Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 18 May 1984

Vol. 350 No. 7

Estimates, 1984. - Vote 46: Social Welfare.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £1,253,554,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1984, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants.

This is the figure which appears in the Estimates volume and which must be provided by the Exchequer. It includes provision for the increases which were announced last January in the budget. The estimate shows an increase of some £160 million over the outturn for 1983, and the bulk of the increase is made up of the carry-over effect this year of the 1983 budget increases, the extra cost of this year's budget increases and provision for a higher number of unemployed. The continuing high level of unemployment in particular requires a very substantial provision in the Estimate.

The Estimate of £1,253,554 million for this year is, as Deputies no doubt appreciate, a net figure only. It is the amount which must be provided by the Exchequer. To arrive at the total expenditure on social welfare services it is necessary to take into account also the full expenditure of the Social Insurance Fund, the Occupational Injuries Fund and the Wet-Time Fund, which are financed mainly by contributions from employers and employees. When account is taken of this additional expenditure overall spending on social welfare in 1984 is expected to amount to £2,156 million. Of this, spending on social insurance benefits amounting to £1,147 million is the largest element. Expenditure on social assistance will amount to £902 million, while occupational injuries and wet-time benefits will cost about £23 million. The cost of administering all these schemes will be £84 million or about 4 per cent of the total expenditure.

It is not so very long ago that the Department of Social Welfare were being criticised for the low level of their expenditure as a percentage of gross national product. Expenditure on social welfare has, however, been taking up an increasing share of GNP. Ten years ago about 10 per cent of GNP was devoted to social welfare. By 1981 it had risen to 11.6 per cent and this year it is expected to be about 14.8 million.

The wheel has, however, now come full circle on this issue and the impact of social welfare spending on the economy has been the subject of much critical comment, especially in recent time. Concern has been expressed that the percentage of GNP required to meet these payment will in future years continue to grow beyond a level which is supportable. I fully appreciate the concern expressed, but I am equally conscious of the realities underlying the situation. The Government are only too keenly aware of the problems posed for the country in the area of the public finances, and the containment of those finances to an acceptable level is a priority matter in the overall area of Government policy. There need be no fear, therefore, that the Government will indulge in such measures of expenditure as would add to the difficulties in this area.

I want to refer to the high dependency ratio of population. It is of the utmost importance that we do not lose sight of the need to protect the most vulnerable groups, and we must ensure that the resources to meet their essential needs are provided.

Because of the demographic structure of our population with its high dependency ratio of the very young and the old, by comparison with the active working population, it is inevitable that the cost of social protection will be a matter of concern in the years ahead. Proposals are put forward from time to time for radical changes in the structure of the system to enable it to meet more effectively the burdens with which it is faced. I have seen it suggested that we are approaching the stage where the distinction between social insurance and social assistance payments should be re-examined. It is important to remember, however, that even with the current high level of unemployment, slightly less than 30 per cent of the cost of social insurance benefits is met by direct Exchequer subvention. The remaining 70 per cent of the cost is met out of the pay-related contributions paid by employers and employees. These contributions form the basis of a specific right to benefit guaranteed by statute which is not subject to a means test. As a result contributors more easily recognise the end result of making contributions to maintain a certain level of benefit.

If the insurance concept were to be abandoned, the question of financing would become of vital importance. Given the financial constraints that exist at the present time and that are likely to exist into the foreseeable future, I cannot visualise a free-for-all system of payments where everyone received payment regardless of means. The cost would be enormous and could result in heavy increases in general taxation. I cannot see that approach commending itself to the many people at different levels of our society who maintain that even the existing burden of taxation is far too heavy.

The only alternative would be a wholly means tested system of payments. Neither do I believe this would find general acceptance. It would be very costly to administer, requiring many additional civil servants at a time when there seems to be a general consensus that the existing numbers in the public service are too high. I do not believe, either, that there is any substantial number of the population which would prefer a means-tested system to one which was available without a means test. If evidence of this is needed, we need look no further than the controversy which has arisen over the "farmers' dole"— I use that phrase — where the Department has been obliged to abolish the notional system, under which unemployment assistance was available to certain smallholders irrespective of means, and replace it by the standard means-tested system of unemployment assistance.

Now I want to refer to the national income-related pension scheme. I would, therefore, think hard and long before embarking on a fundamental re-appraisal of the system in that direction. Indeed, my strong inclination would be to go the other way. I have before the Government at the present time proposals for a national income related pension scheme. The funding of this scheme is based on the social insurance contribution principle and it will cover for the first time self-employed workers as well as employed workers. The self-employed at the present time rely on the social assistance schemes paid for out of general taxation. I think it is time they contributed to the solidarity of the social insurance system by making an appropriate level of contribution in return for which they will qualify for the various pensions of that system. I hope they will welcome the new plan as a forward looking provision for their social betterment, as well as being a significant addition to the general social fabric of the State.

The new rates of benefit and assistance payments and the changes that are being made in the social insurance and assistance schemes have already been dealt with in the House during the debates on the budget and more recently on the Social Welfare Bill. There are, however, some points which I would like to refer to again.

Regarding unemployment, I mentioned earlier the fact that provision has been made in this Estimate for an increasing number of persons who are expected to be unemployed. The estimated cost of unemployment payments this year is £615 million, or about 28.5 per cent of the total estimated expenditure on social welfare services. Such a level of unemployment is a cause of deep concern, not only because of the severe strain it places on the Exchequer by reducing income and increasing expenditure but also because of the drastic impact such a situation has on the lives of so many of our people. The level of unemployment has been clearly identified as the most important issue facing the country at the present time and is one which will require sacrifices all round if adequate measures are to be devised to reduce it.

I have spoken with sympathy and understanding on many occasions of the plight of those people who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed and I have laid particular stress on my concern for the long-term unemployed. On this occasion last year, when speaking on the 1983 Estimate for my Department I promised to see what could be done to improve the lot of the long-term unemployed at that point in time. As a result, special recognition has been given to their plight. An additional increase of 5 per cent was introduced last October for those who were unemployed for 15 months or more. Furthermore, the increase being awarded to them from next July is 1 per cent higher than the level of increase that will apply to other social welfare recipients. I will continue to keep under review the situation of this group of people who now number about 75,000.

Regarding the enterprise allowance scheme, there has been a very encouraging response to this scheme which was introduced at the end of 1983 and is administered by the Department of Labour. This scheme provides financial support for unemployed persons who want to start up their own businesses. People accepted into the scheme can qualify for a weekly allowance for the first year to enable them to get their enterprise off the ground. In order to give further encouragement and support to the unemployed willing to start up in business, arrangements are now being made that the pay-related benefit they would have received if they had remained unemployed can be paid to them as a lump sum. This will be available to meet the capital expenses of opening a business. It is a truism that the only solution to unemployment is the creation of employment, and I believe that the undoubted attraction of this scheme for a significant number of the unemployed is an important step in that direction.

Regarding voluntary work for the unemployed, during 1983, a voluntary work scheme was introduced to encourage people receiving unemployment benefit or assistance to do voluntary work. Provided the unemployed person is still available to take up employment, and is actively looking for employment, he may do voluntary work without affecting his entitlement to unemployment benefit or assistance.

The scheme covers many forms of voluntary work, including helping the sick, elderly or handicapped, or helping community groups or residents' associations.

This type of voluntary work will benefit the unemployed people involved, by developing their skills or by providing them with work preparation. It will also, of course, be of great benefit to voluntary organisations and to the community. It is hoped that by the introduction of this scheme local voluntary and community groups will be encouraged to look for ways of getting unemployed people involved in voluntary work.

I now refer to unemployment benefit assistance for claimants on holidays.

Since the beginning of 1984, recipients of unemployment payments who so wish may take an annual holiday within the State. When they return, they will be allowed to "sign-on" retrospectively, and will then receive payment for the period of their holiday. Needless to remark, notification of intention to avail of this provision should be given in advance to the supervisor at the employment exchange, otherwise there would be considerable difficulty.

On the use of social welfare funds for job-creation projects, it is suggested from time to time that moneys spent on unemployment payments would be better used in creating jobs for the unemployed or in maintaining the jobs of those threatened with unemployment. However, there are some general points that should be taken into account by those who advocate State employment of people on some form of public "make-work" projects.

One common error often made in comparing the cost of State employment with the cost of unemployment payments is to ignore the cost of materials, capital goods, supervision, overheads, employers' PRSI contributions etc. Ignoring these items can have the effect of reducing the apparent cost of employment by nearly 40 per cent.

In cash terms, the cost to the Exchequer of State employment is at least twice as much as the cost of unemployment payments. For instance the net cost of creating a job in the public sector at a weekly gross wage of £100 for a single man with no dependants would be over £110 compared to the maximum unemployment assistance payment appropriate in his case from July next — long duration — of £32.80 weekly. At the other end of the scale, in the case of a married man with two children on unemployment benefit, the net cost of providing the same job would be £118 compared to the cost of his unemployment benefit and pay-related benefit payment of £62.

The foregoing examples are based on an average wage of £100 per week. The average weekly earnings — men and women — in transportable goods industries are estimated at £143 for 1983 and for males only at £165. In public works projects, the State is generally obliged to pay the "going rate" rather than a low wage and the trade union movement would obviously oppose any scheme that smacked of cheap labour. However, even if wages paid to an employee were as low as the welfare payments, in which case his take home pay would be less than his welfare payments after PRSI and perhaps PAYE the net cost to the Exchequer would in general be over 50 per cent for employment rather than for welfare payments.

I hope that in that regard the cost factor of some of the very simplistic assertions about taking people off the dole, off unemployment benefit and assistance, and putting them into public works employment, which comes from persons from whom one would expect a higher degree of awareness, will be brought home to them. I am sure when they realise the double cost of doing it, at least 50 and probably 75 per cent to 100 per cent extra in many instances, they will have second thoughts about the superficial merits advanced in favour of their case.

Another basic difficulty with this type of suggestion is the conflict with the statutory provisions governing social welfare funds. Under existing financial procedures, monies voted for a specific purpose cannot be diverted to other purposes, no matter how meritorious the intention may be. It is considered, therefore, that there are strong reasons for keeping the unemployment payment schemes separate from the area of job creation or job subsidy. These schemes have very specific functions, and it is not possible to reconcile these functions with the concept of paid employment without radically altering both the scope of the schemes and the fundamental principles on which they are based. That is not to say that in relation to the particular schemes that have been advanced, the enterprise allowance scheme and the many other schemes in existence, that we cannot dovetail these schemes into the structure of the unemployed.

I now come to the educational courses for the unemployed. The question of unemployment payments to unemployed people who wish to take up adult and continuing education courses, is another area which is the subject of much discussion. The purpose of the Unemployment Assistance and Unemployment Benefit Schemes is to provide income maintenance for persons who are involuntarily unemployed. It is a fundamental requirement, laid down in statute, that all claimants must be available for work. There is no specific provision in the Social Welfare Acts which debars unemployed people from participating in educational courses, but any claimant who fails, by virtue of his participating in an educational course, to satisfy the availability condition would be liable to have his or her claim disallowed.

Whether a person is available for employment is a question of fact to be determined in the particular circumstances of each case. In general, any educational course being pursued by an unemployed person which involves a high degree of commitment by him is likely to render him ineligible for unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance. For instance, students attending college full-time by day would not in the normal way be eligible for unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. Such students might argue that they would discontinue their studies if they obtain or are offered employment, but the general view would be that the commitment they have shown by applying for a place in college, the payment of fees etc. would indicate that they are not genuinely on the labour market.

It is accepted that in times of high unemployment there should be every possible encouragement to unemployed people to use their time constructively. However the provision of such encouragement does not fit easily with the unemployment payment schemes, which must contain a significant element of control.

The best way to encourage unemployed people to take up activities of this kind may be to remove them from the live register and make payments to them under independent arrangements. Unemployed people who participate in training courses approved by agencies such as AnCO, for example, are treated in this way. Similarly the Government encourages unemployed people to start their own businesses through the enterprise allowance scheme. In all these cases, it is found that the best approach is for entitlement to unemployment payments to cease in favour of payments from the particular scheme in question.

The whole structure and concept of employment in industry in the private and in the public sector has changed dramatically in the past ten years. Those of us in our late 40s or 50s tend not to appreciate the extent to which modern industrial technology has passed us by. We think in the concept of the 1950s and 1960s. It may be — and here I may sound somewhat heretical — that the very success of technology and western industrial society has created the situation regarding unemployment. Unemployment is virtually a product of success. Within the public sector there has been the development of massive computerisation. In the private sector one could go through factories without meeting many workers and in some public sector areas there are very few people employed. The success of technology and modern administrative methods have created massive unemployment. It is my view that even if we had growth rates of from 3 to 6 per cent per annum in the economy it is quite unlikely that the impact on unemployment would be substantial.

My general point is that what is at issue is a totally new concept and understanding of the meaning of unemployment and work. We may reach a stage, particularly in the advanced western countries, where the idea of a person going through an educational course and then getting a nine to five job will be changed totally. We need new concepts with regard to education, work and income distribution. I believe that what is at issue on the social policy side is how we distribute on an income maintenance basis the resources arising from new technologies, automation and computerisation. Above all, how can we ensure that people have a meaning to their lives when in future they may never work in a factory because of automation. Even now there are few jobs in factories in the conventional sense that we knew when we grew up in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Politicians in particular have not addressed themselves to the situation. Politicians who make the point that, if the unemployment figure is brought down to 150,000 or 180,000 or if it does not exceed 250,000, we can regard that as a bench-mark of economic progress and success are deluding themselves about the true impact of that kind of data.

I hope that within the body politic there will be objective discussion as to what constitutes employment, education and income. We have not thought about those matters in much depth. To that extent we are all conservatives and perhaps we should try to break out of that mould. It is in that context that I wish to deal with unemployment assistance for smallholders because it is in this area that that dilemna is posed in its most acute form, namely trying to relate unemployment assistance and income maintenance to agricultural production which is what the scheme for smallholders is supposed to be about.

I think it appropriate to refer to the widespread publicity in recent times given to the question of unemployment assistance for smallholders and it is perhaps as well to outline briefly the history of this issue. Until 1965 smallholders qualified for unemployment assistance under the general means-tested principles set out in the legislation for that scheme. From that year, however, a special scheme was introduced for smallholders in specified areas. Under the scheme the smallholder was deemed to have a notional yearly income based on the PLV of his holding. He then qualified for unemployment assistance having regard to the notional income irrespective of his real income. This scheme with variations one way or another remained in existence until 1982.

A High Court action had been brought by a number of individual farmers contesting the constitutionality of certain sections of the Valuation Acts. In a judgment given on 30 July 1982 the High Court declared that the use of the poor law valuation system for assessing income from land was no longer lawful. Arising from this judgement my Department received legal advice that the continued use of the notional method of assessment of income for unemployment assistance purposes based on PLV was equally no longer lawful and should be discontinued. My Department were obliged to take action in the matter and the notional method of means assessment was abolished in the Social Welfare Act, 1983. Approximately 12,500 smallholders were involved and while no new cases were taken on, existing recipients retained their entitlements until their means could be factually assessed. The process of assessment commenced in May 1983 and to date approximately 8,500 cases have been re-assessed, leaving 4,000 outstanding. The process of re-assessment is, therefore, well on the way to completion.

During the debate on the Social Welfare Bill there was considerable comment on and criticism of the question of applying factual means tests to smallholders. The position now is that under the law uniform provisions relating to means testing are laid down and apply equally to all whether they be from a rural or urban environment. There is no question of discriminating against smallholders or anybody else. The scheme of unemployment assistance is a part of the social welfare code and I hope all will agree that there is nothing wrong in applying equal standards all round.

Means tests are carried out by social welfare officers who undergo a comprehensive training programme and to guide them they have detailed instructions which are applied uniformly. Furthermore they are working under the control of district supervisors who have many years of experience in this aspect of their work. The purpose of the exercise is to determine the facts, and the officers of my Department have no vested interest in denying to any person his statutory rights. I would like here to pay particular tribute to the staff involved in the means testing exercise a number of whom have been the subject of much unfounded allegation and unfair and unwarranted criticism, some of which has, unfortunately come from this side of the House. Indeed, as an indication of my concern in this matter, I met representatives of the Civil Service Executive Union and assured them that I deplored the unfounded criticisms to which staff had been unfairly subjected. I have personally looked into this matter in considerable detail and I am fully satisfied that the officers involved were carrying out their job impartially under very difficult circumstances.

I am sure that Deputy O'Hanlon agrees that there is always the mythical case of the Fianna Fáil smallholder who is allegedly being hounded by a social welfare officer who supports a different party and the same applies to the mythical Fine Gael or Labour smallholder who is allegedly being hounded by the social welfare officer with Fianna Fáil leanings. It is remarkable that social welfare officers have a enormous political profile in the eyes of so many people and it is a unique aspect of public service employment. However, during my time in office I have never received concrete information relating to a case which would warrant even sending for a review of the file in question. I urge politicians to refrain from stirring up trouble in this regard. I am quite satisfied that social welfare officers apply the system as objectively and fairly as possible throughout the country, bearing in mind that, very often, they get very little assistance in regard to basic information.

It would, I think, be appropriate to take this opportunity of explaining to the House in some detail the methods used to assess the means of smallholders. Under the law what must be assessed is the yearly value of the advantage a smallholder derives from his holding. The basis of the calculation of farm income is normally the net income over the 12 month period prior to the investigation of means. Under arrangements which I made some while back the claimant is notified in advance that the social welfare officer will call and in the advance notification details are given of the items of income and expenditure which are taken into account in the assessment as well as the documentation which the social welfare officer will require. During the course of the interview details are ascertained of gross income from farming activities such as the sale of stock, crops or other produce, sale of milk to creamery and so on. It there were exceptional circumstances associated with the particular year in question, allowance would be made for this. Account is also taken of additional income, for example, from letting of land, hiring out of machinery or from headage payments.

When the gross income has been ascertained, it is then reduced by the amount of the costs actually and necessarily incurred in connection with the working of the farm. These would include items such as rent, rates and annuities, the cost of seeds, fertilisers and feeding stuffs, renewal of tools and farm machinery, repairs to farm buildings, fences and the like, veterinary expenses, the cost of electricity, petrol and diesel and so on. In relation to farm machinery, hire purchase and other instalments are allowed or a reasonable annual allowance is made for depreciation. An additional and significant cost item for many farmers in recent years is interest paid on moneys borrowed and here again such interest is allowed where it arises out of borrowings in connection with the working of the farm and where it is paid. Necessary labour costs, excluding that of husband and wife, are also allowed as a deduction in calculating net income. When all the information available has been taken into account the assessment is made on the basis of the details supplied by the farmer himself.

I would like to stress, however, that while the investigation of means is carried out by the social welfare officer the final decision as to the level of means to be assessed and the consequent entitlement to unemployment assistance is, in the first instance, under the legislation a matter for a deciding officer. Any person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the deciding officer can appeal against the decision and have his case referred to an appeals officer for determination.

It is hard to conceive any other expenses which can be allowed unless we reach the absurd stage where contributions to the local GAA club will be included in farm assessment or that we allow a holiday in Lourdes. We have allowed every possible expense and we could reach a farcical stage where people would demand allowances for the car to bring them to Mass on Sundays because they live in a rural area.

It is to everybody's advantage that farmers should have all their facts available at the initial investigation by the social welfare officer because reinvestigations arising from appeals in individual cases create problems not only for the person concerned but also for the Department of Social Welfare. Social welfare officers are obliged to take account of all items of income and expenses in making their reports but obviously they must depend largely on the information given to them in the course of the interview. Where the full details are available at the initial stage in relation to both sides of the equation the assessment poses no problem.

I am emphasising in particular the question of the method of assessing means because I regard it as crucial in this whole debate. I am not suggesting that the assessment of means is a simple straightforward book-keeping exercise because very often the information required may not be readily available to the applicant. What I am saying, however, is that there is a well-tried system in operation whereby a fair and reasonable assessment can be made. Since I took office as Minister for Social Welfare I have had the method of assessing farm means subjected to detailed analysis and I am satisfied that all possible measures are taken to ensure that the assessment in individual cases is a fair one.

I have considered the views which have been put to me by various farming representatives and I am satisfied that what farmers want is a fair and reasonable method of assessing means. They are not seeking the payment of unemployment assistance to any person who does not satisfy the statutory conditions. They accept that the abolition of the notional system will result in some farmers having their assistance payments reduced or withdrawn completely. On the other hand they realise that many smallholders will receive increased payments as a result of the assessments and, as I have already said, will qualify for increases in rates of payment in the same way as all other unemployment assistance applicants.

Deputies may be interested in having the results of an analysis which was made of 6,241 cases which were actually decided up to March last. Entitlement was revoked in 1,905 cases, (30.5 per cent); rate of assistance was reduced in 2,617 cases, (41.9 per cent); rate of assistance was increased in 1,719 cases, (27.6 per cent).

These figures do not take account of cases appealed, but data in this form is not available in those cases. The only information available relating to appeals is that up to the end of January 1984 of 896 appealed, 367 were successful and 529 were unsuccessful. "Successful" in this context means that the means assessed by the appeals officer were lower than the level assessed by the deciding officer but not necessarily that unemployment assistance was restored at its original level. In many cases there would be a marginal difference only in the amount of means assessed.

I fully accept the need to ensure that applicants for unemployment assistance are aware of the level of means which have been assessed in their case. In future therefore I am arranging that smallholders whose means are assessed on a factual basis will be informed as to the net income assessed and of the gross income and gross expenditure figures from which the net income is derived. Because, however, the system is not a bookkeeping one it is not possible to give a more detailed breakdown of individual items making up the assessment.

I would expect that the arrangements for advance notification of the visit of the social welfare officer will overcome many of the difficulties which have been experienced and will enable the farmer to sort out any difficulties in discussion with the social welfare officer. Where, however, he is not satisfied with the subsequent decision and appeals against it he will be given a further opportunity of elaborating on his case. At that stage, where there is an oral hearing, it will be possible for the appeals officer, who will have all the papers available to him, to discuss individual items of income or expenditure included in the assessment where these are a matter of dispute.

Where advance notification is given of the intention to visit a smallholding, and particularly where a date is given, the odd case has been known to officers where cattle or sheep might be moved to another farm. Then the social welfare officer is assured that the smallholder in question is in the dregs of poverty. That is why a visit by a social welfare officer to a smallholding without notice has a degree of merit in terms of assessment of income. I have indicated that I am prepared to give advance notification. That is being done and will be done, and it will probably help to speed up matters. Lest howls of execration descend upon my head for making that point, let me say that the vast majority of smallholders act in an entirely honest manner. In all walks of life there is always a percentage who will try to pull a fast one when being assessed for income tax or any other kind of assessment. For every arrangement one makes, one has to accept there are those who will take advantage of it.

I realise that a large number of smallholders who have already had their means reassessed on a factual basis have not had the advantage of the arrangements which are now being introduced in relation to current and future cases. However, when all smallholders have had their entitlements reassessed the arrangements for the provision of as much detailed information as possible in individual cases will be applied when reviewing entitlements in future.

In all of this I would like to stress that what I and my Department are trying to do is to provide a scheme that is fair and moreover seen to be fair. I hope the system which I have outlined to the House will be accepted as such. I hope some of the political capital which is being made out of the difficulties facing my Department will subside to some extent.

A new scheme of family income supplement will be introduced from the beginning of November next and will cost about £2.2 million in the current year. The necessary provision is made in Subhead N of the estimate. The estimated cost in a full year is £13 million. The purpose of this scheme is to provide cash support for employees whose earnings are low and who have a family to support. Workers in this category receive little or no benefit from income tax allowances as they are below or just above the tax threshold, and because they are working, they do not qualify for social welfare payments. While the new scheme may not fully satisfy everyone, I feel sure that it will be welcomed by the low income employees it is designed to help.

There are some aspects of this scheme which have been raised and which I want to clarify. I would like to make it quite clear that the scheme will apply to single-parent families. Where a single parent such as a widow, deserted wife or unmarried mother is in full-time employment and the family income, including social welfare payments other than children's allowances, is within the limits of the scheme, that family will qualify for a family income supplement. Also, persons receiving the supplement will not be liable for income tax or PRSI contributions in respect of it. An important point is that the scheme covers only persons in full-time employment and does not apply to the self-employed. The method of paying the supplement will be by means of books of orders encashable weekly at post offices.

Finally, the supplement will not be paid exclusively to either spouse as such. It is intended as a supplement to earnings and will be payable to whichever member of the family is employed or the principal wage-earner when the claim is made. I hope these points will help to clear up any doubts or misunderstandings which may have arisen regarding this scheme. The regulations governing the implementation of the scheme are at present being drafted and full details will be publicised in due course. The income limits which will govern eligibility for the supplement have already been published in the Social Welfare Bill which was passed by the House at the end of March.

During 1983, regulations were made extending the occupational injuries benefit scheme to cover some additional occupational diseases. The principal new diseases covered are hearing impairment caused by occupational noise and bronchial asthma arising from certain recognised agents or irritants.

In the 1984 budget provision was made to allow unrestricted free travel to recipients of invalidity pension-benefit and to blind persons who are attending full-time long-term rehabilitation courses. New arrangements have also been made recently for holders of free travel passes who travel on the Derry-Dublin express bus service. Up to now, travellers had to write to the Department of Social Welfare in Dublin to get a special travel warrant for the Northern Ireland portion of the journey. It is now possible for travellers to get these warrants on the day of their journey by calling to the Ulsterbus depot in Derry or the CIE depots in Monaghan or Dublin. This allows much-greater flexibility for the travellers concerned.

It was also found possible in this year's budget to remove a restriction in the free telephone rental scheme. People who satisfy the other conditions of the scheme may now qualify for this allowance where they have children under the age of 15 years living with them.

I would now like to turn to some particular aspects of the estimates themselves. Subheads A to D deal with the cost of administering the Department. The administration of my Department requires considerable resources to service the constantly increasing number of new claims especially from the unemployed. Each week, the Department are responsible for payments to some 1.2 million claimants and their dependants and some 25,000 new claims are received. As I said earlier, the total administration costs, including the costs incurred by outside agencies such as An Post, The revenue Commissioners, Office of Public Works, and so on, account for only 4 per cent of the Department's total expenditure.

There have been major increases in the numbers of payments made over the last few years. On the unemployment side alone the increase has been over 100 per cent since 1980. While all possible steps have been taken to cope with the increasing workload within the existing staffing restrictions, it is now becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the efficient delivery of social welfare services.

I am deeply appreciative of the dedication shown by all the staff of my Department who have had to work under considerable pressure to cope with an ever-increasing workload. I am satisfied that as far as my Department is concerned the stage has been reached where a more flexible approach to the provision of additional staff is necessary to meet essential requirements.

As part of the constant efforts to improve the administration of the Department the use of computers plays an increasingly important part. Since 1973 computerisation has been extended to pay-related benefit, disability, maternity, occupational injuries and treatment benefits, and, most importantly, to the contribution records of insured persons under the PRSI system. Last year saw the development of a computer facility to issue payments under the rent allowance scheme. During the current year a start was made on a computerised system of paying certain unemployed persons by cheque. It is intended to extend this system gradually in order to relieve pressure on accommodation and staff in employment exchanges and to improve the administration of the service to the unemployed.

The new system which is at present operating in two Dublin employment exchanges is progressing satisfactorily and has been well received by the unemployed persons who have been transferred to that method of payment. Another development in the current year is the commencement of the application of computers to the children's allowance and pensions area. This is a project that has been scheduled for some time but had to be deferred because of lack of resources. The first phase of the project is already in operation in the children's allowance branch. A system for the pensions area will be introduced later this year.

There are now over 300 computer terminals installed in headquarters buildings in Dublin and in a number of public offices and information centres both in Dublin and throughout the country. Since the beginning of 1983 visual display terminals connected to the Department's computers have been installed in the local offices of the Department in Limerick, Waterford, Tralee, Dundalk, Drogheda, Dún Laoghaire, Bray, Wexford making in all 11 offices with this facility. Terminals will shortly be installed in the Galway, Longford, Athlone, Mullingar, Sligo, and Letterkenny offices. These facilities provide instant access for enquiry purposes to information on disability, maternity and occupational injuries benefit claims. A telecommunications network is being planned to link the Department's offices with the objective of providing a more effective and efficient day-to-day administration, including better retrieval and communication of information for dealing with individual cases. This development will facilitate the eventual introduction of a degree of local administration of the disability benefit scheme. Office automation facilites such as electronic mail and filing have been introduced on a pilot basis and the Department expects to make more use of such facilities over the coming years according as the technology develops and improves.

To date computerisation has resulted in significant efficiencies and economies even against the background of an expanding workload. The further developments envisaged will continue that process and will help to improve the overall administration of my Department. I look forward to the continued co-operation of staff at all levels in the implementation and expansion of computerisation within the Department.

Subheads E and F of the Estimate deal with the social insurance services. Subhead E represents the Exchequer contribution to the social insurance fund in 1984. It is a residual figure representing the difference between the expenditure of the fund and the income received into the fund mainly through PRSI contributions from employers and employees. Full details of the expenditure and income of the fund are set out in the Appendix at page 194 of the published Estimate.

The standard rate of PRSI contributions is now 20.6 per cent of which the employer pays 12.1 per cent and the employee 8.5 per cent but it does not all go to the Social Insurance Fund. The fund's share is 16.8 per cent the remaining elements being 1 per cent for the health contribution, 1 per cent youth employment levy, 1 per cent income levy, 0.4 per cent occupational injuries and 0.4 per cent redundancy. There has been no increase in the social insurance element of the contribution since 1982 and this year, for the first time, there has been no increase in the ceiling up to which contributions are levied. The estimated income of the fund from contributions by employers and employees in 1984 is £853 million.

The overall income of the fund in 1984 is estimated to be £1,197,284,000 made up as follows:

£

%

Employers

574,000,000

48.0

Employees

279,000,000

23.3

Exchequer

342,817,000

28.6

Investments etc.

1,467,000

0.1

It has been necessary to increase the occupational injuries element of the contribution from 0.3 per cent to 0.4 per cent. The Occupational Injuries Fund into which these contributions from employers only are paid is statutorily required to meet its expenditure. There is no provision for a State contribution and accordingly where its outgoings are expected to increase to an extent that cannot be met by the existing level of income from contributions and invested funds it is necessary to increase the rate of contribution. This is what was done on this occassion.

I regret the extent to which I have to deal with the Estimate but some of the issues that have arisen lately take some time to get through.

I have seen recently some newspaper headlines where the Federated Union of Employers among others criticised what they describe as the "spiralling cost of social welfare" and suggested the curtailment, reduction or elimination of some benefits. This typical comment totally ignores the quite major measures that have been introduced in the social insurance area in recent years with a view to achieving a more realistic relationship between a person's normal take-home pay and the level of short-term benefits. These measures since early 1983 included for example reduction in the level of pay-related benefit, an increase in the PRB waiting period, an increase in the PRB floor, withdrawal of PRB from short-time workers and reduction of DB "wage stop" to 75 per cent of reckonable earnings. In addition, control measures to combat unwarranted recourse to the social welfare system have been completely reviewed and strengthened. I am now satisfied that there is no justification for the introduction of any further major measures.

It is clear from the extensive range of statutory and administrative changes in social insurance provision both in 1983 and this year that this Department have made a responsible and effective response to potential misuse of the social welfare code. While the Department will continue to review the levels and effect of social insurance payments and will make whatever adjustments appear necessary to maintain target replacement ratios and so on any further significant erosion of benefit levels would adversely affect the living standards of those who, through no fault of their own, may be sick or unemployed. A measure of the social conscience of the Government is the way in which it protects the interests of the weakest and most vulnerable groups in our society at all times but it is especially so during periods of recession. I have no apology to make to anybody for the manner in which this Government have fulfilled their duty in that respect.

On the other hand I saw in a document prepared for the Conference of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs a statement that the State contribution to the Social Insurance Fund had been falling in recent years. This is simply not true. The increasing level of unemployment has placed a severe strain on the fund. As I said earlier there has been no increase in the rate of social insurance contribution in the past two years. These factors have combined to bring about a considerable increase in the level of the Exchequer subvention to the fund in the period since 1979. For the information of anyone who may doubt this fact I will give the percentage of the total expenditure of the Social Insurance Fund which has had to be met by the Exchequer in the past years — 1979, 20.1 per cent; 1980, 25.6 per cent; 1981, 29.6 per cent; 1982, 27.8 per cent; 1983, 27.9 per cent; 1984 (estimated), 28.6 per cent. These figures clearly show the constant high level of the Exchequer contribution rising from 20.1 per cent in 1979 to 28.6 per cent this year.

But the level of the Exchequer contribution to the Social Insurance Fund cannot be taken in isolation. A huge proportion of social welfare spending goes on social assistance schemes the cost of which is borne fully by the Exchequer. The State contribution to the total cost of social welfare covering both social insurance and social assistance since 1979 has been — 1979, 54.5 per cent; 1980, 54.8 per cent; 1981, 57.7 per cent; 1982, 57.7 per cent; 1983, 57.9 per cent; 1984 (estimated), 58.5 per cent. That represents a constant general increase since 1979.

In Subhead O of the Estimate provision is made for £1 million for the establishment of an anti-poverty programme. The removal of poverty from our society is the ultimate aim of all social welfare programmes. With the approval of the Government I established earlier this year an interim board of the Combat Poverty Organisation. I have asked the board to report to me by the end of June with recommendations on the structure of a permanent Combat Poverty Organisation and the detailed terms of reference. The board are also considering the Irish input to the forthcoming EEC poverty programme and will provide advice in that area also. I look forward to receiving their advice and recommendations and will act on them as quickly as possible.

It is now almost ten months since I established the Commission on Social Welfare to review the social welfare system to ensure that it meets its objectives effectively. Under its terms of reference it is due to report in the autumn of 1985. A sum of £100,000 is provided in Subhead Q of the Estimate to enable the commission to carry out this important task. I consider that the work of the commission is of crucial importance to the long-term development of the social welfare system.

An item for which no provision has yet been made in the Estimate but which will arise later this year is the introduction of measures necessary to ensure equality of treatment between men and women in the social welfare code. In accordance with an EEC directive of December 1978 all discrimination as between men and women in the social security field must be removed by the end of 1984. Much progress has been made in recent years but there are still areas of the social welfare code where women are less favourably treated than men — notably in the area of unemployment schemes.

The most difficult area in relation to equality of treatment, however, is that of increases of social welfare payments for dependants. The social welfare schemes were framed on the basis that the husband was the head of the household and the person to whom increases in respect of adult and child dependants should be payable. While this approach was the norm when the schemes were introduced, the social position of married women has — not before its time — changed considerably. Therefore, women must accorded the same rights as men under the social welfare system. I am at present considering proposals aimed at bringing about that situation. When final decisions have been taken by the Government I will be bringing legislation before the House with a view to having the necessary provisions implemented before the end of the year.

I think it appropriate before concluding to refer to the recent report of the National Planning Board which received widespread publicity in the media. This is a comprehensive document which deals not only with the broad economic issues of the public finances, monetary policy, the balance of payments and employment creation but also with the protection of the less well-off and the disadvantaged. One of the board's recommendations is that public expenditure should be brought more closely into line with the revenue that can be raised at broadly acceptable tax rates. In this context the report states that the gap between expenditure and income in the public finances should be narrowed by reducing current expenditure rather than by increasing the burden. As spending on social welfare is now running at 26 per cent of the total Government current expenditure the board naturally considered what changes might be made to reduce spending in this area. The board's general conclusion, which I welcome very much, was, and I quote:

Unlike other elements of current expenditure, the scope for curbing the growth or reducing the level of social welfare transfers is extremely limited.

The board go on to say that it is essential that the effectiveness of existing spending on social welfare be assessed and that the allocation of existing resources within social welfare be improved. This has been my approach consistently as Minister for Social Welfare. We as a community now make a massive financial commitment to providing support for those who are unable to meet their own needs. All of that money, namely £6 million each day of the year, comes from employers, employees, general taxation and Exchequer borrowings. I fully agree with the board about the importance of ensuring that these scarce resources are directed as effectively as possible to people whose need is greatest.

The board acknowledge that the Commission on Social Welfare are currently undertaking a fundamental review of the income maintenance system and pending the outcome of this review the board at this stage do not make substantive recommendations for the development of social welfare programmes during the next four years. There are, however, a number of recommendations put forward for consideration and without prejudice to the outcome of the commissions review I would like to make a few brief comments on some of the points raised by the board.

The board take the view that the incentive to work has been weakened on the one hand by high rates of income-related taxation with which they include PRSI and on the other hand by relatively high untaxed sickness and unemployment benefit. With a view to reducing the overall rate of PRSI contribution the board recommend that the earnings ceiling, currently £13,000, should be removed and that the full employee's contribution should be payable by all categories of workers including public servants. On the question of the ceiling, there are, I believe, a number of considerations to be; borne in mind. The contribution system, could be regarded as regressive because for workers whose earnings exceed the ceiling their PRSI contribution as a percentage of their total earnings is less than in the case of lower paid employees. There is, however, the counter-argument that PRSI cannot be taken in isolation and that where the totality of PAYE and PRSI is taken into account the abolition of the ceiling would have a very significant effect on the net pay of the higher paid.

With regard to the extension of full PRSI coverage to certain public servants, their present cover is confined mainly to widows' and orphans' pensions and, accordingly, they pay PRSI contributions at a reduced rate. Permanenet and pensionable public servants were never insured for unemployment benefit purposes and they were also excluded from sickness and old age pension cover on the basis that their social security needs were adequately provided through their occupational arrangements. An important consideration, therefore, is that their limited social insurance cover is also related to the cost which would arise for the Exchequer by way of employer's social insurance contributions. The question would have to be considered whether full occupational benefits would be paid in addition to full social security benefits or whether arrangements would be made to reduce occupational pensions and sick pay entitlements. All of these matters could give rise in one way or another to significant additional administration costs.

To deal with the second point in the report, the proposal to tax short-term benefits would affect those payments which are at present broadly designed to represent a certain proportion of normal take-home pay. The board take the view that if as a result of including social welfare benefit, a person's income is such as to make him or her liable to income tax, then that person is merely being treated equally with a person who obtains a similar income from non-social welfare sources. I would be concerned, however, that the after-tax value of the benefits concerned would continue to represent an adequate proportion of the person's normal take-home pay. I am satisfied that changes made in the social welfare code in recent years in relation both to levels of benefits compared with take-home pay and in relation to control measures to combat unwarranted recourse to the social welfare system have been a reasonable and effective response to any potential misuse of the system.

Thirdly, the board are of the view that the present disability benefit scheme should be revised so that benefit would become payable from the 15th day of illness rather than from the third as at present. Employers would assume full responsibility for income maintenance during the first two weeks of illness and be compensated by a reduction in the general rate of PRSI.

This whole question is already under intensive examination in my Department. Transferring responsibility for sickness payments to employers raises the question of the purpose of the disability benefit scheme and the broader question of the role of the State and the private sector in the provision of income maintenance payments. Broadly speaking, the aim of the social security system is to provide replacement income for persons who are unable to obtain an income due to sickness, unemployment, old age, widowhood and so on. Social insurance came into being so that the protection against the various contingencies which the individual or family were not able to cope with alone could be provided on a collective basis with employers, workers and the State sharing the costs. Over the years the social insurance system including the disability benefit scheme has been progressively developed in terms of coverage, range, control and level of payments and unity of administration.

Side by side with the development of social insurance, however, there has been a significant change in employers' attitudes towards the provision of non-pay benefits for their employees. Occupational sick pay schemes now cover a large proportion of the employee workforce. Accordingly, I accept that the current role and general administration of the disability benefit scheme may need to be reviewed for these reasons. I am examining the scheme at present. In 1984 the overall scheme will cost about £190 million. In the event of any Government decision I would have to bring legislation before the House.

I would remind the House of the importance, in present economic circumstances, of the Estimate we are considering. Total expenditure on social welfare services this year will be about £2,156 million. This expenditure is a measure of the commitment, not only of the Government but of the Irish people as a whole, to providing for the essential needs of the less well off. It is a measure also of the massive financial commitment involved for the entire community in providing these services.

It is essential that we in the Houses of the Oireachtas maintain the scheme in a society where every pressure group are preoccupied exclusively and at times despairingly with their own interests, that we represent the national interest and that we maintain a system of social insurance for those who live in poverty, who are deprived or who become ill. It is essential that we resist pressure from pressure groups to modify the scheme in their direction.

I thank the House for the patience with which it has listened to me during this lengthy contribution and I look forward, in the 15 minutes that will be available to me later, to replying to the points that may be made.

I take this opportunity of thanking the Secretary of my Department, Mr. Jim Downey, who has had the most difficult Department of all perhaps to administer in the year 1983-84. No other Department has been under greater pressure. The Department have been up front in dealing with the question of income maintenance for more than 200,000 people who are out of work and for another 850 people who every week depend on the Department for their incomes. I express my gratitude also to the assistant secretaries, and to the principal officers in the Department as well as to the managers of employment exchanges throughout the country and the many staff whom I have not been able to meet because of the onerous task involved for me in heading the Department of Social Welfare. This requires an enormous amount of routine administration. I regret that I have not been able to visit the various employment exchanges but I intend doing so in the near future so that I might at least convey personally the thanks of these Houses to the staff who have managed to deliver what is an extremely good system, a system of social welfare that has been developed down through the years.

I join with the Minister in paying tribute to the Secretary of the Department, Mr. Downey, and also to the other staff there. Their task is an onerous one. However, Mr. Downey is fortunate in that he does not carry responsibility for the policies of the Minister and of the Government.

There was an extraordinary philosophy in the Minister's speech in relation to unemployment. He told us that unemployment is the product of success but earlier he had told us that it was impossible to transfer resources from his Department so that people might find employment in the public service particularly. If unemployment is a product of success and if we compare the Minister's logic with the disastrous economic policies of his Government, unemployment figures should be decreasing. Since they are increasing I do not think we can accept that unemployment is a product of success. I accept that technological changes have contributed to a lack of jobs but the main cause of our unemployment problem in recent years has been the disastrous economic policies of the Government.

This year the Government allocated sufficient moneys for benefit for a further 30,000 unemployed. A similar provision was made in 1983, making a total of 60,000 additional people unemployed. It is a defeatist attitude for the Government to expect so much unemployment in each of those years.

As reported at column 841, Volume 342 of the Official Report, of 11 May 1983 the Taoiseach told us that the policies of financial rectitude being followed by the Government were diametrically opposed to the policy that the employment situation demands. Therefore, it is understandable that unemployment is increasing. When one considers the social consequences of unemployment — poverty, the higher incidence of illness among those without jobs and so on — the Government must stand condemned. They have put bookkeeping before people and not even successful bookkeeping and they have allowed the unemployment figures to reach 250,000 of whom 66,000 are under the age of 25.

It was extraordinary to hear the Minister this morning defend the Government's failure to invest in jobs and their failure to divert funds from social welfare. The Minister said that one common error often made in comparing the cost of State employment with the cost of unemployment payments is to ignore the cost of materials, capital goods, supervision, overheads and employers' PRSI contributions and that ignoring these items can have the effect of reducing the apparent cost of employment by nearly 40 per cent. There is a great deal of work in which materials or capital costs are not involved. I am sure any of the local authorities could provide such work.

While one can argue about employers' PRSI contributions, it is money that would be going back to the Exchequer. If there was a commitment to create jobs surely some arrangement in that regard could be made between the Departments but regrettably, there is not such commitment.

Dealing further with the same problem the Minister said that under existing financial procedures moneys voted for specific purposes cannot be diverted to other purposes no matter how meritorious. That may be the position under existing financial procedures but if the case can be made for so doing, surely the existing financial procedures can be changed. There is dignity in work. People do not wish to be unemployed. If the existing financial procedures are the only factor preventing the transfer of resources why are they not changed here in the House?

The World Health Organisation have studied the influence of economic development on health in a number of countries. They have discovered that high unemployment adversely affects the mental and physical health of the unemployed, their families and the community. They make the point that particularly stressing and hazardous types of work were not preferable to unemployment. I accept that. It would be wrong to ask people in receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance to do work which was not suited to them.

At a conference recently in Leeds it was recommended that economic policy should take into account the full social cost of unemployment. The Government are not doing that and the Taoiseach admitted that when he spoke here last May. They recommended that social policy make greater efforts to reduce poverty among the unemployed to prevent the breakdown of social support. The Government are failing on that issue because of the derisory increase in the rate of benefit and assistance given to social welfare recipients this year. They will not be able to meet their commitments. The organisation recommended that health policy should meet the additional health needs resulting from recession and join hands with social policy efforts by self-help groups and other non-governmental agencies. The Government have also fallen down in that regard.

As regards those who depend on unemployment benefit and assistance, delays in assessment and in the hearing of appeals are unacceptable. I hoped the Minister would have told us this morning how he proposed to deal with this serious situation. The increased use of computers and the employment of staff have not alleviated the position. Perhaps the embargo on the recruitment of staff introduced by a previous Coalition Government still applies in the Department of Social Welfare. It should not apply there. It is most important that those depending on social welfare are paid promptly. If their payments are means tested they should be assessed with maximum speed and there should not be delays of three or four months. The same applies if they appeal the decision of the deciding officer.

On a number of occasions in the House my colleagues and I have raised the question of the assessment of board and lodgings for unemployment assistance. The Minister made minor changes in assessment procedures for small farmers unemployment assistance but he did not refer to board and lodgings. Does he intend to change the procedure where people are assessed with large means because they live at home with their parents? It applies to those who worked away from home and had independent means but who had to go back home when they were out of work through no fault of their own. If a person left home and was in rented accommodation they would receive full unemployment assistance and also a supplement towards paying rent. This puts an additional charge on the Exchequer. The Minister should look at that area in any reform he undertakes.

There is no more serious indictment of the Government's social policy than the fact that the Eastern Health Board will spend over £20 million this year on supplementary allowances. The Minister said that a measure of the social conscience of the Government was the way in which they protected the interests of the weakest and most vulnerable groups in society at all times and especially so in periods of recession. He said he had no apology to make to anyone for the manner in which this Government fulfilled their duty in that respect. If the Minister came to my constituency he would not be as dogmatic in making no apology to anyone. Not only would he apologise to those dependent on social welfare but also to the Members of the House. He must not have read the report presented to the Eastern Health Board a week ago on their supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Had he done so he would not have said he had no apology to make and was satisfied with the way the Government looked after those dependent on social welfare. Nine thousand supplementary payments are made each week in the Eastern Health Board area. It is obvious that the increase in rates of social welfare benefit and assistance of 12 per cent and 10 per cent in 1983 have not been sufficient to ensure that the poorer section of the community are able to meet their commitments.

This year there is an increase of only 7 per cent in the rate of payment. That is totally inadequate and more people will have to approach the health board in order to get supplementary allowance to maintain a minimum standard of living. For example, in the last week of February 8,767 people were paid supplementary allowance by the Eastern Health Board and there were 3,500 new cases that week. That is the average for each week this year. It is an indication that the social welfare system is breaking down and does not cater for the needs of the poor in our community.

In some areas 60 per cent of payments are substitute payments. In other words, they are payments on behalf of the Department of Social Welfare to people who are waiting on payment from the Department or waiting to have claims assessed. That is an indictment of Government policy. Health boards have an increased workload when they would be far better off doing the jobs they are supposed to do. The Eastern Health Board's report indicated some areas where the extra money goes and why it is paid. It is to supplement rents and rented accommodation, for clothing and paying bills which people are unable to meet. The Minister should look at the possibility of giving free electricity units to recipients of social welfare, particularly to those who receive small amounts rather than having a second social welfare service, which is what the health board provide when they pay ESB bills on behalf of people who cannot meet their commitments. It is obvious that a great strain is placed on the community welfare service in all health board areas. It just happens that in the last week the Eastern Health Board discussed the serious situation in their area but the position is the same in all health board areas. The health boards need extra staff and suitable accommodation in which to interview people. The Minister must ensure that the service he offers provides adequately for those who are entitled to it.

Recently there were reports in the newspapers that it will be easier for those applying for small farmers' unemployment assistance to received it. This was reported from a speech made by the Taoiseach in Tralee. I accuse the Taoiseach of deceiving the small farmers of the western counties by giving them hope that the small farmers' unemployment assistance would be restored to some of them from whom it had been withdrawn. The 1984 allocation for this scheme has been reduced by £1 million at a time when the income from farming is reduced. Since the Government abolished the notional method of assessment in the Social Welfare Act, 1983, over 1,900 farmers have lost all social welfare payments and more than 2,500 have had their entitlement reduced. This means that over 72 per cent of farmers have either lost their entitlement altogether or had the amount reduced.

The Government recently announced changes in the scheme. One is to give applicants an indication of when the social welfare officer will call and also to give the applicant an indication of the assessment made by the social welfare officer and the various documents which the officer will need. For the Taoiseach to create the impression that either of these changes will make it easier for farmers to have their assessment reduced is dishonest.

The small farmers' unemployment assistance was introduced in 1966 to ensure that as many small farmers as possible would be able to remain on the land. The notional method of assessment was introduced so that the very smallholders would be able to improve productivity without the risk of the investigating officer reducing the amount for every minor increase in productivity. Nowhere is this more obvious than in west Donegal where there are many farmers' wives rearing young families on totally uneconomic holdings. There is nothing wrong with the concept of giving these people a direct supplement so that they can survive on the land without a means test. One does not have to be an investigating officer to see that on some holdings the people could not survive, because of bogland, rocks and so on, without a supplementary income. We believe these people should get a direct supplement to ensure that they will be able to remain on the land.

In this House the former Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy O'Brien, on 22 March 1983, and reported in Volume 341, column 455 of the Official Report, said that there was no question of hounding people and taking money from them. From the Minister's figures this morning we see that 1,900 farmers have lost their income and 2,500 had their income reduced. This is creating hardship for many small farmers who did not expect that the Government would abolish the notional system or, if they did, that they would have replaced it by another system which would have assured them of a supplementary income.

When these farmers appeal they are in difficulties while they are waiting for their appeals to be heard. In my constituency a man with a wife and seven children had his income reduced from £80 to £6 a week. Having waited five months on appeal, his income was increased to £45 a week. That may be a very good bookkeeping exercise but nobody seemed to care about how he, his wife and seven children would survive when his supplementary income was reduced to £6 a week. The Minister must have another look at this small farmers' unemployment assistance scheme and ensure that those on very uneconomic holdings have an adequate income to survive. They should be encouraged to remain on the land. If we go on as we are doing, more people will leave the land and more people will be added to the already unacceptable levels of unemployment.

I agree with the Minister that the social welfare officers and those involved carry out their duties in a very responsible way. I have no criticism to make of these officers, and I have never criticised them. Most of the unwarranted criticism of the investigating officers has come from the Minister's side of the House. These officers are doing a job. Policy is laid down for them and they have to carry out the policy as laid down by the Minister.

The farmers' association have complained about the various methods of assessment and the variation in assessment by different Departments — Social Welfare, Health, Environment, Education and Finance. The Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association have asked that there be one uniform means test which would be acceptable to all the Departments for the various State schemes to which farmers are entitled.

The EEC recognise the special problems of the western counties and have created the western package scheme and the headage payments in the more severely handicapped areas. These schemes are recognition of the difficulties under which small farmers in the western counties have to survive. The National Economic and Social Council also recognise the special problems of the small farmers in the western counties. They recommended that the notional system would not be interfered with. In Report No. 41 they said that from the administrative point of view such a change would be costly and time-consuming and that a reversal to factual means testing could be regarded as a retrograde step in welfare administration. I agree with that conclusion.

I ask the Minister to have another look at that scheme. I accept that as a result of the High Court action the poor law valuation system became unacceptable for the collection of revenue, but I am not satisfied that that applied to the distribution of social welfare assistance. There was nothing in the High Court decision to suggest that it did, but surely the Minister could have come up with an alternative system to ensure that these people would have adequate income to survive on the land.

There have been many reports in the press of Fine Gael Deputies and Senators complaining about hardship caused by the scheme. We would agree but when Fianna Fáil raised this critical matter we received no support from those Deputies. They actually voted against our motion calling on the Government to increase social assistance to alleviate the hardship of smallholders in need following the abolition of the notional method of assessment. Every Fine Gael and Labour Deputy voted against that motion, yet they shed crocodile tears about the hardship in the west.

The Minister made no reference to the fact that he is giving only a 7 per cent increase to those who depend on social welfare. Widows and the unemployed will receive 7 per cent and those who have been unemployed longer than 15 months will receive 8 per cent. That will be totally inadequate to allow them to maintain even a minimum standard of living. The statement from the Eastern Health Board in relation to the supplementary allowance scheme is an indication that last year's increases of 12 per cent and 10 per cent were totally inadequate. At a time when inflation is running at over 10 per cent, what will 7 per cent do, other than create more and more hardship?

There is to be an increase of 7 per cent in children's allowances over an eightmonth period, having remained static last year. During the debate on the Social Welfare Bill the Minister said he would not object to the taking away of children's allowances from the very wealthy, in other words that there should be a means test. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have stated from time to time that children's allowances should be means tested or taxed. We would be totally opposed to that because in many instances the children's allowance is the only money paid directly to the mother in the home.

Problems are caused in relation to the deserted wife's allowance where the Department ask the applicant to pursue her husband for maintenance. Many women do not have access to free legal aid because it is not readily available in the areas where they are living and if they are dependent on supplementary welfare allowance they are not in a position to institute court proceedings. Perhaps it would be possible for the State to prosecute husbands who are not maintaining their wives. The State has the necessary resources and if this were done there would be much less need for deserted wife's benefit and allowance.

I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of giving free electricity supply to social welfare recipients on low incomes. This would reduce the workload of the health boards who are providing that service for many people. I see no reason why a free colour television licence should not be given to those who are at present entitled to a free black and white licence. It would improve the quality of life for many people and there would not be any great increase in the amount of money necessary.

The Minister referred to the enterprise allowance scheme and voluntary work for the unemployed. These are two good schemes but I would ask him to consider extending them or introducing a similar scheme for the unemployed who take up some form of educational course. I accept the Minister's point that a deciding officer would come to the conclusion that such people were not available for work. However, many people who are unemployed take up short-term courses in order to have something to do and I would ask the Minister to introduce a scheme to give them some form of assistance. Surely it is preferable that they should take up some form of education rather than sit around doing nothing.

The elderly will suffer as a result of the very small increase in social welfare benefits and assistance. If one adds to this the serious effects of the Minister's cutbacks in the health service, then their problem will be very great. The secretary of the National Council for the Aged referred to the cutbacks and asked that they be rescinded where they would affect the elderly, particularly in regard to transport, and to ophthalmic, dental, and general medical services. Transport to hospital out-patient departments is a very real problem for the elderly. Many health boards are not providing such transport and elderly people cannot cope with the problem of providing their own transport. I am aware of an elderly man who was unable to pay for transport to visit an orthopaedic surgeon, having waited six months for an appointment. I would ask the Minister to consider the hardship created by the severity of the cutbacks and the fact that these people are not getting a sufficient increase in their social welfare assistance to enable them to provide for their health needs, particularly in relation to transport.

There is also the question of drugs. The Minister removed the few remaining white stomach mixtures and cough bottles that were on the GMS list. Perhaps he would reconsider, since many people are not able to purchase their needs.

The Minister referred to changes in the list of prescribed occupational diseases and the addition of new diseases to the 1983 regulations. I compliment him on this. Where the medical officers in his Department are of the opinion that a disease has been contracted through an occupation that should be accepted as an occupational disease, for the purpose of an occupational diseases pension. It should not depend on the disease being on the prescribed list of occupational diseases. I would have every confidence in the ability of the medical officers in the Minister's Department to make that decision and they could obtain an independent consultant opinion, if so wished. There would be an injustice if such a person were not entitled to an occupational diseases pension. That is an area that I would ask the Minister to examine, with a view to seeing what can be done.

Regarding the living alone allowance, the regulations state that a person must be entirely living alone. I know of one person who has her three year old grandchild living with her and has been refused a living alone allowance on that basis. The Minister changed the regulations regarding the free telephone rental — again I compliment him on that — and young children are not now taken into account in administering that scheme. I am sure that there are very few cases of persons over the age of 66 years who happen to have a child of three to five years of age living with them and they should not be excluded from the living alone allowance.

It is disappointing that legislation has not come before the House bringing equality in social security as between men and women. Following the European Commission memorandum of 1975, three directives were adopted, in 1976 on equal pay, in 1978 on equality in access to employment, training, promotion and working conditions. The final directive is to be implemented in December 1984 and bans discrimination in social security and access to it. It appears that it will be the end of December before it is implemented. There is justice in the directive and it was disappointing that it did not figure in the Social Welfare Bill and has not been precisely referred to in the Minister's speech this morning.

At present, women suffer in that they are entitled to a lower rate of unemployment benefit, disability benefit, invalidity pension and occupational injuries benefit. The duration of payment of unemployment benefit is limited in their case to 312 days, as against 390 days in general. The conditions under which married women qualify for unemployment assistance are more restrictive than those applied to other claimants. They are also not recognised as having dependants. As a matter of justice, the Minister should bring that legislation forward as quickly as possible and it should not be left until we are obliged to do it under an EEC directive.

The family income supplement scheme is to be introduced in November. This scheme was promised in the budget and also in July 1983 and now we are promised that it will come into operation in November. While we support that scheme in principle, it is very restrictive in that the amount of money to be paid is too low to encourage people to go to work or to make up to those who are at work. People on unemployment benefit would certainly not be attracted to lower paid jobs as a result of this scheme. The maximum for a family with one child is £8 on an income of £63 or less. The maximum for a family with five children or more is £15. While there is an increase for each child up to the fifth, there is no increase for children over the fifth. Surely it is the families with the larger number of children who will suffer. I would have expected that there would have been an allowance for each child after the fifth.

The scheme is confined to full-time employees, part-time employees not being eligible for it. I do not know why that is. If persons are unemployed and have the opportunity to get part-time employment and are not reaching the notional figure on their weeks' wages, comprising what they get on unemployment and the part-time job, the differential should be made up through the family income supplement.

The self-employed are not eligible and again I see no reason for this. It should be available to everybody who is working and on a low income. I do not accept the figures that the Minister was working on because these are too low. A married couple with one child, to be eligible, must be on £63 or less and the maximum which they can receive is £8. Their maximum income would, therefore, be £71 but their unemployment benefit would be £70.25p, and on unemployment assistance they would receive £60.90p. On unemployment assistance, long-term, they would receive £64.60p. While there is a variation between the assistance scheme and the family income scheme it is very slight — less than £1 between the unemployment benefit and the maximum family income supplement. It certainly would not encourage a person to work, incurring travelling expenses, for a raise in income of 75p.

I thought that the purpose of the scheme was to increase the take-home pay of those working on low incomes. A married person with two children who has an income of £110 per week has a take-home pay at present of £93.70p, with tax and PRSI deducted. He would lose his medical card and have to pay for a school bus and that would be a very low income. That is why I say that the incomes on which the Minister is working are too low and the scheme totally inadequate. Why is the Minister giving only 25 per cent of the difference between the notional figure and the total gross wage, rather than a half as in other EEC countries? I wonder why that cannot be increased. The whole scheme will be cumbersome in its administration.

We all agree in principle with the family income supplement but there must be an easier way to ensure that those people have an adequate supplement of their income, for example, by removal of the pay-related social insurance element. This could be removed from a gross income of less than £5,000 or £6,000 a year for the provision of benefits such as medical cards and free school benefits on a net income rather than a gross income as at present. There must be easier ways than the cumbersome way in operation at the moment.

The Minister referred to the report of the National Planning Board. I agree with him in his rejection of some of their views on increasing the earning ceiling for the payment of PRSI and the proposal to tax short term benefits. I also reject their recommendations on the present disability benefit scheme, that it should be revised, that the benefit would become payable from the 15th day of illness rather than from the third day as at present and that employers should assume full responsibility for income maintenance during the first two weeks of illness and be compensated by a reduction in the general rate of PRSI.

The planning board recommended that the rates of payment for the various schemes should be examined. There is great variation in the rates of payment for people who are on the maximum social welfare benefit or assistance who do not have any other source of income. We should not have to wait on the Commission on Social Welfare to report in order to bring about those changes. For example, an old age pensioner for the first child dependant will receive £9.95, a person on disability or unemployment benefit will receive only £8.85 for the first child dependant, a widower or a deserted wife will receive £11.65 and a person on unemployment assistance will receive £7.70 for the first child. All the various schemes have their own child dependant allowances. There is great variation between the amount granted for adults for themselves and for their dependants. The Minister should look at this to ensure that all people receiving such benefits have an adequate allowance for themselves and for each dependant. There should be a similar allowance for a person completely dependent on social welfare benefit or assistance.

The Minister did not refer to the free fuel scheme. Does he intend introducing a new national fuel scheme for 1984-85? There are serious anomalies in the existing scheme, particularly the fact that those on unemployment assistance are not entitled to benefit from that scheme unless they live in specified urban areas. If they live in specified urban areas and have dependants they are entitled to free vouchers. We have the situation in North County Dublin where, since the corporation have extended out, on one side of the road an unemployed person is entitled to free fuel and on the other side, because an unemployed person is in the county council area, he or she is not entitled to that scheme. I hope, if the Minister intends introducing a new scheme, that it will be introduced in sufficient time so that the beneficiaries will have their vouchers when winter starts at the end of September or early October rather than what happened in the past when they did not receive their vouchers until Christmas or after it.

I question the need for a second means test for that scheme. Many of these people are means tested for medical cards and that means test should be available for the free fuel scheme. All this adds to the workload of the community welfare officers. It is inefficient and expensive to have people means tested within a couple of months to establish eligibility for the free fuel scheme. There must be some other way of means testing people so that this means test is valid for at least a year and that it is not necessary to have people means tested a second time for the free fuel scheme.

I wish to pay tribute to the officials in the Department for the work they are doing in difficult circumstances because of the increased number of people who are applying for benefit and assistance. I ask the Minister to try to orientate the whole social welfare code more towards service and less towards control. Delays in assessments and appeal are unacceptable. People dependent on social welfare should not have to wait for this. There is no reason why it could not be dealt with if there was more orientation towards service, more decentralisation and fewer people involved in processing a claim for unemployment assistance. Such a claim should not have to go through the number of offices it has to. Decisions should not have to be made in Townsend Street, Dublin. They should be made locally. Once the decision is made and payment is made the element of control can be brought in. I know it is necessary to monitor assistance and to ensure that it will not be abused. All that can be done after the prime function of the social welfare service is fulfilled, that is, to ensure that the people entitled to service get what they are entitled to promptly.

I support the Minister in his demand for the finance to deliver the very necessary services of his Department; but the size of the sum required, indicating such a high level of dependency among our people, is a rather dramatic comment on the state of the nation at the moment. I welcome this opportunity, as chairman of the Eastern Health Board, to address some comments to the Minister and the Department of Social Welfare about difficulties that have arisen over the last few years in our effort to deliver a service to one-third of our total population who live in the Eastern Health Board catchment area.

Traditionally the Department of Social Welfare provided people with payments for which they were eligible under various schemes which have been administered nationally by the Department. Recently it has been necessary to provide emergency systems throughout the country to enable such payments to be met on an ad hoc basis to people suddenly in need and also for those who are waiting for payment of State benefits. This role has been carried out by community welfare officers of the health boards. Under the Social Welfare Acts they are entitled to make payment of basic allowances in exceptional cases. However, there has been a radical change, particularly in the Eastern Health Board area, in the past few years and today there are two social welfare systems in existence in the city. One is the traditional social welfare scheme administered by the Department and, secondly, a range of supplementary welfare payments are being made by officers of the health board and community welfare officers. The schemes administered by the Department are failing to meet the rapidly increasing needs of people as a result of the current recession. These are placing an intolerable burden on the Eastern Health Board and on the staff.

Health board clinics and health centres were designed to provide a health service but with relatively small provision in terms of staff. They are now chock-ablock with people who are making social welfare demands which have nothing to do with a health service. Because of the failure of the social welfare services to cope with increasing needs, the health board premises have become centres for the provision of extensive social welfare services, for which there is accommodation for neither the recipients or the staff. The spill-over of persons overcrowding the clinics has affected adversely the capacity of the board to provide services. The scale of the problem can be appreciated better when one considers that the number of additional people seeking supplementary welfare assistance in 1977 averaged 200 per week but this had increased in 1984 to approximately 3,500 per week and the number of payments has increased from approximately 3,500 per week to 9,000 per week. This rapid increase is accounted for primarily by the inability of the Department to arrange social welfare payments as quickly as they might. This accounts for some 40 per cent of the work of community welfare officers.

The Eastern Health Board deal with approximately 800 cases per week involving rent supplements to people living in rented accommodation, many of whom are drawing State benefits. Furthermore, the board deal with approximately 600 cases per week of persons requiring assistance with ESB and gas bills and approximately 500 cases per week of persons in dire need of clothing for themselves and their children.

The situation in relation to the Eastern Health Board has reached crisis proportions, and significant policy decisions will have to be made in relation to the role of the board in the administration of schemes properly within the ambit of the Department of Social Welfare. It is difficult to understand how the position has been allowed to drift to such a point where, because of the volume of cases to be dealt with at each of the health board centres, the provision of health services is being put at risk. Our facilities, buildings, accommodation and communications are hopelessly inadequate to meet the demands. It is difficult to understand why arrangements and adjustments cannot be made in the social welfare system to avoid this kind of imposition on health services that may result sooner or later in the breakdown of some of the most important services. It is difficult for the members of the board to understand how this has been allowed to happen or why the Department are unable to deal with social welfare schemes. It is unfortunate that in the computerisation of their service they have failed to take adequate account of the need to deal with individual clients.

This Estimate allows Members an opportunity to look at how the schemes are organised. It should not be beyond out capacity to ensure that people can obtain basic social welfare payments sufficient to meet their needs. If people need assistance in respect of rent, ESB charges or clothing that should be taken care of in one operation. The recipients should not have to go from one office to another, filling in forms, looking for benefit, but the whole matter should be handled in one unit.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to some figures in relation to the health board services. The following figures apply in respect of supplementary welfare. In respect of the week ended 2 July 1977, the number of cases for which payment was made was 3,511 and the amount involved was £17,580 but that had increased in December 1983 to 8,718 cases at a cost of £256,690. There were 800 cases per week for rent, 600 cases for gas and electricity and 500 cases for clothing.

Substitute payments awaiting State benefit account for 40 per cent of the workload of the Eastern Health Board officials and community welfare officers. People seeking such assistance are generally in receipt of social welfare benefit or allowance, principally unemployment assistance, the allowance in respect of unmarried mothers and the deserted wife's allowance and benefit. The current policy in relation to rent is that persons should have a weekly income of SWA rate less £1.50 after payment of rent. Having regard to the current level of rents, the majority of people in receipt of social welfare payments who live in rented accommodation would be entitled to that benefit. In some areas of Dublin more than 50 per cent of SWA payments are rent supplements and the total number of supplements paid range from 500 to 800 per week. The Eastern Health Board believe that if this rent provision were advertised in the health centres, as some of our members are demanding, the board would be overwhelmed with demands because most of the people in the city would qualify for rent supplement. With so much unemployment the number of people receiving assistance under the SWA scheme and who have mortgage repayments to pay would become automatically eligible for assistance. It is a matter of concern to many members of the board that many people are not aware they could make this demand. If they become aware the cost will be much higher.

The benefits of the rent provision of the SWA scheme are not extended at the moment to local authority housing as it is felt that provision should be made under the differential rent scheme. That scheme takes care of the situation where people are in local authority housing where if people lose their employment their rent is adjusted accordingly. The Eastern Health Board are of the opinion that consideration should be given to paying appropriate assistance with rent as part of the relevent social welfare payment. I have commented on this before. The people who are entitled to rent supplements are generally in receipt of means-tested social welfare payments. It is undesirable and wasteful that they should have to undergo a further means test to receive their social welfare payment. It would be preferable if the assistance with rent was paid as part of the social welfare payment on the basis of the extensive investigation which is carried out by the officers of that Department.

The demands for clothing fall under the headings of confirmation and first communion, school uniforms, replacement of major items of clothing for adults and footwear for children. In special circumstances the board assist with cash payments towards the cost of confirmation and first communion clothing and, with the increase in unemployment, the demand for this kind of help has increased dramatically. Many persons in receipt of social welfare payments seek assistance under the scheme towards the cost of school uniforms. The board consider that this need would best be met by double social welfare payments in August or early September to allow people to provide these necessities.

The replacement of major items of adult clothing and footwear generally for social welfare recipients has increased at such a rate that it would require special staff to distribute them. Stocks are now depleted and the stores are unable to cope with the service. The need is having to be met increasingly by social welfare cash payments. Assistance towards children's clothing is provided by these payments and the combined demands have reached a level of 500 cases per week. As applications for assistance with clothing have increased sharply, the health board consider that all social welfare payments should contain an element which would make provision for this kind on basic necessity.

Applications for assistance in paying gas and electricity bills are generally received from persons in receipt of social welfare benefit. At present approximately 600 payments per week are made at a cost of over £1 million per annum. The demand for this assistance is also growing rapidly and it is estimated that it could double in 1984. The board believe that the need for this type of assistance can best be met by extending the free electricity scheme.

The exceptional needs provision of the social welfare assistance scheme were designed to meet special circumstances which would arise infrequently. The demands being made on these provisions are now, however, becoming the rule rather than the exception and they are placing an intolerable burden on the whole structure of the social welfare assistance service in the board's area. The board have not got the staff, accommodation or the facilities to deal with this kind of demand. With the growing number of unemployed and the increasing length of unemployment, the demand is certain to increase. If the scheme is widely advertised there will be a sharp rise in many of the areas I have outlined. In these circumstances the Eastern Health Board consider that persons should receive, through their basic social welfare payments, sufficient money to meet their needs for payment of rent, adequate clothing, ESB and gas bills and that the social welfare scheme should only apply in these areas in very exceptional circumstances, which was the original intention.

I will be recommending to the Department that additional amounts of rent should be payable as part of social welfare benefits, that the social welfare payments contain a specific element to allow for replacement of major items of clothing and footwear, that the back-to-school needs be met by a double social welfare payment in late August or early September each year, that the free electricity scheme be extended to other categories of social welfare recipients rather than the limited category at present and that the Department of Social Welfare reduce the investigation time for the State benefit so as to reduce the burden of substitute payments on the Eastern Health Board.

I am sure the situation in the Eastern Health Board areas reflects what is happening in other health board areas and it has now reached crisis proportions. The health service has taken over the lion's share of the work of the Department of Social Welfare. My recommendations are reasonable and could be implemented without much bother. The people depending on our services would benefit from rationalisation.

On 5 February 1981 the Eastern Health Board set up a working party to report on the anomalies which existed in the health service. Their terms of reference were to examine the anomalies that exist in the selective administration of health and social welfare benefits and to make recommendations for their correction. Their report was presented to the health board who unanimously adopted it. I am sure that the Minister and the Department are also aware of the recommendations. If their recommendations were implemented, as they could be, it would improve the service tremendously and would also effect economies. I am not going to go through the whole document but I wish to refer to one recommendation: that the age at which unemployment assistance becomes payable should be reduced to 16 years as in the case of disabled persons' maintenance allowance. This is very important because of the high level of unemployment among so many of our young school leavers. There is an acceptance now among social workers — some of them have publicly commented on this — that because these young people are not entitled to any kind of assistance when they leave school young females are deliberately becoming pregnant in order to qualify for benefits. This is creating tremendous problems for the medical profession. These young women are putting themselves gravely at risk and it is a tragic indictment of our society that they are forced into a situation where if they are to have any support they create this kind of problem for themselves and society. I am making a special plea to the Minister to look at that whole area because our young people, who through no fault of their own are without employment and hope, should be entitled to unemployment assistance when they leave school. It is very important because in most households, certainly in my constituency, there is massive unemployment.

There is another mouth to feed when a 16 year old leaves school. The father is probably unemployed and the family has to be kept. The fact that that child is still depending on the resources of the father is not good enough. We must give that matter serious consideration. I ask the Minister to consider implementing the recommendations of the Working Party set up by the health board. In the long run this would create economies.

I realise the difficulties and the demands on the Department of Social Welfare. I do not mean to be over-critical, or to try to indict them in any way. They are over-burdened in the present economic climate like everybody else. It is absolutely vital that it should be understood that the Eastern Health Board cannot continue to deliver a health service while they are carrying the lion's share of the difficulties of the Department of Social Welfare.

I will be very brief. Having listened to some of the Minister's speech and read the rest of it, I came to the conclusion that, if a Fianna Fáil Minister for Social Welfare introduced Estimates based on the speech presented to the House this morning by the Minister, he would be laughed out of the House. He would be ridiculed and accused of having right-wing ideological content in his speech.

In a time of recession we all recognise that a rather severe approach has to be taken in many of the economic Departments. In the area of health and social welfare, it is to be regretted deeply that the Minister has not been able to fight his case in the Cabinet for the less well-off members of our community. That a socialist Minister should present such a heartless document, even in a time of recession, speaks volumes not only for the presenter but also for the Government and for the Labour Party's participation in Government.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Minister, Deputy Desmond, feels quite comfortable with his Christian Democratic Union colleagues in the Cabinet. His speech this morning confirmed that. In a couple of paragraphs, in a few platitudes, he dealt with the single most important issue confronting this House, this Government and this nation, namely, unemployment. In a few subparagraphs we are given the crumbs from the Minister's table. It appears that the Minister shares the view of his Fine Gael colleagues that there is no hope of reducing the dole queues. He committed himself to increasing the funds to cover more people on the dole queues.

He offers no hope to the young, to people at school, to people leaving school, or to people in colleges. He offers no hope to those in marginal industries and small industries. He offers no hope to people chronically unemployed through no fault of their own. We hear from Members of the Government that there is work out there if people want to go and get it. Yet this morning we heard a socialist Minister predicting a large increase in unemployment and making provision in the Estimates for more unemployed people.

I do not want to concentrate on the Minister's not unexpected conversion to Thatcherite or Donnybrook 4 economic policies on the road to his Merc. He deserves it. He has sold his socialist principles down the drain, and this was particularly evident in his speech this morning. The Minister made provision in the Estimates for an increase in the number of persons on the dole queue. This is an absolute admission of the inability of the combined political forces of the left and the right to deal with unemployment and related social problems.

The tragedy of unemployment is enormous. As a member of the Eastern Health Board I attend meetings of the community and care committees throughout the city and country. The social workers, the medical officers, the public health nurses, the community welfare officers, the dental surgeons, the health education co-ordinators, deserve great credit for the work they do in the inner city and in the most deprived areas of the city and county and in Kildare and Wicklow. They are faced with insurmountable problems. They received no hope and no help from the Minister this morning.

Large housing estates have been developed in the west of the county. Recently I was asked by the local parish priest to visit one of those areas. There are no facilities of any kind, no bus services, no telephone kiosks, no social services, no Eastern Health Board clinics. Crime is rampant — drugs, incest, prostitution and 70 per cent unemployment. There are incredible social problems which are ready to explode around us. What did we get from the Minister this morning? A negative speech which will do nothing to solve those problems. In the course of the past year there has been an ongoing debate on building more prisons and providing more gardaí. That does not address itself to the underlying problem. We need an enlightened social policy to tackle these problems. What we have seen here today is a tragedy. It is the end of the road so far as social welfare possibilities are concerned. It is the end of the road for those who are unemployed and for those who will be unemployed shortly.

The Eastern Health Board area covers Dublin city and county and parts of Wicklow and Kildare. There we have extraordinary social welfare problems. I do not pretend to have all the answers. Recently we had a report from a special committee which looked at all the problems — drugs, crime and vandalism in a concentrated area in Ballymun. The vast majority of the people living in Ballymun and areas similar to that throughout Dublin have most honourable characters. They try to do their best for their community, for their families, and for the nation. The vast majority of them are people who would be a credit to any community. We had submissions from two priests working in the area, Fr. Kevin O'Rourke, SJ and Fr. John Sweeney, SJ. Their report is an indictment of society in Ireland today, an indictment of the uncaring approach being taken by many of us in this House. The Minister should look at the submissions made to this committee of the Eastern Health Board as a matter of urgency.

In the report the two priests who live in the area said that the only approach that will improve life in Ballymun for everyone and that will get places is one that presumes that people there are the principal answer to the area's problems. I endorse that. The report goes on:

If an approach is based, rather, on the premise that it is the people who are the problem, we will only get a further expansion of jobs for "caring professionals", bringing some benefit to those other neighbourhoods where these professionals live, but deepening the dependency and hopelessness in Ballymun itself.

A statement like that deserves more attention, because in truth that is what is happening in many of those areas. Many of the areas do not have any parks or facilities of any kind. Certainly, direction is not being given by the Government. The Eastern Health Board, although their resources have been cut back severely by the Government, and a socialist Minister who obviously is inadequate when putting forward his demands at Cabinet level for Social Welfare — although he is prepared willy nilly to allow such cutbacks — have carried out a very good survey of the area.

The report continues:

Many things that greet the casual observer might seem to suggest that the people living in Ballymun do not want a life that is as ordered and attractive as that which Dublin's more popular residential areas offer. Litter on landings and at the base of flats is left to lie there. Untended cars are expertly stripped, then further damaged by children and eventually set on fire. Young people are not encouraged to stay on at school after their 15th birthday. Such examples of behaviour that is commonplace in Ballymun but not in the more settled areas of Dublin can be multiplied. The sad fact, however, is that the way things are in Ballymun many forms of behaviour that are civic minded or wise elsewhere do not bring the same rewards. For example: A carefully cleaned and decorated landing is an invitation to attention from bored and alienated young people. Trying to stop a car being stripped means putting oneself at serious personal risk, trying to stop children enjoying a now useless car makes no sense, and the sooner the wreck is burned the sooner it is removed. Even where a household might have some resources to invest in a young person's education (which, minimally, means foregoing what money that youngster might immediately be able to earn) and parent(s) has/have to bring their son or daughter to believe that they have a future, despite the hopelessness that pervades their age-group and area. In short, we should be very slow to interpret what are unusual patterns of behaviour by society-wide standards as evidence that the people in question have different hopes or values to the rest of the city's population. To repeat: the way things are in Ballymun it's hard for decent people to lead decent lives.

When this is accepted — that the people in Ballymun are its major resourse, not its main problem: that their commitment to improving the estate is stronger and more lasting than anyone else's — certain criteria follow, we believe, which should govern any initiative or service that an outside organisation undertakes in the area. They are:

(i) that this project/service meets a need perceived by people in the area and not just by the organisation,

(ii) that the project/service will, as far as is possible, be employing people who live in the area,

(iii) that the majority on the management/supervisory board will be people of the area,

(iv) that, in the periodic evaluation of the project/service, the experience of people in the area is the single most important thing to be consulted.

I take it that the Deputy has given the reference?

It is the report of the Special Committee on Ballymun by the Eastern Health Board. No matter how much we talk in this House about such problems we must highlight the experiences of people living in such areas and bring them to the attention of Members. We must put their suggestions on the record of the House. We can take those suggestions from the Community Care centres and highlight them here in the hope that those with responsibility will respond to the suggestions of those who are deeply concerned with the social problems in Ballymun and other areas on the periphery of the city. Whole families have been uprooted from the city centre and allocated houses, but that is all. For example, 5,000 local authority houses were built in west county Dublin without facilities of any type. A worse position will develop there than occurred in some of the more difficult areas that already exist in the city. The House is obliged to consider the opinions of experts.

I should like to pay tribute to those who were involved in preparing the report. They spent many months in the area interviewing people. Members of the Eastern Health Board distinguished themselves in preparing the report. I should like to pay tribute to the chairman of the committee, Councillor Paddy Hickey and also to Councillors Luke Belton, Dan Brown, Mrs. Clune and Professor Doyle. I should like to pay tribute to the chairperson of the Eastern Health Board, who was also a member of that committee, Deputy Alice Glenn. Their report is worthy of a response from the Minister. The report continues:

It is a commonplace observation now that the national level of unemployment is unacceptably high but that neither private enterprise nor the Government feel they can do much immediately to directly reduce it. Private enterprise is in the business of capturing markets and needs to be free to employ those advanced technologies that the sophistication of international consumers makes necessary. The Government is still wrestling with a crisis in its own finances and has frozen the number of its public servants and disciplined itself against any significant programme of public works.

In the meantime, an area like Ballymun is left to survive on the dole, a system that was designed to maintain a relatively small percentage of the national workforce over temporary bouts of unemployment. We do not know, unfortunately, the number of people in Ballymun who are on the Live Register, but small local surveys support the applicability to the area of the analysis of NESC consultant, Michael Bannon. In 1979, he reported unemployment rates on local authority housing estates of approximately three times the average rate for the Dublin metropolitan area as a whole. This heavier than normal incidence of unemployment he discovered to be due to the occupational or skills composition of those areas:

I am sure the Deputy will relate that quotation to the Estimate before the House?

I will. We are considering the Department of Social Welfare. I do not think social welfare is simply a matter of handling out a few shillings at the end of each week to social welfare recipients. We must address ourselves to the causes and to the needs of people in receipt of social welfare. I want to address myself to the underlying causes of it and draw upon some of the expert advice that has been given to me and to other Members of this House as members of the Eastern Health Board. I would like to continue to relate to the underlying causes the needs for this kind of approach. I know it is a different kind of approach. We are accustomed to the Minister coming in here to talk in terms of the various headings that he gives such as the unemployment enterprise allowance scheme, voluntary work for the unemployed — that one sounds rather a contradiction.

As the Chair sees it the Minister has moved that the Dáil provide a certain sum for certain purposes. How that money is to be spent is very relevant, but it occurred to the Chair that some of the matters the Deputy is dealing with might be more appropriate to another Minister.

I am in the process of quoting from a report which deals with unemployment. The Minister referred very briefly and in passing——

I will leave it by asking the Deputy to do his best to confine himself to matters for which the Minister for Social Welfare has responsibility.

Let me say that the Department of Social Welfare have other duties and functions apart altogether from doing out money to the unfortunate people who find themselves in the unemfin ployment queue. Therefore, having received the Ceann Comhirle's permission I will continue on the basis I was on. We will address the underlying causes of the need for social welfare payments.

You have got permission for what?

He got permission for——

To read parts of the report.

Which must be relative to the social welfare scheme and within the parameters of the Estimate.

(Interruptions.)

I have no doubt that everybody needs a little bit of education.

The Minister of State will not interrupt again.

I have no intention of interrupting.

This will conclude my quotation from the Report of the Special Committee on Ballymun by the Eastern Health Board, March 1984. Father John O'Rourke and Father Kevin Sweeney continue:

The most obvious measure to take would be to provide meaningful satisfying jobs. The struggle to do so must go on. The IDA, YEA and AnCO can all have a part to play in helping identify employment-boosting activities that would use the skills that the existing workforce have to offer. But, complementary to that, and offering more hope of making an immediate difference in the lives of a greater number of the unemployed, we believe that an initiative currently widespread in Britain is now ripe for Ballymun. In Britain, some 180 "Centres for the Unemployed"

— something I have not heard here this morning —

now exist, most of them operating on a full-time basis. In unused classrooms, church buildings, commercial premises and the like, the unemployed of an area are given a focal point where they can meet, overcome the isolation that having no job imposes, and develop — with help where necessary — various activities that increase their awareness as a group and their role in the community. The lines of activity most developed to date include: advice and counselling; education; making the pounds stretch further; campaigning against unemployment. In Ireland, the ICTU is committed to supporting Centres for the Unemployed and will provide, in conjunction with the YEA, training courses for those involved in running them. What is needed in Ballymun,

— and in other areas —

in order to set the ball rolling, is a premises and a board of broad sponsorship that could include the Health Board, the Dublin Council of Trade Unions, the local parishes, neighbourhood leaders and so on.

Above all, local people.

The Minister came in here today and spoke about all the various elements attached to the Department of Social Welfare, the high dependency ratio of the population, the national incomerelated pension plan, the unemployment enterprise allowance scheme, voluntary work for the unemployed, all very necessary and good work, unfortunately totally under-financed. Here we have committed to paper details of people living in community in difficult circumstances and also how to alleviate the hardship in this area. This House would be foolish to ignore the suggestions in this report. We have the tragedy of broken homes, the social ills that afflict the community, the chronic unemployment in the most deprived areas of the metropolis, and in middle income areas mortgages cannot be met, inflation has overtaken income and families are living on the breadline.

I recognise that the Minister and the Government have difficulty in balancing their books, but by ignoring the underlying causes which bring about a situation where willy-nilly we hand money to the unemployed we are only creating more problems for ourselves. I want to lay down in this House this morning that unless the Minister and the Government address themselves to the problems confronting the people in Dublin city and county daily because of the inadequacy of Government policy on unemployment, we will face a social revolution that will in a very short time take by surprise not me but the more complacent members of the present Government. The social revolution has gone some way to alerting some of us to the dangers in Irish society. Vandalism, burglaries, the awful difficulties of living on marginal incomes in deprived areas, are signs of the beginning of that social revolution. No Government today can remain complacent about it; no Government can ignore it. It is at our peril and the peril of the democratic process that the Government ignore what is confronting our country today. We are told that the forces of law and order will take care of everything for us and the Government will look after us, but the Government can only go so far. In the deprived areas in this great metropolis, in the new towns of Tallaght, Ballymun, Finglas and elsewhere, the most extraordinary social problems had developed but no action was taken by the Government to deal with them. If Fianna Fáil were to behave in the way the Coalition have behaved they would not be tolerated for a moment by the electorate.

Fianna Fáil have been behaving for years in the most disgraceful fashion.

Perhaps the Minister would avoid the temptation to answer Deputy Andrews.

I am sure the Coalition will get their answer when they go before the electorate again. They talk about democracy but the fact is that our people are despairing about their future. The Government have washed their hands of the many problems facing the community and have allowed communities to be infiltrated by groups who are not friendly towards the democratic process, who are not disposed to the democratic process. Social welfare payments in real terms are at a greatly reduced level with the result that there has been an increase in poverty.

In the Eastern Health Board's report on community care, much emphasis is put on the need for centres for the handicapped, for the geriatrics, and so on but, again, the necessary back-up staff are not available to deal with the increased problem.

There is the problem, too, of the inner city as well as the areas such as Cabra, Glasnevin, Mulhuddart, Finglas, Blanchardstown and so on where social welfare payments are not adequate to meet the needs of the people with the result that they seek from the health board supplementary benefits to pay their ESB bills, mortgages and so on. Deputy Glenn who is the Chairperson of the Eastern Health Board referred to the need to rationalise the approach taken between the Department of Social Welfare, the Eastern Health Board and the community care people so that the various payments can be made in one lump sum.

The Government have failed miserably in all these respects. It was one of the saddest moments of my time in this House to have had to listen to a socialist Minister read from this report. It is a tragedy that a man who belongs to a socialist party who are supposed to be committed to social justice has reneged on his responsibility. This does not reflect well on the Government either. Apparently the problems and reports are left ignored on the Minister's desk because of his not having the capacity to deal with them. This, in turn, is the result of the lack of confidence and the lack of will on the part of the Government to tackle the various problems. To help him the Minister has in the Department a junior Minister who is relatively new to the job. Both of them would do well to go around Dublin city and county.

To whom is the Deputy referring?

Is the Minister opposite not the junior Minister in the Department?

Then, he must be the one to whom I am referring.

There are two of us there.

Perhaps both junior Ministers together with the Minister would take a walk around the inner city and around the areas to which I have referred to see for themselves evidence of the problems I am outlining.

We should be glad to do that and to take the Deputy with us.

It would improve their awareness of the whole problem but of course the Minister opposite is not in the socialist camp.

What camp is the Deputy in? He will have to make a decision once again today in the political camp.

Will Deputy Andrews please continue on the Estimate?

On what basis does the Deputy slot people into the various categories?

Apart from the problems of the people in Dublin city and county, the Minister must be aware of the problems being faced by people in other parts of the country also. Unless, like a blinkered horse, he looks straight ahead on his drives to the west, he cannot fail to be aware of the problems of these other areas. I deeply regret that a more positive and a more thinking approach was not adopted by the Minister in this instance.

I will disregard the could of despondency Deputy Andrews has introduced and, instead, congratulate the Minister on the caring way in which he has looked after his Department since assuming office. He has brought before the House today an Estimate for £2,156 million. That is a sizeable sum in a time of scarce resources. The poor decisions made by previous Governments, mainly the one which was in office from 1977 to 1981, have led to scarce resources. That Government raised expectations beyond what the country could afford. The Minister has outlined how he proposes to tackle our problems.

Far from being a Minister of doom and gloom, as Deputy Andrews said, a leading article in The Irish Times of Saturday 12 May stated in regard to the old and poor:

Today a more enlightened outlook prevails. There is an awareness that the old belong to everyone. Their plight and problems must be shared, and when the responsibility is taken on by the community at large the burden becomes light. There are excellent services being provided by community councils — meals on wheels; paramedical care; domiciliary chores and outings.

In some parts of the country local authorities have provided housing schemes for the old, with all welfare services laid on. It is this mingling of official and voluntary effort which will bring about a cohesive and happy policy. It has been demonstrated that it works, but Central Government should do much more.

There must be change but in bringing about change care should be taken. The draft report of the National Council for the Aged highlighted one of the anomalies which affects the living standards of those who retire and apply for State pensions. The article goes on:

... people who have had broken periods in the payment of social insurance before 1974 receive reduced oldage pensions or no pension at all. The National Council for the Aged recommends that pension levels be determined solely on the basis of insurance records from 1974 in cases where earlier broken insurance records inhibit claims to full entitlements. The Government should act on this suggestion quickly... Equity and justice demand the abolition of a restriction which seems to be designed for administrative convenience rather than community benefit.

I made representations on behalf of a number of people to the Department of Social Welfare but to no avail.

In his speech the Minister dealt with a variety of programmes. One of the successful programmes introduced by the Government was the enterprise allowance scheme. In my contribution on the budget I asked that the amount of money set aside for capital investment, £500, be increased. I hope the Minister will review the position this year. I am glad the scheme has proved successful.

The Minister dealt with unemployment assistance for smallholders. This is a contentious scheme in the west since the Supreme Court decision abolished poor law evaluation. The system of factual assessment which the Department employ is not fully understood. The Minister has updated some of the regulations and I commend him for the changes, notably for the fact that an applicant will receive notice of when an officer is to call to see him. The document a claimant receives is explicit and outlines what the officer will require. The social welfare officer sends his report to a deciding officer. When he makes a decision it is sent back to the applicant. In view of the fact that there is a shortage of social welfare officers to cover the scheme and because of the complications that are involved in an assessment, social welfare officers should be allowed to give details of the assessment to the applicant when he has completed the interview. If the assessment of income and expenditure was shown to the applicant in a simple form, he would have proper details available in the case of an appeal. A system of oral hearings is being made available and I commend the Minister for that.

There are 20 expenditure items in the social welfare code. They cover all the expenses which would be incurred on a small farm. The fact that an applicant does not get a copy of the income and expenditure assessment leaves the assessment open to doubt. I hope the Minister will review this and allow some fresh air to flow through the social welfare system and allow officers to give applicants an itemised assessment of income and expenditure.

Social welfare officers have been criticised but I do not agree with that because they are operating under an antiquated system and have limited facilities available to them. In my constituency they operate with limited resources. There should be an employee in the social welfare office to deal with queries and so on. In my constituency the office is abandoned for at least three days a week. Would the Minister consider a redeployment of staff in these offices?

In his speech the Minister spoke about improved computerisation. Many of the difficulties we find in rural constituencies arise because we do not have sufficient information about unemployment or disability benefits. The Minister also spoke about an expansion of the computerisation programme and said there were new areas to be covered in the scheme which is being extended to such areas as Galway, Longford, Athlone, Mullingar, Sligo and Letterkenny. In my constituency we have growing unemployment and I believe a computer terminal should be installed at the employment office in Ennis. I appeal for the Minister's assistance in this regard.

Deputy Glenn spoke about unemployment assistance as it affects young people. I know from experience that the assessment of means has given rise to a great deal of disquiet when school-leavers apply for assistance if they cannot find employment. Many parents are disturbed when an extensive means test is applied after their children have completed second level education. Would the Minister consider instituting a minimum rate of social assistance for school leavers? The payments being made at present, as low as £3 or £5 a week, are not adequate.

The Commission on Social Welfare are examining the social welfare code and have until 1985 to report. There are some anomalies in this code as I have already pointed out. Money for unemployment assistance is voted through county councils and this is giving rise to a great deal of disquiet at county council level, especially at present when they have to make cutbacks because of the current economic crisis. I hope the commission will re-examine the disbursement of unemployment assistance through the county councils and then through the health boards.

In conclusion, I want to praise the Minister for the sustained effort he has made to improve social welfare standards and to include in the code an extensive system of cover.

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this Estimate in these times of stringency and unemployment. This estimate is for £1,253.5 million, out of a total of £2,156 million, and £1,200 million plus has to be provided out of Exchequer funds. It is no harm referring to this fact at a time when many people, and rightly so, are complaining about the high levels of taxation. We should point out that because of the economic climate we have to fund such Estimates from the Exchequer and the result is that we have high levels of taxation. The figure mentioned is £160 million up on the 1983 outturn. This is an indication of the Government's awareness of the problems the country is facing. Because large numbers of people are unemployed and have to be catered for, it is a good thing that the Government and the Minister had the foresight to make this provision.

Recently I had occasion to speak to a number of young people in my constituency and as is customary whenever large sums for employment creation are mentioned they asked why could not more of this money be spent providing jobs for young people. It is important to recognise that young people realise that jobs are hard to find and that unemployment costs on the State are very high. They are willing to become involved productively in the system. They are aware of the problems and are willing and prepared to assist in the resolution of those problems. That is why, to my mind, they come back again and again suggesting that some of the money being paid out by way of unemployment benefit or assistance should be diverted towards job creation. In that regard I welcome the enterprise allowance scheme and other associated schemes which are tailored to cater for that problem.

The figures so far being affected by these schemes are miniscule in terms of the total problem. If we are to grasp the imagination of young and old we will have to move more dramatically than we have heretofore. If we are to inspire those young people, who are very aware of what is happening, we will need to do something dramatic which will let them know that there are people very concerned about the present problems and are prepared to do something about them. It is very difficult to explain to young people that to provide jobs it costs 30 per cent or 40 per cent on top of what we are currently spending on social welfare. They find if difficult to accept that this should be a reason for not proceeding along those lines. It is not good for the morale of the unemployed or those who might come on the job market in the next few years to fob them off by telling them that we cannot undertake these schemes because of the extra costs that might be incurred.

The most positive step taken during the past five years to tackle the unemployment problem, particularly as it affects young people, was the setting up of the youth enterprise scheme, the AnCO schemes and the enterprise allowance scheme. They should be allowed to expand so as to make a dramatic impact on the problem of unemployment.

I have considerable experience in my county of the willingness of young people to respond. When passing through Kilcock on his way home the Minister of State can see the tremendous work which has been done by a local voluntary group in the restoration of the canal harbour and the provision of fishing facilities. All this work was done by voluntary effort. A group of people were motivated by one or two people committed to the task and they received assistance through the youth employment scheme and AnCO. Even though the wages they receive for this work are not the highest, they get a great deal of job satisfaction and learn something which will stand them in good stead at a later stage. It is far better for them to be employed in that way because they learn to recognise their own talents and also have less time on their hands, thus eliminating some of the social problems that are attendant on large-scale unemployment.

There used to be a theory that some unemployed people were not interested in work. That may be true in some cases but school leavers are very anxious to become involved in productive employment. I have never seen so much interest. All the questions they ask hinge around their future and whether they will be able to find something to do, rather than waiting for something to happen which will resolve the problem for them.

The Minister referred to voluntary work for the unemployed. I have always held that there is great potential for the incorporation of young unemployed people into the State or semi-State sector without any extra cost to the Exchequer. The local authorities have a structure whereby they can employ people on a temporary basis and absorb them into the system as trainee draughtsmen or technicians or in the clerical area. There is nothing wrong with taking on trainees and giving them an amount equivalent to what they would receive on social welfare. The most soul-destroying thing for a young person is to be without the possibility of a job for two or three years, unable to gain experience.

There is ample scope for the health boards to employ young people on a temporary basis, perhaps as assistants in hospitals. We are often told about shortages of staff. There may be objections from the unions in certain cases but I am sure they will recognise the nature of the problems we face and that we must resolve them ourselves. In times of financial stringency and hardship there is a greater demand for the services of social workers and marriage guidance counsellors. I cannot see why young people could not be absorbed into those areas without extra cost to the Exchequer. There would be dual benefits because they would learn what life is all about and get a first-hand insight into everyday problems. As a nation we concern ourselves with our own problems and do not look over our neighbour's fence at the problems he is encountering. Through the youth employment scheme or AnCO means must be found to enable young people to see for themselves how the other half lives and the causes of problems. This would have the effect of complementing the already overworked staff in those areas. Public representatives cannot but be aware of the strains that have been placed on people working in the social services.

Other speakers have mentioned the serious problems in the area of supplementary welfare. The areas which I have mentioned are just a few of many. I have laboured them because, on the one hand we could make a significant impact on relieving the number of people unemployed, and on the other, give the people becoming involved in such projects a sense of fulfilment and a feeling of being wanted. If we achieve that we shall have achieved a major objective.

I have noticed over the past couple of years an increasing number of cases requiring supplementary benefit. Again, I would mention the strain on officials dealing with these cases by virtue of their number and complexity. As discussed by the Eastern Health Board and other health boards, there are now appearing on the scene many people requiring supplementary benefits who a few short years ago would not have known what supplementary benefits are about — and would never have known but for the fact that, for some reason and through no fault of their own, they find themselves out of a job. This encompasses the whole social and economic sphere in the sense that people come from top and middle management, right down to the unskilled worker.

Many have married five to ten years ago, bought a house on a mortgage to which they are committed, whether they like or not, for 20 to 30 years. They are suddenly called into their place of work and told that they no longer have a job, or read in the local newspaper that the firm for which they are working is going out of business. They consider this a terrible reflection on them and are very sensitive that this has happened to them — and why they above anybody else? They may have a small amount of savings and draw on these for as long as possible and survive, perhaps, for a year or a yearand-a-half. Many refuse, out of pride, to go to the local labour exchange, even though they are eligible, to queue for their unemployment benefit or assistance. But they cannot survive forever in that fashion. They then call to the local health centre, social worker or supplementary welfare officer or to their local politician and explain their case. One finds that by then large arrears on their mortgage and on other commitments have accrued. In many cases they are in very grave danger of losing their houses as a result of not being able to grapple initially with the situation.

Those of us who deal with that type of social welfare query every day find it difficult to understand why they have not tackled the situation, but they are so sensitive that they are afraid to face up to the problem, feel that they have failed in their contribution to life and for that reason they have done nothing. There are still many who have not received the benefits due to them simply because they are ashamed to go through the necessary channels to apply for the services which are justly theirs.

It is sad that that is happening at present. The people in that category represent the new poor. Society never thought that they would need help and they never thought that they would not be able to fend for themselves. There are large numbers of these people who for one reason or another are in serious need and one cannot always get them to accept that there are channels of assistance open to them. Something can and should be done to make them more aware of those channels.

By way of qualification, we should not create a system through which it would be open to all to expect to have their incomes topped up by the supplementary benefit system. That would be an abuse of the system and I would not condone it.

In relation to the processing of cases for unemployment or sick benefit — and in particular sick benefit — there have been some improvements in speeding up such applications, but invariably there appear to be quite a number of complaints in relation, for instance, to technical matters — perhaps in the case of a married couple with two or three children with the husband in hospital and the wife with very little to live on by way of family resources for three or four weeks. That can be a very long time in terms of want and need in a family home. There should be some system to ensure that on every occasion on which a doctor's certificate is furnished to the Department within a specified time there will be an immediate response, making the person aware that the Department recognise her existence. I know that these people have access to supplementary benefit in the meantime, but this does not always work out and difficulties may arise in relation to reimbursement to health boards and so forth.

I ask for consideration to be given to speeding up the appeals system. One must accept that out of every 100 cases for appeal there will be a few without any foundation and which should not be under appeal. However, there are many cases under appeal which take many months of processing and great hardship can be caused to the people concerned by virtue of the delay in processing. That also would apply in many cases of application for the deserted wife's benefit or assistance. I know that to be an area open to abuse. A husband might be officially separated from the wife but in fact be supporting her and great care must be taken to ensure that such cases are investigated.

I have dealt with a number of cases in which I believe the Department should have taken a much more sympathetic view and examined the case very carefully by way of interviewing the people concerned rather than embarking on a tedious campaign of clinical investigation which could take months, resulting in the wife being under severe mental and financial pressure. Care should be taken to speed up that system. The examination by the social welfare officer in the early stages should determine whether a person was within reason eligible. If subsequent investigations proved she was not it would not be a very great problem to have the payment stopped and have it further reviewed. The officials would be able to say at that point that the matter had been fully investigated to the satisfaction of the Department. That would be much better than having it done the other way round.

Social welfare is a very involved subject. When people talk of taxation they very rarely talk about where the revenue from it goes. It is important for people to face facts and recognise that when we have services like those provided by the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Health or any other Department, somebody has to pay for them. You can only get the money for them in three ways. You can pay for them direct, you can borrow the money for them from abroad or you can borrow the money for them at home. Nobody will provide those services for nothing. The day is gone when services were regarded as being free.

I have many times in the past asked fellow politicians to be realistic. I am not criticising any of the people present but it is important that politicians be realistic, that they be honest with themselves and with the people they are dealing with. They should explain to the people that they cannot have something which is not paid for and if something is free they should be told how the free service is provided. Eventually we arrive back at the taxation system. If we are honest and do that we will be doing a greater service for ourselves than many of us have done in the past. The people who believe that electoral popularity should coincide with the amount of free services we can promise people should realise that some time our past will catch up with us and if we tell people we can produce for them something which is not there, this will one day leave us having to call on magic to produce the rabbit that is no longer in the hat.

The first thing I would like to address myself to is the question of the allowances that are made for children under the social welfare code and complementarily under the tax code. It is impossible to divorce the two. If we look at what has happened over the past 15 years and go back to 1970 we will discover that the real value of what the State is prepared to pay to a family working and getting children's allowances because they have a child, over and above a family without a child, has deteriorated significantly. In 1970 the real value, if we combine the child tax allowance with the flat rate children's allowance payable through the post office, was about £6.50. The present tax allowance combined with the children's allowance has fallen to about £3.50 a week. We have witnessed over the past 15 years the erosion of the position of married couples with large families. Obviously the larger the family the greater that erosion has been. The greatest responsibility lies not with the child allowance administered by this Estimate but more predominantly with the child allowance administered by the tax code. We cannot stand over that erosion of the position of large families in our community. I do not believe it is fair in social justice.

I also believe it has very serious effects on broader economic policies because there is a genuine problem for large families between the choice of working and being unemployed. I would say, without in any way suggesting that people opt to be unemployed, that it is a crazy situation that, between our tax code and our social welfare code, people who have a family of four children, and who are offered a job at half the industrial wage, would be very significantly worse off if they took up that employment. If such a family were offered a job at three-quarters the industrial wage they would still be marginally better off by remaining unemployed.

That cannot conceivably be a sensible way to administer tax and social welfare payments in our community. The sooner we address ourselves to the problem of integrating our tax and social welfare systems to ensure that people who are making an attempt to get employment have the incentive to do so, the sooner we will have a better, more fair and just administration all round. In many respects the type of schemes we have seen introduced in recent years have been an attempt in an ad hoc fashion to deal with the problem I am talking about.

The enterprise allowance scheme, the most recent scheme introduced, is essentially a scheme trying to say to people who are unemployed that we will make up for the fact that they will lose their social welfare allowance by giving them a substitute allowance. Similarly, under AnCO there is an attempt through training allowances to give a substitute allowance for the social welfare allowances they would lose. I believe in the coming years we will see an attempt made to do that for a much wider range of activities and we will be saying to people who want to get into voluntary work of any type or people who want to get into certain types of social work that they can continue to draw social welfare or to enjoy an allowance while they take advantage of these opportunities. I am not saying that is a wrong approach. I consider it a very correcent approach that we should encourage people to take up whatever opportunities present themselves.

We are establishing an expensive system of administering ad hoc schemes when really at the source of the problem is the failure to integrate social welfare with the tax code. We could have a scheme of standard allowances payable to all: for a person out of work it would obviously be a straight social welfare payment but it would take the form of a tax credit for a person in work. That suggestion was made several times. In the late seventies it was costed and the possible difficulties that might emerge were analysed. The report done on that occasion has been lying around for a long time. We should consider it now and see if the system would be fairer in its treatment of persons attempting to improve their lives.

If we introduced flat rate social payments available to all, not only would we have a fairer code between the employed and the unemployed and between families with many children and small families but we would achieve significant administrative savings in the administration of social welfare. I do not have the exact figures but I am convinced that the processing of claims and establishing whether people are entitled to various allowances must involve the Department of Social Welfare in massive costs. We would make significant gains if we succeeded in having a simple tax-cum-social welfare code. Apart from the gains in the administration of the schemes, significant gains in other areas would follow where similar schemes are being administered such as the enterprise allowance scheme. Such schemes are being administered in an attempt to get over the fact that the tax and social welfare code have not been integrated.

In passing, I should like to draw attention to another anomaly, namely, that in respect of the treatment of housing costs to different sections of the community. In the Department of Social Welfare there is a scheme of rent subsidies available to people who were paying controlled rents. Following the decision regarding the unconstitutionality of controlled rents and the introduction of rents related to market value, obviously some poor people have been seriously disadvantaged. Quite rightly the Department of Social Welfare stepped in to provide a supplement to support those people.

What worries me is that in the area of housing costs we have responded to the difficulties of various sections of the community in an ad hoc way. We have a scheme for people who lived in controlled tenancies. For people over 60 years who are in private rented accommodation we allow them a tax allowance of £1,000 against their rent. People with mortgages are allowed an allowance against their income and people in local authority housing have a special differential rent scheme which gives relief against the possible hardship of high rents.

The schemes dealing with the various categories were implemented in a piecemeal way but catered for genuine hardship. Nevertheless, we have now a bevy of schemes that are highly irrational and are costly to administer and at the end of the day many people who need help are not being assisted. One group is particularly vulnerable. I refer to those in private rented accommodation that was not a controlled tenancy or where the people are not over 60 years. Many of them are the real poor and they face difficult problems but none of our schemes assist them. We must approach this matter in a systematic way and try to treat all sections fairly.

I think the proper response of Government is to opt for a housing credit system. I have not done any calculations on the possible costs but I think a straight housing credit should be available. For instance, a person in rented accommodation could offset the credit against rent, a person buying a house on mortgage could offset the credit against the mortgage and those in the other categories would have a subvention to offset against their housing costs. The sooner we move to that system where we attempt to deal with all categories fairly, the sooner we will have a rational code to help those in hardship and we will also have a more simple code to administer.

I suppose that politically it is most difficult to make changes in the area of local authority housing where we have got used to the low rents charged and the differential rents scheme. However, it would behove us to confront the issue of fairness as between different categories. We should move towards paying a social welfare type subsidy that would fill the gap between an economic rent and what those on low income are asked to pay. The National Planning Board proposals deal in depth with such a system. They see merit in charging an economic rent and also having an explicit subsidy, thus bringing down the rent to an amount the tenant can afford. That is much more sensible than charging uneconomic rents.

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy. He is putting forward a rather elaborate argument to replace housing subsidies by social welfare subsidies but in doing so he is dealing with the housing section of the Department of the Environment. I trust the Deputy will be able to relate what he is saying to the Department of Social Welfare.

The point is well made but that is precisely the problem. I am trying to highlight that during the years we have grown to accept a situation where we hive off social welfare problems, perhaps to the Department of the Environment or to the Department of Finance under the tax code. The Ceann Comhairle has put his finger on the problem. During the years we have been satisfied to allocate those matters to different areas and it has been a case of "never the twain shall meet". As a result we have high administration costs——

The relevant Department so far as housing is concerned is the Department of the Environment.

I accept that and I will tailor my remarks accordingly. Last year the Minister discussed the justification for PRSI payments. PRSI is administered at a flat rate and it does not take into account the different family circumstances of persons under the code. A married couple with several children would be taxed under PRSI the same as a couple who had no family. There is a prima facie case that that is unfair to families with greater commitments, because you are asking them to make the same contributions. The Minister defended that last year by saying that it is an insurance scheme and that no insurance company would allow people to get away with low insurance premiums because of certain hardship that might be caused. I seriously question the Minister in that regard. The unemployment and social assistance schemes are means tested and the differential between benefit and assistance schemes is very small and has been getting progressively smaller over the years despite the fact that PRSI charges have been getting progressively larger. People are being asked to pay through PRSI increasing sums of money from their income. If we interpret that as an insurance scheme, as the Minister does, they are being given in return a payment that is getting smaller and smaller as a return for their premiums, because the State when it provides assistance levels puts a floor to what people can get when they are unemployed and the benefit of having paid PRSI over a series of years is very small.

Apart from the small increment over assistance rates, the only other scheme which could be regarded as a type of insurance is pay-related benefit. However, that is payable for only a short period and if you compare what people get in terms of insurance contributions — 8½ per cent and then extra for employers — with what they get back in pay-related benefits and higher rates than the basic State payments, you will see that people are losing and that it is a very unfair insurance scheme if it is to be interpreted as such. The Minister should look at that area in justifying PRSI as an insurance scheme. I know the Minister will say that the State tops it up but, even recognising the State contribution, the beneficiaries, those who make PRSI payments, do not get their money back. We cannot continue to defend PRSI on the basis that it is an insurance scheme.

I know this does not come directly into the social welfare category but it must be said that PRSI is, effectively, a 20 per cent tax on employment. If the argument I am putting forward is accepted, that PRSI cannot any longer be looked on as an insurance contribution, you must look at the other aspect: that it is a straight tax on employment. In a country with high unemployment and scarcity of capital it makes very little sense to have a 20 per cent tax on anyone who takes on an employee when at the same time through other systems of Government administration we are giving high subsidies to capital. The PRSI system is in serious need of re-examination because of the anomaly that we are discouraging employment.

If we regard PRSI as an insurance scheme we would have no claims bonuses and allowing people who did not draw on their contributions to get reduced premiums. The PRSI system is not drawn up on that basis; it is a system of collecting tax to enable us to make social payments. As I said before, we cannot defend it as an insurance scheme.

I know the Minister is probably aware of other anomalies but I should like him to direct his attention to the fuel scheme. There are dual fuel schemes operating in urban areas, some administered under corporations and others by the Department of Social Welfare. They are not integrated and as a result people are being excluded from participating in fuel schemes even though in terms of income they are worse off than many others who are availing of the scheme. I am sure this applies in the Minister's constituency which spans part urban and part nonurban areas. I hope he will be in a position to tackle this problem in the near future.

I have also come across an anomaly in the manner in which people qualify for the contributory old age pensions. I am referring to those who paid social insurance in the early fifties but when they went over a certain income that no longer applied. When compulsory PRSI was introduced they returned to making payments. In some cases they are disqualified from contributory pensions because they were, for a very short period in the early years of their working careers, making contributions. As a result of that, the Department of Social Welfare take the whole span from 1953 up to the day on which they retire and they average their contributions over that extended period. Naturally, if people have made only a few contributions in the fifties and then make more contributions in the late seventies, their average would be quite small and they would be excluded from a contributory pension. A person on a similar income who had the good fortune not to have made any contributions in the fifties would automatically qualify for a contributory pension. I recognise that not many people are affected but that is no reason for not doing something about this anomaly which is a cause of serious concern to a small number of people. The Minister should not delay reform in this area until most of them have died. Now is the time to make a fair response to the problems confronting people.

I should like to compliment the Minister on his administration of the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health. He is extremely courageous and he is willing to experiment to find new ways to tackle problems. I compliment the Minister on running his Department in a new and more open fashion than we were used to and on being willing to confront problems. I hope that over the coming years he will bring a great deal more fairness into a code which has grown up in a haphazard way over the years and is in need of serious reform.

This is probably one of the most important Estimates introduced in the House each year due to its size which is in excess of £1,200 million and because of the number of people who are dependent on social welfare especially in a time of recession. The first point I should like to make relates to applications for old age non-contributory pensions. Over the past year or so, almost daily in the newspapers we read about old people being attacked in their own homes by vandals, robbed and very often injured. Perhaps the Minister could do something to alleviate this problem.

When old people apply for an old age non-contributory pension, if they have any savings in the bank the first thing they do is to withdraw them. If you have £3,000 or £4,000 in the bank after a lifetime of saving, that will affect the level of your old age pension. When people apply for the old age non-contributory pension, if they have put aside any savings after working for 40 or 50 years, they withdraw them and keep them in the house. People are aware of this, and it leads to attacks on old people with the intention of robbing them. Very often they are injured. We have read recently that people have been killed in their own homes for a few thousand pounds. I appeal to the Minister and the Government to put this matter right. These people should be allowed to have £4,000 or £5,000 in the bank without the level of their old age pension being affected. That would do away with the sort of crime we have been experiencing over the past few years.

My second point relates to farmers' unemployment assistance. Many people have spoken about this inside and outside the House. I am glad something positive has been done in the past few weeks. In future when a social welfare officer is about to carry out an assessment, the farmer will be given a few days or a week's notice. When farmers are assessed and a final figure is arrived at, they will be able to see where the figure has come from. Up to now, they were just given a bald statement of fact that they had so much income from farming without a breakdown of the figures. This led to many difficulties.

On the question of farmers' dole, if a person of 80 years of age or more has a son of about 40 or 50 years of age living with him who is in receipt of farmers' dole or unemployment assistance, the old person is not entitled to some benefits such as free light and a free television licence. His son is not considered to be providing constant care and attention. Such a person looking after an aged parent is providing constant care and attention. He is not available for work and is getting farmers' assistance in the form of farmers' dole. I ask the Minister to have a look at such cases.

There are many sections in the Department. It is difficult for rural people to get proper information on their entitlements. An effort should be made to establish information centres in various parts of the country where people who wish to apply for social welfare benefit could discuss their cases whether they were looking for a pension, unemployment assistance, or whatever, and find out their entitlements. I should like the Minister to consider the points I have made.

The Minister's statement is a very comprehensive document. It sets out the stark realities of the demands on the social welfare system. It would appear from the Minister's remarks that there will be an increasing demand on the resources of the State to cater for the most vulnerable sections of our population, the unemployed, those in the lower income groups, and those who are dependent on assistance and benefit of one kind or another. Unfortunately we cannot expect the vulnerable section of our population to decrease.

Occasionally the Government pay homage to the fact that they believe unemployment can be brought under control. It is hard to reconcile that with some of the statements emanating from certain Labour Ministers that we have to prepare ourselves and the community for endemic unemployment in our lifetime. We on this side of the House do not subscribe to that belief. We are satisfied that with enlightened policies and incentives for the job creating sectors, with the right kind of venture capital and assistance being provided, job opportunities could be made available to all the population.

One of the biggest criticisms of the Government at present is that they have a sense of hopelessness in their public pronouncements on unemployment. Youth unemployment has been growing. We understood that it would be one of our greatest strengths that we had a young and well-educated population. Now it appears it is accepted by the Government that this young well-educated population will be a millstone around our necks. It is unfortunate that the Government did not take a more enlightened attitude to the provision of jobs so that we could have more people contributing to the Revenue and consequently there would be less demand on the social welfare system. The burden of the demands on the system is becoming virtually intolerable to those who remain in gainful employment.

When one considers that the numbers in the productive sector are reducing annually one realises that the time is approaching when they will be telling the Government in power that they will no longer be able, or willing, to pay to meet the demands of the Minister for Social Welfare. Up to recently there were 185,000 people in the productive sector but I understand that number will probably reduce to 150,000 by the end of the year. We have to consider that stark figure, that there are only 150,000 involved in manufacturing. We must understand that the areas for growth in the economy are being savagely neglected by the Government. Consequently, that figure is likely to drop further. If the manufacturing sector has an increase in the number employed the demand on the social welfare system will be reduced.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the element of discrimination that exists in the social welfare system operated by his Department. We presume that the EEC Directive on equality of treatment for men and women in the social welfare area will be actively pursued by the Minister this year. It would need to be more actively pursued than directives on many other matters, particularly company law. Last year the Minister's colleague, Deputy Cluskey, was very active on that topic but it appears that there has been an enormous change of heart since he left office. It appears that the directive in that area will not be complied with. I hope the Minister for Social Welfare adopts a different line as far as discrimination in the social welfare system is concerned.

It is obvious that there are discriminations against women. It would be relatively easy to deal with most of them. There is discrimination against men also. For instance, married women are discriminated against in that they get a lower maximum rate of unemployment and disability benefits than single women and men. Married women pay the same rate of PRSI contributions as others but they get a lower rate of invalidity pension. It seems unjust if when all classes are paying the same rate of PRSI they are not entitled to the same type of benefits. Married women qualify for unemployment benefit but only for a maximum of one year. Others receive that benefit for up to 15 months. Such matters can grate on the people who pay those contributions. In general married women are not eligible for unemployment assistance. It may not mean a lot but it is another discriminatory factor in the system. It would not cost very much, if anything, to implement that. The Minister should avail of the first opportunity to remove those anomalies from the system. It is unfortunate that it takes an EEC Directive to bring this to the Minister's attention.

The paying of the lower rate of unemployment and disability to married women and the fact that they qualify for unemployment benefit for one year only could be rectified by the Minister at the stroke of a pen. The Minister should pay attention to those matters. It was suggested by the Minister recently that there was a price tag on these improvements of about £15 million. There is a price tag on everything in society but in the area of equality it is common justice that the system should apply evenly across the board. Very few women qualify for unemployment assistance. They must not be living with or not supported by their husbands. It causes quite an amount of frustration among married women who have been working if when they apply for the benefits it is indicated to them by the social welfare officer that they do not qualify. It appears from the many cases I have dealt with that social welfare officers and deciding officers are not always too anxious to accommodate those who say that they have made arrangements with their in-laws to look after their children.

It is also unfortunate that the situation has arisen in Irish society that living standards have so diminished that many married women do not have any alternative but to seek employment, even of a temporary nature. When those women sign on for benefits subsequently they are denied them. The excuses offered to them are, to say the least of it, slightly discriminatory. There is also discrimination against men in the system. I understand that men are not eligible for single parent benefits in the same way that payments are made to deserted wives or widows. The Minister is well aware of those elements and he could without much difficulty take the necessary steps to deal with them.

The Minister dealt at length in his speech with the question of unemployment assistance for smallholders. He devoted more time to that than to any other aspect of his Department. I believe that was because of the amount of criticism that was levelled against him, and his Department, particularly in the west of Ireland, concerning the seeming unfairness in dealing with such cases. The Minister made a strong case in support of his staff and said they carry out their functions in a fair and equitable way. I accept that officials of the Department have always been courteous and attentive to correspondence I have forwarded to them. It is readily understood that they were working under considerable pressure until the new equipment was installed in the Department. They have always responded to my queries within a reasonable time. However, the fact that Members have to make representations so often is an indication that the system is not applied across the board evenly. I am sure the Minister of State from the west will recognise that an excessive amount of representations to the Department is an indication that something is wrong. It must be stated bluntly that the new arrangements in regard to payments to smallholders have resulted in a serious diminution of the standards of living of many smallholders in the west. It appears that there was not a proper appreciation at the political level that the vast majority of those people depended on the assistance for many years.

Those in receipt of that assistance have been spoken of in a derogatory fashion down the years. We are all aware that the assistance was described as "farmers' dole" as if there was something mischievous about it or that they were looking for something they were not entitled to, were getting a type of hand-out. It was never intended to treat it like that. The benefit was introduced in compliance with the wish since the foundation of the State that as many families as possible would be kept on the land and supported there. It was not by design that farmers were confined to a small acreage. That is the way the system grew up over many years. Successive Governments endeavoured to maintain as many as possible in reasonable comfort on smallholdings. It was a good system in that it applied a small incentive to individuals to help them improve their holdings and the stock rating. It gave them an opportunity to get as much advantage from their farm as possible without necessarily losing their weekly cash benefit.

It was necessary to have that cash benefit weekly. It was the only cash benefit they had coming in each week and was in effect the reason for the improvement in the standard of living of those 20,000 or so smallholders from Donegal to Kerry. They were not all on the notional system; about 6,500 were on the factual system. City dwellers in particular must appreciate that that cash each week made the difference between their being able to survive in reasonable comfort and having to wait until the fair day and depend entirely on the sale of stock. It was the main cause not only of the improvement in the standard of living at home and the improvement of farmhouses, it also provided them with the opportunity to educate their children properly. Those two things together brought about a tremendous improvement in the situation of smallholders on the west coast. Now much of this benefit has been withdrawn from them. The Minister's figures verify that some 72 per cent of all those who have now been factually assessed have either lost their entitlement or have had it seriously reduced, causing considerable difficulty to many of them. The Minister of State will appreciate that it will cause great political activity in that these people had set themselves targets for farm development and providing the necessary educational facilities for their children, and they now must revise all that downwards. The Minister has talked about the most vulnerable section of the population. These people have not the same articulate lobby as have others of the less fortunate sections of the community and they rely entirely on politicians to make their case. That is why politicians on the west coast have been so vocal and active in pursuing this matter. The Minister of State will appreciate that it was not just a matter of political advantage but that there was a real problem in that thousands of families were finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet, and still are. That is why they can be very angry with politicians for taking away something which they did not regard as just a hand-out but as a supplement given to them to enable them to stay on the land and provide their families with a standard of living that might come somewhere near the standard enjoyed by ordinary workers.

If we take ordinary workers in the industrial sense as averaging about £120 a week — that is not a large amount — the Minister of State knows full well that the thousands of farmers in County Mayo with 25 acres or less cannot in any physical or human way whatever get a cash payment of £100 a week, no matter how intensive their farming, unless they are market gardeners or something like that. The kind and structure of the land, the geography, render the land incapable of producing what would provide that weekly payment week in week out, 52 weeks of the year. That was the whole idea of the notional system. Now the unemployment assistance or supplementary allowance of people with families of three or four has been reduced to nil in many cases and these people tell me that now they have to sell off stock to maintain the living standards they have become accustomed to. That is not right or fair. The Minister may give the excuse that he is complying with this only because of a High Court decision a few years ago. Certainly the High Court decision debarred the Minister from levying taxes on any of these people but it did not debar the Minister from using a yardstick for the paying out of benefit or assistance allowances. Nobody has ever been able legally to make that stand up to scrutiny. The Minister can use any yardstick he likes in paying out although he cannot use it for taking in. The benefit that the Minister thinks he is getting from this and his telling people that he has to do it for that reason does not stand up and the applicants for these allowances do not accept that as a valid reason.

Irrespective of what assessment practice the Minister intends to utilise — which can be pretty convoluted even in the terms he has stated here today — the variations are great because of the different circumstances that exist between one farmer and another. The farming community will tell us that the man on 25 acres who has been trying to improve his place, build up his stock ratio, improve the facilities on his farm and so on now is paid less assistance because of his efforts than the man who has been quite prepared to let the rushes grow in his back door and get his full entitlement. It balances out at the end of the day that the man working hard trying to help his country, himself and his family is being discriminated against in favour of the guy who is prepared to do nothing and draw off the rest of us. That should not be. The notional system pressed people on. The more you made the better your standard of living would be and the better you would be able to provide for yourself and your family. It was a good way of doing business.

Does the Deputy realise that there was a great deal of criticism of some of the people drawing it?

Certainly there was and there were abuses in it which had to be corrected. However, when you correct some abuses by taking the big mallet, as the Minister did, you hurt not just the innocent, you hurt the productive capacity of the whole environment. It is only as this year goes on and people over a long period find their unemployment assistance not available to them, or severely reduced, that the pinch will come and they will have to sell off stock and do things that otherwise would not be forced on them. That is where the dificulty will arise.

Will the Deputy accept that the factual system is the fairest?

The factual system can be fair in certain aspects, I agree.

It should be fair.

The Minister said that social welfare officers get a comprehensive training in this, that and the other. Many of them do not appreciate fully small farming methods or techniques and are not trained comprehensively in making a really factual assessment of small farms in their total variations. That is what has led to the difficulty. I have had cases where insufficient time was given to making the assessment properly and where it was done in the rushed, speedy manner of asking the acreage and the number of cows a person had. Quite a number of cases were reported by me where that information was given to officers but the corresponding information about outlay was not appreciated fully and not put into the total arithmetic. Quite a number of cases come to my notice of social welfare officers making assessments by using a rule of thumb method in so far as the sale of stock is concerned, not taking full recognition of what it cost to produce the animal from start to finish. They merely take a round figure. If six animals are sold they multiply that by, say, £100 and that £600 is put in as the income from the sale of stock. It is not too easy to do, and because of the huge variations in animal husbandry, farm types and so on, it will not be a satisfactory way of dealing with it whereas the notional system was understood easily by everyone. The multiplier was attached to the valuation and one could produce as much as possible without the valuation being increased. It is for that reason only that the standard of living had been increasingly noticeably in the west. It would not have happened if the methods being used now were applied from 1965 onwards. I must ask the Minister if he recognises that if there is to be equilibrium in the system the small farmer and his family should have a standard of living at least as good as that of a labourer working for a local authorilty, that is if the small farmer is to maintain his family in any kind of comfort. Unless it is in an exceptionally good area of the disadvantaged counties a 25 or 30 acre farm in the west is not capable of producing £31 per week. Even on the notional system people on those farms were receiving only from £30 to £40 per week by way of assistance. It was expected, therefore, that the farm would produce three times that amount in order to give the farmer the living standard of a labourer.

There is no point in saying that the method being adopted by the Minister will produce fair play. If there were to be a trawl of the 15,000 or 16,000 smallholders applying for the assistance, they would tell us that they are not able to maintain the living standards they could be expected to provide if they were working as labourers for a local authority. In these circumstances the Minister must take a much more flexible attitude in dealing with this aspect of social welfare.

Small farmers in the west become very angry on hearing suggestions that in some way they are the beneficiaries of big handouts from the Government. These small farmers are not second-class citizens. They are part and parcel of our farming community, those people whom we have begged to stay on the land. Instead of putting obstacles in their way we should be paying them to stay on the land. What is happening is that after they have improved their holdings we are telling them that they must return to the bread-and-water line. In the past couple of months many people whose unemployment assistance has either been dis-continued or reduced seriously have approached me about the problems facing them. Some of those who will have children returning to secondary school in September tell me that they will find it necessary to sell off some of their stock in order to meet the demands that will be made on them then. They will not have any weekly cash income.

We often hear city people say that the small farmers are bleeding the nation dry, that they are getting money for doing nothing. That is not so. They are in receipt of assistance so as to maintain them on their patch of ground and so that we can maintain the population in rural Ireland. That assistance has been reduced drastically and this reduction will result in much hardship and suffering.

Is the Deputy suggesting that smallholders in the west be treated differently from smallholders elsewhere?

Yes, for the very simple reason that when I drive from this town, I realise that holdings of 25 or 30 acres in any of the counties this side of the Shannon have a stock rating of one per acre at least.

What about Cavan?

When one goes beyond the Shannon, one finds that the land in Roscommon is quite good and that it is not so bad in east Mayo; but when one goes west of Castlebar one realises that it is not possible for a holding of 25, of 55 or even 100 acres to produce a cash income of £100 a week for 52 weeks of the year. Consequently, people on small holdings in that part of the country must be given different treatment from that which applies to the rest of the country. It is for that reason that the Minister stands condemned by some 27,000 families on the west coast for his lack of understanding of the extent of their plight and the extent of the shortage to which he is now subjecting them. Literally, he is taking the bit out of their mouths and condemning them to the status of second-class citizens who are unable to provide the ordinary standard of living and the educational facilities to which their children should be entitled.

For these reasons the Minister cannot be supported on this aspect of the Estimate. He tried, in five or six pages of his script, to tell us that he had no alternative but I am convinced that those people in the west who will be affected by what the Minister is doing will not regard it as fair play.

The Minister of State has until 3.45 at which time the Minister will be called on to conclude the debate.

Perhaps the Minister of State would allow me to take up a few minutes of his time.

We have had one Fine Gael Deputy after another during the day.

The only reason for that was that there was no one on the Fianna Fáil side offering.

Perhaps the Minister of State would speak to the Estimate.

We are not trying to deny him the opportunity of trying to defend the action he is taking against his own people.

Deputy Flynn has had his say.

Will there be a free vote later this evening?

Deputy Flynn is making a political issue of the unemployment assistance but I suppose we could not expect anything else since he, with the leader of his party, buried £10 million in a bog in Mayo.

Is the money growing?

On the question of unemployment assistance for smallholders, the situation is that a single man who is unemployed in an urban area is entitled to approximately £30 per week while his counterpart in a rural area receives £28 per week. In the case of a smallholder, certain factors are taken into consideration.

That is not so.

Unemployment assistance was introduced in 1966 and the people of the 12 western counties were treated differently from those in the rest of the country in that they were on the notional system whereas other smallholders were on the factual system.

Following a case brought to the High Court by a number of Wexford farmers who were said, though this was not confirmed, to be members of the IFA, the court decided that the PLV or notional system was no longer a proper yardstick for assessment purposes. That decision was upheld later by the Supreme Court.

The Minister's father would turn in his grave if he were to hear this.

Consequently, the Department had no option but to proceed to assess smallholders in the western region on a factual rather than a notional system. This resulted in many of those smallholders receiving reduced assistance. A number of people found that as a result of it they got an increase but the number was very small in comparison to the number who got a decrease. If people in the 12 western counties were treated any differently from those on the rest of the island they would be discriminated against. If the Department did not use the factual assessment system it would be only a short time before a case was taken against them in the courts.

Proper order. Discriminate positively in favour of them.

I have been in the Department since 17 December 1983. I was aware of the problems that existed but I have become even more aware of them since I became Junior Minister. Many of the people who were reassessed did not take into account a number of items they could use as expenditure. A number of changes have been made. One is that people being assessed are now notified of the date of the visit of the social welfare officer.

The day or the week?

The week. They are supplied with a list of items which include 20 items they can claim as expenditure if it is appropriate. People did not take these items into consideration because they were assessed under the PLV system and were not used to this system. That created many problems. The new system is now in operation and we hope to get better results from it.

A social welfare officer investigates a case and passes the information on to a deciding officer who writes to the applicant. Before this he used to write four or five lines to the applicant telling him that his income was £X and he was entitled to £X unemployment assistance or none at all, without specifying how the figure was arrived at. The Minister said that an effort would be made to ensure that it was specified in broad terms but, as Junior Minister, it is my intention to press the Minister to ensure that the deciding officer specifies in detail how he arrived at his figure. The same should apply for all assistance schemes and not just unemployment assistance.

I am glad to see the two Opposition Deputies nodding in agreement. I ask them why when they were in Government — Deputy O'Hanlon was there for a short term——

We gave them the money which was more important. This Government took the money from them.

Why did the Deputy not come up with this scheme?

The Minister of State asked a question. We gave them the money. We did not send them letters but money.

The applicant has a right to an oral hearing. This scheme should be extended further so that a social welfare officer who carries out an investigation should be able to make a decision in relation to the applicant. Supervisory staff could check on a regular basis to make sure that fraud is not perpetrated. At present, we do not have enough staff to operate the system and those dealing with it are overworked because many people have to be assessed. The Minister made a statement on that this morning as did the Taoiseach in Tralee last week. I want the Department to go even further——

And give them the money back.

The Deputy is trying to use this politically. It is a decision of the courts of the land and I presume the Deputy supports them.

Not to take £1 million off farmers.

We are not taking anything from them. The Department do not want to save money but to treat all smallholders in the same way. We cannot have discrimination. I know that there are problems in the Deputy's party and if they solve them they will be able to make some contribution——

We will solve them, do not worry.

That problem does not arise on the Estimate.

Deputies availed of this opportunity to accuse the Government of many things which had nothing to do with the Estimate while you and the Ceann Comhairle were in the Chair. I did not hear the Chair trying to stop them. We have the problem almost solved and I intend to streamline the Department even further for the benefit of all smallholders.

I am sorry I have only ten minutes in which to speak.

More than some other people.

The Deputy had an opportunity to contribute all day.

I was here this morning.

Deputy O'Hanlon raised the issue of benefit of privilege in terms of assessment for unemployment assistance. In a number of instances, single people living with their parents could be living in quite affluent circumstances and may not want for anything. These people, although not having any assessible personal income, would qualify for unemployment assistance on exactly the same basis as a young man living with his parents who would have virtually no income or who was unemployed and may have a subsistence level income. One has no option but to take into account, under the consolidation Act, the value of what is known as benefit of privilege, namely the assessed value of board and lodgings as a benefit enjoyed by a person when assessing means. The means test, including the assessment of free board and lodgings, is designed to prevent the kind of inequity I have just outlined and it endeavours to treat applicants one with the other in as equitable a way as possible. In practice in the great majority of cases, the value placed on free board and lodgings is notional; it has to be, and is much below what it would normally cost an applicant who had to provide board and lodgings for himself.

It is not a commercial situation.

It is not, but there has to be an assessment. Otherwise everybody would have eligibility without regard to domestic circumstance.

What about the grants paid to students?

That would be inequitable. Surely the Deputy is not suggesting that, if a young man is living on his father's farm of 150 acres or 200 acres and is kept by the father on the farm, that automatically he is entitled to unemployment assistance.

I do not come from an area with farms of that size.

There are areas with such farms. A farmer might have a farm of 70 acres or 80 acres and have a gross income of £18,000 or £20,000 a year and his son, because he is a farmer's son, automatically gets £30 a week unemployment assistance. That is not on. I know that some of the Deputy's colleagues for the sake of political opportunism advocate such a system; but I would not, I cannot and I do not think any reputable Deputy would.

The Minister will not have this problem if he allows the exemption from stamp duty——

We will finish up paying for everything. That is why we have high tax rates. Deputy O'Hanlon referred to supplementary welfare allowances and increasing expenditure on this scheme. Like Deputy Glenn he gave a detailed account of the problems being experienced by the Eastern Health Board. I have received a copy of the report prepared for the Eastern Health Board recently on the administration of the scheme and I can assure Deputies that I will fully examine it.

As regards social welfare funds being used for employment creation, this point was raised by Deputy O'Hanlon and Deputy Durkan. I have had this matter examined in great detail by the economic and social analysis section of the Department of Finance and by my Department and we are prepared to take on board any reasonable scheme. The local authorities refuse to accept the argument that if the Exchequer were to give them the money we spend on social welfare benefits, for every £100 we give them, they would require at least another £80 to £100 to provide basic productive employment. There is a limit to the amount of work that can be provided by sending out hundreds of men to clean ditches and hedges.

There will not be any cleaning done this year.

I find it very difficult to get it across that, while we would all like to see additional funds being available for employment creation, the Government have decided on a current budget deficit for this year of around £1,100 million. If we wanted to borrow a further £700 million, £800 million or £1,000 million, we know first we would not be able to borrow it from commercial banks at home or abroad; second, the creditworthiness of the country would go down the drain overnight; and, third, in five years' time we would not be in a position to repay that kind of money. Therefore, it is a question of spreading a small amount of money throughout our employment schemes in as equitable a manner as possible. There are no facile solutions as are being put up here. At the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis the Leader of the Opposition said they would provide £100 million for the construction industry, another £100 million for the local authority creation schemes and the problems would be resolved.

He did not say that. He said it would stimulate the economy.

That is the kind of sweeping generality we heard at the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis which so many people swallowed. That is how this country has got into this unfortunate position. That is why Deputy O'Malley is being "hung" this afternoon.

(Interruptions.)

That has nothing to do with the Estimate. Confine yourself to the Estimate.

The Minister went to the ditch, looked over and turned back.

I share many of Deputy O'Malley's sentiments about how this country should be run. He is paying the price today and I will probably pay it as well.

As regards the free fuel scheme, Deputy O'Hanlon asked about the proposals to rationalise this scheme. Proposals will be put before the Government shortly. It is not easy to understand why some people in certain areas have automatic entitlements while people in other areas do not. It is very difficult to take away automatic entitlement from one group even though one might argue they should not have automatic entitlement. We will see what will happen when the final proposals are submitted. Of course they will be difficult, but I will be prepared to face up to that.

As regards the old age pension means test, Deputy McGinley mentioned the case of an old person having savings of £3,000 or £4,000. This should not affect entitlement because at present an old age pensioner can have a capital sum of £2,987.50 and still qualify for the maximum pension, provided he has no other means. There is still the occasional elderly person who does not apply for the pension because they have some money they do not want to disclose, but in practice if they applied they would qualify for a pension.

Deputy Bruton mentioned the PRSI system. This system spreads the load so that those at work help to support those who are not at work, whether through unemployment assistance, sickness, old age and so on. This system is financed entirely on a pay-as-you-go system, one year with the next. Already I am looking at my monthly profiles of expenditure for the first four months of 1984 and see we are just about on target. We take in the money currently and we pay it out currently. We keep it on balance and the Exchequer contributes about 58 per cent of the total bill.

Deputy Andrews said that in real terms social welfare payments have dropped. I would not agree because according to the latest figures in the consumer price index the recent budget measures added half of 1 per cent to the underlying inflation rate. It appears that into 1985 inflation will be 5 per cent and is likely to hold at this level for the period for which the increase was granted to social welfare recipients.

Did the Minister say 5 per cent?

I thank Deputies, and especially Deputy O'Hanlon for his understanding of this Estimate and his co-operation in ensuring that it passed through the House this afternoon.

Vote agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 May 1984.
Top
Share