(Dún Laoghaire): Because of the time lost it is agreed that Deputy Collins will speak for ten minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Smallholders' Social Assistance: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Dr. O'Hanlon on Tuesday, 13 December 1983:
"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to provide social assistance to alleviate the hardship of smallholders in need, following the abolition of the notional method of assessment.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes that entitlement to unemployment assistance is now decided on a uniform basis in the case of all applicants having regard to their actual means and further notes that with a view to alleviating the position of unemployment assistance recipients generally the Government provided an increase of 5% in the standard rates of assistance from October last to those who had been unemployed for 15 months or more, including small holders whose entitlement to assistance was based on a factual assessment of their means."
—(Minister for Social Welfare).
It would facilitate the Chair if you would give that agreement to the Chair.
(Dún Laoghaire): We will do that and present it to the Chair.
I want to express my gratitude to Deputy Denis Gallagher for giving me a few moments of his time to allow me to speak in this debate. I regret that the Minister for Social Welfare is not present; it is a sad reflection that he and Members of his party are not here. It is also a sad reflection that the Government are being represented by a Minister of State who is leaving his Department and who, from tomorrow, will lose all personal interest in one of the greatest tragedies that has happened this year.
Previous speakers have outlined why this scheme was introduced by us in the sixties. We all know the benefits it has conferred and it is very wrong to see a Government being defended by a Dublin Deputy. I see the Minister for Social Welfare coming into the House. I should like to extend to him a personal invitation to visit the parts of the country where—I say this without resentment or rancour—he is regarded as more harmful than Cromwell because of the way these people are affected by his actions in recent times. The Minister should know that this supplement which people existed on has now been taken from them and that many homes are without any income whatsoever from the end of September to the end of May. On a number of occasions I have made a simple request, in writing, to the Minister's Department which was not answered. Could the Minister please let me know how these people will exist in the winter months? They have no income whatsoever. I wonder if the Minister is aware of the great harm he has done, particularly to the poorer parts of rural Ireland. Recently I was at a meeting in Corrigkerry on the Limerick-Kerry border and there was disbelief that a Labour Minister with connections in County Cork could turn his back on these poor people. It is very wrong to do such a thing.
I do not mind what system the Minister applies as long as he looks after these people. I should prefer to see the old system in operation but if he must change it—and I am not sure that the High Court decision made him do so—it must still be a system that will help people who urgently need help. Many have been reduced overnight to no income whatsoever. It is an exceptionally bad day's work. Small farmers are not being given any allowances for legitimate expenses necessarily incurred by them. This urgently needs to be changed. What allowances are given to small farmers for electricity for their milking machines and cooling plants?
When did the Minister's Department allow that?
It is allowed.
Does the Minister allow anything in interest to a man who owes big money to the bank?
Yes.
Since when?
(Interruptions.)
I notified a case to the Minister's Department where a man was given an interest subsidy of £400 to help him to pay off interest charges on what he borrowed from the bank. The Department's social welfare officer held that that money was income. Can the Minister tell me also what allowances are given for each child? I can tell him, it is £100 per child and people on PAYE get about £400 per child. Can the Minister tell me what allowance he gives a small farmer for his wife? The answer is none. The Minister would do both himself and the country a service by visiting some of those homes in which there is nothing but gloom and despair at this Christmas time.
I know of cases in which money was withheld as early as last June. These cases are still on appeal. Despite this situation, this Labour Party Minister tells us that he is concerned about the worse off. Is it necessary to leave these people without money for such a long period? This should not happen. It is very wrong and the sooner something is done about it the better. I would prefer the notional system but regardless of which system is applied, allowance should be made for legitimate expenditure.
We are applying exactly the same system as Deputy Woods sanctioned as Minister.
I did not. If the Minister is trying to mislead the House by way of telling half lies, we will have an awful row for the rest of the evening.
The Deputy is good at rows.
The Minister of State is still only an apprentice but if he serves a good apprenticeship the rest may come to him.
Deputy Collins, without interruption.
The Deputy's ignorance surprises me.
Will the Minister please ensure that those who are entitled to help are helped.
Exactly the same circular was issued by Deputy Woods as Minister.
That is not true as has been pointed out by Deputy O'Hanlon and by others. Obviously, I am touching on a very sensitive nerve. In the ten minutes I have to make my case, I am putting the situation as I know it to be but there are two Members opposite who have not an idea of the hardship being endured by the people concerned.
The people opposite should accept the blame for that.
Will the Minister of State either behave himself or withdraw?
Acting Chairman
Deputy Collins has only two minutes left and he should be allowed continue without interruption.
I wish to be able to use those two minutes. Therefore, I appeal to you to ensure that this apprentice Minister who is still wet behind the ears displays ordinary manners and courtesy and at least allows someone else to listen instead of shouting me down.
Look who is talking.
Acting Chairman
Will the Minister please allow Deputy Collins to proceed?
The Minister would need to take a day off very soon and visit the homes of those people to whom he and his Minister of State are causing severe distress. I am surprised that the leader of the Labour Party who represents a country constituency has not warned the Minister as to the consequences of what he is doing. I am surprised, too, that the Government backbenchers have been quiet in this regard. Under the older system there were people who were legally entitled to benefits, who got those benefits but who could have done without them, while there were many, too, who got benefits under the old system to which they were not only entitled but were urgently in need of. I am asking the Minister to take steps immediately to provide a scheme to help those who are in urgent need.
I should like to comment on some of the points raised during the debate last evening. It would seem that the Opposition are trying to deny that they had any part in the processing of the events that led up to the discontinuance of the notional system of assessment. The Opposition would want this House to believe that the whole process commenced only on the day this Government took office — 14 December 1982.
I would refer the Minister to section 13 of the Social Welfare Act, 1983.
I have looked up the records and the facts are as follows. The High Court judgment which started the whole matter was given on 30 July 1982. The consequences were considered in the normal way, legal advice was sought and it was accepted that the notional system of assessment could not continue and would have to go. On 13 December 1982 a circular was issued by the Department to all their local officers instructing them to discontinue the use of the notional method of assessment and to use factual assessment in future. This all happened while the last Government were in office and it is simply not good enough for the Opposition at this stage to attempt to deny responsibility for what they had done. They were part of the process. Obviously, they are running around the countryside now telling people that something horrible has been foisted on them but omitting to say that Fianna Fáil were responsible for this. That is the reality. It is a message that must go out loud and clear. Fianna Fáil would like to do the Pontius Pilate act now and wash their hands of the whole matter.
When the present Government took over on 14 December 1982 they reviewed the position, considered the legal advice which was available and proceeded to deal with the matter in the way which was outlined by the Minister in his speech last evening.
We had no intention of introducing legislation. The Coalition brought in the notional system.
The question was raised also as to whether the High Court decision declaring certain sections of the Valuation Acts unconstitutional was applicable to the payment of benefits such as unemployment assistance under the notional method of assessment as distinct from the levying of taxes. The position about this is that legal advice was sought and that advice was clear and straightforward. The advice was that the notional system of assessment for unemployment assistance purposes was no longer lawful and would have to be discontinued. It is therefore quite incorrect to suggest that the abolition of the notional system was unnecessary.
When this Government took office therefore the situation had been reached where by the existing system of notional assessment had to be discontinued. All the advice that had been received led to this conclusion and the Minister for Social Welfare had no option but to face that hard fact. References have been made to alternative notional arrangements but they have only been references and no attempt whatever has been made to outline even in the broadest terms what alternative arrangements could be introduced. The introduction of some other type of notional scheme is easier said than done and any such scheme would have to practical, workable and equitable. Each of these considerations is equally important. There is not much point in talking about introducing something. We are open to all suggestions but the facts are there and, above all, we must be practical. We must be prepared to face reality and not be shedding crocodile tears.
Do Fine Gael in Swinford agree with the Minister?
When the difficulty about the PLV system arose somebody came up with the idea that the system should be updated to make it relevant to modern-day conditions and thus fair all round. This sounded a very reasonable and logical solution until what would be involved was examined. I have seen it reported that the conclusion was that it could take at least ten years to carry out such an assignment and apart from the timescale the cost involved would obviously be great. So much for simple solutions.
It was, therefore, necessary to replace at short notice the notional system of assessment by something that was practical, workable and equitable. A readymade replacement was already available in the method of assessment used for the unemployment assistance scheme generally which is based on the actual means of the applicant. When the notional system was abolished some 12,800 smallholders were receiving assistance on that basis. Some 89,000 however, were receiving unemployment assistance having had their means assessed on a factual basis. We should think about those figures. This is not something new, it has been ongoing.
The question of equity is an important one and there is much to be said for treating all applicants for unemployment assistance alike on the basis of their actual means. When it became necessary to replace the notional method of assessment, the decision to apply a common means test to all applicants for unemployment assistance was logical and reasonable because the system was working. It cannot be questioned that it helps to ensure equal treatment for all those involved. Under the system everybody will be treated equally and I do not think there can be any complaint about that. It is not inequitable if everybody is put on the same footing and I do not think the Opposition will disagree with that.
In his contribution last evening the Minister referred to the criteria for factual assessment of means for unemployment assistance purposes which had been circulated to all Deputies. I am familiar with this document because I discussed this matter with a number of delegations which I had received. As a result of these discussions it was clear to me that there was a great deal of misunderstanding about the whole question of the means test. I decided, therefore, that it was time to put down in black and white what was actually involved in the means test. I had the officials of the Department prepare the document to circulate it to Deputies.
Obviously, all Members have not read that document. I am certain that the last speaker did not read it because he was unaware of the system. I can recall when speaking at a by-election meeting in Cork that Member describing me as a Dublin Jackeen. That was very narrow-minded of him. As Members of the House we represent people of all shades of opinion whether they are small farmers, businessmen, unemployed or whether they are from Dublin or rural Ireland. It surprised me to hear a Deputy of his standing utter such nonsense.
The document I circulated illustrated the points I have mentioned. I also asked my officials to prepare a questionnaire for social welfare officers so that when they are dealing with people they have the full facts in front of them. My concern is that any system must be fair. I have made every effort to ensure that this is the case. It may be that there was a misunderstanding about this but I am anxious to eradicate that and I believe the document I circulated helped in that regard. I am sure people can see the reasonableness of our decision. Deputies should realise that the last thing I want to do is to make life harder for people.
Some Deputies have questioned the fairness of the means test and in the case of smallholders have maintained that account is taken of gross income only, while no allowance is made for expenses. I do not accept this and I hope Members are of the same opinion. In the document which I had circulated there is a special section dealing with farm income and this sets out quite clearly how means from farming are assessed in the case of unemployment assistance applicants.
The calculation is done on an income and expenditure basis and represents the income from farming less any expenses actually and necessarily incurred in earning that income. The basis of the calculation is the net income over the 12 months preceding the investigation of means. Details are ascertained in respect of this period of the total gross income from farming activities, such as the sale of stock, the sale of crops and other produce, sale of milk to creamery and the letting of land. Account is also taken of farm produce consumed by the family and any grants or subsidies received, for example, headage payments. Deductions are made from the gross income to take account of the cost of earning the farm income.
In general, these deductions take the form of outgoings such as rent payments, annuities or rates, cost of seeding and purchase of feeding and fertilisers together with the cost of labour. Deductions would also take into account outgoings such as veterinary expenses and the cost of renewal of tools and farm machinery and of repairs to fences and farm buildings. In relation to borrowings, only the amount of interest paid by the applicant during the 12-month period preceding the investigation of means, on loans obtained by him for the specific purpose of running his farm, may be allowed. The net yearly sum is then divided by 52 and the amount arrived at is deemed to be the weekly farm income.
These, therefore, are the criteria that are used by officers of the Department when carrying out assessments. The Department do not apply double standards in any way, and means investigations of smallholders are carried out fairly and objectively on the basis of the guidelines I have mentioned. I reject utterly any suggestion to the contrary. If any Deputy has any case in which he considers that due account has not been taken of expenses necessarily and legitimately incurred by a smallholder in managing his holding, I will have that case examined if the Deputy will let me have particulars of the case. Indeed I can say that during my time in the Department of Social Welfare I looked into a number of cases of this kind which have been brought to my attention and I did not come across even one case where a blatant error had been made. In many instances the difficulty had arisen because of a genuine misunderstanding of what was at issue.
I am not saying that everything that the Department do is perfect or that from time to time there may not be errors in fact or judgment. What I am saying, however, is that the system is a well tried one that has worked in practice for a long number of years and is based on criteria that are fair and reasonable. It must also be pointed out that there are safeguards in the system. The final say does not necessarily rest with the officer who actually makes an assessment. If any applicant is not satisfied with the amount of means assessed against him it is always open to him to appeal and bring forward the grounds on which he contends that the assessment was not correct.
It has been said that the farmers' dole changed the face of the countryside, that it transformed the lives of the people and brought them a standard of living which they could not otherwise have had. It was even suggested that emigration was halted by the farmers' dole. I am glad to see that life in the countryside has improved, that living in the countryside has has become more enjoyable, that living standards have improved and that all of this has led to better times also for the towns and villages of the countryside. I am glad to see that all of this has happened and it is my sincere wish that things would continue to improve.
However, I think it is exaggerating more than somewhat to claim that all of this was due to the farmers' dole. I really cannot accept such a claim, which I can only describe as emotive. Many things have happened since the farmers' dole was first introduced in 1965 and standards of living have improved considerably in many areas even where there has been no farmers' dole. We joined the EEC and it brought us many advantages which benefited the whole country, urban and rural alike. As far as the Department of Social Welfare are concerned, the schemes and services which they provide have been expanded considerably down the years. This has been done on a national basis and has improved the lot of urban and rural dwellers alike.
In all of these matters, however, we must face reality. We are in a time of severe financial constraint and finances are not as readily available as they may have been in the past. We cannot put forward proposals or introduce schemes regardless of their cost to the Exchequer. Every proposal for a new scheme must be carefully assessed and costed and available funds must be spent to the best possible effect. I know many people are critical of the means test and from time to time we have had calls to have means tests abolished. Such calls, however, are becoming less frequent as people realise more and more that the State has no bottomless purse. Every penny the State spends must first be found in one way or another.
Where assistance schemes are concerned, the means test is an equitable way of ensuring that limited funds are given out to those who are most in need. I see nothing wrong, therefore, about extending the system of means assessment to cover all applicants for unemployment assistance. I consider the principle is fair and reasonable and a genuine attempt at treating alike all sections of the community, urban and rural, on a national basis.
I have dealt at some length with the application of the means test as it affects smallholders applying for unemployment assistance. I have outlined what is involved and the remedies that are open to those who may be dissatisfied. I would like also to repeat what the Minister said last night: if anyone considers that the application of the system is unfair or unbalanced in any way, I would invite him to submit the case to the Department and I can assure him that it will be examined fairly and objectively.
I would point out that this system was evolved as a result of the High Court decision after which officers of the Department were instructed, on 13 December last year, that the notional system could no longer be operated. It is important to point this out now in view of many of the misleading statements made from the opposite side, totally inaccurate statements. Our approach to this matter is humane, considering that we had to do away with the notional system. What other system could we have devised? We have a system which affects 89,000 people. Because of that judgment we sought legal advice. The other side of the House sought the same legal advice. What other system could you operate except the one that operates most satisfactorily for most people? I am amazed at all the crying on the far side of the House about this when they were the people who introduced it.
What about the 1983 Social Welfare Bill? That was a mistake.
It was not a mistake. That was——
Your Government's decision.
That was legitimising a decision. That is the hard fact. That cannot be denied and the Deputy knows that. I am not saying they had an alternative.
The Minister is admitting there was an alternative.
They did not have an alternative. The letter issued on the 30th. We had to enact legislation to cover the situation. They had already issued instructions and they were already operating those instructions before the Bill came into being. I appeal to the House to give this a try. I have no doubt people will lose but even Deputy Collins admitted there were people drawing farmers' dole who should not be drawing it. He cannot have his loaf and eat it. He is a rural Deputy but he has not a notion how it operated. That is sad but it is true.
I am convinced neither the Government nor the Minister understood this special scheme of assistance for small farmers. I am further convinced that the Government in moving away through the Social Welfare Act of 1983 from the notional system struck a disastrous blow to the social and economic development of the west and south-west. It is not necessary for me to go into the history of the scheme but it is important why it was based on a notional system. The system was designed to encourage smallholders in the west and south-west to stay on the land, to marry and rear families, to increase production, without it being necessary for them to look over their shoulders to see if a social welfare officer was coming in the door. The scheme was a tremendous success and the proof of that success is the fact that from 1971 to 1981 the population in the west not only held its own but actually increased at the same rate as it did in the midlands and on the east coast.
If the Government were advised that they could no longer proceed with this scheme as a result of the High Court decision then they should have devised another notional scheme because it is only through such a scheme that assistance can be given to smallholders. Such a scheme is being operated by the ICMSA unit account system. Such a scheme is being operated by the Land Commission. It should be possible to work out a notional system between the Departments of Agriculture and Social Welfare, the farming organisations and the Minister. There is still time to do that. It is only through such a scheme that small farmers can be helped.
The position is very bad in east and south-west Kerry. Many smallholders have no income. Those involved in dairy farming will have no milk cheques coming in between 1 November this year and 1 May 1984. I know cases where smallholders have had their unemployment assistance disallowed. This is very serious. From mid-January onwards social welfare officers will be investigating the circumstances of smallholders with a PLV of £9 and under. Further hardship may result from this examination. The input made by wives and families is not being taken into account. The Minister should issue another reminder to social welfare officers as to those things which should be taken into account as expenses against income. The Minister should take into account the value of the work put into smallholdings by wives and members of the family. In many cases where sons cannot get work unemployment assistance is being reduced by about £20 per week because the value of board and lodgings on the farm is assessed at about £20 per week. This is despicable.
I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and to divise as soon as possible a proper scheme based on a notional system. The present system does not suit smallholders. It was never designed for them. The notional system was a most successful system.
There is an extraordinary delay in dealing with appeals where unemployment assistance has either been reduced or discontinued. Very often people have to wait three and four months for a decision. What is the position with regard to oral hearings? Smallholders should be entitled to oral hearings and they should be facilitated in every way even to the extent of providing representatives for them, either fellow farmers or friends. I ask the Minister to reconsider this scheme and to get back to the notional system. I believe the present system will prove disastrous and will mean a serious setback in the social and economic development of the west and south-west for which the original scheme was set up and in respect of which it was most successful.
I would like to congratulate the Minister on the magnificent job he has done in fielding what must have been a very breezy and heavy ball for the Government. The Minister gives the impression that the Government are very like a rabbit who becomes paralysed when faced with a ferret: any unpalatable decisions can always be blamed on Fianna Fáil. It is an indictment of the thinking of the Government that even a year after taking office they are still inclined to blame Fianna Fáil for what might have happened.
Unfortunately the Minister and the Minister of State are very long in theory. They are very good armchair generals but their battle experience in the field is very limited. Those of us who have to deal factually with the situation on the ground — and I include the Chair in that—know from experience what the real situation is about the so-called factual assessment. It is not factual. Regardless of what the Minister is saying, nobody will explain, except in a very few cases, what rights people are entitled to. The Minister looked for cases. I have already sent him a case. He replied and said he was sorry there was nothing he could do. In that case everything was paid for by cheque. Every item the man sold — he was in dry cattle not in dairying — was paid for by cheque. This showed a net loss of £2,000 at the end of a year's accounts. That man was credited with an income of over £6,000.
This brings me to the standard form which is now coming from the Department. This is sent to every person and it says:
You are not entitled to unemployment assistance because your means are over...
The amount which suits the particular family is inserted. It does not say what the person's means are. It does not say that the means are £4,000, £5,000 or £10,000. It says they are over £X and this figure is above the figure at which the family could get any unemployment assistance. That is our experience, regardless of the letters the Minister sends out. I would like to thank him for those letters because they clarified to some extent some of the matters.
Most Deputies have experience of going to social welfare officers trying to find out exactly what the various families were being charged with. There is no excuse for families having to suffer the loss of £30 to £40 at this time of year in particular when, as Deputy O'Leary said, most of the small farmers with six and seven cows would not have milk to send to the creamery. The type of assistance they got tided them over the winter but that is now being denied to a lot of them. It is not any answer for the Minister to come in here and say he has explained the position to Deputies. I accept that he firmly believes in what he has sent out, but the reality which every rural Deputy faces is completely different from the scenario the Minister of State tried to give us tonight.
We now come back to the very famous court case. Why did the Government not wait until the case was decided by the Supreme Court? The case has now been heard by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court reverse the previous decision will the Minister come in here in a month's time when the judgment is out and go back to the notional system? I am afraid he will not. We got the reason for that when he said that we must face reality. The harsh reality is that many people are, as Deputy O'Leary said, going to supplementary welfare to get enough money to keep them and their families over the winter.
The Minister also stated that available funds must be spent to the best possible advantage — yes, to the best possible advantage of Fine Gael and Labour. But along the west coast, where there is very little for Fine Gael and Labour, I am afraid that unlike Cromwell, who said to hell or to Connacht, this Government have said get out of Connacht or go to hell. That is the harsh reality as far as we are concerned.
The Minister also stated that the Department did not do everything 100 per cent perfect. They do not. If the system is working how can a person apply for unemployment assistance, be refused, have his appeal refused, reapply two months later and with the same means get unemployment assistance? Obviously changes have been made since the Social Welfare Bill was introduced earlier this year. I stated then that we were going back to the stage when social welfare officers would literally be counting the chickens. I am afraid they are counting the eggs now, never mind the chickens. That is the experience of every rural TD.
Deputy Durkan comes from my county, even though he does not represent it. I am sure when he goes down to Mayo they will tell him that and a lot more in language I am afraid I would not be allowed to use here. As the Minister rightly said, factual assessment was always there but it was done on a reasonable basis. It was a considerable help even to those who were at that stage refused unemployment assistance on the notional scheme because they could still ask for and obtain an actual assessment. In all the documentation which has come from the Department to all the rural papers through the Government TDs and Senators we were given to understand that this was the first time this could be done, that the people who were not entitled to it before could get it because of the factual assessment. As the Minister of State said tonight, people could always opt for factual assessment or the notional scheme, whichever suited them best. Quite a number of them, as the Minister of State said, opted for and obtained factual assessment. I believe if they opted for it now they would not get it.
I would like to refer to another matter raised by Deputy O'Leary: the despicable action happening all over where young men and women who have no work and who do not want unemployment assistance if they can obtain work are being forced to take unemployment assistance. The sooner we kill the notion that young people are only interested in the dole the better. They are not interested in the dole if they can get work. If work is not available surely the valuation should not be taken into account. We have the case of two people living side by side, one of them assessed at £24 for board and lodgings and the other assessed at £8. They are both living in the same street, in the same cul-de-sac road. Where is the logic in such a system?
The Deputy must conclude. His time is up.
Will the Minister look at this again and change a system that will denude population of a large number of areas in the west if the system is not restored to what it was?
I am somewhat surprised at Deputy Calleary's reluctance to allow responsibility to fall on the previous Government for any negative aspects of the policies they pursued. However, I can understand it in the circumstances; but the same reluctance does not manifest itself when it comes to anything that is slightly related to a positive aspect. As the Minister has pointed out, one must be prepared to face facts and realise that these decisions were taken and also that they were precipitated by virtue of litigation in the courts and that it was necessary to change the system.
I accept that in many disadvantaged areas there is a need to supplement the income of the smallholder. It would be absolutely impossible for very many small farmers all over those areas to exist or rear their families on the small income they can wrest from those holdings. However, I am totally opposed to a social welfare system under which money is paid out to people without any expectation of return from them. That has been soul-destroying and demoralising. It has undermined the pride, self-sufficiency and independence of rural people in some parts of this country. People on the far side of the House might well laugh. It has been suggested that the farmers' dole changed the face of rural Ireland. There was a need to supplement the income of those people, but irreparable damage has been done to rural Ireland in the sense that it has made many of the people there totally dependent on a system under which they can expect to receive payment without any increase in production whatsoever. There is a good case to be argued and I suggest that the people on the far side of the House take account of it because it would be to their benefit. Anything to be given by way of payment to people who obviously need it should be in return for increased output of one kind or another. I do not mind whether the payment is weekly, monthly, by subsidy or otherwise, but it should be only in return for some kind increased production. Only then will the self-confidence and pride which was formerly theirs return to those people. We should not have a subservient rural population. People in the rural parts were always proud of their heritage and their ability to live on their own farms——
They still are.
From the scenario given us by people on the other side of the House one would think otherwise. The most important thing is to accept on the one hand the need to supplement the incomes of those people. At the same time I ask the people on the far side to consider the possibility of changing the system to one under which the people who are dependent on some kind of supplement would receive that supplement, but in return for some increased effort.
With 200,000 people unemployed it behoves everybody in this House to face facts. The concept of paying money to people without expecting any return is ludicrous. We cannot afford that luxury any more. We can expect only good to come from any system that would reward people for greater effort. It would be pointed out that some people cannot possibly increase production but some means can be found to encourage them down that road.
We have heard the Minister and the Minister of State. In fairness to Deputy Durkan he was the only one who recognised that this is a negative aspect of Government policy. I agree with him on that. The Minister of State made great play of the fact that following the High Court action the Fianna Fáil Government suspended the notional system. The Minister of State and the Minister who was here last night must recognise that this Coalition Government earlier this year in the Social Welfare Bill abolished the national system of assessment.
Hear, hear.
The Minister of State told us here tonight that the former Minister on the advice of the Attorney General sent out a circular on 13 December, the day before the Government changed, telling the social welfare officers not to use the national system until some decision would be made by the Government. As has been the case down the years, Fianna Fáil would not abolish a direct supplement to the small farmers of the west. The point made by Deputy Calleary can be taken up. Why did the Government not wait until the Supreme Court gave its decision on the notional system? It is still before the Supreme Court, and I asked the Minister here last night — I am disappointed that the Minister of State did not reply tonight — if the High Court judgment included not allowing the Government to pay out benefits that were introduced in this House by legislation or if that judgment referred only to the collection of taxation. That is relevant to this debate. If, as I believe, it did not refer to paying out State benefits, I see no reason why the Government found it necessary — as this Coalition Government did in section 13 of the Social Welfare Bill earlier this year — to legislate to abolish the direct supplement to the poorer and smaller farmers.
The Minister of State said that he did not come across even one case where a blatant error was made. I do not know where the Minister was, but if he had looked at yesterday's Order Paper he would have seen 118 questions down for answer to the Minister for Social Welfare. There must be some reason for that. Last night here I quoted a case of a farmer with seven children who had a social welfare officer at his house one Saturday at 6.30 p.m. He had been in receipt of £75.25 per week for two years. A fortnight afterwards he found that amount reduced to £6 per week. The reason for that deduction was that he had not readily available all this list of deductions to which he was entitled and which both the Minister and the Minister of State read out here tonight and last night. After five months on appeal he was awarded £45 per week. Surely no Minister expects a farmer, his wife and seven children living on a very small holding to be able to manage their affairs or even to survive on £6 per week. Surely the Minister does not expect that one would accept that he did not come across one case where a blatant error was made.
The Minister referred to the amount of money the Department of Social Welfare were spending. That spending is a direct result of their own economic policies. During this year they have been warned often enough from this side of the House that their policies would fail and more people would be unemployed. They allocated an extra £31 million in the budget this year to cater for the unemployed and still they were £70 million short, again the direct result of their economic policies. They did not collect in PRSI the amount they thought they would take in and they have to pay out more in social welfare benefit than they had expected. Last night the Minister quoted the NESC as saying that farmers would not increase their land holdings because of the notional system, but he did not quote the NESC when they talked about abolishing the notional assessment and about reverting to pre-1966 factual assessment of income, which is what this Government did in the Social Welfare Bill. I quote from Report No. 41 of the NESC:
From an administrative point of view, however, such a change would be costly and time consuming. Furthermore, a reversal to factual means testing could be regarded as a retrograde step in welfare administration.
I should like to know if the Minister or the Minister of State have any views on that. It is a realistic assessment of the situation in rural Ireland where people live on small holdings. Deputy Durkan spoke about an increase in production. Nearly every Deputy in this House was in Donegal during a by-election campaign and they did not need the report of a social welfare officer to realise that people living on some of the holdings could not survive because the holdings were uneconomic. They comprised rocks and bogland but some of the finest families in the land were reared on such holdings. They could not have survived there were it not for the direct supplement given by the State.
Last night I was disappointed at the time the Minister spent in listing the various agricultural benefits that apply to the west. In some way he seemed to be making the case that because these farmers were getting the benefits they did not need any social welfare assistance. I say to the Minister the reason the farmers in the west are getting the benefits is a recognition not alone by the Department of Agriculture but also by the EEC that these people on totally uneconomic holdings are in need of extra assistance. The EEC recognised there should be a supplementary income for farmers on small holdings and because there are so many of them on such holdings the EEC have given such schemes as the western package, the western drainage schemes and headage payments schemes. If the Government had wanted to they could have introduced an alternative system. Last night the Minister told us he had discussions with An Foras Talúntais about the income of farmers in the west. If the Government thought they had to get away from the PLV system — I question whether that is necessary — they could have discussed with An Foras Talúntais the possibility of a new system whereby a direct supplement could be made to farmers without a means test and accept the recommendation of the NESC.
Last night the Minister told us about all the deductions to which the farmers were entitled. He said there could be deductions for costs incurred in connection with working the farm, including rent, rates, annuities, the cost of seeds, fertiliser, feeding stuff, renewal of tools and farm machinery, repairs to farm buildings and fences, veterinary expenses, the cost of electricity, petrol, diesel and so on. How do the Minister or the Minister of State expect a small farmer in the west of Ireland to have that information readily available when the social welfare officer calls without notice? How can the Minister tell us that the farmer can get an allowance for these expenses? Surely he must know a small farmer would not be in a position to have that information readily available on the off-chance that the social welfare officer might call.
In their amendment the Government referred to the 5 per cent increase to those on assistance from last October. That is typical of the social policy of this Government. They gave only a 10 per cent increase to people on social welfare in April. Too late they recognised they had to give some increase to ensure that these people would survive during the winter and they gave them a measly 5 per cent. That is typical of the social policy of this Government.
Last week the Minister told us that since the notional system of assessment was abolished 1,141 farmers had lost benefit. In a year of recession and rising prices these people will get no income from social welfare and another 12,132 had their payments reduced. What effect will this have on small farmers in the west? Deputy O'Leary, Deputy Calleary and Deputy Collins come from the areas hardest hit. They have pointed out to the House what is happening. Smallholders will not be able to survive. In the document issued by the Minister of State it is stated that there are no statutory criteria for the assessment of board and lodgings, that each case is decided on its merits. In some areas many people will not get any assistance because of that provision.
I ask the Government to consider the consequences of their action. The social policy of all governments has been to maintain as many people on the land as is possible. The Estimate for Health was published today and it appears there will be a drop of 6 per cent in the amount available to the health boards for their work next year. Does this mean there will not be any doctors in the west? Is it true that the Government are contemplating withdrawing medical cards from students, thus creating further hardship for smallholders in the west? Last night I quoted a case where a farmer's daughter in Donegal got a grant to go to university. However, the small farmer's assistance was withdrawn from the farmer and he was not able to give his daughter the extra income and she was unable to go to university. Will there be more cases where the medical card will be withdrawn? We will wait and see what this Government do.
We have been talking about a supplementary income of £20 per week for some of the poorest farmers in the land, people working on rocks and bogland. In the recent census it was shown that the number working on the land dropped from 288,000 to 196,000 in 1981. The policies of this Government are such that that drain from the land will continue. They should come along with some alternative scheme based on the notional system to ensure that as many as possible are kept on the land. The dole queues are getting longer. We do not want a situation where people will have to leave the west and come into urban areas with serious consequences for rural Ireland.
I ask the Government to get away from the social policy they followed this year. It is not only farmers who are suffering. On two occasions the Government promised to introduce a family income supplement. We were told this would be done in December. This House is rising on Friday but there is no word from the Government about the great scheme they were going to introduce for the unfortunate people on low incomes who are working, not just the farmers but also people in urban areas. They told us here last week that the double payment scheme at Christmas was the same as last year. That is not correct either. They told us tonight that it was the last Government who abolished the notional system of assessment. That is not correct, as was pointed out earlier. I ask the Minister to introduce a proper supplementary scheme for farmers.
Question put: "That amendment No. 1 be made."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 70.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Mark Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Barrett (Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and V. Brady.
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.