Social Welfare Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Carey

Before the Adjournment I was attempting to outline the support the Government are giving to the handicapped and the 35 per cent who are dependents. I said the Government had matters in hand and were awaiting the report of the commission who are examining the social welfare system. The Minister said the objective was to maintain long term payments in line with inflation and that short term unemployment benefit and disability payments would be considered in line with take home pay. He said that the objective also was to channel expenditure to those in need instead of having generalised measures that would help rich and poor alike. The Minister also pointed out that proper and rigorous enforcement of the social welfare code would be undertaken to ensure increased efficiency and cost effectiveness. He said he would abandon structures and services that are no longer appropriate to current needs.

The Department of Social Welfare have fulfilled many of those objectives. They have given aid and back-up by way of well illustrated explanatory leaflets and documents showing the rates and entitlements of people. Deputies on the other side pointed out anomalies. Everyone can suggest improvements that might be made but the question is, where are the resources? The Exchequer is providing £1.3 billion and I am surprised when I hear people on the other side say that the Government are not making a substantial effort to combat poverty. The Government are doing all they can in the current depressed climate.

In his statement the Minister said he was appreciative of the work of the voluntary bodies. In particular he spoke about assisting day care centres for the old, about providing meals on wheels, services for the physically handicapped, youth club facilities, day care for the homeless and help for unmarried mothers. In my constituency the Department are assisted by voluntary bodies as well as those who are professionally involved in social services. Many groups of people work in the evenings and nights and also during the day to provide meals on wheels and many other services. In Ennis there are many facilities available for the aged and the downtrodden and I suggest that in the coming years the Minister might give more assistance to this kind of work. The public appreciate how the Department look after the elderly and handicapped people.

A certain breakdown seems to occur in the area of administration where communication is very slow. Some replies from the Department of Social Welfare are delayed inordinately. In some cases it has taken eight months to send a reply to my representations. I am not happy about this and I appeal to the Minister to ask the officers in his Department at least to acknowledge representations. It would expedite matters if the Department of Social Welfare set up computer links in the main employment exchanges, perhaps in the capital towns of each county. Such a link would be of great assistance to the social welfare officers who are doing a very good job. It would also be of help to applicants who do not know what is happening to their applications. For instance, if a reference figure is given in error the officers in Dublin seem to ignore the application. I ask the Minister to ensure that there is greater efficiency in dealing with these matters.

I am concerned about the review of smallholders. I believe the officers were handed a major task when, following the High Court case which disallowed the poor law valuation system, all the applicants for unemployment assistance had to be means tested. The social welfare officers have got through a considerable amount of work, but many people were very unhappy when their means had been assessed. I want the social welfare officer to show a lot of the income and expenditure he is going to charge when assessing an applicant. Because of the cumbersome system which has grown up in the Department, the Minister should provide appeals officers in each western county to hear oral appeals. Many applicants do not have a rigid book-keeping system and are unable to tell the social welfare officer their total expenditure and income, or lack of income in many cases. These people deserve to have this system explained properly. There is no point sending out the present note which is couched in very complicated language saying that an applicant's income has been assessed at £X thousand and his expenditure at £Y thousand and consequently, according to the Social Welfare Acts, his application is disallowed. There should be an itemised list. Since this matter was re-examined, the Minister has sent out a list of expenditure items which are allowed, but I am not sure if the list provided by the Minister is the same as the list used by the social welfare officers. For that reason I ask the Minister to accede to my appeal to have an itemised list so that the applicants would know nothing had been left out.

I am very concerned about old people who have applied for the old age pension but were disallowed because they did not have sufficient credits. I refer in particular to people who between 1953 and 1974 lost a number of credits because of an income bar. There is an anomaly here because people who joined the system since 1974 and retired in 1984 and 1985 can get an old age pension but those who contributed from 1953 to 1974 can be debarred. The Ombudsman made a statement the other day supporting this claim. He said that he has received most correspondence from old age pensioners who have suffered because of this anomaly. Surely the Minister could have included in this Bill a number of old age pensioners, perhaps those who have 146 or 144 contributions instead of the required 156 or those who had a good average number of contribution because the number involved would be very small. I would like the Minister to explain why this small number of people were not included in this Bill especially since the Ombudsman recommended their inclusion, as did the Commission on Old Age Pensions.

The Department of Social Welfare are doing a very good job under very difficult circumstances. Over one million people, or 35 per cent, depend on the Department for unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance or some form of financial aid. They are doing a great job in a time of scarce resources. The declining income will probably lead to a cut-back in services and the Government's objective of maintaining long term payments in line with inflation is meeting the challenge. Many people do not appreciate the strenuous efforts being made in this area and those who want extra assistance to be given by the Department should say where the resources will come from.

The new EC Commission set targets for the improvement of the European social dimension and are setting up a new combat poverty programme. They say in their report that as far as their social policy measures are concerned, they will launch the implementation of the second poverty action programme. In this House Deputies say instant solutions can be provided for all social welfare problems, but I believe this Government and the Minister are reaching the great majority of our people who are suffering from unemployment, sickness, old age and so on. I believe the Minister is providing sufficient aid for these people and if Deputies criticise what is being done, it should be constructive criticism, pointing out where the money will come from.

I commend the Minister for his work.

Mr. D. Gallagher

Ba mhaith liom dá dtiocfadh liom, an méid atá a dhéanamh ag an Aire a mholadh, ach faraor ní mar sin atá an cás. Is léir nach dtuigeann an tAire féin chomh dona agus atá cúrsaí sa tír agus nach dtuigeann sé na fadhbanna atá ag daoine i láthair na huaire. Tá sé soiléir chomh maith nach dtuigeann an tAire fiú amháin an chaoi a n-oibríonn an Roinn atá faoin a chúram féin agus is bocht an rud é go gcaithfidh mise teacht isteach anseo agus na rudaí seo a rá.

In the introduction of this Bill and in the glowing terms in which the Minister presented it to the House, and referring to the work of the Department, it is quite clear that he is entirely removed from reality. The Minister does not seem to understand the hardships endured by people in benefit and he does not understand the working of his Department. Surely the Minister cannot congratulate himself about the fact that he is giving an annual increase of 3 per cent to social welfare recipients when we consider the increases that have come about as a result of the removal of food subsidies, the increases in the cost of electricity, gas and fuel charges and when one considers the introduction of VAT on clothing and footwear and on household goods generally. Surely the Minister cannot be serious when he says that the increases are sufficient to meet the needs of poor people.

The method of assessment for unemployment assistance and for pensions has changed drastically since this Minister took office and it is obvious that the officials who do this job are under tremendous pressure from the Department to try to cut everything to the bone. People tell me about the severe questioning, the harassment and the personal details sought by social welfare officers and this indicates that the pressure is on to try to save every penny. Other Deputies can confirm that people are sometimes terrified at the prospect of a call from the social welfare officer. Old people particularly have come to me inquiring about pensions and the possibility of an increase, but at the end of the day when told that it would be necessary for the same official to call to re-investigate their case they invariably opted to leave it alone and to accept what they were getting rather than put up with the harassment and questioning. These officials are tied to a role in which they have to carry out these investigations in this manner and it is unfortunate that the Department are subjecting their officers to this kind of thing.

The Minister referred to efficiency in his Department. I cannot agree with him. The experience we as public representatives have with the Department has been verified by a Government Deputy. We have to wait a long time before even getting an acknowledgment to a query. The people who apply for unemployment assistance and benefits often have to wait long periods for payment. In the case of sick benefit payments, that situation is the worst of all. I receive representations almost every week in relation to these matters. Certificates seem to get lost in the Department and the only one who suffers at the end of the day is the unfortunate applicant, who must seek credit from the local grocer while waiting for payment.

What is the position in relation to appeals on behalf of people who applied for unemployment assistance? My experience is that there does not seem to be any result. People make their appeals or they go through public representatives and we never seem to get a reply from the Department as to the outcome of the appeal. The House, and perhaps the Minister, will be amazed to hear that a person came to me in October 1983 in relation to a cut in his unemployment assistance and yesterday morning I received the final notice from the Department as to the outcome of the investigation. That is a deplorable situation. I am not sure if the person involved received notification of the position. This sort of thing treats the House and the Members of the Oireachtas with contempt.

In relation to sick benefit, when a person has been deemed no longer eligible by the Department they are left waiting for a long time for any decision and in the interim they do not know what to do. If they apply for supplementary welfare from the health board they cannot get payment until a final decision comes from the Department of Social Welfare. The supplementary welfare allowance is not back dated so in many instances they must wait several weeks for a decision and lose out in the meantime. Recently, I have noticed that people on long term benefit such as invalidity benefit who were declared by the Department to be eligible for long term invalidity payments are now being called before medical referees. This has been unheard of in the Department up to now. It proves the point that the Government are scouring the bottom of the pot to save money. It is both callous and cruel to demand that persons already in receipt of invalidity benefit and who were declared eligible for it by the Department now have to go before a medical referee. It is terrible that this situation should occur under a so-called Labour Minister for Social Welfare.

In the assessment of young single people living with parents it is past time when the regulation governing their assessment should be changed. The amount paid to a single person who applies for unemployment assistance in those circumstances depends on the income of his parents. This is most unfair. There may be a young 19 year old student who finds himself without a job. He has no hope but to apply for unemployment assistance or to emigrate. The amount he will get is determined by the parents' income. He has already been a burden on the parents and it is an embarrassment to find that he will become a further burden on them.

I know the case of a young fellow who worked in a factory. His father is a teacher. The factory closed down and the young man did not have a sufficient number of contributions to qualify for unemployment benefit. The assessor decided that he would be entitled to 35p per week. In this day and age that kind of thing is intolerable. The regulation governing it, which has been there for a long time, must be changed so that young people who apply for unemployment assistance will at least be left with a certain degree of pride. It is bad enough for them to have to go to the dole office but it is intolerable to be told that they will get only a few pounds a week.

There seems to be a set figure of £5 or £7.50 per week for young farmers living at home with their parents. I do not think we can go on in this way and tolerate this. It is rendered worse because no explanation is given about how the assessement was arrived at. A round figure is assessed for board and lodgings but the person concerned is not given an explanation of how the figure was arrived at.

In relation to the small farmers' dole, as it is commonly called, the Government have achieved their ambition and have taken £5 million or £6 million out of the pockets of those farmers. The Government's approach shows scant regard for social justice. Up to 1966 many of those smallholders did not enjoy any security and had to go to England or Scotland to do seasonal work. When the notional system of assessment was introduced they were assessed on the land value and they could produce on their smallholdings without interference from the social welfare officers. It was most encouraging to see people who heretofore had to emigrate staying on in their holdings with their families. However, with the abolition of the notional system they are back where they were in the fifties and the ugly term emigration has begun to raise its head again because people are going off day by day, having been left without any income by the social welfare people. Parents of such families nowadays have to prepare for secondary education and many of the children have to pay bus fares and buy textbooks. Then we had the reduction in the food subsidies and VAT was imposed on footwear and clothing. Other difficulties were imposed by the Government, making things impossible for those people. I do not think there is any other group in our society who would accept that on one day their entire income from social welfare had been taken away, in some cases £40 or £50 a week. They cannot do without it. They are forced to keep their children from school.

Many such smallholders tried to do something to improve their farms and availed of the various schemes, like the AI, the lime subsidy and the farm improvement scheme. They are the people who have been got at by the social welfare people. The fellow who sits down or sleeps all day and who will not do anything on his holding will get full benefits while the person who tried to do something over the years is regarded as a fool by his neighbour. That does not help honest persons to have hope for the future.

I know people who wanted to get into milk and who got nine or ten cows. The social welfare people cut them off benefit and all such people could do was to sell off their cows. If was an evil stroke to cut off the notional assessment system because it made small farmers productive and it gave their owners a pride in themselves. It reminds me of Father McDyer, with whom I was on a deputation before I entered politics. It is too depressing to recall what has happened since the notional method of assessment was abolished.

The two farming organisations, the IFA and the ICMSA, made representations to the Minister and the Government on this issue and two promises were made. One was that a farmer could list items of expenditure and they would be considered in calculating assessment for entitlement to unemployment assistance and, two, a detailed account as to how the assessment had been arrived at would be given to the applicants by the Department. I am not aware of any constituent of mine having been accommodated in this way by the Department.

The Minister mentioned the work of the voluntary organisations and help being made available to them. These organisations are doing a tremendous job and they deserve as much help as possible from the Department and the State. I do not think that the State could afford to carry out the various jobs they are doing and it would be impossible to provide the services they are giving but for the fact that these services are given voluntarily. Here I compliment the social workers and those involved with the health boards on the wonderful job they are doing in this respect. If one were to draw a parallel with the officials from the Department of Social Welfare and the people working for the health boards one would find a vast difference. The officials and the social workers from the health boards are received with open arms everywhere and regarded as guiding lights in the community where they are always prepared to listen and to help, and they show genuine concern for the poor people in our society.

I understand that in the budget a certain figure was made available to meet the needs of the voluntary organisations employed in the social services. I would like to mention a project in my constituency. An amount in the region of £73,000 has been decided upon by the Westport Social Service Council to provide facilities for the old, the poor and the disabled in Westport. Already they have spent £23,796 on a building. Phase 2 will cost £24,000, and furnishings and other overheads including the provision of a car park will amount to about £22,000. While local contributions will be sought, the fact that new schools are being built in the area — and all due credit to the Government for providing these schools — means that the drain on the resources of the people there is heavy and they have been in contact with the Minister regarding the possibility of getting a substantial grant. I do not know what criteria the Minister has for providing these grants, but we hope that this effort will be rewarded and that a substantial grant will be forthcoming for the project I have mentioned.

When it is fully operational, meals on wheels, a laundry service for aged and disabled people, an information and advice centre, counselling rooms, dining facilities for the aged, meeting rooms for voluntary and caring organisations affiliated to the Westport Social Service Centre, a kitchen and other facilities will be provided. In this International Youth Year it is proposed to include a large multi-purpose room in the new building which will provide facilities for youth and also as a public meeting room. That kind of work deserves the full support of the Department and I hope that, when the Minister decides on his priorities this will rate highly on the list.

We must do something soon about the self-employed. They have absolutely no protection. I am sure that many people here know of instances of small builders and other people who now find themselves going to the wall and are no longer able to continue with work they have been doing. These people never bothered to go to the labour exchange to look for unemployment assistance and now they find themselves with no option but to do so in order to support their families. Here again the long standing policy seems to be that a person must give an account of his earnings for the previous year.

A person who earned £X in 1984 is supposed to live on that for almost the rest of his life when it comes to the method of assessment for unemployment assistance. Such people have no protection, no way of getting assistance except by getting unemployment assistance, and very often their application for that is turned down. They are forced to emigrate, and these are really fine, great people who were making an honest effort to do something worth while. Generally speaking, in my experience they are treated very badly when it comes to applying for unemployment assistance. Very often what is worse is the delay they experience before they get the decision. They must wait several months before they are told of the final outcome of the investigations. This is most unfair. I do not know exactly how the problem can be tackled, but some arrangement should be made for perhaps some kind of interim payment to people of this kind, or some allowance that would help to tide them over a difficult period when they are genuinely in need of help and make their application for unemployment assistance. A more flexible approach should be adopted. I ask the Minister to examine this with a view to doing something positive in that direction.

The first part of the Minister's speech deals with the increases I have mentioned. After that, referring to the social welfare code, he said: "I now turn to the second main element of this Bill." We all accept that there is a need and we owe it to the taxpayer to try to ensure that there is no question of fraud or that people will not get away with making any declaration to enable themselves to benefit unfairly from social welfare payments. Nevertheless, listening to the media last night one would get the impression that everybody looking for social welfare was some kind of rogue or trickster. We accept that there are irregularities but it is most unfair to people to give that impression. Even the figures that the Minister gave when he referred to the extent of fraud — unemployment benefit, disability benefit and pay-related benefit, 4,300; unemployment assistance, 1,000; old age non-contributory pension, 270, and social assistance allowance for unmarried mothers, 500 — are all round figures, but I question them. If there are irregularities surely the Minister must have the exact figure. Why does he not give the exact figure rather than the round figure?

The Minister said that in the case of old age pensioners many of the abuses were discovered after the pensioner died. He said that the bulk of the sums which were overpaid were due to the non-disclosure of means which came to light generally on the death of the pensioner. There is an underlying tone in his speech which verifies what I said earlier that the Department and the Minister have just one objective in mind, knock, knock. This is the case in relation to old age pensioners at present. In the past when farmers handed over their holding to a member of their family they had no problem in drawing the old age pension. That is not true any more. Now they do not automatically qualify for the old age pension. It is annoying for old people to be subjected to the degree of harassment they have to face in relation to their application for their rights. The old age pension is something they look forward to.

I do not agree with the Minister's assessment of the improved efficiency of his Department. On today's Order Paper there are 37 questions to the Minister and yesterday there were 76 questions. That is ample proof of what Deputies have to put up with from the Department and of the way the Department does its work.

The way the family income supplement scheme has been implemented is a joke. The Department do not want anyone to know anything about it. We were told that applications would be in the region of 35,000 but we know that the figure is much lower than that. People are entitled to be informed about how the scheme operates. This information should be made available to them at their place of employment so that they can gain from the benefit which many of them would like to have at this time with prices rising as they are.

There are many other points I could make in relation to the Bill but I have already taken up too much of the time of the House. We will be opposing the Bill vigorously.

Mr. Dowling

It is not surprising to hear that Deputy Gallagher is opposing an increase of this nature. That is to be expected from that side of the House. The Bill provides for increases in the payments of social insurance, social assistance and occupational injuries in line with inflation and, in some cases, in excess of it. If one looks at the total expenditure on social welfare since the middle sixties it has grown from approximately £60 million then — the £ had a much higher purchasing power at that time — to around £1,133 million in 1981. That is an exceptional increase. When we look at the bureaucracy which has been created in the social welfare system we see that it is one area, apart from the taxation area, that begs considerable investigation.

There are improvements in the family income supplement scheme. The thinking and principle behind the scheme is good but it is a scheme which will allow people to think about defrauding the State of moneys which they are not entitled. It has been suggested by a variety of newspaper commentators that the level of fraud in the social welfare area this year will be somewhere around £12 million. The construction industry were extremely critical of the provisions in the budget. I know we cannot blame legitimate registered builders as they are not party to the form of employment which lends itself to people earning a wage of £100 a week and also earning £100 per week through the social welfare system. That kind of abuse is widespread but who is paying for it? When we look at the over-burdened taxpayer we must conclude that the whole thing is a national scandal.

The extent of the fraud is extremely serious. I am not referring to the unemployed person who has tried desperately to get a job and cannot do so. Such a person might get work for a day or two but because of the cumbersome way the social welfare system deals with that there are serious problems. I am not talking about those people but about professionals who perhaps are registered for unemployment assistance several times. I read one newspaper comment which highlighted this very serious practice. It is no harm to mention it in this House.

The scale and extent of welfare fraud is a national scandal particularly when viewed against the background of the number of people who are contributing through the PAYE taxation system, which is extremely penal and is seen to be such, and we are making very little headway towards improving that system. We will not improve it until we improve the other areas which are making additional and excessive demands on the PAYE taxpayers' money. We also have the PRSI system which is, too, a considerable burden. I had hoped that in the budget some attempt would have been made to lessen that burden on employers and employees. About 700,000 people are deriving support from it.

Benefits totalling millions of pounds are going astray and being handed out to what I regard as locusts who are feeding on the system and making every attempt to find their way around the system and to abuse it. At present the unemployment figure is around 225,000. There are pressures on the level of taxation which can be raised. It is very important that families should not be left on the breadline and that genuine people in need are looked after. I would not wish to undermine a system which attempted to provide for the needy and underprivileged. I ask the Minister to ensure that there are sufficient personnel in his Department to see that the abuse of the system is diminished to an acceptable level.

We have conmen with a long string of names and addresses drawing weekly benefit from as many as a dozen exchanges. They dress well. They live comfortably. Generally they have a life style which is totally incompatible with their jobless status. That problem needs to be addressed in our society. In the debate on the Private Members' Motion on the construction industry and on other motions, Deputies shed crocodile tears about the situation which exists in the Border towns. They are not prepared to address themselves to the problem which is perhaps far worse than trading across the Border, that is, abuse by unscrupulous people in the building trade who are uninsured. The Department of the Environment have a responsibility here. We are paying out taxpayers' money in the form of grant aid and grant assistance for new houses and in other spheres. There should be some monitoring in many cases to ensure that people are not abusing the system.

I would not like to be over critical of people who are forced by circumstances to work an extra day. I am not concerned about those people. I believe there should be a guaranteed minimum wage. We have those unscrupulous employers. I do not know what type of system they think we are operating. They allow their workers a half a day off or a few hours in the morning to go and sign on and then to go and collect their allowances. That is happening on a wide scale. It must be tackled.

We have the "nixer" men who are referred to as moonlighters in some parts of the country. They do all sorts of handy jobs such as plumbing, wallpapering and painting. They pay no tax and they draw their social welfare. While we may have 225,000 on the unemployment register, the figure may be far less. We have a high level of unemployment in Dublin and in some of the major cities and the urban areas. We have a scandalous level of unemployment, and we appear to be doing very little about it. Some attempt was made in the budget to try to redress that situation and, however feeble it is, it has to be applauded. People in the urban areas have not got the same level of opportunity as people in the rural areas. We are trying to administer a system of social welfare from Dublin when it could be done far more effectively from central localised areas where everybody would have a fair idea of who was and who was not on the fiddle.

Mr. Leyden

On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to give notice that a very important matter has arisen. I wish to raise on the Adjournment the resignation of Mr. Tom Byrnes, the chief executive of Telecom Éireann.

Government time should be given to debate this very important issue which has arisen. It is a major crisis in Telecom Éireann — the resignation because of Government policy of the chief executive of that company.

Mr. Keating

The Deputy should never be amazed at Deputy Leyden.

Mr. Dowling

Deputy Leyden should apologise.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dowling to continue on the Social Welfare Bill.

Mr. Leyden

I am doing it in accordance with the rules of the House.

Mr. Dowling

I thought a point of order had to relate to the discussion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Continue Deputy Dowling.

Mr. Dowling

It throws one off one's line of thought. I suppose one cannot be over critical of the Deputy. This is not the first time he has made a nuisance of himself in the House. Prosecutions are expected in a dole fraud worth more than £500,000 which was uncovered by the Department of Social Welfare in a market gardening centre in North County Dublin this year. All these people were drawing social welfare and drawing pay as well. Any of those people could have come into our consultation clinics as we call them. We would expect the Department almost to bend over backwards to accommodate them. The measure of dishonesty on the part of the politician in this regard is that we attempt to get more and more out of the system. It has been added to piecemeal over the years and has now become a type of albatross around our necks in that we find it exceedingly difficult to provide for genuine beneficiaries.

There is another type of dishonest or fraudulent person who creates for himself a number of phantom families, who is able to give a variety of addresses around the country. One such person who disguised himself as a Presbyterian Minister, when he left the country, was able to say we had the easiest system in the world to defraud. It is to those types of cases I would hope the provisions of the Bill would apply.

There has been mention of the family income supplement. Here the principle was right but it is another benefit which will lend itself to fraudulent behaviour; the employer will find a way around it. The situation now obtaining means that a person in receipt of an average wage in excess of £125 depending on the number of his dependants gets nothing. I have no doubt but that some workers will succeed, in the case of certain types of employers, in reducing the level of certified wages so that they will appear eligible for benefits and then reach under the counter to compensate for anything else. Some people may contend that does not happen. When a social welfare system must provide for needy people against that type of background it is exceedingly difficult to implement it in a fair and equitable fashion. I should like to see a localised system promoted which would eliminate many of the abuses at present perpetrated within the system.

I want to deal also with sickness benefit. Deputy Gallagher was right in contending that a person who finds himself or herself cut off from this benefit for one reason or another may not always be the person who is guilty or who should be penalised. I have had experience of unmarried mothers losing their allowance because of slanderous statements made against them or accusations of a wife against a husband who had left her and so on when, without any concrete or substantive proof, the social welfare officer has cut off the appropriate allowance. Were it not for the system operated under the various health boards some families would find themselves destitute.

There has been talk about the embargo on recruitment and how it affects the social welfare area, that there are now insufficient personnel to examine complaints. So much duplication exists at county council level, health board level, the planning level, the environmental level and at the social welfare level surely it should be possible to co-ordinate most of these systems having them operate in a way fair to all concerned. I want to see employers penalised just as much as others who abuse the system because the millions of pounds saved could be of additional benefit to beneficiaries. We are all concerned about people in receipt of long term unemployment assistance. Under the schemes being promoted under the current budgetary provisions there is scope to deal with such beneficiaries. Now if such applicants get work for a year or 15 months — giving them some degree of dignity — they can afterwards revert to the level of assistance they were on beforehand, a provision to be lauded.

The basic increases being given are in line with inflation. During the term of office of the Opposition they introduced budgets giving a 10 per cent increase across the board when inflation was running at 20 per cent, which meant there was no real benefit to recipients. It is hypocritical and dishonest to oppose the Bill because one contends it does not provide sufficient funds. But if one opposes it because one contends it does not provide the necessary structures, power and wherewithal to the Minister to eliminate abuses of the system such opposition is much more acceptable.

Mr. Kitt

Much of the debate we have had concerns the minimal increases granted under the provisions of this Bill and the publicity concerning the amount of fraud prevalent in the social welfare system. I should like to say something about both matters.

It is disappointing to note that the small increases will not be paid until 11 July next which contrasts with the provisions of previous Bills introduced when there were increases of 10 per cent and 12 per cent under Fianna Fáil Governments and when the Minister of State, Deputy Frank Cluskey, granted increases of over 20 per cent. Over the whole year these increases amount to 3 per cent only and are very disappointing. When one takes into account these miserly increases, the 7 per cent increase in ESB charges effected last November, the withdrawal of food subsidies and the fact that there was no increase granted in children's allowances it will be seen quite readily that these constitute hardship for many people.

There has been much discussion of the elderly in recent weeks. I was disappointed to note the savings of £2 million on non-contributory old age pensions, which must mean that there have been lower rates of non-contributory old age pensions paid to applicants. Talking about the progress report on social welfare last year the Minister said that the payment of old age pensions would now be expedited because the old age pension committees were to be abolished. I should like to know from the Minister if there is any evidence that is happening. Most pensioners who come to me with problems tell me that they must wait a long time for a decision to be taken in respect of their old age pension. They do not now have an opportunity of seeing the social welfare officer to discuss their claims. It is regrettable that the social welfare officers are now so busy they do not have time to talk to a pensioner about his or her claim. Because of the publicity about attacks on the elderly I am glad that many old age pensioners have put some of their moneys into savings accounts with lending institutions. I would hope that the Minister for Social Welfare would intervene with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to allow greater interest rate limits in respect of such savings.

The prescribed relative allowance is related closely to the old age pension. A review of this scheme is warranted. I would hope that its outcome would benefit more pensioners. As that scheme operates at present it appears that many pensioners lose benefit because they may have a son or daughter looking after the farm and they are not regarded as a suitable prescribed relative. The merits of the prescribed relative allowance are that people are looked after in their homes, thereby minimising the amount of hospitalisation. I hope that review will be a positive one.

I also mentioned fraud in the social welfare system and I am disappointed that the hardships endured are not highlighted in the same way as fraud in which organised criminals are involved. One reason why the Minister could not give the precise amount drawn unlawfully is that we have only 30 officers in the whole country investigating incidents of fraud. That is not sufficient to deal with the problem. The Minister said in the House yesterday that he estimated there was something in the region of a sum of £6.4 million saved in unemployment payments because of interviews conducted by the Department which resulted in people signing themselves off the register. We welcome any investigations, especially in regard to unscrupulous employers which were referred to, which will wipe out fraud but we are forgetting the hardships endured by many people who are signing themselves off the register because they are so frustrated at the long delays in having their claims and appeals dealt with. Let us have no more nonsense about this. More officers must be appointed to deal with allegations of fraud which would result in appeals being dealt with much more quickly.

Young people in particular have to wait for a considerable length of time to have their claims dealt with. When the young person is living at home, the means test is too rigid. Perhaps the Department feel that school leavers will get jobs but they should be realistic about their chances of finding employment. Some Deputies said that the figure of 234,000 unemployed is not accurate. I suggest that it is much higher as many people do not sign on because their claims have been disallowed and they are not included in the figures. Married women especially have great difficulty in having their claims dealt with even when they clearly state that they have someone to look after their children and that they are available for work. They are questioned time and time again about their application and may, with difficulty, receive benefits.

What the Department refer to as people of no fixed abode are discriminated against although they do not receive much publicity. In my constituency, they are referred to as the travelling people living in caravans or tents and who, because of Department regulations, have to go to a particular exchange on a certain day of the week to sign on for their social welfare entitlements. These people often have to travel 20 miles or more to an exchange and I cannot see why they should not be allowed to sign on like everybody else at the local Garda station. I ask the Minister to end this discrimination because there is considerable hardship involved in very cold weather.

We should be talking about the social welfare appeals system because smallholders have to wait many months to have their claims dealt with. The Minister told us two years ago that there were over 14,000 farmers to be investigated and I understand that appeals have been decided for 9,000 of them. However, I received a reply today from the Department of Social Welfare stating that there are still 6,876 farmers who got no increase in payment of unemployment assistance or whose payments were reduced or terminated.

There is very little information given when a claim is refused by the Department of Social Welfare and yet one is expected to state in writing on an official form the grounds on which one wishes to appeal. How can you answer a case against you if you do not know what the case is? The claimant is not given details of the decision on appeal; he or she is merely told if it is favourable or not favourable. Naturally, people feel that the appeals officer will always uphold the deciding officer's decision in each case. The appeals officer can decide on the basis of the deciding officer's report and, even on the rare occasions when an oral hearing is granted, the deciding officer does not even have to attend. It is difficult to see the appeals officer as an independent adjudicator between the claimant and the Department.

There have been many complaints about lost certificates in relation to disability benefit and we must ask whether an appeals officer with no medical background is a suitable person to deal with these claims. When an appeals officer has conflicting reports from the applicant's doctor and the medical referee, what does he do in those circumstances? I imagine he would lean towards the Department's evidence. I cannot understand why part of the administration of the Department of Social Welfare should not be taken out of Dublin. At present there is a merry-go-round whereby people apply to local exchanges, forms are sent to regional offices and eventually to Dublin. After a long process, they come back to the local exchange. Why not have an appeals officer in Galway, for example, which is the largest county in the western region? If the Government had gone ahead with the decentralisation programme, there would be more sanity in the social welfare system. I hope the Minister of State will be able to put pressure on the Minister to have appeals dealt with more quickly than at present.

Mr. Donnellan

We hope to make arrangements in this regard shortly; 30,000 small holders on the western seaboard have asked to be reassessed and they can now apply for an oral hearing.

Mr. Kitt

I am grateful for that information. I hope that the family income supplement scheme will be improved. The progress report on social welfare mentioned giving it more publicity but, with all due respect, more is needed. I am glad that the amounts are raised in the Bill but the scheme should be extended to the unemployed. There is hardship on families where the bread winner loses a job and it would not take any great ingenuity on the part of the Minister to improve and extend the scheme. I understand that originally the scheme was intended to operate for only 12 months but I hope it can be continued next year.

In the past number of years there have been many innovations in the form of new schemes in the social welfare system. One thinks particularly of those introduced by Fianna Fáil Governments such as the free fuel, free electricity and free travel schemes. I am disappointed that none of those schemes is being extended by way of this Bill. I was interested to hear Dr. Solan of the Western Health Board speak recently about these schemes. He made an interesting point in regard to certain parts of the country — namely, isolated areas — where the free travel scheme may not be of much benefit. He suggested that in those cases it would be preferable that the Department increase the pension instead of providing free transport which might never be availed of. I trust the Minister will keep this in mind in any review of the scheme. There are anomalies in the social welfare system that should be removed.

The Government should be concentrating more on improving the economy and creating jobs in order to bring about a reduction in the numbers unemployed and thereby reducing the numbers requiring social welfare payments. This in turn would bring about a reduction in the many problems in the administration of the social welfare system.

I should like to have more details on the social welfare employment scheme. I note from the information booklet supplied to us that local authorities will be the biggest sponsors of the scheme but many of these bodies are in financial difficulties so they will need to know what will be the cost of operating the scheme. One can only hope that the scheme will be successful and that even more than the anticipated 10,000 jobs will be provided as a result of it.

There are problems regarding consistency in assessing entitlement to social welfare payments and in the levels of assistance to be paid. This is one of the main complaints brought to our attention. Obviously, if a person who has been refused a certain benefit or assistance learns that another in the same circumstances has got payment, he will ask questions. There should be standardisation in these matters so as to prevent anomalies from arising. I have always been amazed that health boards, after applying a means test to an applicant for a social welfare payment, can arrive at a level of payment that is totally different from that recommended by the social welfare officer. Surely a person who is in receipt of old age pension, for example, should be entitled automatically to a medical card, but that is not always the case. This is one example of where standardisation is necessary.

In 1984 there have been many factory closures, especially in the Cork area, and there have been complaints that the redundancy payments have been used very unfairly in assessing people for social welfare benefits. We have heard of people who have been out of work for more than a year and who suffer some hardship when their social welfare payments are reduced. The Minister should investigate such areas and endeavour to have a fair method of assessment.

Both the IFA and the ICMSA have made a strong application to the Department for help for farmers who find themselves in financial difficulty because of their herds being locked up as a result of an outbreak of disease, especially bovine TB. It has been suggested that some type of supplementary social welfare payment might be paid in such circumstances. I would support that case because of the hardship suffered by farmers while their herds are locked up.

The supplementary welfare scheme, as it applies in the Western Health Board area is not financed equitably vis-à-vis the manner in which other health boards are treated. Special allocations should be made to help people who are experiencing difficulty.

Mr. Keating

I doubt if anyone here would seriously oppose this measure which seeks to implement the budgetary provisions in the area of social welfare. The sheer scale of the problem is extraordinary, but the Bill is designed to try to ensure that those in the social welfare categories do not fall further behind in living standards. I prefer to deal with the Bill in the context of its being a symptom of some deeper problem with which perhaps we should deal at some stage. First, we should remind ourselves of the enormity of the difficulties being experienced. This can be gauged from the figures in respect of social welfare. For instance, each day of the year about £6 million is spent on social welfare, while there are about 1.4 million people, or some 30 per cent of the population, in receipt of some form of social welfare benefit. Expended in that way is 25 per cent of gross current expenditure or 15 per cent of GNP. Between 1974 and 1984 there was an increase of about 30 per cent in the number of people in that unfortunate category. This presents an enormous challenge to our economy and to our society. Any attempt to try to help those in need must have the approval of all sides of the House. However, the problem is not as simple as that. The scale of social welfare expenditure is a very potent reminder of the level of poverty in our community. That is not to say that one should accept glibly the figures presented as an indicator of the real level of poverty or deprivation, but they are a barometer in this respect. If one considers what is happening in society one must realise that the whole area must be dealt with on two levels.

As in the case of his predecessors, the Minister seeks to deal with the Bill compassionately to the extent that resources permit in trying to ensure the people depending on social welfare receive at least enough to enable them sustain life. But in many cases those subsistence levels are extremely low. In some cases people are expected to live on weekly incomes that would not buy them a good pair of shoes. It is not easy to overturn that situation suddenly, but it is the reality. Sometimes we hear people who are outside the social welfare categories speak glibly about those out of work being better off than those who are employed. I do not know of anyone in this House, for instance, who would volunteer to give up his job and live on social welfare payments.

I appeal to those who might take the line that one is better off unemployed not to engage in that type of propaganda but instead to make an effort to meet with those who are depending on social welfare payments. Then, they would soon realise that, in terms of human dignity and potential, it is a tragic situation to be unemployed. In most cases the unemployed are people who had set out with a desire to live useful lives but who through no fault of their own became dependent on social welfare, finishing up at a level of poverty and disadvantage which is debilitating them in every way.

The document produced by the Department of Social Welfare entitled Statistical Information on Social Welfare Services, the most recent edition of which is 1983, is an interesting and graphic indicator of the sheer burden this area of expenditure places on the State. This is obvious when one sees that there are 1,189,530 people in insured categories in receipt of various kinds of benefit and that there are 283,516 people with old age, retirement or blind persons' pensions. There is a whole litany of people of various categories all of whom are living at a standard far inferior to what any of us would want for them. We should remind ourselves regularly that those who sometimes influence or shape public opinion live at standards that are far in excess of these categories. Sometimes we do not take into account the real tragedy of the statistics because we can be overcome by the sheer statistical data and not realise that every unit can mask a human tragedy. Despite the new-found affluence that apparently abounds at present, there is also an enormous poverty problem. The Bill deals with that at one level. I should like to quote from a book entitled One Million Poor edited by Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and which contains an article by Tony Brown. It states, inter alia:

For those who believe that poverty is a function of inequality and that inequality is an inherent part of the socio-economic system inherited by the modern nations of Europe, the battle against poverty must take on a two-fold aspect — with the firm understanding that the two elements are closely linked and that one without the other must be futile. The battle must be fought to alleviate the affects of poverty and to bring about the changes in structures essential to the elimination of the scourge of poverty. Only in the context of a commitment to the long term goal of elimination can even the most enlightened and far-reaching programme of alleviation through the social services and income-maintenance be of any real service. That is the lesson of the welfare state experience of the past thirty years and it is only being learned with the greatest reluctance.

The programme of alleviation of poverty which is the kernel of the Bill deals with the planned application of resources to a wide range of social welfare schemes. However, the one that concerns me, and which I ask the Minister to consider, is the more fundamental one, namely, the need for a systematic programme for the elimination of the fundamental structural problems that give rise to the symptom contained in the horrifying figure of £6 million every day that goes to assist people in the social welfare categories. That is the real challenge, and the ultimate test of our political system will be if it can cope with it. If the system cannot cope it will be overcome. The ultimate test of our quality as a society will be whether we have sufficient compassion and willingness to give to ensure a systematic redistribution of resources to those in need. That will mean stresses and strains. I am not convinced the present political system is capable of delivering that service because it will have to take from those who usually underpin the political system.

The increases proposed in the Bill will help to sustain people against the rising tide of inflation and prices but they will not alter anything fundamentally and are not designed to do that. At some stage there should be a fundamental re-assessment of the basic reasons why such levels of the various social welfare benefits arise. In my view the Bill deals competently with the first level of that two-tier challenge which is to keep people at least slightly above the subsistance level. However, that is not really what Parliament should be about and it is not what the job of leadership and government is about. It is ultimately about changing the shape of society so that we do not have to consign people to some kind of wastebin of subsistence. That is the ultimate goal. There is no great merit or thanks due to anybody for continually topping up schemes simply to allow people to keep body and soul together. I hope that does not sound churlish or ungracious but that is the reality. That is the easy part. The hard bit is when one decides that large sections of the population should not have to put up with what they are being asked to accept at the moment.

There is no question but that there are limitations here and there are difficulties facing a Government which we must accept. In an article by J.C. Kincaid entitled "Poverty and Equality in Britain" he outlined the reality that poverty will always be with us. He said:

So long as society is organised on a deeply competitive basis, it appears as indispensable that social failure should exist for individuals as a visible and possible fate. Poverty is such a fate, just as mental illness is another. Poverty cannot be considered as a residual, historically determined defect of an otherwise fair society but as an integral element that helps to support competitive social order. It follows, therefore, that proposals to reduce poverty often involve very much more than technical and administrative problems. They tend rather to raise issues of principle about the whole structure of society.

In its own way the Bill points to the fundamental problem. I do not necessarily accept Mr. Kincaid's analysis of poverty as a healthy feature of an organised competitive society, the extension of which would be that a large grouping of permanently unemployed people would be good for market place conditions. It is a feature Governments have to confront and we have to recognise that difficulty.

If we are even to begin a structural assault on poverty we have to be realistic. We have to accept that the present parliamentary and party system is competitive in its own way. Irrespective of whatever party are there, one always gets calls for more expenditure from the opposite side of the House, for more people to be employed and for higher social welfare benefits. When the need for structural change is about taking from many of those who support the administration in power and when it is clear that it may remove from office those responsible for introducing such an initiative, it cannot be denied that is a major challenge and I cannot see it being dealt with very easily. However, I have three suggestions to make in this regard.

This is one area where the somewhat tarnished image of Parliament in the eyes of people as a place that is not relevant and responsive could triumph. Is it not conceivable that all parties here could decide to create a demilitarised zone within which the problem of poverty could be dealt with effectively, to set up if necessary a parliamentary committee and to try to ensure that there is a pact between the parties? This would mean that we agree poverty is a fundamental problem which can only be dealt with in a structural way and that we should rule out of order an electoral approach to the problem of poverty, which is simply that we are going to spend more money than the other party on certain people. I do not know if to suggest such a pact is naive but if we could somehow defuse the problem of poverty we might begin to deal with the long and tedious problem of redistribution of resources. This is a major challenge for each of us, but especially for the hierarchy in our respective parties. May I respectfully suggest that such a dialogue might take place so that we might begin to change things fundamentally?

I note that in the budget there is money available for further research by a combat poverty group. I wish them every success in their work and I know that individual schemes run by combat poverty agencies have been successful, although everyone has not perceived it in that way. My view is that they have contributed a net gain to the problems they were dealing with but I do not believe there is any need for new research. There is a library of material on the problems of and reasons for poverty and there is a library of human experience which testifies to it. What is necessary now is a sense of realism and a capacity to accept that the present structures may not allow us, because of our party political nature, to deal with these problems in an infrastructural or structural way and the realignment of those structures in order to cope. I need to be convinced that there is need for further research or enlightenment in that respect.

My next suggestion was made by previous speakers and also in a publication by the Institute for Public Administration, written by John D. Roche, called Poverty and Income Maintenance Policies in Ireland, 1973-80. On page 237 it was suggested that further research be undertaken to develop a minimum income on the lines outlined in order to establish a basic amount of income related to personal and family needs as a guideline to income maintenance policy for combating financial poverty. What I am suggesting is that if the capitalist system means that poverty will be always there as a natural outgrowth of the way the marketplace operates, then perhaps the kind of target for the discussion groups I suggested earlier could be a minimum wage. It would be commonly agreed that there are minimal standards to which everybody is entitled and that nothing should stand in their way, even if that means telling people at the top of the scale, people in this House or even our best supporters, that we are very sorry but for the next five years their situation will be worsened because there are other people who are part of a cycle and culture of poverty in parts of our cities, especially young people, who do not have any hope and who believe that nobody in this House cares whether things change for them or not. Some consideration along the lines of minimum standards and wages would be appropriate for these discussion groups.

We have risen to the challenge in relation to people in employment. We have introduced minimum conditions for people in jobs and in other areas and we are very good at introducing regulatory Bills, but the one area in which we do not seem to be concerned is in the area of poverty, people on the breadline and those on the lower end of the social welfare scale. We throw them a few bob and hope everything works out. I represent a constituency which has a higher than average number in that category and I want to tell them that we have come to the stage at which people are not just being stripped of financial and material wellbeing, but are also losing a sense of hope and purpose as well as a sense of their own dignity. This is particularly true among young people and we are seeing the result of that. They believe that any thrill, any excitement or any vicarious outlet for experimentation is better than a humdrum existence at the end of which there seems to be no hope and no reason to go on.

The assertions of certain figures in the Bill tell us a lot about the way we think. This is not essentially a fiscal document, it is philosophic in its core. It tells us the order of priorities. It tells us what is most important, what is important and what is least important, but I am not convinced that we have ever reassessed the whole area of social welfare expenditure to ascertain if we should be spending more money in some categories and less in others.

I will give two examples of the way we could use our resources better but I am not suggesting these are a definite point of view. I think it is ludicrous that I get children's allowances.

Mrs. Barnes

The Deputy's wife gets the children's allowances.

Mr. Keating

Hear me out and the Deputy will understand the point I am making. If the wives unfortunately have to be sustained by children's allowances that in itself is a problem but the problem may not necessarily be dealt with exclusively, or even at its best by sustaining a system which might be an improvement because it would ensure that those who needed the money got more and those who did not need it did not get it. That is one suggestion. I also suggested some years ago that unemployed people might be helped if we allowed them free transport at certain times so that they could attend interviews. Transport fares are a great impediment for people who are trying to get to interviews. A simplistic, blinkered approach would not see that as an option to helping the unemployed; they would see it simply as a question of how much money one gives in unemployment assistance.

If we look at the tome issued by the Department giving statistical information of social welfare services we see the incredible amount of money being spent on this Department. There is a case to be made for this money to be reassessed to see if we can do better and give more to those who need most and ensure that the wanton abuse stops. I want to make a suggestion which might sound draconian, but if we are serious about this then we should consider the possibility of introducing mandatory jail sentences for people who steal from others, which is what social welfare fraud is. We should not subscribe to the hypocritical theory which applies in this country that if you can get away with it is all right. This is theft and the reason why these limits are relatively low is that there is not enough money to go round. Yet we all know of numerous cases of people who are engaged in fraud, day in and day out. We hear of the odd case coming up in court, but if we are serious about this we could introduce this very effective deterrent. If people realised they could suffer such tough action if caught, there would be an immediate cessation of abuse by many people at present engaged in fraud. I do not think we should be distracted by this question of fraud. It is highlighted up and down the country and is doing a great disservice to many people who have to live off social welfare, the majority of whom are very decent and honourable and would prefer not to be dependent on social welfare.

I welcome the Bill but hope that at some stage in this House we will have a series of measures which will try to point towards a structured assault on the basic problem of poverty in our society, which is the real challenge and which these figures in a way mask. If we keep topping up the figures and keep people subsidised to a certain limit, to the extent that most of them are not hungry or are reasonably able to get by, it will help to keep the problem at day.

We have enormous problems. If we develop the projection on social welfare expenditure over the next four or five years there are staggering implications and it is an enormous challenge to society. The Government of the day are the people who must make the running and the only way to do that is to take a deep breath, grit one's teeth and decide that at long last we will make that sustained assault on ingrained structured predictable poverty in society. That assault has not happened to date though many Members of this House in positions of authority have promised such an approach. On behalf of the kids in my constituency I emphasise that their time is now. We understandably got into an hysterical debate about crime but there is no alternative and there will be no alternative except a crimeridden degenerating urban society unless we tackle the root problems in a genuine positive way. I would suggest some sort of inter-party pact to begin that process rather than our pulling political strokes coming up to elections, pretending that each of us has a monopoly on wisdom when we know that all that each of us has is a corner of truth and a little wisdom. We should put that problem right in the forefront as there is nothing more crucial or fundamental than the stability and wellbeing of our society.

Mr. V. Brady

I have listened to Deputy Keating with a certain interest. As a former constituency colleague of Deputy Keating I have always found his contributions rather stimulating though a bit hard-hitting at times. Nevertheless I know Deputy Keating well enough to accept that his contribution is normally made in a genuine spirit and that he is well meaning and so on. I imagine that all Deputies in this House share his views. We are all seriously concerned about the plight of many people living on social welfare benefits.

During the past few years it appears that the policies being pursued by this Government have reduced the living standards of people on social welfare benefits. The situation has been going downwards, particularly during the last two years. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the less well-off sections are reasonably well looked after. I do not intend to cite individual social welfare cases. Nonetheless the Minister must be aware of the consequences of the harsh decisions on the old, the weak and the defenceless. These decisions are imposed, I have no doubt, on the direct instruction of the Minister's office. They have caused countless problems for thousands of people. For example a non-contributory old age pensioner has to go before what is almost like a grand jury and have every detail of his life examined. It is wrong to subject people who have been thrifty during their working lifetimes and who have saved for their retirement, in the post office, the bank or building society, when they come to retirement age, to disqualification from a non-contributory pension and not to qualify for a contributory pension, simply because they have some savings. In the case of a widow whose husband may not have paid sufficient contributions through to fault of his own, when the State should be giving her some comfort she finds that her application for non-contributory widow's pension is turned down because of some savings or because he contributed to a pension scheme which will give her a small pension from a private source not sufficient to live on. The social welfare officer will consider that her income is above the qualifying limit. This is a wrong situation and it should be remedied by the Government. Unfortunately too many people are finding themselves in those circumstances. It is happening more and more at the moment because many workers are retiring who have not sufficient contributions to meet their requirements. During the sixties and early seventies many people were not covered to contribute to the social welfare system because their income was in excess of a limit set at that time. Unfortunately they went through a number of years in employment not making contributions through no fault of their own. I have discovered from a large number of representations in such cases that at no time were these people advised by the Department that if they did not continue contributions on a voluntary basis they would not qualify for pensions on retirement or for any other benefits upon reaching the age of 66.

The social welfare system has been standing still during the past number of years. In fact it has been going backwards. Every year should see a further progression in the streamlining of social welfare policies geared to meet the requirements of the years ahead. We are falling behind our European partners in this regard. The Government despite many promises have so far failed to introduce any national pension scheme which would apply not only to those employed but to the self-employed. This is very necessary. In all the EC countries except Ireland there is a national pension scheme covering the whole population for basic pensions and there is a second level of income or earnings-related pension scheme provided under the social security system. In other European countries the generally accepted retirement age is 65 although in France and Italy it is as low as 60. Most countries also have provision for flexibility in pensionable age by allowing pensions to be drawn earlier than the normal age or to be deferred for a period beyond pensionable age. This type of facility affords the individual some choice concerning the date of retirement and also contributes to creating employment for younger people. There is a bonus for a person retiring early but wishing to defer payment of the pension to a later age. In the UK in those circumstances the pension is increased by 7½ per cent for each year of deferment. Another aspect of the social welfare system in European countries is the fact that there is no single policy governing retirement conditions which would discourage those seeking pensions from undertaking further remunerative work after their official retirement.

In my view that type of situation should be allowed only where there is full employment, and in the present climate here and in the foreseeable future I cannot see this arising. In the past ten years, for example, the real value of social welfare benefits have increased. It will be recalled that Fianna Fáil Governments were most sincere in granting increases of up to 25 per cent in three successive years. That was a contribution which in real terms raised the standards of living of those in receipt of benefits.

Unfortunately, however, that has been eroded particularly in the past three years. Both the Ministers for Finance and Social Welfare are responsible because the increases given were not sufficient to cushion welfare recipients from price increases and the general increase in the cost of living. In their document the Government pledged that overall Exchequer provision for social welfare in the following three years would be increased by 25 per cent on the 1984 figures. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that inflation will be much higher than 25 per cent between 1984 and 1987. The document was published in October last and it brings us up to 1987, a four year period.

The Social Welfare Estimate for this year was prepared when we had 215,000 unemployed. Within two months unemployment increased by almost 19,000 to the present figure of 234,000. In his budget speech the Minister for Finance indicated that there would be a saving of £7.3 million on social welfare, and it is now very clear that the Minister for Social Welfare will be faced with real difficulties. He will have to make the harsh decision to cut back even further in more drastic fashion than he has done so far or he will have to persuade the Minister for Finance to bring in a mini budget later in the year solely to cover social welfare for 1985.

The indicators at present do not augur very well for the prospects of an improvement in the unemployment figures between now and the end of December. Therefore it becomes obvious that the Minister will be faced with the difficulties I have spoken about — the alternative of cutting back or of introducing a mini-budget. We have had so many cutbacks in the past couple of years that it is hard to imagine there is any room for manoeuvre.

Already the Minister for Social Welfare is sitting on the EC equality directive in regard to social welfare. According to figures produced by the Department that will cost the Exchequer a further £17.5 million. Of course, the reason the Minister is sitting on the directive is a shortage of funds, and legislation along the lines of the directive would worsen an already bad situation. I am sure Deputy Barnes will be very interested in this. The sooner the Minister comes to the House with his plan in regard to this document the better. He will be only facing up to the promises he gave to many associations.

We face a real crisis later this year in regard to social welfare. One can only shudder at the thought and the consequences of unemployment continuing at its present level. There is no evidence to suggest that this will not be the case. Economic circumstances here will lead to many more enforced redundancies and older workers unable to compete with the increasing skills of younger workers will suffer disproportionately. Many employers have encouraged early retirement through various incentives in order to reduce the size of the work force. Such voluntary redundancies have increased the number of the younger elderly workers who have retired — I mean those in their forties and fifties.

Though there has been a noticeable decline in the proportion of elderly workers in the work force here, our rate still remains far higher than in the EC as a whole. In an interesting survey on the incomes of the elderly in Ireland recently it was noted that in 1980 29.6 per cent of men and 5.1 per cent of women aged 65 and older were still in the labour force here. In other EC countries the percentages were as low as 8.6 and 2.8 respectively. The vast bulk of the elderly employed here are in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries with a few other areas.

One of the sad features of our unemployment figures is the huge percentage of persons aged 40 years who have been made redundant through no fault of their own. In the present economic climate we must admit that their chances of finding alternative employment are very slim. That points to the huge numbers of younger people — I refer to people in their thirties, forties and early fifties — who have become disemployed. None of these has much hope of ever being employed. They will become a burden on the State through no fault of their own. All Deputies have people coming to their clinics, comparatively young men, who have lost their jobs. Nowadays one is too old to obtain alternative employment at 40 years. There is very little hope nowadays for a man with a young family and a mortgage. Living standards of social welfare recipients are very low. In many cases they are well below the poverty line because they have had to bear the sacrifices imposed by the Government in the past three years. Increased prices, for example, and many other aspects of everyday life cost everybody more money. While those in employment may grumble and complain, at least they have jobs although their financial circumstances are becoming increasingly difficult. But those difficulties also affect the unemployed man or woman far more seriously and detrimentally.

A national plan must be prepared including a definite commitment to continue to increase living standards, particularly for our pensioners, those who are ill and unable to work and the handicapped. That plan must provide for the extension of social insurance to the self-employed. This would ensure that self-employed persons would contribute fairly to the financing of the social welfare system. In our economy we must be determined to eliminate poverty where it exists and also to ensure that we do not penalise our old age pensioners and those in retirement who have contributed handsomely to the State's finances and to the economy over the years during their working lifetime. An old age or retirement pension, particularly that of a person who has contributed during a working lifetime, should be tax free and should not be part of any assessment if the recipient has another income by way of a small pension from a private fund or from a previous employer.

The increase granted this year by the Minister to social welfare recipients is derisory and all the more pathetic in the light of the fact that it will not come into effect until July next. In the meantime our old age pensioners, widows, unemployed, disabled and all the weaker sections of our community are penalised even further following the various increases imposed in the budget on VAT, fuel prices, lighting, gas, clothing, footwear, rents and accommodation. To meet these increases many of these people will have to eat less and will sink even deeper into poverty. Already literally thousands of families and people living alone would consider it a treat to have even one small piece of meat once a week. To be able to put meat on the table once a week is a luxury to many people today. That is a dreadful indictment of society in 1985. These people are living on tea, bread and butter as their staple diet. It is a tragedy that the Ireland of 1985, following the tremendous growth and real prosperity of the sixties and seventies, has reached the stage where a large percentage of our population struggle to exist from day to day.

The policies pursued by this Government must be seen for what they are. Not since the fifties has this country endured so much poverty as we have today. There is a feeling of hopelessness. It is shocking that any Minister, particularly a Labour Minister, should continue to pursue such policies that have caused such misery and hardship to all our people on a scale not experienced here since the war. It is time for the Minister to be at least honest with himself and the country and to admit that he and his Government have been an utter failure.

This Bill before us only reflects the miserable pittance of increases granted in this year's budget. It is a shame and a tragedy that the weaker sections of our community should be treated so shabbily. It is time that the Minister for Health and Social Welfare and his partisan Government decided that now is the time to go before the people. Instead they are bringing in this type of Social Welfare Bill to the detriment of the situation of the less well off.

We will have other opportunities of discussing the Social Welfare Bill in this House. We are finishing Second Stage today. Many Deputies are anxious to get in on this debate, but unfortunately many of them will be unsuccessful because of the time limit. I had intended to make a few brief comments. I believe that every Deputy, irrespective of what side of the House he or she may sit on, should ask himself or herself if we are doing enough for the poor and the less well off. We on this side know that we are not. It is time for the Government to be honest and admit to that and make some effort to do something about it.

Mrs. Barnes

We have problems, one of them as a result of the dramatic increase in our population. The Minister when introducing Second Stage told the House that about 41 per cent of our total population are in the dependent age groups, that is, either under 15 years or over 65 years, and that about 35 per cent are dependent on social welfare payments of various kinds. The problem that confronts us is almost unique in that it is not to be challenged in quite the same way as in other member states of the EC and other western democracies. Therefore, we have all the more reason to be creative and imaginative in our handling of the money we are expending on social welfare, the amount of which is considerable. Ten years ago 10 per cent of GNP was devoted to social welfare, but in 1985 that figure will approach 15 per cent. How we handle that money and how we as legislators and taxpayers perceive, not alone its allocations in the fairest way but the recipients of social welfare, is important.

There are two principal areas we must look at. I welcome the fact that the Minister increased social welfare payments across the board. We are extremely conscious that, although these payments are ahead of the expected inflation rate, they are not what we want. We are conscious that a great number of people living on social welfare payments are living barely above the poverty line. Those of us who strive for a just society must constantly seek to increase those payments so that people will not be caught up in a relentless, joyless cycle of knowing that they can only survive without ever having the luxuries or perks which people, particularly in higher income brackets, enjoy. This must be the thrust of our social welfare policy.

We must look at how our social welfare payments came about in the first place. They were introduced at a time when it was recognised that there was a male head of the household and that everyone else, women and children, within the family unit were dependants. As certain sections of the community became more vulnerable or vocal and were able to ask for special consideration — I am thinking of deserted wives, prisoners' wives and unmarried mothers — they were tacked on in a patchwork fashion without the central foundation ever being examined. When we, as legislators, talk about social welfare we must realise that when the system was set up we lived in a different society with different values and a far greater sense of accepting injustice. One of the things that makes me optimistic today is that we know that everything is not perfect and we know of the deprivation and suffering of people in society. We are conscious that we should be doing something about it.

In the forties, fifties and sixties it was considered that the poor would be always with us and that God would help them. We did not seem to have any social policy or social responsibility of distributing wealth. We did not ensure that they lived on anything other than a pittance. Unfortunately, that feeling still prevails in some sections of the community, but it is fast disappearing as more and more middle income groups depend on social welfare payments as a result of redundancy. There was an innate feeling that to be poor was one's own fault and that if they had only made the same attempt at improving themselves as everyone else did they would not be dependent on the State. A great sense of guilt was passed on to those who were recipients of social welfare.

In his speech the Minister addressed himself to the selfishness and lack of justice of those who would defraud a system that desperately needs all the assets it has to give to the more deprived. In saying that I am conscious that we should not in any way add to the guilt or the feeling of humiliation felt by those who are entitled to receive social welfare payments. We are only addressing ourselves to those who set out consciously to defraud.

Sometimes when we talk about spongers and social welfare recipients we tend to focus only on people who defraud the system. We do not focus on, to quote the Minister, the fact that:

Abuse also occurs where employers fail to pay or delay in paying insurance contributions in respect of their employees. The practice of some employers of avoiding or holding off remittances of PRSI for as long as possible is simply not acceptable — arrears outstanding at 31 May 1984 amounted to some £58 million which represented only actual underpayments established and does not include demands made on the basis of amounts estimated to be due.

We must keep in mind the fact that the figure of £58 million is not the full figure and that there is responsibility on that section of society to ensure that they do not seek to defraud a system which, in the last analysis, harms our most vulnerable and poorest section. In that context I hope to welcome into the House shortly the Companies Bill, which will deal with fly by night companies and firms which would do a disservice to their employees in that way.

It is not realised that until relatively recently we did not analyse poverty or the lines of poverty above or below which people were living. Deputy Brady said he was talking about poverty now as compared with poverty after the war in the fifties. We ensure that people have a support system now which they did not have then, particularly groups like widows, unmarried mothers, prisoners and deserted wives. They could sink or swim, but did not get any payment from the State.

We are going through serious times with high unemployment. Hopefully that is bottoming out and we are beginning to recover. According to the latest OECD listing we are the twenty-second richest country. If we cannot look after our poor and unemployed what level of poverty are other countries surviving? We cannot skate forever around the fact that we are a poverty stricken country. It is a matter of political will and it is demanded of us that we distribute our wealth more fairly than we do at present.

In other countries they are looking at ways of removing the kind of dependency which is built into the social welfare system. We should be examining the concept of a basic family income for every family regardless of whether they are employed in gainful employment, which is leaving out all the unpaid, underpaid, and voluntary work done in this and in every other country. We should cut out all the bureaucracy — our patchwork system is an incredibly wasteful and ineffectual way of using money — and create a basic family income through a central computer system. There is a research group in Britain examining this. They are called the Basic Family Income Group and hope to report soon. Young Fine Gael have put this forward in their latest document as the only fair and just way to remove the unfairness and concept of dependency from social welfare.

We must be open to ideas. All our structures have changed and we have a more just concept of people's rights and entitlements. There are no longer handouts. We are moving towards the year 2000, with technology overwhelming us every day. We know from today's technical experts that our work structures will be such that we will be working far shorter hours. We will have to have some concept of job sharing. We will be working more from the home. People will be working through computers from their own homes into central computers. People may be retiring earlier. The old constraints and rigidities of the social welfare system, which never answered our problems fully, will be totally outdated. This is one of the big challenges facing us. With full imagination and full openness we should take on a complete restructuring of the social welfare system.

I come now to one to one of my pet claims on behalf of the parent in the home, but particularly the mother. Quite sincerely and with great honesty people ask why should higher income families be paid children's allowances in exactly the same way as lower income families or families with almost no income. That is a perception of people who did not have the experience of being parents in the home, rearing children and being totally unacknowledged and undervalued for doing what is glibly called the most important job in the world. I have been part of that experience.

Because this world, rightly or wrongly, is based on an economic value being placed on people and their work, and their status being measured on that economic value, women in the home, and particularly mothers rearing children while innately realising how important their work is, feel very disillusioned and very cynical about the fact that it is not recognised by anybody else. We cannot know the internal problems or relationships between a husband and wife in the home. From talking to people I know the parent in the home must depend totally on the goodwill and generosity and the sharing of the income of the breadwinner. Having regard to the frailty of relationships, no wife is guaranteed a rightful share of the family income to run the house. Of course we must consider that higher income groups should not be paid at the same level out of the small kitty we have. We must not underestimate or undervalue even the small payment we make to the parent in the home because that is the only economic value put on that work.

I very much welcome the child benefit scheme which is to be introduced next year. All the patchwork bits of family income supplement and assistance will be centralised and paid directly for each child to the parent in the home. There will be a clawback from the higher income groups who are paying high tax. That is the fair and rightful way to do it. It will go part of the way to give some economic acknowledgement to the parent in the home and give them a psychological sense of independence. It will be a much increased sum from next year onwards.

I regret that we have not got a Social Welfare Bill which concentrates on ensuring equal treatment in social security for women. I look forward to such a Bill being introduced at a very early stage. In 1978 it was signalled to all of us by the EC that we should prepare to remove discrimination against women in social security. No side of the House is blameless in this matter. We created a social welfare code discriminatory against women. This year over £17 million would be needed to give them equality in social security. It will cost us that much to begin to provide equality. How many millions do we owe the women who paid their contributions over the years and did not get their full share in benefit? Because of the interdependence we wrote into our social welfare code, if we introduced it immediately, social welfare families living on allowances could find themselves living on less than they have now. I look forward to the Minister telling us soon that he has been able to cope with that problem. Equality of treatment has been due to women by law since 22 December last and I hope it will be implemented quickly.

I recognise the stringencies and constraints which did not permit full dental and ophthalmic treatment to be extended to all women in the home. I welcome its introduction for pregnant women but I expect that is for this year only. I and others in this House will continue to fight right down the line for its extension to the wives of all insured workers who have given up their own economic independence and social welfare entitlements in order to do work in the home for which they are given so little economic recompense in other areas. I have already put down a marker for the Minister for Finance in his 1986 Budget.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I should like to remind the Deputy that two or three other speakers are offering and the debate must conclude at 6.40 p.m. I should like to get in as many speakers as possible.

Mrs. Barnes

I will conclude now. A national pensions scheme will be introduced. I appeal for it to be imaginative, innovative, index-linked, allowing people to leave the workforce for a while, coming back in, without losing their full entitlement. The national pensions scheme should be of a flexible nature in order to meet the demands of the worker of the future. I look forward to its introduction.

Mr. Hyland

I thank Deputy Barnes for having curtailed her contribution to allow other Members an opportunity of contributing.

This Bill gives effect to the social welfare increases announced by the Minister in his recent budget. For the third consecutive budget we have seen the real income of those dependent on State support under the various social welfare headings decline in real terms. By a succession of repressive social welfare decisions the Minister has succeeded in widening the gap between the rich and the poor, with now a greater percentage of our population than ever before below the poverty line. Indeed, I was pleased to hear Deputy Barnes, in her thoughtful contribution, acknowledge that fact. The Minister must be aware of this and, if he is not, then he should open his eyes and ears to the views of organisations such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Simon Community and of those people who operate the various social councils under the health boards.

The 6 per cent increase announced in the budget does not come into effect until July next. In effect this constitutes a 3 per cent increase over the whole year 1985 when one takes into account an approximate inflation rate of 9 per cent. This, in turn, means that social welfare recipients are being asked to accept a reduction in their social welfare benefits. The social conscience of a Government is judged by how they treat the old, the unemployed and those who, through illness and injury, are unable to cater for their needs. It is a shame that the Minister for Finance has been so successful in extending his monetarist views into such a sensitive and deserving area of our economy.

Apart from the concern expressed by many Members of this House at the Social Welfare increases announced in the budget, the House must be even more concerned at their administration, the lengthy delays in dealing with claims, the disgraceful delays occasioned in the processing of appeals, the almost automatic ritual with which so many unemployment assistance claims are refused, all of which amounts to a complete breakdown in the Department's operations. I do not blame individual officers who operate the scheme on the ground, who must work under extremely difficult conditions and under difficult regulations imposed by the Department.

I cannot understand why so many unemployed assistance claims are at present being refused, the reason always advanced being that a person is not available for work. There must be no public representative who does not daily receive complaints about decisions made by the Department based on that one disqualification —"We regret to inform you that your application has been refused as you are unavailable for work." How in the name of God does one prove that one is available for work? I have heard of people who have gone to prospective employers, who have furnished letters in an endeavour to convince the Department that they are available for work. Yet they get that almost automatic reply, that because one is not available for work one's claim is disallowed. This is not good enough and many such people find these decisions most frustrating.

I want to know from the Minister if he has issued instructions to his Department to go slow in the processing of claims in the hopeful expectation that by ignoring an application long enough an applicant will grow weary and give up? I know of cases where that has happened, when unfortunate applicants reconciled themselves to a standard of living that place them on the poverty line or forced them to emigrate. How can the Minister in conscience stand over delays in dealing with unemployment assistance appeals, particularly those in the non-contributory class — widows' pensions, old age pensions or unemployment assistance claims? Indeed delays of 12 weeks are frequent. It is even more disgraceful that many applicants cannot discuss appeals with an appeals officer. When an unsuccessful unemployment assistance application is referred to the appeals section of the Department I, as a Deputy, find it very frustrating that I am not in a position to discuss such cases, or not in a position to refute some of the reasons put forward in respect of the refusal. I know of cases of husbands who prior to their deaths were in receipt of the maximum non-contributory old age pension. Following their deaths their widows applied to the Department for a pension, but this was refused. How can there be any sense of fair play in that regard? These cases are well documented and I can give the Minister ample evidence of them at any time. It is a most unfair system which discriminates against widows.

I know of many cases of small landowners assessed for income they do not have, again resulting in refusal of unemployment assistance claims. I appeal to the Minister to take a serious look at what his Department are doing to these small landowners. From experience I know that, while it is easy to tot up their income, it is not always as easy for an applicant to have maintained a full account of his or her expenses or to prove them when the case is being assessed. Indeed in some cases social welfare officers are not qualified to interpret what is real farm income. Will the Minister say why his Department will not accept as evidence the credible authentic statements of ACOT officers? I have seen cases of unemployment assistance claims being refused, even though applicants have gone to their agricultural advisers who have put forward credible submissions to the Department. Yet, at the end of the day the appeals officer's decision overrides such authentic statements submitted by ACOT officers.

Perhaps the Minister would explain also why parents' income is taken into account in assessing unemployment assistance claims of young people, why in very few cases applicants from young, single girls are accepted. Indeed, the level of payment offered to young boys is a disgrace. This places an impossible imposition on parents of such unemployed young people. There have been many cases of young boys and girls moving away from their homes because their parents' income has been taken into account in assessing their means. The fact that that happens undermines the family as a unit of society.

In the few minutes remaining to me I want to talk about abuses in the structure of the social welfare system. Why does the Minister not take the bull by the horns and decentralise his Department? It would be cheaper and more efficient if the entire operation were localised. Perhaps the Minister would tell us, when replying, if he has any such plans in mind. In my county an applicant goes first to his local employment exchange, from there to the central office in Portlaoise, his application is then tranferred from there to a regional office, then back to the Department and lastly to the local office again. That is a totally unsatisfactory and inefficient way of dealing with such claims. I have no doubt that it is costing the taxpayer millions of pounds which need not be spent if the system was streamlined and reorganised.

Does the Minister sit in the same Cabinet as the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, because several hundreds of workers are being made redundant at present in organisations for which those Departments are responsible? Yet the Department of Social Welfare seem to have an endless supply available to pay a rapidly growing, unemployed population. Why is it not possible, through the inter-management of Government Departments, to transfer resources from the Department of Social Welfare to the Departments of the Environment and Fisheries and Forestry where much needed jobs could be created? Our road network is collapsing because there is no money to repair it. I cannot understand why the Government cannot co-ordinate the efforts of various Government Departments and use for the purpose of job creation the money available to the Department of Social Welfare. Surely that is what Government and economic management are all about? The country would benefit from that kind of reorganisation which could be implemented with a little effort and co-ordination.

Mr. Kenny

The social welfare area is a maze of myriad legislative byways which all end up on the desk of the Minister for Finance and are paid for by the public purse. Any Minister attempting to grapple with the complexities of these problems has an enormous administrative and social task. When you have a smaller number of employees, a greater number drawing social welfare and a smaller number paying PRSI there is a greater follow-through from the Revenue Commissioners in terms of taxation, claims and charges. This leads to a very inefficient system which does not lend itself to support of Government. The Government are caught in a vicious circle and, from their point of view, social welfare is a crucifixion.

The difficulty with all these schemes is that, if you attempt to tamper with them in order to give greater benefits to those in genuine need, you end up discriminating against everybody concerned, because you probably radically alter many of the schemes.

In many cases social welfare is an incentive to do less work. Pensioners often have difficulty, because of personal or legal reasons, in transferring their holdings of land to members of their family. Some who are able to work find that the implementation of a means test ensures that they often get less than they would if they got rid of stock and so on which would entitle them to a pension. However, in many cases, they would prefer to continue working.

In relation to disability benefit claims, doctors' certificates are submitted to the effect that people are unable to work. Subsequently, these claims are often refuted by officials and medical referees of the Department. Is this not an indictment of the medical profession? PRSI and the Redundancy Act are a disincentive to the creation of employment. The management ethos is to shed labour and to take on more machinery, which cannot answer back or go on strike.

The absenteeism rate in many plants has a rural connection. Many people who have land wish to work it during the summer period, thus accounting for absenteeism. In that context the concept of work-sharing should be looked at. If people are forced to work on a full time basis they often decide to give up work in a factory or whatever and work on the land when the season necessitates it. A specific analysis of the type of absenteeism related to that area would bear fruit.

A pilot scheme should be introduced by the Department, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, the social employment scheme and ACOT, in regard to unemployment assistance. There is hardly a farm in the country which is realising its agricultural potential. There are gateposts to be hung, walls to be built, land to be drained, reploughed and seeded. The average parish has about 100 men on unemployment assistance. They should be divided up into small groups, paid more than they are getting at present in social welfare assistance and used in a pilot scheme. This would yield increased agricultural productivity immediately and would be of benefit to them, their neighbours and the economy.

I should like the Minister to check the costings of the administration of the new scheme introduced after the Supreme Court decision which deemed PLV unconstitutional. Fianna Fáil made great play of the fact that this Government introduced it, but that is not true. However, due to the unrest and social upheaval caused and the abuse everybody gets in relation to this, I should like the Minister to carry out an analysis of the administrative cost increase of implementing it.

It might be feasible to have this system changed. The only farmer who will be forced to keep books after the land tax is introduced will be the crofter on ten or 20 acres. The person with over 20 adjusted acres will not have to keep books but will pay a predetermined amount based on the rate per adjusted acre. The farmer with over 80 adjusted acres will be paying income tax and will have to hire an accountant to do his books. The worst off individual on less than 20 adjusted acres, who has no method of bookkeeping, will be forced to keep individual receipts on a regular basis. I understand that the Department will appoint officers who will determine appeals and ensure that the claimants are given detailed, itemised accounts of how their incomes are assessed. I welcome this move and I urge the Minister to see that this is done immediately. Those at the lower end of the scale are entitled to that and should be given it forthwith.

Mr. J. O'Leary

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the operation of the unemployment assistance scheme which has now virtually broken down. There are long delays in considering and deciding applications for unemployment assistance. Many cases take 14 weeks to decide and it is only when political pressure is brought to bear that decisions are taken.

The Department should employ more social welfare officers and appeals officers. The deciding and appeal process should be decentralised. I should like to see a deciding officer in every town in the country who would decide on applications.

I should also like to see at least one if not two appeals officers in each county. The decision could be based on the number of applications being received and on the number of appeals in any area. It is most unfair that an applicant should have to wait for two, three or even up to six months before his appeal is decided. I have known of cases where appeals were decided favourably after delays of four months. It is very difficult for applicants to seek supplementary welfare allowances while their applications are under consideration. The Minister should pay particular attention to the unemployment assistance section of his Department with a view to employing more officers and also decentralising the section.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. B. Desmond)

A number of Deputies have expressed great concern about delays in processing social welfare claims and about delays also in the medical referee and appeals system. The two Members from the benches opposite who have just spoken have underlined this aspect also. Some Deputies asked whether the embargo whereby only two in every three vacancies in the Civil Service are filled applies to the Department of Social Welfare and whether the staff of the Department had been reduced to a level at which they simply could not cope. I make the point to the House — and I make it to my colleagues in Government and to all other Government Departments, notably the Department of the Public Service — that the Department of Social Welfare have never been exempt from that embargo which applies across the board to all Government Departments. Consequently, one in every three vacancies arising in the Department must remain vacant.

I have strong reservations about that crude and blunt instrument known as the embargo and I trust that it will be the subject of intense review. However, the Government have redeployed some staff from other Departments to the Department of Social Welfare. This has been done with considerable difficulty. One can understand readily the reluctance of the head of any Department to surrender staff for any purpose. This arrangement has been made in our case to help the Department deal with the increasing workload, and now the overall number of staff in the Department is 4 per cent higher than the June 1981 figure.

That may seem reasonable but let us consider what has happened in the meantime. The workload in the Department has increased enormously. In the unemployment payments area alone, there has been an increase of almost 70 per cent in the volume of claims since mid-1981. There has been an increase of 17 per cent in respect of claims for survivors and for related pensions while there has been an increase of 21 per cent in claims for the various free schemes. There has been a 43 per cent increase in treatment benefit claims and an increase of more than 10 per cent in the general level of sickness benefit claims. There have been increases in other areas also.

This phenomenal increase in social welfare claims has arisen for a variety of reasons. During the period 1981 to 1985 also a number of schemes have been introduced — for instance, the rent allowance scheme and the family income supplement scheme — while the work of the old age pension committees was transferred direct to the Department. As a former trade union officer I have had a lot of contact with public service workers and I can say without fear of contradiction that the management of the Department of Social Welfare have endeavoured heroically to use every means at their disposal to cope with the unprecedented increase in the workload. The large computer development programme has yielded very considerable productivity gains. Staff within the Department have been redeployed to cope with the most hard pressed areas, notably at counters in the employment exchanges. That is where there are tremendous problems and pressures. Working methods have been reviewed and changed in order to increase the throughput of claims. But within our limited resources it has not been possible to prevent a deterioration in the quality of service and that is showing up by way of longer average times elapsing before claims are processed and in answering queries and representations.

Successive Governments have made available a proliferation of electric typewriters to Deputies in this House, to Senators and to ministerial offices. There are now several hundred people who do nothing else but write to the Department of Social Welfare on behalf of public representatives. As a result, I receive no fewer than 34,000 representations each year in respect of claims.

Mr. Hyland

If the problems did not exist we would not have to make these representations.

Dr. McCarthy

The increased demand reflects the failure of Government policies.

Mr. B. Desmond

Deputies are not satisfied with using their dictaphones and their electric typewriters or with receiving the information they seek by way of telephonic response. Instead, they write further letters and this chokes the system. Not satisfied with all of that, understandably with clientism being the basis of Irish politics, Deputies raise the issues by way of parliamentary questions. This means that about 4,000 parliamentary questions are addressed to me each year. Again, this chokes the system with principal officers and assistant secretaries, and in the case of policy questions, the assistant secretary to the secretary all engaged in a frenzy of activity.

Dr. McCarthy

Even the Government backbenchers have to table parliamentary questions because that is the only way they will receive answers.

Mr. B. Desmond

The Opposition are the epitomy of clientism. They use it unmercifully whether they are in or out of Government.

Dr. McCarthy

Many of the questions come from the Government backbenchers.

Mr. B. Desmond

A person may qualify for a minimum pension and still have savings amounting to £22,700 in the bank. If he is married he can have savings of £45,495. These amounts will be increased next July arising from the increased rates provided for in the Bill and I am arranging for the issue of further updated literature through An Post. I emphasise to the elderly that they can have substantial cash savings and still qualify for a non-contributory old age pension. If I may support my colleague, the Minister for Finance, they should keep the money in the Post Office or in a trustee savings bank where they will get substantial interest. This would prevent the thuggery that is going on in rural areas where tragically a number of pensioners have been attacked.

Deputy O'Sullivan spoke about the assessment of redundancy payments in calculating means for unemployment assistance. Under the law any capital a person may have at the time of assessment for unemployment assistance is taken into account as means. A lump sum payment is treated in the same way as any other form of capital. The method of assessing capital for unemployment assistance is to take one-twentieth of the first £400 of the yearly value of the capital together with one-tenth of any amount in excess of £400. The result is divided by 52 and weekly means are arrived at. This method of assessing income from capital is much more favourable to the applicant than it would be if the income were linked to the actual interest rates payable by banks or other financial institutions. For example, a person who puts the maximum statutory redundancy payment of £8,500 on deposit could expect to receive a return of about 15 per cent or £1,275 a year. This compares with £830 assessed under the formula for unemployment assistance. In Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom redundancy lump sum payments are taken into account in assessing unemployment assistance or supplementary benefit.

Dr. McCarthy

Deputy O'Sullivan described the system as immoral.

Mr. B. Desmond

The Deputy is a very compassionate man.

Dr. McCarthy

Did the Minister reassure him?

Mr. B. Desmond

Deputy O'Sullivan is most concerned for his constituents. The treatment of redundancy payments under the unemployment assistance scheme is being reviewed by the Department, but any suggestion of completely ignoring redundancy lump sums would be contrary to the general principle of means testing. I will be going to the Government about the matter in the near future and I will present a general report. Personally I have strong views about lump sum payments: I believe in the continuity of weekly redundancy payments which is far better for people.

Deputy McCarthy spoke about the £2 million savings in respect of non-contributory old age pensions. There was an overall reduction in the published Estimates of £7.638 million. This reduction arose solely from estimating revisions based on the latest data available to my Department in respect of the number of pensioners and the trends in the number who will apply during the year. It is very difficult to assess these matters. On the basis of a revision of the anticipated number of claims in 1985 there was a saving of £2 million.

Dr. McCarthy

What is a few million pounds one way or the other?

Mr. B. Desmond

It is exactly the same in terms of children's allowances. Last year I made a provision for 465,000 children's allowances and in the end there were about 463,500 or 464,000. This year whether the figure increases or decreases by 1,000 one has to make an estimate and these estimates are made early the preceding year.

Dr. McCarthy

The Minister should be ashamed to mention children's allowances.

Mr. B. Desmond

Finally, I want to deal with employers' arrears of PRSI contributions. As I said, £58 million PRSI is owed. It is a gross misuse of the social welfare system that that money is not remitted in full to the Revenue Commissioners because employers are obliged by law to pay these contributions on a regular basis. I want to stress that I have every intention of ensuring that all arrears are paid regularly because this money is collected from workers. It is not the property of employers and it must be paid to enable us to fund the system.

I thank Deputies for their contributions to this debate but I regret I only got 20 minutes to reply, but that was a matter for the Whips.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 59.

Tá

Allen, Bernard.
Barnes, Monica.
Barrett, Seán.
Barry, Myra.
Begley, Michael.
Bell, Michael.
Bermingham, Joe.
Birmingham, George Martin.
Bruton, John.
Bruton, Richard.
Burke, Liam.
Carey, Donal.
Cluskey, Frank.
Conlon, John F.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cooney, Patrick Mark.
Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
Coveney, Hugh.
Crotty, Kieran.
Crowley, Frank.
D'Arcy, Michael.
Desmond, Barry.
Desmond, Eileen.
Donnellan, John.
Dowling, Dick.
Doyle, Avril.
Dukes, Alan.
Durkan, Bernard J.
Enright, Thomas W.
Farrelly, John V.
Fennell, Nuala.
Flaherty, Mary.
Glenn, Alice.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hegarty, Paddy.
Hussey, Gemma.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Keating, Michael.
Kelly, John.
Kenny, Enda.
McGahon, Brendan.
McGinley, Dinny.
McLoughlin, Frank.
Manning, Maurice.
Mitchell, Gay.
Mitchell, Jim.
Molony, David.
Moynihan, Michael.
Naughten, Liam.
Nealon, Ted.
Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Brien, Willie.
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Leary, Michael.
Owen, Nora.
Pattison, Séamus.
Prendergast, Frank.
Ryan, John.
Shatter, Alan.
Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
Skelly, Liam.
Spring, Dick.
Taylor, Mervyn.
Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Michael.
Aylward, Liam.
Barrett, Michael.
Blaney, Neil Terence.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Brennan, Paudge.
Brennan Séamus.
Browne, John.
Burke, Raphael P.
Byrne, Seán.
Calleary, Seán.
Gallagher, Pat Cope.
Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Charles J.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hyland, Liam.
Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Michael.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Leonard, Tom.
Leyden, Terry.
Lyons, Denis.
McCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Tom.
Mac Giolla, Tomás.
Molloy, Robert.
Conaghan, Hugh.
Connolly Ger.
Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
Cowen, Brian.
Daly, Brendan.
De Rossa, Proinsias.
Doherty, Seán.
Fahey, Francis.
Fahey, Jackie.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Foley, Denis.
Gallagher, Denis.
Moynihan, Donal.
Nolan, M. J.
Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
O'Connell, John.
O'Dea, William.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Edmond.
O'Leary, John.
O'Rourke, Mary.
Power, Paddy.
Tunney, Jim.
Walsh, Joe.
Walsh, Seán.
Wilson, John P.
Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West).

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 13 Mar 1985

Social Welfare Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1985