I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The main purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the various increases in social welfare payments which were announced in the budget. The Bill also contains provisions for the introduction of the child benefit scheme, for improvements in the family income supplement scheme as well as a number of other changes in social welfare schemes. Before dealing with the details of the Bill I would like to deal with three important general aspects of social welfare policy. These are: the complementary roles of State and community action in caring for the less well off, the forthcoming report from the Commission on Social Welfare and misuse of the social welfare system.
The size of the social welfare budget is enormous. The total number of people and their dependants who receive each week social welfare payments of one kind or another is about 1.3 million or 37 per cent of our total population. Overall spending this year, taking account of the new rates of payments in the Bill, will amount to almost £2.5 billion of which the Exchequer will contribute £1.6 billion. This overall level of spending is equivalent to about £7 million for each day of the year and it represents the largest single block of current Government expenditure. Over the past ten years an increasing share of the country's output has been devoted to social welfare services and they now represent almost 15 per cent of gross national product. These facts clearly illustrate the extent and importance of the services provided to our community by the Department of Social Welfare.
Social welfare spending has increased to its present level due to a combination of factors including increased numbers of claimants generally, high unemployment and the various improvements made in the schemes over the years. The overall expenditure may be broken down into five main programmes as follows: 27 per cent for the old, 28 per cent for the unemployed, 14 per cent for the sick, 23 per cent for family income support and 4 per cent for miscellaneous services and benefits. About 4 per cent of expenditure goes on administration.
The old age pensioner, the unemployed person, those who are sick, the single parent and her children are entitled to an adequate level of support from the rest of the community. On the face of it the huge amount of money raised by PRSI contributions and from general taxation would indicate that our society is committed to protecting the weaker sections of our community.
There is also, however, another attitude beginning to surface in recent times and that is that people on social welfare payments are doing well and that many are in fact only too glad to be on the system and to avail of the benefits it provides. There is, in my view, a danger here that we would lose sight of the fact that people depending on social welfare payments are in the vast majority of cases genuinely in need and are having considerable difficulties in meeting their responsibilities and commitments.
Nobody can condone misuse of the system but, at the same time, there is a great danger in making sweeping allegations or moral judgments about various categories of social welfare recipients. We must be prepared to deal with abuse of the system wherever it occurs while maintaining the essential elements which make the system a genuinely caring one for people in different situations of need. Community attitudes to the social welfare system are very important and community involvement in social welfare provision has always been an essential feature of the system.
Before the social welfare system as we know it today came into being, the traditional bulwark against poverty was the support of the family with each generation accepting responsibility for the elderly and others in need. This pattern of support through the extended family weakened with the growth in industrialisation and urbanisation, but there is no reason why the underlying principle of mutual support could not be revitalised in these often more demanding times. The State can provide the basic infrastructure of income maintenance services but it is also vital that local communities take a responsibility for people in need and give them the continuing assurance that they are full members of the community.
There are, of course, many voluntary organisations and local groups doing invaluable work in communities and my Department in the administration of the provision for once-off grants to voluntary organisations since 1983 and more recently in the preparation for the EC poverty programme have had considerable experience of the valuable contribution made by such groups. Over the coming years there will be a need for continuing involvement and development of this aspect of social provision and for closer links between the activities of such groups and the statutory social welfare services in order to ensure that there are adequate mechanisms for identifying areas of need and tackling them in an effective way. This Government have shown a genuine concern to improve the living standards of people on social welfare.
The Bill provides for an increase of 4 per cent in the weekly personal and adult dependent rates of social insurance and social assistance from the third week in July next. The corresponding weekly rates for the long term unemployed are being increased by a further 1 per cent from the same time. These increases reflect the continuing commitment of this Government as outlined in the national plan Building on Reality to ensure that long term payments are at least maintained in line with inflation and short term unemployment and disability payments in line with take home pay. But we have gone a step further. The real value of pensions benefits and allowances has been increased and this will be maintained into 1987. Since the Government came into office and including the increases in the Bill, short term payments have been increased by 30 per cent compound, long term payments by 33 per cent and the long term unemployed received the highest increase of all, 40 per cent. In the period mid 1983-87 the increase in the consumer price index is expected to be of the order of some 23 per cent. Indeed, all the indications are that the level of inflation will be at an historically low level by the end of the year. It is evident, therefore, that the purchasing power of social welfare recipients has been more than maintained by this Government despite the severe constraints on the public finances generally.
Because of demographic factors and our high level of unemployment, expenditure on social welfare will continue to increase inexorably in real terms over the coming years although its rate of growth will fall as inflation and unemployment are contained and reduced. The difficulties in the public finances and the necessity for economies over the whole area of public expenditure will be severe constraints on efforts to provide additional resources for these services. The fact that social welfare expenditure is provided to a large extent by the Exchequer — some £1.6 billion in 1986 — partly accounts for our high levels of taxation. Even though the Government have reduced substantially the level of personal taxation in this year's budget it remains by international standards at a high level. One of the reasons the Government have had to maintain these levels of taxation is to ensure that the financial position of those dependent on social welfare, who are unfortunate enough not to be in any tax bracket, is fully maintained.
Basic social welfare commitments will continue to be met but there are important questions that need to be resolved. The problem of poverty in our society must be tackled. It is relevant to consider whether the amalgam of programmes that has evolved down through the years in response to specific needs is still appropriate in present circumstances. It is clear that we must review all expenditure programmes and concentrate resources where they are most needed. It was for that reason that the Government decided to establish a commission on social welfare to carry out a fundamental review of and make recommendations on the social welfare code and related social welfare services. As Deputies will be aware, the commission are due to report shortly and I am looking forward to the opportunity for a constructive debate on this complex area of national importance.
I would now turn to a topic that has been the subject of much media coverage and speculation in recent weeks and, that is, the question of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system. It is important when discussing this topic that the matter be put into proper perspective and that we do not fall into the trap of contributing to an anti-welfare mentality. This is something we must guard against. I have already given some indication of the size and scale of our social welfare services. The amount of money spent each day is huge and the number of people who benefit is enormous. There are over 3,500 staff in my Department responsible for the administration of the various schemes and for the delivery of service to the needy.
Various figures have been bandied about in relation to the extent of fraud and those are pure speculation. The only factual information which I can give the House is that of the various individual cases which were investigated during 1985 over the Department's services as a whole. It is estimated that some 4,000 of them involved an element of fraud and that the total amount of overpayments involved in these cases is in the region of £3 million. Investigations are still under way in many of these cases and a number of people have been or are being prosecuted.
These are the only factual figures available. My Department are very conscious of the need to combat fraud in the social welfare system, subject to the resources available and to the need to strike a balance between fraud prevention and making sure that procedures are not such as to cause undue delay in making payment to genuine cases.
It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to estimate what is the level of fraud at any time and any attempt to do so must be based largely on conjecture. Many social welfare schemes are, of course, open to manipulation and every effort must be made to detect and eradicate fraud where it exists. This should not, however, lead us to abandon basic elements of the system or to make the system a less caring one for people in genuine need.
On the unemployment side in 1985 a total of about 2,000 cases of fraud were detected. The greatest incidence of cases relate to concurrent working and drawing benefit of which there were some 1,400 cases. There are also cases of persons found claiming while they are either unavailable for or incapable of work. There were also some cases of personation and cases of claims for allowances to which the claimant was not entitled. The majority of cases of fraud on the disability benefit scheme relate to concurrent working and claiming. As regards old age non-contributory pensions, for instance, the bulk of the sums overpaid are due to non-disclosure of means which come to light generally on the death of the pensioner.
With regard to employers defaulting on PRSI contributions, cases have arisen where considerable arrears of PAYE-PRSI were revealed when a company went into liquidation with perhaps large debts and few assets. Fundamental trading difficulties and cash flow problems in the business sector cannot be solved by abuse of the social security system.
Over the years a number of measures to curb misuse have been taken on two broad fronts. First, changes in the structure of the benefits payable to persons during sickness and unemployment were made which have achieved a more realistic relationship between the level of overall benefit and a person's normal take-home pay.
The second area relates to administrative measures. At a general level all officers dealing with claims are trained and encouraged to be vigilant at all times in looking out for fraudulent claims. There are a whole series of checks and balances built into the various administrative procedures to which all claims are subjected to ensure that only valid claims are put into payment. In addition, an extensive range of administrative measures has also been brought into force or improved over recent years and it is important that these be stated again. These included:
Control measures at local offices have been tightened up. The general cadre of the social welfare officers is now 251 officers based at 94 different locations throughout the State.
The size of my Department's special investigation unit is now 38 officers at 18 centres engaged full time in the investigation of abuses and irregularities. The main role of the unit is in relation to the abuse of working and `signing-on' and they carry out special investigations in areas where fraud is suspected. I have arranged to strengthen this unit further by the assignment of an additional six officers to anti-fraud work.
There is also the development of closer liaison between the National Manpower Service and the local offices of my Department. The National Manpower Service give priority to the registered unemployed in filling vacancies. This liaison makes it possible to identify persons who are not interested in finding work or who may in fact already have a job.
Increased numbers of disability benefit claimants are being referred to my Department's panel of medical referees for a second opinion to ensure that only those who are genuinely ill are in fact paid disability benefit. The panel of medical referees has been recently increased to 25.
Improved selection procedures have been introduced in the type of cases referred for medical examination to ensure that the appropriate cases are submitted promptly for examination.
Claimants for disability benefit are also visited in their own home by the Department's sickness visitors and doubtful cases are referred to the panel of medical referees.
Securing prosecutions against persons who fraudently claim social welfare payments is a very important feature of my Department's drive against abuses of the schemes. All fraudulent cases coming to light are considered for prosecution where sufficient evidence is available. A total of 175 prosecutions for irregularities on the unemployment payments side were finalised in 1985 compared to 120 in 1984 and 86 in 1983.
The Department's powers to prosecute for offences were strengthened and clarified in 1983 following the advice of the Attorney General in relation to certain defects in the existing legislation. In addition, penalties for social welfare offences were substantially increased last year.
Like my predecessor at the Department of Social Welfare, I am very conscious of the need to curb abuse of the social welfare system and I will continue to make every effort to detect and stamp out abuse and fraud. This is all the more important because of the pressures on the public finances; any leakage from the system no matter how small is a lost opportunity in terms of providing a better service for the disadvantaged in our society. Thousands of claims by genuine people to the various services provided by my Department are processed each week. The numbers who attempt to fraud are small; the numbers who actually do so are smaller still. No matter what action we take we must ensure that we do not cause any undue delay or hardship to the genuine cases. This is of paramount importance. We must at all times ensure that proper regard is had to the needs and dignity of the individual claimant and not make the innocent suffer for the sins of the few.
I would like to turn to some of the details in the Bill. I hope that Deputies will have found the explanatory memorandum, circulated with the Bill, helpful in their consideration of the text.
Deputies will be aware that there has been an unavoidable delay in the introduction of the provisions for equal treatment for men and women in social security matters. I am glad to be able to say that agreement has been reached with the staff union in question to implement, on a phased basis from mid-May next, those measures which are not dependent on additional staffing.
Section 2 of the Bill provides for the abolition of reduced rates of benefit at present payable to married women. Married women will also become entitled to unemployment benefit for the full 390 days under regulations which I will be making separately. I am also abolishing the reduced rates of benefit that are payable to persons under 18 years of age. Hitherto the reduced rates applied to married women and also to persons aged under 18. In view of the fact that persons become employed contributors at age 16 and are liable for the same rates of social insurance contributions as other contributors I consider that they should also be eligible for the same level of benefits when sick or unemployed and I am providing accordingly in the Bill.
The question of implementing the remaining equal treatment measures which were provided for in the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1985 is dependent on additional staff being allocated, the devising of new work procedures and the training of staff in those procedures. I am making every effort to resolve these problems so that a date can be fixed for implementing the remaining phases.
General increases in social insurance and occupational injuries benefits are provided for in section 2 of the Bill.
A contributory old age pensioner under 80 years of age will receive an additional £2.05 a week from 18 July bringing his rate of payment to £53.45 a week. If he is married with a wife under age 66 he will get a total increase of £3.35 bringing the pension to £87.55 a week. A married couple both over pensionable age will get £93.35 compared to £89.75 at present. Higher increases are paid for pensioners over 80. Additional payments are also made for persons living alone.
The personal rate of widow's contributory pension is being increased by £1.85 a week to £48.10. Widows over 66 and over 80 receive higher payments.
The personal rate of invalidity pension goes up from £45.30 to £47.10 for a person under pensionable age and a married couple will receive £77.70, an increase of £3.
A person in receipt of disability or unemployment benefit will have a new personal rate of £41.10 a week, an increase of £1.60. Deputies will be aware that this new rate was shown incorrectly in the first version of the explanatory memorandum on the Bill. Where the recipient is married the increase will be £2.60 a week. Maternity allowance is also being increased to £41.10.
The new rates of social assistance payments are provided for in section 3. The maximum personal rate of non-contributory old age pension for a pensioner under 80 years of age goes from £44 a week at present to £45.75 a week. It will go up from £47.20 to £49.10 for persons aged 80 or over. The overall maximum payment for a pensioner under 80 with a dependent spouse under 66 will increase by £2.65 to £68.75. The allowance payable in respect of a prescribed relative giving full time care and attention to an incapacitated pensioner is being raised to £25.60 per week.
Widows receiving non-contributory widow's pensions at the present rate of £43.15 will get an increase of £1.75 a week. Similar increases will apply to deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives.
Those receiving short-duration unemployment assistance in urban areas will get an increase of £1.30 a week in their maximum personal rate. In rural areas the increase will be £1.25 a week. A married applicant in an urban area will get an increase of £2.25 a week in the present rate of £56.40.
The rates of unemployment assistance for long-duration recipients of unemployment assistance are higher. For example, a married man in an urban area will get £63.15 which is £4.50 more than the corresponding short-duration rate.
The maximum rate of supplementary welfare allowance for a married couple goes from £54.80 to £56.95.
Section 17 provides for the introduction of the new monthly child benefit scheme from April 1986.
The purpose of the scheme will be to provide as much cash support to mothers as possible in one single payment. However, it will not be possible for administrative and technical reasons to introduce, as originally intended, a fully taxable scheme in 1986. As a first step, therefore, the Government have decided to introduce a non-taxable scheme of child benefit with effect from April 1986.
Under this scheme a child benefit of £15.05 per month will be paid for each of the first five children. This rate will be increased to £21.75 per month for each subsequent child. These payments will not be taxable. This represents an increase of £3 per month per child over the existing rates of payment under the children's allowance scheme.
The new scheme replaces the present children's allowance scheme and also involves the abolition of the child tax allowance of £100 per child under the income tax code. Furthermore child dependant increases for social welfare recipients will remain at their present levels. The new scheme, therefore, involves a redirection of child support. Families paying tax at the higher rates will suffer some net loss arising from the abolition of child tax allowances but the intention of the scheme is to achieve a redistribution of resources in the direction of families most in need. Three-quarters of all families in the State will be at least as well off under the new arrangement as under the existing schemes and many thousands, including families depending on social welfare payments, will in fact be better off.
Section 4 provides for improvements in the family income supplement scheme. The rate of the supplement is being increased from 25 per cent to one third of the difference between gross family income and a prescribed upper limit. The income limits up to which family income supplement is payable and the maximum amounts of supplement payable are also being increased. The changes in the income limits and maximum amounts follow from the improvements in the personal income taxation announced in the budget and from increases in the rates of short term social insurance benefits provided in the Bill.
The levels of weekly income up to which a supplement is payable will be scaled up from £100 for a family with one child by £20 per week for each additional child, up to and including the fifth child. The income levels at which the maximum supplement is payable are also being adjusted, for example, from £68 to £70 per week for a one-child family.
The maximum weekly amount of supplement payable to families with one child will be increased, by £2.00 from £8 to £10. For larger families the maximum amount of supplement payable for each additional child up to and including the fifth child is being increased from £2.50 to £4 per week. These changes will take effect from 10 April 1986.
Section 5 of the Bill provides for an increase from £49 to £58 in the earnings disregard, or "floor", for pay-related benefit purposes. This change will affect new claims only from the beginning of April next where entitlement to pay-related benefit is involved.
Since the introduction of the pay-related benefit scheme in April 1974, a proportion of reckonable earnings has always been disregarded in calculating the amount of pay-related benefit payable in addition to disability, unemployment, maternity and injury benefit. In 1974, this disregard or floor was £14, or twice the prevailing rate of flat-rate benefit. The floor was not increased until 1981, even though the level of flat rate benefit rose significantly during that time.
The latest increase in the floor continues the policy that has been adopted in recent years of progressively raising its level. However, if the floor had been maintained at the same level in relation to the flat rate benefit as it was in April 1974, it would now be about £84 instead of £58 proposed in this Bill.
Section 6 provides that the earnings ceiling for PRSI contribution purposes be raised from £13,800 to £14,700 with effect from 6 April 1986. For the fourth successive year there is no increase in the actual rates of social insurance contributions. Section 7 provides that the rate of contribution to the occupational injuries fund payable by employers be increased from 0.4 per cent to 0.43 per cent.
There will also be an increase of 0.1 per cent in employers contributions to the Department of Labour's Redundancy and Employers' Insolvency Fund. As a result of both of these changes, the standard rate of employers PRSI contributions goes up from 12.20 per cent to 12.33 per cent.
There is no increase in the employees social insurance contribution. However there will be a reduction of 1 per cent in the total PRSI contribution payable by employees as a result of the abolition of the income levy as announced in the Budget Statement.
Section 8 makes provision for the PRSI exemption scheme for employers announced by the Taoiseach last October. Under this scheme employers in the private sector who take on additional employees on a full time basis between 23 October 1985 and 31 March 1986, resulting in a net increase in their workforce, will be exempt from their portion of the PRSI contribution for those employees for each week in the income tax year 1986-87 in which the increase in the workforce is maintained.
Employers participating in the scheme will also be exempt from the redundancy contribution and, where applicable, the health contribution and the youth employment levy and this is provided for in section 8.
To give further encouragement to employers to participate in the scheme the Government have decided, as was announced last week, to relax some of the conditions of the scheme. Up to now employers who had received assistance by way of State grants in the past 12 months were not eligible. This condition no longer applies. Also it was a condition that an employee recruited under the scheme should be on the live register for six months. This has now been reduced to 13 weeks. Employers have an opportunity between now and the end of the month to participate in the scheme and avail of the exemption.
An employer participating under the scheme will benefit to the extent of about £962 for the year for each additional employee taken on, assuming the employee is earning £150 a week.
Sections 9 and 10 provide for changes in the disability benefit scheme. Section 9 increases the period of disqualification for disability benefit and injury benefit from six weeks to nine weeks where a person fails to turn up for a medical examination by one of the Department's medical referees or where the person has become incapable of work through his own misconduct. In 1985, over 75,000 disability benefit claimants were called for medical examination: 6,000 people did not attend for examination and were disqualified for the six week period allowed under present legislation. Because of the extent of non-attendance the Government considered that the penalty for such non-attendance should be increased.
Section 10 provides that disability benefit will not be paid while a claimant is on paid holiday leave from his employment. There is some evidence that certain persons claim disability benefit as a matter of course while on paid holiday leave and this amounts to misuse of the disability benefit scheme. This measure is designed to end this potential misuse.
Section 11 rationalises the method of calculating entitlements under the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment. The section provides that entitlement will be calculated as 70 per cent of a woman's earnings in the relevant tax year or 70 per cent of a specified weekly amount instead of a combination of flat rate, pay-related and additional pay-related benefit as at present. This is a technical measure and there will be no change in the amount of benefit payable.
Sections 12, 13, 14, 21 and 23 provide for changes to the occupational injuries benefit scheme. Section 12 extends entitlement to benefit to persons travelling to and from work subject to such circumstances as may be prescribed by regulations. Sections 13 and 14 provide that injury benefit will be paid from the first day of incapacity for work where the incapacity lasts for more than three days. I consider this to be more equitable than the present arrangement where the incapacity must last for 12 days before payment can be made from the first day. Section 13 also provides that injury benefit will not be paid while a person is on paid holiday leave from his employment — this is in line with the amendment to the disability benefit scheme in section 10.
I have already indicated that I am abolishing the reduced rates of disability, unemployment and injury benefit payable to persons under 18 years of age. Section 21 abolishes the reduced rate of disablement benefit for persons who are under 18 years. In future persons under 18 years of age will receive the same rate of benefit as all other persons.
Section 23 removes the restriction on a claimant appealing against a provisional assessment of disablement within two years of he initial assessment. It also repeals the provision whereby a person who is receiving disablement benefit is assessed as being 100 per cent disabled while he is in hospital. At present a person who is assessed at less than 100 per cent disablement and is hospitalised receives an increase to give him the full rate of benefit. I consider that this arrangement can no longer be justified and propose that the person continue to receive the same rate as prior to hospitalisation.
The provision whereby payments of injury benefit or disablement benefit including any increases are limited to the amount of the beneficiary's earnings at the time of the accident is also being repealed. It is considered that this limit is no longer necessary given the fact that payments of injury benefit are subjected to a pay-related benefit "wage stop" in any event.
Section 15 increases the fines for offences involving the obstruction of an inspector of the Department in the exercise of his duties prescribed in section 114 (4) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. At present a maximum fine of £500 or 12 months' imprisonment or both can be imposed on summary conviction and a maximum fine of £2,000 or up to two years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment under this section. This section increases the maximum fines to £1,000 and £3,000 respectively and brings them into line with other penalties under the Social Welfare Acts which were increased last year.
Section 18 provides that the full cost of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, including administration, will be borne by the Exchequer by way of the Social Welfare Vote on and from 1 January 1986. The present arrangements for financing the supplementary welfare allowance scheme involve a sharing of the cost between the Exchequer and the local authorities. This system has not worked satisfactorily and the Government have decided that in future the full cost will be borne by the Exchequer. This represents a major improvement in the situation for the health boards who administer the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.
Section 16 extends the authority of social welfare officers to inspect the premises of self-employed persons on the same basis as for employers for the purposes of combating abuse. The section extends the powers given in last year's Act to inspect premises where a social welfare officer has reasonable grounds for believing that persons are employed or that there are documents relating to employment being kept.
Section 19 provides that where unemployed persons, who have participated in certain employment-training schemes sponsored by the Department of Labour for up to one year's duration, resume claiming unemployment benefit the two periods of unemployment will be regarded as one for the purpose of subsequent entitlement to benefit. At present attendance at a training course of over 13 weeks breaks the link with the pre-course claim for benefit. Section 19 also provides that to be eligible to receive unemployment benefit a person must not only be available for employment but also be genuinely seeking employment. This will bring the condition for receipt of unemployment benefit into line with the corresponding condition for the receipt of unemployment assistance.
Section 20 is designed to overcome some difficulties in relation to the authorisation of legal proceedings. It provides for the acceptance in court of a certificate of authorisation of legal proceedings in relation to social welfare offences, without proof of the person purporting to sign the certificate, unless this is challenged.
Section 22 provides for a technical amendment to section 3 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 to facilitate work on the consolidation of the social welfare regulations which is at present in progress.
I now wish to refer to a number of other developments which do not require legislation.
The Minister for Finance announced in his budget speech that there would be a social welfare amnesty from prosecutions for those who come forward within six months admitting to existing or earlier irregularities or fraud in relation to the social welfare system. I have also arranged that, in addition to new cases, the amnesty will normally apply to cases already under investigation where fresh admissions or offers of repayment are made by clients. However, in all cases there will be no waiver of the requirement to repay any money obtained over and above legitimate entitlements. Persons who wish to avail of the amnesty must come forward before 29 July next and the arrangements for doing so have been set out recently in advertisements in the national newspapers.
Since 1983 £1.68 million has been provided for various voluntary organisations who do invaluable work in the social services area. The grants are mainly for once-off projects and are payable in addition to any grants made by health boards. This year an increased sum of £750,000 is being made available. An advertisement has been placed in the national press inviting interested organisations to complete an application form and submit it to my Department before 11 April 1986. The health boards will then be consulted and the grants will be paid to the approved bodies as soon as possible afterwards.
Some 161 organisations benefited from grants under this heading in 1985. The following is a cross-section of the type of work which these agencies carry out:
—day care centres for the old
—meals on wheels
—services for the physically handicapped
—youth club projects
—day care centres for the homeless
—help for unmarried mothers.
I am glad that I was able to provide further financial assistance this year for the work carried out by the various organisations who provide such a variety of social services on a voluntary basis.
As the House knows, the Combat Poverty Agency Bill, 1985 is currently before the House. The new agency will be set up as soon as possible after the legislation is passed. A sum of £1 million is provided in 1986 for the agency and the EC poverty programmes.
Social welfare is a vast and complex area and its impact on the daily lives of the community may well have been underestimated in the past. I certainly do not under-estimate my job of re-shaping social welfare policy to meet the country's needs as we approach the end of the 20th century.
What sort of reaction can we expect to the report of the Commission on Social Welfare? Policy choices made for social welfare are important choices for society. To make these choices is to exercise power and decide on the distribution of scarce resources — that is the essence of politics. My own view is that there has not been enough constructive and informed politics in relation to social welfare. No public expenditure programme has an absolute and unconditional claim on any particular proportion or amount of public resources and none has, or ought to have, an absolute immunity to change as economic and social conditions create the need for change.
To plead for a politics of social welfare more sensitive to differences of interest and opinion and more informed by debate is not to argue for any particular outcome, but the debate must begin. I believe the priority must be to secure a greater degree of equity in the distribution of the resources at our disposal. This Bill is further tangible evidence of this Government's commitment in this regard.
I commend the Bill to the House.
