Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Mar 1982

Vol. 333 No. 2

Social Welfare Bill, 1982: Second Stage.

Minister for Health and Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

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

The purpose of this Bill is to implement improvements in social welfare services which are due to come into effect at the beginning of April. In considering the Bill we are to some extent making history because this must be the first time in which a Social Welfare Bill giving effect to such substantial improvements in social welfare payments has been debated before the budget in which financial provision will be made for them. Deputies, however, will be aware of the circumstances which have given rise to this situation. The time between now and the beginning of April, when increased payments take effect, is very short and I hope that I can rely on the co-operation of all parties in getting this deserving measure through.

A number of the harsher measures provided for in the January budget drawn up by the former Minister for Finance could not be accepted, particularly having regard to the impact of those measures on the less well off sections of the community. I am, however, pleased to make provision for implementing those parts of that budget which contained proposals for increases in social welfare payments. This is the main purpose of the Bill now before the House. It implements the undertakings given by Fianna Fáil in the recent General Election.

The general increase in rates of payment is 25 per cent, apart from children's allowances in which case the increase is substantially greater. Fianna Fáil Governments down through the years have been conscious of the need for providing a satisfactory level of welfare services. We have continually developed those services and provided worthwhile improvements. All of this must be seen in the economic framework within which services are provided. The Government's decision to eliminate the harshest effects of the budget proposed by the former Government by maintaining food subsidies at existing levels and cancelling the proposed new 18 per cent VAT on clothing and footwear will be a substantial relief especially for those who are dependent on social welfare payments. It is equally clear that the increased social welfare payments that are being provided for in this Bill will be of considerably more benefit to those receiving them than the same level of benefits would have been if they had been awarded in the context of increased prices for food, clothing and footwear which would have resulted from the proposals of the previous Government to remove food subsidies and put VAT on clothing and footwear.

I would now like to refer to the effect of the increases on individual payments. The increases in social insurance payments are provided in section 2 of the Bill. The personal rate of contributory old age and retirement pensions for persons under age 80 is being increased by £8.05 to £40.25. It will go up to £43.05 for persons aged 80 years or over. The addition to the pension for an adult dependant is being raised to £25.70 where the adult dependant is under pensionable age and to £30 05 where the adult dependant is aged 66 or over. Accordingly a married couple both over pensionable age will get £70.30 as compared with £56.25 at present and, if the pensioner is aged 80, the new rate will be £73.10 as against £58.50 at present. The new rates for a married couple are therefore well over 50 per cent of average industrial earnings.

The new personal rate of widow's contributory pension and deserted wife's benefit will be £36.25 for a person under pensionable age, £36.95 for a person aged between 66 and 80 and £39.45 for a person aged 80 years or over.

The personal rate of invalidity pension is being increased by £7.10 to £35.50 for a person under pensionable age and by £7.25 to £36.20 for a person aged 66 or over. The addition to pension for an adult dependant is being raised to £23.05 for a pensioner under age 66 and to £23.50 for a pensioner aged 66 or over. The personal rate of disability and unemployment benefit is increased from £25.30 to £31.65 and a married couple will receive £52.15 as against £41.70 at present. Maternity allowance is also being increased to £31.65. The maximum rate of death grant is being increased from £75 to £100.

In line with the general increases in social insurance payments, section 2 of the Bill also provides for increased occupational injuries benefits.

Increases in social assistance payments and in the rates of children's allowances are provided in section 3 of the Bill. The maximum weekly personal rate of non-contributory old age pension is being raised by £6.90 to £34.45 for persons aged under 80 years. It will go up to £36.95 for persons aged 80 or over. The maximum rate of payment in respect of an adult dependant under 66 years of age is being increased by £3.45 to £17.30. The overall maximum payment for a pensioner with a dependent spouse will therefore go up to £51.75 and, where the pensioner is 80 years of age or over, to £54.25. The allowance payable in respect of a prescribed relative giving full-time care and attention to an incapacitated pensioner is being raised to £19.30. In the case of a pensioner living alone, the additional allowance is being increased to £2.70.

The maximum weekly personal rate of widow's (non-contributory) pension is being increased from £27.05 to £33.80 where the widow is under age 66, from £27.55 to £34.45 where the widow is aged between 66 and 80 and from £29.55 to £36.95 where the widow is aged 80 or over. Increases in the prescribed relative allowance and living alone allowance for persons over age 66, in line with those payable with non-contributory old age pensions, are also provided. The improvements in widows' pensions will automatically apply to the social assistance allowances for deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives. The social assistance allowance payable to single women aged between 58 and 66 is being increased by 25 per cent, bringing the maximum rate of the allowance to £29.50.

The increases in unemployment assistance rates bring the maximum personal rate to £26.25 in urban areas and £25.45 elsewhere. The rates for adult dependants are being increased to £18.95 and £18.50 respectively, so that the rate for a married couple will be £45.20 in an urban area and £43.95 elsewhere. The 25 per cent increase is also applied to the special rates of unemployment assistance payable to smallholders with land under £20 valuation in certain disadvantaged areas whose means for unemployment assistance purposes are assessed notionally by reference to land valuation.

The rates of supplementary welfare allowances are also being increased by 25 per cent. This will bring the maximum rate of supplementary allowance for a married couple to £43.95 per week with additional payments for children.

The increases in rates of benefit payable for dependent children are linked with the substantial overall increases which are being made in the general scheme of children's allowances. The increases for dependent children of social welfare beneficiaries have been calculated in such a way that, taking account also of the increases in the general scheme, an increase of 25 per cent is provided in payments for children.

The increase in children's allowance rates are also provided in section 3 of the Bill. The present rates of allowance of £6 for the first child and £9 for each additional child are increased to £11.25 for each of the first five children and £17.50 for each subsequent child. In the nine-month period from April to December 1982 the new rates of children's allowances will effectively mean an increase of some 45 per cent in payments to beneficiaries. Increases in children's allowances normally take effect from July but on this occasion the increases will have effect from April in the same way as all the other increases. It is not, however, administratively possible to make payment at the new rates in April and the current rates will continue to apply until July when arrears from April will be paid. The reason for this is that children's allowances books are renewed in July each year. The validity of the children's books at present held by beneficiaries accordingly lasts until June next and new books would normally be issued with effect from July. Having regard to other commitments it is not possible to print and distribute a supplementary book issue for the three months April-June equivalent to the increase in rates of children's allowances for that period. Additional orders will be included with the July children's allowances book issue to enable the increases due for the months of April-June to be paid retrospectively. This will be done in conjunction with the July renewal of allowance books.

In line with the increases in social assistance pensions and allowances the reduced rates payable where the weekly means exceed a certain amount are also, of course, being increased.

Steps have been taken on a number of recent occasions to ease an anomaly which arose due to the application, in previous years, of uniform percentage increases to all reduced rates of pension. This resulted in a scale of means and pensions under which weekly pensions were reduced at one stage by £1.40 for every increase of £1 in means. The reduction for each £1 increase in means is now £1.20 and the present Bill provides in section 4 for the removal of this anomaly so as to ensure that reductions in pensions will be made in steps commensurate with increases in means. The abolition of this anomaly together with the increase in the rate of pension would have the effect of greatly stretching the scales of means and pensions to an extent that would render them far too cumbersome and complicated. To avoid such a development, section 4 also provided that the steps of means in the tables will be increased from £1 to £2.

An easement of the means test in its application to single parents is provided for in section 6. A sum of £200,000 has been provided for this purpose and this amount is being allocated in such a way as to enable single parents such as widows, deserted wives or unmarried mothers to increase their earnings without suffering a reduction in social assistance payments as a result. At present the means test includes a provision, in the case of applicants with children, to disregard any earnings of the applicants up to £104 a year for each child. The provision which I am now making is to increase the "disregard" to £312 a year for each child in the case of applicants for widow's non-contributory pension, deserted wife's allowance, social assistance allowance for unmarried mothers and prisoner's wife's allowance.

Section 7 provides for extending the prescribed relative allowance of £19.30 to invalidity pensioners under age 66. This allowance is at present payable as an increase of pension to incapacitated pensioners who need full-time care and attention and who are over 66 years of age. An exception is made in the case of blind persons who may receive the allowance under that age. It is provided in section 7 that the age limitation will also be abolished in the case of invalidity pensioners thus extending the allowance to those pensioners no matter what their age. I think this is a particularly welcome extension of the scheme.

In section 8 I am making a provision to enable married women without child dependants who are separated from and not supported by their husbands to qualify for unemployment assistance. Under present legislation such women cannot qualify. The particular difficulty in the case of married women living apart from their husbands is that they cannot qualify for unemployment assistance unless they have a dependant, even though their position is analogous to that of a single woman who is subject to no such condition. A number of such cases have arisen and section 8 provides for the removal of the anomaly.

I would like to mention briefly two additional measures which I am introducing from April but which do not require to be provided for in legislation. I am extending the free telephone rental scheme, which at present applies mainly to social welfare pensioners aged over 66, to eligible blind pensioners under 66. I am also extending the free travel scheme, which is currently available to all permanent residents in the State aged 66 or over and to invalidity pensioners, blind persons aged 18 or over and persons in receipt of a disabled person's maintenance allowance, to residents in receipt of Northern Ireland or British invalidity pensions who are under 66 years of age.

In line with the increases in social welfare payments announced in the January budget various allowances payable under the Health Acts are also being increased from April. The maximum personal weekly rate of disabled persons maintenance allowance is being increased from £26.05 to £32.55; the rate for an adult dependant from £14.80 to £18.50 so that the rate for a married couple will be £51.05. Infectious diseases maintenance allowances are being increased from £26.25 to £32.80 in the personal rate and from £21.35 to £26.70 for a dependent spouse, making the new rate for a married couple £59.50. Blind welfare allowances which are payable as a supplement to non-contributory blind pensions are being increased from £8.90 to £11.15 in the personal rate and from £17.70 to £22.30 for a blind married couple.

In addition to what was provided for in the January budget I am pleased to be able to say that the Government have also decided to increase the domiciliary care allowance for handicapped children from £45 to £55 per month. Also the mobility allowance which is payable to disabled persons will be increased from £200 to £250. Finally the capitation allowances which are payable to voluntary organisations for the vocational training of disabled persons will be increased. Apart from recouping those organisations for their increased costs these additional payments will enable them to increase the allowances which they pay to their trainees.

I have now covered the improvements which are coming into effect from April. These measures, when taken together with the Government's decision to maintain food subsidies and remove the proposed 18 per cent VAT on footwear and clothing will significantly improve the situation of social welfare recipients.

In addition to the general increases in rates of payment, it has been the practice in recent years to provide for double payments of long-term social welfare benefits at Christmas. On each occasion, however, on which temporary increases of this nature have been provided, it has been necessary to introduce legislation. Since it is possible by regulation to provide for permanent increases in rates of payment, it is anomalous that temporary increases, such as these double payments, cannot be provided in the same way. I am accordingly providing in section 9 of the Bill that the power to vary rates of payment by regulation will be extended to cover such temporary increases. This provision will facilitate the introduction of temporary increases in the future and will give greater flexibility in relation to the time of year at which such increases can be provided.

The only other provision made in the Bill is to amend a number of minor printing errors in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, which have come to light since its enactment.

The overall cost in 1982 of the rates increases and other changes being provided for in this Bill is £230 million. This is a considerable sum, even in the context of overall expenditure on social welfare of approximately £1,565 million. The cost to the Exchequer in 1982 of the increased expenditure will be approximately £128 million and some £102 million will be met by increases in social insurance contributions. Increases in contributions and in the ceiling of earnings on which contributions are levied to meet the employers' and employees' share of the cost of the proposals under the social insurance schemes are provided in section 5 of the Bill. The ceiling is being raised from £8,500 to £9,500 to take account of increases in earnings. This will also lead to corresponding increases in the amount of pay-related benefit to employees. Allowing for an Exchequer contribution of 25 per cent to the social insurance fund towards expenditure in 1982, the increase in social insurance contributions is 1.75 per cent for the employer and 1.75 per cent for the employee. This brings the standard contribution for social insurance from 13.3 per cent to 16.8 per cent of which the employer will bear 11.3 per cent and the employee 5.5 per cent. This is the same increase in PRSI rates as was proposed by the previous Government and accepted by the present Government in their modified budget proposals. Proportionate increases are being provided in the rates of voluntary contributions. Reduced rates of contributions are payable under regulations in respect of certain employments — for example, pensionable public service employees and certain share fishermen and outworkers. These are not covered for all the benefits of the social insurance system and increases due in those rates will be made by regulation. The contribution increases will be effective from 6 April 1982. The increases in rates and in the earnings limit are expected to yield about £102 million in 1982.

In my introduction to the Bill, I have dealt with the improvements which the Government are making for social welfare beneficiaries with effect from next week. These measures, particularly when account is taken of the more favourable budgetary strategy to which the Government are committed, will, I am satisfied, improve significantly the situation of social welfare recipients. This is the third year in succession in which I have been privileged to introduce a 25 per cent increase for pensioners and other social welfare beneficiaries. As an example, since April 1980 the old age pension for a married couple has been increased from £34.25 to £70.30 per week. I intend to maintain the process of continuous improvement of the social welfare system which has always been the aim of Fianna Fáil Governments and which has been achieved in practice.

Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity to mention briefly some areas which I consider to be in need of attention. The social welfare code is a complex one. In my previous term of office I was responsible for the enactment of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act which was a major contribution to the simplification of the system by bringing many complex legislative provisions together in the one Act. I hope further rationalisation can be achieved without at the same time losing the flexibility that is necessary if we are to respond sensitively to the many differing demands that are made upon the system.

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme has come in for considerable criticism since its introduction and is now in need of major review and improvement. It is the one scheme which deals at the closest quarters with financial need at the most critical level. Of all the social welfare schemes it is the one which must operate most quickly and flexibly to meet needs as they arise. I intend to review this scheme to ensure that everything possible is done to improve its operation and ensure that it fulfils its original objectives.

The immediate priority now, for those who depend on social welfare, is to have this Bill put through as quickly as possible, so as to allow for the implementation of the improvements which it contains. These are summarised, for convenience, in the tables which I have circulated with my speech. The first of these improvements in payments takes effect from 31 March. I, therefore, commend the Bill to the House for urgent and favourable consideration.

Following are the tables referred to:

Social Insurance Increases.

	Present rate	Proposed rat
	£	£
Personal and Adult Dependant Rates
Retirement Pension/Old Age Contributory Pension under 80:
Personal rate	32.20	40.25
Person with adult dependant under 66	52.75	65.95
Person with adult dependant 66 or over	56.25	70.30
Retirement Pension/Old Age Contributory Pension 80 or over:
Personal rate	34.45	43.05
Person with adult dependant under 66	55.00	68.75
Person with adult dependant 66 or over	58.50	73.10
Widow's Contributory Pension/Deserted Wife's Benefit
Under 66	29.00	36.25
66 to 79	29.55	36.95
80 or over	31.55	39.45
Invalidity Pension:
Personal rate
Under 66	28.40	35.50
66 or over	28.95	36.20
Person under 66 with adult dependant	46.85	58.55
Person over 66 with adult dependant	47.75	59.70
Disability/Unemployment Benefit*
Personal rate	25.30	31.65
Person with adult dependant	41.70	52.15
Maternity Allowance*	25.30	31.65
Orphan's Contributory Allowance	18.30	22.90
Death Grant (maximum rate)	75.00	100.00

*Pay-related benefit may also be payable in addition to disability benefit, unemployment benefit or maternity allowance. The ceiling on the earnings on which pay-related benefit is calculated is increased from £8,500 to £9,500.

Social Assistance Increases.

(including health allowances)

	Present rate	Proposed rate
	£	£
Personal and Adult Dependant Rates
Old Age Non-Contributory Pension and Blind Pension:
(i) Under 80:
Personal rate	27.55	34.45
Person with adult dependant under 66	41.40	51.75
(ii) 80 or over: Personal rate	29.55	36.95
Person with adult dependant under 66	43.40	54.25
Widows, Deserted Wives, Prisoners' Wives
Under 66	27.05	33.80
66 to 79	27.55	34.45
80 or over	29.55	36.95
Unmarried Mother's Allowance (including one child)	34.80	42.60
Prescribed Relatives' Allowance	15.45	19.30
Unemployment Assistance:
Urban:
Personal rate	21.00	26.25
Person with adult dependant	36.15	45.20
Rural:
Personal rate	20.35	25.45
Person with adult dependant	35.15	43.95
Single Woman's Allowance	23.60	29.50
Orphan's Non-Contributory Pension	15.35	19.20
Supplementary Welfare Allowance
Personal rate	20.35	25.45
Person with adult dependant	35.15	43.95
Disabled person's Maintenance Allowance
Personal rate	26.05	32.55
Person with adult dependant	40.85	51.05
Infectious Disease Maintenance Allowance
Personal rate	26.25	32.80
Person with dependant spouse	47.60	59.50
Domiciliary Care Allowance (per month)	45.00	55.00
Mobility Allowance (per annum)	200.00	250.00

Children's Allowances

	1981/82	1982/83	Increase	%
	£	£	£
1 child	6	11.25	5.25	87.5
2 children	15 (+9)	22.50 (+11.25)	7.50	50.0
3 children	24 (+9)	33.75 (+11.25)	9.75	40.6
4 children	33 (+9)	45.00 (+11.25)	12.00	36.4
5 children	42 (+9)	56.25 (+11.25)	14.25	33.9
6 children	51 (+9)	73.75 (+17.50)	22.75	44.6
7 children	60 (+9)	91.25 (+17.50)	31.25	52.1
8 children	69 (+9)	108.75 (+17.50)	39.75	57.6
9 children	78 (+9)	126.25 (+17.50)	48.25	61.9

Mrs. E. Desmond

My intervention in this debate will be brief. What the present Minister is doing is bringing in, by and large, measures which I had been hoping to bring in myself. I congratulate the Minister on his return to office and wish him well. More than most, I am in a position to appreciate the difficulties and demands of his present office and his need to be constantly responsive to the wants and desires of the most needy and vulnerable section of our society. He is blessed with a very able and committed office staff in the Department of Social Welfare, whose assistance I valued very much in my seven months in office. With that commitment, capacity and expertise at his disposal, I have no doubt that he will do a good job in office. He is dealing with the section of the community which needs total commitment and the best which the Minister in office can give.

The Bill before the House is one of great urgency. It must be got through before the end of this month, of which only days remain. I understand the importance of getting all sections of the Bill through but take the point made by some Deputies, who have not had the opportunity of dealing with the measures covered by the Bill, that there should be a delay before the Committee and Fourth Stages go through. I do not understand if it is possible to delay these until tomorrow, but that might convenience a Deputy who had not had the opportunity of making suggestions for improvements or amendments to the Bill. Time is now at a premium and this legislation must be got through quickly.

The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the 25 per cent increases in all payments under social welfare. It is a unanimous wish of all Members that that should be done. The Minister made reference to the budget as improving the VAT situation — but I do not know how effective this will be in the case of old age pensioners and social welfare recipients — and the dropping of the less desirable aspects of the budget as resulting in great improvements. We do not know if this will be the case because we have not yet seen the budget. No one knows what effect the budget which it is proposed to produce on Thursday will have on social welfare recipients. We know that a great deal of extra money will have to be brought in by that budget to give effect to the promises made before and after the election campaign and to take account of the delay there has been in introducing a budget this year. I presume measures will be introduced in the budget which may or may not be beneficial to social welfare recipients. We have no way of knowing whether social welfare recipients will do any better until we see the budget.

The other improvements which the Bill wishes to bring into effect is 25 per cent increase in children's allowances. The Minister made the point that arrears in children's allowances will be paid in July. I understand the reason for this and when the present children's allowance books expire in July new ones will have to be printed to cater for the increased amounts.

There are other aspects of the Bill for which we were making provision, for instance, the improvement in means tests for reduced rates of payment. A sum of £200,000 is being made available for single parents as an easement of the means test. This was also a provision of the budget being introduced by the outgoing Government as was the extension of the prescribed relative's allowance scheme for invalidity pensioners. We all agree these are improvements and we welcome them. The free telephone allowance to blind pensioners under 66 is in the same category as is the question of free travel for resident Northern Ireland and British invalidity pensioners. I welcome the extra sum being made available for domiciliary and mobility allowances, capitation grants and so on. I also welcome the provision made in section 9 for the Minister to vary rates of payment by way of regulations to cater for these temporary improvements. I feel that improved payments should be made to coincide with children returning to school for those families who are dependent on social welfare. The expense involved in clothes, books, etc. makes a big dent in their meagre allowance. A double payment would be very welcome at this time since the Minister has now power to vary the regulations from time to time without having to get approval for legislation in this House.

This Bill meets with the general approval of the House and it coincides mostly with the Bill which we would have brought in if there had not been a change of Government. I wish the Minister well in office and I hope that many other improvements which are necessary in so far as social welfare is concerned will come into effect. We could do a lot in this area. For instance, this year there are no improvements for those who live alone. There is a case to be made for the old person who lives alone and has to bear all the overheads. It is a quite different case from two or three old age pensioners living together or living with people who are not in that category.

I hope the Minister will address himself to the question of retirement and the advancement of a national pay-related pension plan. I hope the costing for such a scheme can now go ahead. We are inclined to think of old people when we refer to social welfare but this plan would be of benefit to all. There are other things I want to say but time is at a premium and I will have other opportunities. I wish the Minister well and he will have my full support.

Miss Flaherty

I should like to join with Deputy Desmond in congratulating the Minister on his appointment and I wish him every success in his Department. Naturally I welcome the increases and my party welcome the increases which are the purpose of the Bill. It is natural for us to support them as they are almost in total the proposals that were put before the Dáil on that famous day in January. To the extent that the Bill provides real and significant increases for social welfare recipients of all types of benefits and assistance, it is to be welcomed and will gain our support. There is a problem, which has been mentioned by Deputy Desmond, that in general when we are approving social welfare increases it is done in the context of a full budget and an understanding of how the money which is to be paid will be raised. That whole context is missing here and makes it extremely difficult to assess whether the rates of increases here will be sufficiently adequate to cover people for the effects of the money raising elements of the budget. We are, in effect, seeing the implementation of a three or four phased budget at this stage. We have already seen the first phase — the Gregory phase — and we had the price increases of a week or so ago. It is extremely unsatisfactory to be discussing this element without having an understanding of the wider context. It is already a serious criticism of a very young government that they are giving indications of the kind of slapdash irresponsible approach to government that was such a feature of their last period in office. It is very much in contrast with the commitment to a national plan going in a specific direction which was a feature of the outgoing Government. The importance of national planning in any kind of budgetary provision is obviously of paramount importance and the then Minister and I, representing that Department, took part in budgetary discussions and made arrangements for that Department and sought increases at a level in the context of a particular social plan.

We do not know what context we are dealing with now, and that is a very serious question mark. While we welcome the increased rates in benefits there is no way of knowing whether they are going to be adequate for the impact on prices, employment or national growth and the future stability of the country that the other financial policies of this Government may have. I commend the civil servants in the Department for their response when they found themselves without any clear guidance for a number of months but who took the greatest care to prepare the pension books that were necessary for the payment of the new increased rates based on the public commitments of both parties. That led to the minimum of delay and hardship for the beneficiaries concerned.

The Fine Gael commitment in the field of social welfare is clear. It is clear in the action of the Government of that time, in their sort life from June to October; it is clear in their budgetary provisions and, indeed, it is clear here today when the first action of the new Government has been to take the January budget provisions in toto, with only the slightest modifications or additions.

I would point out that last October social welfare recipients received significant improvements. A provision for a double week's payment was written into the January budget, for the first time. There were significant increases in the free fuel scheme as well as in all rates of payment. The Minister said this is the third time he has introduced increases of 25 per cent. This is the first time there has been a genuine increase of 25 per cent. I have talked to persons about occasions when they had been expecting increases of 25 per cent but who in fact came away with increases of only 16 per cent. Previous Fianna Fáil Governments tended to differentiate, the 25 per cent increases being given on the basic rates, and that had serious implications in real improvement terms for people with large families.

It was our priority particularly to protect people with families who tended to be most affected by the rising cost of living and who tended to be pushed into the poverty bracket. The social welfare proposals, now before us were framed by the outgoing Government to protect families through an improved child benefit scheme. Of course, here again we are back to the revenue side: we have got to consider the revenue side before we can assess the adequacy of the provisions now before us.

I welcome the new schemes, which we had introduced and provided for. I welcome the increased capitation grants for voluntary organisations for training the disabled. I welcome the increase in the domiciliary allowance. I welcome the willingness of the Minister to examine the whole framework of social welfare legislation and his acknowledgement of the need for modifications and simplifications.

Many changes are necessary and I am glad the Minister has expressed willingness to examine this. We accepted the limited nature of social welfare developments in the context of a national economic plan. On Thursday, if the Minister for Finance does not satisfy us that the future will be secure for those on social welfare benefits, we will be unremitting in our criticism and we will reopen the whole debate in this area.

Last year in October we recognised the living standard changes that had occurred and I hope that the Minister in a similar situation will show the same openness and willingness to protect those concerned. Generally, we support and welcome the level of the increases provided for but regret that we are debating this in the dark. I hope that on Thursday we will be as satisfied with the levels of increases as we were in January.

Mr. Shatter

First of all, I extend congratulations to the Minister on this his first Bill since his return to the House. Of course I wish the Minister well in all his duties. I have no doubt he intends to achieve a number of reforms during his term of office, and I will be pursuing him to achieve some reforms that are long overdue and that have not been dealt with properly over the years.

In relation to this Bill, I understand that it is necessary to introduce the Bill early due to the fact that we are heading into a new financial year and that it is urgently desirable that the increases be paid to social welfare recipients. In so far as the Bill provides for that I welcome it. In honesty, the Minister should acknowledge that the general financial increases provided for are those which the previous Government were committed to, as well as the party opposite, during the election campaign. Regardless of which Government would be returned to power, the financial benefits for social welfare people would not have been any different.

I will not try to place the Bill in the context of the overall economic situation or of whether our people generally will be any better off as a result of this Bill and the forthcoming budget on Thursday than they would have been if we had got our budget through. Of course I do not know what will be in Thursday's budget but I am concerned because there may be items in the budget that may penalise financially many of those dependent for support and who are getting that support from social welfare. I am suspicious by nature and I am somewhat worried about the procedure through which the Bill is being processed fully before we know what will be in Thursday's budget. I wish to put that on record.

I understand that some of the payments that would be made normally at this time of the year through social welfare legislation would become due in about the first week in April. It is worth noting that it is now only 23 March, and therefore I do not see any reason why the Committee Stage of this Bill could not be taken on Thursday or Friday of this week when we would know the contents of the budget. The House could have agreed to sit on Friday. It would then have been possible to make amendments, possibly necessary arising out of the budgetary provisions.

To some extent, we are working blindly today. It may be, following Thursday's budget, that the general position of social welfare dependants will be largely unchanged from the position today.

I understand the need to get this Bill through, leaving aside any worries about the budget or any possible suggestions that my remarks may have some sort of party political bias. I do not believe we should play a political football in this area. However, I do not regard it as acceptable procedure that a Member of the House should receive a Bill of this nature on a Tuesday morning and then be told that all Stages must be passed by 7 o'clock that evening. This Bill contains provisions other than financial ones. It seeks to amend certain measures such as the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act. One of the reasons why our social welfare legislation has been defective over the years has been the introduction of piecemeal legislation that has not had a sufficient overview of its impact on other areas of social welfare. Thus we have been producing anomalies and inconsistencies in the social welfare code.

I am not happy that I have had sufficient time to study the legislation or to reach final conclusions as to desirable amendments to this Bill. I will ask the Minister to consider one amendment, and I hope that on all sides of the House we can get agreement in respect of it. I will come to that shortly. I regard it as being totally unsatisfactory that this legislation is being completed today. It is my understanding that the Seanad is being recalled to sit on Friday afternoon. So the intention is to have this legislation through by the end of the week. If that is the case there is no reason why we should not have been given another 24 hours to consider this Bill before Committee Stage was dealt with. I say that regardless of what the Whips agreed in relation to the matter.

Our social welfare legislation suffers a variety of structural defects, inconsistencies and anomalies. Whether this Bill is the Bill that would have been introduced by the previous Government, or a new Bill introduced by this Minister, what I am concerned about is that none of the defects that have been highlighted in the general area of social welfare law has been tackled in this Bill in any true or sensible manner. Some of them, in the context of legislation, do not involve matters of great complexity; they would not result in the parliamentary draftsmen having to pore over papers, with a candle beside them in case the electricity went off, into the small hours of the night, and day after day to produce the necessary amendments. Many of the amendments required could be included in this Bill.

I am going to refer to some of the defects I have in mind. I accept that some of them have financial implications, as does one of the amendments that the Minister is making and which I will be coming to shortly. But in regard to others, if they have financial implications they are not very great and are reforms required in themselves in justice and in equity in dealing with people in identical circumstances in an identical way.

One of them is in an area that I have previously referred to in this House in a question I put to the former Minister for Social Welfare. It is the area of the deserted wife's allowance. This scheme was introduced by the Social Welfare Act of 1970. It has been reformed in certain ways in subsequent social welfare legislation. In 1973 we had the deserted wife's benefit introduced to accompany the deserted wife's allowance. The legislative provisions concerning the deserted wife's allowance and benefit are contained now in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. Unfortunately many of the provisions relating to the general law concerning deserted wife's allowance and benefit are not only contained in the Consolidation Act but also in the labyrinth of statutory instruments which to the lay person are virtually uninterpretable and mean nothing at all. It is the manner in which not merely the legislation but the statutory instruments operate that determines the method of application of deserted wife's allowance and benefit. The deserted wife's allowance and benefit are administered within a secret system which is one of the problems of our social welfare code in which decisions are made by deciding officers. Often no reasons are given for the manner in which they have reached decisions. Often when applicants for allowances are turned down they do not know why they have been turned down. Appeals are dealt with and at the end of the whole procedure the deserted wife who has not succeeded in getting an allowance does not know why and does not know what she should do about it. This is a general problem with the whole code of social welfare.

In the context of the deserted wife's allowance there are a number of provisions which nobody seems to know how to interpret which give rise to considerable problems and difficulties for the people concerned. If there is nothing that he can do about it in the context of this Bill I would ask the Minister, who was responsible for the legislation that consolidated the social welfare code in the 1981 Act, to consider now not merely removing some of the anomalies in the statutory regulations but asking his officials to work on the production of a consolidation of the regulations that exist. I appreciate that this is a difficult task which will take us back to regulations in the 1952 Social Welfare Act, but it is something that needs to be undertaken. If it was undertaken it would add a degree of clarity to the whole area of social welfare. It would not only do that but serve to highlight some of the anomalies and some of the difficulties of interpretation that exist.

The deserted wife's allowance commenced in 1970 because it was effectively following what was the family law code in those days. In about 1970 if a wife was unsupported it was not sufficient for her to obtain a maintenance order through the courts from her husband; she had to prove that she was deserted as well. So, our social welfare code took the approach that if a deserted wife could not proceed through the courts because her husband had disappeared, the State should assume an obligation, so we adopted a scheme for deserted wife's allowance. But our family law, in so far as it affects wives, has changed drastically since 1970. We have the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976 which casts on spouses a mutual obligation to support. A wife who has not been deserted but who is not supported, whose husband has possibly left the family home by agreement, the parties agreeing the marriage has broken down, can get maintenance. A wife whose husband is still living in the family home but who is not supporting her can get maintenance. But our social welfare code has not structurally kept pace with the family law code as it exists. It is not enacted in a coherent way with that legislation. We have major anomalies. We have wives who have difficult marriages and whose relationship has broken up and who have succeeded in reaching agreement with husbands that they should live apart and who subsequently discover that the husband will not support them or they cannot get support from their husbands and there is nothing they can get out of them as a result of court proceedings. Because these wives have separated by agreement and are not deserted, strictly speaking they have no entitlement to a deserted wife's allowance. In some instances departmental officials overlook that and some wives in those circumstances get a deserted wife's allowance. But the law and the welfare code should not be dealt with in that way. Let us change the name of the scheme. Let us have a single spouse's allowance or a one-parent family allowance. There is no logic in saying to a wife that if her husband has deserted her and does not support her she can get a deserted wife's allowance but if she and her husband recognise that the marriage has broken down and have separated civilly and amicably and her husband does not support her that she cannot get the deserted wife's allowance. That anomaly has been with us for too long and should be dealt with.

The other problem in this area — and there are a large number of them which it is not possible to go through at the moment — is the delay in granting the deserted wife's allowance. Under the present legislation the wife who is deserted must be deserted for a continuous period of three months before she qualifies for the allowance. As far back as 1972 the Commission for the Status of Women recommended that there should be no hiatus period during this time. During that time a wife can get supplementary allowance but this is payable at a rate far lower than the deserted wife's allowance. If departmental officials are satisfied that a wife has been deserted there is no logic in her not being entitled to claim the deserted wife's allowance immediately upon her being deserted and upon it becoming clear that her husband will not support her. There is no reason why we should retain that type of financial penalty which we are imposing on deserted wives, telling them that they are going to have to suffer for three months in this area.

The other anomaly that I have raised previously in this House relates to the whole manner in which this allowance or benefit is dealt with. It has at all stages been a wife's allowance or wife's benefit as opposed to a single parent allowance or benefit. It gives rise to the anomaly that a husband deserted by a wife who does not contribute anything to the family home and left with two or three dependent children may find that his income is such that he cannot continue to work and employ somebody to look after his children. He may have no choice but to become unemployed in order to look after the children.

There are a number of husbands in this situation. What is their position? They are not entitled to deserted wife's benefit. There is no such thing as a deserted husband's benefit. There is no reason why that should be the case. The position of a deserted husband staying at home to look after his children is no different from that of a deserted wife looking after her children without support. There is no reason why a deserted husband should be confined to being entitled to supplementary welfare allowance but not entitled to obtain the additional money he would be entitled to if he were a wife. The Minister should deal with this anomaly. If deserted husbands were entitled to this additional finance it would render what is at present a very difficult existence a more tolerable one. The Minister should look at this seriously. If he sought to amend this aspect of the social welfare code he would have the goodwill of all Members.

I have no doubt that the present system and code of deserted wife's allowance is unconstitutional. It is sex discrimination within the social welfare code. It is unconstitutional on principles enunciated in the courts in other court cases dealing with similar areas. Before I was a Member of the House I spoke about the need for the Oireachtas to respond to social needs and problems and to treat people equally. I have always taken the view that it is the House that should legislate and not the courts. When a matter is deemed to be unconstitutional by the courts, though judges will say that they are merely declaring what the law is, effectively they are changing the situation and forcing this House to introduce new legislation or, by the court decision, introducing a new legal situation. I would prefer to see the House introduce the necessary amendments in the social welfare code to place deserted husbands in an identical legal position to deserted wives rather than see the House forced to do it by the courts. When the courts take over from the Legislature, legislators appear to become irrelevant. The Minister and his officials should take the remarks made in this area very seriously.

I know a little about constitutional cases and the type of results that can be achieved. The problem with bringing constitutional cases is that it is the people who have to litigate in the courts who have to pay for them. I believe the only reason a constitutional case of this nature has not been brought up to now is because of the financial prohibition on people in receipt of deserted wife's allowance who cannot afford to pay lawyers' fees. It is worth pointing out that the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, provided the Minister with some protection from such constitutional challenges by excluding the whole area of social welfare law and constitutional cases from the free legal aid scheme. Some lawyers, not too far from this House, may be willing to bring such constitutional actions if the Minister and the Government are not sufficiently responsive in this area.

There are other anomalies in the social welfare code which apply both in the context of the existing deserted wife's allowance scheme and the allowance made available for unmarried mothers. There is a poverty trap which people who are eligible for allowances may find themselves tied into. The Minister has upped the means test in the Bill, but it is not sufficient. A wife in receipt of deserted wife's allowance can receive only a very small income by way of work before what she is getting eats into her deserted wife's allowance. The same applies to the unmarried mothers allowance.

None of us would suggest that what is paid is sufficient. It may be adequate for people to get by, but if the State was in better economic circumstances it would be my hope that we would pay more by way of allowance to one-parent families. If a wife earns anything more than £16 a week her deserted wife's allowance is eaten into. If a deserted wife or unmarried mother decides to go out to work she will require the assistance of a child minder. This will cost in the region of £20 per week. Very often what they pay out to a child minder is the equivalent of what they earn in a job or what will be deleted from their social welfare payment. There is need to look clearly at the whole manner in which one-parent families can earn income and see how this income and income maintenance provided by the State should operate. People who wish to supplement their income in these circumstances should be given an incentive to go out to work and not be penalised for working.

The whole anomalous situation is highlighted when one compares the position of deserted wife's allowance with deserted wife's benefit. The allowance is means tested but the benefit is not and is based on social insurance contributions. A wife who is fortunate enough to be entitled to receive the benefit as a result of her husband's social insurance stamps or her own can earn as much as she likes without having any money deducted from the social welfare payment, but a wife who is not entitled to benefit will have money deducted. Very often a wife on benefit will be in better circumstances than a wife on allowance. The reason for these anomalies is that we have had piecemeal social welfare legislation which is creating injustices and problems for many.

A further anomaly is in the area of unmarried mother's allowance. There is unmarried mother's payments for a mother with one child which is identical to the payment to a deserted wife with one child. There is no such thing as unmarried mother's benefit. No matter how many stamps an unmarried mother may have she will not qualify for the additional payment a deserted wife will get in identical circumstances. There is no logic in that. In both instances we are talking about a parent living alone with dependent children with identical needs. There is little reason to discriminate against unmarried mothers in these circumstances.

In relation to the unmarried mother's allowance I will draw the Minister's attention to another problem in the scheme, which relates to the interaction between family law, the unmarried mother's allowance and social welfare law generally. The unmarried mother's allowance provides for the support of the unmarried mother and her child. Within the family law code an unmarried mother can seek what is known as an affiliation order to force the father of the child to make some payment to her for the child's support. I emphasise that it is for the support of the child only. In no circumstances can the father be forced to contribute towards the mother's support. A great degree of confusion exists at the moment as to whether, when a mother is means tested for the purpose of the unmarried mother's allowance, an affiliation payment that she is receiving from the father for the child's support is taken into account by the Department. I would appreciate if the Minister would clarify this matter for the benefit of many people, particularly social workers who come across these problems on a regular basis. The money paid by the father is purely for the child. It is not income for the mother and should not be regarded as such. This could be dealt with by way of an amendment within the context of the Bill before us without a great many technical problems. The Minister might be prepared to consider that. On the other hand he may wish to look into it further. At this stage it is not particularly clear to me and I have seen various approaches adopted in different circumstances.

A further difficulty is created for the unmarried mother who has qualified for the unmarried mother's allowance who wishes to proceed against the father of the child to require him to meet his obligations and assist in the child's support. She may be terrified that if she goes to court and gets an order against the father with which the father does not comply or on which he reneges in some way, she will end up to-ing and fro-ing in and out of court and that the very fact of her getting the court order against the father will tell against her and result in deductions being made from her unmarried mother's allowance if the Department become aware of the making of the court order. Unmarried mothers have sufficient problems without the social welfare code and the manner of application of legislation relating to the unmarried mother's allowance adding to the difficulties.

A further difficulty which I want to bring to the Minister's attention arises under the 1981 consolidation Act which states that for the purpose of section 197 of that Act — the section concerned with unmarried mothers — a woman is regarded as being an unmarried mother, if, not being or having been a married woman she is the mother of a child who has not been adopted. In other words, to qualify for the unmarried mother's allowance she must be the mother of a child who has not been adopted. That is obvious to some extent. If the child is placed for adoption by the mother and subsequently adopted by third parties, a married couple usually, of course the mother should not be entitled to the unmarried mother's allowance. However, another problem in that area is the stigma which the law attaches to being an illegitimate child. The position apparently, from comments made in this House by the present Taoiseach, is that it is highly unlikely that we will have any legislation within the lifetime of this Dáil to amend the law in relation to illegitimacy. In this area it has not been unusual in recent years for some mothers of illegitimate children through the Adoption Board to adopt their own children themselves, not jointly with a husband they have married but as single unmarried mothers and for one reason only: they have done it because in law it has removed the stigma of illegitimacy, or bastardy as the law still refers to it, from that child's legal status. The problem is that if the mother adopts her own child in an effort to remove the legal inequalities which apply to that child by use of the adoption process she can disqualify herself from getting the unmarried mother's allowance even though the child continues to reside with her, to be cared for by her and remains in her custody throughout his childhood, because of the definition adopted within the 1981 consolidation Act which definition is identical with that contained in the original social welfare legislation which established the unmarried mother's allowance.

These are just some examples of the anomalies in our social welfare code that need to be dealt with and they have arisen through piecemeal legislation. Today's Bill is another example, right or wrong, of piecemeal legislation. I am concerned that none of these areas will ever be tackled properly unless we have a clear commitment from the Minister to do so within the context of the next social welfare Bill to be introduced into this House. I ask him to consider these seriously. Many another anomaly in the code creates real financial problems for people in need and gives rise to considerable injustice and difficulties for many of those people in our society whom we as public representatives seek to assist.

The Minister referred in his speech to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme and I welcome his intention to review the scheme or have a further look at it. However, I greet his statement in this area with a certain degree of cynicism. The supplementary welfare allowance scheme was introduced by the Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowance) Act, 1975, which came into force finally on 1 July 1977, in or about the time the last Fianna Fáil Administration came into Government.

During the period from 1 July 1977 until June 1981 when the former Fianna Fáil Administration went out of office not a single thing was done to reform many of the difficulties of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Not a single step was taken to introduce statutory changes, despite Members who in those days were also on this side of the House and despite health boards around the country and county health committees such as my own County Dublin Health Committee appealing consistently to successive Ministers for Social Welfare, one of whom is now Taoiseach, to tackle the problems under the supplementary welfare allowance code. I have a great deal of cynicism for the comments made in the Minister's speech, though possibly there is more now to promises to reform this area than there used to be in the promise made by the present Taoiseach when he was Minister for Social Welfare.

I have no doubt that one reason why this reference is contained in the Minister's speech is that Deputy Gregory-Independent's agreement which was referred to earlier today — the only knowledge of which we have is the synopsis reproduced in The Irish Times some days ago — refers to some acknowledgment of the need to reform the social welfare code in so far as it applies to the supplementary welfare allowance. Of course, Deputy Gregory has no experience of the unmarried mother's allowance or the deserted wife's allowance or some of the other things which have been mentioned so far, and that is why they have not found their way into the Minister's speech.

I hope the Minister is sincere in his commitment to this area. If he is not I hope that not only Deputy Gregory-Independent but other Members of this House will be chasing him to make him produce the required action in this area. It is very sad that only as a result of the sort of agreement that the Taoiseach has concluded apparently — and which he is afraid to admit to concluding — with Deputy Gregory-Independent has any suggestion been put forward. The supplementary welfare allowance scheme has to a limited extent, it should be acknowledged in fairness to the officers administering it, improved upon the home assistance scheme, but only to a limited extent. Many of the hopes which existed when the scheme was first introduced have not been fulfilled. Aspects of the legislation brought into force in 1977 and that legislation which is now contained in the consolidation Act 1981 have never been implemented properly.

The legislation envisaged the establishment of supplementary welfare appeals tribunals but nothing has been done about this. Directors of community care have been placed in the invidious position of having to make decisions on appeals from supplementary welfare allowance officers. The original legislation envisaged open appeals where applicants could have a proper hearing, out of which a body of social welfare law would be developed so that not merely deciding officers or social welfare officers would know how to interpret the social welfare code but this knowledge would be generally available to applicants and lawyers who might seek to represent applicants in front of supplementary welfare tribunals. No proper tribunals have been established and no public decisions are available to indicate the legalistic manner in which these important features of the social welfare code are being operated. This is a major failure in the supplementary welfare allowance system. It creates the charade of an appeal when no proper appeal exists; it creates a situation where people who appeal unsuccessfully often do not know why they are not to get an allowance. There is a feeling of injustice and a feeling that they have not been given an opportunity to present their case.

I am not suggesting that the supplementary welfare allowance officers or the directors of community care who have to make these decisions lack bona fides. I have no doubt that they are doing the best they can within the existing confines but it is not good enough. It is not the scheme originally envisaged and provided for in the 1975 legislation introduced by a former Coalition Government setting up the supplementary welfare allowance code. I would appeal to the Minister to take rapid action to establish proper appeals tribunals and also to publicise better the supplementary welfare allowance schemes. Still far too few people are aware of the scheme and its benefits or aware of their entitlements or even where to go to apply for supplementary welfare allowance. Few who apply are aware that they can appeal against refusal and there is a very great need to advertise the availability of the scheme and to make sure that all who need to look to it for their daily bread and butter know where to find the assistance afforded by this scheme.

In relation to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme I have made a criticism of the Minister in the context of the financial provisions in this Bill. He is providing for an increase in weekly payments of supplementary welfare allowances in so far as they are provided under the Bill. However, there is no increase provided by way of legislation unless the Minister intends to act by way of statutory instrument. The failure to provide for the possibility of increasing a particular payment in the supplementary welfare allowance code is extremely odd considering the problem with which this House will shortly have to deal. Under the supplementary welfare allowance legislation, in addition to the sum of money which an applicant can seek as of right that person, or someone who is in receipt of other moneys but still has a need, can seek a discretionary payment, can look for additional payments for items such as rent under the supplementary welfare allowance legislation. Under the existing provisions a person whose rent exceeds £1.50 per week and who has a particular need can apply for an additional payment. Such a person can apply for a sum of up to £5 and this is a discretionary payment which can be made by the supplementary welfare allowance officer. That limit of £5 has remained unchanged since 1977 and this is the maximum which an officer can pay at his own discretion for rent or mortgage. I do not understand why that sum has not been increased. The regulations relating to it are there by way of statutory instrument. To increase the amount which may be paid might require an Act or it may possibly be done by regulation. If there is a 25 per cent increase in social welfare payments there should be a similar increase in the amount which the supplementary welfare allowance officer can pay at his own discretion. The amount of £5 may have been adequate in 1977 but it is certainly not so in 1982 and if a person requires more than £5 the Minister's consent is required.

I find it extraordinary that this matter has not been dealt with in this Bill because this House must shortly deal with new legislation concerning rent restrictions because the legislation recently passed by this House has been found to be unconstitutional. A large number of people, many of them elderly and dependent on social welfare payments, live in rent-controlled dwellings. As the law stands at present landlords will be entitled to charge the full market rent on all houses and tenancies when the temporary provisions Act ends its life span within a few weeks. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court it appears that any legislation introduced will have to allow landlords to charge the full market rent and this House will have to provide a form of assistance for many of those who will be unable to pay the full market rent. The provisions of the supplementary welfare code uniquely provide a mechanism to permit these payments to be made available to tenants who live in what were formerly rent-controlled dwellings.

It should have occurred to the Minister, especially in the light of promises made by members of his Party to tackle this issue, that this Bill should have provided for a substantial increase in the amount of the discretionary payment which can be made by a supplementary welfare allowance officer to deal with the problem which will arise very shortly. The alternative is that almost every person living in a dwelling which was formerly rent controlled will have to make a direct appeal to the Minister because assistance in excess of £5 per week will be required. I do not understand why this has not been dealt with in this Bill. It should have been dealt with for its own sake because the amount of £5 has very little relevance in 1982. In the light of the commitment given by all parties to provide assistance for those who face payments of rent which are beyond their means as a result of the constitutional decision on rent-controlled dwellings, provision should have been made. The failure to make such provision means that we will have another Bill dealing with this matter within a few weeks. If the Minister could consider an amendment in this area I would welcome it. It would give a certain degree of reassurance to many people living in rent-controlled dwellings who look to this House to provide them with a degree of security and assistance.

I would like to refer to another matter raised by the Minister which, in my view, should be amended on Committee Stage, and hopefully I will be in a position to put down an amendment then. I realise that it is not appropriate to go into detail on Second Stage but the Minister referred specifically to section 8 in his opening remarks.

Section 8 is concerned with paying social assistance to married women and seeks to amend section 136(3) of the Consolidation Act. It should probably never have been in that Act. Like much that is in the Consolidation Act, it was automatically consolidated into that Act from previous legislation without anybody fully examining its repercussions or impact. The provision in the existing Act discriminates against married women and the payment of social assistance. Under the law at present a married women will not get social assistance unless she can establish that either her husband is dependent on her, or she is living apart from her husband and she has other dependents. In other words, a married woman living alone with no dependent children cannot claim social assistance under the law as it stands, whereas a single woman living alone or a married man living alone can claim social assistance. As the Minister is aware — and I am constrained in my own circumstances from discussing the matter in any detail — there is a case pending in the courts in which a declaration is being sought that section 136(3) of the Consolidation Act is unconstitutional.

As I said earlier I welcome this House amending legislation with an aura of discrimination ahead of the necessity to bring court proceedings; but the Minister's amendment will not, contrary to what he said, place married women in a position of equality with married men. I suggest that what is required is not a new provision replacing paragraph (d) of section 136(3) but the deletion of paragraph (d) of the principal Act.

The Minister's amendment will continue to place married women in a different position to married men. This in itself will involve sex discrimination and will continue to add a considerable degree of uncertainty in the law of social welfare and place many married women who might otherwise qualify for social assistance in a position of not knowing whether they will be regarded as correctly qualifying for such assistance.

Under the Minister's amendment to obtain social assistance a married woman must first establish that her husband is her dependant, but to claim social assistance a married man does not have to establish that his wife is his dependant. If the husband is a dependant, under this provision the woman will qualify if she can establish she is not a dependant of her husband. I do not know what that means and it is not defined in the legislation. If a woman does not have an income and is living apart from her husband but her husband has an income and is not providing for her, will she be regarded as her husband's dependant and be disqualified from social assistance, unless she pursues her husband through the courts for maintenance; or will she be regarded as a dependant of her husband because they are living apart; or will she be regarded as a separate person, as she should be?

I welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to amend this section but I fail to understand why he is replacing one form of discrimination by another — I am saying this as a lawyer without prejudice to what the courts may decide. There is no logical reason why married women in this context should be considered different to married men. It is part of the old mentality in dealing with married people in these circumstances; it is part of the mentality in the income tax code which was abolished by the court decision in the Murphy tax case.

By amending the section in this way the Minister is not alleviating any problems his Department may have in the context of the forthcoming court proceedings, but he is presenting himself with the possibility of future court proceedings. For the life of me I cannot understand why that new section is to be inserted. I propose — and I ask the Minister if this could be done in a non-contentious way — that section 8 be amended to provide that section 136(3) of the principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of paragraph (d). That would effectively end the problem in this area and place married women in a position of equality with married men.

I wish to refer to section 9. The Minister gave a very good reason for introducing this section but it is widely drafted and I am very concerned about it. The Minister referred to something with which I have a great deal of sympathy, that is, whichever Government are in power there is need to introduce a short Social Welfare Bill to enable the Government of the day to grant double allowances to social welfare recipients at Christmas. It always puzzled me that it was necessary to pass a Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas to enable a double benefit to be provided for these people. I always believed that Governments should be able to make this double payment by way of regulation. No matter what the financial circumstances might be, all parties would agree to paying this double benefit because special provision should be made at Christmas for these people because that is a time when they most need it.

I am concerned with the wide manner in which this amendment to the principal Act is made. To my reading this would allow any Government to increase by ministerial diktat social welfare payments at any time of the year. In other words the Government could decide on Tuesday to dissolve the Dáil, go to the country and the following Monday increase by 100 per cent all social welfare benefits by ministerial diktat. I have no doubt that would guarantee they would win the election and in the context of this provision the Government are allowed to do that. I do not believe that is right. The Minister's amendment has gone from one extreme to the other. There is no reason why an amendment could not provide that double benefits are payable to social welfare recipients in the second week of December each year. A simple statutory statement in this Bill to that effect would deal with the double payment at Christmas. It would set a precedent and standard under which every Government would have to make the double payment and if they decided not to do so they would have to bring a Bill before the House to change that, with all the public odium such a Bill would generate, and rightly so.

There is no reason why this Bill should provide such a wide regulatory power. I am worried about that provision, particularly as this Bill is being raced through this House and Members have not been able to give it the time and consideration it requires.

I would ask the Minister to reconsider that provision because I do not regard it as being a correct provision. I am not saying that the Minister present would envisage his dealing with the State finances in this way but some Minister some day or, more to the point, some Taoiseach, for cheap electoral gain might decide that this sort of trick would be a very neat one to pull in an election campaign. This section is badly drafted. It is much too wide. The narrow scope of the area the Minister intends to cover and to which he referred in his speech should be the only area dealt with in the section.

Another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister is in the context of the comments he made about people being so much better off financially this year. He tried to paint a picture of all the benefits arising solely from Fianna Fáil policy. That is not a correct approach nor an honest assessment of the situation. The Minister knows well that the increased payments for which he is providing are strictly in line with those proposed by the previous administration. However, the Minister has not referred to one area in which the former Government intended providing assistance, an area in respect of which the Minister's silence is noteworthy. Prior to the election being called it was the intention of the previous Government to bring in legislation to provide for supplementary payments for those on low incomes, for those earning less than £4,000 per year. This would have been different from anything in the social welfare code to date and bore no relation to supplementary social welfare allowances. This was to have been an income supplement to provide real benefit for people on lower incomes and who may find themselves outside the net of social welfare assistance. We have not heard anything about any such plan from the Minister, but if he has something in mind in this regard I should be happy to hear from him about it. It was the intention of the previous Government that this income supplement would be in operation from 6 April this year but it appears that the new administration do not intend implementing that sort of scheme.

There are many other aspects of our social welfare code that require reform. It would not be appropriate for me at this stage to go into all of those matters. They cannot be dealt with in this Bill but I have tried to highlight those few aspects that I am convinced could have been dealt with in this Bill. These are matters that are not unduly technical but with goodwill and a little more time the Bill could have been amended on Committe to deal with some of them. However, I trust that when replying the Minister will indicate his attitude to the introduction of the reforms I have indicated are necessary.

While the principal Act of 1981 simplified matters to some extent for lawyers, it still contains many anomalies and inequalities and makes for difficult interpretation. The regulations covering the whole social welfare code stretch so far back and are so labyrinthian that it is virtually impossible for any lawyer, apart from any lay person, to find his way through all of the avenues that can be found on an excursion through the various statutory instruments. It is clear that the situation is impossible for those without legal training. There is a very real need for free legal assistance and representation so far as applicants for social welfare payments are concerned. The State should ensure that the social welfare code is not abused but at the same time that applicants are in a position to assert their rights. We must aim at finding a happy medium. We operate a Kafkaesque type of social welfare code. Decisions are made in private both by deciding officers and often on appeal. In this whole area of social welfare there is no provision for the publication of the basis on which decisions are made. We should be more open in our decision making so that people who are not successful in their applications for benefit will at least know that they have been dealt with fairly, that they have been turned down not because somebody wishes to be unfair to them but because they do not come within the provisions of existing legislation which may or may not, depending on the circumstances, need to be amended.

In 1976 the Pringle Committee recommended that legal representation be made available to all those whose cases were going before social welfare tribunals and appeals tribunals and who had not the means of paying lawyers' fees. There is no reason why the present legal aid scheme should not be extended to include social welfare legislation. While it is not within the power of the Minister for Health to make this change, he should be able to tell the Minister for Justice of the need to extend the legal aid scheme in this way. This is something that has long been acknowledged not only within our jurisdiction but within other countries where there have been reports on legal aid schemes. It has been recognised that it is essential that legal aid be made available to social welfare applicants. The reason for this is obvious. Many people in employment may have difficulty in meeting legal fees but those who are out of work and who are dependent on social welfare for their daily bread are not in a position to afford legal fees. Until such time as we extend the provisions of the existing legal aid scheme to include the whole area of social welfare there will be continuing uncertainty from the point of view of applicants for the various social welfare benefits and there will be continuing anxiety on the part of applicants in regard to the fairness with which their claims are dealt. It is within the power of the Minister to arrange that decisions in respect of social welfare applications be published in some form of law report or in some social welfare reports. This is done in England and in other European countries as well as in the US. The amount of money involved would not be great. There must be a body of precedents hidden away somewhere in the Department of Social Welfare in regard to various decisions, but let us make them available to the general public and to Members of this House because it will be only when the various judgments are made available publicly that we will become clearly aware of many of the problems and anomalies in the social welfare legislation. Some of these we learn about only from our constituents though some of us learn from other areas in which we may be involved. If we are to have a humane and coherent social welfare code that will deal equally with people and treat them on the basis of their needs, and in the manner in which they should be treated in the last quarter of the 20th century, many of the reforms I have sought from the Minister will have to be implemented. I hope that during his term of office we will have his goodwill in implementing some of them.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I should like to congratulate the Minister on his reappointment and the Minister of State on his appointment. I welcome you back to the Chair, Sir. I am glad you are there again, and I am sure you will deal with the affairs of the House as you did previously.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thank you.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): I welcome the Bill. I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor on steering through very large social welfare increases at a standard rate of 25 per cent at a time of financial difficulties. I am glad the policy of the previous Government is being carried on by the Minister. He will have the support of people on this side of the House, and he will certainly have my support, if he continues to look after the less well-off sections of the community, and to provide social welfare increases at a higher rate than the rate of inflation.

In times of depression when public finances are stretched, our priority should be to care for the weaker sections of the community. Our peculiar population structure and our large dependency rate, make it even more important that, while we examine all areas of public finance carefully, we should be particularly concerned about how we treat our old, our young, our genuinely unemployed, and people who for one reason or another find themselves in situations of inadequacy and poverty. As a general principle I hope the Minister will continue to implement in his caring fashion the decisions and policies of the previous Minister and make his own contribution for as long as this Dáil lasts.

I congratulate Deputy Shatter. I listened to him. He is a colleague of mine and his speech was the best speech on social welfare legislation I have ever heard. He brought to the House his perspective as a lawyer and he underlined many of the anomalies in our social welfare legislation. I cannot follow on the same lines. All I can contribute is some experience as a councillor and as a Deputy.

At present our social welfare legislation is riddled with anomalies. Deputy Shatter drew the Minister's attention to many of them. I should like to underscore one or two anomalies to which he referred, and to mention one or two others. I do not blame the Minister entirely. Legislation in this area is complicated. The consolidating Bill simply brought everything together without a thorough examination of the anomalies. If the Minister lacks the financial resources to make major changes, I hope that at least he will iron out the inequalities and the anomalies. This would not cost very much.

The situation of the deserted wife is very serious. As it operates at present the scheme is unfair. The fact that one must prove desertion before one can qualify is anomalous. If a husband and wife part amicably and the wife is not supported, she is in a very difficult situation. I will give one example. What do I tell a constituent of mine who got a divorce in Austria and whose only recourse for support is to take her husband to the Austrian courts because he will not support her and she is being refused a deserted wife's allowance? She is not deserted, because she was divorced outside the jurisdiction. That type of situation should not obtain. While it is the legal position it is blatantly unfair. I hope the Minister will correct that type of thing.

I am concerned about the maternity allowance. I cannot understand why the maternity allowance cannot be extended to mothers who adopt children. I do not understand why a woman who adopts a child and takes time off from work to do so, and who has her stamps in order, cannot avail of the maternity allowance and the pay-related allowance. A working woman who adopts a child is entitled to no allowance whatever, whereas a woman who gives birth to a child can avail of two different schemes and, if she has the appropriate stamps, can also avail of pay-related benefit. That is an anomaly which the Minister should look at. He is a concerned and caring man. This type of thing would not cost a great deal of money. The extension of that benefit would not cost very much. There is a blatant discrimination there which could be corrected by a caring Minister who looks at these anomalies and has the will to change them.

I am concerned about the means testing for old age pensions and widow's pensions. I am particularly concerned about a situation in which an old person or a widow has savings and those savings are means tested by the rule of thumb of applying a standard interest rate to the amount in the bank, or the post office, or wherever. A different rate is applied in the case of an old age pension from the case of a widow's pension. A woman of 67 years of age who did not qualify for an old age pension could qualify for a widow's pension. A single woman of 67 years of age is at a disadvantage. A single woman of 67 or 68 years of age, with a certain amount of money in the bank, will not qualify for an old age pension, while her widowed sister would qualify for a widow's pension under the means test because the system of assessment is different. I cannot understand why this is so. Traditionally, and rightly so, we have been concerned about widows, but I do not see why a widow should be treated more favourably than a single person of the same age in similar circumstances.

The Minister referred to the reduced level of PRSI payments made by the public sector. I am concerned about this because the benefits do not apply either. I do not know what the attitude of the new Government is to an embargo on employment in the public sector. I do not know what their attitude is to the McKinsey Report. If certain decisions and certain lines of policy are followed, for the first time for many years we could be faced with redundancies in the public sector. If there are redundancies amongst the salaried staff in CIE, at the moment they have virtually no protection under the social welfare code. They could be entitled to absolutely no benefit. That should be looked at. A recent decision by the Labour Court added to this problem. I intend to question the appropriate Minister about the implications of that decision particularly in relation to CIE workers and indeed all public servants.

Section 9 of the Bill causes me great concern. I can understand the Minister's desire to have double payments at Christmas made easily by Ministerial diktat and without introducing separate legislation into the House. The section allows him to do that. He can increase temporarily the levels of payments. The section goes on to say that he can vary all payments. If the section is intended to deal purely with double payments at Christmas, I fail to see why it was necessary to use the word "vary". To repeat Deputy Shatter's point: Is this a clever ploy to allow the Minister to increase social welfare payments any time he likes, particularly coming up to an election? Alternatively does this section give the Minister power to cut social welfare payments without reference to this House?

Can a future Minister for Social Welfare, acting under this section, vary upward or downward any social welfare payment? Can he completely abolish social welfare payments under this section if he can vary all or any of the payments under this section? This section goes far beyond what is necessary to allow the Minister power to make double payments of social welfare at Christmas-time. There is no reason that it should be so widely drafted. It is a dangerous section and gives the Minister far too much control. A future Minister, or indeed the present one, when this Bill is passed, can virtually do what he likes under section 9 with the level of the payments, can vary them upwards or downwards, or even reduce them to a derisory level which would amount to the equivalent of their total abolition. I am not sure that that was the intention of the section but it appears to be so. If it were not the intention then there would be no need for the phrase to vary all of the payments.

I deplore the fact that we have not been given more time to debate this Bill fully. I see no reason why the Committee Stage could not have been taken tomorrow, Thursday or Friday. Legislation rushed through is bad legislation. Deputy Shatter made many pertinent points. There are other points other Deputies would like to make had they the time. There are many amendments which could be made for its improvement and which would have the agreement of both sides of the House had we the time. That is and should be our concern. The areas in which there may be political clashes do exist and are well known. But there are areas and social welfare is one of them in which there is a great degree of agreement on both sides of the House. Our concern should be and must be that, working together, we would pass the best possible legislation to control our social welfare code. That is not and will not be done as long as all stages of a Bill are rushed through in one afternoon. I deplore that fact. I cannot understand why the Whips agreed to it so readily. I hope it will not recur without everybody in the House being afforded adequate time to debate the Bill and put down appropriate amendments. Because that time has not been made available to us I ask the Minister to consider the points we have raised and, if he agrees, to introduce his amendments to cover those points.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I should like to thank Deputies for their congratulations and good wishes and also for their wide-ranging contributions. One point raised by successive Deputies was the urgency of this Bill. The reason the Whips agreed to this Bill being taken as a matter of urgency was that the Seanad must convene on Friday to pass this Bill amongst other items. Then five clear days must elapse before the President signs the Bill. Friday next is March 26; five clear days takes us to March 31 and our first payments must be made from that day. Other payments will fall to be made on following days. Therefore if we in this House are interested in having these benefits paid in this year, in all of the circumstances of this year — and all Deputies must be aware of the circumstances which led to this situation and all Deputies have said they welcome the benefits and want to see them paid — then we must pass this Bill immediately. In fact an accident could occur in that period of five clear days. That is why I am putting a special measure before the Seanad to allow the President to sign the Bill within the five days. If the President were not available, if everything was not in order on March 31 we could be in difficulty anyway.

There is no attempt to conceal anything. I am quite prepared to come into the House, to discuss and to listen to Deputies' views. In fact probably I have listened to more views than most other Ministers because I took on the Consolidation Bill. I shall explain what that meant to Deputies who were not here at the time. It involved countless hours of detailed debate on the Bill in this House. We had no authority to change any existing legislation in the course of passage of that Bill. For example the anomalies had to be carried forward and we had to certify that they were being so carried forward. Certainly it was my intention to pursue them subsequently as soon as opportunity arose. I was involved for a short time only afterwards and I shall certainly want to take up that matter again at this stage. Therefore I take the points Deputies have made in that respect. The reason the Whips agreed that this Bill be passed immediately was that its provisions are in the interests of everybody concerned. Other points raised by Deputies here can be taken up on another occasion.

I welcome the congratulations to the staff of the Department by the former Minister and Minister of State. They both said they regarded the staff as being very able and committed to their work. This is particularly welcome because quite frequently the opposite is said of them.

Questions were raised as to what changes, if any, were taking place. Basically we are doing all of the things which were being undertaken by the previous administration and a few more. I have mentioned some extra provisions, such as the domiciliary care allowance being increased, the mobility allowance being increased, the capitation grants for training centres for the disabled being increased, a number of measures costing money. All of the commitments of the outgoing Government are being met in full with some additional ones so Deputies need have no fear in that regard.

The former Minister, Deputy Desmond, raised the question of the national pension plan. As the Deputy is aware I had brought that plan to a stage of publication when I vacated this office. The figures will have to be recalculated. I shall now get down to that task with a view to producing a White Paper for consideration by the Government.

Questions were raised, especially by Deputy Flaherty, whether people would be better or worse off after the budget. I can assure the Deputy that they will be better off. One reason is that there will be no 18 per cent VAT on shoes and clothing. Food subsidies are being maintained and there will be no tax on social welfare benefits, an important aspect as far as beneficiaries are concerned. In addition, general Government strategy will be to provide employment and bring down the rate of inflation, which will constitute further improvements for all concerned.

Deputy Shatter raised a number of questions and, as Deputy Noonan said, made a most interesting contribution. There is no time now to go into all of the points raised by him. I trust the Deputy now understands this Bill must be rushed through. Deputy Shatter was concerned about the budget and wondered if there was something going on in order to have this Bill passed before the budget, for the reason that something might be taken back or altered in some way. I tried to make it clear in my opening remarks that to an extent this makes history in that we have a Social Welfare Bill being introduced before the budget. If we did not do it this way we would be unable to effect the improved payments in time. Deputy Shatter raised the question also of considering now the consolidation of all existing regulations. I shall certainly give that consideration. It is something I should like to do by way of improving, updating and consolidating all of these regulations. Deputy Shatter said that the Consolidation Bill was a valuable one. It is particularly valuable in that we have consolidated all the legislation into one neat package with a lot of its older language updated. Consequently it is now appropriate to review it and have its various elements studied and considered. That had been my intention originally and I will be very happy to proceed with that as quickly as is possible and feasible given all the practicalities of the workings of the House and the Department.

Deputy Shatter raised the question of a variety of smaller improvements that are quite important in themselves. As he said, they may have financial implications. Very often the problem is that the Minister for Social Welfare can only hope for a certain number of improvements in a budget because of the costs involved. Some of the items may be small and normally the Minister will get a certain number of them through in addition to major items that cost considerably more. The Deputy mentioned the matter of improving means tests. I would point out that the removal of the anomalies in the means table cost £760,000. These matters are not as small as they sound when they are talked about from the theoretical point of view. We are providing £760,000 for the removal of anomalies in the means table and I am very glad to see this provision so far as the elderly are concerned. Up to now for every extra £1 a person lost £1.40 in benefit but now that is down to £1 for £1. Prior to this Bill it was down to £1.20 and the present improvement will cost £760,000. The easement of the means test for single parents will cost £200,000. I would not like the Deputy to think that something is not being done in this area. Substantial and significant steps are being taken in relation to means and they cost money. Deputy Shatter also raised the question of the allowance for unmarried mothers. He thought the means might be only £16 per week at the upper limit. It is considerably higher: at the upper limit it will be £46 as a result of provisions in this Bill with £6 for a child. Up to now the amount has been £2 per child.

Deputy Shatter welcomed the statement that we intended to tackle the matter of supplementary welfare allowance. He felt it might be just a cynical exercise but as far as I am concerned I intend to tackle the matter. How successful I shall be and how quickly it can be done is another matter but we will set about it immediately. There are many elements that need to be corrected. As far as I am concerned there is a definite commitment on this matter. Another important question was raised about rents and the decontrol of restricted rents. This will be looked at in the context of legislation being prepared by the Minister for the Environment.

There were references during the discussion to section 8. I should like to point out that the section refers specifically to separated married women only and not to all women. In 1984 the EEC directive must be operated fully and the wider aspects can be looked at but so far as this legislation is concerned the situation of separated married women only is dealt with in this section.

Deputy Shatter raised the matter of family income supplement. This is based on the tax code and the Minister for Finance will deal with that question. There is an undertaking in relation to this matter and it will be honoured. However, there are certain practical difficulties. The people directly affected are those with a taxable income of between £2,000 and £4,000 and the Revenue Commissioners will have difficulty in pulling out these people for benefit. A scheme is being designed to deal with that but it comes in the context of changes in relation to taxation.

Deputy Noonan made the important point that we must care for the weaker sections of the community even in times of difficulty. We have taken this line and the previous Government in their attitude towards this Bill took a similar line. It is important at a time when things are difficult that those people who are not able to look after themselves will be cared for by this House. The Deputy also raised the question of extending the maternity allowance to mothers who adopt children. I think a question has been tabled about this. It is not a direct comparison but there are interesting aspects of the matter that I shall look at in terms of what might be done in this area.

The Deputy also raised the question of the special provision in section 9. It is important to remember that at the moment the Minister can raise the benefits but the question of a temporary benefit is considered in section 9. As Deputy Desmond pointed out, children return to school in September and if there is a need to do something then the measure could be used in that connection. There are separate provisions to prevent the Minister from reducing benefit and the Deputy need not be concerned about that aspect. The problem is to make a temporary increase before a temporary period and that is the kind of situation that was in mind.

Because of the time constraints I have not much time to go into further details. I should like to thank Deputies for the extensive views they presented. I have noted them and, where possible, I will take action on them.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.