Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 May 1986

Vol. 366 No. 10

Combat Poverty Agency Bill, 1985: [Seanad] Second Stage (Resumed).

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

(Dublin North-West): On the last day I referred to the number of families living in poverty now, caused in many cases by unemployment and in some cases by illness. I outlined the experiences of many of my constituents. There is an urgent need to create employment and the Government should take immediate action. The fact that we have joined the EC has in part been responsible for the high rate of unemployment, particularly in urban areas like Dublin. We got some benefits from our entry into the Common Market but we seem to have got to the end of those that came to the farmers. It is time for the Government to consider renegotiating terms with the EC in regard to the creation of jobs. Between 70,000 and 80,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing and service industries since we joined the EC. Many businesses that were in operation when we joined the EC have closed down. Very little is manufactured here now; it all comes in manufactured. I have no doubt that joining the EC has brought this about and resulted in poverty and misery for many families.

People who have worked all their lives and have become unemployed through illness are being treated shamefully by the Department of Social Welfare. Married women who have been employed for years and have lost their jobs and applied for social welfare are being continuously harassed by staff in the employment exchanges as to why they are not getting a job. They are not very long on social welfare before they receive a letter from the Department indicating that the Department are not satisfied that they are making an effort to find a job.

There are also widespread complaints about the medical referees in the Department. They make decisions which would indicate that they take no account of medical reports from highly qualified specialists. In some cases they do not examine the person who appears before them and yet write a report stating that the person is capable of taking up full time employment. Are these medical officers fully qualified medical doctors?

There are widespread complaints about the abuse of the social welfare system. People who are not entitled are in receipt of benefits while people who are entitled have been cut off. I refer in particular to the small farmers whose dole has been cut off. Fianna Fáil introduced this small farmer's subsidy, described by many as the small farmer's dole. The decision of the Government to do away with this has put many on the poverty line. At the time Fianna Fáil introduced this subsidy there was widespread emigration from the west, where a very high number of small farmers live. The subsidy was introduced to encourage farmers to stay on the farms which were not big enough to provide a livelihood. Many small farmers whose valuation did not exceed £20 were entitled to that subsidy. When I was working in the by-election in County Donegal, in which Deputy Cathal Coughlan was elected to this House, there was widespread concern among the small farmers there about the Government's decision to remove this subsidy. Deputy Brendan McGahon raised the problem of the abuse and fraud that exists in the Border areas where people from the North took millions of pounds from the Republic in the form of social welfare payments. Deputy McGahon also expressed his concern on radio and said that he had all the details of the fraud. Has the Minister ever carried out any investigation into this?

Some years ago Fianna Fáil introduced the supplementary welfare scheme as a replacement for home assistance. This was a step in the right direction and was a great improvement. But there is still room for improvement. The community welfare officers should be given greater flexibility in the face of the increasing demands made on them. The community officer has no authority to provide for extra special payments and this could account for what happens in cases such as I outlined when I spoke in this debate before. I said that I hoped that the Combat Poverty Agency would, when set up, take account of this. I am disappointed at the length of time the Government have taken in bringing in this Bill into the House. When the Government came into office they abolished the National Community Development Agency. It is most unfortunate that we have had to wait for over three years to have this Bill introduced in the House and I know it will be quite some time before it becomes law. In 1982 Fianna Fáil allocated £2 million to fight poverty. When the present Government took office they decided not to honour the Fianna Fáil commitment but instead talked about their proposal to set up agencies. This Government brought back a number of small grants which were directed to the voluntary organisations.

I think we would all agree that the situation in regard to poverty is contributed to by the levels of education, job insecurity, health conditions, and the low rate of income, particularly where the family are on long term social welfare assistance and there is not sufficient money to buy essentials.

This Government have a bad record in relation to poverty and it can be said that many Government policies have been responsible for creating poverty. Under the National Community Development Bill a body was set up with funding provided. It is sad that the Government have seen fit to abolish that board on which there was a wide representation of voluntary organisations, such as St. Vincent de Paul. That organisation are very familiar with the extent of poverty which exists in this country today.

By dismissing that National Community Development Board the Government saved about £8 million over three years. This was part of the Government's policy on cutbacks. I would like to pay a tribute to members of the St. Vincent de Paul Society for their tremendous dedication and work in the area of poverty, for their work among the poor and those affected by poverty. The present financial constraints make the job of that organisation more difficult.

There are many people who wait for the St. Vincent de Paul's representative to visit them. In Ballymun alone there are 3,000 and 4,000 families waiting for the St. Vincent de Paul representative to give them a few pounds each week. There is something seriously wrong with a society when people living in poverty have to depend on a voluntary organisation like St. Vincent de Paul. Will the Combat Poverty Agency change the position in any way and ensure that people living in poverty will not have to depend on the small weekly donation from St. Vincent de Paul? When the Combat Poverty Agency are established I hope they will not be just another layer of bureaucracy but will help all who need it and be free from red tape otherwise the exercise of setting up such a board will be useless. There is a great need to identify those in need of assistance and the machinery must be there to give this assistance without delay.

I wish to refer to another matter which will have a terrible effect on our old people. The Government decided in the 1986 budget to introduce a retention tax. This means the old, the sick, the most vulnerable in our society will have their savings taxed for the first time ever. A case brought to my attention recently was that of a small self-employed shopkeeper who retired because of age and health. He invested his money in a financial institution and the interest was paid every month — £250 a month, or roughly £60 per week. He is very worried now because he knows his interest will be taxed. He will have to live on a mere pittance. He does not get any pension or assistance from the State but it appears that from now on he will have to look for assistance from St. Vincent de Paul.

Many old and sick people who got the free fuel allowance in 1984-85 were refused this allowance in 1985-86. Many old, disabled and sick people could not understand why they did not qualify for the allowance this year but we all know this is part of the Government's cutbacks.

Many people no longer qualify for the medical card. Even though there are members in the household with serious health problems because of the income of the household they did not qualify for the medical card. The health boards referred these people to the drug refund scheme. Many of these people cannot afford the drugs the doctor prescribes and have no option but to do without the drugs or medicine. Even if they did manage to pay for the drugs they would have to wait until the money is refunded and poor people cannot afford to wait until it is posted to them.

There is also a need to review the number of diseases listed particularly bronchitis. Because of our very severe weather many people are affected by bronchitis. Such people should be entitled to the medical card since this would help to alleviate hardship on them.

In 1985 the Minister for Health got great publicity when he said he was extending the double payment at Christmas to all social welfare receipents, but he did that at the expense of the pensioners because there was a 25 per cent reduction in pensions to compensate for extending the double payment at Christmas. This was a rob Peter to pay Paul decision. When Fianna Fáil were in Government they gave all old age pensioners the double payment at Christmas and they were the first Government to do so.

Many young people who have completed their studies have great difficulty in getting employment. If they are living in the family home and have reached the age of 18 they may apply for social welfare assistance. Because they are living at home there will be a means test and more than likely they will be granted between £8 and £10 per week. Many applications will be rejected because of the income in the family home. This is deplorable because it means a young person of 18 years or over has no independence. In order to gain independence many young people leave home and live in hostels or local authority accommodation. When that happens, it costs the State a lot more because the local authority have to provide accommodation at a low rent and the health board have to furnish that accommodation at a certain cost to the taxpayer.

During the Committee Stage of the Social Welfare Bill this question was raised with the Minister of State. The Minister Deputy Pattison, stated that if they were to extend this scheme and abolish the means test it could cost the taxpayer an additional £30 million. Many young girls nowadays get pregnant and this is a terrible situation. Some of these girls have to leave home because they cannot get work and they cannot get social welfare while they are living with their family. This should never happen. This is a matter of great concern and is a great expense to the taxpayer because when a young girl has a baby she is given the unmarried mother's allowance and she gets local authority accommodation which must be furnished by the health board.

I am anxious to know what resources the Government intend to provide for the most disadvantaged people in our society. We cannot think seriously of doing something about poverty if we do not outline the resources that will be available. The main cause of poverty is unemployment. In fact, it is the main cause of all the evils we have to tolerate in our society today. At present the poor here receive incomes which are inadequate and the services and financial assistance provided by the health boards are also inadequate. Cutbacks in the hospital services are massive particularly in this city. As far as I am aware only one hospital in this city is on emergency service at night, and this is a great problem for the seriously ill. Some people who are seriously ill have great difficulty in getting into hospital, as was outlined in the House by my colleague, Deputy O'Kennedy.

Recently I called to see a woman in my constituency whose husband had died. She told me that she took him into a Dublin hospital and there the doctor decided to perform a slight operation on him but the hospital authorities told her that there was no bed for him, that she would have to take him home. She brought him home by taxi and there she discovered that he was bleeding severely. She had to call her neighbours and he had to be taken back to hospital by ambulance. He was 77 years of age and she herself was over 70. Unfortunately, because of the extent of bleeding the man died. Had a bed been available in that hospital that man would be alive today.

This Combat Poverty Agency Bill is one we have awaited for three and a half years. It has been a political football between the Fianna Fáil Party and the Coalition Government. We have seen the National Community Development Agency and so on set up and at last we have this Bill to establish the Combat Poverty Agency.

I will outline some aspects of poverty which I would like to see this agency dealing with. There are many forms of poverty in our society and the most important one in terms of the scope of this agency is the institutional poverty that exists here which we have created by the various schemes we administer. I will give a few examples of what I am talking about when I speak of institutional poverty. Consider our higher educational grants system. We see a means tested scheme whereby up to a certain level you get some grant aid and that slides down as income increases. However, at very low income levels with parents on social welfare there is no extra higher rate of grant for them. In other words, with all these schemes there is a point at which the maximum grant for board, lodging, fees and so on is reached.

Take a theoretical income of £10,000. If you are below that you get the maximum but that is not to say that someone on £5,000 who is much more deserving of an even higher rate of grant than someone on £9,900 will get such a higher rate. Therefore, we have a form of institutional poverty where, even though we may allocate more resources to higher education grants, those in great need do not benefit proportionately to their needs. Therefore, I am somewhat sceptical of many schemes which represent a perquisite, an incentive or an aid to someone who is going to avail of the service anyway rather than bringing something like third level education nearer to the poorer sections of our community. If you do not give educational opportunity to the children of parents who never sat for the Leaving Certificate, you are getting no nearer to bridging the poverty gap in the next generation.

The house improvement grant scheme is another example of what I am talking about. Here we operate a system whereby if you conform to the criteria, the nuts and bolts of the scheme, a registered contractor, not having got a grant previously and so on, you can get a grant of two thirds, but if you are a social welfare recipient there is no provision to finance the remaining third. Yes, we have various incentives which are excellent in themselves, but basically they facilitate people in doing what perhaps they are going to do anyway rather than meeting the special needs of the people in the poorer section of our community.

I am sure that you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and every Member of this House have had people coming to your clinics who are on social welfare, disability benefit, unemployment benefit, widowed, a pensioner or whatever and need to get their windows replaced. Say the cost is £1,500. A grant of £800 makes it just as remote from them as if there were no grant at all because they cannot finance the balance. Therefore, this new agency must see their role as reviewing existing schemes around the spectrum of every Department of State to see how we can bring the benefits of certain existing schemes nearer to the poorer sections. In Britain up to 90 per cent grant is allowed under the house improvement grant scheme for those on social welfare because there the special needs of those who are on the lowest incomes are recognised.

This Bill does not contain a definition of poverty. The Oxford Dictionary's definition of it is somewhat subjective. My definition of poverty is people being unable to afford the most basic conveniences and facilities, a reasonable standard of living, a reasonable standard of accommodation and a reasonable standard of opportunities for themselves and their children whether in employment or education. A basic necessity nowadays is electricity in the home. People are in extreme poverty if they have not electricity in the house. Yet the Department of Social Welfare have no scheme whatsoever to facilitate people who have not got electricity installed in their houses. That hallmark of poverty is ignored by all the administration and all the schemes. If someone who is living in a mobile home, a flat or a remote, very dilapidated house asks the ESB to instal electricity and the cost is £2,000, that person cannot afford it, and there is no scheme whatsoever to provide such people with what is almost a basic, human, social and economic right, electric lighting and heating.

Therefore, I hope that this agency, once established after this Bill is enacted, will be a totally independent organisation who will be able to review in the same way as the Ombudsman the anomalous features of our administration code and pinpoint to the Departments of State areas where existing schemes bypass the poor, leave them behind and facilitate people who are only marginally in need of various group services and benefits. The new agency's most important initial role would be not to pioneer new areas but to review all the State schemes and pinpoint areas of institutional poverty and see how they can be revised to help the poorer sections.

This morning I am sure all Deputies received a submission from the Cork combat poverty resource project. They said they had met local representatives in Cork and that they were seeking substantial amendments to this Bill. Basically, the point they make is that they represent underprivileged and unemployed groups in Cork and that they would like to see a direct role for those whom this agency purport to represent. That could be in the form of direct financial support for projects put forward, perhaps by direct representation on the board of the agency or in an indirect consultative role.

I hope that at the end of Second Stage the Minister or Minister of State will assure the House that their practical approach to dealing with underprivilege and property will be responded to when the agency are established because there is a great fear that agencies like this permit politicians to compartmentalise the problem. When politicians talk about poverty, there is an instinctive response to set up an agency, committee or commission which will compartmentalise poverty into one area of thinking and do nothing else.

There is also the danger that the agency will become a professional and bureaucratic organisation which will produce regular glossy annual reports full of statistics and good intentions, but which will not get to the meat of the problem which is to introduce simple changes in existing schemes so that there is a higher rate of grants for house improvements, a scheme to help people to install electricity and higher education grants for the less well off. I hope the submission from Cork will be considered sympathetically and that various groups, especially in inner city areas, will be allowed to play a direct role with the agency.

I should also like the Minister to ensure that the agency will try to establish centres in certain areas because there are many forms of poverty. I accept that the financial form is the root of all evil but there is also poverty in the sense of loneliness of elderly people and of those who are extremely unhappy at being neglected by their families and at having to live in institutions because of their geriatric condition. Money will not solve the problems of many people. Without being too philanthropic, there are those who are poor in spirit and we should do something to help them. For example, last week I visited a day care centre in a geriatric hospital where old people come in from Monday to Friday. They play bingo and other games; they knit and crochet and these activities are very important to them. If we take that analogy and apply it to the unemployed, many of whom are bored and frustrated, it is obvious that they have financial problems but that they also have other needs because of their impoverished position.

I should like the agency to set up resource centres on a localised basis where people can go to get information about job opportunities, adult education courses, social welfare information and what is available from private organisations. It is very important not to see it in terms of a financial problem only and to recognise that there is a need to involve people in a community sense. The Combat Poverty Agency should be able to utilise existing schemes to ensure that unemployed people could visit the elderly, extend meals on wheels, install burglar alarms and so on.

One cannot deal with poverty without reflecting on the supplementary welfare allowance scheme because our response to poverty at present operates through this scheme. The purpose of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is to close the gaps in the system as it operates at present. The role of the health boards, through their community welfare officers, is to help someone with funeral expenses or an ESB bill if the person involved cannot claim under an existing scheme. The current State response is through the supplementary welfare system and, therefore, in examining poverty and the role of this agency we must look at these allowances. There is a muddled policy in this regard. It is subjective in its application between individual community welfare officers.

For instance, in my constituency you can get different interpretations of the same regulations relating to the availability of supplementary welfare allowances and the same applies in relation to medical card approvals and free fuel allowances. There are a variety of circumstances in relation to people who do not strictly conform to a scheme but to whom mitigating circumstances may apply. They may have a huge debt with the credit union or have run up bills because someone in the family is on expensive drugs which are not available under the medical card scheme. All these needs should be dealt with.

I welcome the Bill and I wish the agency well, but if all that money was poured into supplementary welfare assistance and community welfare officers were allowed to be a little bit more generous, we might do something more practical and realistic for the poor. I hope one of the strong voices heard from the agency will say there will be no budgetary cutbacks in the area of supplementary welfare allowances and that they will use their influence to ensure that the training and instructions to community welfare officers will give the benefit of the doubt to recipients and applicants. It is important that the agency are seen to be independent. They should not be seen as another arm of the Department of Social Welfare or a propaganda unit of the Minister for Social Welfare. They should have a clear, unambiguous and independent role. I hope they will be able to take the inconsistencies and anomalies out of the supplementary welfare allowance code and ensure that poorer sections of the community get a meaningful benefit.

When discussing the question of poverty we should pay an enormous tribute — not in any patronising way — to the voluntary organisations and charities that have been to the forefront in assisting the poor. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul spring to mind but there are many others. It is important that we go beyond lip service when complimenting voluntary organisations. One of the targets of the agency should be to ensure that the Departments of Health and Social Welfare utilise the goodwill that exists in those organisations. They should try to match the finance raised by voluntary organisations for different schemes. I am mindful of the Radio 2 Lions Club appeal at Christmas for non-perishable goods and other appeals for toys at Christmas. I would like the Department to be able to say to charitable organisations that if they legitimately raise a certain amount of money it will be matched to the tune of 50p for every £1 raised.

I hope the agency, and the Department of Social Welfare, will not be moving in one direction because it suits the administrative structure while at the same time charitable organisations move in another direction. It is important that we have a convergence of the private sector and the State in those areas. The State, through the agency, should complement the work of voluntary organisations. At the end of the day it is important that we have a community response to poverty and not leave everything to the State. We have failed to date to have any type of matching response to the charitable work done by organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. The State, when a need is identified in an area, whether it is meals on wheels, the provision of electricity services, heating materials or basic nutrition for certain categories should match the amount raised locally with a certain contribution. That would give the local organisation confidence to do more good work.

The problem of unemployment has been mentioned by all contributors to the debate. Members have referred to the difficulties that arise as a consequence of unemployment. There is no doubt that the black economy is a by-product of poverty. Necessity is the mother of invention and people find that they have to work outside the legitimate system to supplement the meagre payments they get from the Department of Social Welfare. I do not condone that but such a situation is State created. It is up to the State to respond to those needs. The agency should go beyond a handout mentality and try to be more imaginative. They should carry out research into the number of people who find they must supplement their unemployment assistance by working outside the official tax and social welfare codes. In some cases people deliberately break the law in that regard.

The agency should prepare a scheme for casual work. It should be possible to introduce in some part of the country such a scheme that will suit employers and employees. Employers should be able to go into an employment exchange and take on a person for one day without having to deal with a mass of paper work or the employee being cut off the social welfare system for four or five weeks. It should be possible to devise a simple mechanism so that people can clock off the dole onto casual work.

Another form of poverty that needs to be dealt with relates to housing. The housing grants scheme, because of its two-thirds maximum grant aid, militates against the poor. We should follow the housing benefit scheme that operates in the UK. Under that scheme an emigrant, a person evicted from private accommodation, or a person who is without accommodation following the break up of a marriage is considered for assistance. Those people are considered to be in the poverty category. The social welfare code should have some form of housing benefit for those who are homeless. It should be in the form of a weekly cash payment over a number of months so that people do not have to live in impoverished conditions. The agency should deal with those matters.

I hope the Government will ensure that the European Community come up with a more coherent response to poverty. I accept that £17½ million was allocated over a four year period under a combat poverty programme and that the EC approved various pilot projects here. However, I consider that to be crumbs from the table and a haphazard response. We do not have an integrated Community policy. There is no doubt, given our fiscal position, that there should be a Community response through the Council of Ministers dealing with social welfare. There should be a real response from the Community and it should not amount to more talk about training and retraining. We need new ways to deal with the 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the population in the Community who are classified as being in the poverty bracket.

I should like to deal with some of the anomalies in the social welfare code. The agency should go one step further than the Ombudsman who pinpoints anomalies but does not deal with the need for changes in the social welfare code. There are anomalies concerning deserted wives which in some cases lead to poverty. It is grossly unfair that a deserted wife with a family can be refused a deserted wife's allowance by virtue of the fact that she left her husband of her own volition. It does not matter that she was battered, beaten, or otherwise illtreated; to qualify for this allowance she must not have left her husband of her own volition. He must have walked off. That is a quite clear anomaly. These people had no choice but to desert their husbands and often have to live in the worst possible conditions in hostels and mobile homes. They should be entitled to a deserted wife's allowance or a separated wife's allowance. I hope that anomaly will be prominent on the agenda of the agency.

There is no point in bringing in a number of new schemes which deal with what could be dealt with under the existing codes. I hope the agency can impress on the Department of Social Welfare the existence of another form of poverty — degradation. This is, perhaps, the most insulting form of poverty. It concerns the attitude of medical referees and of social welfare officers, but I do not wish to generalise or be unfair to these people who are doing a difficult job and trying to weigh up the balance and find out where the truth lies. The balance should come down most definitely on the side of compassion and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the applicant.

This morning a 61 year old constituent of mine came to me saying that his disability benefit had been cut off because he knows that he cannot work, being very ill and old. That will be very degrading because he will be many months without the allowance before it is again paid to him. That is a form of poverty arising from an attitude, perhaps, of a medical referee. Deputy Barrett also mentioned this matter. We are not just talking about money. We are talking about attitudes vis-á-vis spongers, people milking the system, a mentality which ensures that the innocent suffer with the guilty. I hope the agency will insist on training schemes for employees of the Department of Social Welfare, officers of the health boards and community officers to ensure that at no stage is any feeling of degradation suffered by the applicants and recipients of social welfare benefits.

I hope the agency can deal with the grey and confusing area of young people between the ages of 16 and 20 years who are in and out of education. There are a number of anomalies there. If Deputy Lyons or I were the recipient of a disability benefit and had a child who was perhaps a slow learner in second level education and doing the Leaving Certificat at 19 years of age, once that child goes over the age of dependant's allowance, the allowance is cut off. Child allowance payments continue until the child is 18 years old but those who continue their studies to improve their employment opportunities are victimised by these allowances being cut off.

Conversely, there is also the unfair anomaly in the case of people who leave school early, have done the Intermediate Certificate but are under the age of 18. They are not entitled to unemployment assistance because one must be 18 years old to be so entitled. These people between 16 and 18 years have no dependant's allowance, are no longer at school and are not entitled to any payment whatsoever. People who are at school later or have left school earlier than anticipated are at the mercy of community welfare officers, through the health boards, as to whether they are entitled to supplementary welfare allowance or not. This is not good enough and it should be investigated by the agency to see whether arising out of the uncertainty, confusion and gaps in the system, there will be comprehensive reforms to ensure that those gaps can be plugged and cases of need dealt with.

There are overall areas of discrimination that need to be looked at, in terms of the fringe benefits, free telephone rental, free electricity allowance and so on. Why are widows under 66 years old less deserving than those over 66 years old? That makes no sense. That is not something which the Ombudsman can rectify because the Department are administering the scheme according to the way it is laid down. I hope the agency will acknowledge that in many cases widows under 66 years of age who have six and seven children, and whose husbands died suddenly, have a need far greater than some widows over 66 years. Those changes could be made.

I ask the agency to be practical above all else, to ensure that they deal with the real problem and do not become a highfalutin, airy-fairy, ivory tower organisation who preach to all about what they should do, but do not get down to solving the problems. They must remember that they are the creation of this House. As a statutory body, they have more influence than the individual TD or the particular pressure group. We have no lobby group for the poor. They are without any pressure group or trade union so I hope that the agency, in these areas on which I have spoken, will act as a pressure group against poverty. They will thus be playing a very important role. There are many anomalies in other areas such as prescribed relative's allowance, free fuel allowance and such, but I understand the debate is somewhat limited and is due to conclude.

I wish the agency well. I hope they are unequivocal in their role and make an outstanding, pioneering contribution in terms of being outspoken, forthright and unambiguous on behalf of the poor of our community. I do not want glossy reports, endless research and statistics which would get the agency into analysis paralysis, as with so many agencies. I hope that the Minister, arising out of the report each year, can point to many changes being made in the schemes within the Department of Social Welfare and to higher education being brought nearer to the poor and that house improvements and adjustments to existing schemes will recognise that people cannot afford to avail of current benefits. I commend this Bill to the House and wish the agency well in their programme.

Ag tagairt don Bhille seo um ghníomhaireacht do Chomhrac na Bochtaine, tá sé thar a bheith soiléir go bhfuil an-chuid bochtanais sa tír seo. Tá an fhadhb chomh mór sin nach gceapaim go mbeidh an t-ochtar nó, ar is mó, an deichniúr atá luaite mar bhaill den ghrúpa a chuirfear i mbun na hoibre in ann an bochtanas san a réiteach.

In paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum to this Bill it is suggested that the agency should consist of not less than eight and not more than ten members, including a chairman and vice-chairman. My contention about the exercise of setting up an agency to examine the poverty which is widespread right across all sections of the country at this time is that it cannot be seriously tackled by a group of eight to ten people. The people who should be addressing this problem, and who have available the facilities and knowledge of each of the Departments in Government, are the Cabinet. They must address the problem of poverty and must address the causes which are much more in line with the phrase "prevention is better than cure." The Cabinet with the backup of the Civil Service, reports, advisers and consultants who have been appointed and utilised by the Government, should be able to address the extent of poverty.

I do not know what is hoped for by the setting up of this agency. As I have already said, that agency could not be expected to address the problem and find solutions if the Government and their Departments have not to date found ways and means of alleviating the poverty which stalks this land. I do not know how in the name of goodness this agency can be the equivalent of Solomon and all his glory. What are the Government doing about the causes of poverty? The Oxford dictionary describes poverty as indigence; want, of which there is plenty; scarcity — there is a tremendous scarcity of employment for people which is the beginning and the cause of poverty — deficiency of and deficiency in property, for example, as in small holdings throughout the country. The poverty that exists in small holdings must be well known to the Department of Agriculture and other Departments.

The dictionary also describes poverty as poorness. Poorness and poverty are synonymous words. Roget's Thesaurus of English words gives other names for poverty such as feebleness. God help the feeble people at this time who are subject to the crime, lawlessness and vandalism which stalk the land. We ask those feeble people to put their money into financial institutions and the Government then come along and impose DIRT. "Necessity" is also used by that same Roget's Thesaurus — the necessity to do something about unemployment, the necessity to create an atmosphere of investment in industry so as to provide employment and thus help to eradicate the causes of poverty. "Scarcity" is another word in the same terminology, scarcity of people's resources through loss of their jobs. "Empty purse" is a very simple phrase for poverty. The Government should be well aware that there are many empty purses at this time.

To imagine, think or expect for a moment that eight to ten people in a new agency can solve these problems is unacceptable. My colleague who spoke before me made reference to the social welfare code, some of which has not been updated. Take, for example, the Unemployment Assistance Act of the thirties or forties. Nothing has been done with it since. Insufficient income is one of the basic causes of poverty. One gets insufficient income by jobs not being available. One gets insufficient income when one is on unemployment assistance. Young people living at home are presumed under the terms of the Act to have assessed income of varying figures from £15 to £24 and sometimes higher. That is deducted from the allowance under that scheme of £33.85. These young people have been given paltry sums. I have had constituents insulted to the extent that they have been offered £1.50, £5 or £8 a week. It was expected that their mothers and fathers would keep them. That is insufficient income if ever there was a description of it.

"Reduced circumstances" is another description of poverty. "Reduced circumstances" is similar to insufficient income. Of course, it creates poverty. Reduced circumstances are the order of the day in recent times. People who have lost their jobs and those who have mortgages have had their circumstances reduced and reduced. They are a group of people we tend to forget about, the people who tried to do something for themselves and who became redundant. Their redundancy money was compensation for the loss of their jobs. This was taxed in the first instance. They had to account for the spending of every penny of it following which they are assessed for unemployment assistance. If they do not have the receipts for the few pints they had over the bar counter, they will not get much compassion from the Department operating under the legislation they have to work under. This is no fault of the officials. They are only carrying out their duty.

"Subsistence level" is another description of poverty. The number of people at or below subsistence level is alarming. This must be well known to the many Government Departments, in particular the Department of Social Welfare. Nevertheless, as I have said already, these magic eight to ten people are expected to solve all these problems. In all honesty, it is more than an insurmountable task. I am wondering what will be the outcome of setting up this agency? How are they expected to do what the Cabinet, and Government Departments have failed to do? They have failed to address the problem of poverty and its causes.

The proposal to set up the Combat Poverty Agency is relevant to EC Directives. It is fair to say that in 1971 the Kilkenny Conference on Poverty concluded that one quarter of the population were poor. It does not stretch the imagination or common sense of people to realise how much worse off we are in 1986, 15 years on.

I am sure it would be reasonable to suggest that we could now double that percentage and say 50 per cent of the people are poor. They are poor in many categories and strata of society. The number of registered unemployed people in 1971 was 57,238. The current number of jobless registered — I emphasise registered — is in the 250,000 bracket. I said in this House that the real number of people unemployed is much closer to 300,000. That has been confirmed in recent articles and statements by people who have studied in the matter in depth. We are told by the Department of Labour that there are a number of people in temporary employment schemes. Otherwise the number unemployed would be 300,000. there are between 40,000 and 50,000 people involved in industrial training schemes, special job schemes, or other Government sponsored programmes.

The Department of Labour indicated that 9,000 workers claim between £70 and £85 per week in return for two and a half days work under the terms of the social employment scheme. The document Building on Reality indicated that the number would eventually reach 10,000 per annum over a three year period at a potential cost to the State of over £50 million a year. Participants in this scheme cease to appear in the live register figures which are 232,000 at present. I am not complaining about the social employment scheme. For the benefit of people, for their morale, their well-being and their sense of identity, it is better to have them employed under the social employment scheme for two and a half days a week, or on a week on and week off basis as operated by various local authorities. It is soul destroying for people to find themselves without jobs or without the prospect of a job. It is only on that basis that I welcome that sort of scheme.

The next most popular of the temporary employment schemes is the enterprise allowance scheme. In all there are about 5,000 people involved in this scheme. There are another 2,000 workers, on average, involved in the team community work sponsored by the Department of Labour or one of their agencies. The Department indicated that the throughput under these headings is about 3,000 persons. In addition, 5,000 persons are engaged in the work experience programmes organised by the National Manpower Service. Like the social employment scheme, I welcome the work experience programmes for people with no hope of attaining jobs. It is a short-term relief from the boredom and the feelings of hopelessness that are rampant and widespread among our unemployed.

On average there are 19,000 participants in the social employment scheme, the work enterprise programmes, the enterprise allowance scheme and the community work programmes. Subsidies are paid to employers which contribute to the temporary recruitment of about 5,000 workers. There are 20,000 people being trained by AnCO at present. They are doing a tremendous job in training and retraining but what is there for those people at the end of the day? It is frustrating for the instructors, the officers and the administrators of An Comhairle Oiliúna that there is not even a 25 per cent guarantee of employment for their students.

Taking all these special schemes together it is obvious that the Government are sponsoring in one way or another somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 persons who would otherwise be claiming the dole and adding to the official total on the live register. With many of these schemes it is like the revolving door. One group finishes and another group starts the next month. It continues in a merry-go-round of temporary employment, training and retraining but with no sustainable jobs in the end. How can the Combat Poverty Agency find a solution to this when the entire Government cannot do it?

Mention must be made of the poverty that arises from the extent of emigration. In previous months a question has been raised by my colleagues and, in particular by Deputy Fahey, about the number of people who have emigrated to the UK or to America. It is deplorable that we have not got a head count of those people in the CSO or in any Department. Many people leave in desperation in search of employment. As Deputies and Senators know from their experience in their constituencies, not just one or two people but three or four people are idle in many houses these days. Can we imagine the frustration, the uncomfortable feelings that arise from so many members of one family being unemployed?

A group of people from the Irish Centre in Britain told us recently that many Irish people now there drew the few pounds that were given to them at some local labour exchange and rather than face back to the home environment and the poverty in those households, they got on the boat in the clothes they were standing in and went to England to seek employment. That statement has not been contradicted by the Government. The problem that causes poverty is not being addressed by the Government who are not making any effort to eradicate the causes.

Roughly 50 per cent of those on unemployment assistance and benefit have dependants. The increased numbers of jobless have swelled the numbers of poor in our society. As unemployment has spread across the EC it has impacted on the nature and extent of poverty in each of the countries, increasing the number in marginal groups in society, but with Ireland's unemployment rate at 18 per cent compared to a European average of 11 per cent, poverty, deprivation and inequality have increased correspondingly here.

Even if the increase were only marginally above that reported at the Kilkenny Conference in 1971 when only 57,000 people were unemployed, and now we are on the 300,000 mark, the problem of poverty has become more acute and complex, and I fail to see how the setting up of an agency under this Bill can be expected to solve it. I will continue to emphasise that poverty is being created through unemployment. This must be addressed by the Government.

Certain urban areas, sprawling residential estates, have massive unemployment problems. There is a cause and effect relationship between unemployment and the growth of social problems in underprivileged urban areas, including vandalism, crime and drugs, as an escapism from social and other pressures. I am sure the Government have not been waiting until 22 May 1986 for me to point that out to them or for a debate on this Bill to indicate it to them. It is no exageration to say that poverty is increasing instability in our society.

That sentence could be analysed but it would take up too much time to do it in this limited debate. It is no exaggeration to say that poverty is increasing instability in our society. For this reason a concerted effort to boost growth, economic output and jobs must form the basis of the fight against poverty. Close examination and analysis will be a prerequisite if we are to tackle seriously the problems of the underprivileged. At the same time, I should like a clear commitment from the Minister and the Government that the many excellent voluntary organisations working with the underprivileged will be closely involved in the various research activities undertaken by the Government. It is not possibloe to have this matter totally dealt with by the Combat Poverty Agency.

Recently, we have had requests for questions on the Adjournment here because finance had been cut off from voluntary groups who had been trying to do something for the underprivileged, the less well off, the poverty stricken in the huge sprawling residential areas in Dublin. To cut off the lifeline of support from these voluntary agencies is no answer to the need to ease proverty, because these agencies had been trying to do something to save a society which is crumbling. The experience and expertise which the voluntary organisations have garnered through the years of humanitarian work among the poor can be used in a very practical manner. Close links will have to be forged between the work of the researchers and the needs of the people. In this way we may avoid the danger of academic research being conducted and pursued on a purely theoretical basis, because a similar agency in the past achieved nothing but the appointment of people through friendship with particular politicians. I do not have to elaborate on why that agency was set up and why people were appointed to it whose political affiliations were well known: even when they came on television they could not resist indicating their politicial affiliations.

That is not the way to deal with poverty here, and if that is what is proposed in this Bill and the setting up of this group, the Government had better have another look at it. I do not think it is possible to over emphasise the need for this matter to be pursued not on a purely theoretical basis, but I am afraid that is what will happen. I said earlier that the Government must address themselves first to the causes of poverty. This agency of eight or ten people will be expected to do that, though the Government up to now have failed to do it.

The structure of the proposed organisation has not been clearly indicated. In my opinion Government policy should be, but is not in this case, such as not to combat poverty but to prevent it. That is the theme I want to emphasise. Prevention is better than cure and it is well established that Ireland already has a surplus of State and semi-State bodies covering a wide and varied spectrum of activities, many doing excellent work but many more overlapping and resource consuming. I acknowledge the Government's acceptance in May 1985 of one of the few Private Members' motions tabled by us which were not voted down by the Coalition Government. In that motion we proposed that a number of the many different agencies should be brought together to eliminate overlapping and the misuse of financial resources. That was in May 1985. The Government tabled an amendment on Tuesday night, accepted the motion on Wednesday night but they have done nothing since. If the Government accepted 12 months ago that it was necessary to restructure and reorganise many of the agencies, is it not time that they did something about it? That is why I question the advisability of setting up another body that may be suspect in its ability to combat poverty.

What is this poverty we speak about? There is no doubt that the unemployed are poor. The income of the person who does not receive a wage is often inadequate to maintain a family or even an individual. The loss of status for the unemployed is deeply demoralising. Can this Bill do anything for the jobless? Will it lead to increased levels of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit? Will it change the attitude of the Government and the mainstream of society towards the unemployed? Even if 1 per cent of those objectives are achieved it might be worth setting up the agency, but I am not convinced it will have any effect on the causes of poverty. It is a job for the Government and it will have to be addressed by them.

As a result of this Bill, will we demand economic policies that will generate jobs? Will we address ourselves to the painful problem of unemployment that is long past being acceptable and that must haunt any citizen who reflects on the untapped potential of the country. If the Combat Poverty Agency stimulates real debate on these subjects something worthwhile may be achieved. At least it gives us the opportunity here to talk about poverty as a separate issue. Discussion on eliminating the causes of poverty must be the principal thrust of this debate rather than setting up a board of eight or ten people.

Our society and our economy are going through a period of great change. It is obvious that our overly centralised bureaucratic structures are unable to respond with the necessary degree of flexibility to the challenges posed by a rapidly changing society. I am not suggesting that the Government by themselves can create jobs for the 300,000 unemployed. I accept that a percentage of people registered as unemployed are physically unable to work but that number is small. I do not say that any Government could create the jobs that are needed but the Government should be able to create a climate that is conducive to industrial expansion and the creation of jobs. In that way the root causes of poverty could be tackled. It is quite clear that this Government have failed totally to create that climate for industrial expansion. They have done nothing to restore confidence in the economy. They have not given the necessary leadership.

This Government will be remembered for many things. They will be remembered for their broken promises, for deficit budgeting and for foreign borrowing. The latter two items were planks of their general election campaign in 1982 but they have gone by the wayside. The priorities of this Government have gone completely askew following the Taoiseach's social crusade for contraception, abortion and divorce. The Government will be remembered for these things, not for the creation of employment or the expansion of industry. In an effort to divert the attention of the public from the economy they introduced these items of social change, as they describe them.

Frankensteins.

Perhaps a limited number of people want that kind of social change but that is not the general view throughout the country. Deputies opposite must be aware that people are interested in the creation of jobs and employment, but these are not a priority with this Government. I often wonder how Government Deputies respond to callers to their clinics who ask them about jobs for their sons and daughters. Do the Deputies reply that such matters are not a priority for the Government, that divorce is their priority at the moment?

The task of rectifying the budget deficit has been abandoned and this Government have borrowed more extensively than any other administration. They may say that the rate of inflation has gone down and that as a result of tremendous pressure in the past two weeks by the Minister interest rates have gone down by 1 per cent. I can tell Deputies opposite it is no solace or comfort to the poverty-stricken people to fob them off their referenda, with the drop in interest rates, welcome though it is, and with the reduction in inflation if jobs are not available for their children who are sitting for their examinations this summer.

This Government will be remembered also for the many closures, liquidations and the contraction of enterprise and business. It is well known throughout our society that at the first sign of problems in an industry the first reaction of this Government is to close it down. There are plenty of such examples. I am sure I may be permitted to refer to some of them.

Only a passing reference.

The hauling down of the Tricolour from the ships of Irish Shipping in ports around the world to the eternal disgrace of this Government was one of the saddest things which happened in this country. There was no sense of pride or confidence. At the first sign of trouble they close everything. The Panamanians and Liberians are drawing the bauxite into Arigna and the coal into Money-point.

And they will be drawing fire in soon if the Deputy does not resume on the Bill.

The lack of proper policies have contributed in an alarming manner to the poverty which stalks the country. Worse still, the Government have no solutions to offer.

I have asked them on numerous occasions to encourage investment in industry. The money in pension funds and financial institutions is invested in Government gilts and safe equity. However, if we removed some of the barbed wire from the designated trust funds to encourage investment in industry and give a reasonable tax allowance to people who invest money, something positive would have been done to eradicate the cause of much of our poverty.

Let me refer to another national disgrace. I remember that word was used in almost the same context a few years ago when it was described as a thundering disgrace. I am talking about the closure of Cork Verolme Dockyard.

You are wandering again, Deputy.

It is just a passing reference. It is relevant to the cause of poverty in the Cork area. The last ship that was built in that dockyard was the pride of this nation, the pride of the workforce and the design team. It was the P31. We said so on 29 November 1984. We indicated that it should be marketed around the world. The Government voted down our proposal but this week at least four prototypes of that vessel are being built in foreign shipyards. By leasing the design of the P31, which was named the Eithne the Government will get £1 million from each boat that is built. Our people are living in poverty as a result of the errors made by this Government.

Institutional failure is to a certain extent responsible for the growth in unemployment. I do not expect the Government to create jobs by waving a magic wand, but there are policies which could be adopted which would eliminate the cause of poverty by getting people back to work.

The problem of poverty is bound up with other socio-economic problems. Only by a profound reappraisal of society, its institutions and structures and emphasising the importance of involving all sections of society in the search for a solution, will we begin to seriously address the challenge posed by poverty and its related problems in the Ireland of 1986.

The late Cardinal Conway made reference to the comparison between dire poverty and relative poverty. As I recall, he said relative poverty could be every bit as bad as dire poverty because people were poor in circumstances where others did not share the same poverty. I do not know if that is entirely accurate. When one sees young children on television suffering from dire poverty a short journey away, with distended stomachs and bulging eyes, one realises that there is dire poverty which needs to be tackled.

Deputy Lyons referred to the causes of poverty. One of the greatest causes is gluttony and avarice on the part of people who have but do not want to give away to those how have not. That attitude has been encouraged by Fianna Fáil administrations for almost 16 years. Badly needed resources to combat poverty and bring about change have been hocked to buy votes from the relatively well off. That is the kernel of the problem. The reason why we give £34.95p to a single person living alone is that Fianna Fáil abolished the wealth tax, reduced the capital gains tax, minimised the farm tax, refunded the resource tax and cut down on the capital acquisitions tax. They abolished car tax and rates. They abolished all sources of funds. Why? It was not because it was the right thing to do at the time or because those who got that money particularly needed it. It was to buy their votes. One of the central problems we face in society today is that we cannot redistribute wealth without collecting it.

Deputy Lyons said prevention is better than cure. There was not much prevention in that action. It is extraordinary to hear Deputies speak about poverty in the community when their party seem to be orientated towards those who are privileged in the community.

When the combat poverty body was set up before it was abolished by the then Fianna Fáil Government. I refute any suggestion that Sister Stanislaus had any party affiliation or that she was appointed because she was a member of any particular party and did not have a particular interest in poverty. That is the implication in what is being said here.

I did not mentioned any name

She was appointed chairman of that body because she had a commitment to poverty, because she had a commitment to the needs of the community and because she was prepared to ruffle feathers, Government or Opposition. It is an act of calumny to suggest that people of the calibre of Sister Stanislaus are appointed to bodies simply because they are friends of some politician or support a particular party.

I never mentioned her name, or anybody's name.

I am particularly concerned with one group within the community. I have raised it with consecutive Ministers for Social Welfare. I have raised it privately and I have raised it in the House. It is a well know fact that I have raised it in our own parliamentary party. I refer to single persons in receipt of assistance of £34.95 a week, out of which they are expected to pay for their heat, light, rent, food and clothing. It is true that they can get supplementary assistance from the health board if they are stuck. But if a person on £34.95 a week gets a gas bill or an electricity bill which is in arrears and goes along to the health board with a bill for £50, they will be offered £10 or £15 off that bill. In all honesty, how can we expect people to live on £34.95 a week?

I know there are problems because if we increase that there is a relativity knock-on along the social welfare scale. But surely there should be some minimum amount of income that people are expected to live on. It often happens that an unemployed or unemployable person lives with a parent who is in receipt of an old age pension. When the parent dies that person is left with no income other than £34.95 per week and is at the mercy of the community welfare officer he may have to visit from time to time to get assistance. It is a terrible situation and I hope this Combat Proverty Agency will address themselves to this group. We cannot expect these people to survive on £34.95 a week. They suffer greatly and if it means fighting every other section of the community to give these people special status without creating a knock-on effect, then we should do that. It is not right to expect people to live on that amount of money.

For seven months, I was Opposition spokesman on health board reform. I am not happy with the performance of the health boards, particularly in assisting people who are in a poverty trap. Too much depends on the community officer of the day as to whether he will or will not help people who are badly in need. I accept that there are many people who are coming in and abusing the system but there are many who are not abusing the system and they do not always get the reception they deserve. The problem is that the health boards are not answerable to the Dáil directly because the Minister does not have a day to day responsibility for them, and they are not answerable to the local authority. They are a sort of hybrid body with representation from doctors and public representatives operating away on their own, and because they are not called in by public representatives and held accountable, it is not possible to make them as responsive as we would like them to be. If, for example, they were administered by local authorities, then councillors could call them in and ask them why they were not devoting more of their resources to helping the real poor. I remember the setting up in Ballymun of a pilot scheme to examined poverty and we provided £100,000 to the scheme; £60,000 was gone in a flash on administrative overhead costs. The whole question of the way the health boards go about their job leaves a lot to be desired. I want to put it on the record of the House here that I want to see the health boards abolished and I am calling for that here today because they are not——

An Leas-Cheann Comhaire

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

This is relevant because they are not responding in the way I would like to see them respond to poverty in the community. They do not have to, because they are not answerable as they should be to public representatives. They are not effective in helping those who are striving to survive. There are many who are abusing the system but there are many who are striving to survive who only occasionally bother them but do not get the response they deserve. I feel very strongly that we could divert more resources into combating poverty if the health boards could be made more responsive. The way to do that is to put them under the direct scrutiny of public representatives in some shape or form.

We all know there are people who are unemployed who suffer from poverty. But there are people who are employed who are suffering from poverty as well. Let me give an example. There is a constituent of mine, a man and his wife and two children aged two and four, living in Crumlin who have a mortgage on their house and a small loan from the credit union. The husband works. But this man now has to give back his house although he strove in very difficult circumstances for the past 18 months to try to meet his commitments. He now has to allow the house to be sold so that he can pay off the mortgage to the local authority because he simply cannot continue to meet the mortgage repayments and feed his children and look after his wife and family as he should. Often this man comes up to Friday without any money, getting by skimping on food, by borrowing from his parents and sisters living nearby who themselves are not too well off.

This is a man who is making the effort. If he got a leg up for may be 18 months or two years he would be on the straight and narrow and would be able to get by. But at the moment he is not able to get by, and he is working. This man is paying income tax. It is an obscenity that he is subject to a tax liability that he cannot afford while whole sections of the community protected by Deputy Lyons and his colleagues, farmers with more than 50 acres, are contributing damn all to the revenue resources of the country. That is the reality of the situation. People like this man are being crippled to carry the burden for large farmers who will not contribute and who are being protected by Fianna Fáil, among others.

The Coalition are in Government. What are they doing about it?

I am sick and tired of seeing large farmers being protected from contributing to the revenue of this country when young men and women have to hand back their house because they are paying tax and cannot afford to continue to pay the mortgage on their house. That is an obscenity and, unless we have the guts in this House to bring about more social justice, this sort of thing is going to go on. According to the Opposition everything is the Government's fault. Nobody else is at fault; the civil servants are wonderful fellows; AnCO are wonderful people; they are all wonderful people except the Government. Even Fianna Fáil are wonderful people. That does not answer the problem of my constituent who has to hand back his house while farmers with more than 50 acres are being protected and are not contributing a tosser to the Revenue. All that was taken up from them last year in taxation was £37 million, yet we handed them out a net £365 million.

You are moving into another field now.

There are some big fields and they are not paying any tax on what they reap from those fields, before we include the hand outs they got from the EC. The whole thing is a sick joke. The small farmers have my sympathy but there are large farmers on very good land not far from this House who are not contributing their fair share and are being protected by a ranchers' organisation which Deputies in this House are running scared of.

Unless we are prepared to tackle these areas and bring in the revenue, people like my constituent will have to give back their houses and go into local authority houses where they will be further subsidised by other taxpayers because we are not in a position to help them to reach their objective which is to be self reliant. My constituent put a lot of sweat, tears and effort into becoming self reliant and now he has to lose that house. If we in this House are interested in combating poverty we will have to have the courage to have equity in our system and that starts with tax equity across the board.

That is my contribution. I wish the Combat Poverty Agency well. I hope they will try to tackle the problems I have mentioned. I also hope the Minister will bear in mind my comments about single people living alone and the need for health board reform.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Bill. I also welcome the establishment of this agency and hope they will have the resources to deal with the increasing problem of poverty throughout the country. The timing of the establishment of this agency is very relevant. It is the Government's response to their failure in a large number of social and economic areas. On a number of occasions in this House I said the level of poverty and deprivation in any country is related to the success or failure of the Government in the areas of economic and social reform. It is my view that the present increasing and disastrous level of unemployment is one of the main contributing factors to the need for the establishment of this agency.

There can be no doubt that unemployment is the major breeding ground for all kinds of social problems and is responsible for the greater part of the problems we face at the present in terms of law and order. I had hoped that the Government, of any Government, would have identified much earlier the economic and social folly of deliberately creating an economic climate where unemployment continues to grow. However, we must deal with the proposal before us and try to provide the best possible level of protection for those who are becoming more and more dependent on the State for support.

I will give an example of the State's failure to provide adequately for those who are totally deprived and compare it with the work being done by the voluntary organisations and the response from the public to any worthwhile assistance for the socially deprived. The response from the voluntary organisations and the people has not been reflected in the level of services being provided by the State.

I did not hear the earlier speakers in this debate. I have no doubt that, in addition to the establishment of this agency, there is a far greater need for the Government to streamline their own agencies for the purpose of dealing with the problems of those people who must rely on State aid and support.

If one were to contrast the views and needs mentioned by the Minister for the establishment of this agency with the performance of, say, the Department of Social Welfare in caring for these same deprived people, I would have to say there is definitely a conflict of interest. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is becoming increasingly more difficult for the people to get from the State what they are entitled to.

Recently I attended a seminar and heard from the floor criticism of the role of public representatives who pretend they are getting for their constituents what they are legally entitled to from various Government agencies. I was asked to deal with that question. My immediate reaction to what was a very well intentioned question was that it is extremely difficult for people to get what they are legally entitled to. Members of this House and other public representatives have to spend an increasing amount of their time trying to get what the various State agencies should be providing for our people without any representation from grassroot level. It must be admitted that to some extent the criticism of public representatives is justified because I hold the view that I should spend more time in this House contributing to the formulation of policy — I like to spend as much time as I can in this House — but, on the other hand, I see my role as a public representative as ensuring that the people who are looking towards Dublin, to the various State Departments, get the help to which they are entitled but which is not as readily forthcoming as it should be. This applies particularly to the Department of Social Welfare.

In my last contribution I asked the Minister to give serious consideration to totally decentralising the Department of Social Welfare in order to streamline the efficiency of the Department in the first instance, but, more importantly, for the purpose of making the Department more easily accessible to the people who look to the Department for help. This Government spend a lot of time talking about the reorganisation of the Government services but has there been any reorganisation in the Department of Social Welfare? Never was it more difficult for an individual applicant to have his unemployment assistance claim, his unemployment benefit claim, or any other social welfare claim processed within a reasonable period. We have evidence of that in this House day after day at Question Time when Deputies find it necessary to table questions to the Minister for Social Welfare about the Department's delay in dealing with legitimate unemployment assistance claims. To prove my point, my invariable experience is that when I table a question in relation to some aspect of social welfare I get an immediate response. I am not saying that the response is always favourable in terms of the applicant having the claim granted, but at least the applicant will know how he or she stands in regard to that claim.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to set up some study group or whatever he has to do to consider this. I do not know what Ministers have to do in such situations. I am not an expert on any kind of reform within Government Departments, but it would not take a great deal of intelligence or foresight to envisage Department branches in each county receiving applications, processing them, having them investigated and making decisions in relation to individual applications. OK, it might be necessary for centralised Government to arrange for the payment, but I have no doubt that this is a major area where reform is needed at present.

I want to bring to the Minister's notice that, while he is bringing in this very welcome legislation, under various other agencies under the control of Government Departments people are being forced into poverty. Earlier, speakers in this House referred to recent decisions. For example, the decision to terminate and cut out clinic transport affects the poorest section of our community. At present people in my constituency find it necessary to attend, say, the county clinic in Portlaoise and have no transport of any kind of their own. They reside in remote parts of the constituency, many of them old people who rely on the generosity of a neighbour to drive them to the clinic for the regular medical attention which they require. What is the use of talking of setting up a new agency to combat poverty if other Government agencies are creating poverty? What I am saying is known to every Member of this House as fact, reality.

Patients who attend the rehabilitation workshops throughout the country — in my constituency they are in Portlaoise and Tullamore — have had their weekly allowance reduced by £12.50, and this Government and this Minister are talking about setting up a new agency when as an alternative they should be asking the existing agencies of Government to ensure that poverty is minimised as far as it can be by the various Government Departments. It is nothing short of a disgrace that the people I have referred to have had their meagre weekly allowance reduced by £12.50. What can the Combat Poverty Agency do about that? Will they not represent just another duplication of effort in being set up as one body to deal with the failures and inefficiency of all of the other agencies of the State when prior consideration and support and proper organisation should have been given to the existing Government Departments? The Ministers in charge of those Departments should be told that they have a priority and duty to examine their various programmes for the purpose of minimising poverty in our society. That is not being done. The opposite is happening as a direct result of Government policies.

We have had a long debate on the Second Stage of this Bill. Many of the contributions were valuable in that they raised some very basic considerations which underlie the whole poverty debate. I suppose it was to be expected that the Opposition would use the opportunity presented by the Bill to launch a major attack in their familiar self-righteous tones on this Government's record. Unfortunately, the length of the contributions by Opposition speakers on this question was not matched by their quality or their relevance to the provisions of the Bill. For example, we had long denunications of the social welfare code, and many Fianna Fáil speakers seemed to forget that most of the provisions which they condemned in the social welfare code were reinserted in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act which they passed in 1981 just before they left office. The proportion of the Opposition contribution which was specifically directed to the contents of this Bill was very small and the opportunity was taken to try to make political points in relation to matters on which those Deputies have had and will have ample opportunity to express their views on more appropriate occasions.

Despite all that has been said, I still find it difficult to find where Fianna Fáil stand on matters contained in the Bill. Deputies Woods and O'Hanlon have stated that they are not opposing the Bill, while Deputy O'Kennedy questions the need for the establishment of the agency at all. Only a short time ago we listened to Deputy Lyons, who appeared to be totally opposed to the Bill. The only consistent feature of the Fianna Fáil contributions was their ambiguity in this issue as on many other issues. Some of the Opposition speakers tried to create the impression that there was no poverty in Ireland when Fianna Fáil were in Government. Sometimes I marvel at the complacency of Opposition speakers when they talk in these terms. The 1971 conference, which was referred to many times in this debate and which was held in Kilkenny, highlighted the scale of poverty nationally for the first time. This was a time of unprecedented economic progress, and that conference concluded that 20 to 25 per cent of the people in the country were poor. Deputy McCarthy can talk about that conference now without realising, apparently, that his party, who at that time had been 15 years in Government with an overall majority, did nothing at that time about it. They failed to examine the underlying causes of poverty and how it could be redressed.

Deputy Woods and Deputy O'Hanlon accused the Government of having lost an opportunity in not maintaining the National Community Development Agency introduced by Fianna Fáil. If we want to talk about lost opportunities we must go back further and look at the opportunities which successive Fianna Fáil Governments had to tackle this problem when the resources to do so were more readily available than they are now. Only when the Coalition Government of 1973-77 were in power did the problem come to be taken seriously when something was done to tackle it through the national combat poverty programme and through the introduction of an EC poverty programme in which this country was instrumental. I recognise fully the contribution Deputy Woods made later as Minister for Social Welfare in pressing for an extension of the EC programme. However, it was under Fianna Fáil that the combat poverty committee were wound up and nothing put in their place. Under the shortlived Coalition Government of 1982 proposals were in hands for the re-establishment of a combat poverty agency but Fianna Fáil did not proceed with it subsequently. They went instead for the National Community Development Agency. Of course, there are similarities between sections of the present Bill and sections of the National Community Development Agency Act. The Minister, in her opening remarks on this debate, made it clear that the present legislation is an attempt to build on the best features of the previous work in this area with a view to reaching broad agreement on the best way forward. Let us at all costs avoid the possibility of having the experience of those early years repeated and give the new agency some guarantee of permanence.

This is why I was pleased to see that Deputy McCarthy, the Opposition spokesman, and Deputy Woods who was previously involved, seemed to be generally in favour of the establishment of the agency. I hope, however, that this is not based on any misunderstanding of what the new agency is about. For this reason, I should like to say a few words on what I see as the essential differences between the approach now being taken and the Fianna Fáil approach embodied in the National Community Development Agency. The essential approach now being taken is based on a broader approach to the whole poverty problem and how it should be tackled. The primary function of the NCDA was community development and their mandate in relation to poverty was secondary and imprecise.

The concept of community development is in itself admirable and its importance as a means of overcoming poverty is recognised in the Bill which specifically refers to it in two paragraphs in the section dealing with the functions of the agency. Poverty was not the primary concern of the National Community Development Agency. In the Act setting up that body, references to poverty were inextricably intertwined with concepts of self help and community development so that the agency's hands were tied in regard to the way they would have approached the problem of poverty. For this reason, their viability and potential for effectiveness in combating poverty were doubtful from the start. The agency were further hamstrung by having to administer the functions of the National Social Services Board. These functions relate primarily to the provision of information on social services and are quite distinct from the examination of the causes of poverty and the testing of means for its elimination.

The Government felt that what was needed was an agency whose sole function was to determine the nature, causes and extent of poverty and to find new ways of eliminating the problem at source. They considered that the problem of poverty was sufficiently complex and important to merit a single agency which could concentrate exclusively on these aims. It was clear also that this agency should have the independence to look at State policies in other bodies, statutory or voluntary, with regard to their effects, positive or negative, on poverty. The NCDA had a similar aim but they were very much restricted as they were specifically confined to advising the Minister on the social aspects of economic and social planning.

The new agency will have considerably more freedom which is written into the Bill. We have been accused of delay in bringing in this legislation. It would conceivably have been possible to bring the legislation in earlier but it was considered that thorough preparation was necessary before setting up a permanent body of this sort. The previous Minister, therefore, in setting up the Commission on Social Welfare, asked them as their first priority to advise him on the implementation of an anti-poverty plan, the establishment of an organisation to combat poverty and the introduction of a new and comprehensive EC poverty programme. Having received the advice of the Commission he established the interim board of the combat poverty organisation to advise him on the structure, membership and other aspects of the permanent organisation. This was the correct approach to ensure that a broad range of expert advice was available before the legislation was drafted. Every effort has been made to incorporate the best features of all previous efforts in this area.

A number of Deputies referred specifically to the question of research and expressed the view that we have had enough research and that action is required. I do not agree that there is no scope for further research. The new agency will take account of all the information and research already produced and it is not intended to duplicate research already done. it is necessary, however, that the agency should be in a position to commission research in any area where they feel more information is required. For this reason, we are enabling the agency to promote research where they consider it necessary but it will be for the agency to identify the areas where such research is required.

There is certainly a need, in any event, to go beyond the sort of facile assertions made by a number of Opposition speakers that the cause of poverty is the Government and that the solution is obvious if only the Government would recognise it. A simplistic approach like this confirms the view that whatever prospect there is under this Government of identifying and facing up to the basic issues, there would be none if the Opposition had their way.

Deputy Woods questioned the statement that many people do not accept that poverty exists. In this connection, I should like to direct his attention to a report published by the ESRI as recently as 1984 which was based on a survey carried out some time before that which indicated that 50 per cent of people surveyed believed there was little real poverty in Ireland and 50 per cent thought that only a small percentage of the population had experienced poverty in their own lives. A lot depends of course, on how one defines poverty. Some people say they are poor if they do not have enough resources for bare subsistence while others argue that people are poor when they cannot have the things which everyone else has. I do not think, however, that it would be appropriate or helpful to become involved at this stage in trying to define poverty. It is a very difficult question. There are wide differences of approach and it is one which it is appropriate for the agency to examine. It can be said, however, that poverty is not just a matter of money or one to be solved by the Department of Social Welfare alone. It affects all aspects of Government policy and it is the business of all Departments.

The State provisions in education, housing and health are also of major importance and must be taken into consideration in any examination of poverty and the effectiveness of Government policy in tackling it. Every area of Government activity has some impact in relation to the poverty field. The social welfare system obviously is of central importance and there will have to be changes over the coming years following the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. Again it will be a question of directing our resources in the most effective way to meet evident needs and to identify categories and groups which are not adequately catered for under present arrangements.

A number of Deputies referred to the importance of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. I agree that there is need for a fundamental review of that scheme and this will be undertaken in the light of the recommendations of the commission in this area. I deny the suggestion made by Deputy Woods that a saving of £30 million has been achieved as a result of the introduction of the child benefit scheme through the abolition of child tax allowances under the first phase of the child benefit scheme. The whole basis of the scheme is that the resources released as a result of the abolition of child tax allowances are being redirected towards the provision of direct cash support to families. Far from making a saving, the Exchequer is paying an additional £11 million in 1986 over and above what would have been spent if the present system of support had been left unchanged.

In relation specifically to social welfare increases, a number of allegations were made by Deputy O'Kennedy which were so wide of the mark that I must refer to them. He referred to the increase of only 1.5 per cent in the Estimate for non-contributory old age pensions although the number of pensioners is supposed to have gone up by 4,000. I do not know where Deputy O'Kennedy got his figures. The number of non-contributory old age pensions is showing a steady decline as more elderly people qualify for contributory pensions and it came down from 134,000 in 1978 to a little under 128,000 a year ago and is 125,000 at present. The Estimate for 1986 takes account of the expected number of claimants and there is no question of more stringent conditions being applied to people claiming pensions.

It has also been alleged that there have been cutbacks in the fuel scheme. I wish to make it clear that there has been no change in the criteria for eligibility under this scheme. On the contrary, we improved the scheme by increasing the weekly rate of allowance from £4 to £5 from the beginning of last October. I am amazed that Deputy O'Kennedy should make allegations of that kind without checking the facts.

I should like to refer to a number of other points in the debate which referred to specific aspects of the Bill. Deputy De Rossa considered that the agency should come under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach rather than the Department of Social Welfare on the grounds that poverty should not be treated purely as a social welfare problem. I said earlier that poverty is a much wider concept than merely one of social welfare. The establishment of the agency will necessitate the Department of Social Welfare having a broader perspective in relation to policies in the poverty field and it will be through that Department that the agency will make an input into the policy making process. There are obviously a number of options with regard to what should be the reporting Department but the Government consider that the agency most appropriately should be located under the aegis of the Department of Social Welfare.

I have tried to cover the main points which arose in the course of the debate and which relate directly to the purpose of the Bill. I am confident that the establishment of this agency will be a major landmark in the fight against poverty here. It is easy to blame the Government or, indeed, any Government, for the existence of poverty. The problem, however, is not one which is amenable to easy solutions as some people imply.

Will the Minister agree that the agency were established almost four years ago and it is time to get them back on the road again? It was the Coalition who dissolved the agency.

We should not have any more filibusters from Deputy Woods.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

On Tuesday next May 27, 1986, subject to agreement between the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 27 May 1986.
Top
Share