Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1980

Vol. 325 No. 5

Supplementary Estimates, 1980. - Vote 49: Social Welfare.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £49,350,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1980, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants."

This Supplementary Estimate is required to meet increased expenditure arising from the payment of a double week to recipients of certain social welfare pensions and allowances in December 1980, increases of salaries, wages and allowances, an upward trend in the numbers claiming under various schemes and a shortfall in contribution income from employers and employees under the pay-related social welfare insurance system in the current year. The increases arise on all three sections of the Social Welfare Vote for the current year, namely, administration, social insurance and social assistance.

The original Estimate, which was passed by the House in April last, was for the sum of £353,685,000. A Supplementary Estimate for £90,200,000 was passed by the House in June last. The reason for taking the Supplementary Estimate at that time was the exceptional cost of continuing the October 1979 rates of payment throughout 1980 and of increasing long-term payments by 25 per cent and short-term payments by 20 per cent from April 1980. It was apparent that there would not have been sufficient voted moneys available to the Department to meet these costs during the period that the House was in recess. The sum of £90,200,000 was the estimated cost of the increases in rates of payments and other improvements in social welfare services provided in the 1980 budget. The present Estimate is for a sum of £49,350,000 which brings total Exchequer spending on the services administered by my Department in the current year to £493,235,000.

This sum represents an increase of £139,550,000, or almost 40 per cent on the amount provided in the original Estimate for 1980 passed by this House. Of this amount £65,476,000 is in respect of assistance services and £74,074,000 in respect of insurance services. In this connection I should point out that so far as insurance services are concerned the Exchequer's contribution to the cost of such services will have increased to 26.4 per cent of the total cost as compared with 20.1 per cent in 1979. The total cost of the assistance services is borne by the Exchequer.

I think that it will be agreed that an additional provision of this magnitude in 1980 is a clear indication of the Government's concern for the weaker sections of the community. Even in these times of financial stringency the Government have willingly honoured their commitment to protect social welfare recipients.

The increased expenditure of £139,550,000 arises from a number of factors. There is, for example, a sum of £25,859,000 to cover the cost of continuing throughout 1980 the increased rates of payment granted in October 1979 as part of the 1979 National Understanding. Deputies will recall that these increases were deemed to be of a temporary nature and were due to end at 31 March 1980. The Government decided, however, to continue them on a permanent basis. Not only were the increased rates continued but further increases of 25 per cent on all long-term payments and 20 per cent on all short-term payments were provided with effect from April 1980 at a cost to the Exchequer of £55,341,000 in 1980. As a further indication of their concern for the family the Government also provided increases in children's allowances in 1980 at a cost of £9,000,000. A sum of £880,000 was provided to cover the additional cost of the new national fuel scheme introduced in October 1980 and the cost of increasing the value of fuel vouchers by 33.3 per cent. This brings the total expenditure on the free fuel schemes to £5 million as compared with £2,900,000 in 1979.

The Government's concern for the weaker sections of the community is further evidenced by the fact that I have had legislation enacted providing for a Christmas bonus double-week payment for recipients of long-term social welfare payments at a cost of £8,685,000. A similar bonus payment is being made to recipients of certain health allowances such as disabled persons' maintenance allowances, infectious diseases maintenance allowances, constant care allowances and blind welfare allowances at a cost to the Department of Health of £0.5 million.

Having regard to the time available to me Deputies will forgive me for not detailing all the items which go to make up the additional sum of £139,550,000 being provided for social welfare in 1980. However, the examples which I have just given should be sufficient to show that the Government, despite the economic difficulties, are doing everything they can to ease the lot of the weaker sections of the community. I propose, however, to give Deputies particulars of the items which make up the present Supplementary Estimate of £49,350,000 which I am now asking the House to approve.

Under the sections for administration — subheads A to D — the net additional expenditure amounts to £1,721,120. This derives from increases amounting to £1,235,000 on subhead A.1 in respect of salaries, wages and allowances; £40,000 on subhead A.2 in respect of increased computerisation; £286,000 on subhead B.1 in respect of increased travelling and incidental expenses and £195,000 on subhead C in respect of an increase in the cost of Post Office services. These increases are offset by a small saving of £34,880 on subhead D in respect of an adjustment in the cost of insured persons' medical certificates.

The additional expenditure on Social Insurance — subheads E and F — amounts to £41,146,000 which is the result of an increase of £41,161,000 on subhead E (Social Insurance Fund) offset by a small saving of £15,000 on subhead F (Investment Return). The extra amount required for Social Assistance — subheads G to L — is £8,063,000. The overall increase on the three sections comes to £50,930,120. There is, however, an increase of £1,580,120 in the receipts from Appropriations-in-Aid — subhead M — which serves to reduce the net additional requirement to £49,350,000.

The sum of £41,161,000 required for subhead E is the additional amount payable by the Exchequer to the social insurance fund to meet the deficit on the working of the fund. The gross cost of the extra week's payment in December to receipients of contributory pensions and allowances is £5,282,000. There is also an increased expenditure of £34,756,000 arising mainly from an upward trend in the numbers claiming during the year. The main constituents of this sum are £18,985,000 in respect of unemployment benefit; £9,495,000 in respect of pay-related benefit; £3,282,000 in respect of old age contributory pensions, and in the case of pay-related benefit there is a further sum of £1,105,000 arising from the raising of the income limit from £5,500 per annum to £7,000 per annum from April, 1980. Increased provision of £3,560,000 is also being made in respect of disability benefit. This is due partly to increased numbers claiming disability benefit in the early part of the year and partly due to the fact that the transfer of recipients to invalidity pensions was fewer than expected. The total of these increases is £36,427,000 but variations from the original estimates in the remaining schemes had the effect of reducing this figure by £1,671,000.

On the income side there has been a deficiency of £8 million in the receipts from contributions payable by employers and employees while there has been a deficiency of £123,000 in other items of income. The deficit in contribution income is attributed to the difficulty experienced in making an accurate estimate of the amount of such income which might have been expected in 1980. Experience of the amount collected in a previous year would normally form the basis of calculation when making such estimates. However, collection in 1979 was affected by the postal dispute in that year. The deficiencies on the income side increased the deficit on the fund by £48,161,000. Receipt of final cash accounts from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in respect of 1979 showed that there had been an overdraw of £7 million from the Exchequer at 31 December 1979. After making allowance for this sum the additional amount payable by the Exchequer this year to the Social Insurance Fund is £41,161,000.

Regarding the overdraw of £7 million, the position is that final draws must be made each year on an estimated basis because actual figures of expenditure and income are not available until after the close of the year. As already stated, the actual outturn on the fund for the financial year ended 31 December 1979 indicated that the sum of £7 million had been overdrawn from the Exchequer at that date. Accordingly, the revised Exchequer contribution for the current year, as now estimated under subhead E, is being reduced by that amount.

The additional expenditure required in the Supplementary Estimate for social assistance amounts to £8,063,000. This additional expenditure has arisen mainly from the payment of a double week's pension or allowance to recipients in December 1980 at a cost of £3,403,000 and from a carry-over of expenditure on children's allowances from 1979 amounting to £3,100,000 in respect of the payday which fell on 1 January 1980, which was a public holiday.

It was expected that most of the payments due on that day would be cashed on the previous day and fall into the 1979 year. However, many recipients deferred cashing their allowance orders until after 1 January resulting in a carry-over of expenditure into 1980. The balance of £1,560,000 is the net sum required to meet increases of £1,458,000 on supplementary welfare allowances; £800,000 on free electricity; £597,000 on unemployment assistance; £420,000 on widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions and increases under various schemes totalling £406,000. These increases were offset by savings on certain schemes totalling £2,121,000, which was made up of £1 million on old age non-contributory pensions, due to a fall in numbers claiming; £800,000 on free fuel, due to an over-estimation of the numbers likely to avail of the scheme; £265,000 on free television licences and £56,000 on social assistance allowances.

The surplus of £1,580,120 in Appropriations-in-Aid arises mainly from the increase in the amount of the administration costs of the Social Insurance and Occupational Injuries Schemes which have to be refunded from the Social Insurance and Occupational Injuries Funds.

As I have stated already, this Supplementary Estimate, for an additional sum of £49,350,000, is required to meet the cost of the double week's payment in December and to meet other excesses on the original Estimates which could not have been foreseen when they were being prepared. Deputies may be interested to note that overall expenditure on social insurance and social assistance services will amount to more than £897 million this year, which is an increase of £217 million or 32 per cent on 1979. Expenditure in a full year at current rates will amount to some £970 million.

I have now covered the principal matters affecting this Supplementary Estimate. I shall be pleased to furnish any further information which Deputies may require.

Mr. McMahon

The occasion of this Supplementary Estimate gives us the opportunity of reviewing what has been happening during the past few months in the Department of Social Welfare. In conjunction with my remarks I should like to refer also to a document which we received by post this morning from the Minister of State. I am glad that the Minister of State is here to take note of anything that may be said about that document.

Earlier this year, and also last year on the occasion also of a Supplementary Estimate for this Department, some serious complaints were made about the way in which the Department operate and about the lack of attention that was being paid to that Department by the Minister's predecessor. However, I am glad to be able to say that the present holder of the office appears to pay more attention to the Department than was the case so far as his predecessor was concerned. Having said that, I must point out that the majority of those who deal with this Department are very unhappy about the way in which the Department operate. I do not know whether the document we received this morning was intended to be an attempt to ward off any attack that might otherwise be made on the Department this evening, but if that was the intention it will not have been successful so far as I am concerned. Though the situation may not be as bad as it was last year, I continue to receive many complaints of delays in payments. I am not prepared to accept the reasons for such delays as outlined in the document that we have just received from the Minister of State. However, I shall come back to this matter later.

Much publicity has been given to the extra week's payment to certain categories of social welfare recipients for the Christmas period. This is a very welcome step. I was one of those who advocated first the making of such extra payment to help these people at Christmas time and I am very glad that the Minister has at least seen the need for such payment. But we should all be happier if this extra week's money could be extended to a number of other categories. It will not be payable, for instance, to those in receipt of supplementary welfare allowances, allowances that are paid by the health boards. Many of those in receipt of these allowances are deserted wives, unmarried mothers or unemployed people. There can be much delay on the part of the Department in dealing with cases of deserted wives or of unmarried mothers. In many instances these people are dealt with at a much slower pace than the unemployed. Many of them can be on supplementary welfare allowance for a considerable time, but despite that, they are not entitled to the extra week's payment at Christmas.

It is getting very close to Christmas but even today the Minister could extend this payment to those people. If he does that this year he could deal with the other categories another year. I realise that when we embark on a new scheme like this it cannot be given right across the board at once, but it is a step in the right direction and I appeal to the Minister at this late stage to extend it to the people I mentioned. Old age pensioners, deserted wives and unmarried mothers, who are long-term, get the extra week's payment but those on supplementary welfare allowance are excluded.

I must take this opportunity to refer to the free fuel scheme. The Minister said there had been a saving of £800,000 because of an over-estimation. How did this happen? It is very strange that the sum should have been wrong to the extent of £800,000 because there are many people who could benefit from that scheme. Even after the improvements were introduced, I can only describe this scheme as a farce. Many of the anomalies which existed before the Minister interfered with it still exist. We have been pleading for a number of years for a blanket free fuel scheme for certain categories in all areas. At present people living in 17 areas do not have to undergo a means test but this does not apply to the rest of the country. The Minister got a considerable amount of publicity when he introduced the new free fuel scheme. Basically he increased the allowance from £1.50 to £2 per week and vouchers can be used to provide other kinds of heat — electricity, gas and so on — besides turf. That was a slight improvement.

Dr. Woods

Thousands of extra people were included. That is how it is national.

Mr. McMahon

It was far short of what we expected and what we had been promised by the Minister's predecessor. As I said, the means test still exists for those outside the 17 areas. There were bitter complaints by Members from all sides of this House, including Fianna Fáil, about this anomaly. People living outside those areas are helped by the health boards but it is extremely difficult to get this assistance. Now the Minister made it a little easier for the people outside the 17 areas to benefit from this scheme.

If a person living outside the 17 areas draws his pension at a post office in one of the 17 areas he is entitled to free fuel, although his neighbour living alone near the boundary and drawing his pension is not entitled to it. It all depends on where a person draws his pension. If a person lives outside the area he has to prove that he is in dire straits before he can benefit from this scheme. I regret the Minister did not remove this anomaly and I ask him to have another look at it.

Any benefit expected from the improvement in this scheme has been wiped out by the massive increases in the cost of heating fuel. When the Minister made his announcement bottled gas cost £3.45; it now costs over £5. Many people use their fuel vouchers to pay for bottled gas. I do not have to tell the Minister about the increase in coal prices. People living on social welfare payments have been hit very hard, particularly in the last month, when we had freezing days and it was impossible to be without heating for even one hour of the day. People in receipt of the free fuel allowance cannot afford to spend extra money from their meagre incomes to supplement home heating. For many of them this is a matter of life and death. I urge the Minister to increase the free fuel allowance to £5. He should not consider anything less because anything less would not even keep pace with the increase in the price of heating. Again I ask the Minister to look at this before these people die from lack of heat.

I had a case of an old age pensioner with a small income, besides his pension, of £8 a month. Because of that he was not entitled to benefit from the free fuel scheme. In my view that is cutting it very fine. Perhaps we might hear some words of hope from the Minister that would bring relief to those people shivering at present.

The other matter with which I wanted to deal was the document we received this morning. Actually I think it is a laugh. The Minister went to some lengths to ensure that we had this document in our hands before this debate——

Dr. Woods

As a matter of information, that was totally coincidental. I will deal with it later.

Mr. McMahon

I accept that. I suppose it is just as well we have the document. Otherwise we would have taken it for granted that the Minister was dealing with the complaints we have been making in social welfare debates throughout the year and indeed also this time last year. In a way I am sorry I have got this document because I thought the complaints coming to me were lessening, that the matter was being tackled. The Minister, through his Minister of State, has indicated to us that he is fairly happy with the situation. I do not think he has reason to be happy with the situation because there are still delays occurring in the Department of Social Welfare that should not take place.

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Mr. Nolan)

I did not say I was happy about the situation; that is not in the letter.

Mr. McMahon

Well the Minister of State must have been fairly happy to have given us this three or four-page document this morning. We know that most Government Departments do not work at high speed. We accept delays in many instances such as the processing of income tax rebates and so on. People in those categories can accept a reasonable delay. But every effort should be made by the Government, the Minister and his Minister of State to ensure that such delays are reduced to a minimum in the Department of Social Welfare, because it is an area that cannot afford them. Indeed we should be ashamed that such delays occur. Some of the excuses given here by the Minister of State are that the PRSI number or that the insurance number is not included in applications. With computerisation one or other of those number should immediately provide access to an applicant's file and all the necessary information. Particularly bearing in mind our postal service it should not be necessary for the Department to write back to an applicant or for an applicant to have to go into the Department with the relevant number.

There are several other complaints I should like to voice in the limited time at my disposal. Applicants experience great difficulty sorting out their problem on the telephone. One person told me recently that it necessitated four telephone calls from a coin box to finish one conversation because of the enormous delays within the Department. Indeed I still receive complaints that the Department lose certificates, even those handed in to the Department. I have had several such instances in recent weeks. Therefore the Minister can be anything but happy with the situation obtaining. Indeed I see very little improvement in the situation compared with 1979 when we had the excuse of the postal strike, something the Minister cannot resort to today. There is something seriously wrong in the Department and the sooner it is sorted out the better it will be for public representatives but more particularly those who benefit from their payments.

Dr. O'Connell

The Supplementary Estimate before the House affords us an opportunity of discussing many aspects of the Department of Social Welfare. Indeed we should look at the Department's activities overall and the social welfare services provided for the less-well-off section of our society. We would all agree that our social welfare benefits at present are the lowest in Europe. We are very far down in the league, an area which must be given priority by any Government having the interests of the people at heart. Our children's allowances are really very bad. They make no provision for helping families in need, families with large numbers of children. Belgium provides ten times our amount of children's allowances. Granted Belgium is at the top of the European league but the others provide at least four times our amount. That is a terrible indictment of us as a people apart from the Government.

Overall our services are very circumscribed and need expansion. We must examine this carefully. I would hope the Minister for Social Welfare would seek to expand these services in the forthcoming budget. We have acquired the habit of saying: we provide too great an incentive for people not to work. But remember we cannot talk about children working; we cannot talk about old age pensioners working nor can we talk about the disabled working. All too often do we make them the scapegoats in situations such as that obtaining at present. Neither must we forget that 25 per cent of our population live at or below the poverty line and that the gap between the rich and poor is growing, is actually bigger now than it was at the beginning of this century. This is one point we must make clear, that the gap between the rich and poor is greater than it was even in 1897.

It is a terrible indictment of the country that we do not face this fact. I know the present Minister is terribly concerned about this. I pay tribute to him because I know he is trying very hard to improve the social welfare services. I would ask him to set up an all-party committee to examine the various facets of our social welfare services, to endeavour to see how we might take them outside the political arena, examining the social welfare services in Europe, seeing how ours operate, making comparisons with those in operation in other European countries and seeing how we could improve them. That is how we should aim at eliminating poverty in our society.

Only by means of an expanded social welfare service can one eliminate poverty in our society. First we should aim at linking the level of social welfare services to the consumer index. That should be done automatically. No government should lay claim to credit for linking them to the cost of living index. In addition we should be seeking to increase our social welfare services by a percentage of the gross national product. That should be done by the government in power in addition to the normal increase that would take place in line with the cost of living. That is the basic premise on which our social welfare services should be operated. That is the only way in which we can eliminate poverty from our society, poverty which affects 25 per cent of our population and that is an indictment of society in general. We should aim at having a minimum income level for every household, taking into account the normal outgoings for rent, heating, and so on. The Department should be examining this. It is the only way to expand the social welfare services.

The "fire brigade" service of the Department was intended to help to eliminate poverty. Unfortunately, it has failed to do so. The best intentions were expressed when Deputy Cluskey introduced it in this House. We all agreed that it was badly wanted. We intended it to work smoothly and efficiently. Unfortunately, it is not working to the satisfaction of all concerned. It is left in the hands of people who do not realise that their aim should be to help those in need. It is operated in an arbitrary fashion. The public do not know they have a right to appeal and they do not know the means by which they can appeal. There is an urgent need to examine this whole supplementary welfare allowance scheme. I should like the Department to find out how we could make it operate. We all want it to work well and in the interests of those in need. I would ask the Minister to please examine it.

How soon can we talk seriously about pay-related pensions for our people? This is the only country in the Community in which a pay-related pension scheme does not operate. People are entitled to it at the end of their years of service to the country. They should have a pension which would enable them to live a normal, dignified life. The present old age pension is humiliating for a man at the end of his years of service. I hope the Minister will work on this and come forward with clear, concrete proposals for a pay-related pension scheme. I hope there will be a commitment that in 1981 this will be introduced. If we do this, we can say we are serious about our social welfare services.

I have the circular issued by the Minister of State, Deputy Nolan. I was impressed by it. It is a clear, honest attempt by a Minister to explain the difficulties and obstacles in the Department and how people can help to expedite claims. I recognise the problems the Department face. We should institute a proper publicity campaign explaining these matters to the people. I know they quote wrong reference numbers but they do not understand. Surely we should be able to use our national radio and television service to greater effect.

There are some very worthy programmes on the radio, but greater attempts should be made to utilise the television service to explain these things. Many thousands of people avail of the services of the Department. We could explain to them how they could make life easier for the officials of the Department. I can imagine their frustration in trying to deal with some people who give their telephone number by mistake. Everyone in receipt of social welfare should have a special legible, plastic card. It should be emphasised to them that they will need it any time they have a query. They have these cards in other countries. They have them in Europe. Why have we not got them here? People should understand that they are valuable and that they should have them with them at all times. This would help to make the lives of the officials easier. I know the work they do and I know how frustrating these things can be.

This Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare gives us an opportunity to discuss various facets of the Department, and I should like to dwell on a few of them. One is the deserted wives' allowance. You cannot have a simple question in black and white with regard to an application for this allowance. Through various circumstances some people are forced out of their homes. They have to quit their homes because of harassment or intimidation. I should like the Department to adopt a lenient attitude towards wives who are forced to leave home. I have numerous instances of wives who had to leave their households. Because they left rather than suffer further intimidation, or even serious assault, they have been deprived of the deserted wives' allowance. Even though the husband has literally and legally deserted the wife, she does not comply with the conditions.

If a doctor, or a priest, or somebody in authority writes a letter saying that the wife was forced to leave the household, that should be sufficient to provide the wife with an allowance. I would ask the Department to please exercise a little more latitude in relation to this problem. Many applications for deserted wives' allowances have been rejected because, in the best interests of herself and her children, the wife was compelled to leave the household. I make a special plea to the Minister and the Department to be a little more tolerant and lenient towards these girls.

Many old people who qualify for free electricity are unaware of the number of units they are allowed and, indeed, the relevance of the units. We could make their lives a little easier by explaining the scheme to them in greater detail. These are old people who have not got the same sharp reaction as younger people. The whole aim of the Department is to help these people. If we took a little more trouble we would make life more tolerable for them. They are afraid of using too many units and having to face big bills.

There is talk about people claiming social welfare and defrauding the system. We read a lot about that, but it is grossly exaggerated. I accept that there are people who defraud the system. I remember that extreme right winger in Britain, Sir Keith Joseph, saying when he was Minister for Health and Social Services that they had to accept that a certain percentage of people will defraud the system. He said that the number of officials they would have to employ to eliminate that would far exceed the benefits to be gained. All we can do is say to them in a publicity campaign that they are by their tactics making life a little more difficult for the people in need. That is the only way we can overcome this problem. We cannot have a whole police force operating from the Department of Social Welfare.

The co-operation of doctors and others who sign certificates is needed. The position is farcical. Doctors who sign such certificates are being given between 15p and 20p. They sign certificates to the effect that they have examined the person concerned but we all know that nobody will examine a patient for 20p. We must try to eliminate the farcical situation that exists in relation to the signing of social welfare certificates. That must be done if the system is to operate in the best interests of the public in general and of the Department. We must ensure that people who are not entitled to the benefits do not draw them. There is no question of harassing such people but there must be some way of improving the system.

The Department should have contingency funds available to deal with a situation like that which occurred two years ago when we experienced a very severe winter and quite a few people died of hypothermia. We should be in a position to provide funds on an emergency basis to health boards so that the necessary requisites are given to such people to prevent those terrible tragedies. I appeal to the Minister to provide such funds because I have no doubt we will see a repetition of that this coming winter. The free fuel scheme is far from adequate. The Department must have the funds to act with all haste to prevent such tragedies happening.

Another area in urgent need of reform is in relation to death grants. If the minister reads the conditions appertaining to that grant I am sure he will agree that they are totally unrealistic. With the increase in longevity more people are living into their late seventies and eighties and by virtue of that their dependants do not qualify for the death grant. It would not cost a lot to re-examine that matter and decide that once a person has a certain number of contributions over the years, not from 1970, that person's dependants are entitled to a death grant. That date should be eliminated because it disqualifies many people. The Minister should re-examine this matter because of the increase in funeral expenses. I do not believe a change in the scheme would impose an enormous burden on the State. If he alters the scheme the Minister would win the gratitude of many people.

Mr. Boland

I should like to mention again the unsatisfactory method of endeavouring to discuss a big Department such as the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of Health on a Supplementary Estimate where there is a restriction on time. We do ourselves less than justice when we endeavour to discuss such Departments in this truncated fashion. It was because of this restriction that I chose on the last occasion I spoke on a Supplementary Estimate to dwell on a specific topic and I shall dwell on one aspect of the Department of Social Welfare on this occasion. Last weekend protests of the staff of the National Committee to Combat Poverty were reported in the national newspapers. The staff were photographed carrying placards seeking the continuation of their jobs. We were told that the Government did not propose to provide any further funding for that committee from the end of this financial year and that the existing staff had been served with redundancy notices. That is a regrettable step on the part of the Government and it sits very uneasily with the Minister's profession of concern for the underprivileged. It does not seem to correspond with his oft-repeated claim that the Government were going out of their way to cushion the effects of the ravages of inflation and unemployment on society.

I should like the Minister to explain why there is a need for the staff of that committee to carry placards seeking a continuation of their jobs and complaining about redundancy notices having been served in view of the commitment of the Minister of State. Deputy Nolan, in the House on 19 November. The Minister for social Welfare was asked by Deputy O'Connell in the course of a parliamentary question on that date to state the number of advisory bodies set up by his Department. Deputy Nolan stated that the only advisory body attached to his Department was the advisory committee on the development, operation and monitoring of a programme of pilot schemes to combat poverty. He said the budgetary provision for this committee for 1980 was £500,000.

By way of a supplementary question on that day I asked the Minister if he would give an indication of the Department's future plans for that committee. The Minister of State said that the budget provision of £500,000 had been provided and that the advisory committee on the pilot scheme to combat poverty would have to make a report the same as any other committee. That was not really an answer to my question and I asked a further supplementary. I asked the Minister if there would be a provision in next year's Estimate for an allocation to that committee. The Minister of State said that a further £80,000 was allocated this year. The expenditure of the committee, he said, was in excess of £500,000. He said that the EEC paid a grant of £235,000 towards the cost of the projects, something we were aware of. The Minister then went on to say: "Because of the importance of that type of work some moneys will be provided in the normal way". I asked the Minister if that was an undertaking and he replied: "I have said". I stated that I considered that an important undertaking and I hoped the Minister realised the significance of it. Deputy Quinn went on to ask whether there was an undertaking to continue the work of the pilot scheme and the Minister of State said he was not the Minister for Finance. I pointed out to him that he may have an opportunity of being the Minister for Finance next month, and he may still have that opportunity. The Minister of State went on to say: "The Deputy will agree however that the advisory committee's work is important and the work will not be reduced in effectiveness". I pointed out that that was an important undertaking. That ended the exchanges.

I took from those exchanges in the House that the Government intended to continue the combat poverty committee. I am giving the Minister an opportunity now to explain the Government's plans in relation to the continuation of that committee. I am sure his explanation will be welcomed by all those who have a genuine concern for the long-term eradication of poverty in our society.

There has been reference also to the operation of the so-called new National Fuel Scheme throughout the country and the additional moneys necessary for that scheme. I am becoming increasingly concerned at the anomalies that have begun to develop in that so-called national scheme, which implies by its title a standardisation. Under the scheme a voucher of £2 per week for 30 weeks, or £60 in any one year, is given to qualified people. However, the Minister had no sooner announced that scheme than he discovered that certain health boards had been operating fuel schemes of greater value than his. For instance, the Western Health Board had been supplying people in their area with one ton of coal or two tons of turf, to the value of £90, per winter. The Minister wrote to such authorities telling them they could continue with their scheme. Immediately an anomaly arises inasmuch as such health boards are permitted to continue with their scheme while other health boards under the Minister's scheme give less benefit to recipients.

It is rather difficult to follow the trend of this. Apparently the fuel scheme that has operated in the 14 cities and towns throughout the country for the last 30 years or so is to be continued in operation. I would welcome the Minister's clarification on this. If that is the case it would appear that the people who live in those designated cities and towns are to continue to be given the benefit of the fuel scheme irrespective of income and not on a means-tested basis. The people who live in the Western Health Board counties are to be given a fuel scheme equivalent to £90 per year and the people who live in the rest of the country outside the designated cities and towns and the Western Health Board designated area are to be given the Minister's national fuel scheme. At that stage one begins to wonder how many component parts there are to that nationalised fuel scheme. All the talk in this House over the last three years and the amount of effort made on the part of Deputies here to bring about a standardisation so that every necessitious person would be given the same benefit towards the cost of home heating over the winter months, has been useless if now at least three different types of schemes operate within the country, one of them not means-tested, two of them means-tested but paying out different amounts. On the eve of Christmas I appeal to this Minister, as we had to do for so very long to his predecessor, to introduce a standardised national fuel scheme whereby everybody who is entitled to benefit gets the same amount of benefit at the same time as everybody else.

Finally, in relation to the Minister's speech I have a criticism which is an accounting one rather than a criticism of the Government's approach to social welfare. I do not accept that at the end of any financial year a postal strike that has finished five or six months before the end of the financial year can be given as the cause of writing away gaily a £7 million overdraw. It is a bad reflection upon the Minister responsible at the time and, I regret to say, upon his officials and those they were dealing with in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, that there should have been an overdraw during the last financial year of £7 million which is reflected now in the Estimate here and has to be provided for within the Supplementary Estimate. To throw up the wellworn excuse that the postal strike which ended six months before the financial year was over is not good enough. I regret having to make that criticism of the Department. The Minister referred to this and I think that my criticism is a fair one. I do not think that I am the only one to feel that way in relation to this accounting effort.

Mr. Cluskey

I sought today to have a private notice question dealt with by the Minister for Social Welfare. It was to ask the Minister for Social Welfare if he will take steps to ensure that adequate funds are made available to the National Committee on Private Schemes to Combat Poverty to enable them to continue their work and to withdraw protective notice of their intention to terminate the employment of their staff at the end of this month. You, Sir, ruled that I could not proceed with the private notice question and one of the reasons you gave was that I could avail of this very limited debate, and that is the course I am taking now.

The Department of Social Welfare is a very wide-ranging Department and one could talk at considerable length of the inadequacies of the ministerial input into that Department, but I will confine myself, as I have only ten minutes, to dealing with the subject matter of the private notice question, the National Committee to Combat Poverty.

In this society somewhere between 20 and 25 per cent of our population are in the category of poverty. It is not relative poverty. It has been defined as people who have not sufficient food or clothing, who have inadequate housing and who also by virtue of their economic circumstances are deprived of many of the benefits normally available to other citizens who are better fixed economically. The amount of money relative to the total Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare is infinitesimal, therefore money could not be the reason why the Department are terminating the activities of this committee and have placed them in a position where their staff of some 70 are now under notice and will finish to all intents and purposes the work of that committee.

Two things are clear and must be made increasingly clear. First, the national committee were established in their own right to do a specific job within this country with Government funding. Subsequent to its having been established it was put forward to the EEC who then had an input into the committee. It was difficult to get it accepted at EEC level but eventually it was accepted and it was funded not only in this country but through the nine member states to deal with the problem of poverty in those States although it was considerably less in most cases than our problem.

Since this Government came into office it was quite clear that their whole approach towards the committee and the committee's activities was, to say the least of it, one of disapproval. Every conceivable thing that could be done, short of outright confrontation which would have political repercussions, was done to impede the work of that committee. Approximately 12 months ago on the appointment of the now Taoiseach who was then Minister for Health and Social Welfare I stated in this House that that committee would not last very long, that his record and his attitude towards the activities of that committee indicated clearly that he did not welcome their existence, and that now that he himself had been removed from the direct firing line of having to terminate their activities, his successor in the Department of Social Welfare would be handed that very unpleasant job and that the committee's activities would come to an end.

Unfortunately, that prediction that I made 12 months ago has now come true. The committee is being terminated. When this matter was up for discussion at EEC level for an extension of the committee's operations at EEC level as well as national level, it had been indicated clearly to the Ministers of the EEC that the Irish Government no longer had any interest in this committee continuing their activities. They no longer had any serious commitment towards funding the committee or in seeking their continuance at EEC level. To indicate clearly that this was the attitude of the Irish Government they have made it known that, at national level, they were bringing the committee's operations to an end.

This EEC initiative came to be known as an Irish initiative. This country was clearly identified with thinking up the scheme originally, putting it forward and pursuing it to a successful conclusion at the Council of Ministers against some opposition. Once this Government indicated as clearly as they did that they were not prepared to continue it at national level, it was the clearest indication to the other eight Ministers sitting around the table that no matter what front might be presented to the media about the gallant attempts of the Minister for Social Welfare to continue it the Government did not want it to continue and were not prepared to put the necessary political pressure and will behind its continuance. One must ask, if the amount of money is relatively small what is motivating the Government's determination to finish the operations of the committee? Its operations and findings are politically embarrassing.

We knew when we set it up that if it was to be successful its findings and recommendations would have an element of political embarrassment in them. Can anyone show me since June 1977, in a country that has between 20 and 25 per cent of its population living in poverty, one sentence, paragraph or speech by the Minister responsible for social welfare recipients that referred to poverty? Has it been referred to? Have they made an issue of it? Have they tried to focus public attention on the plight of those citizens? Have they tried to marshal the will and commitment of those of us in Irish society who are better off towards finding a solution to this? No. They want to terminate it because the fact that there are 20 to 25 per cent of the people living in poverty is a direct indictment of the Fianna Fáil Party and this Government.

They do not want it highlighted or mentioned. They want these people to keep silent. Even at this late stage I appeal to the Minister and the Government to reverse the decision they have taken and provide the necessary very limited funds to allow this committee to continue. The committee was designed to do two things: to carry out schemes to find out the best possible way to combat poverty and, at the end of the schemes, it was the clear intention that their activities would continue and that the findings they had come to would be implemented in order to eradicate poverty from our society.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

In the limited time at my disposal I wish to refer to some specific items which are relevant to what we are dealing with. Some time ago I addressed a question to the Minister asking him to pay allowances, particularly old age pensions, to all those who were entitled to them individually. I refer specifically to the payment of allowances to married couples. As we know the allowance is usually payable to the husband. I have on a number of occasions requested that that be changed. Why should a wife not get her own allowance independently of her husband? The Minister told me it could be done but how? One must give evidence of friction within the family and have a visit from a social welfare officer before a change can be made. Why should that be?

A wife should be paid her own allowance and should not have to make representations to Deputies or the Department and have costly visits from a social welfare officer to see what is wrong. I am sure the Minister has grasped the point I am making. To illustrate the point the retirement pension is £24.50 and if a wife is under 66 years of age she is entitled to £15.65. I am asking the Minister to issue separate books. Unfortunately some women do not get any of this money. We should pay the money separately to both.

As regards the death grant if one is too old, despite the number of years one is contributing to social insurance, one does not qualify for this grant. A person must have 26 paid-in contributions prior to 1 October 1970 so that people who retired from work prior to this date do not qualify. The number of such people is very small and I would ask the Minister to amend the regulation. Where a person satisfies the conditions the death grant should be paid to his relatives.

I am a long time in the House and almost from the first day I came in here I have been asking why this Department act independently of other Departments. They pay out money all the time and get little or no return for it. A return could be got for this money. A co-ordinating committee could be established between this Department, the Department of Finance, the Office of Public Works and so on. It is shameful that so many people are forced into drawing unemployment benefit and assistance. It used to be a condition, although it has been relaxed of late, that one had to remain idle if one was to qualify for it. Why should that money be paid out in that way? Why should it not go towards supplementing employment schemes? We have to find money to pay social welfare and pay-related benefits when the employment ceases. That money must be found but we cannot find money to supplement productive schemes administered by other Departments so that men and women could work instead of going to Garda stations and employment exchanges to sign for benefits.

I have preached that policy through the years. Most of our able-bodied men and women would much prefer to be working than drawing social welfare benefits which are for the incapacitated, the elderly, people who are sick or disabled or incapable of earning a living for themselves. It is unfair and degrading to impose the obligation on able-bodied people of going to exchanges to sign for unemployment assistance or benefit. My idea is simple: that all the money paid out should be handed over to agencies like county councils, the Office of Public Works and other employing Departments such as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to enable them to employ more people and so add to the wealth of the country by getting a productive return for money paid out of the Exchequer.

At present if I have been working for seven, eight or nine months in west Cork — or in some cases three months — and I become redundant, in such circumstances I could get almost as much pay as if I were working. This is madness. Instead of paying out social welfare money we should pay for productive employment. A single man who called on me a few weeks ago told me he was on a three-day week and was now getting 20p more than when he was working a five-day week and there was no change in the wage rate.

I should like to see people in receipt of this money productively occupied. There are roads to be improved, streams to be cleared and improved, streets to be improved, footpaths to be improved. One could list many works to be done in our towns, villages and rural areas on which we could have able-bodied manpower working advantageously for themselves and for the country. Cognisance should be taken of this. There should be some co-ordination between the Department of Social Welfare and bodies such as county councils and Departments to ascertain if such Departments could provide work for people becoming redundant. I emphasise very strongly the desirability of providing employment and reducing the big number now in receipt of benefits, 118,000. Almost all these, particularly those I am referring to, would prefer to work for the money rather than get it in the form of social welfare.

The three items I have in mind are independent payments to people entitled to social welfare benefit, a change in the death benefit system and a change in the system by which the Department take no notice of what is happening in other Departments but continue paying out money regardless of what happens elsewhere.

Mr. Begley

I welcome the Bill, but I should like to make a few points in regard to the means test and its application to old age pensioners, whether contributory or non-contributory. There is no doubt that there are delays in paying arrears of pension irrespective of the type of pension. The Minister should have some section in his Department dealing exclusively with arrears, particularly in the case of people on a contributory basis who are signing for unemployment benefit. The Department are not delaying deliberately and I should not like to be recorded as saying so. The Department are always most co-operative when representations are made to them. I appeal to the Minister and the Minister of State here that, when there are substantial arrears in the case especially of widows' pensions where hardship is being caused, to have a departmental official visit the applicant within 14 days after receipt of an application. Too often the health boards have to subsidise payment of some type of benefit to the people concerned until the pension comes through.

There is another area of particular concern which arises when an old age pensioner who is non-contributory is in receipt of another pension, whether social security from America or a British pension. The Department suddenly see that a mistake was made, although the second benefit was declared originally, and seek a substantial repayment from the pensioner. We do not dispute that the Department are entitled to it but some official of the Department should call to the individual concerned and point out that a deduction of £8 or £9 a week would be acceptable over a period rather than say they would have to get back, £2,500 in a lump sum. That causes dismay in a household because usually the pensioner and the people living with him or her could not put that much money together. Consideration should be given, especially when the error arises through no fault of the pensioner. Where there was concealment, of course, I would adopt a different line. But if there was no concealment and if the mistake was made by the computer and was suddenly discovered, compassion should be shown to the pensioner concerned and he or she should not be asked to repay £2,000 or £2,500. The sum involved could be deducted from the weekly pension over a period until the amount was paid. Exercise of a little discretion in such cases would save a lot of anxiety. This does not arise on a widespread basis but in isolated cases. Therefore I see no reason why the Minister or the Minister of State should not have the machinery necessary and I know that both are compassionate men.

Different types of means tests are applied in different parts of County Kerry, particularly as far as unemployment assistance is concerned. I cannot understand why a youth living with his parents is subject to a means test, assessed at £21 a week, when he applies for unemployment assistance when in another part of my historic county a single farmer with a valuation of £8 or £9 will be assessed at only £7 or £8. I do not understand why social welfare officers can say that a boy living with his parents should have his board and lodgings assessed at £21 and therefore that he will not get anything. That is a despicable practice. If such an individual applied for ordinary unemployment assistance he would have to qualify, if available for work. I hope the Minister will consider applying the same means test across the board.

In the budget this year we were told that all those in receipt of farmers' unemployment assistance would benefit if they re-applied under a means test. All who took the Minister at his word had their assistance savagely cut, by up to £5 a week. They were conned. I should like to get from the Minister the statistic on how many of those people had their unemployment assistance cut since that new system began to operate.

However, I thank the Minister for the Bill passed recently and for which provision is being made in this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Kenny

I do not think anybody will disagree with the Minister's intention to give certain social welfare recipients double payments this week. It is a welcome trend which will be supported by all. My first concern tonight is in regard to a problem in County Mayo which I regard as a scandalous carry on. It relates to the social welfare dental benefit scheme and related problems. It has been going on for quite some time. Because of frustration, dental surgeons in the county decided to withdraw their services from the national scheme as it operated up to that point. They could have had their names replaced on the list operated by the Department but they refused to do so because of frustration and disappointment throughout the years.

As the scheme is operated at present it means that many social welfare contributors in my part of the country who should be eligible, on contributions, for dental treatment cannot avail of that benefit. At the moment an insured worker over 21 years of age must have more than three years' contributions to benefit, but a worker under 21 qualifies after six months. Even if an insured worker has contributed for 20 or more years and approaches a dental surgeon for treatment, he or she must apply to the Department to find out whether he or she is considered eligible. At the earliest, the reply will not be received for six months. I have been told by dental surgeons that acknowledgements that a person was qualified did not come for two years so that the person could get treated. It is some toothache if one has had it for two years. The Minister should take positive action on this matter so that patients can be issued with cards to show eligibility so that treatment could be carried out immediately.

The dental surgeons' request for better fees for extraction and other dental treatment should be given consideration by the Minister because such work at present takes in half of the private practice, meaning that the scheme is subsidised from private practice. As 68 per cent of the population belong to the less well off group, they are subsidising the service for the much better off group. This is unacceptable. I think the Minister is well aware of it because as long ago as October 1979 the then Minister promised to improve the scheme, especially in relation to extractions, and the present Minister indicated that something was being done about it.

Dr. Woods

It has been done.

Mr. Kenny

I should like clarification on it. Another point about dental treatment is that it should not be considered to be part of the social welfare scheme. It would be more appropriately dealt with under the health services because prevention is better than cure. I hope the Minister will consider this.

In regard to women applicants for unemployment benefit, I get an enormous number of complaints from women who are eligible but for various reasons have been denied benefit because the Department say that they are not available for work in their particular areas. I agree that for maternity and other reasons certain applicants might not be available for work, but in the majority of cases, when documentation has been supplied to the Department by employers in the districts concerned indicating that employment is not available, sometimes on the basis that the applicants have been made redundant, they should be considered eligible.

Many widows throughout the country have not got sufficiently clear information in regard to their rights to benefits. I am not only concerned with widows but also with widowers. The means test in relation to pensions for this group should be reviewed with a view to being more lenient. I also suggest that the Minister would allow widows free travel, even for part of the year. Many of them have relatives and friends whom they would like to visit but because of the loss of their husbands they may not be able to drive and anyway financial conditions might not permit them to travel. Therefore I suggest that the free travel scheme should apply to them, even parttime. Because of the traumatic effects of the death of husbands some women of a nervous disposition should be given special consideration in this respect. The Minister should look at the free telephone rental system to see if it can be applied to widows, particularly in isolated areas. Although the children's allowance has been increased it leaves a lot to be desired when we consider that many European countries are far more advanced than we are in relation to those particular social welfare benefits. The same can be said in relation to widows' pensions. I hope the Minister can do something positive for those people.

The application of the means test in relation to unemployment assistance for small farmers was raised by Deputy Begley. His complaints are quite similar to those in my constituency. Many small farmers were reluctant to avail of the factual assessment by social welfare officers because they did not really believe that if their means were better than was thought, based on a factual assessment, they would not lose what they were already getting. The delays experienced in western counties, in particular, where this applies for assessments and for appeals are too much for the social welfare officers to cater for. I hope the Minister will clarify the few small points I have raised in relation to the application of social welfare benefits as they affect people in my constituency.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I would like to thank the Deputies for their detailed contributions on this Supplementary Estimate. I will try, as far as possible, to reply to the general questions which were raised. Deputy McMahon referred to a letter which was circulated by the Minister of State. I would like to make it quite clear that the letter had no relationship whatsoever to today's debate. It was entirely accidental that it reached Deputies on this day. It is part of the activities of the Minister of State in trying to pursue the delays we knew to be taking place, to try to find causes for them and to see what can be done to improve the situation. It was purely accidental the Deputy received the letter today.

I took the criticisms and the questions raised in the House seriously enough to ask the Minister of State to spend a good deal of time at this particular task. He has done that and has spent time on detail. He has given a reasonable summary of the points which came to his notice in the course of this investigation. He says in the report:

In recent months some delays in payment have occurred because claimants have quoted their revenue or PRSI numbers only on medical certificates and on claim forms although the latter form specifically requires them to quote their insurance number as well as the PRSI number. Where the situation arises it is possible to trace the relevant insurance record for 75 per cent of the cases by means of cross indexing.

This was one of the points which was raised during the debate.

It takes longer and it means it goes off the standard to be investigated separately. In the remaining 25 per cent of cases it is necessary to write to the claimants for their insurance numbers.

Deputy O'Connell congratulated the Minister of State on the work he has been putting into that area and welcomed the letter which he also had received from him. The delays and the wrong sighting of the number is a very important matter and contributes a lot to the substantial number of delays which occur. I accept the point made by one Deputy that we should try a little harder to highlight this point by advertising. Since it has emerged as a very substantial element I will consider that and will see what can be done. It is pointed out on the forms and in various other ways that the insurance number must be quoted.

Deputy McMahon referred to the free fuel scheme and said that he regarded it as a farce. I cannot win here as Minister for Social Welfare and I accept that situation. No matter what I do, no matter how much we give, no matter what we improve, we will have Deputies coming back and saying that things are a farce. A lot of things in the country are a farce. The Deputy must accept that there has been a very considerable increase in the free fuel scheme this year.

Mr. McMahon

Not in real terms.

Dr. Woods

Yes, in real terms. The total expenditure on the free fuel scheme goes to £5 million this year against £2.9 million in 1979. That is real terms.

Mr. McMahon

It is not buying as much.

Dr. Woods

I did not interrupt the Deputy. On the basis of the scheme which I introduced this autumn, it will be £7 million from £2.9 million. When one goes to look for the money one is talking about a substantial sum. We would like to see much more and I will certainly press for an improvement of this scheme. There has never been an improvement of this magnitude either in money terms or the number of people affected.

Mr. McMahon

What about the health boards?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister's time is very limited.

Dr. Woods

There has never been an improvement of this magnitude, including the health boards. I pay out the money. I know the money the health boards get and I know the money the other people get. An additional 29,000 people are now drawing this benefit. These people write to me to thank me for this. They tell me they never had it before, they saw other people having it. They are brought in on the means test basis. I accept that more needs to be done and I will certainly do my best to do more with it.

Deputy Boland referred to anomalies within the scheme. We know there are and I will try to remove them. Deputy McMahon referred to telephone calls and said it takes about four calls from a coin box to get an answer. I have been bothered about this. I will tell the Deputy what I am doing at the moment although he will probably come back and beat me with a stick over it until it is done. I know there is a great problem from Cork, Galway and other places. I know there are problems getting the information in other places. There are much greater problems getting the information because one has to go through records. I am making arrangements on a pilot basis, first of all, to enlarge the office somewhat in Cork, provide a telex system whereby queries from Deputies or other people can be brought in locally, transmitted on telex, dealt with here and referred back on telex. Such a system could go a good way towards eliminating some of the delays that are occurring.

There is a good deal more to be done such as the extension of the telephone service. This is a matter we are working on but we depend on the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to accommodate us in this respect.

Mr. McMahon

That is the problem.

Dr. Woods

Deputy O'Connell talked about our rates of assistance being the lowest in Europe. There is not enough time left for me to go into detail on the various figures but, compared with England, for instance, we are doing quite well in this respect. We have some additional benefits that do not apply there. However, I accept the general point that for old age pensioners and widows in particular, the base is lower than I would like it to be.

A number of Deputies referred to a national income-related pension scheme. I have done most of my work in this area and hope to have the scheme ready early next year. There were some queries, too, regarding a review of the death grant. I shall have such a review undertaken.

There was reference, too, to the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty. I wish to make the Government's position clear in relation to this committee. There has been some confusion about the nature of statements made but, basically, my position is that the combat poverty committee comes to an end at this stage. I am not revealing anything new because I have made a number of references to this already. Indeed, I spoke about it as long ago as March last. Therefore, there is no question of confusing anyone. But, I have given a guarantee that the work of combatting poverty will continue. I am committed to such work. I might point out briefly that I was the person who, in Brussels in June last, prevented the whole scheme from being dropped. It was my intervention which resulted in a compromise being reached to keep the scheme open and to have a small amount of money provided on an interim basis so that the scheme would not die. I wish to make my position on this matter clear, especially to Deputy Cluskey.

Mr. Boland

What is clear is that the committee is being scrapped.

Dr. Woods

In any event, the committee is due to come to an end at this time.

Mr. Boland

The committee is being scrapped.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There should be no interruptions.

Mr. Boland

What about the undertaking given by the Minister of State?

Dr. Woods

The Minister of State gave an undertaking that the work would be continued. In addition, we committed ourselves in the national understanding in this regard. I quote the relevant paragraph which is paragraph No. 31:

The government are awaiting the evaluation report of the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty on its various projects. However, the Government are committed in principle to a programme designed to develop a sound and effective approach to the tackling of poverty in our society including research projects, where appropriate.

I give the Deputies my personal assurance also on this matter.

We do not have enough time to go into any more detail regarding this work but I might mention that in relation to the European programme of the pilot schemes to combat poverty which is under the aegis of the EEC, and which terminated on 30 November last, the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty which directed the projects for this country will terminate on 31 December 1980. I expect to receive their final report in the very near future. They had expected that report to be available next week but when it comes to hand I shall have it examined for the purpose of deciding on future action in this area, having regard to the undertaking of the Government in the national understanding. My officials are in communication with the committee at this time. A number of the projects involved are grant-aided and we are having these examined prior to receiving the final report with a view to ascertaining what needs to be done and what funds may be needed for works that should be continued.

Mr. Boland

Everybody knew the committee was to be abolished except, apparently, the Minister of State. Why was he not told?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed make his statement without interruption.

Dr. Woods

The Minister of State was referring to the work of the committee.

Mr. Boland

He spoke of the importance of the committee.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Boland must cease interrupting.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy raised the question of the Departments being provided with moneys to enable them to employ people instead of all the available money being paid out by way of social welfare benefits. This is a very general question. The Deputy suggested that there be liaison between the Department of Social Welfare and the other Departments and local government agencies who provide jobs. We have liaison with Manpower and we are endeavouring to ensure that this arrangement will be comprehensive whereby people will be offered employment where employment is available.

The same Deputy talked about unemployed persons receiving as much in payment as if they were working. So far as unemployment benefit is concerned, there is a ceiling of 85 per cent even with the combination of pay-related benefit and the basic flat allowances. Therefore, to this extent there cannot be the sort of situation that the Deputy has described though, of course, the effects of taxation are a separate matter.

Deputy Murphy expressed concern also regarding a case that had come to his attention whereby somebody on a three-day week claimed to be earning 20p more than if he were employed full time. All I can say in reply to that is that I am very glad that we have reached a stage in our development whereby people who are put on short time employment can be maintained at about the same level as applied when they were on full-time work. Very often this short time is of a short-term duration.

Mr. McMahon

The Minister is to be congratulated. He tells us that one can be paid more for not working than for working.

Mr. Boland

Is that not a proud boast?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies must not interrupt the Minister.

Dr. Woods

What I am saying is that I am very glad of our having reached a stage in the development of our society whereby people who are on short time or who are unemployed will not suffer unduly as a result. I can assure the Deputies that people on short time are very worried about their jobs and their future. However, I am glad that the Deputies opposite have shown their true colours after we have heard so much concern expressed by the Opposition for the unemployed.

Mr. McMahon

Every working man is carrying five other people.

Mr. Boland

Now we know where the Government stand.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has only one minute left. He should not be interrupted.

Mr. McMahon

He may have only one month left.

Mr. Boland

Is he speaking for the Government?

Dr. Woods

I am clear as to where I stand on this matter.

Mr. Nolan

Are the Deputies suggesting that the man who received the extra 20 pence should give it back?

Dr. Woods

The Deputy was referring to an exceptional case in which there was a marginal improvement during the period of the short-time employment but we have pledged ourselves to look after those who, because of the recession or otherwise, find themselves in difficult circumstances.

Deputy Begley raised the question of back money. Generally speaking the Department make arrangements in this respect but I accept the point made and we shall have a look at the matter in order to ensure that the compassionate approach is taken in practice. It would be an advantage if this were spelled out clearly in the documentation. I appreciate that somebody can be frightened on seeing reference to a big figure.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must conclude now.

Dr. Woods

On the question of small-holders who opt for the factual system of assessment, the situation is that about 3,000 people gained from this form of assessment out of a total of 5,000 who opted for the system. The others opted for a return to the notional system so that they did not have to lose though they did not gain from the new increases. I thank all those Deputies who contributed to the debate.

Regarding the Mayo dentists, we have allowed for extractions and we have given examination and investigation fees. We have done our part and trade union representation is a matter for the Congress of Trade Unions.

Vote put and agreed to.