Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 1979

Vol. 313 No. 1

Private Business. - Social Welfare Bill, 1979: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

We are a few days older in terms of wisdom and we are much wiser since I reported progress in this debate last Wednesday. I assume, rightly or wrongly, that the Minister will be a little more receptive this Wednesday evening than he was last Wednesday evening.

I listened very attentively to the Deputy while he was speaking then.

Many things have happened since then. I am sure there is no need to remind the Minister what has happened since the debate adjourned. This is a very important Bill dealing with the lower income group. One of the important items of news we got over the weekend was the factual increase in the cost of living over the past 12 months. We were told that the cost of all essential commodities increased by 17.9 per cent. If the Minister accepts this figure as a factual assessment of the position, he must agree that the increases proposed in this Bill are inadequate. The increase proposed for certain recipients of social welfare benefits is 16 per cent and for others 12 per cent. The Minister should have a serious look at this matter before this Bill leaves the Dáil. The factual increase in the cost of living, given over the weekend, is 17.9 per cent, 5 per cent in excess of the increase granted to some social welfare recipients and almost 2 per cent in excess of the increase granted to others.

Last Wednesday I asked the Minister to delete section 4. I will not go over that ground again. Section 4 deals with unemployment assistance payable to small farmers on a notional assessment based on their land valuations. The Government were able to say that they would not ask the wealthy sections to pay any taxation through the wealth tax approved in this House by the Coalition Government. They were able to say that irrespective of the size of the mansion one lived in one would not be asked to pay rates. The Government also decided not to ask the motoring public the position of the people affected by this measure as they see it. There was an aura of affluence about the election campaign. In their manifesto Fianna Fáil promised almost everything, but they did not promise that within a very short time of assuming office they would hit this section of the community. I would ask the Minister to re-think the position. The reductions proposed are fairly substantial and will have a drastic affect. If the Minister will not delete the section, I would ask him to modify its contents. It is hard to expect these people to accept a decrease of £8, £9 or £10 per week in their income when the cost of living has increased by 18 per cent in the last 12 months.

Last Wednesday I also appealed for the restructuring of the old age pension system. Pensions are paid without variation except in relation to age at present. When a person moves beyond the 80 age limit, he gets £1 or £1.10 of an increase. There should be a classification of pensioners with emphasis on pensioners who are severely incapacitated, either mentally or physically, who cannot get assistance from a health board at present. It is impossible in my area to qualify for supplementary allowances. The Minister in this legislation or in subsequent legislation should focus attention on giving extra to those who need it. Some old age pensioners, because of family circumstances, can live reasonably well on the present allowance but pensioners who depend solely on the allowance find it very hard to live. In south-west Cork the average cost of keeping an old person in hospital is £100 per week. It would be of considerable advantage if the Minister made a financial contribution to the relatives towards keeping at home old people who, in general, do not wish to be institutionalised. It is the primary duty of children to look after their parents and I am not overlooking that fact. However, incapacitated old people who need constant care and attention impose great financial hardship and it is upon these cases that I am asking the Minister to cast his eye. Within the framework of present legislation it is possible legally to pay out a disabled persons' allowance to persons over 66 years of age, but that is not happening. The eight health boards automatically cut people over 66 from their entitlement to disability allowance. This is a local and not a mandatory action. It would be quite legal to continue payment of that allowance where deemed necessary beyond the age of 66. I would be glad if the Minister would address himself to that aspect.

I assume that by ministerial order the scope of the prescribed relative allowance could be extended. By extending this we could help to keep people at home rather than in institutions and this would save administrative expenses. If circumstances warrant it the prescribed relative allowance should be payable to daughter-in-law as well as daughters or sons living alone with the applicant. At the moment where a pensioner lives in a house with a daughter, when the daughter gets married the allowance is cut off. I could not possibly say what the cost of continuing that allowance would be but it would not be too great. The Minister should ask his Department to inquire into it because it seems to be quite feasible.

Another way of helping old people would be to broaden the scope of the prescribed relative allowance system. The Minister should, next year, follow the example of the Coalition Government by reducing the qualifying age limit. It is amazing that the Coalition could reduce the pension age from 70 years to 66 years within a four-year period and Fianna Fáil, who have been in office for almost 40 years, could not reduce it by one year. Over the years I put down questions about the desirability of reducing the qualifying age limit and was told that the cost would be too great and that it would be impossible to do so. Not only did the Coalition reduce the age limit but they also included the wives of pensioners irrespective of age.

On the question of unemployment benefit, which has been increased by 16 per cent, we were told that Fianna Fáil would create a position where unemployment would gradually disappear. That objective has not been reached. Any reduction in unemployment can be attributed in part to the fact that there was a great deal of emigration last year. The official figure is 14,000. We had a communication from Father O'Callaghan, the Director of Catholic Chaplains, on the position of some of our emigrants, particularly young people, who were forced to emigrate to Britain because they were unable to do anything for them here. Perhaps the Government privately welcome emigration as a way of dealing with the surplus population which they cannot provide for.

It is not good to pay money to able-bodied men for doing nothing. I have been saying that in this House for a long time. It is all right to pay money to physically handicapped people; but some system should be devised, either by departmental committees or otherwise, where useful and productive work could be carried out by those qualifying for unemployment benefit. There are many schemes in the towns and cities, such as environmental schemes, that such people could participate in. In rural areas there are 101 different kinds of schemes including road improvements, drainage works and amenity schemes. If a county council employ casual workers and their work ceases, they are dismissed. They then go to the unemployment exchange and in some cases receive as much money there as they did while working. Why not have them go to the ESB, the Land Commission, Posts and Telegraphs or the Office of Public Works and have some kind of rota system where employment would be provided in public work? It is demoralising to ask young people, married or single, to go to an exchange or Garda station and sign their name to get this money. In many circumstances they are entitled to it because they have been paying for it through their contributions. Would it not be better for the Department of Social Welfare to channel the money paid out under unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance into schemes that would be productive and would uplift the recipient rather than pushing him down?

Great play has been made about the number of people on the unemployment register through the years. I take the figure of 102,000 lightly, because no division has been made between those unemployed and trying to get work and those unemployed and not trying to get work or who cannot work. When the Minister tells us that there are 102,000 on the register I am sure that there are not 102,000 people breaking their necks to get work. There should be a different kind of classification because many of the people on the register are middle-aged and are not in the best of health. They are more social cases than people anxious to obtain employment. I am amazed that the Department of Social Welfare do not realise that. What is the exact number of people who are unemployed and anxious to obtain work? What is the number of people who are on the register and are not available for work for one reason or another? It is essential to have such a breakdown. One hears of areas where there is high unemployment and yet when a person wants to have a job done it is impossible to get anybody to do it. That is a fact and the State must take cognisance of its existence.

The Minister for Social Welfare must address himself to this question and endeavour to revise the system of recording those on the unemployment list. First of all, those who are not designated as social cases, who are not actually in the market place for work, should be set aside. Their number should be deducted from the overall figure of those in receipt of benefit when we would be in a position to see how many people are unemployed and seeking work. Having established that figure, surely it would be possible to devise some scheme to ensure that those in the market place for employment get it and can do productive ing it punishable for them if they do work. If they do a day's work they are not supposed to draw unemployment benefit for that day; they are supposed to remain idle while they are receiving that money.

To start off one's career on unemployment assistance is a very bad beginning for any young boy or girl and we, as a State and people, should be endeavouring to do away with that system. Instead, we should be endeavouring to boost young people's morale rather than diminishing it. We should endeavour to implement useful schemes in this respect. If there is not industrial employment available in different areas, there is a plentiful supply of alternative employment which in its own way is quite productive—at least it is very much more productive than paying money for nothing. Hence I have in mind the numerous amenity schemes—road improvements, drainage, environmental schemes and so on—on which we could very usefully deploy our unemployed. If such a system obtained we would not be asking a worker and his employer for what at present amounts to some £8 weekly in respect of each worker. In such circumstances it would transpire that the worker would have to pay the total amount because the employer would take into account the fact that he had to pay approximately £5 weekly for each worker he employed. This, in turn, would have a bearing on the rate of remuneration he would pay. We owe it to our young people to do something about the existing system. This matter has been raised in this House from time to time. I have been a Deputy a reasonably long time but nothing has been done in that field during that period. There are numerous public departments employing people. As soon as their work is completed these employees are laid off, with no alternative source of employment and they have to go on to the employment exchanges.

I had thought that the appointment of Deputy O'Donoghue as Minister for Economic Planning and Development would ensure the co-ordination of the efforts of the various State Departments. At present each of these Departments operate as if no other Department existed. They do not work in a cooperative spirit. For example, the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Posts and Telegraphs will not ask the ESB, CIE, any other Department or public agency if they have employment for a particular man when they have no further need of him. There must be some co-ordination of effort. I shall be taking up the time of the House this evening on that question because I consider it sufficiently important.

My main objective is to see in productive employment our people who are in the market place for work. I want to see a reduction in the numbers attending labour exchanges or going to Garda stations signing for unemployment benefit or assistance. It was not a part of our tradition and it should disappear from the scene as quickly as possible. However, without it people could not exist at present and could not in the future until some Government do something about it. I shall not labour that question further, although it is one on which I feel strongly. I have said over the years that governments should be endeavouring to do something to keep able-bodied men away from labour exchanges. So many of our people are unemployed and yet there is so much work needing to be done all over the country. Wherever one travels one hears of desirable works of a productive nature waiting to be carried out. It is a sad reflection on the country as a whole. Is it beyond our capacity to do anything about it? Is every man feeling smug in his own job saying "What about it? It is not part of my duty?" Are Ministers and Departments, or are their advisers and senior officials thinking along the same lines: the old system is there; let it be carried on?

We, as public representatives, honoured with the confidence of our people and privileged to be Members of this House, are obliged to do something about it. We are sent here to express the views of the people, having regard particularly to the circumstances prevailing in our constituencies and to those of the nation generally. We are now reaching a dangerous stage, unhelpful to our advancement and development as a nation, when a man or woman can earn almost as much at home as abroad, so to speak. We were told that 85 per cent was the percentage of one's wage one could expect to receive at home. Certainly one would not receive 85 per cent abroad, bearing in mind the various deductions to be made, and the average worker would not take home anything like that percentage of his nominal earnings. Therefore, this problem is one for the Government and for the Minister for Social Welfare in particular.

I should like to refer now to the question of widows' allowances. We all receive representations from widows, and organisations representing them, concerning improvements in their allowances. I am aware of the difficulty of getting funds to meet all the demands on the Exchequer, but if we can help the wealthy by abolishing wealth tax and not asking them to pay rates on their big houses or tax on their big cars, surely we can find some extra money for recipients of social welfare benefits. The co-ops were also told that they had too much to do without having to pay tax and that the Government would not bother collecting it from them. Fianna Fáil were in a very forgiving mood as far as taxes were concerned in May and June 1977 but, like the character Edmund in King Lear, the wheel has turned full circle and the people are protesting as we saw yesterday in Cork, Dublin, Galway and Donegal.

The Deputy should deal with the Bill before the House.

Those marches came about because of the unrest by the people caused by the bungling of the Government.

The Deputy must return to the Bill and obey the Chair.

Unlike the situation that existed under the National Coalition social welfare recipients will not receive a further increase in October. We were told last weekend that the cost of living for the past 12 months had risen by 17.9 per cent but the Minister has only granted such recipients an increase of 16 per cent. One does not need to be a professor of mathematics or have an academic qualification to know that this will mean a reduction in their standard of living, because they will be at least 2 per cent worse off. That figure will apply for the next 12 months, if the Government are still in office—there is a doubt about that as a result of what happened recently. The stone wall of a majority could be demolished almost as quickly as it was gained with the promises of 1977.

It must be very difficult for widows who have to rear children to exist on an allowance of £15.80. I noticed last week that the steak cost £2.15 per lb. in Dublin and surely it is not possible for social welfare recipients to buy such a commodity on their allowance. They cannot make ends meet. I can recall when it was almost possible to buy a bullock for £2.15. Pensioners and widows are greatly disappointed at the increase granted.

We are moving towards anarchy of one kind or another. It was brought about entirely by the Government. I have no hesitation in asserting that as forcibly as I possibly can. I remember when the Coalition Government were in office Fianna Fáil made a mountain out of every little item. I remember the famous discussions on the position of fisheries. Fianna Fáil did everything they could to stir up a rebellion without justification. We know the gimmickry of Fianna Fáil at that time.

The Deputy may not discuss fisheries on this Social Welfare Bill. The Deputy knows better than I do what is in order.

It is a fishy situation.

He cannot discuss fisheries on this Bill.

We know what is happening now. We cannot post a letter and we cannot make a telephone call.

If the Deputy will not speak to the Bill he may not continue.

This is related to the Bill.

Postal disputes, fisheries and telecommunications have nothing to do with this Bill.

There were massive protests all over the country yesterday.

I am asking the Deputy not to continue if he will not speak to the Bill.

I am about to conclude.

The Deputy is not concluding relevantly to the Bill. He must be relevant.

The Government's bungling is responsible for all this. They over-bid for votes at the last election. They promised people a heaven upon earth but to my mind they are giving them the opposite. Every young person with leaving certificate standard was promised a job.

I will call the next speaker if the Deputy will not speak to the Bill.

I am asking the Minister to think over this Bill again, to do a little research and to remove section 4, to broaden the scope of other sections and, if his colleagues will allow him, to increase the allowances or the percentages granted to the different classifications of recipients in the light of the marked increase in the cost of living. We owe it to the people who are constrained to live on social welfare benefits to be more liberal in this day and age. Having regard to the present state of our economy, the cost of living and inflation, we should give better allowances to such people.

I believe the Minister for Social Welfare is committed to the Fianna Fáil Manifesto of 1977 and that every action of his in relation to the administration of the Department of Social Welfare is related to it. He is obliged by that and he also is morally obliged to fulfil the promises so readily given in 1977. I will not deal at any great length with the Bill before the House, but I have a few things to say which go back to the manifesto. The first paragraph states:

The vision of this manifesto is an Ireland in which a successful strategy for national re-construction offers real security for all.

The Minister told the House there would be real improvements. On page 22 of the manifesto it is stated:

People in need have a right to income maintenance. Fianna Fáil's record in improving the rates of benefit and introducing new services, including benefits in kind, is a pioneering one. Special attention will be paid to those social welfare recipients who have little income other than their weekly social welfare benefit.

That is a very bold statement. I wonder how many small farmers in County Donegal, how many widows and orphans, how many unemployed people would regard that promise. What would the boatyard workers in Killybegs say? The Minister for Fisheries has now assured 80 of them that there will be no redundancies. They will now have to live on reduced incomes or on social welfare benefits. However, I will deal with that later.

In their manifesto they said:

Fianna Fáil intends to:— Maintain the living standards of Social Welfare recipients by regular adjustments of the level of payments at least in line with the cost of living.

The word "low" should be inserted so that it would read that they intend to maintain the low living standards of social welfare recipients. That is what the Minister has achieved in this Social Welfare Bill.

They refer in the manifesto to an action plan for national reconstruction. They proclaim that they are the republican party with the sole right to use that subtitle. I hope they still believe that the people living in the six northeastern counties called Northern Ireland are part of the Irish nation. They dealt with that part of Ireland in about ten lines in the entire document. They talked about national reconstruction but they had not even got the vision to reduce the qualifying age for a pension from 66 years to 65 years. If they want to harmonise the two areas of Ireland they must be blind if they do not know pensions are paid north of the Border at the age of 60 years for females and 65 years for male workers.

People who were very young when the Fianna Fáil Party first took office in 1932 believed in the promises made by the former leader, the founder of that party, that the unification of Ireland was just around the corner. When they sought work in the city of Derry or the city of Belfast or in the provincial towns in Derry, Antrim, Down, Fermanagh, Tyrone and Armagh they considered that a temporary measure and that the circumstances which caused them to obtain work north of the Border would iron themselves out in the near future. They thought that they would not be at a disadvantage when they retired from their employment. There were unable to get work in the Republic and they gave their services to the northern state. They now find they are at a disadvantage. They are discriminated against because they have not reached the age of 66 years and therefore they cannot avail of the electricity allowance, free transport, free television licence or other fringe benefits which go with the old age pension.

Fianna Fáil talked about an action plan for national reconstruction but they did not have the wisdom to attend to simple matters like that. I spent the past couple of days in Belfast. I should not like to have to explain to people who are dreaming of unification of Ireland or an Ireland with one Government, one Parliament, one flag, one Minister for Social Welfare how people in County Donegal have been let down by a Government who said they would give them real improvements. They have taken away the food subsidies. They have increased electricity charges. County council rents have increased and the Government have given meagre allowances to social welfare recipients. These are people on the lowest income in southern Irish society and we have not got the sympathy in our hearts to take into consideration the fact that those people have given their services to this nation; they have given their best years to Irish society. But they are not as strong as the PAYE group who protested yesterday in this city; they are not as well organised as the farmers who forced the Government to stand down; they are not as well organised as the post office workers who are now fighting for their rights. They are just simple, ordinary people—in many cases with not a lot of education—but honest-to-goodness people, the backbone of the Irish nation. They are people who have paid their debts, brought up their children and are now living on very small incomes and we ignore them the way we do.

I want to put on record, even though it bores me to read it, what Fianna Fáil said in their election manifesto in 1977. I have already dealt with the first point. In the second point they said they would institute a supplementary welfare allowance scheme to replace the outdated home assistance system operating at present. That has been done; it has been called another name. But how well off are the people who require the benefits? I do not see any gain. In fact in many cases the home assistance officer was in a better position to dole out money to people who needed it immediately.

In point No. 3 of the manifesto they said they would ensure that the pension rights of those who accepted voluntary phased retirement in order to release jobs would not be adversely affected. Surely that must make even the Minister blush. There is not one shred of evidence that this has been attempted in the slightest degree since this Government took office almost two years ago, two budgets ago.

In point No. 4 they said they would provide for the transferability of full pension rights on the change from one occupation to another or to a similar occupation with a new employer. I have just referred to that. People in employment north of the Border who find themselves out of employment and come here on retiring are very much let down. People who go north of the Border get their benefits but people who come to this side of the Border do not. This is what this noble Fianna Fáil Party, the republican party, mean by taking action for national reconstruction. That is what they think about it.

In point No. 5 they said they would work towards the elimination of discrimination against single, married and widowed women. Something has been achieved in that area but surely the Minister's blush must be getting redder.

They said in point No. 6 they would initiate an inquiry into the operation of the means test with a view to eliminating all anomalies within that code. Last week here in the House I asked the Minister to explain how his officials attempted to carry out a means test. Deputy Tully, former Minister for Local Government, put a specific question to the Minister about a lady in his constituency who had worked for 24 years and who was now getting unemployment benefit but her credit had run out and she could not receive unemployment assistance because her family were well enough off, on this means test, to support her. I submit to the Minister that this is a most despicable way for the Department of Social Welfare to get out of their responsibilities to people who not alone need money to have a certain amount of personal independence but who need money to ensure that they are not a burden on their families. I can well imagine the Minister's official going to the house in County Donegal and saying, "We know that you worked for ten years; we know that you paid your income tax; we know that you paid up all your stamps; we know that you have never drawn unemployment benefit until you became redundant two or three years ago but now your credit is gone and you must go on unemployment assistance but because your father owns a small farm or because your mother has an independent income and because you are living here we are going to charge you with the amount of money that we believe it costs to maintain you in this house".

What the Minister's official is really saying is that the Government are no longer responsible to that insured person who is now out of credit. They are asking the family how much it costs to keep their daughter in the house each week; how much it costs to provide her with a bed, with breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper; how much it costs to give her a few shillings to keep her clothed. The Department official estimates that to be £18 a week so they say that they are now going to charge the daughter with a means of £18 a week. In other words, he is saying to the family that they must give him £18 a week so that he can give it to the daughter so that the daughter can give it back to the family. But the arithmetic of all that is that the Government are saying "We owe your daughter nothing". I will repeat the point in the manifesto again—"initiate an inquiry into the operation of the means test with a view to eliminating all anomalies within the code." That must have been thought out by experts, the think-tank of the Fianna Fáil Party, over two years ago and it must have been read by many people who voted for this Government. It must have meant that people voted for Fianna Fáil because point No. 6 on page 17 of their manifesto, "Action Plan for National Reconstruction", says this. There are many people who would have read that and who, under the National Coalition Government, would have said that because their families had a certain standing in life, a certain income, they were being deprived of a living because of this obnoxious means test. But here is this new-thinking Government, this Government under Fianna Fáil who say that the vision of this manifesto is an Ireland in which a successful strategy for national reconstruction offers real security for all. It has been carefully put together and costed for implementation by a Government by a new team under the Taoiseach. People can really say at this stage that they have been "lynched", they have been conned. The Fianna Fáil Party have given a new meaning to what being lynched means. History will not record the Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, as a man who had lead the greatest number of Deputies into this House but as a man who has lead the dumbest, dullest——

We are dealing with a Bill before the House now. The Deputy is not dealing with the Bill.

We are dealing with the promises of social security.

We are dealing with the Bill before the House and I would ask Deputy Harte to keep to that.

Would the Chair allow me to explain that the Government in their election promises——

We are dealing with the Bill before the House. We are not dealing with Ministers or the Taoiseach or anybody else. We are dealing with the Bill on social welfare.

Why does the Chair keep interrupting me?

I am not interrupting. I am trying to get the Deputy to speak relevantly to the Bill before the House.

Would the Chair explain to me what is not relevant about my referring to people who before the general election were disqualified for unemployment assistance because of the means test but who read in the Fianna Fáil Manifesto a promise to initiate an inquiry into the operation of the means test system with a view to eliminating all anomalies? Has not that person the right to say now that he has been conned? Is this not relevant?

The Deputy has not been relevant for a good part of his speech. He is relevant when he is dealing with the Bill before the House.

But I am dealing with the Bill and I am saying that the Minister has not dealt with the question of the means test, that he has not fulfilled his moral obligation to the people who voted for his party on the basis of a promise to deal with this question.

If the Deputy wishes to be fair he must be prepared to admit that the Bill removes a number of anomalies.

What are they?

There are 12.

Deputy Harte on the Bill.

What anomalies are being removed by the Bill?

It removes 12 anomalies.

But what are they?

I listed them in my opening speech.

The Minister will be replying later.

I will not now have an opportunity of replying.

In the end the sums are the same. The person who should be in receipt of unemployment assistance because he no longer qualifies for unemployment benefit is not in receipt of any more money.

One anomaly that has been removed relates to maternity benefit. This benefit has been extended to 12 weeks. That specific anomaly has been removed. The extension is from ten weeks in some cases.

In the words of the Chair, that is not really relevant. If all the anomalies concerned are as important as that, the Minister has replied to my question.

That one is important to some people.

Deputy Harte on the Bill.

We are talking about all the people within the social welfare code.

The Deputy was talking about anomalies but he should be fair enough to admit that the Bill removes from the code 12 separate anomalies.

It is the Minister's prerogative to accuse me of being unfair but I am referring him to his party's manifesto in which there was a commitment to eliminate all anomalies within the social welfare code. There are many more cases in my constituency similar to the one I have cited.

I do not know what that case is but if the Deputy will repeat it I shall have it dealt with.

It is not my intention to be personal in criticising the Minister because he is one of the Ministers whom I believe to be attempting to do something concrete while there are other Ministers who could not care one way or the other. But the point is that the Minister is not living up to the commitment of his party as set out in their election manifesto. However, I shall continue to deal with this manifesto which you, Sir, supported also.

The Deputy must not make charges against the Chair. It does not matter what the Chair supported. When I am sitting here I am being fair to every Member of the House. I am not allowing my policies to influence me. Therefore, I would ask the Deputy please not to make charges against the Chair.

If the charge is unfair I withdraw it but would draw attention to the commitment in the manifesto to simplify all social security forms. That is a big deal.

The simplification process is being carried out steadily.

After 18 months.

It has been going on for the past 18 months.

There are occasions when we as Deputies have difficulty in helping constituents understand what is involved in some of the questions listed on these forms because of the manner in which the questions are put. Surely what is important in respect of a claim for any payment from the Department of Social Welfare is the question of establishing entitlement to that payment instead of having a situation in which someone is sitting in the Department trying to decide whether there are any more awkward questions that could be put on the forms.

Will the Deputy accept that we are engaged on a consistent programme of simplification? I can send the Deputy examples of some of the forms we have simplified.

The Minister will have the right to reply.

Unfortunately I shall not be able to reply.

Why not?

Because we must finish by 7 p.m.

The funniest promise of all is the one to subsidise telephone charges for old age pensioners living alone. I know some old age pensioners living alone in County Donegal who would willing pay telephone charges if they could have the service. I trust that whoever has buried this document does not dig it up too often because every time I have reason to refer to it it smells heavily.

Deputy Murphy spoke about the Government losing touch with the people. I came here 18 years ago as a raw recruit with no ambition to stay as long as I have stayed. Like many others I came here more by accident than by design, certainly more by accident than by purpose, but in that time I have not seen a Government who have moved so far away from reality as is the case with this Government. What is happening in our society is all related to that manifesto which was prepared too slickly. In a foreword to the manifesto there is the note that it has been carefully put together and costed for implementation in government under a new team led by Mr. Jack Lynch as Taoiseach. What about the old age pensioners who are expected to live on £15.80 per week if they are under 80? Is this indicative of careful costing? Similarly, a widow living alone is expected to survive on £15.80 per week or £2.20 per day. There is only one word to sum up this situation and that is the word "shame".

The Government expect people to wait until they reach the age of 66 to receive the old age pension and then expect them to live on £2.20 per day. How many days a week does the Minister expect they will be able to afford sprouts or roast beef or a T-bone steak? I wonder what their shopping list will be and how many times they will be able to afford butter. I do not envy the person living alone who has to survive on £2.20 a day. My own home is cosy but far from luxurious and is probably one of the simplest homesteads owned by a Member of this House. Even in those humble surroundings I feel ashamed when people come and tell me what they have to live on. It is no credit to anyone in public life to say he is part of that system.

The Minister juggles around with figures in his speech. A couple of old age pensioners have £23.65 per week. One evening towards the end of last year I went into an hotel not far from this House and it cost £17 for a meal and a drink for the friend who was with me. Being a pioneer myself, I settled for ordinary table water. I think of the money I spent in the restaurant here and try to translate that into figures which would explain how two old age pensioners could live in comfort, remembering that in his speech the Minister referred to real improvements in the living standards of social welfare recipients.

The Minister deals in glowing terms with unemployment assistance. A person with no means will get £12.70 per week or £1,80 per day. A married couple with two children will get £30.25 per week or £1.08 per head per day. The Minister shakes his head, but I have based my calculations on the figures given in his speech. How many times will a married couple with two children buy meat when they must live on £1.08 per day? How many times will they buy a pound of butter from the local grocer? How much does the Minister expect they will spend on clothes, in buying a shirt or shoes for the children? How many times does the Minister expect them to send shoes to be repaired by the local shoemaker? It is not a credit to this Government that the Minister proudly boasts that a family with two children will feed, clothe and maintain themselves and pay rent and electricity bills on £30.25 per week.

It is said we have a buoyant economy and we wonder why people are marching. We wonder about the explanation for the abolition of wealth tax and the removal of rates from domestic dwellings. I confess that rates were an unfair tax system. But I have met wealthy people in this city who are honest enough to say that they give the Government no credit for the removal of rates on their houses, even though they were paying £1,200 or £1,500 a year in rates. People who are in the millionaire bracket or close to it were quite prepared to pay and received the handouts with a certain amount of wonder. Would it not be better to let such people pay rates on their houses and do justice to the man drawing unemployment assistance who has a wife and two children? That is where my social conscience would lie.

The Fianna Fáil Manifesto, to which I have referred so often, was a give-away election gimmick. Everybody was to get something. The man receiving unemployment assistance, who found it so difficult to pay his rates—though they may have been only £10 per year—was glad to be rid of that responsibility and voted for Fianna Fáil. He was completely in the dark as to the effect this would have across the board. He gave no thought to the man paying £1,200, or in some cases over £2,000, in rates who could afford to pay that amount and did not even notice when it was paid by his financial adviser or secretary. He gave no credit to the Government for relieving him of it. The man receiving unemployment assistance, whose wife had to budget in pennies and decide between margarine and butter, voted for Fianna Fáil in order to rid himself of the obligation to pay rates, which may have amounted to only £10. The Minister now makes him pay by keeping him and his family well below subsistence level and, of course, the profiteers and racketeers and the guys who subscribe to the Fianna Fáil election fund——

That sort of thing has nothing to do with the Bill before the House and the Deputy must not drag it in. I ask the Deputy to keep to the Bill.

The Bill before the House expects a couple with two children to live on unemployment assistance. If a couple have four children the position becomes worse. If they have six children the position becomes almost impossible, and if they have eight children it defies my arithmetic as to how they can survive. If the father finds that a local farmer has a day's work for him and he is tempted to do it without informing the Department, a kind neighbour will inform on him because he earned an extra £3 to help feed his wife and children. The giving of such information is a criminal act. Is the Chair telling me that the removal of rates by this Government——

I am telling the Deputy that rates have nothing to do with the Bill before the House.

The Minister has said many things which have little meaning for the people who sent me here to speak for them and little meaning for those who voted for Fianna Fáil, believing that their standards of living would be improved by a carefully-costed policy under the leadership of the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch. It makes my stomach heave to think that a policy that expects a family to live on £30.25 a week, which works out at £1.8 per child per day, is considered to be a well-costed policy. The Minister's smugness and tolerance of such a system upsets me.

The Minister is also willing to listen to the tales of jealous neighbours. Such reports are not given for reasons of jealousy but because certain people in our society—the elderly, the disabled and the handicapped—cannot work and are forced to live on meagre allowances. We keep the poor poor and sealed off from other sections of society. As a result, they are unaware of the cost of a meal or bed and breakfast in a hotel in Dublin. The people who make reports to the Department are comparing the unemployed with those who are unable to work. I wonder what their thoughts would be if they compared the unemployed with the wealthy. If they did so, I am sure they would march in organised groups for those who are forced to live on small incomes.

It gets under my skin to hear Fianna Fáil Deputies talking about getting the country moving again. The manifesto did not explain to the many small farmers in my constituency that their PLVs would be increased and that their incomes would be reduced. I admit that the system has been abused. As a Donegal man, speaking on behalf of social welfare recipients, I will tolerate that abuse because the Government have not created sufficient jobs in Donegal. The Government believe that we are not part of this State. We have the worst telephone system, the worst roads and the highest unemployment rate.

The Deputy should get back to the Bill that is before the House. The Deputy is talking about roads, telephone systems and unemployment in Donegal. The Deputy will get an opportunity to discuss these subjects at some other time.

There is no reason why the Minister for Social Welfare could not identify the amount of work that is needed on roads and telecommunications in order to give the people of Donegal an opportunity to earn their living instead of forcing them to live on meagre incomes.

Will the Deputy admit that the community welfare services in Donegal are improving steadily.

The community welfare services in County Donegal were so bad they could not do anything else but improve. The Minister should not boast about them.

At least they are improving.

Last year they were given two bags of coal and this year they got three bags. Does the Minister call that an improvement? I do not think they get it in bags anymore—I think they get it by the kilo.

The Deputy should not be denigrating the Donegal people.

I want to deal with the small farmers in Donegal, those with valuations of less than £10. I agree that there was some abuse under which such farmers got social welfare benefits. Now the man living on a farm of £10 valuation has his multiplier increased by 50 per cent, from £20 to £30. On Saturday morning the wife of a man in that category came to me. She had six children, the eldest 17 years. He is going to a vocational school—whether he gets a job when he has qualified is another matter. She went to the social welfare office and she was told that because her husband has been sending milk to the creamery the family will lose about £17 per week. I did not ask her whom she voted for in the general election: I hope she did not feel fooled by the Fianna Fáil promises then. In this respect, the Minister has attacked the farmers at the bottom rung of the economic ladder.

Almost nobody with a valuation of less than £10 will lose.

I have told the Minister of a specific case, of a family who will lose £17 a week.

If the Deputy will give me the details I will look into it.

I have given them to the Department. In the case of a farmer with a valuation of between £10 and £15, the increase in the multiplier is from £30 to £50, and the increase in the case of a farmer whose valuation is between £15 and £20, the multiplier increase is from £40 to £60. Why in the case of a man with a £10 valuation has the multiplier been increased by 50 per cent but it has been increased by 66.6 per cent in the case of valuations between £15 and £20?

There is a misprint in the explanatory memorandum. In the case of valuations between £15 and £20 the figure has been increased from £30 to £60.

That is a 100 per cent increase. The Minister's introductory speech was inaccurate. I have the speech in front of me, the document circulated to us while the Minister was speaking. I have asked the Minister for the number of farmers in Donegal who will lose these benefits but I have not got the information. I am sure the number will be very high.

On page 5 of his introductory statement the Minister referred to increases for widows and so on and then to other categories, deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives. Why do the Department and the Minister have to inform all and sundry that a wife's husband has deserted her, that a mother is unmarried or that a woman's husband is in jail? Have they not got any common sense or imagination in the Department?

I did not invent these terms. There were invented by a Fine Gael Minister.

The Minister got a mandate in the last election, and so did the 83 Deputies sitting behind him, based on a reconstruction policy——

The Deputy has repeated this about 15 times.

And another 15 times.

The Deputy will obey the Chair. It is not in order to repeat something 14 or 15 times. He might get away with it twice.

I have been referring to the terminology used by the Minister.

The Deputy is getting away from the matter put to him by the Chair.

There must be total lack of imagination on the part of the Minister and the Department if they continue to use terms like deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives. The Minister denied that he invented these terms. I do not give a damn who invented them.

It is funny the Deputy is objecting to them now. It is odd he did not do so when they were invented.

I am dealing——

The Deputy's party had an opportunity to change things.

I am dealing with what the Minister said in his address to the House on the Second Stage of the Social Welfare Bill, 1979. I am embarrassed when a young woman comes in to tell me she is unmarried and is looking for the unmarried mother's allowance. Why should any woman have to come in and admit to a public representative or to an official that she is an unmarried mother? I do not want to know it, the Minister does not want to know it and I am sure the official employed does not want to know it. Could we have some other description such as "temporarily separated"?

If a young man gets into trouble, either through the politics in which he believes or because he was tempted to do something that the courts now find him guilty of and he is serving a term of imprisonment, why should his wife have to come to me as a public representative or to a social welfare officer and say that she is the wife of a prisoner? She has committed no crime and she should not have to confess publicly the sins of her husband, if they are sins. It is a most degrading thing. I hold the Minister in very high esteem and I know that he has compassion in his heart. I know that the next time such a Bill comes before the House terms such as "deserted wife", "unmarried mother" and "prisoner's wife" will have some other name.

The Deputy must equally well see that we have extended the prisoner's wife's allowance by four weeks and that is as important to her as anything else in this Bill.

Is the Minister boasting?

Why does he put that on the record? Is that his defence?

That provision in this Bill is more important to the wives concerned than the Deputy's line.

I acknowledge that the Minister has increased their allowance to four weeks as he said. Will the prisoner receive unemployment assistance?

For the four weeks?

And immediately?

Yes. We have extended the prisoner's wife's allowance by four full weeks.

The Chair is not satisfied that those matters be argued across the floor of the House. If Deputy Harte wishes to make a statement, he should make it. On the Second Reading of a Bill there is no such things as questions across the floor of the House.

With due respect to you, Sir, it is not I who am interrupting, but I welcome the Minister's interjections. He says that he is now granting an extra four weeks' allowance.

The Deputy is asking questions of the Minister and seeking replies. That is not the way to conduct a debate.

This is important.

Deputy, make your own statements. The Minister has the right of reply.

I acknowledge your position, Sir, but it is important to establish this. Is the Minister telling the House that a man who is in jail and whose wife will be paid what is now called prisoner's wife's allowance for four weeks after her husband comes out of jail will qualify for unemployment assistance for the same period?

That will not affect it. They are two separate allowances.

Now the cat is out of the bag. Are they two separate allowances and will they both be paid?

Yes, if the conditions of the schemes allow it.

We will leave it at that. It is not unreasonable that I kick up a fuss about this terminology. Instead of "unmarried mother" would it not be simple to say "single-parent family"? There are cases where young people for some reason or another do not go through the ceremony of marriage but live as husband and wife. When they look for unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit or children's allowance, they do not have to say "We are not married" or "I am an unmarried mother". But the young girl who finds that she is let down by her boyfriend has to come in and say blushingly "I am an unmarried mother". This is not fair, and the Minister will recognise the unfairness of it and will see to it that in future we will do away with this despicable reference to unmarried people. The Minister should use some term like "single-parent families," and for deserted wives and prisoner's wives "temporarily separated". That is not too much to ask, and I make this appeal to the Minister for it.

The Minister stated that the increase in disability and unemployment benefit is to be £16.05 in the personal rate and £10.45 in the rate for adult dependants. A man and wife receive a weekly income of £26.50 per week from this source. Does the Minister consider that that is well costed as per the Fianna Fáil Manifesto? Is this the way that that document is being implemented by the Government under the present Taoiseach? What will happen in Killybegs when these 80 people become redundant in February of next year? In a few weeks' time 45 of them will be no longer required and the balance of 35 will have to go next year. These men who have been receiving a wage of £70 per week with take-home pay of £50 per week, will be expected to live on £26.50. Is the Minister serious in suggesting that people can live on £26.50 per week with the cost of living as it is at the moment? If that young couple, believing in the security of the employment, have committed themselves to building a new house with the help of a mortgage from Donegal County Council or some building society, or have bought a second-hand car, some old banger, through hire purchase, what is to happen? They are told that they are redundant. That is a nice way of saying that they are sacked, kicked out, not wanted any more, that they can get lost.

What will the allowances be for a father, a mother and six children? On my calculation there will be £51 per week or 91p per day per person for that family to live on. One pound of butter and a loaf of bread now cost 99p. Therefore, you can buy seven pounds of butter and seven loaves of bread for this week, but if you do you are going to be short and your daddy will have to go out and take a job on the side, hoping that the local social welfare officer will not hear about it, so that he can earn £5 or £10. This is the reality, and the Minister is telling this House that this policy is well-costed for national reconstruction and offers real security for all. Oh boy, the people of Killybegs will read that one well this week.

A few years ago people did not know the meaning of the word "redundant". They were told they would be paid something because they had lost their jobs. Now, a father, mother and six children get £51 a week from the Minister for Social Welfare, that is 91p per day per person to feed and clothe them, pay the rent and the fuel bills. This is from a State which received its independence in 1922. A family of four receive £35.80 a week, less than £1.30 per day. The Minister is telling those people not to have a big family because a family of four receive £1.30 per head per day while a family with six children only receive an allowance of 91p a day. Is that Padraig Pearse's dream of what the nation would be? We are now boasting that a family at the bottom rung of the ladder receive 91p a day. We are telling those people not to buy any steak it will cost £2 a lb. I do not know what the Minister really thinks about the plight of those people. It does not make me very proud to be a member of this parliament and have to listen to the story of widows living alone who are expected to live on a maximum weekly pension of £15.80. Not alone do we expect the unmarried mother, the deserted wife, the woman whose husband is in jail, to live on £15.80 a week but we embarrass her by slotting her into the category of unmarried mother, deserted wife——

The book does not indicate any of those things.

Why does the Minister use those terms?

That is the description used in the statutes which I inherited.

Surely there is enough imagination on the Minister's side of the House to solve this matter.

The allowance book does not use any of those terms.

The guide to social welfare?

The book which the woman in question uses to collect her allowance does not use any of those terms.

The Minister has also got a book called "Summary to the Social Services".

The Minister has not. The Government and this Parliament have.

The Minister is now disowning the Government and he is transferring responsibility from his shoulders to this Parliament. He is Minister for Social Welfare by decree of this House and he is responsible to this House for everything that happens in the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister used such obnoxious terms in his speech to the House on this Bill as "deserted wives", "unmarried mothers" and "prisoners' wives".

They are in the statutes which I inherited. The Deputy is only a humbug. He is weeping crocodile tears.

Is it in order for the Minister to use that term?

It is not a complimentary term.

I will withdraw it.

I am glad the Minister withdrew it. Anybody who goes to that level is not worth noticing.

What level is the Deputy at? The Deputy is blaming me for terms used in the Statutes of this House. He is attributing personal blame to me for this. That is despicable.

I am not blaming the Minister. I am not concerned with whoever invented those terms. I am merely referring to the words which the Minister used in his speech to the House, of which I have a script.

They are the words used in the statutes passed by this House.

Why should I have to bring it to the Minister's attention and make him so mad that he stoops to the level of calling me a humbug.

The Deputy is very unfair in his criticism.

I am reminding the Minister of social conscience.

Order. Deputy Harte should be allowed to continue.

All the humbugs are not on this side of the House.

This legislation that the Minister introduced in glowing terms lacks imagination and does not appreciate the needs of the people on the lowest level of the social welfare scale. It lacks the imagination of a national plan for national reconstruction. "National" does not mean the Twenty-six Counties, the area over which we have jurisdiction. Fianna Fáil have always talked about "national" being the Thirty-two Counties. Have they now accepted that "national" no longer means that? "National" in the context they use it in this document refers exclusively to the needs of the people living in the republic.

When I first saw this plan for national reconstruction I thought that at last we would have a harmonisation of social welfare benefits with those in Northern Ireland. The Government had not the wit to change the old age pension age from 66 to 65 in the case of a man and from 66 to 60 in the case of a woman.

The Government do not give a damn about national reconstruction. They have paid lip service to the people for far too long. If the Government are going to talk about the standards of the republic and use terminology like "national" why did they character assassinate Senator Cruise-O'Brien whose two-nation theory they have accepted? That document justifies everything that Senator Conor Cruise-O'Brien said about two nations in Ireland. Fianna Fáil were the first to argue strenuously against and to take exception to this.

In the North of Ireland the old age pension ages are 60 for a woman and 65 for a man. A Donegal person working in Tyrone under what is called a foreign, occupying force, can retire at 60 or 65 depending on sex, but a person living at home in Donegal will be deprived of the fringe benefits that the Minister acknowledges these people need. The old age pensioner living alone gets an electricity allowance, free travel in case he wishes to visit a son or daughter in the next village and free telephone rental. The Government are not being generous, however, because they are keeping them below subsistence level. These people are being treated as outcasts. The Government have no thought or compassion or appreciation for the needs of these people and have totally ignored the increased cost of living. Nobody in the Government benches seems to think that an old age pensioner might want a half a pound of steak one day a week, or fish on Friday or might want to have diet on a Sunday that might include brussels sprouts or something that he cannot grow in the garden. There is no appreciation of the needs of people living alone—bread and butter, tea and toast, spuds and stirabout, and that is about it. After 65 years of national Government—national in the narrow sense—the Minister smiles when I accuse him of lack of imagination in what he offers to these people.

If the small farmer who does a day's work, and works hard, decides that he will take his next door neighbour's field, buy two or three cows and send a few gallons of milk to the local creamery, his unemployment assistance will be taken from him whether he has a £10, £20 or £40 valuation. If a man is industrious and is ambitious along those lines and the inspector catches him, his small farmers' dole will be stopped.

The Government, who have had four out of six Deputies in County Donegal and who treat the people as the Minister now does, deserves more than I would wish on the Minister. Donegal did not let down Fianna Fáil but Fianna Fáil have let down the people of Donegal. Fianna Fáil have given us the largest unemployment rate, the lowest social welfare benefits, the worst roads in the country and no automatic telephone communications. We are sealed off. The Government have done something that has not been done since Red Hugh O'Donnell: they have isolated Donegal. Storms never isolated Donegal in the manner in which we have been isolated by the lack of telecommunications. In the obnoxious Fianna Fáil manifesto the Government said that they would subsidise telephones of elderly people. They have not even given them a service. I hope that when the Government start talking about buying executive jets to fly gorgeous George and cheeky Charlie off to the rich countries——

Deputies and Ministers should be referred to by their proper titles in the House.

Cheeky George and gorgeous Charlie.

The Deputy should not be facetious.

When the Government come to make a decision to buy an executive jet at a cost of £1 million—Deputy White informs me that the cost is £1½ million which is an indication of inflation under Fianna Fáil, it is up by £½ million in a week—to fly Ministers back and forward from Dublin to Luxembourg, the Minister should think of the old age pensioner and the widow living alone and the large number of unemployed people in County Donegal who are expected to live on the money——

I gave the old age pensioner living alone in County Donegal free transport.

Are we expected to applaud? The Minister is sitting back with his hand under his chin and smugly saying that he gave the old age pensioners in County Donegal free transport. Are we expected to cheer?

That is more than the Deputy ever did or ever will do.

If I am ever in Government I will not smugly sit with my hand under my chin, my elbow on the bench and say with my chest out, to an Opposition Deputy who is criticising me "I gave the old age pensioners in County Donegal free transport".

The Deputy will not have to. It has been done already.

I will not take pleasure out of saying it as the Minister is. The widow, the unemployed, whether or not they are in receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance, and the disabled are the people who should be our prime responsibility. It is not the wealthy farmers, or the wealthy people living in the suburbs of Dublin for whom the Minister took the rates off houses. I have a friend who said he did not mind paying rates and he does not thank the Minister's party for removing them.

I wish the Minister well in his job. He has a very difficult task to perform. I hope he will put more effort into it next year because I will be referring to what I said this year. I do not want the Minister to keep the payments to these people at their present standard. They are just running after inflation and are reaching for a ceiling which is not there. I will be judging the Minister on his performance and I beg of him when he sits here next year and lays claim to something which is justly and rightly his to make it more than a boast that he gave free transport to the old age pensioners in County Donegal. This has been happening in other political systems in Europe——

The free transport that we gave to old age pensioners is unique in Western Europe.

That is nonsense. It is happening in many societies and the Minister should not boast about it.

I will boast about it until the day I die because it was one of the best things ever introduced.

The Minister's weakness is that he lacks imagination.

I accept that. I am proud——

The Minister lacks imagination. As long as a crumb falls off his table to the people in need in County Donegal—even if that crumb means free transport—they should take it and be glad it was given to them. Shame on the Minister.

This Bill creates a two-tier system with which I disagree. Recent figures have indicated that food has increased by 18 per cent, yet the top figure in the Bill is 16 per cent. A 12 per cent increase is miserable when one considers that there could be very little difference in the ages of the people in the two tiers. A person on sick benefit or disability might need the money more than a person who had reached the age of 66 years.

Social welfare payments were always too low. If we make two categories it will be a retrograde step and will separate people who are unfortunate enough to be on any benefit. Widows have been badly treated over the years. I am not blaming this Minister for that. Where an old age pensioner dies and his widow has not reached the age of 66, the entitlement to free electricity ceases and it is cut off. That is disgraceful, unchristian and inhuman. Yet, it is happening on a regular basis. It is almost a throwback to the Victorian or landlord days.

The administration of the new supplementary welfare allowances under the Bill leaves a lot to be desired. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the way it is being administered but it seems to me to be under the old Victorian system with people being quizzed and frustrated with questions.

The means test being operated in the payment of this supplementary welfare allowance is a disgrace to our so-called Christian society. I asked the Minister a question in this House about people living alone on the old age pension, who had a supplementary welfare allowance of the large sum of £1 a week and who, when this much-boasted about £1 a week extra is given them over the age of 80, have the supplementary welfare allowance of £1 withdrawn. The Minister when replying asked me to give him cases. I received the same request from the county medical officer in that area, even though the health board administering that scheme knew well the cases about which I was inquiring. Likewise, I was asked to produce evidence by an officer of the health board at a health committee meeting. I gave him details of a particular case. His reply was that the £1 had been cut off not because the particular recipient had received an increase but because of the benefits she had from living near her married daughter.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that this supplementary welfare scheme is being administered in an archaic, Victorian way, which is both unchristian and inhuman. It behoves the Minister to examine its operation. I do not know whether that is occasioned by a shortage of money but that is the way it is being administered by officials who should know better. I do not want to attack any official in this House, but that is the reply I received from an official of the Minister's Department who has been administering the supplementary welfare allowance in my constituency. It was never meant to be administered in that way and I hope the Minister does not mean to administer it in that way. If he does not mean it to be so operated, then he should inform his officials how it should be properly administered. Indeed, it is about time he issued a guidebook telling us and them how it should be administered. Then the officials concerned had the cheek to tell me that they never took it from anybody because they received the £1, when they took it from a person who received the £1 because of the benefits she enjoyed from living near her married daughter.

In some cases that might not be of benefit.

It might not. I am merely telling the Minister what this gentleman wrote down for me. I can produce the letter from him. That is a very serious statement to have to make and I make it in the full sense of its seriousness. There is a list of people in my constituency who lost the £1 supplementary welfare allowance because they received a £1 increase since they reached the age of 80. The officials of the Department know well who these people are. I could continue to speak on that supplementary welfare allowance for quite some time but I appreciate that the Minister is entitled to reply, and I know Deputy White wants a few minutes also.

At budget time the Minister maintained that these increases would substantially increase the standard of living of those people. The highest increase in any rate of benefit is now 16 per cent. Yet it was shown in statistics, not compiled by me, that the price of food had increased by approximately 18 per cent. Therefore the Minister must have been misinformed when he made that statement. It is fair to say also that 90 per cent of the income of these people is spent on food. I know it can be contended that overall the inflation rate is less, but it must be remembered that food prices have increased by 17.9 per cent. These people should be compensated for this increase in some way. The cost of living bonus implemented by the previous Government in the month of October was some attempt to keep abreast with that kind of inflation. The Minister should examine if that could be done again, say, in the month of July, October or some other time, with the increased price of food being taken into consideration. I have already recommended that to health boards in regard to medical cards. That is a different matter, but they might well take another look at the appropriate guidelines.

The food subsidies were removed before the Minister made his budget calculations. The removal of these subsidies will have a serious effect on the standard of living of all people in the whole range of social welfare—for example, on people receiving the 12 per cent increase. Even the 16 per cent increase has not compensated for the increase in food prices. Perhaps the Minister does not realise that people in that category spend 90 per cent of their income on food, because that is all they can afford to buy.

I want now to say something about the operation of the appeals system in the Minister's Department. This is a system which was in operation before the Minister's time and I have spoken about it on several previous occasions here. However, something must be done about it. When a medical referee cuts somebody off social welfare benefit, that person has to appeal. His own doctor tells him he is not fit to work. Mark you, the medical referee does not say he is fit for work; he says he is not unfit for work. That is the term used. One has to appeal against that judgment and be re-examined. But during that time one might even die of hunger because that appeal goes on interminably in the Department. It is absolutely appalling that people must wait for months on end between the time their allowance is cut off and their appeal is heard and decided.

They can now get——

They can get a supplementary welfare allowance, which is a greatly reduced amount.

They can get unemployment benefit or assistance.

Is the Minister saying that these people can get unemployment benefit without being available for work?

Unemployment benefit or assistance.

If I know the rules one cannot get either unemployment assistance or benefit without being fit for work and available for work.

When the matter is under appeal——

One can get a supplementary welfare allowance, which is a far lesser amount and for which one will be subject to the scrutiny I have described already. The Minister must devise a method of speeding up appeals. I accept that a difference of opinion may arise in some cases between the local doctor and the medical referee but surely it should be possible to hold the second examination within one week. In the case of a person who leaves employment for any reason and claims unemployment benefit that appeal can go on for up to 12 months. A person who is turned down in his application for unemployment benefit or assistance has a right of appeal but if he depends on such benefit he will die from hunger because of the length of time it takes to hear such appeals.

Many young people have come to me having been offered from 50p to £2 unemployment assistance. The Department, in assessing the amount they were entitled to, took into account the fact that they were getting free board and lodgings from their parents. In some cases the father of that household was on social welfare. Such parents must keep their children, irrespective of their income, but the Department reckon that those claiming benefit are getting free board and lodgings. That is the type of Victorian carry-on that officials of the Minister's Department engage in. It is still going on throughout the length and breadth of the country.

On the other point, a man who is disallowed disability benefit, if it is under appeal, can get unemployment benefit in the interim.

What about his wife? She cannot get it.

If he is on appeal for disability benefit he can get benefit in the interim.

What about a person who is on appeal for unemployment benefit or assistance?

A person who is turned down for disability benefit and has appealed that decision can get unemployment benefit in the interim.

What is the situation if he is not available for work because his doctor has told him that he cannot work?

I will write to the Deputy about it but what I have stated is correct.

A person who is refused unemployment benefit and decides to appeal against that decision may have to wait up to 12 months for that appeal to be heard. I accept that it is possible for such a person to be brought into benefit after six weeks but what will happen if the Department claim that a person is not seeking employment, as a person is bound to do when seeking unemployment benefit or assistance? I am aware of cases where people were refused benefit because the local official stated that such people were not making a proper effort to obtain employment. Those cases were on appeal for up to two years. The system is rotten and the Minister should investigate it.

In deciding not to continue to reduce the age for old age pensions, a move started by the previous Government, the Minister made a mistake. Within four years the National Coalition reduced that age limit by four years. Throughout Europe 65 years is the accepted age for an old age pension. It would benefit everybody if the Minister reduced the retirement pension age to 60. If we reach the stage when people are paid a decent pension they should be encouraged to retire at 60 years of age thereby providing employment for younger people. When the National Coalition were reducing the age for old age pensions they should have reduced the age of retirement pensions also. The Minister should reduce both to 60 years of age.

It is common for people in many areas to complain about what is known as farmer's dole and make the case that it should not be paid. I do not subscribe to that. However, the Minister's Department should not be handling it. It should be a subsidy to farmers. There is nothing wrong with paying a subsidy if it means that a person is kept off the unemployment list. We are paying up to £25 per week to some employers, including multi-nationals, to encourage them to employ people off the live register and for that reason there is nothing wrong with paying a sum of money to keep farmers on their holdings, provided they are trying to progress. Such a payment should be made to farmers by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy. The fact that it is paid by the Department of Social Welfare belittles the benefit. For a lot of people that benefit is essential but it should not be described as a farmer's dole.

I should now like to deal with the situation in relation to the distribution of pensions, family allowances and social welfare benefits which are affected by the postal dispute. In the name of God, the Government should meet the union involved in the Post Office dispute to try to settle it. In my area some people have to travel 16 to 20 miles to get their benefits. Some of them have to pay £3 to come to Dublin by bus to collect a cheque for £14 or £15. I am not talking about the rights or wrongs of the strike, but it will never be settled if the Government do not agree to meet the people on strike. Hardship is being caused to social welfare recipients. Will the Minister for Social Welfare ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to come down off his high horse, meet the people, discuss the problems and get the strike settled?

The other morning I spoke to an unfortunate man who had not got his social welfare cheque for four weeks. He is on a multi-certificate and that should not have happened. He went to the Carlow Labour Exchange where his cheque was supposed to be, but he did not succeed in getting it. Apparently some people can go into shops and supermarkets and change their cheques. Some can even do so in banks. I know an unfortunate woman who needed her pension. She went into a bank and was told they could not change her cheque unless she had a bank account. If she had a bank account she could wait for her pension. She had no bank account and therefore she got no pension.

This type of thing is going on. Sometime or another someone representing the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Government will have to sit down with the Post Office workers and settle this dispute. Will that be done when some of these people have died? The Minister is an influential man and he should talk to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and ask him to meet these people and resolve this dispute so that these unfortunate people can get their money and their new pension books. It is no good appealing to the people on strike. Someone will have to meet them and talk about their problems.

The Deputy has dealt in a rather sinister manner with a matter which is not relevant.

I think I have proved that it is relevant. I mentioned people in my constituency who had to pay £3 on a bus to go to Dublin to get their social welfare cheques. They could ill afford £3 out of their small cheques. I am not talking about the merits or demerits of the strike. I have my own views on that, and they are not relevant. What I am saying is relevant to this Bill and to the distribution of social welfare payments within the State. It is relevant to the distribution of new pension books. It is very relevant to the unfortunate people who are not getting paid.

The Minister for Labour and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should sit down and talk to these people and settle this dispute. There are many reasons for doing this, but the only reason I want to put forward now is the distribution of social welfare benefits and social welfare books. There is no use in blaming anybody. The two groups concerned are the Government and the Post Office Workers' Union. The union are prepared to sit down and talk to the Minister at any time. I appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare to use his good offices with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to bring about fruitful discussions which will resolve this problem. It is a problem.

When these people come to Dublin they stand in long queues in Store Street and then they find that they should have been in Townsend Street. This is what sick people are being asked to do. I am asking the Minister for Social Welfare as a humane act to ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to get down off his high horse and meet the people who are in dispute with him.

Since I came into this House I have spoken on every Social Welfare Bill which has been introduced. I am surprised that the Minister has introduced such a mealy-mouthed Bill as this. On other Bills I had the pleasure of saying what I thought was good about them and mentioning the few things I thought were bad about them. I have to tear this Bill to shreds and point out what is wrong with it. However, I compliment the Minister on the very few changes he has made which will be of benefit to the people.

The last speaker was quite right. When the Minister introduced this Bill he was blowing and puffing about the tremendous increases pensioners and people on unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance would get. He told us old age pensioners would get an increase of 16 per cent. Deputies on the opposite benches were delighted to hear that. The Minister went on to say people on unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and sickness benefit would get the tremendous increase of 12 per cent.

Last week we read in the papers that over the past 12 months food prices have increased by 18 per cent. A couple of months ago Fianna Fáil were telling us they had inflation under their wing. They did not tell us the inflation they had under their wing was the inflation the Coalition Government prophesied would happen 18 months after they left office. The crunch is coming now. I am very disappointed to think that old age pensioners and people receiving unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance are not getting enough to cover the increase in food prices over the past 12 months.

I would ask the Minister when he is replying to guarantee to these people that, if inflation continues at the rate at which it has been running over the past couple of months, he will bring in a supplementary Bill to ensure that the old, the unemployed and the sick will not be worse off in six months time than they are today. It is very easy for the Minister to quote the rate of inflation and the increase in food prices over the previous 12 months. Old age pensioners are not interested in what the figures were 12 months ago. They are interested in the inflation rate and the increase in food prices this week, next week, in two months' time and in six months' time.

I hope that, when the Minister is replying, he will give us all an undertaking that he will ensure that the weakest section of our community will not be worse off then than they are now. I honestly feel that we have seen nothing yet as far as inflation is concerned in 1979. I hope I am wrong and, if I am wrong, I would be the first to admit it. However, working in supermarkets, I am very much alarmed to see the tremendous price increases that are coming in week in and week out. Eventually these increases must be passed on to the consumer. This is one of the things that Fianna Fáil promised to control in their manifesto. They have failed to do this. The second thing that they promised to do was to reduce the unemployment figures.

We are discussing the Social Welfare Bill.

I am coming to the point. I come from a constituency where there are more unemployed people now than at any time I can remember. Our figures are over 16 per cent at present, whereas the national average is 9.9 per cent, and 1979 is going to be a disaster year so far as the people in County Donegal are concerned. We want more work. I do not like to see people on the dole or on unemployment assistance. These people should be able to get suitable work so that they can provide for themselves, their wives and their children. At present they cannot. The Chair will remember that, when a previous Fianna Fáil Government took the dole from the single man in the western areas, there was a revolt so far as the single person was concerned at that time. If Fianna Fáil learned anything then, they must have forgotten it.

The reason I am so annoyed with this Bill is that the Minister for Social Welfare has now interfered with the means test for small farmers in the western areas. He has changed the multiplier for people with valuations under £10 from £20 in the £ to £30 in the £. He has changed the multiplier for people with valuations of £10 to £15 from £20 in the £ to £50 in the £. He has changed the multiplier for people with valuations of £15 to £20 from £30 in the £ to £60 in the £. A farmer with a land valuation of £11 who might only have 20 acres and no more than five cows and five calves is entitled to assistance to keep him on his small farm and to make sure that he and his wife and family have at least a reasonable standard of living. At present a married man with no children is entitled to earn £19.70 per week. What do these changes in the multiplier mean in money terms? They mean that a married man with no land would probably get about £19.20 per week for himself and his wife to live on.

A married man with a small valuation of £11, who might have 20 acres and five cows and five calves, taking the multiplier at £20 in the £, would have an income from social welfare of £14.20 per week and from April that man's income will be reduced by £4.46 per week and he will now get only £9.74. That is bad, but let us take it a little further. Let us quote a few more figures. A farmer in Gortahork, the Rosses or west Donegal with a valuation of £14, who has a wife will now take a drop of £7.52 as far as the small farmer's assistance scheme is concerned. A farmer with a valuation of £15, who was getting £8.20 per week, now gets absolutely nothing. A farmer with a valuation of £18 will have to take a drop in his income from £14.20 per week to £3.50, a drop of £10.70 per week.

We have seen protests over the past few months. Some of them we agree with and some we do not agree with. But there has been no protest so far as the small farmers in the western areas are concerned, and they are the people who can least afford to take the cuts. Very few people have mentioned this and it is only when these farmers go to the unemployment exchanges in April that they will realise what this Bill had done. I know that the present Government have been looking at the idea of executive jets. I understand it has been recommended to the Government that they should purchase two.

That does not come under this Bill.

The point I am making is that the total cost of those two jets alone would be £3 million. I understand that the change in this Bill makes a difference of only £2 million so far as the unemployment assistance scheme is concerned. Fianna Fáil have stooped to reduce the means of the small farming community for the sake of £2 million.

What does the Deputy say the total cost of the scheme is?

£2 million.

It is only £164,000.

Why introduce these changes for such a miserly sum? The people I am talking about will now have reductions in the order of £4.46, £7.52, £8.20 and £10.70 to raise only £164,000. I am surprised at the Minister.

The Deputy is not giving the full picture. Everybody will get the 12 per cent increase.

I have included the 12 per cent in my figure. I defy the Minister to prove me wrong. I have taken today's figures and the figure at the end of April, allowing for the 12 per cent increase, and I defy anybody to state that a married person with a valuation of £11 will not have a drop in his income of £4.46 per week. I have worked out the figure. I have a little bit of education and I can do a little bit of arithmetic and I have worked it out allowing for the increase the Minister introduced. Now the Minister tells us that it is going to cost the country £164,000 to have uproar in the weakest section of the community. I am absolutely surprised that the Minister for Social Welfare, who is generally accepted as having a good heart, should stoop to change something for such a small amount of money.

I know that I am limited as far as time is concerned and I do not want to go on too long, but I would ask the Minister to look into this and to make sure that nobody is going to suffer undue hardship because of the scheme he has introduced. The Minister may say that these people can go to the local welfare officer if they find their means are cut and that their means can be assessed. I have always thought, particularly so far as western areas are concerned, that this was the fairest, straightest method and that it was just simple arithmetic as far as they were concerned.

I should like to be able to speak on this Bill for about an hour and a half, but that is not possible because of the time element. I fail to understand why the old age pension qualifying age was not reduced to 65 and neither do I understand why the means in respect of a means test was not increased from the £6 level. The position is that a person of 66 or over whose means are assessed at £17 per week is not entitled to any pension from the State, that is, if he has not been contributing to social welfare. I have said always that there should not be a means test in respect of widows pension. There are very few wealthy widows. As public representatives we find that among the saddest people who come to us in regard to pensions are widows, especially those in middle age who have little hope of marrying again.

By way of interjection earlier the Minister said that it was he who introduced the free travel scheme for old age pensioners, but I wonder if the Minister is in touch with the situation in the various other European countries. Surely the best way to ensure the health of the people is to look after them and what better way can there be of helping to keep old people happy than to ensure that they have a holiday each year? In Germany and Austria, for instance, old age pensioners are given a three-weeks holiday at certain resorts in the off-season. A similar type of scheme here would cost very little to the State but it would mean a lot to the people concerned. In addition, they would be very welcome in the resorts in the off-season times such as April and May.

It is difficult to understand, too, why a person aged 80 or over must be living absolutely alone before being entitled to the additional allowance of £1.20. There are many cases of two old age pensioners living together, both of whom are over 80, and if there happens to be another person in the house those old people should not be deprived of the additional allowance. We should be encouraging people of that age to have somebody live with them who would be at hand in the event of sudden illness or of accident to the old people.

Another matter that causes a lot of concern is that of the allowances for deserted wives. There is a lot of fuss made in respect of determining eligibility for these allowances. For example, a woman must prove to the court that her husband has left her. Sometimes that is not sufficient and she must prove that some decree was taken out against the husband. I suggest that if a woman has been deserted by her husband for four weeks she should automatically be entitled to the allowance. It is humiliating enough for a deserted wife to have to seek the allowance in the first place, but her situation is made much more difficult when she finds that she must have recourse to the courts if her application is to have any success.

The supplementary allowances have been of tremendous benefit. We all become aware from time to time of cases in which people do not qualify for a disability allowance but who are unable to work because, perhaps, of having some back trouble. It is of great benefit to these people to be able to receive the social welfare supplementary allowance.

I agree with Deputy Bermingham that the delays are ridiculous in relation to some payments. Appeals officers take a long time to decide on eligibility or otherwise. Would it not be much more satisfactory to have appeals officers go out and investigate each case within, say, a couple of weeks and thereby be in a position to make an early decision?

This Bill represents the biggest disappointment of any legislation on which I have spoken since coming here. I trust that the Minister will at least endeavour to do better on the next occasion he is bringing a Bill before the House. I am disappointed particularly in relation to the provisions as they will apply to small farmers in the west. Surely Fianna Fáil have not forgotten the grassroots entirely. The passage of this Bill will indicate to me that the Government have forgotten the people who supported them most down through the years.

It is necessary that this Bill be put through all Stages this evening. I understand there is agreement in that regard. I propose to conclude this stage at 6.50 p.m. so that we may take the remaining Stages. Consequently, in the few minutes at my disposal I shall not have time to deal with the various points raised by Deputies. Naturally, I deplore this situation because there has been much criticism of the Bill, as well as there being raised a number of good points, with which I should like to deal. I would have preferred if Deputies had been a little more honest and straightforward in relation to this Bill and had not been cynical enough to criticise situations that existed while their parties were in office when any one of them had plenty of opportunity to approach the Coalition Minister concerned about the matters in question. It is false and hypocritical of Deputies to berate me for situations that existed for a long time and for which they have equal responsibility with me and with every other Member of the House.

Because there is one important point I wish to make I must ignore most of the criticism put forward. I wish to say to all the various social welfare recipients who are experiencing difficulty in procuring payments that, on behalf of the Government, I apologise for the situation which prevails and which is causing these difficulties. I assure them that the Government are anxious as are the Department of Social Welfare to make every effort possible to ensure that their benefits reach them as expeditiously as possible and without causing hardship.

As Deputies are probably aware, I have sought the assistance of the President of the ICTU in this matter and I wish to express to him my gratitude for his goodwill and co-operation and for his willingness to use his good offices. At present there is a meeting in progress and I can only express the sincere wish that the outcome of that meeting will be favourable from the point of view of social welfare recipients. I recognise clearly that social welfare recipients, unlike most other sections of the community, do not have reserves to fall back on, and that the benefits and allowances they receive are used up immediately. The overwhelming majority of these people must be able to receive their payments when due unless they are to be caused real hardship. I can only express the wish that somehow we will be able to get over the present difficulties and get their payments to them. The situation is becoming increasingly difficult and the payment of pensions and children's allowances is in the balance. It is a cause of very serious anxiety to me as Minister for Social Welfare, to the Department and to the Government.

There is no point in my attempting to reply to a number of criticisms which have been made. I feel somewhat aggrieved that more Deputies did not acknowledge the very considerable number of improvements contained in this Bill. When Deputies raise matters with the Department of Social Welfare, either directly or by way of Dáil questions, these matters are carefully considered and in the Social Welfare Bills last year and this year a considerable number of anomalies in the social welfare code have been dealt with. When the Bill comes into operation I would hope that the benefit of these changes would be felt throughout the community. A large number of difficulties to which Deputies have directed attention from time to time in the Dáil are being removed through this legislation.

I recommend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share