Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Nov 1986

Vol. 369 No. 10

Adjournment Debate. - Supplementary Welfare Allowance Scheme.

Proinsias De Rossa

I thank you for the opportunity of raising this extremely important matter on the Adjournment this evening. The Minister indicated that there are 17,000 families who will be affected by the cuts in social welfare as a result of the manner in which this legislation is being implemented.

I had a question down to the Minister today, No. 18, requesting information on her proposals in regard to her promise in this House a week ago that special arrangements would be made under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme to assist certain categories of families who would be affected. In view of the fact that payments under this scheme are to take effect from next Monday, 17 November, whatever arrangements are being made should have been in place by now. According to the Minister's written reply, no arrangements have been made in relation to this matter. The Minister said that discussions were at present taking place between officials of her Department and the health boards on this matter and she was not therefore in a position to give a firm indication of the final outcome. If that is the position today, how does she expect such a scheme will be in place next Monday when the cuts apply? I have grave doubts whether she will be able to achieve any such arrangements with the health boards.

I raised the matter myself with the Eastern Health Board and was informed by the programme manager that he considered that what the Minister said she intended doing was legally impossible because it would result in further discrimination against other families who were not affected by this scheme but who would be on lower income than those the Minister was proposing to assist. Further anomalies are being introduced into this scheme as a result of what the Minister is proposing.

As far as I am concerned the way in which this is being introduced is an obscene abuse of the term "equality". Not only will it result in a massive drop in the income of many thousands of families but it will also discriminate directly against women who, we are told, this equality legislation has been introduced to assist. Because of the £50 ceiling on gross earnings the reality is that thousands of women will be forced out of employment and into the black economy. They will be forced to do part-time work, where they will have no protection under labour legislation and they will only have minimal social welfare protection. This is an obscenity so far as it relates to equality.

Last week the Minister made an announcement about a supplementary welfare allowance scheme. It was clearly, and I pointed it out at the time, an attempt to get the Labour Party off the hook because they were having some difficulty supporting the Government on the Private Members' motion. In effect, it was a confidence trick, not only on this House but on the people who will be affected by the cuts next week.

I challenge the Minister to try to live on £100 a week for the next year, the amount the majority of people whose social welfare payments will be cut from next week will have to survive on. I can guarantee that she will not be able to do that. If she were living on £100 a week I have no doubt she would introduce a postponement of this scheme. If she fully understood the hardship which thousands of families will face over the next few months as a result of the implementation of this scheme. I have no doubt she would agree that this scheme should be postponed indefinitely, at least until a proper phasing in of equalisation has been achieved, so that no one will suffer a net loss of income as a result of this measure, and that the six years it took to introduce the legislation would be extended by a further six years so that this equalisation would be phased in over the next six years, as was supposed to happen over the last six years. This would be a great benefit to the families who will be affected by the cutbacks.

No doubt the Minister will quote statistics that the people who will be affected are not the worst off, and that there are 150,000 other families worse off, and that is true, but that does not make it any easier on the families whose incomes will be cut. It does not make it any easier for them to meet their rents, pay their mortgage, feed their families, get in food for Christmas, buy school books, clothes and so on. The reality is that the vast majority of people affected by these cutbacks are those who are already on the verge of the poverty line. In the majority of cases those whose incomes will be cut back are the people who are forced to work for a pittance — women who are working for the lowest wages.

When this Bill was going through I proposed, and I proposed last week also, that the gross income ceiling be increased to £100 a week. If that were done, it would still be less than half the average industrial wage, but it would make it possible for these families to survive, for many women who are working at present to keep food on the table and make it possible for these women to continue in work.

I appeal to the Minister to come off the hobby horse of statistics that in some way she is being true to some philosophy of equality when the effect of what she is doing is directly discriminating against women and some of the poorest families in our society. I urge her to take immediate steps to postpone the implementation of this scheme and to ensure that next week families will not suffer the major losses which face them.

I have no doubt that there will be utter chaos next week if this scheme goes ahead, both administratively and otherwise. Again I appeal to the Minister to postpone the scheme and to introduce a proper phasing in of it so that families who will be affected by it will not suffer any loss.

I have agreed to give some of the time available to me to Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla to speak on the matter.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I was absolutely disgusted this afternoon listening to the replies of the Minister for Social Welfare, for example, when a question was raised in regard to the effects of the equalisation proposals on up to 20,000 families. I think the Minister corrected that figure to 17,000 families. But whether it be 20,000 or 17,000 families my disgust is with the manner in which she and her predecessor have handled this matter, which was drawn to their attention when the relevant Bill was introduced. We supported the equalisation proposal but pointed out the dangers inherent in it and the manner in which it could affect many thousands of families whose incomes would be reduced. Neither the Minister nor her predecessor paid any attention whatsoever although they have had the last six years in which to work out a method of introducing a fair system of equality legislation. What really disgusted me this afternoon was the arrogant manner in which the Minister tried to divide the poverty-striken people into two separate categories — those on the lowest level of poverty, suffering from malnutrition, and those who happen to have enough to eat at present, who are not regarded as being badly off at all because they can eat but who probably cannot even clothe themselves properly. They are still poverty-striken people. The Minister was endeavouring to say that they were not too badly off although up to 150,000 of them are suffering from malnutrition. A further 20,000, or 17,000, as the Minister says, are being driven down to that level. This will be remembered of this Minister long after the shilling taken off the old age pension has been forgotten although that stigma lasted for the best part of 50 years. This Government will be remembered as being worse than that Cumann na Gael Government for the manner in which they have treated people on the lowest income levels in our society, people who are already suffering grave hardship, who are unable to live.

I will give the Minister a couple of examples. Take the case of a young family, a husband and wife with two children under five years of age. The husband had been receiving unemployment assistance of £81.75, which included allowance for the children, and the wife was in receipt of a disability benefit of £41.10, making a total of £122.85. The husband's unemployment assistance has now been reduced to £36.55: the wife receives an increase, including allowance for a child giving her a total of £51.10 which, with the Minister's famous cushion of £10, makes a total of £97.65. This constitutes a loss to the family of over £25. That family pay £50 a week by way of mortgage payments to purchase their home. If one deducts that £50 per week from the £97.65 that means a husband, wife and two children are expected to live on the remaining £47.65. This means they will be unable to pay the £50 per week which, in turn, means they will lose their home. But the Minister does not care.

Another example I might cite is that of an elderly couple, with no children, no dependants. The husband had been receiving unemployment assistance of £63.15 and the wife was in receipt of disability benefit of £41.10. The husband's income is now reduced to £26.60. Yet, in accordance with the Minister's own regulations, the lowest amount he should have been receiving was the maximum personal rate, that is, £36.70, but his entitlement has been reduced to £26.60, £10 less than her Department say is the personal rate he should have been receiving. The Minister deducts £10 and then adds the £10 cushion. Certainly there is no £10 cushion for that man.

The third example I will give is that of a woman working whose gross weekly earnings amount to £58.42. She works for 33 weeks of the year only. Her earnings average out much less than £50 per week. That woman does not draw any benefit for the remainder of the year. Therefore she should be regarded as being in receipt of less than £50 per week but the Minister will not regard her position as such.

I would remind the Minister that this is the position in the very week in which she is cutting back payments to those 17,000 or 20,000 people, anything from £26 to £40 per week, driving them further into the poverty trap and preventing them purchasing their homes by way of mortgage repayments. But if they are paying rents on corporation dwellings — as probably most of them are — last week many of those rents were doubled. Certainly all of them have been increased, many having risen from approximately £7 to approximately £13 while others have risen to £16 and more.

This means that there are simultaneously within this Government two Ministers endeavouring to bring people on the lowest level in our society down even further. The Minister should realise what the position is like on the ground. As Deputy De Rossa asked: does the Minister have any conception of what is happening on the ground, or what is the level of poverty? There is no point in talking about combating poverty when we have a Minister for Social Welfare who has no intention of combating poverty, who says that people on the poverty line should consider themselves lucky because there are others lower down the line than they. Why does she not pluck the money from the people at the top of the heap rather than taking it from the people at the bottom, which is precisely what she is doing? There have been six years in which successive Governments could have considered how best to introduce this equality legislation without causing any hardship. But they delayed its implementation. I must blame Fianna Fáil in this regard also because such legislation could have been introduced within the term of office of the last Fianna Fáil Government. Instead successive Governments have left it to the last possible minute until the European Court would be liable to take a case against them for not introducing the equality legislation. Certainly, they did not give consideration to its effects on the people on the ground. The Minister should examine the situation obtaining on the ground, look at the poverty she is creating, acknowledge the fact that she has passed it off by saying that they can get supplementary benefit. They cannot get supplementary benefit because the Minister has not increased the staffing or money available to do so.

In reply to a further question today from Deputy De Rossa the Minister indicated that she had done nothing about this although she made the announcement in this Chamber that she was arranging to make supplementary welfare allowances available so that everybody who was being deprived could go along and beg for the money — as they have to do — for clothes, shoes, food or to pay their electricity charges. Certainly they will not get anything to pay their mortgage repayments. The Minister does not take the latter into account at all.

The Minister has done absolutely nothing on that line. She has not made the money or staffing available so that people could receive the benefits to which they are entitled if they are to be allowed continue to live, to have some element of comfort, at least food, clothing and shelter.

As well as driving women out of the workforce, the Minister is driving people out of their homes. This will mean that either the Minister or one of her colleagues will be forced to house people who have been driven out of their homes. As I pointed out, there was the case of the young family expected to live on £47.65 a week having paid their £50 mortgage repayment, a figure which will probably increase. These repayments are not taken into consideration. Yet that family will receive nothing by way of supplementary welfare benefits to assist them in paying their mortgage. These are the actual effects of the use which the Minister has made of this equality directive. It was pointed out to her predecessor, Deputy Barry Desmond, 12 months ago and nothing has been done in the meantime to implement it. The Minister must move very rapidly to prevent an extraordinary eruption next week which is what will occur when those people get the money into their hands. They will see how badly off they will be.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mrs. Hussey)

In all our discussions in the House on this issue, of which there have been several and on which there have been a great many explanations given, we are inclined to entirely ignore the fact that for very many years married women who worked were discriminated against financially in the matter of social welfare entitlements. Families were getting less money into their hands because the person who happened to be in receipt of the social welfare payment was a married woman. I did not notice continual Private Members' motions, adjournment debates or questions on that issue during all those years. I noticed the terminology used in a discussion on this issue when we were talking about families who would lose under the equality directive and married women who would gain. I deplore that use of terminology. The 46,000 families who gained last May have gained considerably and have been at least given the justice that they should have had.

The question of the implementation of the equality directive bore out the fact that there were a great many people in the Irish social welfare system who were in receipt of double payments. These were only men because women were never entitled to those double payments. A man in receipt of a social welfare payment was getting an adult dependency allowance for his spouse irrespective of the status of that spouse, whether she was working or in receipt of a social welfare payment. Under the equality directive we were therefore faced, as was explained at great length in the Dáil last year, with a situation where we either gave all women adult dependency allowances and therefore one couple would get four payments from the social welfare system, two single rates and two adult dependency rates or we would have to make an arrangement to equalise the position by taking away the adult dependency rate from a person who was getting it in respect of another adult who was not a dependant. Deputies cannot have it both ways. They seem to be inferring that we want to have equal treatment for 46,000 families where the married woman was heretofore discriminated against but we do not want to have equal treatment for families where there is a double payment going into the house.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is not equal treatment upwards, it is equal treatment downwards.

Mrs. Hussey

I did not interrupt anybody, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to continue.

Mrs. Hussey

I resent and reject the suggestion of a confidence trick. This was made perfectly clear in this House in July 1985. There can be no question of any attempt whatsoever to hide any effects of this implementation. Because the Government realised that the necessity to follow the EC directive would impose hardship on certain groups, we introduced, at a cost of an extra £9 million to the taxpayer, alleviating measures to cushion the effect of the loss of the double payments that individuals were receiving. We did that in what we considered to be the most equitable manner possible. I stand firmly by the fact that that was and remains a generous entitlement and a generous attempt to alleviate the effects of equality on that small number of families who lose compared to the considerable number, 46,000, who gain.

I also reject the inference that I used the expression that families should count themselves lucky because they are not as poor as other families. That is an absolute untruth. It was never said in this House by me and never would be said by me under any circumstances. I also want to make it quite clear that in regard to the people on the lowest rate of social welfare this Government over the last four years improved in real terms the position of the social welfare recipients at the lowest level well beyond any increases received by people at work and well beyond the increases in the cost of living. We stand absolutely firm on our record of improvements in the social welfare system over the years. This year we are putting an extra £18 million into the hands of social welfare recipients with the introduction of equal treatment.

I announced in the Dáil on 29 October my intention to introduce further alleviating measures for a particular group of people who were dependent on social welfare payments only. The £10 which they were receiving might not be adequate because of particular financial commitments which they had.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will intervene so that there will be no misunderstanding. I would prefer if the Minister did not use the word "untruth" because I have been quite strict about it before and I will be strict about it again today.

Mrs. Hussey

I withdraw it. On 29 October I said in the House that I was particularly concerned about those families totally dependent on social welfare payments where both spouses were receiving a payment in their own right. I would reiterate that the vast majority of social welfare recipients, 150,000 families, are unaffected by this directive. I would be sorry to think that any Deputy deplored the fact that we were attempting to introduce an extra alleviating measure. I got an impression that they deplored the fact that we were making a further attempt at alleviation as a result of the real concerns expressed by Deputies to us and as a result of the information which we have in the Department. In those cases the wife was treated as a dependant of the husband who received an increase of benefit for her even though she was receiving the personal rate of her own payment. With equal treatment the husband loses the increase for his wife. That was one thing under this directive which we were concerned to further alleviate. The situation where a spouse is entitled to benefit in his or her own right while the partner is also being paid a dependant's increase is inconsistent, and must be seen logically as inconsistent, with equal treatment. Under the equality directive each beneficiary should be entitled to be paid an increase for the other. I think people will recognise that this would be unreasonable as well as being extremely costly. The only solution to this problem is to cease to regard a spouse in receipt of benefit as a dependant of the other.

It was recognised that the loss of the adult dependant increase for existing beneficiaries could cause financial difficulties. To provide for this situation an additional transitional payment of £10 weekly was proposed for 52 weeks or for as long as the two claims lasted. It was also recognised that some families in this category might have entered into commitments which they might find it difficult to meet. To provide for these cases I proposed that additional assistance be given through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme and that we would, and I said this quite clearly, discuss the necessary measures with the health boards which are responsible for administering that service. Discussions have taken place and are still under consideration. They have not been finalised so that I am not in a position to give details at present. The form the measures would take would be payment of weekly supplements for rent and mortgage interest or other similar outgoings by way of relaxed eligibility criteria which would enable these families to qualify for a supplement or for a higher amount than they would be entitled to at present. This, as I pointed out in the Dáil, would be a transitional arrangement because under the criteria of equal treatment and the directive it has to be a transitional arrangement.

Apart from relaxation of the means conditions for supplements, the administration and application procedures would be similar to those existing at present. I am concerned, as the Deputies are, that we will arrive at a situation where we will be able to have these conditions in operation so that people will be able to make application. There is no question of not making available the necessary finance for this work. The question is a complex one. I count on the goodwill of all the people concerned in my own Department, the community welfare officers' department and also in the Department of Health that we will be able to genuinely help these people about whom we are all concerned. I hope, and I am quite sure, that we will be able to reach that agreement and make that arrangement so that the extra measures I have introduced will be brought into play.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 November 1986.