Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Mar 1983

Vol. 341 No. 3

Social Welfare Bill, 1983: Second Stage (Resumed) .

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

: Events have come on apace since I reported progress on this Bill and what I describe as an unsocial Social Welfare Bill has had its repercussions, particularly on the members of the Labour Party. I am sure that before the evening is out we will see more difficulties for them. They have shown their displeasure at the contents of the Bill much more than any words of mine can convey and they have described it as a savage attack on those least able to help themselves.

At the time I reported progress I was speaking of the effect of section 13 of the Bill particularly on the very many smallholders on the western coast. I find it incomprehensible that the Minister talks about adding £5 million for low income families when he and his Government are making a dual attack on smallholders many of whom would qualify for any assistance that would be going out of this £5 million. Again I would like to ask the Minister — I stress this, and you, Sir represent a constituency where many people will be affected — about the necessity for setting down guidelines so that people will have at least an idea as to how much they will be assessed. My experience and that of every Deputy in this House who lives along the western seaboard is that now there is no continuity, no general guideline in relation to assessments which are being made at the moment for widows' pensions. If this system is adopted you will have anomalies right along the western seaboard where different inspectors will be assessing different values on each farm.

Also I find it a little hard to believe that the Minister is throwing the whole question of notional assessment out the door because of what he says is the High Court judgment of 30 July 1982. My understanding is that that judgment had been appealed and one would have expected that at least he would have waited until next year before going ahead with this section. It seems somewhat ludicrous that, on the one hand, these people will be assessed for income tax and, on the other, another set of people will come out investigating their means. We are talking about some of the poorest people in the country and many hundreds of families who but for unemployment would not be able to continue living in this country. I and many Deputies along the western seaboard have memories of inspectors going in and counting chickens. Are we to go back to those fine old days again when we will go in and count the chickens on the farm and make an assessment of the value of each chicken and egg? It would be an interesting exercise, but I would have felt that these social welfare inspectors should have many more things to do rather than being involved in this kind of activity. To say that it has been done in the name of ridding the country of abuse is not factual. Of course there are some abuses, but the vast majority of social welfare inspectors know where the abuses are and they would be well able, without any assistance like this, to root out those abuses given certain other powers.

This will have a very detrimental effect on the agricultural sector along the western seaboard. People will be discouraged under this system from putting the unemployment assistance they are getting — as many of them do now — back into their farms therefore helping themselves to get a slightly higher standard of living, when they know that in many cases they will never be able to become viable farmers and if they help themselves in any way the social welfare officer will be out even at the request of a neighbour to check and count the number of animals, chickens etc. that they have around the place. I know, and you, Sir, know of very many people who but for unemployment assistance would not now be living in Ireland. The insertion of this section in the Bill is detrimental and will mean that very many people will move out of the west. It is somewhat foolish for the Minister to assess them for tax and at the same time to send people out to check whether they should, because they have an extra cow or bullock, be docked unemployment assistance.

The abolition of factual assessment by the then Minister, now Deputy Haughey who is leader of my party, was most enlightened legislation in that it gave people the chance to improve themselves. It gave them a pride in themselves without the sword of inspectors hanging over their heads. If this Bill goes through — at this stage there must be doubt as to whether it will — we will have got back to that.

I could say many more things on the Bill. However, many of the things I could say have been said very strongly by members of the Labour Party who find that the Thatcherism of Fine Gael is a little hard for them to take and who have now said openly that they will not and could not support this legislation. In my time in this House we have never seen a Social Welfare Bill as savage as this Bill which purports to give assistance to very many people who are unable to assist themselves and which in fact is doing the very opposite. It has been, as members of your party, Sir, have said, a most savage attack on those least able to help themselves.

: By agreement with the Whips it has been decided to have a rota of speakers who will each have half an hour to speak from now until 7 p.m.

: The main purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the proposals in the budget relating to social welfare. It also includes a number of provisions for the purpose of streamlining and improving the procedures dealing with the legal proceedings under the Social Welfare Acts. It is customary at budget time to review the social welfare position with a view to ensuring that those in need of social insurance and assistance will be adequately provided for. There has been a steadily increasing demand for these services because of the deterioration in economic activity. This has resulted in a steep rise in the cost of the services administered by my Department and financing these services is now a serious problem.

In 1982, overall expenditure by the Department of Social Welfare amounted to £1,635 million, of which the Exchequer contributed £942 million. In 1983, it is estimated that the overall expenditure will be about £1,870 million, of which the Exchequer will contribute £1,034 million after allowing for the budgetary provisions. A number of speakers have complained of savage cuts in social welfare benefits. As one can see, the substantial increase in this year's expenditure will nail those complaints.

The unemployment situation has deteriorated alarmingly. This time three years ago the live register showed 92,300 unemployed. The live register published recently showed 188,300, an increase of 104 per cent in three years. As a result, in 1983 it is estimated that £473 million will be spent in unemployment benefits. This represents about 25 per cent of the total expenditure on social welfare benefits. Obviously, this has limited the extent to which benefits could be increased. Nevertheless, the Government have faced up to the situation and have provided for a quite significant level of increase, having regard to the difficult financial position.

The Bill provides for increases of 12 per cent in long-term payments and 10 per cent in short-term, with effect from the end of June next. These increases will apply to dependant spouses and children, as well as to the claimants. Speakers have complained of inadequate increases, but one must take into account the inadequate resources available. Last year's increase of 25 per cent compensated over and above the cost of living. This year, because of rising unemployment, we had to find the most equitable and fair means of providing social welfare payments. The increases of 12 per cent and 10 per cent constituted the fairest and most just method. I have not heard any of the speakers who complained proffering ways of financing additional increases.

The Estimates of the Opposition indicated that the deficit would be as low as £750 million and our budget deficit is something of the order of £890 million. One must ask where that additional money was to come from. When in Opposition, it is easy to indulge in the luxury of making wild and emotive statements but when one is in Government, facing serious economic problems contributed to by rising unemployment, one must identify and tackle the underlying causes. For some years back, we have let our financial and economic policy get out of hand and must now take remedial action. In taking this action we intend to protect the less well-off in our society. Most of the cries of condemnation do not relate to the adequacy or inadequacy of welfare benefits to the elderly, but to another area in which we have been, and are in the process of, redressing imbalances. These have been the subject of many editorials and newspaper articles and complaints by politicans.

As a result of the increases, the contributory old age pension for those under the age of 80 will include an additional £4.85p, which brings the personal rate to £45.10p. If married with a wife under 60, the pensioner will get an additional £7.95p, bringing his pension to £73.90p. The contributory widow's pension and the pension for a deserted wife with two children will amount to £63.45p per week, an increase of £6.80p. The maximum personal rate for the non-contributory old age pensioners under 80 years is being increased from £34.45p to £38.60p — an increase of £4.15p. Further increases are being given to married pensioners and pensioners over 80 years of age or living alone. In the case of short-term benefits, disability and unemployment benefit will be on a new personal rate of £34.80p, an increase of £3.15p. There is a commitment to giving a just and equitable increase, given the overall circumstances.

On the question of smallholders and of doing away with the notional system, assessment on a factual basis is a fair system which will in time work out satisfactorily. There is no question of hounding people or taking money from them. In any welfare system there must be obvious fairness. The administration of any welfare system has to be seen as fair. It must also show that people in need will not be cast aside. Whatever money we have — and vast sums are being expended — it must be spent where there is hardship and necessity. That is what we intend to do and that is what we will do.

As I indicated, there has been a great deal of public criticism of the benefits paid to short-term workers. Concern has been expressed that the system is being manipulated and that short-time workers are better off working short-time than full-time. A critical examination was made of the benefits due to these workers and that examination showed that there was a valid basis for the fears so widely expressed.

The most common arrangement for short-time work was where workers normally engaged in a five day week were put on three days and laid off for two. Such workers received three-fifths of their basic pay while after the statutory waiting period at present they receive three days flat-rate unemployment benefit, plus pay-related benefit. Many short-time workers also qualify for income tax refunds because of their reduced earnings. The result is that the take home income of such workers would exceed the net take home pay they would get if they were working full time.

We have to ask ourselves is that what social welfare is about. It is not, and one cannot stand over that. A social welfare system should ensure that people have adequate means to live, whether they have suffered illness or, unfortunately, have been put on a three-day week. In those circumstances it cannot be seen that these people get more money than if in full-time employment, and it is in that light that these changes are being made. If one examines fairly what has been done one can only come to the conclusion that it was right and equitable.

I will give some examples of a man earning £145 gross per week on short-time. If he is single his net income would amount to 103 per cent of his earnings. A married man earning the same amount would get 108 per cent of his net full time earnings; with two children he would get 114 per cent of his net full-time earnings, and with six children it would be 122 per cent of his net full-time earnings. In one's wildest imagination one could not stand over that. The social welfare code was not set up to ensure that in some cases people got 14 and 15 per cent above their take home pay if they were in full-time employment, and that is not taking into account the income tax rebate.

In an economic climate of scarce resources and finances it behoves us to ensure that our resources are distributed fairly and equitably. I am at a loss to understand — and I say this sincerely — why there is such concern about this area of the social welfare system. There seems to be more concern about this area than many others. I would hope that was not the type of society we want. What we want is to ensure that whatever system we apply it helps those who need it most and looks after them. It is known that the present system is wide open to abuse. At particular times of the year people can go sick and by so doing get more money than if they were working. That does not encourage industry. I am not saying everybody does this but such an avenue or temptation should not exist. When we look at this part of the Bill I believe the reasons for its inclusion will be seen to be sound and good.

Pay-related benefit is payable as a supplement, with the flat-rate of unemployment and disability benefits. A great deal of criticism has been expressed about the levels of benefit which are payable during sickness or full unemployment. Concern has also been expressed at the amounts of benefit which have been granted to workers when compared with their take home pay, including tax refunds. This, too, is something we should look at. These matters have to be put right. If we are serious about tackling the whole area of unemployment, economic growth and development, every area of our economy will have to be examined to ensure that we get value for money and that we are getting the type of service for which we are paying.

So far I have dealt with what I consider to be the main provisions of the Bill but there are many others which I will mention briefly. There has been criticism of section 11 which deals with maternity grants for confinements occurring on and after 4 April 1983. This grant has remained at £8 since 1978 and, in my view, it is relatively insignificant. The scheme of weekly maternity allowances has been improved considerably in the meantime, particularly with the introduction of the special scheme for women in employment. Under the general scheme the average amount is £500, including pay-related benefit, and under the scheme for working women the average amount is about £900. The grant of £8 when compared with those figures is totally insignificant.

Under section 12, children's allowances will no longer be paid for apprentices between 16 and 18 years. I have heard severe criticism of this. Originally there was a tendency to pay apprentices very poorly but now they receive considerable sums by way of weekly income. It is no longer the case that young people work without receiving remuneration. In the case of a young person doing menial work which offers no improvement in training and for which he is receiving only a menial wage, children's allowances are not paid even if somebody in the home is not working. One must question the equity of that situation. We seem to adopt the attitude that once we establish something we must not rescind it, but any system requires to be reviewed from time to time. If such review discloses that the system concerned has outlived its usefulness or is no longer as necessary as it was in the past, it should be discontinued and the moneys saved as a consequence diverted to where they are needed most.

The Bill from section 17 onwards contains certain amendments relating to prosecutions. Broadly speaking, these measures are intended to strengthen and streamline the procedure on the legal side. They deal also with some defects in the legislation which have come to light. These measures were included after consultation with the Office of the Attorney General.

The rapidly increasing live register necessitates the provision of very substantial sums of money apart from making any allowance for improving the services. Some people seem to forget that our unemployment figures are increasing. We must make provision accordingly and ensure adequate provision in the budget to look after those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. This is one of the reasons for our trying to ensure in relation to any strategy on the part of the Government that the figure we strike will not be one off the top of our heads but instead will be a factual figure. We believe that the amount that will be required to meet the cost of additional unemployment will be in excess of £31 million. A provision of that magnitude prevents us from granting increases in other areas. We must ensure that we have the resources to meet the increases that are being granted so that we do not end up in a vast borrowing situation. Those people who criticise the 10 and 12 per cent increases and also the cuts in the area of pay-related benefits might tell us where they think the money might come from to enable us to give greater increases. Our options are very limited in terms of where we can raise money at the moment. The great problem is that the PAYE worker is already being taxed substantially. We have had to cut back our spending programme.

As Minister, I should like to be able to give bigger payments. That would be the sentiment of the majority of us here but unfortunately sentiment will not control expenditure or manage the affairs of State. When one examines the overall economic picture one realises that we must be prudent across the board in our approach to tackling our problems. Where there are anomalies we must try to eliminate them. Those who use extravagant language in relation to this Bill must not have thought out the situation very much. Unemployment is one of the great cancers of our society. We must take whatever steps are necessary to deal with the economic situation and in that way endeavour to bring some normality into the employment area as well as into the whole economic sphere. If we succeed to that extent we can talk about greater increases for the less well-off and particularly for those who are dependent on social welfare. This year we are spending almost £2,000 million on social welfare. That is a substantial amount in any economy but especially in a small economy such as ours. However, as legislators we have a duty to ensure that the weakest sections are provided for. That is our primary objective. In the next few years we should be able to put our house in order but in the present climate the increases this year are generous. One could say they were in line with the overall economic package.

I am amazed at some of the utterances about this Bill. It must be viewed within the overall economic context. Everybody admits that something must be done. But when one impinges on their area of operation it is felt then that that is the area in which no action should be taken. I suppose that is a human weakness. If one looks at this Bill in toto it will be seen to be fair and just given the economic plight we inherited.

: My colleague, Deputy O'Hanlon, dealt fairly comprehensively with the detailed aspects of this Bill. Consequently I shall confine my remarks at present to some fairly general comments.

I was asked to speak immediately after the Budget Statement in this House. My initial reaction was — and the words I used at the time were — that it was a savage budget especially in relation to the poor and social welfare recipients.

Having looked specifically at this Social Welfare Bill I feel that the comments of some Labour Deputies in relation to it — Deputy Bell in particular — only echo the reality that is part of this Bill. The Minister was quoted as suggesting that this was a Bill to deal with spongers in our society. Those were the headlines in the papers the evening it was introduced, that this Bill would deal with spongers. It is important to make quite clear that this Bill deals principally with the withdrawal of benefits from people at present enjoying them, with a reduction in the real value of their benefits and also in their present nominal values. This Bill has nothing to do with spongers directly. One small section has some relationship to spongers in so far as it contains amendments relating to prosecutions. It is in that respect only that the Bill deals with spongers. Of course spongers were being dealt with separately in other critical studies carried out last year and from which fairly good results emerged during the year which I trust will continue. It is important therefore that we recognise that that aspect is currently being and will continue to be dealt with separately.

I had a question for written reply, number 811, on 26 January last, seeking the number of social welfare claimants reported as being capable of work following examination by a medical referee. The numbers concerned were given in the form of a table for the four quarters of last year. In so far as the assessments of medical referees are correct, these refer to people who are sponging on the social welfare system. For the first quarter the number was 2,178, the next quarter 2,393, the third quarter, 2,544 and the last quarter 2,811. These constitute effective administrative measures such as the appointment of additional medical referees and other administrative steps taken to deal specifically with those kinds of cases.

There were other measures taken also. I am sure the present Minister is continuing to deal administratively with those aspects. If one were to accept that definition of a sponger, then a man who pays insurance becomes a sponger when he draws it in his hour of need. That is something that has been suggested by various people both inside and outside the House in the course of this debate. That is a totally false definition of a sponger under our social welfare code.

This Bill does deal with disincentives and anomalies not the fault of the basic contributor. Rather are they the fault of changing times, the fault of the Government in taking more PRSI contributions from the working man and more tax from him so that his net take-home pay is considerably reduced. Certainly there was a need for adjustment here. That is also why the critical studies, to which the Minister of State referred, were undertaken last year. Those studies having been undertaken it is our view that the present Government have over-reacted to them, have not dealt with them in the way they should. The reason we oppose this Bill is that there is a very significant difference between it and our Bill. The measures we were taking were designed to meet the requirement of eliminating a disincentive to work but certainly not to over-react in this regard. If one examines some of the provisions of this Bill in comparison with those we were proposing one finds there are in fact substantial differences. The media have grasped the fact that there are differences but not their full significance. They are inclined to maintain that — yes there were differences but not of any great magnitude.

I should like to mention one or two of these differences. First, this Bill must be viewed in the overall context of what the Government are attempting to do. What we were endeavouring to do was in a specific context. Therefore the Bill must be viewed in that context. The increase for old age pensioners and widows is less than we had planned. Here the increase is 12 per cent, its implementation delayed until later in the year, which effectively represents approximately an 8 per cent increase and consequently considerably less than the 15 per cent we would have considered necessary.

Secondly disincentives and anomalies are being removed but removed excessively. The present Government have gone much further in this regard. In addition some new measures were taken which did not form part of those critical studies or were not necessary to eliminate this disincentive to work. For instance, there is the extension from 12 to 18 days waiting period for pay-related benefit for every single worker paying PRSI. I am surprised that people have not recognised the evil involved in this change, a scandalous change with regard to the working man. Is the Minister suggesting that this man, genuinely sick and out of work, is a sponger, that he needs some other special incentive? In effect what the Minister is saying is that such person will have to wait until the fourth week of illness before receiving pay-related benefit. I cannot see what reason the Minister can have for that provision and, if he has good reason, I shall be interested to hear so. I can see no reason for the Minister introducing this adverse change for the ordinary bona fide working man who is paying his full pay-related contributions, not alone now but has probably done so for many years past.

One may well ask why is the Minister changing his circumstances so adversely. It must be remembered that the members of the public service will receive their benefit from the first day of sickness. We are all aware that the first three days of sickness for a full rate PRSI payer are not covered. We are all aware also that at present one must wait 12 days for the pay-related benefit. The Minister is now pushing that back a further week, saying that a beneficiary must wait 18 days. It must be remembered that that worker must meet his mortgage payments, he must look after his wife and children, he must cater for the family shopping, pay value-added tax and so on. This is a scandalous measure introduced for the sole reason of taking money from the social welfare recipient. It is not part of any scheme to do away with anomalies or disincentives.

Putting the implementation date for these increases back to July is another way of saving some money. Of course this means that the real rate of increase is reduced considerably. I asked a parliamentary question in this respect and discovered that the amount of money saved by the Minister for Finance — or if you like taken by the Minister from beneficiaries through this delaying tactic — amounts to £39.3 million. In that figure he is taking from the old age pensioner £15.5 million. That is the sort of money the Minister is saving by delaying that implementation date. That was not any part of our plan and I am anxious to make that clear.

We are all aware that it is not intended to provide any improvement in children's allowances. There are some marvellous economists on the Government side of the House who can make great statements about every economic issue that arises but surely they realise that the decision not to grant an increase in those allowances effectively means a reduction in the value of them to the families concerned. It is a clawing back of money from those families. It has also been decided not to give a double week payment in September or December, a scheme which was introduced by Fianna Fáil and which proved of great help to those in receipt of unemployment or long-term benefits. The payment helped at the beginning of the school year and over the Christmas period. It did not cost much — about £5 million this year — and it was not part of our plans to do away with it.

Deputy Calleary referred to the dole for farmers living on small holdings. Effectively that could be described as a subsidy for those living in disadvantaged areas. It proved of great benefit to many farmers but it is being hit also by the Minister. I notice that the Minister has not increased the domiciliary care allowance. That allowance has to be treated separately or it will not be included automatically in the provisions covered globally by the Minister. At this late stage the Minister should reconsider this and provide for an increase, like last year, for those who look after handicapped children and others at home. They deserve an increase notwithstanding all the difficulties we are told the country is facing. Surely the Government can find it in their hearts to grant an increase to those people. There is not much money involved. It should be remembered that when we took office last year those people were not in line for an increase but we altered that situation.

We have heard a lot of talk about all the money that will be spent on social welfare this year and one could be led into thinking that those in receipt of those benefits will do very well. It is worth referring to the rates that will be paid this year. An old age contributory pensioner, under 80, receives £40.25 and there will be an increase of £4.85. The widow's contributory pension is only £36.25 per week despite the fact that for the last three years we gave a 25 per cent annual increase. The basic level of unemployment benefit is £31.65 for a single person and that is to be increased by £3.15. Unemployment assistance for a single person is only £26.25 per week and that person will get the glorious increase of £2.65 to manage in the coming year. It is important that we keep those increases in mind. Percentages can be misleading. It is easy for a person on £20,000 per year to talk about percentages because one is dealing with a huge sum of money. When one refers to percentage increases for those in receipt of social welfare benefits they can be misleading in regard to what will happen to those beneficiaries. They are in the unfortunate situation that the Government do not have any solution to their problem.

We appreciate that the Government have difficult problems to deal with but their policies have led to an exacerbation of them. The Minister told the House that an extra £31 million will be allocated for the unemployed. It is important to understand what the Minister for Finance was planning in his budget. He was planning to have more unemployed and there is no doubt that the Government's approach to the economy will result in more unemployment. That is why the extra £31 million has been provided for. It is part of the Government's plan. If it is the intention of the Government to plan for unemployment I am sure that in present circumstances they will not have any difficulty getting it.

The Minister of State mentioned that critical studies were being done in regard to short-time working. That was one of the areas of disincentive which, with the passage of time, had to be dealt with. The question is how far do we go in dealing with it. Since the Minister is reducing the pay-related benefit to 25 per cent, the three days, plus two days plus the 25 per cent would be a reasonable compromise leaving a reasonable incentive to work. Fianna Fáil were dealing with those measures in principle but the Bill contains the specific provisions of the Government and that Bill was prepared by the Government. The Minister should reconsider his decision in regard to those on short-time working.

By deciding to step back from 12 to 18 days for sickness or unemployment benefit the Minister will save £6 million. The critical studies in regard to the reduction in pay-related benefit indicated that a reduction from 40 to 30 per cent was appropriate but the Government have reduced it further to 25 per cent. That is another example of an excessive step being taken by the Government. That decision will save the Minister £9.4 million. The decision by the Minister to put the date back to 1 July will also result in a saving of £39.3 million. The Minister has not provided for the double week in September or December and that will mean a saving of £5 million. Leaving out that saving because it may be introduced later in the year, the Minister will save a total of £60 million. That amounts to saying that the Government will be harsher than Fianna Fáil had proposed to be to the tune of £60 million.

The Taoiseach has told the country that the Government have had great success in getting devaluation but the one person who will suffer as a result of such a move without any way of cutting back is the social welfare recipient. The Minister has told the House that social welfare benefits will cost £1,780 million but that figure is now worth 4 per cent less to the recipients as a result of devaluation. In effect, a total of £70 million has been wiped off the value of that sum overnight. The Taoiseach may express great glee about his achievements in Brussels but the social welfare beneficiaries will not be very happy about them. Even if the Taoiseach states that the impact on CPI will be about 2 per cent, that, in effect, will mean the wiping off of £35 million in terms of the purchasing power of those people. That is a severe blow to the old age pensioners, the widows and those who the Minister said may benefit later when the books are checked if things are right. If the Minister was maintaining the position of those people it would not be too bad but he is reducing their position; he is subjecting them to poverty. That is a positive move by the Government and we will have clear indications of that later when the reality of the situation is brought home to people. These are difficult times when difficult things must be done but, notwithstanding that fact, we must ensure that the real value of pensions is maintained and protected against the worst effects of the economic recession.

Then we have the gross obscenity of a £10 charge per job application in the public service. The Government may be about to do a U-Turn on this ill-conceived measure which will cause hardship to many people. Some families have, perhaps, five people unemployed and it could cost them hundreds of pounds to apply for vacancies. It would be quite impossible for many of them to apply for civil service jobs. The Government are now trying to blame civil servants, saying that this was a mistake made by them. I listened to the RTE programme This Week during which the Minister for the Public Service explained all the good reasons for this measure. As far as the poor, the unemployed and social welfare recipients are concerned, this is a bad measure which can only help to keep them in that state.

We had a statement from the Minister to the effect that £5 million would be provided for family income supplement. We know they are doing away with the double week and the effect is that those on the lowest level of social welfare are losing £5 million while those on the lowest income levels are to benefit to the extent of £5 million when a system has been worked out. That problem has yet to be resolved and we must wait to hear what will be done. It is a bit like the £9.60 which was to come out of one pocket and go into another.

Another proposal concerns the establishment of a poverty agency. The Government have done away with the National Community Development Agency for which we had allocated £2.25 million. The Act establishing this body was passed by the Oireachtas last year and enables the Government to effect any changes they may wish to make in this body. It is difficult to understand why the Government do not get on with the job of tackling poverty when the measures already exist. Existing legislation would enable the Government to appoint people to a broadly-based committee. It is a sad reflection on the Government that they should choose to set this aside. The measures exist in legislation to enable the Government to adjust and adapt the agency as they require and to appoint people who they believe could make a special contribution. Instead they have decided to establish a poverty agency. The Taoiseach will probably try to get something done in a hurry but the Bill will have to go through both Houses. If he is genuinely interested in tackling poverty, all the necessary instruments already exist.

I now refer to the statement of the Minister for Finance that budget improvements in social welfare payments will amount to £80.6 million. When one examines the budget figures one sees that the allocation published in the 1983 Estimates was £920.826 million and the revised allocation is £941.326 million, the difference being £20.5 million. In addition we know that £31 million has been taken for unemployment so the net situation is a reduction of £10 million. This is a case of money going from one pocket to the other. It is being taken from the pockets of the PRSI subscribers, above what was proposed by Fianna Fáil.

When one looks at the budget in the context of the economic strategy generally, one sees that this Bill will result in the systematic deprivation of the aged, the handicapped and the unemployed. The rate of VAT is being increased by 5 per cent, fuel is being increased by 5 per cent, inflation will rise by at least 5 per cent, PRSI is increased by 1 per cent and then there is a devaluation of 4 per cent. There is no investment in jobs and no maintenance of tax allowances. The impact will be much more severe than people realise.

Then we have the verbal socialists. This is part of the PR lie. They have captured the poverty propaganda and the poverty lobby. They say "Live horse and you will get grass". They are copying their good friend Margaret Thatcher in her policy in that respect. Before the election they sold a lie to the nation and misled the electorate. That is why I readily recognise Deputy Bell's dilemma. He is a decent man. He believed the propaganda of Fine Gael and the smoked salmon element of the Labour Party. He told the electorate that Garret was more compassionate, as the Taoiseach himself said. He said that Labour in Coalition would ensure that social welfare payments would be maintained. The stark reality of the Coalition was, however, more than he could stomach.

The once-proud Labour Party have been led astray by a succession of these pseudo-intellectuals. I would appeal to the decent members of Labour to allow the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Social Welfare to join Fine Gael and I urge them to get back to protecting the workers and the unprotected. I tell the Labour Party that this will not work. They should get out now before it is too late. The Fianna Fáil Party stood their ground and fought the challenge of the media and the manipulations of the multi-nationals and they emerged stronger for it. The Labour Party should remember their proud heritage and not give in to the temptations of Fine Gael just because they do not happen to like us. They should not renege on the workers whom they and we in Fianna Fáil represent or truly their party's anthem will become one which is often echoed around the country: "The working class can kiss my ass, I've got the foreman's job at last".

: Deputy Pattison.

: I should like to be given an opportunity to make a statement on the Social Welfare Bill and I am requesting you to provide for that in the event of my colleague, Deputy Pattison, not taking the full time allocated to him.

: Deputy Pattison was allocated half an hour from 4.50 p.m. to 5.20 p.m., to be followed by Deputy Flynn and Deputy Durkan. That was agreed by the three Whips at 3.45 p.m.

: I said if Deputy Pattison does not take up the full time allocated to him may I fill in the balance?

: We have no objection to the Labour Party making that arrangement and I presume Fine Gael have not either.

: If Deputy Pattison is agreeable to give some of his half hour to Deputy Michael Bell the Chair is agreeable.

: On a point of order, this caused some friction in the House before. I would not like that to be regarded as a precedent and written in and recorded as such.

: I accept that if Deputy Pattison is agreeable.

: I hope to say what I wish to say in relation to this Bill within the 30 minutes. It is very noticeable when a Bill like this comes before the Dáil the vast majority of people look to the Labour Party for protection if the Bill takes away something from them and for support if the Bill gives something to them. People who never support the Labour Party all look to the Labour Party on a measure such as this for the party's support in ensuring that anything which is aggressive in such a Bill is opposed. That does not come as a surprise to us because by tradition social policy has been the foremost aspect of our policy.

People who lose work because of sickness or unemployment should have guaranteed to them an income from the State which will give them the same standard of living they would have if they were at work. That principle has guided us down through the years. It has guided us in promoting and implementing improvements in pay-related policy, in instituting and promoting the idea of a pension policy that has pay-related aspects to it. Our policy has succeeded to a large extent over the years.

We want to get away from the idea that because people are unfortunate to be out of work in a recession, or to be out of work through no fault of their own, they should have to suffer for it. There is a mood about, because we have got away from that aspect of the matter over the years, that people who are unemployed are unemployed because of their own fault and they should not find any enjoyment in their unemployment and should be made suffer for it. There are very few people who find enjoyment in being ill or in being unemployed. They would swop any pay-related benefit if they had their health back and if they had their jobs back.

The debate on the Bill has been simplified by many commentators into those who support a situation where people have more money for being out of work than they would have if they were at work. This is a complete distortion of the debate on this Bill as far as I am concerned. None of us can stand over such a situation particularly in the extremely difficult times we have at the moment when the very foundation of the social welfare system is under threat because of the reckless policies of the previous Government, their complete mismanagement of the economy and because of the notion that some people have that fair and just social benefits given to people are not right and, according to them, are a disincentive to go out to work. My full sympathy goes to those who are ill and unable to work as well as those who are thrown out of work because there is no work available for them. It all goes to the aged, the infirm and those sections in society who have no organisation to protect them and very few to speak for them.

Many people direct their words to the Labour Party at a time like this but when it comes to the ballot box over 90 per cent of those people do not support Labour Party policies. We had the example in the last Coalition Government, in which the Labour Party played a major part, when our former leader, Brendan Corish, was Minister for Social Welfare and the present Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy Frank Cluskey, was Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare and a great advance was made in the social welfare system during those years. Schemes were introduced to provide for sections of the community who had nothing to rely on before then. The increases of 25 per cent mentioned by the previous speaker were first introduced then. Up to then the increases were paid from a date in July and during that period they were brought back to 1 April by Deputy Frank Cluskey. He got very poor recognition for that work. He subsequently lost his seat.

This debate must make people more politically aware of the consequences of the way they vote. If they want to protect a social welfare system and policy they must vote for people who advocate it and stand for it. It is a scandal that the economic and financial situation has been brought to the level that people in receipt of social welfare benefit must be asked to pay a contribution towards putting that situation right. This is a reflection on the previous Government, particularly the policies they pursued over the last few years, when they left the country in such a state that the weaker sections must now carry some of the burden in order to put things right. If some of the measures contained in this Bill were not taken there possibly would not be any benefits for anybody before the end of this year. That is a scandalous, shameful situation. The previous Government must be forever condemned for their recklessness in that regard, for leaving the weaker sections so exposed to this kind of thing.

I do not like this Bill but I am aware of one of the possible consequences of voting against it. One of them is that it might allow back the Government responsible for this situation and I would not have it on my conscience that I would do anything in the House that would expose the weaker sections to such danger because of having to introduce a Bill that would take money from some of them that they can ill afford to lose.

I do not support the present system which allows some people who are unemployed to draw more money than when they would be working. But this Bill goes further than that. It takes money from people who have much less than when they were working. The figures given this evening by the Minister of State, though correct, are selective. They are based on the most recent pay-related benefit year, but some of the people now on short-time work — I have proved this in my constituency — have their benefits calculated on a P60 for the year 1978-79. There are hundreds of anomalies that have to be tackled, and that is one of them. If you want to relate benefits to earnings they must be related to up-to-date earnings and not to earnings of four years ago, but unfortunately that is what is happening. Because of the kind of recession we have had in the past number of years many workers who contribute heavily by way of PRSI are never fortunate enough to get any benefits because their benefit year never seems to fall into line with their contribution year: in other words, when they are made unemployed it happens to be either too soon or too late to get real benefit from their PRSI contributions.

I have pointed out other anomalies to the Minister and the Department. There is a disincentive to work when a person who becomes unemployed has to claim immediately for unemployment benefit. Many workers whom I know are reluctant to claim immediately they become unemployed because they want to try to do something else and they go off to do a little work for themselves for a number of weeks, or months in some cases. They fail in their efforts and when they make a claim they are caught on their average earnings in the preceding weeks or months. Such people are heavily penalised, on the one hand because of their attempts to find work and on the other because they did not immediately claim benefit. That is a built-in disincentive. Workers pay heavily into the PRSI fund and not all of them benefit from it.

This Bill, which must have been hastily got together, copies in the main the proposals contained in the Fianna Fáil document The Way Forward, with some minor differences. The major difference is that Fianna Fáil proposed to bring in these changes on 1 January and this Government are making it 1 April. Between now and Committee Stage, and before the Bill has been passed, I will be calling for some changes to be made to ensure that people who are already receiving benefits below their normal wages will not be further penalised by the Bill. That is my particular plea, the one I want to highlight. Commentators have been making observations about people who have more benefits unemployed or on short time than when they are working. My concern is for the people who have less benefit than they had when working but who will have to suffer losses of £10 or more per week because of this Bill. I want something to be done about those people.

Of course the root cause of this problem, in addition to the recklessness and mismanagement of the previous Government, is that we have not got a fair and just tax system. There cannot be a proper social welfare system without a proper tax system, and the failure of successive Governments to tackle the tax system must be corrected by the present Government because only then can we achieve a fair social welfare system which cannot be allowed to fluctuate with recessions, good times and bad times. There must be forward planning to ensure that no matter how bad times become there will be sufficient funds to protect the aged, the sick and the unemployed. Any further delays in tackling the inequities and injustices in our tax system, and the resulting injustices in the social welfare system, cannot be tolerated.

If the debate on this Bill does anything it gives us an opportunity to emphasise the urgency about doing something about these two matters. There is a limit to the patience of our people in this regard, particularly of people who carry a heavy burden. Those people are prepared to carry the burden if they see it as being just and equitable. I have not met anybody who is not prepared to carry a fair share of the sacrifices, but when they see themselves carrying a bigger share than others, and in some cases carrying their share and others not carrying any share at all, that gives rise to difficulties.

I appeal to the Minister to have a look at the details in the Bill and to consider adjustments that could be made to ensure that benefits will not unduly or unnecessarily be taken from people. Those who have spoken against this Bill favour the continuance of a system which would give more money to people for not working. I do not want that. I am speaking against the Bill to point out the inequities in a rushed Bill of this kind, which I admit was forced upon the Government by what the previous Government had done. It is urgent because, if something is not done, there is a risk that people might be left without their social welfare benefits before the end of the year.

I hope we will get better definitions, and particularly a definition of short-time working. I know people who are well into their third year on a two-day working week. They have had smaller incomes over that period. They did not get national wage increases because they were on a two-day week. The flat rate for married men with families was near the ceiling of 85 per cent and, when the increases of 25 per cent were given last year and the year before, they did not receive those increases because they lost the pay-related benefit to compensate for the 25 per cent. It is not good enough that people who have been working a two-day week for two and a half years should suffer a further reduction. Short-time working is not initiated by workers; it is imposed on them. Nobody wants it. People prefer to work full time. I promised I would give ten minutes of my time to my colleague Deputy Bell.

: You have not got ten minutes left, Deputy. We have gone off the schedule already. Both Deputies must conclude at 5.20 p.m. and, even at that, we will be five minutes outside the schedule.

: I will conclude and give my remaining time to Deputy Bell.

: A Cheann Comhairle, I should like to thank you and Deputy Pattison for affording me this opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is not possible for me to do justice to my attitude to this Bill in the couple of minutes I have. A number of things should be put on record. I want to say this to the media. The Irish Transport and General Workers' Union are not responsible for the policy statements I have made on the Social Welfare Bill. They did not consult with me. They did not put any pressure on me. No colleague in the unions is responsible for my position on this Bill.

I consulted with my constituents, with the branches in County Louth and with the constituency council of the Labour Party. They and they alone have influenced me, if influencing was necessary. I adopted this position on my own and I am responsible for it. I have pursued the policies enunciated by the ICTU who represent almost the total workforce. I make no apology for that. I have been a trade unionist since I was 16 years of age. I would feel very much ashamed if I came into this House and did not reflect the views of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions who represent the organised workers.

My objections to this Bill have been stated publicly. I have taken exception to it mainly on the basis that I went with my colleagues to Limerick where a document was put before us. We spent several hours in a hotel outside the conference going through the document item by item and clause by clause. Our constituency organisations did not tie us on what way we should vote until we had seen and studied that document. Having studied it in great detail, we decided to vote in favour of it on the recommendation of the party leader. That agreement was drawn up between our party leader and the Fine Gael Party leader. I am saying quite clearly in this House that that document is not being honoured. We have reneged on our colleagues in the Labour Party, the delegates who went to that conference representing the various branches, and the trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party.

I have not got time to go into the details of the agreement and, if necessary, I will do so at a later stage. It is clear and positive that this Bill is contrary not alone to the letter but also the spirit of the agreement. It is also contrary to Labour Party policy in toto. We did not go to any door in County Louth and say we would reduce the level of social welfare benefits. Politicians would be dishonest if they told their constituents they would do certain things and then, within a period of three months, did a U-turn. In effect that is what this Bill is doing.

If this Bill goes through, the people of Ireland will not believe any politician. I am not setting myself up as the saviour of this parliament, but politicians will be doubted for ever and a day if this Bill goes through, as was the case when another Government interfered with social welfare payments many years ago, perhaps even before I was born. The ghost of that decision is still in Leinster House and the ghost of this Social Welfare Bill will be here years after we have gone.

Let us take a look at it. What does it do? It does more than interfere with short-time working. The waiting period is extended for 12 days to 18 days. That will cause a loss. The rates will be cut from 40 per cent and 30 per cent to 25 per cent and 20 per cent. The floor for calculating benefit will be raised from £32 to £36 per week. The ceiling for calculating benefits will go up from £9,500 to £11,000. The ceiling for contributions will go up from £9,500 to £13,000. There will be no pay-related benefit at all for short-time workers. The overall benefit ceiling for disability benefit will go down from 100 per cent to 80 per cent of previous pay.

The combined effects will mean that from the time this Bill comes into operation a single person will lose £24.21 per week and a married couple with two children will lose £29.07 per week. I could not be a party to that even if it meant I would never come back to Dáil Éireann, even if it meant I would have no further input into politics, even if it meant I had to go back on the dole myself. I am speaking as a person who worked a three-day week and queued up for the dole. Very few Members of this House can say the same. I know what it is like to be in a dole queue and I know what the people in my constituency feel about it. I came here to represent their views and that is what I am doing.

: You have two minutes left, Deputy.

: This Social Welfare Bill will interfere with payments to 9,000 men and over 4,000 women and, in the case of full-time unemployment, 67,000 males and 28,000 females. At the same time PAYE payers are to be milked for further PRSI and they will get a smaller return.

I suggest that it should be written into the record of this House that I have grave doubts as to whether this Bill will be legally constituted. I suggest the House should ask the President to test its constitutionality in the Supreme Court. You cannot promise people something and take it away from them when they have paid for it.

: When the Coalition came together and when the Labour Party took responsibility for certain portfolios many people wondered why they did that. It was generally expected that in difficult times the portfolios of Health, Social Welfare, Environment, Labour, and Trade, Commerce and Tourism would give the Labour Party an opportunity of doing three things, namely, maintaining the living standards of the people, providing a framework for employment opportunities for young people and the protection of the less well-off through the social welfare system. The supporters of the Labour Party generally believed that was the reason that party selected the portfolios in question. However, it has not worked out like that under any of the three headings.

One has to go through the three headings to realise how the Labour Party have not carried out the promises they gave to the small percentage of people who supported them. Deputy Pattison said that over 90 per cent of the people do not support the Labour Party at the polls. I think the Deputy realises now how the small percentage who support the party will be affected by the actions of the party. The Labour Party have sold the soul of their party in supporting and, which is even more serious, promoting this legislation.

Deputy Pattison has accepted that the weaker sections should be asked to pay a big share of what is necessary and this is a major step for any Labour Deputy to take. The Deputy has said that he does not like the Bill and that he wants to bring forward amendments. However, he is not being consistent when he tells us he feels obliged to support the Bill. There has been much double talk by the Labour Party on this matter but they are nailing their colours to the mast on this occasion. They can no longer promote themselves as the supporters of socialist policy. They are accepting the monetarist attitude dictated to them by the major party in Coalition and they are following slavishly every measure promoted by that majority party. It is rather unedifying for the people, and particularly for those who regarded the Labour Party as in some way supporting socialist policy, to see a senior Labour representative in Government as the person singled out to bring to this House the most difficult and serious imposition ever perpetrated against the working classes.

So far as maintaining living standards is concerned, since the Government came to office all their actions have brought down the living standards of our people. We have higher inflation and higher interest rates, uncontrolled prices, tax hikes and levies introduced on a scale never before contemplated by any Government. There are also service charges pending. There has been a whole litany of increases. This is what the people are getting from the Labour section in Coalition.

With regard to providing a framework for creating job opportunities, they have failed miserably also. They have virtually destroyed the competitiveness of Irish exports. In the budget there has not been one single incentive for manufacturing industry that would give an opportunity to the young people seeking employment. In the budget strategy there is nothing about creating the 300,000 jobs necessary in the next ten years. Every day there are closures in manufacturing industry and an increasing number of redundancies. In one area that might have provided an opportunity for job promotion, the capital expenditure programme, there has been a drastic cut of the order of £220 million. That is the response from a Government in which the Labour Party are participating. That is what the young people see happening so far as job creation is concerned.

The only answer the Minister for Social Welfare could give on Second Stage of this Bill was that he would provide an extra £31 million in respect of unemployment benefit for the rest of this year. This was an acceptance by him that there will be more than 200,000 people unemployed by the end of the year. An average of 193,000 people unemployed must mean that we will have nearly 250,000 unemployed before the end of the year. That was the only item the Minister could offer in an effort to appease those who will not be able to find work before the end of the year. It is almost inconceivable that the Labour Party could tolerate such an attitude and that they could allow such a strategy, if there was such a thing, to be put forward in the budget. It is inconceivable that they did not insist on a plan that might create the necessary employment, in support of the package agreed between the parties in Government at the meeting held last year in Limerick. Why are the Labour Party agreeing with the notion that there is no other answer? Of course there is and many people have put forward positive suggestions, but all we have received with regard to this Bill and the budget has been a negative attitude towards the economy and towards the wishes of the vast majority of the people. They have failed also to protect the less well-off and those on social welfare.

One would think that in times of hardship the need was even greater to provide extra assistance for the weaker sections. We must understand that the old age pensioners are not organised. They are not people who find it possible to march in the streets in support of claims. They have not the strongest lobby here. However, they believed there was one small party who were supposed to represent the views of the hard-pressed section of the community whose purchasing power has been seriously eroded by the effects of the budget in addition to the provisions in this Bill. It makes a nonsense of the claim that the Coalition Government are anti-poverty. The document agreed by the parties in Government in Limerick stated that an anti-poverty plan would be drawn up. Certainly there is need for that because the Government, by their actions with regard to this Bill, will create poverty that will become endemic before too long.

The Government ask us where would we find the money to accommodate the necessary increases which we say should be given to social welfare beneficiaries. I say there was one way they could have found at least £38½ million and that was to relieve the burden that will be placed on consumers of electricity because of the increase in the price of the therm of natural gas from 16.9p to 24p from 1 April. That money, which is being surreptitiously brought into the Exchequer coffers, should be applied to relieve this area of hardship. The money that will be sucked into the coffers of the Exchequer will be in excess of £100 million because of the latest measures adopted by this Government. If there had been a genuine care by certain elements in the Government to apply the benefits of that natural resource to the less well off, that could have been done. It would be appropriate in the present hard times to use a natural resource for their benefit.

Other strategies could have been adopted by the Coalition if they had the will and the interest to protect those whom they continually preach they are committed to support and help. We will have to take due note of precisely what was agreed in Limerick. Deputy Bell has castigated his own colleagues in the Labour Party because of the stand they have taken and he has virtually called it a dishonest stand. He says the arrangement entered into in Limerick is not being honoured. One has only to glance casually at the section dealing with social welfare to understand what he means. It says, amongst other things, that the establishment of a commission on social welfare must not be a barrier to immediate, necessary changes in the social welfare system. How can this Bill be reconciled to that simple statement as agreed between the two Coalition partners?

It also said that unemployment and disability benefit would be kept in line with take home wages and salaries. That was a bald statement saying that the workers would not be seriously disadvantaged if the Coalition came to power. The provisions as set out in the agreement in Limerick are in direct conflict to what is stated in the Bill. Nobody who is a genuine supporter of that agreement can say it is being honoured either in the letter or the spirit. It also says that expenditure will be maintained in the light of inflation. That has not been honoured either, because the Government accept that inflation will rise by a few more percentage points and because of the events of the last few days. Consequently, the measures in this Bill do not meet even the cost of living in so far as inflation is concerned under the new arrangements. It also says the living standards of the sections of the community dependent on social welfare payments will be maintained. How can any signatory to that agreement say that the living standards of the weaker sections of the community are being protected by any of the measures contemplated in this Bill?

I take issue with the date of payments of the new increases. While it is going to be 10 per cent for short-term and 12 per cent for long-term beneficiaries, we should realise that these percentages are not strictly accurate because they apply from the last week in June and the first week in July. By doing simple arithmetic, it is clear that the 10 per cent becomes about 7½ per cent and the 12 per cent becomes 9 per cent. These figures are, in effect, much lower than the inflation rate which has been accepted and agreed by the leaders of the Coalition parties, at around 12 per cent for the rest of this year. They are running directly contrary to the section of the Limerick agreement which stated that they would be maintained as far as inflation was concerned for the rest of the year.

We must also add to that the question of devaluation which is mentioned as being 2 per cent. We all know that devaluation, which it is claimed will work well for the Irish economy, will have grave disadvantages. The Government were forced into the position which they took in the past few days because the official attitude was against devaluation. I am concerned about the infiltration and penetration it will have on the price structure and the further hardship which will be inflicted on the less well-off members of the community. We are getting the worst of both worlds because it is obvious from today's movement in the monetary system that our pound is rising against sterling which is weakening further in the international market. Consequently in a few short weeks we could be in a very bad position once more. Who are the sufferers in all these matters? They are those who do not have the lobby to protect themselves, the weaker members of society.

Deputy Pattison said he could not understand how any Deputy would support unemployed workers being paid in excess of their normal take home pay. This side of the House are in total agreement that that should not be so. However, we also made it clear that we were not going to so depress the incomes of those receiving unemployment benefits that they would be seriously affected by the reduction of their PAYE and pay-related. That was never intended. We would not condemn those who were sick to being unable to meet their normal expenditure.

I put it to the Minister that you get no pay-related if you are unfortunate enough to be ill for four weeks, apart from benefit for two days. How does one meet the normal costs of a household for three-and-a-half weeks while one suffers the minimum rates? Go into debt? Then, when one is fortunate enough to be able to return to work, are the next 12 months to be spent trying to recover the loss of the month when payments were not made? That was never intended by the Fianna Fáil administration. We support the idea that people should not carry home more when they are ill than if they were working but I can tell the Minister that the wage packets in the first and second week of April will be open sesame as far as the workers are concerned and to the evil, as a Deputy said, that is being perpetrated against them in this Bill. They will then see the full impact of the measures contemplated against them. When they see all the deductions, PRSI, income tax, levies, indirect tax, motoring costs and the whole price structure that has gone out of control in the last couple of months, they will see how little take home pay they have. It will then be evident what the Government had in mind when they brought in the Social Welfare Bill.

This is a three way split as far as the Coalition are concerned. It started with the budget and its provisions, was followed by the Social Welfare Bill and, before very long, the next piece in the jig-saw, the Finance Bill will show that it was intended to take asunder the living standards of our people. When the lack of price control is added to the movement against the workers then you will realise what is in the minds of the Government.

I want to pay some attention to a section of the Bill which has a very big bearing on the farming community which I am happy to represent. It has to be taken in conjunction with the Budget Statement and the provisions of the Finance Bill which will be introduced shortly. The intention with regard to farmers' taxation is mischievous because it is trying to get the general public to believe that the farming community can afford to play a much bigger role as far as taxation is concerned than they are capable of doing. The administrative costs of collecting any extra tax will far outweigh the return they will get. They are forcing large numbers of small farmers to take their places in the queues in accountancy offices. These farmers have not got the resources to generate the wealth which would require them to pay income tax. That legislation will act as a disincentive to production, especially in the west.

I would like to refer to the question of small farmers' dole. An attempt has been made to sell the idea that there is wholesale abuse of that system. Let me be the first to say that that is not so. Of the small farmers gaining that assistance the vast majority are doing it in accordance with the regulations. If the regulations need to be changed, that is one thing; but to suggest that the smallholders, particularly in the disadvantaged areas in the west, are somehow abusing this scheme wholesale is totally incorrect.

If the Department of Social Welfare have difficulty in so far as land valuations are concerned in allowing the notional system to continue, they have put nothing in its place. It was not proper to use this device to withdraw support from the smallholders in the west. I see no difficulty at all in using the land valuation system as a measurement for giving out benefits. If there is difficulty in collecting tax, that is another matter; but there is nothing wrong in using it as a system in so far as qualification for benefit is concerned.

Small farmers' dole is misnamed and misunderstood. It should have been called "smallholders' income supplement in disadvantaged areas" because that is what it is. It is applied to areas that are seriously disadvantaged and recognised both nationally and internationally to be so, not just so far as geography and inaccessibility are concerned but also in regard to population and the services. It would be much better if the Labour Party were discriminating positively in favour of the disadvantaged areas. These disadvantaged areas are recognised by the EEC as in need of special support as we have seen in the western package, western development of all kinds, headage grant payments and so on. People seem to recognise that there is a disadvantage in certain farming areas and they have given wholeheartedly to alleviate that disadvantage. This Government now say that that is not so and they are putting in jeopardy the whole principle regarding the disadvantaged farming areas. I cannot see how they can hold that up in any way as showing equity in so far as the distribution of wealth and resources is concerned.

: I suggest to Deputy Flynn that to give the leader of his party and the Minister a full half hour, as was anticipated, he might consider concluding at 5.45 p.m. If he does that, Deputy Haughey will have half an hour and there will be half an hour for the Minister. If he does not, there will be some sort of hassle.

: I do not think that there will be a hassle. I propose finishing reasonably quickly, but I do not think that that will interfere with the hassle afterwards. That is the information I have.

The whole question of that assistance is misunderstood. It was introduced originally at a time of total depression in the smallholding situation in the west of Ireland. The whole farm structure of the west needed reorganisation. Emigration was endemic to the area. We had poor housing throughout the whole disadvantaged area. No jobs were available there and living standards were at a very low ebb. The farming resource in the area was incapable of development and increased productivity without the financial support that would give those living in that disadvantaged area as reasonable a chance of a decent living as those in other parts of the country. That was the reason this was brought in under the notional system. The factual system has always acted as a disincentive to development and has penalised the efforts of those willing to put their best foot forward and get the best development they could from very sparse resources.

Unemployment assistance in those areas stabilised the population, as is evident from the last census. For the first time in a century the population has been established in those disadvantaged areas. That assistance helped the people living in those areas enormously to educate their children and to get a better opportunity of a decent way of living. It increased the productivity from that disadvantaged part of the country. It encouraged farmers who were not afraid through a means test to utilise the full resources made available to them, either through their own endeavours or through the miserable assistance given by way of unemployment benefit, to get the best out of their meagre homes. Now we are getting back to the age of the gauger. That gauger in the past dealt with pennies. Nothing runs more contrary to the Irish people than the means test and here it is being brought back. Neighbours will be asked to inform on their friends, to give details to the gauger so that he can establish precisely what one has as against the other and thereby reduce or keep entirely from people the assistance to which they are entitled. We do not want the stigma of the means test brought back to the disadvantaged areas in the west.

This Bill lacks any humanity in dealing with those living in those areas. It shows no initiative whatsoever in proper planning or a proper strategy of dealing with the less fortunate. One would think——

: I was going to suggest that Deputy Flynn would conclude in about two minutes and if Deputy Durkan would then suffer a loss of about two minutes we would be on schedule.

: Perhaps you will not have the difficulty that you envisage, a Cheann Comhairle. I will take an extra few minutes but you can rest assured that it will not impede the quiet running of the House subsequently.

: Will Deputy Flynn agree that I call on the Minister at 6.30?

: I presume that would be the normal time for him.

: Yes. I understand that to be the order of the House.

: It is not. It is a gentleman's agreement, as far as I understand. The Whips had some agreement and it was announced, but I doubt if it is an order of the House.

: I understand that the leader of the main Opposition party might not be taking the full 30 minutes. Consequently I do not think you will have any difficulty in that regard. I hope I am not misrepresenting him in the matter.

: I do not want to waste your time.

: I would point out to the Minister for Social Welfare regarding the question of paying unemployment assistance to young people that he would be much better advised to pay some attention to how that is paid between urban and rural rather than devising methods whereby the benefit can be taken from them altogether. There is no universal approach in paying unemployment assistance to young people. We all know that the maximum rate in the urban areas is £26.25, but I have yet to meet an individual who gets the full amount. When you consider the kind of arithmetic that is done regarding board and lodging estimates you can run into a situation such as I have——

: The Deputy has two minutes.

: No, that has been arranged otherwise. I can run to my full half hour. I am really being put out by all this interference. It has been agreed——

: What do you mean by interference?

: I have already discussed this matter with the Ceann Comhairle and he has accepted with me that I can go the full half hour.

: From 5.19 to 5.49 is half an hour in my book and that would give you two minutes.

: What time did I start?

: Are you saying that I have two minutes?

: I would be concerned that the Minister for Social Welfare would pay some attention to the inequality of treatment handed out to young people and the estimates of board and lodging put on them and what they can or cannot get of the maximum allowance. I know of cases where board and lodging have been estimated in excess of the £26.25 they are supposed to get and consequently they get nothing at all. The Minister should pay attention to that rather than devising a system for taking it from all and sundry and bringing a means test and gauger test into the community in the disadvantaged areas.

: The Deputy has one minute.

: I cannot understand why there is such a great song and dance about this, but I feel that is part of a non-caring attitude of the Minister for Social Welfare. He seems to have some kind of strategy for depopulating the disadvantaged areas in the west. If the policy is to keep people on the land and give them an opportunity to develop, the policy document laid out in this Social Welfare Bill is not the way to do it. The Minister's attitude towards the west, not just in this Social Welfare Bill but in many other instances also, shows that he is not attuned to the needs of the disadvantaged either in this part of the country or any other part. He would be much better advised——

: The Deputy to conclude, please.

: He would be much better advised to take every necessary step to improve the lot of the less well-off rather than seeking devices and methods of bringing them into poverty. He should stop his pseudo-socialist attitude against the working classes.

: The first thing that should be remembered about this Bill is that it comes at the most difficult time economically in the history of this State. Many Opposition speakers have chided the Government for the manner in which they have gone about rectifying the problems of the country. Every Member of the House should be honest and accept that at some stage along the road it was necessary to take stock of the situation and be honest with the public in letting them know the true facts. That was done by the Minister in this Bill and by the Minister for Finance in the budget.

The difficulties are numerous but the problems have not arisen in the recent past — they have been with us for some time. They have now reached such astronomic proportions as to make it difficult for our economy to survive in the foreseeable future. The Minister for Social Welfare has a very difficult task. As a public representative and a member of a health board I am only too well aware of the problems facing the lower paid sectors of our community — the poor, the sick, the invalids and so forth. It behoves us all to ensure that their needs are catered for as far as possible, particularly in times of economic stringency. We all agree that every possible step should be taken to ensure that those sectors of the community are not asked to bear unnecessarily the burdens facing the whole country.

Some Opposition Members have described the budget as savage and the Bill as uncaring. I ask them to desist from those emotive expressions in these difficult times. Such expressions only tend to mislead the people even further and I contend that they have been sufficiently misled up to now. Any further progression along that road can only further complicate the issues. While, on the one hand, the Bill does not provide everything that we would all have liked in this financial year, it goes some way towards assisting those in greatest need.

References have been made to areas in which there would appear to be a reduction in the amount being made available to those on short-term unemployment. I ask the Minister to ensure that in genuine cases the supplementary benefits section of the various health boards be instructed to examine these cases individually and that care be taken that they do not suffer unnecessarily as a result of measures which must be taken in order to protect the economy. Some Opposition speakers have suggested that the Bill in itself is an acceptance of certain failures in the economy and that the Ministers were anticipating higher unemployment. However, this was a positive way to go about it, given the current situation. The Minister has provided an extra £30 million plus in anticipation — according to Opposition Members—of further unemployment. What should he have done? Should he have provided nothing and allowed an increased deficit at the end of the year for which no provision was made, as has been the practice in the past? It was far more positive to make the provision now and accept that the trends which have prevailed for the past two or three years, if allowed to continue in the next 12 months, would only lead to an increase in the number of unemployed.

It has been brought to my attention by workers on numerous occasions that those who work a full five-day week are unfairly discriminated against by virtue of the fact that those on short-time working are able to take home more at the weekends than they. They said there was little incentive for people to work and certainly little incentive with regard to work which included overtime if those on short time received more in take-home pay. Other speakers could suggest that in harsh times such as these it was unfortunate that cuts should be introduced in that area, and I would accept that it is unfortunate. I also must point out that in order to be honest with ourselves all parties should ask themselves whether it is good for the country to have a situation in which a person on short time can receive more in payment than one employed on a full five-day week. In our current economic position nothing could justify that situation. As I have said, I would hope that in genuine cases where it might appear that hardship could be caused to people on unemployment assistance for some considerable time, particularly those with families, the Minister might instruct the health boards to take particular account of their situation to ensure that the hardship did not bear too heavily on that sector. Any Government must be concerned in such situations, and I certainly would be most concerned, that this line of action be taken and that the Minister issue those instructions.

Deputy Flynn spoke at length on the ills of coalition. He expressed on numerous occasions the belief that we on this side of the House would not fulfil our election promises. Other speakers said that perhaps the public would condemn politicians of all colours and creeds for failing to deliver on election promises. One thing must be remembered: When this Government came into office they assumed a particular state of affairs. Certain information was available to them. The budget and the Social Welfare Bill now presented are the best possible under the circumstances. The Government could have embarked on a policy of further foreign borrowing to provide for services such as social welfare and many others, but all that money would have to be paid back. They could have embarked on a policy over the next four or five years where there would be no hardship to anybody. Such policies were pursued over the last five years. The people were told that we could borrow money for investment purposes while, in fact, we were forced to divert our borrowings to meet current expenditure. We could continue to tell the people these things.

Having regard to the fact that our unemployment figures are heading towards 200,000 and taking into account the policies pursued over the past number of years, could we expect the present Government to continue along that road, following the same trends and at the end of four or five years have an unemployment figure of 400,000? I do not think anybody could expect the Government to do that because while it might be good to pursue that line in the short term, at the end of the day somebody would have to pay and the price then would be much higher than it is now.

Deputy Flynn suggested that the Government were responsible for higher inflation. I have to take issue with him on that, particularly having regard to the inflation rates over the past few years. If the people who elect us to this House think carefully they must arrive at the conclusion that their elected representatives will stand up and take decisions in the interests of the country, and particularly in the long-term interests of the country. Nobody will thank any Deputy who suggests that the people can live free and easy for a little longer, that we can borrow more, that we will not have to repay it and that at the end of the day everything will be all right. The public have copped on; they have had enough. They are looking for realism and that is why they voted a Coalition Government into office.

I want to refer to the number of young people unemployed. The Minister allocated a sum of £31 million for the contingency that there might be an increase in unemployment. It is soul destroying that young, highly qualified people leaving school do not have jobs. The longer this situation continues the more contempt young people will have for politicians. It is imperative that we address ourselves to our young people and tell them nothing is free, that the country is facing an economic crisis and that all these services which we said were provided free, were not free, but had to be paid for by the taxpayers, by either direct or indirect taxation. Money borrowed abroad for capital investment purposes or for current expenditure also has to be paid for, ultimately by those who are employed and, unfortunately, by the unemployed because there will be less money accruing from the tax paying public as there are fewer people at work.

Some Opposition Deputies referred to the Minister's negative attitude to this Bill and accused him of being uncaring. The increases may not be as high as they might have been and they will not be paid in April, as was usual but there was a very good reason for that: there was not sufficient money. Those who say that should have been done might tell us what taxes might be levied to ensure that the money needed would be available. They might suggest that VAT could have been increased from an earlier date, but there are many areas where Opposition Deputies might have suggested we raise further revenue, or further borrowing, to provide the services we all strive to provide but which we cannot afford at this time.

The people, employed and unemployed, asked to be told the truth and be given the full facts. Whatever needs to be done I believe they are prepared to do it. They are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to make the country competitive and back to work. Having regard to the very serious state of the economy every politician should use his influence to ensure that the public do not get the impression that there is an easy way out. There is no easy way out except to postpone for a little while longer making difficult decisions.

Some Opposition Deputies suggested that they would have done things differently, that they would have shown more feeling. They should remember that they introduced cuts in the health services during the summer of 1982. Not a great deal of feeling was shown by them then. As a member of a health board I was astounded at that time to think that a party who had earlier that year indicated that the policies pursued by a previous Coalition Government were not feasible and were too harsh, could have done things differently. It was proved that they could not even do it as well. To illustrate that point one had only to compare the deficit at the end of the year with that projected at the beginning of the year.

As politicians we have a serious responsibility to the public who elected us to tell them the truth. They should know that if we are to provide services they must be paid for, because if they are not paid for out of taxpayers' money, we will have to borrow, and all borrowing has to be repaid sooner or later.

This Bill does not go as far as one would wish but there are extenuating circumstances. These are that the time has been reached when everyone must examine his conscience and ask himself whether the country can afford the extent of the services that are provided and whether we can continue to expand those services without increasing taxation or without increasing our borrowing. I suggest that the answer is in the negative. I should be surprised if in four or five years time the people were not thanking this Coalition for at least having charted the course that will get us out of our difficulties and for having set out the realities instead of leading the people along a blind path. The people must be told that we cannot postpone our difficulties any further. As politicians we would be less than honest if we were to conceal the facts.

A number of speakers have suggested that an additional £200 million might have been provided in the interest of reducing considerably the unemployment level and of improving the economy generally. That would be all right if the money were provided for investment purposes. All of us welcome any attempt to reduce unemployment but one must realise that all attempts in this area in the past couple of years seem to have failed. Consequently, one must conclude that the policies pursued in the past number of years were very wrong because otherwise we would not be in the stark situation in which we are now, in a situation in which we are bringing in a social welfare Bill that does not meet out requirements. However, at least some attempt is being made to cushion the lower-paid sections against the harsh and difficult times in which we live.

: The Deputy has five minutes remaining.

: I understood that I would be called at 6.15.

: The debate was five minutes late starting and that delay is continuing throughout the debate.

: I do not mind so long as I get my 15 minutes.

: The Deputy can be assured of that.

: I spoke earlier of the responsibility of all of us here. A few weeks ago we talked in the House about Dáil reform. I realise that it would not be appropriate at this point to go back on that debate but I wish merely to say that reform of the Dáil will never become a reality unless all of us, whether in Government or in Opposition, accept that at all times we should address ourselves to the public, tell them the facts and allow them to judge the situation for themselves. Having listened to some of the speakers to this debate in recent days one can only conclude that the general impression the public would get is that if the people on the other side of the House were in Government everything would be very different and that the increases in social welfare would be much higher regardless of the country's ability to foot the bill. The Opposition have given the impression also that if they were in office the situation in relation to short-time working would have remained as it was and that generally the public would not have to face up to the unfortunate realities. That is a dangerous attitude to adopt because we are faced with a situation in which almost 200,000 people are unemployed of whom a large number are young people and who can see at this stage that there is no prospect of gainful employment for them in the foreseeable future. That has been the position for the past couple of years but there would be a grave danger in any political party telling those people that the situation is other than that presented by this side of the House.

The greatest disservice we could do to our unemployed and especially to our unemployed young people would be to con them into believing that there would be a dramatic change in the situation if another party were in office. It is of the utmost importance that everyone in our community should recognise the reality of the situation and understand that whichever party happen to be in power must pursue the type of financial policies that are being pursued now. This seems to be the only way out of our present difficulties.

I trust that at the end of the year the measures taken by the Minister will prove to have been sufficient to meet the needs of the lower paid and the under-privileged and that the general thrust of our financial policies will have gone a long way towards resolving the difficulties that were not faced up to in the past number of years.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share