Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Mar 1984

Vol. 348 No. 12

Social Welfare Bill, 1984: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mrs. Lemass

Before lunch the Minister with responsibility for Women's Affairs concluded her speech in which she expressed grave concern for people in receipt of social assistance. However, she immediately went on to blame previous administrations. It is time this Government realised they are in charge and that it is up to them to try to solve the problems of the country and to help those who are in need. The Minister also said she thought more should be done but said that because of previous administrations the amount now being given to people on social assistance was not as great as it should be. Once again I say to the Government it is about time they came to terms with their situation and stopped blaming previous Governments because of their own inability to cope.

Earlier the Minister for Social Welfare stated that the real value of pensions and benefits would be maintained. Last year in the budget an increase of 12 per cent and 10 per cent was given but this year the increase is only 7 per cent and this will not come into operation until July 1984. How then can the Minister say the real value of pensions and benefits are being maintained? Does he not realise that the situation of many families since this time last year has become much worse because of the ever-increasing unemployment figure?

The Minister appeared to be making rather a big thing about public attitudes to social welfare provisions. He gave the impression that people want the resources needed for social support to be diverted to, as he said, more productive use of the economy. He should well know that it is fear in the community that is causing this problem, the fear of incapacity to meet the cost of social welfare benefits. There are now almost as many unemployed as there are in the labour force. Those of us who are working will need to find £2,156 million this year. That is the gross expenditure on social welfare. That represents £6 million per day or almost £1,000 a year for every man and woman in the labour force. Is it any wonder that the people who are in employment are worrying about their capacity to sustain and support those on social welfare?

The Minister also said that those on social welfare should not in any way be apologetic because they need support. I do not think anybody is apologetic. People are angry. They are depressed. They see themselves in the situation in which they will be on social assistance for the rest of their lives. They see no jobs. They are not apologetic. They are angry and young people are becoming more angry by the minute. Has the Minister and his colleagues talked to the people recently? How many of them have tried to find out from families what the situation is? Do they realise that in some households in this city the father is redundant and there are two or three young people under the age of 25 also unemployed and all trying to exist on social assistance? Some of those who are unemployed actually cannot get social assistance. There are parents at the moment trying to clothe, feed and keep in pocket-money children between the ages of 17 and 25 who are getting nothing at all, no money of any kind from any source. Is it any wonder these young people are depressed? Is it any wonder they are losing all hope in democracy and in this country?

Much has been said, particularly by the Fine Gael Party, about the woman in the home, and in their manifesto of 1981 they made a very big point about this. At that time they were pretending to give the woman in the home some money for herself in the form of £9.60p but that never happened. In my opinion it could never have been implemented. It was a bad idea but women got the impression they would get something. Now we have the family income supplement. We heard about this a considerable time ago but we will have to wait until the end of the year to see it implemented. One has to be earning less than £63 a week. One has to be working. One has to have so many children in order to get a certain amount of money. I wonder why this family income supplement is not being paid directly to the wife? Is it going to be paid to the husband or can the wife get that money? This is very important in my opinion. Why is it being paid to the wage earner who is normally the man? Surely it should be the woman who should be paid. She should be recognised and paid something for herself. I welcome this family income supplement, since something is better than nothing, but when are this Government going to give free dental and optical treatment to the woman in the home, to her husband and to her children? To me that would be a better approach.

I come now to the position of the widow. Apparently this family income supplement will not be paid to a widow with dependent children. A widow with three dependent children will from next July, get £80.72 per week. The widow is doing the job of both mother and father. She is entitled to support from the State and I believe she should be treated in the same way as a married couple while she is trying to house, clothe, feed, educate and generally look after her children. But she will not get any part of this family income supplement. Is she not a family? Is she not entitled to be regarded as the breadwinner of the family? Actually a widow who tries to earn a little more by doing part-time work is taxed. Widows should be entitled to do part-time work to supplement their income without being taxed.

Increased children's allowances will come into operation in August next. The vast sum in this case is exactly 20p per week extra. That is the figure if it is over a nine-month period. It will probably be over a 12-month period which will result in reducing it to 14p a week. We have 14p a week in the case of children's allowances and 8 per cent VAT on clothes. How could any Government come in here and present this House with that kind of budget? Do they take into consideration at all the very grave circumstances in which many families find themselves not because of unemployment but because of the number of teenage children living at home who cannot find jobs? Imagine the situation of a woman with her husband unemployed, a couple of teenage children and one or two younger children around 10 and 11 years of age, trying to clothe a child for confirmation. Does anybody realise how much it costs now to clothe a child for confirmation? That woman struggles to put a few pounds together, possibly from the children's allowances, to buy that confirmation outfit but now she will have to pay 8 per cent VAT as well on that outfit.

The Minister for Women's Affairs referred this morning to a flaw in the children's allowances which has now been rectified. Where the father is living abroad the allowance can now be paid to another person and that includes the mother. She mentioned the law of domicile. I was very annoyed when I heard the Minister mention the law of domicile. I admire her but she has been in Government now for 14 or 15 months. Why did she not take steps to change the law of domicile? That was one of the things she said she would do. I do not like saying this but I regard this ministry for Women's Affairs as sheer window dressing. No legislation has been brought before the House from that ministry. We have been waiting now since 1982 and nothing at all has happened.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter does not relevantly arise on this Bill.

Mrs. Lemass

It is no harm to nudge the Minister into doing something. The Minister for Social Welfare said that pensions and benefits here were on a par with England and Northern Ireland. That may be so moneywise. Has he any idea of the difference in the cost of living between this country and England and Northern Ireland? Has he ever seen the differences that exist in prices? There is no point in having pensions and social assistance on a par with another country when your cost of living is so much greater. I am very disappointed that in this year's budget and in the Social Welfare Bill social assistance has not been increased, as we did the last year we were in office, by 25 per cent. Children's allowances were not increased at all last year and this year they are increased by 7 per cent. That is 17 per cent over a two year period compared with 25 per cent which we gave in one year.

This all gets back to the fact that social assistance will become an increasingly difficult problem if we do not create more work for people. The situation becomes critical when there are almost as many people unemployed as there are working. The situation will get much worse unless the Government create jobs. The Minister said this morning that the social code would be equalised by the end of the year following the EEC directive. The Minister committed himself this morning to equality for men and women in the social code before the end of the year. I hope he will not try to push it away next September or October and put it on the long finger.

A very sad case was mentioned on a radio programme a couple of weeks ago of a married woman with two children who was the breadwinner of the family because her husband is still studying. She was working and providing for her two children and her husband as well as looking after her home. She became unemployed and, as any person in the household looking after financial matters would do, she tried to get social welfare assistance for her husband and her two children but she was not entitled to it. The Minister cannot wait until the end of the year to bring about equality in the social code for men and women. He should bring in a Bill immediately to bring that about. Am I correct in believing that we have 15 minutes? I was informed we are only allowed 15 minutes each.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not know anything about that arrangement.

Mr. B. Ahern

My understanding — I know this should be communicated to the Chair by the Government Whip — was that it was 15 minutes for each speaker. This Bill is probably the most important Bill of the year after the Finance Bill. We were limited to a very short debate on it today. Five hours was allowed. Fianna Fáil have 73 Members and we got in only two speakers to date. Deputy De Rossa has sat patiently all day and I gather that he will get in shortly. I assume the Chair will now ask the Minister of State, then Deputy De Rossa, then back to the Government side and back to Fianna Fáil.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy could consult the Government Chief Whip on it.

Mrs. Lemass

I hope that if the Government are in office this time next year they will do a lot more than they have done this year and that they will do something during the rest of this year to try to alleviate the terrible crisis we find in the unemployment situation.

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

The main purpose of the Bill before the House is to give effect to the proposals in the budget relating to social welfare. It also includes a number of provisions with the intention of improving the administrative arrangements for a number of schemes.

It is customary at budget time to review generally the position relating to social welfare with a view to ensuring that those who are in need of help from the schemes of social insurance and assistance will be provided for adequately. There has been a steadily increasing demand in the services provided by my Department because of continuing stagnation in economic activity. The result is that the cost of the services administered by the Department of Social Welfare has risen steeply and financing these services is now a serious problem. In 1983 overall expenditure by the Department of Social Welfare amounted to £1,907 million of which the Exchequer contributed over £1,093 million. In 1984 it is estimated that overall expenditure will be about £2,156 million — an increase of 13 per cent — of which the Exchequer will contribute £1,254 million. This is after allowing for the budget provisions.

These are very large amounts of money and the question of finding the necessary finance is a difficult problem. Of particular concern is the unemployment situation, the numbers of whom continue to increase disturbingly. This time four years ago in 1980 the live register showed over 92,300 people unemployed. The live register figure published at the end of February 1984 showed 215,500 people unemployed — a two-and-a-half fold increase in the four years. The result is that in 1984 it is estimated that £579 million will be spent on payments to the unemployed. This will represent nearly 27 per cent of total social welfare expenditure. However, within the limitations of the current economic situation, the Government have arranged to provide increases from next July of 8 per cent in unemployment assistance for the long-term unemployed and 7 per cent for all other recipients of weekly social welfare payments. Rates of children's allowances will be increased by 7 per cent from the beginning of August.

I am confident that the increases provided for in this Bill will be sufficient to maintain the value of payments to those who depend on social welfare between mid-1984 and mid-1985. Taken together with the increases of 10 per cent to 12 per cent provided last year, social welfare recipients will probably be unique among all sections of the community in fully maintaining their living standards between 1983 and 1985.

The extra increase for the long-term unemployed is particularly welcome. This increase, following the special 5 per cent increase provided for this group last October, gives the long-term unemployed an aggregate increase of 13½ per cent in rates of support relative to July 1983. Part of the problem of unemployment is the increasing duration people are having to spend without work and their own income. The particular hardships associated with prolonged unemployment are well documented. The extra support provided in this Bill for such people marks a recognition by the Government of this hardship and the need for the special extra measures to deal with it.

The cost of the various increases in rates and other improvements will amount to £68 million in 1984, equivalent to nearly £148 million in a full year. This enormous additional expenditure is on top of an additional net £181 million extra being provided for social welfare this year relative to 1983, representing the full year cost of last year's increases and the growing number of people depending on social welfare in one form or another.

Expenditure of this scale indicates the strong commitment by this Government to providing significant extra support to the most needy sections of our community. This extra support includes not only the increased rates I have mentioned but also the retention of food subsidies and the introduction of a family income supplement scheme for low-paid workers. It is worth bearing in mind that these measures have been introduced or retained without any increase in rates of pay-related social insurance contributions for workers. Effectively, therefore, the Government have redistributed a significant proportion of the expected slight up-swing in national prosperity this year towards those who would otherwise be least well-placed to gain from it.

However, in discussing a commitment to social welfare it is right to look at the basic adequacy of social welfare support and not just the indexation of that support by reference to increased living costs. Since the Department of Social Welfare was set up there has been a continuing development of schemes and services. Contributory old age pensions, retirement pension, invalidity pensions, death grants, deserted wife's benefit, allowances for prisoners' wives, unmarried mothers and single women have been introduced. The latest scheme provided for in this Bill is the family income supplement.

The stage has, accordingly, now been reached where all of the generally recognised contingencies have been covered. This is reflected in the increasing amount of expenditure on the various schemes which the Department of Social Welfare administer. As a percentage of GNP it represents an increase from 8.8 per cent to 14 per cent in the last 10 years.

Nevertheless, one hears frequent criticism of the present position. On the one hand there has been a deal of criticism to the effect that social welfare benefits are too lavish, that the incentive to work is diminished and that the system is open to abuse and exploitation of one kind or another. On the other hand, there is widespread criticism of the inadequacy of the range and level of benefits and their ability to cope with the needs of those who must, through no fault of their own, rely on the services. These are two very contrasting attitudes but what do they prove?

It is undoubtedly necessary at the present time and in the foreseeable future to exercise a greater degree of control on public expenditure than has been the practice in the past. What may well now be of paramount importance is the effectiveness and quality of the services we are providing. It may be a question of ensuring that what we are spending is spent to the best effect and that waste in expenditure is eliminated.

The Commission on Social Welfare which was established in August 1983 has, as one of its main tasks, a review of the scope and adequacy of the social welfare system. It is concerning itself in part with the relationship between the amounts of social welfare support received, together with support from related social services and the cost of living which recipients face.

The role of redistribution through the social welfare system as a means of tackling and removing poverty is fundamental to this examination. The issue of poverty is still a real one today in spite of developments in social welfare support. Poverty, at least in its relative sense, is not confined to any one area or stratum of society; unemployment has reached into every sector and grade and has brought with it complete dependance on social welfare for the household involved. I await, not just with academic interest, the findings of the Commission on Social Welfare which is due to report within two years because social welfare needs to be effectively directed at poverty as well as maintaining living standards.

The interaction between benefit levels and the earnings they replace is an issue which the Commission is also examining. Two measures in this Bill provide for changes in the social welfare code. The first is the continuing periodic adjustment in the floor or earnings disregard to take account of increases in flat-rate benefits provided for in section 7 of the Bill. This adjustment, bringing the pay-related floor to £43 from £36 of reckonable earnings, contributes to maintaining total benefits at a reasonable level relative to the normal working income they replace while sick or unemployed.

The second, more fundamental, measure introduced in the Bill is the provision for a family income supplement scheme. This scheme is designed to direct specific support to families on low earnings in proportion to the size of family and the actual family income. The fact that 35,000 families are estimated to be in need of supplementation of this kind shows not only the extent of almost subsistence earnings but also the extent of the poverty trap that can be created for such workers through the structure of the social welfare and tax systems.

This supplement scheme will make a useful contribution to families in this position directly focused on their particular situation. Much work needs to be done on fully integrating the tax and transfer systems in this country and ensuring the most effective and desirable redistribution of resources to those in relative need. The family income supplement, together with the indexation of rates for social welfare recipients, will help to maintain progress in this area.

In conclusion I should like to mention two improvements which are not referred to in the Bill. The first concerns the free travel scheme. Under existing arrangements certain categories of disabled people attending full-time, long-term rehabilitation courses may travel free during peak hours — this is an exception to the general rule which restricts free travel to off-peak periods. In order to deal with anomalies which have come to light, it is proposed to extend the unrestricted free travel concession for rehabilitation purposes to all blind persons, social welfare invalidity pensioners and recipients of British or Northern Ireland invalidity pension or benefit.

The other improvement is in the free telephone rental scheme which is available to certain categories of social welfare recipients living alone. Under the scheme the presence of even a young child in the household automatically disqualifies a claimant. I am glad to say that this disqualification will be abolished in respect of children under 15 years.

Mr. De Rossa

Before dealing with the detail of the Bill it should be stressed that the time available to the House to discuss the Bill is too short and serious questions must be raised about the reasons for introducing it at such a late stage and in such a hurry. The Minister has introduced a Bill which, for a member of the Labour Party, should be a matter of shame for himself and his party. It makes no real attempt to tackle the question of poverty in Irish society. It has a number of cosmetic bits and pieces in it which do nothing to radically alter the concept and operation of the social welfare code. In his speech the Minister attempted to distance himself from a number of his Government colleagues when he spoke about people who were demanding that social welfare be reduced to increase the so-called incentive to work. He would have been more credible if he had introduced some realistic increases in social welfare benefits.

The Minister tried to draw comparisons between the levels of social welfare benefits in this State and those available in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. True enough, the figures show a few pounds difference between Ireland and the United Kingdom but he failed to draw any comparison between the levels of the cost of living in the two areas; he failed to draw attention to the difference in the inflation rates and effectively he tried to pull the wool over our eyes by implying that our social welfare recipients were better off than those in the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland.

For instance, we are asked to accept that an increase of 80p per month in children's allowances, which the Minister of State for Women's Affairs admits have lost value over the last few years, is realistic in this day and age. We are asked to accept that a 7 per cent increase in some social welfare benefits is acceptable when our inflation rate is running at 10 per cent. We are asked to accept that these increases will be available only from July when the cost of living is rising even at this moment. We are asked to accept the family income supplement, which will be introduced in November 1984. It was trumpeted as one of the great advances in our social welfare code.

There is a need to talk about where precisely our social welfare system is going. It is generally accepted that there is a need for a totally new approach to the whole question of social welfare. For that reason I welcome the establishment of the Social Welfare Commission but I am not very satisfied that we will have to wait two years for the results of that commission. As an earnest of our wish to have changes in the code, we have made a very substantial submission to the commission on how we would like to see the code developing. One of the primary needs in the social welfare code is the simplification of the benefits available but, apart from that, there must be a clear definition of what the objectives of our social system are. One of the basic objectives of our system must be to complement those of our economic policy and to help tackle the causes of poverty and hardship in society. Our present system aims entirely at trying to ameliorate the worst effects of poverty in society and makes no real attempt to see how this poverty could be eliminated.

The idea we favour in relation to a reform of the social welfare system would be the adoption of a system based on the suggestions in NESC Report No. 37, which referred to integrated approaches to personal taxes and transfers. This is described as the individual grant and tax scheme. That system has the seeds of providing a genuine reform of the scheme and would provide everyone in the State with a basic income, whether working, unemployed or a dependent. It would also ensure the inclusion in the scheme of persons who are self-employed or who at present are outside the tax code. There would be an incentive in the scheme to ensure that those who for one reason or another are anxious to avoid coming into the tax system would be encouraged to become part of it because there would be benefits along the way if they were to get sick or were unable to work.

As administered at present our system demeans many people. The whole approach goes back to the poor law system when it was regarded as a punishment and humiliation to have to ask for assistance because of ill health or being unable to work. Unfortunately, elements of that approach still prevail in our social welfare code. Every person is entitled to be treated with dignity and as a human being but unfortunately instructions are going out to various sections of our social welfare system which require people working in the system to demean and belittle other people, sending them from one office to another in order to ensure that as little money as possible is paid out. That kind of approach has to stop, but it is symptomatic of the system which has developed over the years in an ad hoc way.

The family income supplement proposed in this Bill is the wrong way to approach the question of providing a basic adequate income for all families. In the absence of bringing in legislation to provide for a statutory minimum wage, it can only be viewed as an attempt to subsidise employers who pay low wages. The facts of life are that most people are on low pay because the job is not organised by trade unions. This is, for many reasons, perhaps because of the type of work involved or because there is such a small number of people involved that it is not organisable. I feel very strongly that this family income supplement is the wrong way to go about providing basic incomes for those on low pay. If it were to be introduced at all it would be better if it had been introduced in tandem with legislation for a basic minimum wage. None of the speakers so far has referred to that angle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

May I interrupt for a moment? I have been given a list and I would ask the Deputy to conclude at 4.40 p.m. By agreement, each speaker will be allowed 15 minutes.

Mr. De Rossa

I will be concluding as soon as possible. I am not prone to being long-winded but I would like to make the point that all these arrangements are made between the Coalition parties and Fianna Fáil, and we are never consulted about them. I do not believe it is an order of the House but simply an agreement between the Whips.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would appeal for your co-operation in the matter.

Mr. De Rossa

I will co-operate as far as I can but I am sure I will not be out of order if I exceed my time by a minute or two. I am arguing that the family income supplement without the introduction of legislation for a basic minimum wage will be in the long run simply another subsidy to the private sector, maintaining a situation where employers will pay slave wages where they can get away with it. The scheme as it stands will have only a marginal impact on those in poor circumstances. A family with one child would have to be earning less than £63 a week to qualify for the maximum payment of £8 per week, while a family with five or more children would have to be earning less than £95 per week to qualify for a maximum weekly payment of £15 per week. There must be very few families in that position.

It would seem from the explanatory memorandum that the scheme will not apply to part-time workers, single parent families, families where a separation has occurred and husband and wife are living apart or where there is a common law relationship and children are involved. I will ask the Minister to clarify whether those categories are excluded. If not, he might explain how they will be covered under the Bill.

Several speakers referred to maternity benefit and the Minister of State responsible for women's affairs tried to argue that reductions in benefit would only affect those bringing home 110 per cent of income received when they were working. The Minister is being slightly misleading in that maternity benefit was introduced only three years ago following a long battle and the process of whittling it away has now started. It is a sign of the failure of this Government to consider the overall impact on everyone, not just the mathematical average person to whom most benefits are geared. These cuts will have real effects on real people. If the Minister examined the cuts in maternity benefit in that light she might be able to tell us how many people will be losing money as a result.

Apart from the structuring of the social welfare code in the long term, there are matters which need urgent attention such as the rights of part-time workers and the question of the distinction between long-term and short-term benefits. Unemployment benefit is classified as short term but it is actually a long-term benefit given the nature of economic problems. There is the question of the operation of the fuel scheme, as well as the problem of the homeless and the operation of the appeals system. That system is being abused because people are being arbitrarily cut off from benefit and forced to appeal in order to recover it. There is also the question of unemployment assistance and how the scheme is applied to young people. I recently tabled some questions about young people up to 25 years of age who because they are living at home are effectively expected to live on thin air.

There is the question of the handicapped and the disabled and the manner in which they are being virtually ignored, according to a magazine dealing with social welfare. There is no indication in this Bill that allowances for the care of severely handicapped children will be increased this year. The mobility allowance is not being increased. There is a degree of cynicism in the approach adopted in this Bill. It is a cosmetic exercise to make it appear as if increases are being given and things are being improved but when we examine how it will affect people we realise that they will be worse off in the long run.

The Minister should turn his attention to the area of information for people applying for social welfare benefits. It would be useful if the Minister made it a practice that when people apply for, say, unemployment benefit they should be told what other benefits might be available. Most Deputies have constituents coming to them who are not aware of their entitlements and who may have failed to claim benefits over a number of years. Information would help to alleviate anxiety among many people. I get the impression from the way the system operates that there is an instruction that people should be kept in the dark about their entitlements in case there would be an increase in benefits paid out.

The Minister stated that he intends to introduce legislation at the end of this year to eliminate sex discrimination in the social welfare code within the terms of the EEC directive. It is significant that he continually refers to this directive and to the fact that the legislation will be within its terms. They are quite narrow and will not enable wives to claim optical or dental benefit on the basis of their husbands' insurance payments. It is important to realise that if the legislation is introduced strictly within the terms of the EEC directive many low-income families will lose benefit because of the way in which dependency is defined in our social welfare code. I would argue strongly that legislation which deals purely in terms of the EEC directive will result in hardship for many people.

I would urge the Minister to look again at the Social Welfare Bill and to bring in some real changes, boosting the 7 per cent increase at least up to the inflation rate. He should not try to cod the House by making spurious comparisons between our levels of social welfare payments and those in Great Britain.

Mr. Kenny

The fact that in the current year £2,156 million will be spent on social welfare is both an indictment of all Governments to date and a very serious challenge to this Government because the necessity for having to pay such a high level of social welfare calls into question the actions, the philosophy, the will and the commitment of Government to deal with the situation. It would be much easier for the Minister to be able to come here and indicate that a much smaller amount of social welfare payments were required and that the Government of the day were in a position to meet with much greater effect the unemployment situation.

The consolidation some years ago of the Social Welfare Acts was an improvement on a situation which had led to some very serious confusion and to a lack of comprehension among many people in regard to the social welfare code. The Consolidation Act to a great extent was responsible for bringing about a situation of the non-overlapping of schemes. One of the criticisms which has been raised here frequently down through the years, and which came to a head again recently, related to the decision of the Supreme Court in July 1982 that the poor law valuation system was unconstitutional in so far as the collection of rates was concerned; but the judgment did not go on to state that, as a consequence of that, social welfare benefits could not be paid to smallholders in the 12 western counties. In other words, the Supreme Court left us in a state of confusion as to the legality of paying out money on the basis of PLV. The Department were advised that that in itself would be illegal and that they should amend the Act. This has caused a great deal of tension, both social and political, among those who were formerly recipients of that money. The notional system was introduced in 1965. By 1976, 31,000 people were receiving social welfare benefits on the basis of that system; but it was deemed not to be a good system because it involved three different schemes and three different rates of payments.

The Opposition are trying to claim that the scheme was changed by this Government by way of a money-saving exercise. That sort of attack is typical of the Opposition. It is not the intention of the Government to save money by the change to the factual system. The High Court decision in regard to the unconstitutionality of the PLV system was not challenged by Fianna Fáil despite their professed concern for the smallholders concerned.

The methods by which social welfare officers undertake their work have been criticised from all sides of the House. I hold no brief for these people; but, in so far as I have had dealings with social welfare officers, I have always found them to be competent, accessible and prepared to talk about individual cases of constituents who had approached me. Apparently, the experience of some other people in the House has not been similar and there have been difficulties in relation to some social welfare officers. This raises the question of the need to change the method of assessment of smallholders and of the treatment they receive when social welfare officers visit them with a view to reviewing their situation.

The provision whereby a smallholder signs on for unemployment assistance so that he may avail of this so-called extra bonus to help him increase agricultural output has not been the case to any great extent. The use of the money for reclamation work or for the purchase of machinery or of extra stock is a disincentive in so far as continuity of payment is concerned. One recalls in this context arguments put forward in the past by a former Minister for the Gaeltacht who subsequently became Master of the High Court, Mr. Patrick Lindsay. It was his contention that these payments should be given by way of a bonus or an incentive rather than merely being paid out for nothing, in which case they are a disincentive. Indeed, Mr. Lindsay lost an election on one occasion as a result of his honesty in dealing with a client in terms of the small farmers unemployment assistance. It was said at the time that the problems of small farmers could not be solved by giving them small tractors.

There seems to be a lack of understanding of the rural mentality on the part of many social welfare officers. Some of these officers are from the 12 western counties area and these would have an understanding of the situation but there are others who are not in the same position. The Minister should allow for the making available to a farmer of notice that his case was about to be reviewed. This would not mean that a farmer who had received such notice would be at home on the day the officer called, because a farmer is not in the same category as an unemployed person in an urban area who is signing regularly on the live register. The farmer might be working on one of the small fragmentations of the land he owns.

In addition, the allowances payable should be clarified and the clarification available at every local employment exchange. In this way the recipients of smallholders assistance could see for themselves what they are entitled to claim against. In those circumstances they would ensure within a short time that various receipts and details of expenses incurred in the running of their farms would be made available. It is not satisfactory that a recipient of this assistance merely receives a two-line statement from a social welfare officer indicating that the level of income in question is in excess of a certain figure without there being clarification as to how the figure has been arrived at. The people concerned should be entitled to a breakdown of the figure arrived at in respect of a review being undertaken.

I contend that there should be an allowance in respect of a car that is used in connection with the running of a small farm. Cars are no longer a luxury and many farmers need to have cars as well as tractors. It may well be that in the ordinary course of running farms, farmers have to travel in order to engage the services of a vet or to collect spare parts for machinery or to collect feedstuffs. For such journeys they may use their cars instead of the rather slow tractor. The AA have indicated that the average cost of running a car is £65 per week. If a proportion of the running costs of a car could be deemed as expenses in so far as recipients of the smallholders unemployment assistance is concerned, the difficult situation in which they find themselves could be greatly alleviated. These people should be in a position to check the basis on which assessments in respect of them are made so that they may be aware that the figure has not merely been pulled out of the air by a social welfare officer.

The fact that many social welfare officers arrive in rural Ireland in a taxi unannounced, or without advance notice, calls into question the expenses involved. It would be much better if a notice were sent to a farmer saying that a social welfare officer would call on him on a particular date and asking him to have his facts ready in relation to his factual assessment so that everything would be above board. Some farmers might have had two or three holdings of land left to them by a grandmother or a grand-aunt. They understand whether or not they are getting the proper amount.

I have a letter from a constituent who arrived back from England some years ago. He was getting £20.10. The pension officer arrived and took £11.30 from him. He appealed and he got back £3.20. He now has something like £14 a week. He lives with his brother on a farm of land owned entirely by his brother. That amount of money would not even buy the tobacco plug he uses every day. Clarification of expenses in terms of a smallholder or recipient is very important. These people will be satisfied if they are seen to get fair play from the social welfare officers who come out to see them. There should be no need for social welfare officers to arrive unannounced in a taxi paid for at the appropriate rate to carry out a review for a person who might not even be present. Most of the recipients are prepared to be above board with the Department if they understand that the claims they put in against the usage of their farms can be allowed.

The present system has led to a great deal of disincentive, and it calls into question the whole philosophy behind these kind of payments. I said in the House previously that there is a need in rural Ireland to ensure that moneys paid out are used as an incentive, an advantage and a bonus. In any rural parish where assistance is paid to smallholders there are always cases where land has to be reclaimed or drained, where fences need to be replaced or gate posts need to be hung. ACOT provide a professional service to carry out farm plans in relation to farm development.

It would be well worthwhile for the Department of Social Welfare to consult with ACOT, take a pilot area and carry out a full farm development plan on each smallholder's holding in the parish and arrange for recipients of smallholders' assistance to give at least two or three days per week to the development of the agricultural potential in their own parish. They would be working for their neighbours on a co-operative basis. The payments would be worthwhile and they would be putting back into the top nine inches of our soil the basis for increased agricultural output. If a recipient knew he would have ten or 12 workers for three days a week for six weeks to carry out his farm plan, he would be more than willing to adopt that strategy. The Department should consult with ACOT and the Department of Agriculture in that regard.

I have had quite a few meetings with widows' associations. Many widows cannot travel to visit their families or friends after the trauma of the husband's death. They have made the case repeatedly that they should be allowed access to free travel four, five or six times a year to visit their relatives or friends. This would not cost the Department a great deal but it would have a social value and a personal value to these people.

Mr. Tunney

I agree with other speakers that this must be the only Parliament in the world where time is rationed to this extent, especially when we are discussing such important matters. This is a situation which we as elected parliamentarians should not allow to continue. I will not endeavour to cover all of the Minister's speech or all that is in the legislation before us. In the hope of impressing on the Minister the seriousness and the sincerity of what I say, I will dwell on one point.

The Minister said there is a tendency on the part of some people who are usually relatively well off to lay the blame for the country's financial ills at the door of the underprivileged and the poor. I say quite honestly and unashamedly and happily that I am relatively well off. I am sure I speak for thousands and thousands of people who are in the same position when I say I resent the Minister's statement. This is another example of the capacity of the Government to use words as an excuse for their inaction.

The Minister also said it is the Government's duty on behalf of the community to give the most deprived sections of the population the priority they are entitled to in any recession. Who objects to that? My objection is that he is not doing it. Deputy Flanagan will speak later. I do not presume to speak for him. When the Minister said that about the relatively well off he was not speaking about anybody in my party. Deputy De Rossa has indicated that he was not talking about either of the two representatives of his party. Is the Minister speaking for his own party or for the Fine Gael Party? He has an obligation to inform the House if that is so.

I will now endeavour to indicate to him how he is failing himself, failing the Labour Party and failing the Government. On his own words he stands condemned. There is no more important unit in this community, or in any community in the civilised world, than the natural and traditional family unit. In recent times there have been departures from it and society has had its casualties. We are all concerned for anybody who is so affected and so afflicted.

Down through the ages the ideal family unit has been the unit where the lady or the mother is happy to stay at home and act with her husband as guardian, protector, educator, doctor, nurse, psychologist, psychiatrist and counsellor. She is prepared and happy to act in that role in respect of her offspring. That is the ideal unit socially, economically and in every way. Even judging it solely from the point of view of economics and the money saved to the community by there being less need for the institutions which have to be established because of the absence of that ideal situation, it is wise for any Government to recognise the role of that lady.

Traditionally it has been accepted among that group of ladies that the State's recognition of their role manifests itself annually in what is called children's allowances. We know that, even in respect of the family or the house where the amount of money is not all that vital, the lady of the house has traditionally accepted it as the State's recognition of her or the State's regard for her children. What is the regard of the Minister and his Minister of State? He told us he accepts that there has been significant extra support for people in need of money. No Member will deny that the area where there is greatest need for money is in the family unit where there are up to five children. What is the recognition for this and what has the Minister given to us after his great battling against all the people who would say that that area is provided for already? What is provided in the legislation as recognition of that poverty, recognition of the role of the lady, is 2p per day per child. Any self-respecting child would not stoop down to pick up such an amount in the day that is in it. I do not think that he or she would have the courage to go into a shop with 2p. They will not get anything for that amount. That amount is the result of the great fight the Minister has had to make against the unidentified opposition he has encountered in making the case for the people who are poor, the people who are the backbone of the society and who by their efforts relieve the State of the expenditure of millions in other areas.

If I did not do anything more in the few minutes available to me than to repeat this matter I would be serving, better than anything else, to indicate how hypocritical the Government are in respect of what they say as against what they are doing. The Bill contains the most insulting commentary on the thousands of women who interpret their role in the way I have indicated and who would be happy in doing that but who, like all others, are anxious for some recognition by the State of the part they play, especially at a time when costs have mounted. Bus fares alone in any house where children must use public transport to get to school have increased by a lot more than is provided by the Minister. What encouragement is that? If the Minister is now in pursuit of what is called family planning, if the Minister wants to discourage ladies from engaging in what has been the traditional role of many ladies here, he should say so. If the Minister wants to introduce what might be regarded as institutionalised contraception, if he wants to introduce contraception by insult, he should tell us; but he should not tell us tomorrow of his interest in the family, family planning or of his recognition of the role of the lady who has to stay at home. I know that all ladies do not see their role in that fashion, and that is their right and entitlement.

However, that does not get away from the fact that many women see their role in the traditional manner. They should be encouraged because of the vital role they play. I have no doubt that they would welcome such encouragement but not the insult that is being given to them under the Bill. It adds injury to insult when we expect them to be enthusiastic about what we claim we are doing. Let us tell them that what we are saying is: "Madam, in respect of the miscellany of important duties you are performing for your children, society and the nation, it is the opinion of our Government that you are entitled to 2p per day per child and we hope you will be thrifty and save some money out of it, that you will not be distorting our economy by indulging in anything that would be disadvantageous to the State".

The other side of that coin — at this stage I regret the constraints that are on us when discussing such a vital matter — arises from the case of the lady who because of economic conditions is forced out of the house. I am referring to the lady who may have been living in Tallaght and moves to Finglas and as a result loses her employment which was necessary to assist her husband in the payment of their rent. That lady may move to a purchase house in some other part of the city. Her employment may be disrupted and she may have had a baby. After six months she may arrange with her sister, her mother or some other person to protect the child and may offer herself for reemployment. That lady will be told at the local employment exchange that she is not available for work, even if she has a letter such as one which I sent to the Minister for Labour asking him to place a lady in employment, to which there was a reply to the effect that the Minister was sorry there was no employment for her. The Minister for Social Welfare tells her she is not available for work and as a result she cannot get her entitlements. On the other hand, if she was in the teaching profession she would be forced back to work because it suits, notwithstanding that her baby would be only a few months old. The other lady, having spent money travelling to the centre of the city to sign on weekly, will be told: "No, you have a baby at home and in our opinion, although we know you are physically fit, anxious to work and have commitments in respect of your loan repayments, you are not available for work".

Will the Minister who has such an interest in and regard for the poorer sections, the Minister who is fearful of those who would attack him because of how he might be easing their burden, tell us in reply why he thinks an increase of 2p per day in respect of children is sufficient? Will he tell us why it is that a lady who is forced to go to the employment exchange is told that she is not available for work although a lady who is a teacher by profession is required to return to work when her child is, at the maximum, two months old?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

In the time available to discuss this Bill it is hardly possible to deal with all the points one would like to raise in relation to social welfare services. At the outset, I wish to express a word of thanks and appreciation to the staff in the office of the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare for what I consider to be a good service. They have shown a high standard of efficiency and a word of thanks is not out of place on an occasion like this.

Although the Opposition, and perhaps some Government Deputies, may be inclined to find fault with some of the measures outlined in the Bill, at least it is a step in the right direction and that is welcome. There is one provision I welcome in particular, namely, the abolition of the old age pensions committees. They have long outlived their usefulness. I have always thought it was humiliating and degrading for old people to be summoned before their neighbours in order to give an account of their means and the means of other members of their families. These matters are private and should be confidential. I am very glad the committees are being abolished.

It is the duty of any Government to look after the poor. It was once said that a country that cannot look after its poor will not be able to defend its rich. These words were spoken long ago but they are relevant to the country at the moment. There are very poor people here but I am glad to see despite the cutbacks and the various reductions in services that steps have been taken to ensure there are no disastrous cutbacks in social welfare. The State has a duty to protect the poor, particularly the old and the sick. It also has an obligation to provide for the handicapped and the disabled.

Since the foundation of the State I do not think any Government have tackled seriously the problem of poverty. At the moment there are 215,500 unemployed and it is obvious that the families concerned find it very difficult to maintain proper living standards. It is amazing the way unemployment casts a great shadow of depression over any household. The members of the family suffer a loss of identity and the wage-earner suffers a loss of dignity. A Government cannot progress in other areas if they do not ensure that people are left with a sense of dignity.

There are approximately 7,000 unemployed people in my constituency and in many cases they have suffered because of delays in welfare payments. Sometimes they have waited for 10 or 12 weeks for payment of unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. I have often wondered why the Department cannot devise some scheme to make payments without having long delays for investigation. With regard to unemployment assistance, for people in part of my constituency their files have to go to Kilkenny and then to Dublin before a decision is made. In another part of my constituency the files of the people concerned are sent to Athlone and then on to Dublin.

When a doctor certifies a person as unfit for work, it is wrong that that person should be examined by a referee who is not a member of the medical profession. He should not be in a position to decide whether a person is ill. I have known a number of people in my constituency whose sickness benefit has been cut off even though they obtained the necessary medical certificates from their doctors. I know the people concerned and they were hardly able to attend at the doctors' clinic to get the certificates but because of a referee's decision they were deprived of their benefits. What has happened has been a disgrace. There should be some new system where a doctor's certificate will be considered by the medical section of the Department. A lay person should not have the right to determine whether the medical condition of the applicant is satisfactory. That is a matter for the doctor.

I welcome the increase of 8 per cent in unemployment assistance but I realise it will not do very much to enable people to keep body and soul together. I welcome the increase of 7 per cent in respect of children's allowances. I wonder whether Government will tackle seriously the whole question of helping families so that it will be seen clearly that the State recognises its duty and responsibility. We read a lot about broken homes and broken marriages. We read about the loud mouths who are advocating divorce as a means of dealing with the problem. The matter could be dealt with properly if we had the proper children's allowances and family allowances.

In this debate there have been references to the way mothers of families have been treated. The mother is the principal teacher in the home. Not alone is she the cook and the dietitian but she is also the teacher. I am satisfied that mothers must get special recognition and allowance because of the importance of their duties in the family.

From time to time we hear and we read letters in the papers arguing that wives should not be working while their husbands are in permanent, gainful employment. I know from personal experience meeting constituents that it is not possible for married people, particularly for young married people, to meet their overheads because of the heavy cost today of running a home. Indeed I am alarmed at the extraordinary repayments these people have to meet by way of mortgages. It is economic circumstances which drive these people out to work. They are not going out because they want to leave their homes and their families. It is because they must work in order to keep their heads above water. I trust the Government will look at this whole situation in a more sympathetic manner.

I welcome this supplementary family allowance. I admit it only scratches the surface when we remember that most families consist of four, five or six which means that with 35,000 families there are no fewer than 140,000 mouths ready to devour the benefits of this supplementary allowance. I admit this is a step in the right direction but, as I say, there is a long way to go.

In regard to the small farmers and the payment of unemployment assistance it is wrong that small farmers should be cut off without being told the reason why. I know numerous small farmers where the welfare officers decided their incomes were sufficient and therefore they should not be in receipt of small farmers unemployment assistance. I would be glad if the Minister would ensure the introduction of a new regulation whereby every small farmer who is cut off will be given the reason why and shown from whence his invisible income comes. The present situation is all wrong and I would impress upon the Minister and the Civil Service heads of his Department that they should change the system forthwith. In every case where a small farmer's allowance is cut off or drastically reduced he should be given a note advising him of the source whereby the social welfare officer arrived at his income. I certainly could not find it and the applicant could not find it. The present situation is all wrong.

I hope we will see the day when there will be comprehensive legislation dealing with the whole question of the family. Top priority of any Government should be job creation. The OECD countries have been asked by the economic section of that body to give a lead in the provision of employment. I would appeal to the Government to leave aside other problems, grave though they may be, and tackle the problem of unemployment and job creation. That is the target towards which all our energies should be directed. That is what will give our young people something to live for and some hope for the future.

There are other problems but we could face disaster if the problem of unemployment is not tackled. We need comprehensive legislation to provide adequately and fully for every child. The State has a duty to look after its citizens and I trust because of that all those involved will deal with this matter as a top priority. I would have liked the allowances to be greater to offset inflation but I suppose we must be grateful for small mercies.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Seo b'fhéidir an Bille is tábhachtaí a thiocfas os comhair na Dála i mbliana agus is mór an trua nach bhfuil ach 15 nóiméid an duine le dul ag caint faoi, mar an chuid is mó de na Teachtaí Dála sa Teach seo is thíos faoin dtír iad agus bheadh go leor deac-rachtaí acu ina gcuid Dáilcheantair féin nach bféadfaidís a lua go hiomlán i 15 nóiméid. Mar sin féin, tá roinnt phointí agam go mba mhaith liom a dhéanamh agus tá súil agam go n-éisteoidh an tAire agus oifigigh na Roinne Leasa Shóisialaigh agus go mb'fhéidir go mbeadh deis ag an Aire freagraí a thabhairt orthu anois nó le linn an chéad Céim eile den Bhille.

What is causing most of the problems which have been adverted to by earlier speakers is the decision on the PLV taken in the court and now being implemented by the Department of Social Welfare. In my constituency as in other constituencies the position now is that most of those in receipt of smallholders' assistance have either had that assistance totally withdrawn or reduced. In most instances these cases are under appeal and one only has to look at the Order Paper to realise the particular difficulties most Deputies are encountering in their daily work within their constituencies. I believe sufficient training is not given to social welfare officers who have to go out and assess the income or earnings of a small holder. Is there any proposal within the Department to provide some kind of formal or informal training for these social welfare officers who are now asked to do something they did not have to do before? It is not fair to ask an ordinary lay person who does not for the most part have a particular interest in farming or might not be able to assess farm incomes to go out and assess them now in relation to small holders' assistance and so I would like to encourage some kind of training for those social welfare officers involved in this work.

In most cases hitherto where small holders' assistance or indeed assistance of any kind was withdrawn the person affected could have recourse to the local health board for supplementary welfare allowance. In most instances in my constituency where applicants apply for the supplementary welfare allowance I believe there is some type of automatic exchange between the welfare officer and the social welfare officer and where there is a doubt on the part of the social welfare officer that the person may be working or the case is under appeal, there is a suggestion now that the supplementary welfare allowance should not be granted. That is wrong. It is something which should be looked at and some proper system should be devised as between the Department and the health boards.

I am totally opposed to the system that operates where young people in particular, and they form the largest number of our unemployed, have to go to a central location to sign on. I am talking about the large urban areas. Those of us who were involved in the recent by-election in Dublin Central saw the atrocious conditions at the two central offices, atrocious conditions not just for those signing on but also for the employees of the Department. There is something wrong in asking a young person to join a long queue for several hours on so many days a week either to sign on or to collect his or her money. There we have a perfect situation for either an illegal organisation or for drug pushers, about whom we hear so much, to take advantage of, and we should not encourage that. The indications are that crime is increasing in the larger urban areas and I think the system of signing on for social welfare has a great deal to do with that.

With regard to married women, I was glad to hear so many of my male colleagues express their particular concern about women. It is unfortunate in a speech which took up 20 pages of foolscap this morning that all the Minister was able to tell us in relation to the EEC directive, which is supposed to come into operation this year, was in six-and-a-half lines. When he spoke about that he said:

The second development relates to the introduction of measures necessary to ensure equality of treatment between men and women in the social welfare code within the terms of the EEC directive on this matter. I intend to bring legislation on this issue before the House later this year with a view to having the necessary provisions implemented before the end of the year.

When asked in a Parliamentary Question on Thursday, 17 November last, the cost involved in doing this the Minister mentioned a cost of £15 million in a full year. He made a very interesting observation when he stated that the cost involved would depend on the time within which this directive was implemented and there would not necessarily be a cost of £15 if it did not include the full year of 1984. It appears to me now from the Minister's speech this morning that there is some suggestion that perhaps the directive may not be implemented until the very last day, 31 December next, and once again we will be dragged before the EEC Commission for being in contravention of the implementation of the directive. This is something we should avoid at all costs.

In relation to married women I have a similar situation in my constitutency to that of Deputy Tunney. It is unfortunate because a women is married, has a child and decides after a period of six months or a year to sign on the register again and look for employment that she is not considered for employment. I have several cases which I have taken up with the Minister and his predecessor where evidence has been produced from employers, prospective employers, and where the people involved are registered with Manpower and when a women applies for social welfare, because she is married and has a number of children or even one child at home, she is not considered available for work. That is a scandal. I hope the Minister of State and the Minister are looking at this. We all have situations like this — I am sure the Minister of State has them in his constituency — where many married women are very anxious to go back to work after a number of years at home but they are not considered for unemployment benefit because they are not available for work.

I raised the maternity allowance in a Parliamentary Question and when the Estimate for Social Welfare was being discussed. I want to refer to those mothers who consciously decide to nurse their babies. Most of them decide to do that for a period of six months or some other period and after the relevant number of weeks is up for their maternity allowance they go to sign on for unemployment benefit. We know that, in order to qualify for unemployment benefit or assistance, one has to be available and actively seeking work. While these mothers are available for work they cannot take up work by reason of their circumstances because the facilities to look after babies, creches and day care facilities, are not available. The Department of Social Welfare, despite this, will state that the person is not entitled to unemployment benefit when the maternity allowance or benefit runs out. I asked the Minister of State and the Minister on two previous occasions to look at this. The Department of Health and other Departments have encouraged mothers to nurse their babies but when they do this they are penalised. I would like to ask the Minister of State at present in the House to pass this on to the Department of Social Welfare to have it looked at now.

With regard to the processing of claims for various social welfare benefits, all of us find within our constituencies that the branch managers do not have enough control over the destiny of the applicants in their particular areas. Deputy Flanagan made a very telling point when he described the situation in his constituency. The situation is rather similar in mine as well as in everybody else's constituency. I am not just critical of the officials in the Department of Social Welfare. I am more critical of those who manage the Department, the Ministers in particular, when I say that there is more concentration within the Department on control rather than on the provision of services. There should be far more emphasis on the provision of a good service for all the people who badly need a service from social welfare rather than on control. When a person applies for social welfare benefit there should be some system of automatic payment and then a check system which would balance at the end of one month or two months. You would then very quickly get rid of the abuses that take place within the social welfare code.

I want to talk about unemployment assistance levels because I raised this matter before in the House. The board and lodging element bugs me because I feel it is an insult, when young people who live at home with their fathers and mothers and cannot get a job, sign on, to offer them 30p a week, as has happened in the case of a number of people I have got on to the Department about or £1 as has happened in several instances in my constituency. It is an insult to able bodied young people who are actively seeking a job but who because of the huge unemployment levels cannot get one, because those young people are living at home with their parents, to judge that they are only entitled to 30p or £1 a week.

I want to talk about the whole question of abuses of the system, because it keeps coming up at political meetings and public meetings and we are told about the huge abuses of the system. When you ask people to produce evidence they very often cannot do so. I do not believe there are huge abuses of the system. I believe only a minority of people abuse the system. There should be a flying squad within the Department to cater for that particular event. I feel very strongly that the maintenance of jobs at the present time is more important than the provision of new jobs. In local authorities, in particular, where we have huge redundancies many of them along the western seaboard, there should be some system of a transfer of resources from the Department of Social Welfare to other Departments, in this instance the Department of the Environment, to avoid that.

I was told in a letter from the Minister for Finance a few weeks ago that this could not be considered under any circumstances because it would put the whole financial arrangements of the Government and the State into chaos and there would have to be extensive legislation to deal with the transfer of resources. Strangely enough, a week later I was told at a deputation with the Minister for Labour that the Government had set up a sub-committee of the Cabinet to examine the transfer of resources. I find it difficult to understand how the Minister in charge of our finances tells me one thing in a letter and his colleague who, presumably sits at the same Cabinet table, tells me the opposite a week later. I wonder if there is a Cabinet sub-committee in existence. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what stage it has reached in its deliberations.

Children's allowances in every budget come up for scrutiny and attack at budget time. I would like to remind the Minister that the Women's Rights Committee of which I am chairman, made a recommendation that the established system for the payment of children's allowances should not be interfered with until the committee had time to examine the whole system of the transfer of payments to women in the home and perhaps recommend a better system. I hope the Minister will keep that in mind when he comes to deliberate the budget provisions for next year. The payment of children's allowances is the only direct payment made to women in the home so we should encourage the greatest possible amount of an increase in children's allowances. I could not accept Deputy Flanagan's suggestion that even small increases are acceptable in this day and age. I read with a certain amount of amusement the Minister's comment when he said that when this Government came into office they gave a firm commitment, despite the gravity of the recession and its impact on social welfare expenditure, to endeavour to maintain the living standards of people who depend on social welfare. There is a lot of that kind of talk in various places in the Minister's speech. This tends to give rise to a philosophy within the Government that if you say the right thing often enough people begin to believe you are doing it. In actual fact what is happening in this Bill is that the Minister is saying the right thing but he is going on to do what he feels like doing. That is not particularly effective or acceptable.

The disability benefit is the last point I will have time to make. I agree very strongly with the previous speaker in relation to the position of the medical referee. We all have experience of the local GP of the individual who is in receipt of disability benefit or sickness benefit, recommending that the person is unfit for work and the consultant the person is attending in the hospital recommends that the person is unfit for work but a medical referee can come from Dublin and say; "I am sorry I do not accept the advice of the consultant and I am saying you are available for work and can no longer draw disability benefit." What kind of medical training have the medical referees? The Minister might let us know if he has any proposals relating to training. Are medical referees sufficiently trained to say: "I cannot accept the clinical evidence of the consultant or orthopaedic surgeon"? The decision made by a doctor or consultant regarding the disability of a person should be accepted by the medical referees in the Department of Social Welfare.

I have spoken about the EEC directive on equality. I wonder if we will have a special sitting during the Easter recess to bring that in. I hope we will not. When the Minister said it would come in shortly I hope he means right now. It is important that this directive is implemented immediately. We agree that the family income supplement is good but I object to the statment made by the Minister that it will be payable to the principal wage earner in the family. We have often spoken about the head of the household and the principal wage earner. I hope we are not going back to that Stone Age where the principal wage earner was taken to mean the male. If it is a family income supplement, let us pay it to the family and not differentiate between husband and wife.

There are many other areas I should like to have spoken on. I hope the Minister will take the points I have made into consideration and that on Committee Stage we can have an opportunity to discuss them in detail.

Mr. Sheehan

I welcome the Minister's approach to the problems confronting the aged, unemployed and the less well-off sections of society. He has shown by his commitment to this section of the community his understanding of the many problems which exist in our society. The introduction of the new family income supplement is a step in the right direction. The scheme is designed to maintain an incentive to work by providing cash support for workers with families who are in receipt of low incomes.

A married worker with three children earning £85 per week will get a supplement of £10 per week and a married worker with four children will get a supplement of £13.75 per week. The supplements will not be subject to income tax or pay-related social insurance contributions. It is gratifying to note that there are 35,000 families who will benefit from the scheme. I know that it is only 10 per cent this year; but, as economic recovery progresses, perhaps the Minister will increase it to 50 per cent next year and, if possible, 75 per cent the following year. It is an incentive to people to keep their jobs and not rely on unemployment assistance to rear their families.

I welcome the change in the means test in section 9 of the Bill which provides for a change in the rules in assessing incomes for social assistance purposes. In the case of leased land, it is gratifying to note that the Minister has made arrangements whereby the means of the lessor will be calculated not by reference to the capital value of the holding but on the basis of the profits from the lease. This is a worthwhile change as far as applicants for the old age pension are concerned. I was always of the opinion that the capital value of the holding should not be taken into consideration. The only item that should be taken into consideration is the amount of money received from renting the farm.

As regards unemployment assistance for small farmers along the western seaboard from Cork to Donegal, it is clear that many anomalies exist. I am not happy with the way revision of incomes is carried out. We all know what led to this situation. It was the decision of the High Court to uphold an application brought before it that the land valuation system was unconstitutional. There was no alternative but to have a factual assessment of the income of those drawing unemployment assistance. I dislike the system of investigation carried out by social welfare officers, who more often than not appear out of the blue at the farmer's yard in a chauffeur driven car without prior notice and instantly proceed to investigate his income without giving him a chance to outline his full expenditure. The Department of Social Welfare should forward guidelines together with a form at least two weeks before an investigating officer calls on him. On one side of the form he could fill in particulars of his income and on the other side particulars of his expenditure. Surely this is not too much to ask of the Department.

It is only right that small farmers who are being deprived of unemployment assistance, particularly along the western seaboard, should have an opportunity to put the facts before an investigating officer before a decision is made. I have often seen investigating officers arriving at a farmer's door and asking there and then for a record of what money he has received from the creamery. Many of those officers do not explain that the farmer could claim for many other things. Electricity costs and the cost of running a motor car should be taken into account because if a farmer wants to call a veterinarian late at night he may have to drive three or five miles to the nearest telephone. All these matters should be taken into account.

Social welfare officers should be more flexible as far as the small farmer is concerned. A revamping of the appeals forms is also necessary. The present appeals form a farmer gets when he is disqualified from unemployment assistance is no bigger than an ordinary envelope. This is disgraceful. Farmers with uneconomic holdings cannot be expected to live on fresh air and cold water. They are the basic fabric of our society along the western seaboard. They must be given a chance to rear their families. They have contributed to preserving life in rural areas. Our towns and villages would no longer exist if these families were not there. Successive Governments should have ensured that every assistance was given to the people in the west.

Anomalies exist in determining eligibility for non-contributory old age pensions. Take a farmer with one son and two daughters. He can legally transfer his holding to his son, but if he wishes to give his daughters a couple of thousand pounds each to go towards the purchase of a home, he cannot do that under the present old-age pension regulations. This is discrimination.

I would like to pay a tribute to the members of old age pension committees who gave their time free to the Department. They deserve the highest praise, but these committees have outlived their usefulness. Most of their decisions were overruled by the investigating and appeals officers.

Claimants for unemployment benefit should be treated with more flexibility. If they are registered with Manpower and can provide proof to the investigating officer that they cannot get suitable employment, they should be considered for unemployment benefit.

As regards redundancy payments, is the incentive too great to close firms and pay vast sums of redundancy money to workers? What incentive is there to work if people can foresee a golden handshake of £30,000 or £40,000 if their firm closes? If redundancy money was not available perhaps fewer firms would close.

Many married women with their children have to vacate their homes through no fault of their own — perhaps on cruelty grounds. Those women should be entitled to the deserted wife's allowance and their cases should be treated sympathetically, provided they can prove they cannot live in the family home on hardship grounds.

I would like to see more decentralisation of power from Dublin to regional centres such as Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Galway and Letterkenny. Head offices in those areas should decide on applications for social welfare benefits of all descriptions. It should not be necessary to send these applications to Dublin where there may be 500,000 claims being processed. I hope the Minister will bear these points in mind. I will be looking forward to hearing what he has to say to my suggestions on Committee Stage.

Mr. Morley

In view of the commitment the parties in Government gave to the social welfare section of the community that they would maintain their living standards despite any impact the recession would have on the economy, the increases in allowances and benefits provided in this Bill are meagre. Because they are increases, however small, I am sure they will be welcomed. I welcome them and the introduction of the family income supplement. I also welcome section 8, which provides for the payment of pay-related and unemployment benefit in a lump sum to a person accepted in the enterprise allowance scheme. The limit set on the number of people who would be accepted under this scheme had to be raised because the number applying had exceeded the original limit by three times. I regard this as a step in the right direction because it should assist people to become self-employed and so ease the burden on the taxpayers.

I want to refer now to the small farmers' dole because a serious injustice has been done to that section of the community over the last year. This scheme has come in for a lot of ill-informed criticism. A farmer trying to raise a family on ten or 12 acres of often questionable quality land could not succeed without some assistance or off-farm employment. This scheme was introduced in the thirties but in the fifties a notional assessment was introduced. The thinking behind that was much the same as the thinking behind the employment incentive scheme. It allowed the smallholder to put his land into full production without the fear that the stable element in his income — the unemployment assistance — would be interfered with. The notional system provides for the assessment of his income on his PLV multiplied by a certain multiple. Because of the court decision the payment of this allowance was no longer possible, or so the Government said, but I do not think anything in that decision compelled the Government to abandon the notional system. While it referred to the collection of taxes, it did not say the PLV could not be used as a rough guideline for the disbursement of benefits or allowances. Even if this had to be done, there was no need to proceed immediately and have the re-assessment carried out with such haste.

Last year the Minister said that the process of re-assessment would be carried out on a gradual basis as cases came up in the normal way for re-investigation.

We heard recently in reply to a question that 4,000 farmers were reassessed in a six-month period, whereas the original intention was that the 14,000 farmers receiving that benefit would be assessed over a three-year period. In order to have this reassessment carried out a large number of extra personnel were drafted into the disadvantaged areas where there are by far the greatest number of recipients. Under pressure from the Government and the Minister these officers had to mount an all-out drive to have all claims reviewed in the shortest possible time. I believe a grave injustice was done due to the rush with which all claims had to be factually assessed. The rush did not allow sufficient attention to be given in many cases to the total circumstances of the claimant and his family and sufficient time was not given to the farmer to prepare his case and provide ample documentation in support of his claims for overheads and expenses. In many cases a deaf ear was turned to what should be regarded as quite legitimate expenses.

I know of no claims that were increased following reassessment and the vast majority of people reassessed faced drastic reductions in their weekly allowance while many had the allowance withdrawn altogether. That was very harsh treatment by the Government of this section and totally unwarranted. So embarrassed by the ruthlessness of the procedure were the spokesmen of one of the Government parties in my constituency that they were driven to distraction to explain and justify it to their own supporters. I literally mean they were driven to distraction because this is the only way I could account for the assertion by Senator Higgins that all the social welfare officers in County Mayo were Fianna Fáil agents determined to undermine the Government by embarking on an all-out drive to deprive the small farm community in Mayo of their unemployment assistance. Never was such an outlandish explanation given for any procedure or occurrence since Nero blamed the Christians for burning Rome.

The small farmers of Mayo and elsewhere are not imbeciles and they know well that the officers in question were only carrying out their job and doing their duty on the instructions of their superiors. They were acting on the orders of the Minister and the Government and it is this Government who are responsible for drastic dole cuts and the withdrawal of dole during the past year. This was done because of the interpretation of the court decision, the Government interpreting it as prohibiting them from using the poor law valuation as a guideline for the payment of unemployment assistance. Even if that were true, it was not necessary to proceed with such speed and severity in having this review carried out. It could have been carried out in the normal way, as the Minister promised, as cases came up for review.

Mention has been made of the necessity nowadays for more training of social welfare officers and I believe that should be done. In many cases social welfare officers were drafted in from outside areas. They were relatively inexperienced and many had no previous experience of dealing with the farming community. Because of the pressure to have these reassessments carried out as speedily as possible they were not able to give the usual time and attention to all cases.

I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not making a case for condoning abuses of social welfare or small farmers' dole. It has come in for a lot of ill-informed criticism. One of those criticisms was that people were receiving assistance who were not entitled to it. If they did not need it, it was up to the Minister to bring in new regulations and to reclassify those who would be entitled to it. It was also claimed that people were abusing the system and claiming assistance under false pretences. If this were the case there should have been a tightening of the regulations to enable social welfare officers to tackle these abuses.

Many thousands of families along the west coast and elsewhere are living on very small farms and trying to rear a family and they are patently entitled to social welfare benefit. They are just as entitled to it as urban dwellers and are entitled to have their claims processed fairly, free from harassment and in a manner which allows them to retain their dignity and human respect. This has not been happening since the abolition of the notional system of assessment. I am asking the Minister to ensure that this principle will be adhered to in the carrying out of assessments and reassessments of applicants for small farmers' dole. Secondly, reasonable expenses should be allowed in all cases. Thirdly, applicants should be informed by the Department of expenses which will be allowable. Fourthly, an allowance should be made for family educational expenses due to the escalation of these expenses in recent times, particularly in rural areas with transport costs etc. Fifthly, applicants' appeals against disallowance of unemployment assistance or dole should be dealt with in a reasonable time, say within a month. Lastly, applicants should be furnished with copies of a social welfare officer's assessment which would influence the decision on a claim. I look to the Minister to have these things done. This section of the community is as entitled to even-handed treatment as any other section. There are many families who require small farmers' dole and they should be allowed to claim it without any loss of human respect or dignity.

I pay tribute to the old age pension committees. Time has overtaken them but they have served their country and their communities well, as have the secretaries who worked with them over the years. They put a human face on social welfare legislation in its introductory years. Reference has been made to the necessity for the decentralisation of the Department of Social Welfare and I totally agree. If we had a little more decentralisation of control and authority as well as of offices, without necessarily resurrecting committees, we would perhaps succeed in putting a more human face on social welfare legislation.

Mr. McGinley

I cannot think of any other Estimate that would have such effect on the lives of ordinary people than has the Social Welfare Estimate. There is hardly a family who have not some business with this Department. The Estimate for Social Welfare for this year is more than £2,000 million. So, whether one is a social welfare recipient or a contributor to the Exchequer, one will be interested in some way in this Estimate and in this Bill.

There has been much reference of late to abuses of the social welfare system. In common with other Members of the House I would not tolerate any abuse of the system. But if there are such abuses one might remark that at least the money being received in this way is not being lost to the Exchequer but is being invested in the economy again, because the people concerned use the money to buy goods and services. There are far more serious abuses in other sectors than is the case in respect of social welfare. Very often, for instance, when taxes are evaded the money involved is taken out of the economy and invested abroad. At least money that may be got wrongfully from the Department of Social Welfare will be spent within the economy and may even help to provide jobs.

We are living in difficult times but the Bill makes adequate provision for social welfare recipients. The increase in payments this year is 7 per cent and, taking this with the 10 per cent increase which was paid from June last year and the 5 per cent increase that was paid from October, social welfare payments are just about keeping pace with inflation. Of course we would all like to have a situation in which more could be paid to those who depend on social welfare, but when times are better and when the economy is on the upturn we should be able to improve the lot of these people. We as elected representatives find that the greatest proportion of problems we are asked to deal with in our constituencies relate to social welfare.

The previous speaker referred to decentralisation. I should like to see a situation in which there would be social welfare advice centres throughout the country which would be staffed by people who were thoroughly briefed in the whole area of social welfare. I am not suggesting that we could afford to provide such an office in every parish but perhaps we could have one to every few parishes. In this way people seeking information as to pensions, children's allowances, unemployment benefits or any other benefits could receive locally all the information they require. People are not aware of their rights and do not know how to go about ascertaining what they are. A person who has a query will go to one office where he will get only limited information. He may then go to another office and eventually he will go to his public representative in an effort to have the problem sorted out.

Another problem that we come across frequently is that of delays in social welfare payments. It is not unusual for a person to have to wait for up to six or even nine months from the time of applying for an old age pension to the time benefit eventually comes through. I am asking the Minister to consider this aspect with a view to ascertaining if anything can be done to speed up the process. I note that the old age pension committees are being discontinued. These committees, which were established first more than 70 years ago, have played an important role in the community but I agree with the Minister when he says that in some cases they cause delays to occur. I hope that the change will help to speed up payment of old age pensions and other benefits. We all know cases in which people coming off invalidity benefits or unemployment benefit have to wait a long time, perhaps up to three months, before unemployment assistance is paid. It is one of the frustrating aspects of the social welfare system that these delays occur. The Minister should give his attention to trying to streamline the situation.

All those who have spoken today have referred to the small farmers dole. What is happening in this regard in the west of Ireland at present is of much concern to the recipients of this assistance. We all appreciate that the Government has to act on foot of the decision of the Supreme Court, but nevertheless the factual assessment that is in progress is causing serious problems. In the first instance, some of the social welfare officers who call on the farmers concerned do not understand life in the west. A certain amount of training should be given to these people before they are sent out on this very sensitive work.

Secondly, when these officers go about the business of means testing they are inclined to concentrate on a farmer's income without having regard to his expenses. I have had experience of many small farmers and of people whose holdings are so small that they could not be called farmers at all coming to me complaining that their unemployment assistance had been reduced by perhaps £6 or even up to £10. Some of those people may have no more than a cow and a calf. People here have talked of small farmers whose holdings are ten, 20 or 30 acres. But in south-west Donegal in Gweedore, Glencolumbkille, The Rosses, for instance, there are people with holdings of less than ten acres, in some cases of only four or five acres, people I would refer to as crofters rather than farmers. I appeal to the Minister to have a rethink about the re-assessment that is taking place. When a smallholder receives notification of whether his assistance is being reduced or increased as the case may be, he should be supplied also with a breakdown of the figures so that he may know how the social welfare officer arrived at his decision. When we as public representatives are approached by people whose incomes are being reduced we do not know where to start. There is no explanation of the figure that was arrived at.

Another change I should like to see being made is that there be provision for a proper form of appeal. The present situation is that when a farmer wishes to appeal against the decision of the social welfare officer he is provided with a very small slip of paper on which to make his appeal. They should be given guidelines and a standard form on which there is space for filling in details of income and other expenditure. Another factor about the appeals is that they can take anything up to six months before being finalised. Such delays can cause much hardship to a farmer who is without income for that time.

I do not think that this measure was introduced in order to save money. I understand that only about £1 million has been saved as a result of the re-assessment process that was begun on foot of the Supreme Court decision. There are easier ways of saving money.

There are a number of measures in the Bill that I welcome — for instance, the family income supplement, the enterprise allowance scheme and the extension of the free phone rental to people who may have someone up to 15 years of age living with them. However, I appeal to the Minister to have regard to the assessment that is taking place in the context of the hardship that is being caused, especially to smallholders in the west.

Mr. Kirk

I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this Bill. We are discussing this Bill against a background of very serious unemployment and serious deprivation in many of our large urban centres. We have over 200,000 people unemployed and over 60,000 of them are under the age of 25 years. It is very understandable that the interest in and commitment to the Bill is considerable. Many people are unemployed through no fault of their own. They have to fall back on the social welfare system. About 12 months ago when the social welfare measures were going through the House there were considerable objections to the many curtailments in the social welfare code. It cannot be said that things have improved in the intervening 12 months. If anything they have got progressively worse.

We must try to identify the areas where changes are needed. Youth unemployment is a very serious problem. There was a huge investment in education by the State and by the parents of the young people whose prospects of securing employment are virtually nil. That is very sad for the country and for the economy. It is very sad for the parents and for the young people. They are frustrated. They have little or no money in their pockets and they have absolutely no prospect of getting a job. I do not pretend that measures can be introduced which will provide an overnight solution. We must look at the areas in our economy where employment can be created. The skills and work talents of our young people have been developed in our educational institutions.

In this Bill we have an across the board increase of 7 per cent which is inadequate given the cost of living and our rate of inflation. The Minister must realise that for many families the only income coming into the home is unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance or the supplementary welfare allowance from the health board. We all realise the calls there are on that money. These incomes are inadequate with the result that the standard of living of many families has dropped.

The concept of land leasing has been floating around for some time. There is a belief that a great deal of agricultural land is not being put to proper use, or utilised to the maximum. It is very hard to argue against that contention. I subscribe to that view myself. The role of the Minister in introducing measures to encourage land leasing will be crucial. The ownership of land is very dear to the people of Ireland and to many small farmers whether they live in congested areas or in more developed agricultural areas.

The concept of the ownership of land is very dear to the people of Ireland and it is very difficult to convince them that it is for their own betterment and the betterment of the nation to make land available by way of lease to enable others to enlarge their holdings and make the land more productive. The Minister will have to give very careful consideration to the type of measures we will have to implement in this area to make land leasing stick.

I should like to refer to the level of PRSI which employers and employees have to bear. This has now reached 20 per cent. It is a positive disincentive to employers to think in terms of job creation. I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of abolishing PRSI under a certain income level. In this Social Welfare Bill we have the new family income supplement. It may well be that, on the one hand, families are paying PRSI and, on the other hand, are in receipt of a family income supplement to keep the wolf from the back door. This involves duplication of administration. I hope the Minister will have a look at this matter. The rate of PRSI is a positive disincentive to the creation of jobs which are sorely needed by our young people.

I have had a number of complaints recently from people about correspondence with the Department of Social Welfare. Prior to this they could send their medical certificates, and so on, to the Department, but they now have to stamp the envelopes. That facility which was provided in the past should be retained. It is unfortunate that because An Post have taken over responsibility for the postal service this facility should be discontinued.

The free fuel scheme was one of the most worthwhile social welfare schemes ever introduced. It was very useful and very beneficial to many people on confined incomes. There has been a change in the operation of the scheme and people on unemployment benefit, disability benefit and unemployment assistance have been excluded. That was very unfortunate. If the scheme is to be continued next year I hope the Minister will include those categories again.

It is understandable that all Members who contributed to the debate dealt with small farmers' dole. The changes that have arisen because of the abolition of the PLV, and the new method of assessment, have been the cause of great distress and anxiety among many people. To many people living on small holdings in the west, or in counties Donegal, Monaghan or Cavan, the farmers' dole was the equivalent of an economic lifeline. Income from their farms has been inadequate to maintain themselves and their families. I am aware of many cases where the dole has been very useful. There has been a restriction on the amount that they have got and that is unfortunate.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. B. Desmond)

The first issue I should like to deal with is the value of increases in weekly rates of payments relative to the cost of living. I should like to make a general point here. The 7 per cent increase in rates this year, and especially the 8 per cent increase in rates for the long-term unemployed, will at least compensate for the expected rate of price increase between mid-1984 and mid-1985. It will be a very limited degree of compensation; but I should like to point out that the 10 per cent increase in short-term rates in June 1983, together with the 12 per cent for long-term pensioners and the further 5 per cent last October for the long-term unemployed, should by and large maintain the real value of payments between mid-1983 and mid-1984. However, I am under no illusions about the extent of the increase agreed in the budget by the Government. Far be it from me to suggest that it is over-generous in any respect.

The long-term unemployed have been particularly supported over the last 12 months, receiving an aggregate 13½ per cent increase since June 1983.

The 25 per cent increase given in 1982 was at a time when inflation was over twice the current level. In addition, the increase in children's allowance in 1982 was largely offset by a decrease of £95 in the child tax allowance from April 1982.

Deputy O'Hanlon raised questions in regard to the administration of the Family Income Supplement scheme and expressed concern that the scheme could be administratively complicated. I should like to point out that the proposed scheme will be administered centrally by the Department of Social Welfare. Fully completed and properly documented applications for family income supplement accompanied by the necessary documents of verification, such as an employer's statement of recent earnings and numbers of hours normally worked per week, will be admitted to payment without the necessity for investigation by a social welfare officer. Subject to staff availability a percentage of all claims in payment will be spot-checked. Investigations by social welfare officers will include inquiries to ensure that there is no collusion between employees and employers on such matters as maintaining wages at an artifically low level and depending on FIS for topping-up purposes. The emphasis will be on keeping the scheme administratively simple subject to the need for adequate documentation in relation to claims.

All FIS claims will be noted on the central record of PRSI insurance, now on computer, so that the Department will be aware of claims to disability benefit or unemployment benefit made by an FIS recipient. It is intended that payments of the supplement will be made on similar lines as those for long-term social welfare payments, namely, by means of order books encashable weekly at post offices. Small amounts of family income supplement may be payable at less frequent intervals. The payment arrangements will be determined by regulations which will be brought before the House in due course.

Deputy O'Hanlon asked why the self-employed are not included in the FIS scheme. I should like to point out that the supplement will be confined to employees in the active labour force. Self-employed persons are not included in the scheme. As the self-employed are not entitled to disability or unemployment benefits they are not affected by the disincentive aspect of benefit rates payable to persons with family dependants. Accordingly they are not affected by one of the main objectives of the FIS scheme. Their inclusion would also pose major problems in establishing their eligibility, including quantifying their means and hours of work. In the case of an employed person an employer's statement can verify earnings and number of hours worked but there is no such independent evidence in the case of the self-employed. Verifying these, particular hours of work, would be difficult. Constant investigation by social welfare officers would be necessary, a process which would be complicated and would be administratively expensive involving in particular heavy additional staffing requirements. In any event, the self-employed, many of whom are farmers, who are on low incomes and not fully occupied may be eligible for unemployment assistance. Such persons could if the scheme were available to them claim the supplement or unemployment assistance, whichever suited them, by stating they were fully occupied or on the other hand available for employment.

Deputy O'Hanlon understandably asked why part-time workers are not included in the scheme. The scheme applies to persons "engaged in remunerative full-time employment". The circumstances in which a person will be regarded as being in full-time employment will be defined in the regulations I propose to make. At present for the purposes of supplementary welfare allowance, full-time employment is taken to be employment lasting more than 30 hours and a person working more than 30 hours would normally not be entitled to supplementary welfare allowance. It is envisaged that the FIS would apply to persons working more than 30 hours a week. It is important that the scheme is not open to abuse by persons taking up casual employment for the purpose of qualifying for the supplement.

I have also been asked why the FIS is not payable to a wife. The FIS is intended basically as a supplement to earnings and as such the Bill provides that it is payable to whichever member of the family is employed at the time of the claim. Part of the pressure for the introduction of the scheme related to persons who may be perceived to be in the poverty trap, a definition which is extremely difficult for any of us to define. From that point of view it is considered reasonable that the supplement should be payable to the person concerned and in that context it is paid to the employed person and not exclusively paid to either spouse as such.

The levels of income up to which FIS will be paid are £95 in the case of a one-child family, increasing by £15 for each additional child up to and including the fifth child. These levels of weekly income were chosen after having regard to the amounts of short-term social welfare benefits which will be payable from July next. At present under the social insurance system the amount received by a person while sick or unemployed by way of flat-rate and pay-related benefits are subject to certain limits. For example, in the case of recipients of unemployment benefit who are wholly unemployed the combined total of flat-rate benefit and pay-related benefit and income tax refund, if received, may not exceed 85 per cent of the current average weekly earnings. These limits were designed to ensure that the level of payments available to claimants while ill or unemployed did not constitute a disincentive to work. The limits do not, however, apply in the case when flat-rate benefit only is payable. This may occur particularly in the case of a man with a wife and children on a low income. It is possible, therefore, for a family breadwinner with an income corresponding to the appropriate rate of flat-rate benefit to obtain more than 85 per cent of his current average net earnings while unemployed. The FIS scheme is designed to top up low earnings with a view to reducing this problem as far as possible.

Deputies Lemass and De Rossa asked whether single parent families would qualify for family income supplement. Under the scheme payments will be made to families where one or both parents is or are engaged in full-time employment. Accordingly, where a single parent such as a widow is working and the family income, including any social welfare pension, is within the limits of the scheme, that family will qualify for payments under the scheme.

Deputy Wyse proposed that two family income supplements should cover the situation of young people becoming unemployed and an unemployment assistance with high mortgage repayments to meet. This is certainly a big problem at the present time and community welfare officers of health boards are finding an increasing number of people applying to them for assistance in this type of situation. It would not be possible to provide for this type of situation in the context of the FIS scheme and any special measures introduced to deal with it are likely to be very costly. It is relatively easy to identify problems but it is a different matter to devise equitable and effective solutions to these problems within the constraints of available resources.

The question of unemployment assistance for young people going on educational courses was raised and Deputy Wyse refered to this. One of the conditions for unemployment assistance is that a person must be available for and genuinely seeking work. This condition presents difficulty where people go on educational courses. No doubt all sides would agree that full-time students should not be entitled in the normal course to unemployment assistance. Nowadays, of course, there is a great proliferation of educational courses, part-time and otherwise, and it would not be possible to set down general rules which would be applicable in all cases. Each case has to be examined on its merits but, generally speaking, if participation in the particular educational course in question would be consistent with the fulfilling of the availability condition and did not effectively prevent an unemployed person from fulfilling this condition, it would be possible for the person concerned to retain his entitlement to unemployment assistance. In deciding on any case, the deciding officer would have regard to factors such as the duration of the course, the number of hours involved and so on. Deputy Wyse can be assured that I am conscious of the need to give unemployed people as much opportunity as possible to use their time in a constructive manner, consistent with the fulfilment of the statutory conditions of the scheme.

Deputy Wyse also referred to involving the unemployed young people in community work, and in this connection measures were taken earlier this year to facilitate unemployed people taking up voluntary work with voluntary organisations and community groups. Employment exchanges can advise unemployed young people on this matter. I hope these measures will be effective in facilitating unemployed people, young and old, in taking up voluntary community work.

On the question of assessment of means where land is leased, the purpose of the provision is to bring the assessment of means in the case of land which is leased into line with the assessment in the case of land which is let on a short-term basis such as the 11-month system. The proposal was fully discussed with the Department of Agriculture and that Department are satisfied that the method of assessment now proposed will work to the advantage of persons leasing their land. I am also satisfied that assessment on this basis of the profits is, in principle, more reasonable than assessment on the basis of capital value where leasing of land is concerned and I do not accept the need for an option of assessment on a capital value basis in this case.

Deputy O'Hanlon referred to the national fuel scheme. When the national fuel scheme was introduced in 1980 the then Government provided that unemployment assistance recipients were not provided for in the scheme, which was intended to cater essentially for persons in receipt of long-term social welfare payments who are living alone. The circular which issues to health boards before the start of the heating season is intended to outline to the health boards the general conditions of the scheme. It must be explained, however, that the conditions of the scheme have not been changed since this Government took office.

Dr. O'Hanlon

There is a new paragraph in this year's letter that was not in previous letters.

Mr. B. Desmond

I am examing the whole scheme for next October and I will be revising it.

Dr. O'Hanlon

The CEO has no discretion in the matter this year.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has no discretion in the matter either. I must put the question now.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá 68; Níl, 63.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Myra.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bermingham, Joe.
• Birmingham, George Martin.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Conlon, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick Mark.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Crowley, Frank.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Martin Austin.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Ryan, John.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McCartin, Joe.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Molony, David.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael.
• (Limerick East)
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Spring, Dick.
• 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.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
• Daly, Brendan.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Francis.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzsimons, Jim.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• 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'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett (Dún Laoghaire) and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and V. Brady.

Question declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 27 March 1984.