Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 May 1983

Vol. 342 No. 9

Estimates, 1983. - Vote 47: Social Welfare (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £1,026,926,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1983, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants.

—(Minister for Social Welfare).

Mr. Shatter

Prior to Question Time I referred to the anomalies that existed in the social welfare code, particularly those that discriminate against people in similar circumstances. A matter I wish to refer to, one that was mentioned also by Deputy O'Hanlon, is the free fuel scheme. This scheme operates in a very odd way depending on where one happens to live. A person living in a city or urban area will qualify for entitlement on one set of criteria but a person living in a county area qualifies for entitlement on a different set of criteria. My constituency covers part of the city and the county of Dublin; the city and county boundaries meet along one street. Pensioners on one side of the street are entitled as of right to free fuel vouchers because they live within the city boundary but pensioners living on the other side of the street in the same financial and social circumstances do not qualify because a different set of criteria apply to them.

The different criteria developed because when the scheme started during the course of the Second World War the view was taken that people in city areas needed assistance in paying for fuel. It was thought that people living in the country areas could go out into the countryside and collect bundles of wood and, therefore, did not need similar assistance. What could be called the "wood" philosophy obviously has prevailed in the operation of the scheme since 1943 and has not changed one jot since.

The only problem with this theory is that people in my constituency who live in County Dublin can no longer trail out into the forests or go to the local farmyard and pick up pieces of wood. Most of County Dublin is now an urban built-up area and I should imagine the anomaly that exists in my area with regard to the scheme exists also in other areas throughout the country. A real injustice is being suffered by people because of what might be called the "wood" philosophy. We should have a national scheme applying to all parts of the country. At the moment two contradictory schemes are in operation and this is causing hardship to many people. I urge the Minister, as I have done with his predecessors on many occasions in similar debates, to introduce legislation to provide a uniform free fuel scheme that would apply throughout the country. It is time that we moved away from the philosophy of the Second World War and administer the scheme to meet the needs of the people of Ireland in the 1980s.

There are a number of problems with regard to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme that should be highlighted. One of them is a problem for those who administer this scheme and those who seek to advise people about their entitlements. I have raised this matter before but nothing has been done about it. I am informed by supplementary welfare allowance officers — because we are in the 1980s we call them community welfare officers but they are still supplementary welfare allowance officers under the legislation — that they are supplied by the Department of Social Welfare with guidelines that direct them as to the manner in which they are to reach their decisions when people seek allowances. In particular they provide directions as to the circumstances in which they should exercise their discretion under the Act. This discretion allows them to make payments to people in particular circumstances but the guidelines curb that discretion. I understand from the officers — they are servants of the State and cannot make public speeches about this or if they did they would probably be sacked — that the effect of the guidelines is that the scheme is not being operated in accordance with the legislation.

By curtailing the discretion of these officers, the guidelines do not allow them to be as flexible as the Act intended them to be in certain circumstances. As a result they find that when they should make allowances in some instances, in respect of which they have statutory powers, the guidelines curb that discretion. Because of the guidelines and epistles emanating from the Department, they are not supposed to make payments and if they do they get into some difficulties. These officers should not be put in that position. If they fulfil their statutory duty they break departmental guidelines but those guidelines should not conflict with the legislation passed by this House.

There is a problem in connection with the guidelines, in that Members of this House, other than one or two former Ministers, do not know what is in them. Elected members of health boards and committees and Members of this House who have sought copies of the guidelines have been told they will not be made available to them because they are internal departmental documents. It may be that my information on this matter is not true but I do not believe that. There is no reason why I should receive representations on this point that are untrue. There should not be any secrecy or mystique about what is in the guidelines. Many members of the public who have sought assistance under this scheme are of the belief that they have not been treated fairly. Supplementary welfare officers are at the receiving end of the remarks of disgruntled applicants when the officers administer the scheme in the way the guidelines appear to require. I ask the Minister to end the secrecy that surrounds them. They should be made available to Members of this House and to members of health boards and local health committees. Health boards have the statutory function, through the Department, of administering the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. It is nonsense that the elected members of those bodies do not know what is in the guidelines. Once and for all, the Minister should end the secrecy attached to them.

When the supplementary scheme was set up its great merit was that a number of individuals, as of right, were entitled to receive allowances under the scheme. That moved us away from the home assistance concept where everything was discretionary. While certain discretionary powers were left to officers to deal with exceptional problems or circumstances, the merit was that certain people had entitlements under the scheme as of right. The second merit was that, unlike the old home assistance scheme, the legislation envisaged that there would be formal social welfare appeals tribunals so that people who felt their applications for supplementary welfare allowances were wrongly turned down would have an opportunity of a full and proper appeal before an appeals tribunal. Formal appeals tribunals have never been established under the scheme. Directors of community care have been put in the position of acting as appeals tribunals. I believe the manner in which this is operating is unsatisfactory.

I appreciate that at this stage to establish a whole panoply of appeals tribunals in relation to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme throughout the State would probably result in considerable expenditure which we can ill afford. I believe there is a way in which this can be done without incurring too much expenditure. I believe there is a need to formalise the appeal structure. I urge the Minister to go back and have a look at the legislation and its original intent and provide for a more formal and independent type of appeal structure than exists at the moment. He should also ensure that applicants for supplementary allowance are aware that if their applications for the allowance are turned down they have the right of appeal. Very often people are unaware of this and do not pursue their rights. In the context of the present economic climate the supplementary welfare allowance scheme provides a safe social welfare scheme to those in very real need and provides a basic form of assistance. It is important that this scheme is seen to be administered properly, that there is no mystique or secrecy attached to it, that people are seen to be dealt with fairly and that people understand that they have the right to appeal.

I want to refer to another anomaly in the social welfare code. Around 1974 social insurance contributions became compulsory for many people for whom they had not been previously compulsory. Many of those who, from 1974 onwards, made social insurance payments and retired some years afterwards became entitled to the old age contributory pension. There are a number of people who have been caught in a rather odd and peculiar anomaly which needs to be sorted out. I have come across two or three of my own constitutents who are in this situation. There are a number of people who during the course of the fifties and sixties received salaries in some cases for not more than three or four months which brought them within the old social welfare code and required them to make a social welfare contribution. One particular constituent between January and March 1953 got an increase in salary that was backdated and this resulted in the Department of Social Welfare holding him liable for social insurance contributions. He paid in all ten insurance contributions. He then fell outside the social insurance net and was brought back within it in 1974. He continued paying social welfare insurance from 1974 until April 1981, when he retired.

If this person had never paid the ten contributions from January to March 1953 he would have automatically been entitled to an old age contributory pension because of the contributions made from 1974 to 1981. It was through no fault of his that he did not make any contributions from March 1953 until 1974. The Department, because he made those ten contributions, in determining whether during his years of employment he made a sufficient number of contributions, instead of looking at the position from 1974 to 1981, backdated his position to 1953. There is this anomalous and ridiculous situation: if this man had not been fortunate enough to get a back payment which affected him for three months in 1953 and if he had not made the ten contributions to the social insurance code, if he had received the increase in pay and nobody had told the Department of Social Welfare and those ten contributions had not been made, that man as of right would today be entitled to a contributory old age pension. He is severely prejudiced by an anomalous ruling of the Department of Social Welfare under a statutory provision which affects a number of people who have retired in recent years and who find that because possibly for a year in the fifties they came within the social insurance net, they cannot now get a contributory pension. Colleagues of theirs who worked throughout all those years and who did not make any contribution whatsoever in the fifties or sixties are entitled to a contributory old age pension.

The problem here is that it affects a small number of people, is clearly an injustice, but it is a complicated matter to explain. It is not the stuff of politicians speeches on the hustings. It will not generate great applause by raising it. Nevertheless it creates a severe injustice. I urge the Minister to look at this very seriously. It is a matter, in the context of the cost factor, for the State to put right. In the context of the number of people it affects it would be little more than a drop in the ocean, but it would right a great injustice. I hope the Minister will take this seriously and will see that, in the interests of equity, it is dealt with by a change in the approach of the Department or, if necessary, by amending legislation.

I know I have been critical of the Minister and of the social welfare code, but a debate of this nature is only useful if Deputies come into the House and indicate their views of where there are problems or difficulties with the social welfare code, what type of reforms are required and what existing anomalies need to be tackled. The criticisms I made were not intended to be critical of the Minister personally, whom I wish well. I believe he intends to tackle many of the areas I have referred to. I hope he will heed the remarks made by other Deputies and myself during the course of the debate. I wish him well in the coming year. I hope that when we have a similar debate next year I will not find myself again raising all the points I have raised today, many of which have been made by me in previous debates on social welfare legislation or in Estimates debates.

Mrs. Lemass

The Labour Party Deputies are conspicuous by their absence. I hope this situation does not continue and that they come into the House and make contributions to this Estimate debate. The Labour Party have always maintained that they are the party who are interested in the underprivileged, the deprived, the unemployed and all the other people who need help under the social welfare code. When it comes to coming into the House and speaking on the Social Welfare Estimate, where are they? Perhaps they will come in next week, if this debate continues then. Perhaps they will have the courage of their convictions to come into the House, sit behind the Minister and support him on his Estimate. I doubt if they will, because they really do not agree with it.

The Labour Party are really finding it very difficult to vote for this Social Welfare Estimate and the Social Welfare Bill, as we saw recently. The reason for this is that they know the policies being pursued in this regard are wrong, unfair and unjust. They will find it very hard to support the policies being pursued by the Coalition Government. We all realise that those policies are causing grave unemployment problems. The fact that we now have almost as many people unemployed and on social welfare as we have employed is causing untold hardship for the community. We realise that if we pay out large sums of money to help the unemployed it has to come from somewhere. It is the people who are working who are contributing this money. They are finding it more difficult to pay because of the high numbers who are unemployed. It would not be so bad if inflation was dropping. If we were like Britain who has an inflation rate of 4 per cent we could hope that when the recession passed there would be an upturn in employment. However, this is not the case.

We have rapidly rising inflation. At present it is 17 per cent. The recent farm price increases will add 3 per cent to inflation. People will have to pay more for food products. Last year under Fianna Fáil inflation had dropped from 24 per cent to 12 per cent but this year it is up to almost 20 per cent. That will not do anything for employment. Rather more jobs will be lost and more and more people will draw unemployment assistance. The work force is growing smaller while the number of unemployed grows. No country can sustain that.

I do not accept that we have to put up with that kind of unemployment. The Government are doing nothing to create new jobs or maintain existing ones. Factories are closing down every day and more and more people are out of work. Now I know why £31 million was set aside for unemployment benefit. With the number of unemployed we have we will be looking for another £31 million before the end of the year.

I wish the Government would look at the problems families have and try to understand how serious they are. People who have been in employment for up to 25 years are now unemployed. Among them are many men in their forties who are the sole providers for their families. They find they are going out to dirty, dreary unemployment exchanges. They are humiliated and embarrassed. They have to stand in long queues. They will not tolerate this kind of situation. They are unable to provide for their families, pay their mortgages, send their children to school properly dressed, pay bus fares, doctors' bills and so on. The people will become so humiliated and deflated that they will not be able to manage to pull themselves out of it. The Government must do something quickly to create jobs.

Many of those in the 16 to 18-year age group cannot find jobs. There are no allowances for them. Parents have to try to feed and clothe them. They are becoming destructive and going on to the streets. It is hard to blame them because they have nothing else to do. It is causing untold harm to society to have so many young people unemployed.

The Minister said he set aside £5 million to help 20,000 families and I heard Deputy O'Hanlon say this morning that would be less than £5 per family. If there are administrative costs involved it will be even less. What will we do with the 20,000 families? Will we give them £2 or £3 a week? The £5 million might have been put to better use because giving someone £3 a week will not help very much. Who will we give it to? How will they apply for it? What criteria will be laid down in order to receive this small pittance the Minister will hand out to those practically on the breadline?

There are many anomalies and inequalities in the social welfare code and I am glad the Minister decided to set up a commission. An extensive survey was carried out recently and I wonder if the Minister took that into account. I hope he will appoint some Members of the House to the commission so that they will have an input into it. Public representatives know a great deal about problems in the social welfare code. All Deputies hold regular clinics. Apart from people who come about unemployment and housing problems, the largest category come about social welfare. Their biggest problem is that they do not know what they are entitled to. They do not know how or where to apply. The social welfare code is a mess of inconsistencies and anomalies. If some Minister could make it an easy system where everybody would get what they are entitled to, I would thank that person and welcome their efforts.

People on medical benefit find that even though they are legitimately sick, attending their doctor and receiving a medical certificate each week, they are being sent for by an appeals officer so that he can determine whether they are genuinely entitled to the benefit. This seems to be a complete waste of time. Either we trust a doctor to give his patient a medical certificate or we do not. If we do not trust them to say to the Department of Social Welfare that a person is ill and not fit for work, then we should investigate the doctors to see whether they are doing a proper job. We should not have appeals officers in the Department of Social Welfare disputing the opinion of a medical doctor. How can we decide who is right and who is wrong? If a doctor gives a person a medical certificate that should be enough for the Department of Social Welfare.

Another problem is the increase in the amount of money that people must pay within the month under the drugs scheme. That amount has been increased from £10 to £23. A guideline for the medical card is £77——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be more relevant to the next Estimate for the Department of Health.

Mrs. Lemass

I am trying to explain that the amount of increases that the social welfare recipients are getting will be eroded by this increase in the drug scheme in some cases because thereby the recipients will lose their medical card. Therefore, what is the point of giving them £1 over the guideline if then they will have to pay up to £23? For goodness sake, give them a sufficient increase in their social welfare benefits and contributory old age pension to pay for the increase in the price of drugs. The 10 per cent or 12 per cent will not give people even enough money to keep up with what they have to pay out, never mind the increase in the cost of living when inflation is going up to nearly 18 per cent. This means that people are much worse off as a result of this budget and this social welfare Bill which came in recently. Their incomes have been reduced considerably.

They will get this increase in July. Of course, the Government state that it comes in at the end of June. Long ago we would see something for sale in a shop priced at 1s.11½d, never 2s., because the 1.11½d. seemed much less than the 2s. It is said that people will get the increase in June when in fact it will be July. They will have to wait several months for it, although inflation and prices are going up and so are rents.

That is another area of an increase in the cost of living under this Social Welfare Bill which will cause untold hardship to old people whose rents have been increased considerably. That has not been taken into account in the increase in the social welfare benefits. Old people particularly will not be able to afford even a small increase in their rent and the Government have reduced the amount of money to supplement the rent from £15.5 million to £10 million. Many of those old people will find their rents increased in the courts by vast amounts and the Government will not give them sufficient for them to live and pay the small rent that they had been paying and they will find it extremely difficult to cope.

The Minister this morning said — and I agree and accept — that a vast amount of discrimination against women exists still in the social welfare code. He has stated that numerous aspects of this will be remedied in 1984. That, of course, is under an EEC directive. Did anything at all happen to bring women into line and to eliminate discrimination against them except under EEC regulations? Only for the EEC we would still be back in the dark ages. The woman in the home about whom the last Coalition in 1981 were so concerned that they stated that they would give her £9.60 of her husband's tax rebate to ensure that she would be properly maintained was also to get optical and dental treatment free. What has happened to all this concern about the woman in the home with a family? She does not get even an increase in the children's allowances this year.

When we gave a substantial increase in children's allowances the Labour Party particularly were never satisfied with it. They always said we were not giving enough. They said that the 25 per cent increase in social welfare was not enough. Deputy Cluskey was not happy about a budget which increased social welfare allowances by 25 per cent. He said that it was not enough, it should be 30 per cent. That was a few short years ago, and here he is now in a Government who are giving 10 per cent and 12 per cent, which is not a percentage at all because it is eroded before the people get it, and there is no increase whatsoever in children's allowances. There is not a word about the promise to give the woman in the home free optical and dental treatment.

Will we be listening to those promises forever? Will the people who need this kind of help ever get it? I know women who cannot even afford to go to the dentist because they have not enough money to do so. We all know that dental treatment is extremely expensive and no woman in the home in the present economic situation, with increased prices in the shops, can afford to pay £100, £200 or even more to have a large dental job done. What is she to do? She must do without it. That is all, and the same applies to optical treatment. We all know that a pair of glasses will cost around £70 or £80. How is a woman at home in the house with four or five children to get that kind of money? When will we make sure that women in the home are entitled to that and will get it?

The debate on this Estimate has contained a good deal of repetition. Do we come in here and waste our time? Is anybody listening to us? Will anybody do anything about what we ask or state here? Will anybody try to put into operation the various suggestions made by Deputies in the House? The free fuel voucher scheme was mentioned by several Deputies this morning. This scheme was improved when Deputy Haughey was in the Department of Health and Social Welfare but it was not improved sufficiently and I agree with previous speakers that the scheme contains numerous anomalies. Two people have the same amount of money coming in to them and one will get free fuel under the scheme while the other will not. That is most unfair. I ask the Minister as a matter of urgency, before the operation of this scheme begins again in October, to ensure that it will be applied equally. He should also ensure that no one will be able to go to a Deputy and say that his neighbour can get something which he cannot get. It is very difficult to try to explain that the fuel scheme works in different ways in different parts of the country. The Minister should make sure that this scheme is sorted out before October. I hope the computers he mentioned in his speech will ensure that people will receive equal treatment. I wonder how much these computers will cost. I hope they will be of benefit because sometimes when computers take over the work formerly done by people they churn out something over and over again and cannot be stopped. If it is fed the wrong information, it is impossible to change it. If a social welfare recipient is not getting the correct benefit it might take weeks and months for the computer to change its mind. Let us hope that it will be an efficient system which will help those in receipt of social welfare benefits.

The Minister stated that the Government are committed to protecting the living standards of social welfare recipients. How can he possibly state that when the money paid to social welfare recipients has been reduced? Nobody will be any better off and, probably by the end of the year, most of them will be much worse off than they were in April. Increasing unemployment is the major factor in the sad situation that exists today. The Minister also said that it is affecting contribution income. It should be the Government's first priority to remedy unemployment because, unless people get jobs, those receiving benefits — the less well off, the handicapped, widows and deserted wives — will never be better off because the money is not there. We must increase employment so that we will have more people making a contribution to the Exchequer so that underprivileged people will get increases in their allowances.

The general increase in social welfare rates is inadequate. They do not come into operation until 1 July. They will reduce pay-related benefits by 15 per cent. People will have to wait from two to three weeks longer to receive their benefits and, instead of the 10 per cent and 12 per cent increases they believe they are getting, in reality they will be getting only 7½ per cent and 9½ per cent increases. The less well off people depend on the policies of the Government to ensure that their living standards are maintained. This Government have let the people know in no uncertain terms that they are not prepared to maintain the standard of living of the less well off section of the community.

Dr. McCarthy

We are all aware of the enormous cost to the Department of Social Welfare in funding the benefits to which people are entitled, especially in such a period of high unemployment. Factories are closing down at the rate of 20 per week, so obviously unemployment is going to get worse. People who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own are entitled to have a reasonably decent standard of living for their wives and families. They cannot be allowed to exist under conditions of poverty. We are all entitled to the essentials of life, including medical care.

There are certain aspects of the implementation of the distribution of benefits which could be improved, and there can be no disagreement about that. Every Member of this House recognises that the non-payment of disability benefit is one of the main causes of all the written questions which are put before this House every week. Deputies from every constituency have to ask why disability benefit has not been paid to people in their constituencies. This is an extraordinary waste of time, but the Deputies have to do this because of the inefficiency of the Department in not making these payments. There must be reform in this area, because in general these are very clear-cut cases and it should not take five to eight weeks to assess them before payments are made.

The Minister and the Department should recognise that many of these people are subjected to the demeaning process of having to go to the social welfare officer and apply for supplementary benefit. People hope they will be paid on a Thursday or Friday and when the money does not come perhaps they are not in a position to call on the social welfare officer who may not live in their immediate area. They may not have travel facilities to allow them to go to the town where the social welfare officer lives to apply for supplementary welfare benefit. They often have to live over the week-end in very difficult circumstances and may have to borrow money to provide the essentials of life.

I have no doubt that all Members of this House are aware that this happens. I would like to see the Department reforming the methods of payment so that they can be more streamlined and efficient. There is often too an undue delay in the payment of unemployment assistance.

I am a little concerned about the position with regard to old age pensions. There is a very long delay in deciding a person's eligibility for a non-contributory old age pension. Many people who have looked after their family well and have disposed of their property to their family wait months and months for a decision to be taken. I would question the desirability of the local old age pensions committee. Much of the information laid before these committees is very private and personal. I am not suggesting that members of these committees would be there for the lowly reason of finding out the income or assets of any particular person but I believe it is a fairly demeaning process. I do not think old age pension committees solve any problems or get any extra benefits for applicants. This should be solely a departmental function.

We must look at the whole system of the social insurance fund and social insurance contributions and see if we have reached a stage where change could be introduced. We should look first at the contributions and decide if this is a tax or not. If it is a tax it should be judged by the criterion which should be used on any type of taxation. It should be evaluated for equity, efficiency and simplicity. I believe it is a form of tax. I know the Department are not inclined to concede that and to say that it is a method devised to allow the Department to build up a record over a period of time to determine people's eligibility for benefits. This was true I am sure until the abolition of the insurance stamp in 1979 but it is probably no longer the case. Over 80 per cent of the social insurance services are funded by contributions and the contributions at present are proving a crippling tax on PAYE workers. I believe it is quite an unfair method of taxation. It is paid on a flat rate and not related to marital status or dependency but only to pay. There are 12 different rates of social insurance contribution at present and the benefits are totally dependency-related, so in many cases people who are obtaining these benefits are not getting good value for their money. Some attempt should be made to introduce some other method to fund social insurance. It is becoming apparent that it is a tax on labour, it will very likely continue to increase unemployment and it is a disincentive for any employer to employ workers. It particularly discourages employers from employing people on lower incomes, from employing part-time workers, women, old and unskilled workers. These people are a large section of our community and we should be encouraging their employment. To impose a tax on potential employers which will inhibit them from providing jobs is a regressive step.

There are other areas where the payment of benefits can be improved. We have medical referees for the disability benefit scheme. We have heard from different people about people obtaining disability benefit to which they are not entitled. That may have happened. I do not know. I have had no personal experience of it. Our medical referees do their job as well as possible, but there are not enough of them. This check should be available in every area at regular intervals. After a certain period, people obtaining disability benefit, and medical certificates from their doctors, should be brought before a medical referee regularly for an assessment of their condition. With the small number of medical referees we have, people get disability benefit indefinitely, and perhaps in certain cases they may not be entitled to it.

As I said, I have no personal experience of this, but I can appreciate the problems of an overworked family doctor with many patients coming to see him. People who are on certain treatment because of certain conditions come to him once a week for their medical insurance certificates. In view of the fact that the doctor is overworked he might be inclined to take the easy way out, as it were, and sign the medical certificate. That is all the patient would be looking for on that occasion. I am not implying in any way that the people looking for certificates or the doctors are dishonest but, as a safeguard, we should have more medical referees available in each area.

Anyone who is on long-term medical certification for over a year, and who has been accepted as being entitled to disability benefit by the medical referee, and particularly if the type of illness is permanent, automatically should receive an invalidity pension. Some people have been on disability benefit and long-term certification for two or three years and the Department have not considered providing them with an invalidity pension until this was brought to their notice. This should be a relatively automatic procedure.

The guideline suggested is one year. We should have a definite guideline and, when it is reached, the person should be carefully and clinically assessed for possible eligibility for an invalidity pension. This would relieve people of having to go to the trouble of attending at monthly intervals for medical certification. It would relieve the workload of the doctor and would give people the extra benefits to which they are entitled such as free travel and, hopefully, the double payments in September or before Christmas which were so deeply appreciated by recipients. I have no doubt that the Minister will continue these double payments to people who are entitled to them.

There are areas for reform to ensure the utmost efficiency. Apart from the most efficient type of service which I know the Department would like to provide, the whole structure of the payments should be made more equitable and efficient so that there is no disincentive to work or to the provision of employment.

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Mr. F. O'Brien)

I should like to thank most sincerely all the Deputies who contributed to this debate constructively and positively. That attitude is most important in a debate on social welfare. I hope that spirit will continue. Because of our economic situation there are great pressures on the Department of Social Welfare. There is no question about that. Our budget now is nearly £2 billion which gives a clear indication of the magnitude of the services provided. The cost of administration is only 4 per cent. I commend my Department on the efficiency of their administration. Obviously in any Department dealing with so many claims and so many demands, from time to time problems arise.

Deputy O'Hanlon referred to the processing of applications for unemployment assistance. I agree that because of the demand there are delays. People on unemployment benefit — I do not know if they are informed of this, but they should be; I will check it — can apply for a qualification certificate in advance and have it completed so that they can automatically receive unemployment assistance. If people come in off the street, so to speak, to the exchange or the local office they have to be investigated. Because of the numbers involved, that causes particular problems. I want to assure the House that in that area we intend to ensure that delays are minimised, because they cause hardship, people suffer, and that is not good enough.

Deputy O'Hanlon raised another point with regard to the increases in the budget this year of 12 per cent and 10 per cent and felt that possibly it would have been better to have paid the full year at 9 per cent and 7½ per cent, which would mean people receiving the increases earlier. That may look somewhat attractive, but when examined it falls down. That might be all right in year one, but year on year obviously the 10 per cent and 12 per cent are much better. I would not agree, therefore, that it is important we revert to that. Obviously the temptation to do so is great — and I have no doubt that the Government may have been tempted — but when one examines the percentage figures it is found they are very low.

We are endeavouring to create, right across the board, a climate of moderation. We have got to get our whole costs system down. I am hoping that society will respond to the calls made by the Government to moderate pay increases. If we get this moderation — and I believe we will — if we can control prices, then we shall get inflation down to low, single figures, when those increases of 10 per cent and 12 per cent will be found to be meaningful. Again, that is something that we as a Government must do. As it is, the economy is not healthy; and if we become inefficient and less competitive, it will cause further unemployment and place pressures on those exchanges we are talking about. That is something of which we must all be mindful. Given the situation obtaining, I believe that the increases were reasonable. Obviously, everybody would like to give more; but we must face the reality of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

Deputy O'Hanlon referred to the family income supplement, maintaining that it would look after only about 20,000 families. First of all, the Minister indicated that this scheme is being reviewed. The principle is right: there are families at risk. I noted Deputy Lemass making the comment: "Only £4 or £5 a week". To a family on a very low income £4 or £5 a week can mean something. It is important that there be some type of family income supplement to ensure that people can obtain the necessities of life. I believe that principle is important and right. Obviously, we can only see its effectiveness in operation. I believe it will be successful and has a role to play in our society. We would rather it had not such a role to play, that wages and incomes were at such a level that there would be no need for this type of supplement. But in the present situation it is necessary.

Deputy Shatter sought consolidation of the social welfare regulations. We have the 1981 Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act. The whole question of consolidation of these regulations is going ahead. I hope that will also tidy up the whole area, rendering the process much simpler.

A number of Deputies spoke about information being available. I believe people should have ready access to information and to benefits. Indeed, the Department have published very good booklets in regard to both rates and the benefits to which people are entitled. However, very often the people one is endeavouring to establish contact with at that level are not that accessible and we may fail. We do make such booklets available at all our centres. These booklets are very simple and easily understood.

It is important also that the staff in the various social welfare offices be aware of and always willing to give information. We should always have our best people up front in these public offices. It should be remembered that the public pay, that they are the customer and deserve the best we can afford. I would always be interested in ensuring that people are well treated and looked after. The whole question of having information readily available to people or of getting payments quickly is something about which we must always be vigilant. On the disability benefit side the situation is good. It is computerised and, if the information inserts come up with the correct information, it operates well. There are, of course, a percentage of failures; but generally I believe it operates well.

I think also that the whole area of welfare should be computerised and in this respect there are proposals at present being examined. That should improve the service to people generally. However, one must understand that with the large numbers of people becoming eligible for social welfare, in whatever category, we are still basically operating with the same complement of staff. That is why it is important that we computerise the system generally.

The appointment of a Commission on Social Welfare is very important. Of its very nature the system is built up, on an ad hoc basis without proper planning. I am hopeful that we can examine its whole fabric to ascertain the direction in which it is going and how it should develop.

Our social welfare system constitutes a very important aspect of our lives and our society must be judged on how such a system develops. If I may deviate somewhat for a moment, I noticed a question on the Order Paper today complaining that henceforth medical cards will have to be used for school transport, that it is dreadful that people be asked to display a medical card. I dispute that. People have medical cards as of right and it is nothing to be ashamed of or, indeed, to hide. They are the same as any other benefits. They are not a form of handout.

Deputy McCarthy spoke about the employers' and the employees' contributions. He is convinced that this is a form of taxation but I would have to disagree. We have a social insurance scheme and people who are in need have a right to claim. That right would not exist under a scheme of taxation. It is misleading to say it is a form of taxation. Many people who pay tax under the PAYE system feel very strongly about the payment of PRSI but it is wrong to consider withholding these payments. These people are in employment and by taking this action they would deprive people who are less fortunate and out of work. A social insurance system must be funded. The State pays 21 per cent, the employer 53 per cent and the employee 25 per cent. Deputy McCarthy said that this is a tax on employment but benefits must be paid for. The State is carrying a reasonable share, as is the employee, and it is equitable that the employer should carry the bulk. I would hate to feel that we were imposing a penal tax on employment but it is part of the obligation when employing people to insure them in the event of redundancy. We should not look on our social insurance scheme as a form of income tax. If that attitude develops there will be a hardening of opinion against the whole system and ultimately the people who will suffer will be those with the smaller voice in society, old age pensioners and social welfare recipients in general.

Deputy Lemass mentioned the free fuel system. I would accept that it is not a well organised scheme and we will have to look at it again. It operates fairly well within the cities and towns but not in the rural areas. Any scheme should be equitable and should be seen to be so and there have been a number of complaints regarding this scheme.

Deputy Lemass also raised the matter of the rent allowance scheme for tenants of dwellings which were formerly rent controlled. We are aware that court cases are being held very frequently and that some harsh decisions are being made. There is no question of a cut in the allowance for pensioners and social welfare recipients. The allocation in the Book of Estimates is reduced to £10.5 million because we know this amount is more than adequate. Some rents have risen from £1.20 to £35 a week and if such a scheme did not exist people would be on the roadside seeking accommodation from the local authorities. It is to be hoped that a rent tribunal will be established as quickly as possible so that more equitable settlements may be reached. There is no question of any reduction in the rent allowance scheme.

Deputy Shatter indicated his hope that some Members of the Oireachtas might be included in the commission on social welfare. He pointed out that they are the people who will enact any legislation to give effect to any recommendations made by the commission. I will pass his suggestion to the Minister because the idea has great merit. Public representatives have a wealth of experience in the area of social welfare, dealing with people at a very practical level. The setting up of this commission is long overdue and I hope they will bring forward a report quickly within a given time.

I thank Deputies for their contributions to this debate. We have noted them and they will be considered.

Vote put and agreed to.