey

This provides for increasing the special rates of unemployment benefit payable in certain circumstances where unemployment benefit continues beyond 156 days. When the maximum duration of unemployment benefit was first extended beyond 156 days in 1967 provision was made that in order to qualify for the standard rate of benefit for the period after the first 156 days a person had to have an average of 40 paid stamps over the previous seven years. Those who have less than this average qualify for special rates of benefit. These rates are linked with the urban rates of unemployment assistance which are increased under section 4 of the Bill and the increases proposed in this section —£1.05 in the basic rate, 80p in the rate for an adult dependent, 35p for each of the first two qualified children and 25p for the third and each of the other children—are designed to retain this parity.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

This is one of the welcome sections in the Bill. My interpretation is that it provides that if a deserted wife who was minding her children dies and if the father still refuses to assume any responsibility for the children, a special orphans' pension or allowance can be paid depending, I assume, on whether the deserted wife was being paid a deserted wife's benefit or an allowance.

I understand the intention is to allow relatives of the father, or more likely relatives of the deceased mother, to take on the very Christian job of rearing the children. I assume the relatives would be paid an allowance by the State to help them to rear the children if the father still refuses to assume that responsibility. It is a worth-while provision from many points, not least from the point of view of the State. The young people concerned have seen the break-up of their parents' marriage and the efforts of the mother to rear them on her own and then they have experienced the trauma of their mother's death. Up to now they have usually ended up in an orphanage or in the State's care in one way or another.

The section is very welcome. It will help the relatives to look after the children and there will be the welcome spin-off effect that the children will have the opportunity of being brought up in family surroundings rather than being placed in orphanages. I do not suppose any real estimate can be put on the cost—probably it is not a considerable cost—but irrespective of the cost it is a worth-while provision. It is the kind of thing that has been done in several sections of this Bill and it is to be welcomed. The Minister is to be congratulated for introducing the section.

Mr. McMahon

This section is most welcome and all concerned with the welfare of children will applaud the Minister. I should like to ask him if the payment will be restricted to relatives or if it will be extended to neighbours or to those who may not be related to the family? If it is restricted to relatives it is going only half-way towards solving the problem. I would be quite satisfied if the Minister could assure us that it will apply to all who care for the children. If it is restricted to relatives I would ask him to have another look at the situation.

Mr. Haughey

There are no restrictions. The only concern would be that it would be a suitable person.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

I am afraid this is where we all fall out. This section proposes to increase the amount of the social welfare contribution to be paid by the employee and the employer by an increase in each case that is double the amount of last year's increase. I noticed in all the Press reports this morning—as it was in all the reports the fault must have been mine rather than of those reporting the matter—that it was suggested I had said the increase to employers would be in the order of 18 per cent and, consequently, would not be an incentive to them to take on additional employees. Of course what I had intended to say was that the increase to employees would be an increase of 18 per cent. I am afraid the increase to employers is an even higher percentage. From that point of view it is very regrettable that at a time when employers are in the middle of negotiations regarding a wage agreement they should discover they are being asked to pay a total of 95p extra per week for each employee.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.