asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will make an urgent statement to clarify the situation for thousands of families whose social welfare entitlements have been drastically reduced by recent social welfare changes and in particular how it is proposed to maintain their income in the weeks and months immediately ahead.
Private Notice Question. - EC Equality Directive.
Under the first phase of the equal treatment measures implemented last May the reduced rates of benefit paid to married women were replaced by the standard rates and the duration of entitlement to unemployment benefit for married women was increased from 312 to 390 days, thereby bringing it into line with that for all other insured workers. Some 46,000 married women and their families benefit from these changes at a cost of £18 million in a full year. This was a substantial improvement in the benefit entitlements of those married women. For example, married women on disability or unemployment benefit got an extra £5 per week.
Up until now, married women were effectively debarred from applying for unemployment assistance. This position is now changed and from this week married women may qualify for unemployment assistance subject to satisfying the means test and providing that the applicant is available for work and is genuinely seeking work. In other words, married women will be treated in the same way as all other applicants for unemployment assistance.
Under the new dependency arrangements which also came into force during this week the existing presumption that any married woman who was living with her husband is automatically a dependant will disappear and any person, male or female, who is in employment or in receipt of a social welfare benefit in his/her own right will, in general, not be deemed as dependent on the spouse for the purposes of qualifying for increases of benefit. A person will be regarded as dependent on the spouse only where he or she is being wholly or mainly maintained by that person.
There are also new dependency arrangements for children. Married women, and therefore their families, will benefit substantially from these changes. For example, where only the wife works and her husband is a dependent she will be entitled to the full adult and child dependent increases as long as her husband is not on benefit. At present she can only qualify if her husband is an invalid.
In families where both spouses are economically active there will be offsetting gains and reductions. In this case each spouse will be entitled to 50 per cent of child dependant increases when claiming benefits. Up to now married women could not claim for their children. Reductions in the entitlements of some husbands will occur but this is inevitable because the previous adult dependency arrangement was not defensible. Up to now the social welfare system gave a husband an increase for his wife not alone where she was in employment but even where she was entitled to benefit in her own right.
The manner in which the measures are being implemented is exactly in keeping with the intentions of previous Ministers for Social Welfare. When the directive was adopted by the Council of Ministers in 1978 the then Minister who is now Leader of the Opposition had a statement inserted in the Council minutes which made clear his intention not to provide increases in payments in respect of adult dependants who were either in receipt of benefit or in employment. That insertion in 1978 read quite clearly:
"Nothing in this Directive prevents arrangements being made to control dependency payments so as to avoid paying increases of benefit in respect of a spouse when that spouse is already receiving benefit or is in employment, or to control payments of increases for children, provided that these measures are applied without discrimination on grounds of sex."
That is the insertion put in by the Minister for Social Welfare in 1978, who is the present Leader of the Opposition and the person asking this question today. Furthermore, the implications of the new dependency arrangements were fully outlined to this House during the passage of the equality Bill in 1985 and the Opposition had nothing to say on the matter then. About 90 per cent of social welfare families are not affected by the new dependency rules. Because of the new definition of "adult dependant" some married men will no longer receive an increase in payment in respect of their wives. The Government were naturally concerned at the impact of this on existing recipients and have introduced measures to cushion the effect of the new arrangements. Where a spouse is in employment with earnings of less than £50 per week he or she may continue to be regarded as an adult dependant. The cost of this measure is an extra £4.6 million in a full year.
A special payment of £10 per week is being made to a married man who, as a consequence of the revised definition of dependency, loses the increase in payment in respect of his wife. His payment will continue to be made for the duration of his claim up to a maximum period of one year. This measure will cost £4.3 million. These measures are already in place and take effect this week.
What is new?
There is nothing new. That is why I do not understand the question put down.
(Interruptions.)
Families which qualify for the transitional weekly payment of £10 may also qualify for further assistance in respect of rent or mortage commitments. This additional alleviating measure, which I announced on 29 October, is intended to provide further assistance per week in respect of rent and mortgage commitments to families who qualify for the £10 transitional payment. As I said in the Dáil this morning, I expect that the remaining details of this measure will be finalised by the Department within a few days and each individual family will be contacted by my Department.
The only remaining scope for further alleviating measures is in the context of the 1987 Estimates and the Government have decided to incorporate a review of the equality provisions in their current consideration of the Estimates. As was stated yesterday, any changes that may arise from the review will be made retrospective from the implementation of the new dependency arrangements.
The Minister has spent approximately six minutes dealing with a category of persons who are not involved in my question. I would like the Chair to bear that in mind when deciding on the length of supplementary questions which he will allow me. My question specifically asks the Minister to deal with the situation of the poorer and weaker section of our community whose incomes will be drastically reduced from this week. I did not ask the Minister about families who will be fortunate enough to gain. I am asking her specifically about the very large number of families, 20,000 or more, whose already inadequate and meagre incomes will be specifically reduced as and from this week by the action of the Minister.
Is the Minister aware there is deep, far-reaching anxiety throughout the community about the changes she is imposing and that that anxiety is added to very considerably by a great deal of confusion, that very few people know exactly what will happen? Will the Minister acknowledge that this is the third bungling attempt which she has made to deal with this directive?
First of all, we had the original proposal. Then, in response to pressure in this House from all sides, there was a suggestion that supplementary welfare officers could intervene to assist families who will be deprived. Now we have a further statement, a climb down, a U-turn by the Government to the effect that something will be done in the context of the forthcoming Estimates. Will the Minister acknowledge that the whole situation has been bungled by her and the Government? Furthermore, will she deal specifically with my question as to what steps she proposes to take to maintain the income of families pending this nebulous and half-promised change arising out of the work on the Estimates?
I would remind the Deputy that I have answered the question quite clearly in the first place but I am very intrigued by the Deputy's position on this. From 1978 to 1982 the Deputy was in a position to implement a directive which he had personally designed from an Irish point of view but he did not do it. He paid no attention to the discrimination against 46,000 working women at that time. He did nothing whatso ever to redress that discrimination and, what is more, when he inserted that statement into the Council's minutes he had no thought of the alleviation of hardship. He never thought of the two measures which this Government put in to help people who would be affected by this. He simply did not care about the equality issue. He was absolutely afraid of it.
This is 1986.
The Government have made a very considered response to all the concerns expressed about this measure.
This is 1986.
(Interruptions.)
You are a very brave lot of men. You do not like hearing anything that is said because it is all true.
I am not a man, madam.
There is one woman who is not saying a word which I think is proper order too.
I shall say quite a lot.
(Interruptions.)
I have said already that no further scope exists for further alleviating measures except in the context of the 1987 Estimates. I would like to repeat my question to the Opposition. Where were they in 1985 when the Minister, Deputy Desmond, set out clearly the terms of this scheme? They supported a whole package which was clearly explained, clearly set out, including the effects on families and including the alleviating measures. It does not convince me or anybody else when the Leader of the Opposition, who designed this directive, comes into this House pretending——
I did not.
He did design it.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Haughey was too busy undermining Jack Lynch's position to pay any attention——
First of all, I must ask the Minister to compare my record in the Department of Social Welfare——
He did nothing about equality.
I did not interrupt the Minister.
He did nothing. He is talking about equality.
(Interruptions.)
What did Deputy Haughey do about equality?
Order, please. I want silence from everybody except the Deputy who is speaking, with the consent of the Chair.
I want to ask the Minister, now that she has gone back into the past, if she will compare her record and that of her predecessor in this Coalition as Minister for Social Welfare with my record when, as Minister for Finance, as Minister for Social Welfare and as Taoiseach we increased, in four successive years, the basic rates of social welfare allowances and payments by 25 per cent.
That is a very poor record.
Will she now have the audacity, as a Minister who is callously reducing payments to the poorest and weakest section of the community, to bring up the past?
Can I answer that, a Cheann Comhairle?
The Minister is going to answer these questions. As and from this week 20,000 families approximately will have their social welfare incomes reduced by a deliberate act of hers, as Minister.
(Interruptions.)
The Chair will insist on order for everybody and if he cannot get order he will adjourn the House.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Brien is talking in his sleep. Go back to sleep.
(Interruptions.)
I want order from everybody and let the Deputy on his feet have the consent of the Chair.
The Minister for Communications who is not involved in this matter has interrupted me.
(Interruptions.)
The Chair has a difficult enough job and wants assistance from nobody. He wants order from everybody.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I feel that the general public do not appreciate Ministers, particularly the Minister for Social Welfare, attempting to score cheap political debating points on this matter. I am asking a very serious question of the Minister. I suggest that it is now acknowledged by the Government that there is going to be severe hardship for a number of families. It is suggested further by the Government that they attempt to deal with this hardship through their consideration of the Estimates. I ask the Minister to acknowledge that no action by means of Estimates or otherwise can affect the situation this week, next week and for the next month or so. Is the Minister prepared to take any immediate action to alleviate the hardship which her action is callously and deliberately causing to a large section of our community, particularly in view of the fact that the arrangements she purported to put before this House in regard to community welfare officers are not going to work? Has she any other proposal to put to the House or to the people to deal with this very serious situation?
I have already made it quite clear that the Government in designing the alleviating measures — which were not envisaged by the Deputy opposite when he devised the Directive in 1978 and did nothing about equality for the following year when he was in a position to do so — will put the worst effects of what the Deputy designed in 1978 further from poor families. Also I make no apology whatsoever for including extra alleviating measures with the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare which will as I said clearly in the Dáil on several occasions, today, yesterday and on other days, be contacting each individual family where both are on social welfare benefit to see what further alleviating measures we can provide. It seems that the Deputy is asking us to undo the equality Directive, to take away the assistance that has been given to 46,000 families, to take away the married woman's right to her child dependency allowance, all because he is afraid to face up to the realities of what he designed in 1978.
I feel I am entitled to ask the Minister to stop talking rubbish. The equality Directive was not designed by anybody on this side of the House. The equality Directive came from Europe.
Did the Deputy put in that Directive?
It is the implementation of the equality Directive I am talking about. The Minister cannot escape her personal responsibility for the callous implementation of the Directive. It is her callous implementation of it that is causing this serious hardship and deprivation.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please, The Deputy has not completed his question.
I will persist in asking the Minister until I get my question answered. We are dealing with a situation this week and we will be dealing with it next week and from now until Christmas and after Christmas. I am asking the Minister if she will take positive steps to ensure that people will not be deprived of substantial amounts of income and thereby suffer unnecessary hardship as a result of her specific action in regard to social welfare.
On a point of order, is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to personalise an attack on a Government decision?
(Interruptions.)
He is addressing her as Minister.
He is not. He is addressing her as if it was an individual decision.
It ill becomes Fine Gael to talk about personal attacks.
(Interruptions.)
I can assure Deputy Owen that with enemies like Deputy Haughey I am sure of my friends. The then Fianna Fáil Government in a decision dated 6 November 1978 declared that the Irish delegation at the COREPER meeting of 15 November 1978 should press for the inclusion of the statement I read earlier in the minutes of the Council of Social Affairs Ministers of the EC at which the Directive was adopted. The Minister for Social Welfare at that time was Deputy Charles J. Haughey. I will read the statement again: "Nothing in this Directive prevents arrangements being made to control dependency payments so as to avoid paying increases of benefit in respect of a spouse when that spouse is already receiving benefit or is in employment, or to control payments of increases for children provided that these measures are applied without discrimination on grounds of sex."
(Interruptions.)
You are decreasing it.
There was no mention in that insertion or at any time since by the Opposition of any alleviating measures which this Government designed because they saw that the result of this Directive would bring hardship to very many families despite the fact that it would bring benefits to a great many more families. Therefore we spent an extra £9 million on alleviating measures and are designing a further measure to help people. As I said, I make no apology for the Government having made a decision in the light of the concerns expressed that we will look again in the context of the 1987 Estimates and within the amount of money available to us to see if anything further can be done on a retrospective basis. That is the present position and it must remain until the Government have had time to look at the money concerned.
Deputy De Rossa, and then I think we should consider bringing this to a close.
Will the Minister indicate how she expects the 20,000 families who are having their income cut by up to £50 — a person contracted me today who has had his income cut by £47 this week — to survive over the next two months? Does she believe that any family on low income can suffer a loss of up to £47 a week and survive without going into the depths of despair and poverty?
I have already made clear that this has been a matter of considerable concern to the Government. We have been at great pains to try to help people who would find themselves in a much worse position were it not for the alleviating measures we announced. That has been part of our great concern. Interestingly enough, we are being criticised by the Opposition for having expressed that concern. It is important to explain that some families will certainly stand to lose money under this Directive but they would lose far more if we had not taken the alleviating measures we have taken. The families who are affected by equal treatment, even after the loss of that income, will still remain at the highest level of social welfare because the vast majority of families in receipt of social welfare have not a spouse working or have not a second person in the house in receipt of a social welfare benefit. That simple fact seems to have been lost sight of. We have provided these alleviating measures. We will be contracting 8,000 families where both are on benefit to see what further help we can give them with specific difficulties. Furthermore, the Government in that context and as soon as possible will be looking at what further measures can be taken. That is the position. It is far better than the position envisaged by the Opposition Leader when he designed that Directive.
(Interruptions.)
I am allowing Deputy Haughey to ask a question.
I will give it to Deputy Gregory.
Have you a short question. Deputy Gregory? I will allow you a short question and then I will call Deputy Haughey. Then if we want to resume it will have to be by substantive motion or some other way.
I thank Deputy Haughey for allowing me to ask a question. Does the Minister accept that the important factor now is the plight of the families involved in these changes and not any omissions that may or may not have been made in the past? Does the Minister understand the effect these changes are already having on families in very poor circumstances? Does she appreciate how difficult life is for them, even without this further deprivation which is coming at Christmas, a time when families are expecting a little extra rather than a huge cut in their income? Does the Minister appreciate when she says each of these families will be contacted by her Department that such a statement or such contract can only be seen by these families at little more than an insult which will lead——
The Deputy will have to conclude his question.
I am concluding my question. It is little more than an insult that will lead almost undoubtedly to serious social discontent, certainly in the disadvantaged areas which I represent where there are a large number of those families. I doubt if the Minister appreciates the effect these measures are having on many thousands of families.
I must ask Deputy Gregory to conclude.
I would ask the Minister to respond to this plea on behalf of these people and reconsider the effect of what she is now doing.
(Interruptions.)
Order, order, please.
I and the Government have shared the Deputy's concern of the effect of this directive. That is why we applied an extra £9 million to try to cushion the effect of the equality directive which on the one hand benefited an enormous number of families and, on the other, caused some difficulties where there were anomalies in our system. Concern has been generally expressed about the position of social welfare recipients. I must refer to the claim made earlier in this discussion about increase in benefits generally. This Government increased the rates for long-term social welfare recipients by 40 per cent over the past few years, well ahead of inflation, unlike the record which was so proudly trumpeted by the Leader of the Opposition.
(Interruptions.)
Lies.
(Interruptions.)
The inflation rate over that period——
(Interruptions.)
Order, order.
It is very important to make it clear that this Government's record of increases in social welfare payments and our concern for social welfare recipients——
A Deputy
Stock to the problem.
(Interruptions.)
——is better than anything——
(Interruptions.)
Order, order.
The question Deputy Gregory raised is the question we have been discussing, the concern we all feel for people who will lose under this directive.
They have lost. It is gone.
(Interruptions.)
I am very sorry to hear the Deputy criticising the fact that we will individually contact these families to help them.
(Interruptions.)
That is an extraordinary statement when it is an effort to reach out to people to help them.
Deputies
How?
(Interruptions.)
I will allow a final question from Deputy Haughey and that is it.
(Interruptions.)
A Cheann Comhairle——
Will the Minister for Social Welfare please address herself to the issue of the moment——
Deputies
Hear, hear.
——and that is, the position of approximately 20,000 families in our community who will suffer serious losses of income and, therefore, hardship in the weeks immediately ahead? Will the Minister have regard to the fact that the proposal she put before this House to deal with this situation, namely, action through community welfare officers is not now available to these families? Will the Minister also acknowledge that the Government in their statement yesterday publicly acknowledge that hardship will ensue for these families in spite of all the arrangements she has purported to put before us? Will the Minister further admit that no action arising out of the examination of the Estimates can have any effect for some considerable time, probably months? Is there anything the Minister can offer this House or those unfortunate families in the meantime? Is there anything the Minister can say or do to come to their aid and relieve them of the anxiety, the hardship and the deprivation that arrangement made by her and this Government are imposing upon them?
A Deputy
It will not be toothbrushes anyway.
I have made it clear that the Government have already spent £9 million on the alleviating measures.
(Interruptions.)
This was not envisaged in the directive. This Government went to Brussels and made sure we would be able——
(Interruptions.)
——despite what was put into the 1978 directive by the Deputy opposite, to give these alleviating measures. We then went further at the request of many Deputies from all side of the House to deal with families where both parents are on social welfare. The community welfare officers found themselves unable to help us in that respect so the Department are doing it. I am glad we are doing that. The question, therefore, is that any further scope for any change in the situation will arise in the context of the Book of Estimates for 1987.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Item No. 1.
A Cheann Comhairle——
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order——
There is one important question——
I am not allowing this.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order——
I am calling Deputy Prendergast on Item No.1.
(Interruptions.)
I have allowed half and hour.
On a point of order, if the Minister is right, why did Fine Gael and Labour backbenches force the Government to change their minds and——
(Interruptions.)
That is not a point of order.
(Interruptions.)