Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 3 Jun 1988

Vol. 381 No. 7

Supplementary Estimates, 1988. - Vote 42: Social Welfare (Revised Estimate).

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £1,627,299,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants.

The Social Welfare Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1988 is for a net sum of £1,627,299,000. This is the general taxpayer's contribution to financing social welfare expenditure and is equivalent to some 60 per cent of the total cost. Of the remaining expenditure, almost £700 million is met by employers and about £335 million is met by employees and the self-employed through PRSI contributions. When account is taken of this and other minor sources of income, the total social welfare bill comes to £2,674 million or 15 per cent of GNP.

Over one third of our population benefit from social welfare payments which fall into the following main categories:

	£million
Old Age/Retirement Pensions	770
Unemployment payments	714
Family Income support	655
Illness/Disability payments	357
Other, including administration costs	178
Total	2,674

The Government have made significant progress in our 15 months in office. 1987 was a year of substantial achievement. We restored order to the public finances. GNP grew by over 4 per cent, which was one of the best growth rates in the EC. Exports rose by 15 per cent in real terms and we had a balance of payments surplus for the first time in 20 years. The volume of manufacturing output increased by over 10 per cent and investment in plant and machinery rose by over 4 per cent. Interest rates have fallen by 5.5 per cent and inflation is down to a record annual rate of 2 per cent.

The Programme for National Recovery set an annual target of 20,000 new jobs in manufacturing industry. In the first quarter of this year some 4,000 such new jobs have been created and I am confident that the target for the year as a whole can and will be achieved. We have succeeded in a short time in creating an environment conducive to increased investment which is an essential prerequisite for establishing new jobs. Good progress has been made in the establishment of the international financial services centre. There has been considerable interest in the centre and 22 projects involving about 1,000 jobs have so far been approved by the Minister for Finance. The way is now open for those who have a responsibility for job creation, whether in the public or private sectors, to take advantage of the opportunities created.

In the Programme for National Recovery we have also undertaken to maintain the overall value of social welfare benefits and provide additional increases for those in receipt of the lowest payments within the resources available. This Estimate provides the necesary funds to meet this commitment. I am providing for:

(i) a general increase of 3 per cent for all social welfare payments from next month. With inflation running at 2 per cent this will more than maintain the real value of social welfare payments;

(ii) a special provision to give from next month an 11 per cent increase in the basic rates of unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance with a 6 per cent increase for child dependants. This is a major improvement for those on the lowest payments.

In addition, a general streamlining of rates for child dependants from July will mean further increases for larger families and will have the present number of rates.

The effect of these special increases will be that, for example the personal long term rate of unemployment assistance in urban areas will now be £42 per week, an increase of £4.20 per week. A married couple with three children will get £6.70 extra per week, bringing their total to £98.80. These larger increases for those on the lowest payments are in line with the thrust of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare and of agencies involved with the poor.

The overall cost of the present improvements in social welfare (including health) is £44.8 million this year and £101 million in a full year. Of this the special additional increases for those on the lowest payments will account for some £30 million in the full year.

One of the commitments in our Programme for National Recovery was to carry out a detailed study of the workings of the family income supplement scheme. The objective of this scheme was to overcome certain disincentives for low paid workers, but the take-up was lower than anticipated. The study is designed to identify ways in which the scheme could be improved and developed and to examine the question of take-up. This review has now been carried out by an independent evaluator. A draft report was received in my Department in the past few days and is currently being examined. The draft report indicates that the potential beneficiaries under this scheme total some 15,000, and not 35,000 as originally estimated. This review will of course form an integral part of the future development of this scheme. At present there are 5,200 recipients of FIS of whom 73 per cent 3,800, are in the private sector and 27 per cent 1,400, are in the public sector. The majority of these are labourers, 68 per cent in the public sector and 51 per cent in the private sector.

The extension of social insurance to the self-employed is the most significant development in the social welfare area since the early seventies. Up to 20 per cent of the workforce have, since April, been brought into the social insurance system. They are now in a position to acquire an entitlement to a guaranteed basic pension in old age and, in the case of those who are married, for their survivors.

Since the legislation was enacted many of the self-employed are now coming to realise the advantages of this scheme. In endeavouring to make a living and a success of their enterprises many self-employed people did not make adequate provision for their survivors or for old age. Over the years it is estimated that up to 70 per cent of self-employed people have had to fall back on means-tested social assistance in their old age. The self-employed are no longer in this position and it is clear that many now recognise that it is in their best interests to be covered by a scheme that requires them to make basic provision for their survivors and for old age. I am also pleased to say that despite the relatively short period since the introduction of the scheme the complex administrative arrangements involved are being put in place according to plan.

These arrangements are proceeding on five main fronts. First, in the case of certain directors whose remuneration is liable to PAYE, the collection process has already begun.

Second, my Department have now received from the Revenue Commissioners basid details of some 180,000 Schedule D taxpayers — shopkeepers, farmers and professional people. About 60,000 of these are already registered with the Department. Registration forms are being issued to the balance. A total of 120,000 forms are being issued in stages over a number of weeks — about 80,000 forms have already gone in the post.

The third group consists mainly of small farmers who have been advised by Revenue that they do not have a current tax liability. These cases, about 20,000 in all, will be subject to a collection system to be operated directly by my Department. Under this system they will receive special bills in October, and they will be asked to pay their contributions in quarterly instalments. For this contribution year, arrangements are only being made for payments through post offices. In the light of experience of the system, alternative paying arrangements will be considered from April 1989.

The fourth group consists of recipients of unemployment assistance with some self-employment. While these persons are not liable to pay any contribution, they must be registered within the scheme and the arrangements are proceeding at employment exchange level to allot RSI numbers to all the unemployed who do not have a tax number at present.

The fifth group consists of people who are not registered at present with either Revenue or the Department and who are self-employed. An advertising campaign is being arranged to ensure that they can register. It is expected that the majority of these people will be either exempt on income grounds or liable only to pay the flat-rate contribution of £104 per annum.

The collection system for those outside the income tax system will not be operational until October mainly because registration of those concerned will not be completed before then. The total income included in this year's Estimate for the scheme is £15 million.

In April of last year the National Pensions Board presented their first report. This contained a series of detailed recommendations for the regulation of occupational pension schemes. I invited the various interested organisations to submit their views on the report and I was very heartened by the speed with which they responded and the detailed consideration which they had given to the various implications of the report.

The views received have now been fully considered and I hope to be in a position shortly to submit proposals to Government with a view to introducing legislation in the autumn. My Department are responsible for the administration of 11 means-tested schemes. I have undertaken a review of the various means tests with a view to simplifying and rationalising them. There are two major constraints on the rate of progress which can be made in this regard. First, rationalisation may involve modifying certain concessionary features of the means tests in some schemes. Secondly, rationalisation may also require easing the more restrictive features of certain other schemes. Such changes, however, would have significant cost implications. Given present budgetary constraints the progress that is possible in this area is necessarily restricted. However, I intend to begin the process of rationalising and simplifying the various means tests with a view to arriving at a situation as soon as practicable where there are uniform means test criteria across all the social assistance schemes administered by my Department.

An examination is currently being finalised by an inter-Departmental working party which was established by my colleague, the Minister for Health, on the scope that exists for reducing and, where possible, eliminating duplication of means testing by various State agencies. Significant progress has already been made in simplifying the administrative arrangements in the Department of Social Welfare by, for example, the introduction of one-stop shops and the making of interim payments pending comprehensive means tests. The final report of the inter-Departmental working party should be ready by the end of the summer. Careful consideration will be given to the recommendations made in that report with a view to their implementation as rapidly as possible later in the year.

The national Jobsearch programme, which was introduced by the Government in April 1987, is specifically designed to help the long-term unemployed. It has given a new direction to the work of my Department and that of the NMS and AnCO. The resources of these agencies were directed as a priority to assist the unemployed. I am glad to say that the national Jobsearch programme was a major success last year and this success is continuing in the current year. Up to last week over 23,000 have been interviewed by FÁS already this year. To date over 2,300 long-term unemployed have been placed in jobs as a direct result of the Jobsearch programme. Over 13,000 have been placed in Manpower schemes and training programmes. In addition, over 2,500 commenced the special Jobsearch courses. The targets for 1988 envisage that a total of 56,000 places will be provided on mainline FÁS courses and schemes including Jobsearch courses.

A by-product of this massive effort to help the unemployed is that so far this year almost 9,700 claimants left the live register voluntarily following an invitation to participate in a course, job or scheme. In addition since January almost 600 people have had their cases reviewed, resulting in disallowances. Savings to date as a result exceed £4 million. That is purely as a result of people leaving the register. There were, of course, other savings from the courses which are taking place.

For many years the charge has been made that our unemployment payments system is inflexible and unresponsive to the needs of the unemployed. Indeed, I would have to agree that in some respects that charge is justified, particularly for those unemployed who want to adopt a positive approach to their enforced inactivity through, for example, furthering their education or taking up part-time employment. Fear of losing their basic income from my Department can be the deciding factor for many unemployed persons in rejecting opportunities to improve their employment prospects. I am fully committed to introducing flexibility into our systems and with that in mind a number of schemes have been launched.

Only a few weeks ago, I launched the part-time job incentive scheme on a nationwide basis. This scheme is an example of what I want to achieve in terms of breaking away from some of the more restrictive rules of the unemployment payments system. At the same time, it can also provide those out of work with another option. The objective of the scheme is to allow those who can obtain part-time work the opportunity to do so while still retaining entitlement to a basic payment or income supplement from my Department.

One of the more notable changes in the pattern of working in the labour force has been the increase in the extent of part-time working. I believe that we need to be able to respond to such changes and I am convinced that the part-time job incentive scheme will go a long way to meeting that need.

The educational opportunities scheme gives unemployed persons over 25 years of age the opportunity to go back to school and complete a certificate-type course. At the same time, participants receive a weekly allowance equivalent to their unemployment payments. In this way the missed opportunities of youth in the education area can be recaptured by means of a second chance.

This scheme is a particularly worthwhile one and is being piloted in Limerick and Tallaght for the second year. I am examining the scope for extending it within the limit of available resources to other areas, to persons over 25 and to cover languages. I hope to be in a position to announce details of an extended scheme in the near future.

The voluntary work scheme is important in the context of community response to the problem of unemployment. It allows an unemployed person to carry out voluntary work without infringing the conditions attached to the receipt of unemployment payments. Its objectives are twofold. First, to encourage unemployed persons who may have a lot to offer the community to get involved in voluntary work without any interference with their basic weekly income; and second, to encourage voluntary organisations to involve the unemployed and to create new opportunities for voluntary work. I am at present considering how this scheme can be improved and promoted. I recently met a number of voluntary organisations to get their views on the scheme and I hope to announce details of a revamped scheme shortly.

The pre-retirement allowance scheme is intended to provide more flexible arrangements for older unemployed people. The necessary procedures are being prepared and the scheme will be fully operational by the autumn. Initially, the scheme will be confined to persons over 60 years of age who are entitled to a maximum rate of unemployment assistance. This new optional scheme will relieve claimants of the necessity of attending the local office to sign on and collect their payments. Those who qualify for the allowance will be paid by pension order book which can be cashed weekly at their local post office. However, they will be asked periodically to confirm that they are still, in fact, retired.

In further fulfilment of my commitment to introducing flexibility into the unemployment payments system, I announced recently that unemployed athletes representing their country abroad could continue to receive their unemployment payments. This facility is also being extended to cover a two-week visit or holiday abroad in certain circumstances. This would enable many unemployed people, who could not have done so up to now, to travel abroad for family and other reasons.

Deputies will know that I have undertaken a major programme to tackle fraud abuse in social welfare. This has involved action on a number of fronts and has been a major success in achieving unprecedented savings. This programme is continuing this year and extra staff have been committed to this work. The current estimate includes allowance for anticipated further savings of some £20 million in 1988.

The principal elements in this programme are:

—The special investigation unit;

—The external control unit;

—The joint revenue and social welfare investigation unit;

—Control measures on disability benefit claims, including inquiries to employers and increased medical referee activity and

—PRSI surveys of employers.

Savings to date are well on target and in the five months to the end of May 1988, 317 cases were sent to the Chief State Solicitor for prosecution, of which 26 relate to employers.

This year's Social Welfare Act provided that regulations may be made giving entitlement to pensions at a reduced rate to those who, having earlier left the insurance system because of the operation of the remuneration limit, came back into insurance on 1 April 1974 when the limit was abolished. These people found themselves adversely affected when they reached pension age, because of the intermittent nature of their insurance records prior to 1974.

I have been very concerned about the plight of this group of people for some time. The provision in this year's Act will allow me to make regulations providing pro rata pensions for them from October next in line with the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. A sum of £600,000 has been included in this year's Estimate for this purpose.

Since becoming Minister some 15 months ago, I have been very conscious of the need to improve further the quality and speed of delivery of the service to the public. Much progress has been made through a combination of intensive computerisation, new management systems, revised working procedures and reorganisation of functions. I believe there is a need to localise the service to provide a more comprehensive, integrated, streamlined and secure service to social welfare clients and to the taxpayer. This conclusion has been reached after taking account of a wide range of views. These include the views of the Commission on Social Welfare, the views of the clients obtained through market research studies, the views of public representatives, the views of the security consultants who carried out the major study of the Department's main payment system and the feedback and insights from the Department's own staff who operate the schemes on the ground and who have daily contact with the public.

I am working towards a situation in which my Department will provide a service which is both comprehensive, covering all schemes, and local, that is claims and queries accepted and processed locally.

The introduction of modern payment systems is a vital aspect of the new service delivery strategy. My Department operate a wide range of payment systems, cash, cheques and payments by vouchers at post offices. By European standards payment systems in Ireland are outmoded and rely too heavily on cash. Apart from the inconvenience involved, cash-based payment systems by their very nature are an attraction to criminals and a security risk. I am examining methods of reducing the amount of cash used at employment exchanges and how we can quickly move to alternative payment systems. Cheques, payable orders and electronic fund transfers (EFT) are options being considered. Our current programme of computerisation of employment exchanges will make these options possible.

Unemployment payments are the last area of the Department's operations to be computerised. The Dublin and Cork areas are now fully computerised and we are extending this service. A further 12 local offices will be computerised in 1988. This programme when completed will give much greater flexibility in regard to the method of payment at the local offices.

The redesigned central records system will play a major part in our plans to localise and improve services. Among the objectives of the new system will be the ability to decide claims, if only provisionally, at a much earlier stage than was possible under the old methods. This will reduce the requirements on many of the less well off clients to have recourse to supplementary welfare allowance. Overall, it will increase the dignity of the service to the clients themselves and this will confer advantages on the staff who will be freed to devote more time and effort to assisting claimants. In addition, a central index is being developed to allow for quick and easy identification of clients and a major development programme is underway to provide for the registration of the self-employed.

The system to be used to provide computerised facilities at local level known as INFOSYS is used currently for inquiries concerning all of the Department's computerised schemes. A more streamlined inquiry facility is being developed and will be implemented on a phased basis during the year. The new system will, in addition to providing faster and more reliable information relating to individual clients and claims, include a feature which will assist local offices in determining eligibility.

All of the child benefit renewal books will be issued this year using the new personalised paying order system which I launched last year. This new system will be used for the issue of all pension books from July. In addition, all pension books will be issued using this system. This is a major breakthrough in terms of having a more efficient and secure payment system. For the first time we will also have full reconciliation of pension and allowance orders and greatly improve control. A new system for the free fuel scheme is also currently being developed and will be implemented for the next heating season.

I believe we are making good progress in making the social welfare system more responsive to the needs of its clients. I have referred particularly to the measures we have taken or have planned for unemployed people, and particularly the long-term unemployed because I believe that our main effort must be directed at helping this sector of our population at this time. We are significantly improving the levels of payment to the unemployed, we are also improving the system of payments to them and we are trying to give them greater flexibility and as many opportunities as possible to improve their situation, through priority in Jobsearch allocations, through the part-time job incentive scheme and by encouraging unemployed people to become involved in voluntary work.

I am trying to bring about an integrated approach under which the efforts of Government, statutory agencies and voluntary and community organisations will be co-ordinated to give an integrated response to the needs of the unemployed, and indeed of other people in need.

The need for an integrated approach to solving the problems of groups and categories in need has also been highlighted in the context of the EC poverty programme. Nine Irish projects are participating in the programme with the assistance of the Combat Poverty Agency. Through their participation in the programme these projects have the capacity to identify new and innovative approaches to tackling the problems of poverty and the success of the programme will be determined by the practical solutions which emerge from the participating projects.

The Combat Poverty Agency are also actively involved in community development. This year the agency have provided core funding to several projects. These include projects dealing with the problems faced by residents of new housing estates, providing learning opportunities for young mothers who have difficulty coping with their responsibilities, the selfdevelopment of women affected by poverty generally and a project specifically aimed at the travelling community.

As Deputies will be aware, the agency have also undertaken, at my request, a research project on the question of moneylending. The main purpose of this study which is to be concluded by September next is to develop a set of measures aimed at combating the problems of moneylending and indebtedness. The project is already at an advanced stage. I will be very interested in the findings which emerge and in particular those which relate to families dependent on social welfare. The agency are also engaged in research in a number of other areas including community development issues, malnutrition and homelessness. I might mention in this context that I have allocated a total of £63,000 this year towards various projects for the homeless from the scheme of grants to voluntary bodies in the social services area.

One of the major developments taking place this year in the poverty area will be the publication this summer of the initial results of a major survey on poverty carried out by the ESRI as part of the second EC poverty programme. This is the first occasion on which a study of this magnitude on poverty has been carried out in this country. I have no doubt the study will make a substantial contribution to our understanding of poverty and will be of immense value in the development of policies in this area.

The scheme of grants to voluntary bodies is being continued again this year. The organisations assisted are generally engaged in providing services for deprived or disadvantaged persons. This year £750,000 is being made available, funded by moneys from the national lottery. About 500 applications for grants have been received and £420,000 has already been allocated to organisations throughout the country.

As Deputies will be aware, an additional £100,000 has recently been allocated from national lottery funds to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for personal development and home management courses. This will provide practical advice and assistance, including financial advice, to over 5,000 families this year.

Deputies will see that Social Welfare is an active and vibrant Department. I am determined to provide the best possible service to people who rely on social welfare payments. I would like to pay tribute to the staff of the Department, those dealing with the public, those at senior management level, and all those staff without whom it would not be possible to deliver a service to such a large segment of the public.

We are changing rapidly to meet the needs of the present time. I am particularly pleased that the Government have protected social welfare recipients in this difficult time and have given extra to those on the lowest payments. I commend this Estimate to the House.

Mrs. Barnes

Once again it is good to be here in the House and to hear a progress report on this most important matter. I am sure all the Members of the House recognise that the Minister and his Department are attempting to perform a mammoth task, commenced by the last administration, in trying to turn an incredibly overloaded system into an effective, efficient and non-wasteful one. As I have only 15 minutes I will be able to comment on just a few areas and perhaps the Minister might respond to some of them when concluding.

The word that leaped from the pages with regard to the whole reform of the social welfare system is "flexibility". That is one of the headings in the Minister's speech. It is only with flexibility that we will bring about a social welfare system that dignifies the human being who has recourse to it and ensure that people on the social welfare system, either temporary or long-term, are not marginalised. They should be made to feel as valued a part of the community as the rest of us. The whole thrust of our social welfare reform has to be based on that. To this extent I welcome very much the flexibility that is being introduced.

The Minister mentioned the part-time job incentive scheme which will give those who can obtain part-time work the opportunity to do so while still retaining entitlement to a basic payment or income supplement from his Department. The Minister said that participants in the scheme may work up to 24 hours a week and that earnings are subject to tax and PRSI in the normal way. One of the concerns of all of us in the past has been the attempt by employers to use part-time workers. This affects women in particular, because over 80 per cent of part-time workers are women, a great number of whom have been deliberately kept below the eligibility level at which they are entitled to the same sickness and holiday benefits as those on full-time employment. I know that also comes under legislation from the Department of Labour. It is a glaring discrimination and gives great insecurity to part-time workers. We are moving into a future when part-time work will become more and more the norm. I would ask the Minister to keep that very much in mind and to extend the flexibility so that nobody who works formal hours is denied that type of contribution and cover.

All of us would welcome very much the flexibility offered to allow unemployed persons to go back to school. The Minister said that unemployed persons over 25 years of age will have the opportunity to go back to school and complete a certificate-type course. A pilot scheme is in operation in Limerick and Tallaght for the second year. I take it that the Minister is monitoring this scheme closely so that it will apply nationwide. He said he intends to extend the scheme.

One matter that is of concern to me is with regard to the research into adult education and the returning of people to work, particularly those over 25 years of age. There seems to be a far higher motivation for women to return to work. They may have dropped out of education at an early stage, raised a family and have completed courses of development and personal growth, leading to employment. The research shows that men who have been made redundant should have the same educational opportunities but unless they see a definite job at the end of it they are very reluctant to avail of them. We are all concerned about the long-term unemployed, particularly men who consider that all their worth was based on the job they had. Something should be done to encourage men who have been made redundant, who find themselves in early retirement and in long-term unemployment, to take advantage of this type of educational opportunity without feeling that there should be a job at the end of it. In itself it is an enriching experience.

The voluntary work scheme is of tremendous importance to the community, particularly as we have more and more people who would be able to give that kind of voluntary contribution and there are great numbers of communities who need it. Flexible arrangements have been made for older unemployed people under the pre-retirement allowance scheme and I welcome that. The Minister also mentioned the pro-rata pensions. He said that this year's Social Welfare Act provide that regulations may be made giving entitlement to pensions at a reduced rate to those who, having earlier left the insurance system because of the operation of the remuneration limit, came back into insurance on 1 April 1974 when the limit was abolished. We would welcome the provision of pro-rata pensions for those people who were adversely affected.

I would like to raise a point with regard to one group of people about whom I have received representations, as I am sure have other Members of the House. There is a certain anomaly with regard to employees of CIE who, when they reach supervisory grade, are automatically made ineligible for the full contribution. Some of them find that this affects their full pension rights and wonder if something can be done about it. Can a person, on reaching a certain level of promotion within his job, who finds himself outside the full contributions but within reach of pensionable age be included under the pro-rata pension scheme or can he opt to remain within the full contribution? This can be a tremendous disadvantage to the extent that people might think twice about accepting promotion. That is a total denial of the encouragement that we should be giving to people in their jobs.

When discussing the localisation of services, the Minister said that much progress had been made through a combination of intensive computerisation, new management systems, revised working procedures and the reorganisation of functions to provide a more comprehensive, integrated, streamlined and secure service to social welfare recipients.

In a policy paper produced by a former Minister, Deputy Boland, he made certain proposals. I am sure the Department have taken note of them but what progress has been made in those areas? One of the recommendations was that very young and not fully trained members of staff should not be put into key sensitive jobs, such as meeting the public in employment exchanges and in areas where determinations have to be made. The staff should be very highly trained so that they will be aware of the sensitive nature of their work. These staff members should at least be middle management and there should be a continuity of service so that people will get to know the officers involved who will be aware of the honesty and dignity of the applicants.

Another idea was that there should be a room set aside in each employment exchange and social welfare office where a person might go to be questioned or to make a special submission and be able to do that in privacy. That is one of the most important areas of reform we should look at. I admit a great number of offices may be outdated and might not lend themselves to such a move, but this is one of the key areas where investment is need if we are serious about treating people with dignity and discussing their affairs in private. People who go to hospitals or visit doctors are granted this privacy and the same dignity should be granted to people seeking social welfare benefits.

The Minister also said that all the child benefit renewal books will be issued this year using the new personalised paying order system which he launched last year. I cannot let the opportunity pass without saying that not alone should the direct payment of child benefit continue to be paid to the spouse looking after the children in the home, but every effort should be made to increase that benefit since it is the only real economic value put on work in the home and child-rearing. I also welcome the fact that the new system for the free fuel scheme is being currently developed and will be implemented for the next heating season. We all hope this means nobody will be discriminated against because of where they live and that this scheme will be based on real needs.

I read the summary of the reports on the review of payment systems conducted by Craig Gardner, management consultants. They have identified a certain amount of fraud, as did the Department. I welcome the proposal that employers should be held responsible for fraud, but it must be recognised that the number of fraudulent applications is very small. The majority are honest people. I heard on the news that the number of fraudulent applications in urban areas was about 10 per cent. Even if it was 10 per cent, that means 90 per cent of those who are eligible and apply for social welfare benefits are decent honest people who have been forced by circumstances to apply for these benefits. The focus must be on the honest people rather than on those who make fraudulent applications. All the training in the Department should be directed towards that end.

I want to comment on the combat proverty programme. This puts poverty very high on the political agenda, where it should be. I am sure we will be dismayed by the results of the major survey on poverty being carried out by the ESRI at present. I ask the Department to pay special attention to the views from the Combat Poverty Agency to the European Community with regard to the integration of all EC poverty programmes. The Irish Combat Poverty Agency points out that there is very little exchange of information between national poverty agencies. If there was greater integration and initatives in this area, if anti-poverty models which worked in other countries could be shared, it would serve a useful purpose. Above all, research within the EC should be shared.

As the Combat Poverty Agency say, work combating poverty should be based on the understanding that poverty is not a residual problem but is directly linked to social and economic policy. In the light of the fact that the European Social Fund and Structural Funds are being doubled between now and 1992, I would like to believe that with the integration of ideas and research between the Irish agencies and Europe, poverty would not be a residual problem but could be tackled and, hopefully, within the next few years we will not see the same degree of poverty that exists at the moment.

Miss Harney

I would like to begin where the Minister left off by complimenting two of the staff in his Department. In my short three weeks with responsibility for social welfare, I have found the staff with whom I had contact efficient, helpful and very courteous. I think I speak for other Deputies when I say the Department of Social Welfare is the most improved Government Department in recent years.

Mrs. Barnes

Hear, hear.

Miss Harney

A couple of years ago when one contacted the Department it would take months to get a response. Now a response to a normal constituency representation, comes within a matter of days. That is a very good thing and the new systems are obviously working very well.

I would like to compliment the Minister because he has genuinely sought to be imaginative in the way he has handled his brief. He sought to bring about changes in areas which badly needed change. For too long we have allowed our social welfare system to develop on an ad hoc basis with very little planning and co-ordination between schemes and very little rationalisation. Many social welfare schemes have been introduced in response to social changes without adequate time and thought going into evaluating what we were trying to do.

As this country improves its economic performance, we must redirect additional resources to the weaker sections of our community, the people on social welfare. We must carry out major reform and a total overhaul of the social welfare system. With more than 30 per cent of the population dependent in some way on social welfare, and about 20 per cent of families totally dependent on social welfare, urgent reform must come about sooner rather than later. Although published two years ago, the report of the Commission on Social Welfare, which was the only real effort to reform the system since the foundation of the State, was never discussed in this House or in the Seanad. That is a pity. While I accept that the implementation of many of the recommendations in that report would be very costly, we should have had a major debate in both Houses on the findings in that report. Reform in the area of social welfare has never been a major political priority of any party and that is a pity.

The failure to change the system of social welfare and to restructure the welfare payment system has led to many anomalies in the present social welfare system. For example, a deserted wife gets far more than a woman who is separated from her unemployed husband. Why these two women should be considered worth very different sums escapes me, but that is the case under our social welfare system. Children, too, are treated differently, some being considered worth much more than others. While I welcome the efforts made recently by the Minister to rationalise the number of types of dependant payments, we must go much further and have one single rate of payment in respect of the children of social welfare recipients.

In order to have a fair system we need to introduce a single, uniform manner of means testing for all State benefits. In reply to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister indicated that in his Department alone 11 different means tests were applied. There are further means tests applied by the Department of Health and by various local authorities and different State agencies. It is appalling that we have not been able to organise one system of means testing of applicants for State benefits. One of the more obvious ways of doing so would be to follow the type of system used by local authorities to assess differential rents. It is a very efficient system, one under which local authority tenants are assessed regularly. That kind of assessment could be used by the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health with regard to medical cards and other State benefits.

The failure to compile a single system of means testing results in many people who do not require State benefits receiving them and doing so at the expense of the weakest and most deprived sections of our community. For example, in matters like the free electricity scheme, or free travel for old people — and I shall probably be accused of political foolishness in saying this — very well-off people should not be entitled to these benefits on the same basis as the poorest people. Child benefit allowances, also, should not be paid to every family, regardless of income. Why should the wife of a very wealthy businessman receive the same child benefit as the wife of a social welfare recipient? That is neither fair nor just and it means that our State benefits are not being targeted towards those who need them most.

I must disagree with my colleague, Deputy Barnes. It has been an accepted fact in this country that child benefit is a payment to the mother for being a mother. That is an insult to Irish women. Does it mean that somebody who has married and has never had a child will not get this allowance because she had not the benefit of being a mother? That is degrading and places a very low value on the women of this country. Child benefits should be paid to help families to rear their children. At a time of very limited resources that £213 million that we spend on child benefits should be given to the poorest in our community, to the recipients of social welfare payments.

There has been much discussion in recent days on the topic of fraud. The vast majority of our people who claim social welfare from the State do so as a last resort. They do so very reluctantly. Many grow up in an environment where, for pure pride or family reasons, they hate to have to admit that they must look to the State in order to provide food and clothing for their children. It is a pity that far too often those who make fraudulent claims on the Department of Social Welfare get so much publicity and, as a result, cast a very poor reflection on all social welfare recipients. I am delighted that the findings of the Craig Gardner report, which the Minister very kindly circulated to Deputies in the last couple of days, indicated that in the Dublin area only 2 per cent of unemployment payments were based on fraud and only 1 per cent of those claiming disability benefit were claiming fraudulently. These are extremely low levels, indeed. That must make us all realise that the 98 or 99 per cent of applicants for these benefits are honest people who are not in any way defrauding the State.

Having said that, we must be more vigilant in terms of policing the social welfare system. We must deal more severely, in particular, with employers who allow people to work in their premises knowing them to be claiming social welfare. We must put a much heavier onus on employers and make an example of those indulging in this practice. I am pleased to note from the Minister's speech that 26 such employers are currently being prosecuted. An example should be made of such people, because those who defraud our social welfare system are cheating the poorest and most deprived people in our community.

With regard to unemployment, one of the heaviest burdens placed on the social welfare system at the moment is as a result of 20 per cent of our workforce being currently out of work. For too long we have had a very conservative attitude towards the plight of the unemployed. We have told them that in order to qualify for State benefits they must exclude themselves from education, voluntary work, any work at all. They must almost become useless persons. That is degrading and insulting to the unemployed, the vast majority of whom want to make a useful contribution to their local community. They want to be involved in some kind of work and they deserve that dignity. In that regard, I welcome the scheme recently announced by the Minister for Social Welfare. Many political opponents of his and many commentators have seen fit to criticise that scheme. Like everything else that is new, if you want to, you can find things that are wrong but, equally, you can find many things that are right. That scheme is going in the right direction. I should like to see it extended and being taken up by the unemployed. While I do not believe that people should have to work in order to live or to survive, all unemployed people should be expected to make some contribution to their local community, through a voluntary body, to give of their time and service in return for State benefits.

The Minister also referred to the problem of money lending and said that he had asked the Combat Poverty Agency to carry out a survey in this regard. As a Deputy who represents a constituency where money lending is often a major problem, I am pleased that that survey is being carried out. I know that some moneylenders not only charge enormous rates of interest but that the manner in which they treat people to whom they lend money is absolutely despicable. They terrorise and frighten them. I have often known very poor people to pay the moneylender before they buy the weekly food for their children, because they become so frightened. Many people get into difficulties with regard to money lending in order to look after their children, for example, to buy First Communion and Confirmation outfits, school uniforms and such. There is much pressure on families in the poorer communities to keep up with everybody else. If you are living on social welfare, it is not that easy. For a married couple with three children to have to live on £14 a day is certainly not very easy. We need to take some of the pressure off these families and give them some help at times like that, to purchase the necessary requirements for the children.

The social welfare system should be further decentralised. In particular, in my constituency in Tallaght which has, according to a report published earlier this week, a 60 per cent dependency on social welfare, there should be a full social welfare facility available. We need to co-ordinate our State services further. The dental, optical and hearing benefits scheme recently extended to the spouses of insured workers should be operated by the Department of Health. The community welfare officers scheme is essentially a community scheme and should be co-ordinated fully by the Department of Social Welfare. We need to separate the health functions from the welfare functions. Unless we do, we will not have an efficient service delivered fairly to those who require it. The educational opportunity scheme — one of the pilot schemes is in my area — should be further extended. That scheme gives a great opportunity to many of those who had to leave school very early without an adequate education to catch up and to have a better chance of finding a job.

In relation to fraud, I saw an announcement by the Minister in yesterday's evening newspapers that everybody will have an RSI number. It would be better to have an identity card system which would be useful in so many other areas apart from social welfare. It would be a more efficient and convenient system instead of having a number of schemes for different purposes. I know that the Minister for Justice introduced a voluntary identity card system but a compulsory system would help to combat problems in relation to fraud in the social welfare system and a whole range of other problems like the abuse of alcohol by young people.

For a long time now we have left the problems of social welfare recipients generally to voluntary agencies, religious orders and nuns and priests, particularly in the urban centres. However, their marvellous work is no substitute for political action. All parties in the House must ensure that the reform and overhaul of the social welfare system becomes a major political priority. Even if we do not wish to means test people for benefit, the structure of our population is such that in 20 to 25 years' time, we will not be able to continue to make payments to people who are currently entitled to them. Unless we are selective, the population will not be able to maintain the kind of benefits we are used to. We should withdraw State benefits from the "haves" and target limited State resources to those in real need. That will allow us to bring up the rates of those at the very bottom of the social welfare system.

The Minister has gone a long way towards improving the plight of the long-term unemployed and the 11 per cent increase was long overdue. It has certainly vastly improved the position for many families. We need to go much further but our limited resources have to be spread thinly over too many people. We cannot give people a reasonable level of income but we must target resources to those most in need.

Recently, a party in this House said that they favoured the integration of the tax and social welfare systems, so that everyone would have a minimum income. While that system is attractive to economists — and removes the poverty trap — it redistributes poverty among the least well off in the community. It keeps some people so far down the scale that they never get a chance of having more than the minimum income, which will probably be £25 or £30 per week. It means that invalids or people who, through no fault of their own, cannot work will not be able to participate in the economic activity of the country and will always be much worse off than those who have an opportunity to participate because they are in gainful employment. For that reason, I do not favour moving to that kind of system because it would be grossly unfair.

In relation to those on a low income and receiving the family income supplement, the best way of helping them is to dismantle the PRSI system and to remove it from, say, the first £3,000 of income. If you want to keep the same level of contribution it can be extended at the other end of the scale. My party are committed to abolishing employees' PRSI. However if it is kept, it should be extended at the higher income level instead of charging it on the first £2,000 or £3,000 because that means that somebody just starting work pays tax on the very first £1 they earn. It is a tax on employment and causes many of the poverty traps which the family income supplement was introduced to try to combat.

Mr. Bell

Like Deputy Barnes and Deputy Harney, I too have noticed a very positive and definite improvement in the services from the Department of Social Welfare. The Order Paper of the Dáil each day is clear evidence of that because it can be seen that the number of questions tabled under Social Welfare has been drastically reduced. At one stage, I headed the poll in the number of questions I asked about social welfare and I was publicly criticised for this. However, I make no apologies for that because, eventually, many of the inefficiencies were highlighted as a result. The Department needed to be restructured and reorganised. There has been a big improvement over the last two years and the service has improved. Of course, more improvements are needed but they are making positive progress and I am grateful to the Minister for the way he responded to Opposition Deputies in relation to the whole subject of social welfare. He is prepared to recognise a good point made by an Opposition Deputy and is not politically afraid to put it into operation and to give the party or Deputy concerned the credit for it. It is a pity that the same type of approach does not prevail in other Government Departments, as Dáil Éireann would be all the better for it.

I wish to refer to a number of points in the Craig Gardner report. I was disappointed that we did not get the full, detailed report; we received only a summary. The information in the full report would be very useful in trying to improve the social welfare system. I do not know if the Minister intends to give a copy of the full report to Members of the House or at least to party spokespersons. The Minister referred to the family income supplement, and the current figures are much more accurate than the original ones. The estimate of 35,000 was far too high — I do not know where it came from — and the figure of 15,000 is much more accurate.

We must come to grips with means testing social welfare because a very substantial part of departmental time is wasted in this regard. It also means that there are lengthy delays in payments because social welfare officers have to visit people's homes and often they are not at home. This entails calling back two or three times before they can contact them. This is creating an estimated delay of seven or eight weeks from the time of application. Indeed, the delays can be much longer. Deputy Harney's point that all local authority tenants should have to complete a form of means test in regard to differential rent each year should be looked at. It would mean a person being means tested in regard to basic needs. It is very unlikely that someone in a local authority house will have £100,000 in the bank if they are on the differential rent system. The local authority are in a good position to judge that because the rent man, who calls on a weekly basis, knows the locality and the families very well and he will be a very good judge as to whether a person has been accurately means tested. It would save an enormous amount of time if there was only one means test. Spotchecks could be carried out at intervals in the various areas where social welfare officers are located.

Let me bring to the Minister's attention another problem which is causing much hardship. Initially this problem only affected a small number of people but this list is now getting longer. I am referring in particular to the position of a married couple where the wife is working and the husband is unemployed. If the husband is in receipt of unemployment benefit no means test is carried out but when he transfers to unemployment assistance he is means tested. Prior to the new regulations coming in in 1987 all payments, such as mortgage repayments, were deducted from the gross earnings of the wife and the amount of unemployment assistance to be paid was determined on her net earnings, but now his means are assessed on her gross earnings. In one case which I came across last week a wife was earning £130 a week gross. Her husband had lost his job and could not find another. They had to make mortgage repayments of £80 a week and following a means test he is now being paid £3 a week in unemployment assistance — which is an insult — because of the new method of assessment which was brought into effect by ministerial order and was issued to the deciding officers last year. I ask the Minister to look at this problem as severe hardship is being caused in many cases.

I would now like to deal with the local offices. I note that improvements have been made in the offices in Dundalk and Drogheda in my constituency. The Minister visited these offices to see the changes which had been made but while we can make physical improvements I think the services provided can also be improved. A large percentage of those who have to attend at local offices could be put on some type of cash card system. I do not see why these people have to queue up in the rain in queues which are now so long that they stretch way down the street. They could be put on a cash card system which could be operated through the banks or, preferably, through the post offices. Cash card units could be installed outside employment exchanges in the same way that they have been installed outside banks.

It is unlikely that the payments to a person in receipt of unemployment assistance are going to change unless, of course, he goes back to work or manages to get a part time job. As the payments are fairly consistent all that would be required would be an annual review of the payments. After all, the vast majority of social welfare recipients are now in receipt of unemployment assistance and this is not going to change. It is unlikely that men coming up to the age of 50 will return to employment. A large number of those who have to attend employment exchanges could be given cash cards carrying their RSI numbers. Reference was made in the Craig Gardner report to using such a system. It referred to the use of electronic fund transfers and I presume that this is similar to what I am talking about here.

The report also made reference to the use of post office warrants. As I have said, I think we should go further than the issuing of post office warrants and install cash card units outside post offices in consultation with An Post. I do not see why old age pensioners should have to go to a post office before 9 a.m. to queue up in a lengthy queue waiting for payment. I cannot see why a cash card unit could not be installed outside post offices, particularly as the payments are fairly consistent and which are only likely to change if one or other of the partners dies or, alternatively, there is an increase in the payment. Therefore, we are really only talking about an annual review. If cash cards were issued to old age pensioners they could draw money at whatever time of the day or night they wished and this would avoid delays in the payment of benefits at post offices. It is not fair on old age pensioners for them to have to queue up in a post office to receive money which is rightfully theirs.

Mrs. Barnes

And having to carry cash also.

Mr. Bell

I agree with you, Deputy. I was also pleased to see reference in the Craig Gardner report to community welfare officers. Deputy Barnes and Deputy Harney also referred to these. As far as possible the decision as to whether payment should be made should be taken out of the hands of community welfare officers. I have said this every time I have spoken on the topic of social welfare. It is ridiculous that a person who has been refused payment at the employment exchange has to trot up to the health office to queue up once more. This is very degrading for many reasons which I do not have the time to go into. There could be 100 different reasons why a person may not be paid benefit such as delays in the employer returning money. On being refused the person must receive a letter from the social welfare officer and, as I have said, trot all the way up through the town with cap in hand to the health office to see what he is going to be paid there.

No one can tell me how community welfare officers arrive at their decisions. One community welfare officer will grant payment of £30 while another will grant a payment of £60. There is no consistency in the amount of payments made. I believe that the social welfare officers are in the best position to make the decision because they know what they are entitled to receive and the reason why benefit is not being paid — either because the employer has not returned the social welfare contributions or there has been a mix up in RSI numbers, or some other reason. They are in a much better position to make a decision and make temporary payments.

The funny part in all of this, as the Minister is well aware, is that when the payment finally comes through, be it DB, UB, or UA the Department of Social Welfare have to receive information from the Department of Health. The information is passed from the community welfare officer to the Department of Social Welfare. This is an utter waste of time, it amounts to duplication and is most inefficient to say the least. It constitutes the largest, single problem Deputies encounter in their constituencies. I know it has been the experience of all colleagues to whom I have spoken, and I see Deputy Monica Barnes nodding in agreement. Rectification of that problem would not warrant a major decision and I can see no reason for its not being taken. It would eliminate a huge volume of inquiries to the Minister's Department. In those circumstances a Deputy may well have to go to the Department of Health once or twice and perhaps three or four times to the Minister's Department working his way through the different sections dealing with pay-related benefit or whatever.

I agree with what Deputy Harney had to say about pay-related benefit. I would contend that pay-related benefit has outlived its usefulness, from the point of view that it has been reduced from 30 per cent to 12 per cent. It is my belief that it should be incorporated in the standard benefit rate. I will not suggest how that should be done but the stage has been reached at which it is well nigh farcical to maintain a system of payment that no longer operates properly. It would be much better to initiate an agreed additional contribution or one flat rate contribution. Its administration creates problems and there are also delays involved in the processing of documents.

Last week I heard of an incident in which two employees were brought to court on a charge of social welfare fraud and fined. I was told that, when the employer learned of the fine, he dismissed them. However, when I investigated the circumstances I discovered that that employer was bringing employees to the employment exchange to draw the money. Yet he got away scotfree while his two employees, in addition to being heavily fined, lost their jobs. I contend that it is people like that employer who should be nailed by the Department of Social Welfare, that it is he who should be spending a couple of months in Mountjoy, which would cure him.

Dr. Woods

If Deputy Bell would give me his name we shall certainly have the matter pursued.

Mr. Dempsey

I am pleased at the unanimity voiced this morning in relation to this Estimate. The Minister has received just praise from all sides of the House on the approach he has adopted in his two years in office. In the economic climate prevailing he can be forgiven for concentrating on the containment of the budget on social welfare. Indeed he might well have got away with a number of cutbacks within his Department. Instead he has adopted a positive, definite approach which has been welcomed by all Members and people in general. I welcome the fact that all Members recognise that the Minister is making such a positive contribution to the operations of his Department. I might join other Members in complimenting his staff. Those with whom I deal in that Department I have found to be very approachable and helpful. It has been my experience that one receives speedy answers to queries.

Over the past couple of years the Minister has introduced a number of new schemes welcomed by everybody in the House. He has also increased the general rates of benefit in line with inflation and, this year, went a step further, by increasing some benefits by 6 per cent and others by 11 per cent, in line with the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare.

The Minister's latest initiative in allowing unemployed sports people travelling abroad to draw unemployment assistance or benefit is to be commended and will be welcomed by all concerned. I also welcome the fact that he said this morning he has had a study conducted into the low levels of take-up of the family income supplement. I agree with Deputy Bell that probably the figure he mentioned this morning of there being 15,000 potential beneficiaries would be more realistic than the original figure given. This is an excellent scheme whose benefits should reach its real beneficiaries. Quite frankly, I cannot understand the low level of take-up of its provisions. It appears there are just over 5,000 people availing of its provisions while the estimated take-up group would be approximately 15,000. There must be something wrong when the other 10,000 are not availing of its benefits. This time last year I asked that the Minister would make a special effort to publicise its provisions. That was done. Yet there has not been any great increase in applicants, despite its increased benefits last year. It is possible that its potential beneficiaries are not aware of its existence or that the message is just not getting through to them. In addition to improving the provisions of the scheme itself we should examine how the message can be brought home to its potential beneficiaries. Voluntary organisations, such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or others, with nationwide offices and committees, could be involved in the publicity campaign which might lead to a greater uptake.

I might also commend the Minister on the positive action he has taken in various areas warranting attention. There has been much reference to fraud and its detection. Here again the Minister's efforts in attempting to reduce fraud and general abuse of the system must be commended. As other Members have said, it should be remembered that we are talking about a minority only although public perception is that there is widespread abuse of the system. That perception comprises part of the problem. All public representatives meeting people hear much talk about the huge abuse of social welfare and the fraud being perpetrated. However, we should remember it is difficult to pin that abuse and fraud down. The summary of the recent report from Craig Gardner highlighted that the general notion that there is, say, 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent of people abusing the system goes a long way to refute the argument that there is widespread abuse. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that there is abuse of the system.

The Minister has managed over the past two years to crack down on some of that abuse. Henceforth possibly he should enlist public support somewhat more in the crack down on such abuse. Public perception is that there is widespread abuse of the system, but I do not believe the incidence is as great as is generally believed. There is a dichotomy in the attitude of people to the idea of widespread abuse. When people talk to me about widespread abuse they list individual cases but when I ask them if they have contacted the Department or the health board to make them aware of the facts they say it is nothing to do with them. No one wants to report anyone else; if fact, they want Deputies to report people. If there is abuse of the system it is the business of everyone to report it. Our attitude is probably excused by our history and people will not report neighbours to official Departments. People should realise that those abusing the social welfare system are depriving other people of their entitlements and are certainly reducing the amount of money available to help those genuinely in need. The Department of Social Welfare and other Departments should launch a public awareness campaign to change our attitude and make people aware of their responsibilities and of the consequences of abuses of the system.

The Minister has taken positive action in a number of areas relating to social welfare but more improvements could be made. I strongly support the idea that an RSI number should be issued to everybody on, for instance, their 16th or 18th birthday. The issuing of RSI numbers would be of help not just in relation to social welfare entitlements but in relation to the tax system. Seeing that almost every child is registered in the Department of Social Welfare under the child benefit scheme or as dependants of social welfare recipients, the requisite information is already in the Department of Social Welfare, so that job should be done by the Department of Social Welfare. At the moment a person leaving school cannot get a tax-free allowance until he is employed. If RSI numbers were automatically issued it would mean that a tax-free allowance certificate would be issued as soon as a person left school.

I will not repeat what Deputy Bell said but I agree with what he said in relation to the supplementary welfare scheme and the involvement of the community welfare officers. Generally speaking, the people who go to the community welfare officer have for one reason or another been refused unemployment benefit or assistance. Deputy Bell described the rigmarole involved in going to the community welfare officer. Because of the system people have a perception of widespread abuse. People will say that a person had been down to the employment exchange and had then been to the community welfare officer getting money from both places, from the State. Over the next year, in the interests of efficiency will the Minister concentrate his efforts on bringing all these schemes under the Department of Social Welfare? This would cut out duplication and waste.

A single system of means testing is something that deserves serious consideration. The Department of Social Welfare is the obvious choice to deal with means testing. A single system of means testing could be used not just for social welfare schemes but for differential rent schemes and so on. I know more manpower would be needed in the Department but it would be worth it. It is very difficult to explain the position to people who seek a medical card, to explain why their differential rent is so high or why they cannot get a waiver in relation to their local charges. There are different systems for medical cards, for rates, for rents and so on. It is all very confusing and it leads to duplication and waste.

In relation to widowers, particularly widowers with young children, I again appeal to the Minister to try to help widowers with young families. I referred to this before in the House. Widowers seems to be the forgotten people in the social welfare system. I know the Minister is aware of the problems and would like to do something about and I appeal to him to do something sooner rather than later. The fact that widowers are not entitled to a State payment causes distress, worry and hardship for them. When introducing a social welfare Bill at the end of this year or at the beginning of next year, will the Minister include something for widowers? I commend the Minister on his work and would ask him to continue with the attitude he has adopted over the past two years, towards change in the Department and towards getting the services of the Department to people who are most in need of them.

Mr. McCartan

On behalf of The Workers' Party I thank the Chair for the opportunity to comment on the proposal of the Minister that his Estimate for the current year be approved by the House. It gives an opportunity to review in some small detail the workings of the Department and to make some comments of a general nature on the things yet to be done.

The major buzz interest at present relates to this Department and its unrelenting campaign against the major abuses which are perceived and presented to the public at large at regular intervals. This strategy of campaigns against the unemployed and those who are forced to look to the State for assistance — because jobs cannot be provided for them — is one devised and utilised as a means to deflect people away from addressing the fundamental and important issues that have yet to be dealt with by the Department of Social Welfare and the Minister in pursuing the many promises made by successive Fianna Fáil manifestos at election time.

I hope that the publication of the Craig Gardner report will put an end to this campaign or strategy and that the findings will be properly addressed. The major findings of the report are that 99 per cent of people who are seeking disability benefit through the Department of Social Welfare are entitled to it and are legitimately receiving it. Equally, 98 per cent of those seeking unemployment assistance are entitled to it and are legitimately receiving it. I hope that the case which was so often put before by successive Governments that there was massive fraud on the Exchequer and the taxpayer has been nailed and the realities now exposed for the benefit of us all. The Workers' Party believe we should stop this campaign against people who are forced to go on to the dole for assistance, because work cannot be provided for them, that they are a burden on the State and that they are some part of a massive organisation of fraud on the Exchequer. They are not.

In the years when I worked in the area of criminal law, before coming into the Dáil, I got a fairly good impression of those who were "found out" or shown to have taken money from the Department of Social Welfare to which they were not entitled. It is worth making the point that the vast majority of those people did so out of desperation and not out of some sinister, organised crime motive. I think the Minister will have to concede that most of the frauds that are perpetrated on his Department arise initially by accident. There is the case of people who are on unemployment assistance on a temporary basis, perhaps, going on to sick benefit and when they return to unemployment assistance find that they are in receipt of double payment and allow it to continue, or, they find that their brother or sister has emigrated without notifying the authorities and they continue to collect on the double again. That money, in the main, which props up what is a fairly paltry sum, helps families meet the unbelievably high costs imposed on them. They are not skilful crooks.

A feature of the whole system is that on a weekly basis they must either present themselves at the counter of the employment exchange or go to the local post office or bank and endorse their cheque. They are, on a weekly basis, putting themselves in the hands of the investigators within the Department, the Garda Síochána or the officials. Eventually when the system wakes up to the fraud they are inevitably caught. There is inevitably an unanswerable case presented against them. A high percentage of the cases are dealt with on a plea basis before the District Courts and they rarely go beyond that. When the full facts are put before the courts it has been the comment of many people in this House, who are so ill-informed, that the courts treat them leniently. Invariably when they come to the courts it is on the basis that they have already settled a scheme of repayment with the Department and that their right entitlements are deducted. Once the fraud is exposed the Department over the months and years will recoup in full the moneys that have been taken. I do not for one moment suggest that what is happening is right. No one should have to and no one should defraud or take what he or she is not entitled to receive.

I want to make a plea to the Minister that this campaign of vilification against social welfare claimants stops on the basis that the scale is not anything like what people are suggesting it is and that the people who are actually involved are not the skilful, organised fraudulent people that it is often claimed they are. They are unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, are obliged to rely on a very poor scheme of welfare and who, in my view, often cannot be blamed if a Godsend is landed on their lap and they avail of it. They do so in the interests, not of their own personal gain, but of their families and their dependants. This issue has been flogged enough by the Department and the Minister and it is time to stop it. The opportunity now presents itself for the Minister to address some of the more fundamental and important issues that his Department should be dealing with.

I would ask the Minister, in his reply, to tell us what was the cost of this investigation. What did his Department pay to these outside consultants? I am glad that they have come up with such revealing information for us all but do we not have within the Department, or elsewhere in Government, the expertise, the knowledge and the capacity to carry out this type of investigation? I believe the accountants' auditors who reported on this problem to the Minister told us nothing more than he and his officials would know from their own cursory investigation of their own system. I hope the Minister, either through his officials or, if he is so impressed by Craig Gardner, would employ them to carry out the other important side of this issue: to look at the scale to which claimants are not being advised of their entitlements and are not collecting their full due under the system, given its complexity, the large number of different rules and regulations, forms and requirements. Perhaps he would tell us to what extent his Department are making savings in the area of non-payment of entitlements to people who otherwise would be entitled to them.

I believe there are much more important issues that the Minister should address in his area. The one single report, that of the Commission on Social Welfare, is still there and has not been properly addressed by this Government or by the previous Government in office. It carried out a comprehensive overview of the Department of the scheme of entitlements, of people's needs and has made very concrete and very positive recommendations to Government. Many of these would involve very little, if any, cost if implemented. Even in those areas there seems to be no movement on the part of the Government to respond. In relation to the basic recommendation that concerns us all — everyone's entitlement to a basic pay — the response has been to confuse the issue, to suggest that the cost is far greater than it would be if implemented. That is something to which the Government must respond, not just in the piecemeal percentage, year by year incremental increase of welfare payments, which appears to be the approach of this Government but in a direct and honest way whether they accept, in principle, and unreservedly seek to implement the basic minimum wage concept contained in the commission's report.

The other area very dear to the Minister's heart when it comes to talking about what is in being is the Jobsearch scheme. It is suggested that in the previous year it has been a resounding success. I and The Workers' Party do not go along with that view. The Jobsearch scheme has been a job handing scheme to the long-term unemployed. There is very little point in pushing people into the street and the workplace when there are no jobs there. The Jobsearch scheme can be successful only if taken in the context of an expanding economy where jobs are being provided in the real sense. People are being brought in under the threat of losing their social welfare entitlements and are obliged to go through with what could well be useful and meaningful courses of training in the FÁS centres and then moved on to no job at all or jobs that simply do not last. Oftentimes one gets the impression that employers are providing short term, non-viable work for these schemes as a means of ingratiating themselves with the Department or training centre so that they will stand in a good light when it comes to applying for all the various grants and supports that are available from Government.

No serious analysis of the scheme has been done. The Minister simply picks a figure of 9,700 people who left the live register and says that is the achievement of Jobsearch but no serious analysis has been done of those people. Whether they went into employment, whether they stayed in employment or left because they emigrated or for all the other reasons a person might leave the live register at any time has not been stated. I am not convinced that Jobsearch as a scheme is doing anything concrete or serious in the overall complex picture of a quarter of a million unemployed. Figures of 2,300 or 2,500 are having very little impact on the overall scheme of things.

That is not to say those who have benefited are not to be congratulated. Obviously, to that extent we cannot take away from the scheme but we must address it on an occasion like this and in the overall scheme of things and put it into the context of the scale of the problem we are trying to deal with. As a serious effort, one pushed by the Minister as a major effort of Government, it falls far short of what was originally intended.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has called off the hounds who stalked our constituency from the Department of Social Welfare, in particular the North Cumberland Street employment exchange. There was a time when the figures simply could not be understood beyond indicating a very calculated witch hunt of people on unemployment assistance in that constituency. By a comparison of figures, 8,000 people were signing on in North Cumberland Street at any one time and in January there were 247 appeals compared with only 20 in the next comparable exchange in Gardiner Street. The Minister has never explained that. Why was it——

Dr. Woods

I did.

Mr. McCartan

In his response will he tell us why that one employment exchange had such a high rate of terror——

Dr. Woods

Because they do all the postal——

Mr. McCartan

I have only a minute left. Let the Minister tell us in the ten minutes he will have. I ask him to address the matter of putting the Combat Poverty Agency and their programme on a long-term basis beyond the year 1989 when many of the current projects funded by the EC will come to an end, and to work on the very excellent report prepared and presented to him here in Dublin within the past two weeks. The Combat Poverty Agency are to be congratulated for their research and work and I ask the Minister to undertake that they will see a very clear future mapped out for them in his proposals in the coming year.

Mr. D. Ahern

As Deputy McCartan said, this is a very brief debate and I do not intend to take too long. Deputy McCartan mentioned the Jobsearch scheme and he has one view of that scheme. While the scheme may have had teething problems it has worked out in my area to be quite useful. Obviously, people are not too happy at having to be called up for maybe four weeks to do the course, but I have spoken to a number of people involved in and managing the scheme and they felt it was of benefit. A number of people when they went to the Jobsearch scheme found that they did not even know what a CV was. Obviously, they were told. The scheme has had an effect, even if not the effect Deputy McCartan and the rest of us would like of providing jobs for everyone. I do not think that is possible. It has been a small source of education to people long-term unemployed. A factory in my own town, S & S, went to the wall about three years ago. Most of the employees were middleaged and their prospects of ever getting a job again were remote but Jobsearch helped them at least to be re-educated in how to apply for a job. The Jobsearch scheme this year is progressing and indicating that there are a number of vacancies to be found. I congratulate the Minister and his Department in relation to that.

I refer now to the Combat Poverty Agency. The Minister said that under an EC directive we will be carrying out a major survey on poverty. This should be a major step forward in that area in the next year or so. Recently I represented this Parliament at an inter-parliamentary conference in Guatemala. We talk about poverty in Ireland but what we have here is nothing like the poverty in places like Guatemala. I listened here yesterday to the debate on the Housing Bill — indeed, I tried to get into it and but for the filibustering tactics of some Deputies I might have succeeded. However, I hope to get into it next week. They went on at length about poverty and lack of housing in this country but you have only to go outside this country to see what other countries are enduring where thousands are living in makeshift polythene shelters. This major survey will at least show us the situation in this country relating to poverty.

The Minister mentioned flexibility in relation to the social welfare system. In the last ten or 15 years politicians have been criticised by people who said that the social welfare system was totally inflexible. However, the moves by the Minister represent a small step on the road to introducing some flexibility into the system. I appreciate that almost £7 million is paid out daily by the Department of Social Welfare and that there may not be much room to manoeuvre. I do not think the Government were given sufficient credit for relaxing the rules in regard to the long-term unemployed who make visits abroad. The Minister, and Members who pressed for that change, were congratulated by a correspondent to The Irish Times yesterday. I can recall making representation on behalf of a number of constituents in regard to that rule. It is unfortunate that Deputy Bell is not in the Chamber to hear what I have to say in regard to a story carried on the front page of this week's issue of the Drogheda Independent. That newspaper claimed that Deputy Bell was responsible for pressing the Minister to relax that rule. That is unfair to the other Members, including myself, who made representations to the Minister before Deputy Bell tabled a parliamentary question about it. The paper indicated that it was as a result of Deputy Bell's parliamentary question that the Minister agreed to relax the rule. That is a load of nonsense and I will tell Deputy Bell that when I meet him.

I should like to compliment the Minister on introducing many schemes to help the unemployed. The part time job incentive scheme has generated a lot of interest in my constituency. Many people have asked me for details of the scheme. Those people are in a position to get a certain number of hours of part time work each week but are afraid that they will lose their social welfare entitlements. The part time job incentive scheme is designed to help such people boost their weekly income. It is disappointing to hear commentators and politicians criticising the Government for introducing that scheme. I have heard it said that because of it we will become a nation of part time workers. Those criticisms are unfair. As the Minister said, there is a trend for people to take part time jobs and they will be helped by this scheme.

The pilot schemes under the educational opportunity scheme in Limerick and Tallaght are proving very successful. The Louth VEC have applied to participate in the scheme and I should like to appeal to the Minister to treat their application favourably. We have a very good adult education officer and the VEC are ready, willing and able to get such a scheme off the ground. Many people in my area could benefit from it. I hope we will not have to wait too long before the scheme is extended to the rest of the country to help the long term unemployed who are anxious to pursue education courses.

I should like to thank the Minister for helping our VEC sort out a number of problems in regard to those pursuing adult education courses. When those people were finding it difficult to continue the courses the Department were quick to smooth out their problems. The officials in Dundalk did not think they had authority to make a decision in regard to those courses but we got a speedy response from the Minister's office.

Another matter of interest to me is the pre-retirement allowance. I understand that the scheme will be in operation by the autumn and I welcome that because many people in my constituency have expressed interest in it. I can understand why people in the latter years of their lives do not want to be travelling to social welfare offices weekly.

I listened to what Deputy McCartan had to say about abuse of the social welfare system but I was not impressed. I was interested in the report on social welfare fraud published by Craig Gardner. It was important to get an independent view of the system because the Minister and his Department are often accused of being soft on those who abuse the system. There is widespread abuse in the system but when one thinks of the fact that the Department pay out £7 million daily one can understand how there can be abuse. I hope the report will be a textbook for the Minister and the Department in their efforts to eliminate abuses of the system.

Ultimately all taxpayers have to pay for any fraud that occurs in the system. The Minister will have to be vigilant to ensure that it is as watertight as possible. I should like to commend the Minister on computerising the system. Contact with our local offices is more fruitful since computerisation in the Department. I have a parochial hobbyhorse about the facilities in the Dundalk exchange. I was pleased to hear of the improvements carried out at the Drogheda exchange and it is unfortunate that Dundalk is still lagging behind. It is wrong that people should have to queue in the rain outside the Dundalk office. I accept that the building is very old but I appeal to the Minister to carry out renovations as soon as possible to relieve the problem.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the work he has done in his Department in the last year. It is pleasing to be able to report that the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare has not been hit by cutbacks and I hope that in the preparation of next year's budget the Minister will be able to fight his corner at the Cabinet table to ensure that those who are on the breadline, the poor and the elderly, are cushioned against any cutbacks that may take place.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I thank those who contributed for the constructive suggestions they put forward. I may not agree with them all but it is important that they should be discussed in the House. One would get the impression from the debate that abuse of the system was a very narrow thing. It is important to make it clear that the investigations mentioned related to what we call hard core fraud, cases where there was a definite fraud involved. There is a big difference between fraud and general abuse, malingering or unwarranted claiming. It is the fraud cases that end up in court and this year, up to last month, 317 cases were dealt with by the courts. Those cases involved 26 employers. There is an onus on me as Minister in charge of a Department expending £7 million per day to ensure that this money is directed to those most in need and that abuse and fraud are tackled. The system must be reasonably tightly controlled.

Craig Gardner were looking at much more than the question of fraud. They were mainly concerned with the effectiveness of our system, the way in which they might be open to abuse and the possibilities for improvement through the use of modern technology. One Deputy asked about the cost of this survey. It amounted to £280,000 approximately over a period of 18 months. It involved major examination of most of the systems. Some elements of that report are purely technical and are not for general publication. They deal with the control systems operated by the Department and obviously it would not be wise to publish this information. Some people would be very happy to make use of this information to abuse the system. They estimated that 2 per cent of claims were fraudulent but they also pointed out that another 7 per cent gave rise to suspicion because the facts of the case did not check out at the initial interview. That 7 per cent of cases has been pursued and two-thirds have been found to be bona fide. Officers dealing with social welfare have a difficulty because a fair percentage of initially recorded information does not work out to be accurate, although there may be no abuse or fraud intended. A question mark still lies over another two per cent.

I take the point made by Deputy Barnes that the vast majority of claimants are bona fide claimants. There is no question about that. I make a point of stressing this fact but the newspapers usually do not include that sentence and certainly do not highlight it.

I am certain that we will achieve a further saving of £20 million in eliminating fraud, unwarranted claiming and abuse, but the savings made last year are built into our basic Estimate for this year. Deputies will appreciate that I have to go after figures of that size and the money is being saved at present. There is a problem about the use of the terms fraud, abuse, unwarranted claims and so on. If unwarranted claiming is cut out, no money is returned to the Department. It simply means that further payments are stopped. Deputy McCartan was not present when I spoke earlier and may have taken some things out of context.

Deputy McCartan sees no point in the Jobsearch scheme and does not see any benefits in it. He is absolutely wrong. Surveys carried out showed that the long term unemployed were not getting the benefit of the various courses and schemes available to help them. Now a substantial number of these schemes have been directed particularly to them. That is the main benefit, together with the fact that some of them are getting jobs. I want to stick to the direct benefits. The linkage between FÁS and the Department of Social Welfare is very important in that respect. It has enabled us to identify the real needs of the long-term unemployed.

Deputy Barnes referred to the fact that women are more inclined to take educational courses without someone saying "if you take that course we will give you that job". She is probably right but it applies to a large number of men as well. Many people on the Jobsearch programme know that it increases their confidence and helps them to take up some of the courses and participate in the schemes. A small percentage do not want to take courses. Some people have no faith in education or in courses. Many of the long-term unemployed have a low level of skills and a lack of education. That is as plain as a pikestaff. We are finding out much more information about this problem and directing resources towards solving it.

Deputy McCartan referred to North Cumberland Street and the large number of appeals made to that exchange in comparison with other exchanges around the city. There are 13 exchanges in the city as a whole. I explained this matter to Deputy McCartan in reply to a parliamentary question but perhaps he has forgotten it. All the postal claims are dealt with in North Cumberland Street and this puts an extra load on that centre. He talked about calling off the hounds in North Cumberland Street. The postal claimants who had not been interviewed for years were called in for interview at the exchange. That is what gave the impression that something special was happening. Certainly if a person has not been asked any questions for a couple of years he will be somewhat surprised if invited to come for an interview. It is part of the normal process.

Deputy Barnes made a helpful speech. She was anxious that child benefit should be increased and that the free fuel scheme should be based on real need. I am happy to say that from this year it will be based on need and we hope it will be much more efficient. She also emphasised the importance of the work done by the Combat Poverty Agency and the necessity to bear in mind the changes which will occur in 1992. This is important and although it is not included as part of the directives it should be considered in parallel with them.

I would like to thank Deputy Harney, Deputy Barnes, Deputy Bell and others for their tributes to the staff and the work they are doing at present. Deputy Harney said there should be more means tests for the free ESB scheme. That scheme applies only to invalidity pensioners and elderly people living alone and on social welfare, or living with another qualified person who is normally a dependant or another social welfare beneficiary. That scheme has criteria which are reasonably tight. The free travel is available to all people over 66 years of age.

Deputy Harney said it is wrong that people earning a good income should receive child benefit and that it should be cut off from these people. She said that the resources saved should be used for the poorest and the lowest income groups. One has to bear in mind a number of points here. The number of people in that situation who are on high incomes is relatively very small and therefore the amount of money saved would be very small, unless we dig deeply into the middle income group. If we take the people on our records — we have very detailed records about many people — 1.71 per cent of all those on PRSI earn over £20,000 per annum. We will have more information on the self-employed very shortly. We are in the process of including them at present. I do not think that what the Deputy suggests would result in any real savings.

There has been a good deal of discussion about the Craig Gardner report. I do not think there is need for me to say any more about it at this stage. As far as moneylenders are concerned, I have ideas on that matter. We are carrying out a study which will be ready by late summer. I agree entirely with Deputy Harney that they terrorise and frighten people and that the interests rates are excessive. The Deputy was not at a function in Tallaght on Monday last at which I announced that we intend to set up a one-stop shop social welfare office in Tallaght. The planning for that office is beginning at present.

If we were to implement the further recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare that would be necessary it would cost an extra £409 million. Most Deputies recognise that we have gone a long way in this Estimate towards providing extra money for the lowest paid people. If we were to provide extra money for everybody it would cost a lot of money. The exploitation of part time workers was raised by Deputy Barnes. That is a matter which we will be considering. I am examining the whole question of insurability of part time workers and the question of whether there should be an earnings threshold will also be examined. It is a complicated matter and not something on which you could make quick decisions.

Deputy Bell welcomed the various improvements in the scheme. He, too, mentioned the Craig Gardner report. He welcomed the work towards rationalisation of the means tests. As I indicated in my speech, it is not that simple because there are concessions built in intentionally for particular groups of people. If you rationalise it you would have to give everybody those concessions and that would cost a lot of money. I know Deputy Harney would be concerned about that. If we built in special concessions for people in particular circumstances we would not want to take them away from them again. We are examining the rationalisation of the means tests and there will be further developments in that area.

The question of Bank Link was raised by Deputy Bell. I was very glad to hear this because he often tells us how strong a trade unionist he is. I hope he will encourage all the parties involved to support us as we move towards electronic fund transfers. It is something that we would like to be able to do because there is a great deal of risk and inconvenience in having so much cash, particularly unemployment payments. There are many elements to this matter and we can discuss them on another occasion. Surveys of the unemployed have been carried out to see how they feel about it. A certain percentage of them do not want it and that is another problem that we will have to overcome. The problem of understanding how it works also arises. Someone mentioned the old age pensioners and asked why they could not be included in the Bank Link system. They would be less inclined to go along with that because they are not familiar with those systems. That is also a problem that will have to be overcome. There is considerable scope for moving in that direction and we are anxious to do so.

The question of privacy was raised. In all the buildings that we are developing we provide facilities for privacy. We are providing private screens for people who wish to make claims. In new offices we are providing separate rooms for interview. We are conscious of the need to provide such facilities and we will be extending them throughout the country as soon as possible.

The question of training was also raised. I would like to assure Deputies that the need for training is accepted and recognised by the Department and is carried out as a routine. We try to ensure that persons who are dealing with the public are highly trained and are sensitive to the issues which were raised by Deputy Barnes. Many of the officers in the Departments are young, as the Deputy said. Because of that, older people feel a little awkward when making claims and I understand that. We try, in the training programmes, to deal with that and to make the officers aware of people's feelings, especially those of older people. The training is provided by our staff development unit. Emphasis is placed all the time on a sensitive, informative, helpful approach to the public.

Deputy Dempsey talked about enlisting the help of the public in relation to abuse. In the last year many people have come forward and anonymously made allegations. These have been followed up and we have been successful with regard to many of them. The Deputy also raised the question of RSI numbers. At present the Revenue Commissioners issue them. We have been having discussions with the Revenue Commissioners and we are anxious to clear up the whole question of identity. I recognise the problems which Deputy Dempsey mentioned in relation to widowers, especially those with young families.

Deputy McCartan came out with strong language about the campaign against abuse being designed to deflect attention from other matters. He called on us to stop the campaign of vilification. There is no such campaign. He has suggested that this has been flogged enough at this stage.

The reason the media tend to pick up that side of our work is that they are aware there is a good deal of abuse and fraud throughout the system. Even though it is small in proportion to the total it has a very bad effect on those who are paying taxes and PRSI when they see people malingering or abusing the system and nobody taking action.

We have made substantial savings, real savings in money terms, and there will be further savings this year because we are already well on target. I have no doubt we will reach the target of £20 million extra savings which we predicted would be made this year.

Even more important than all that is the development of the system as a whole. In developing, modernising and making the system more secure, with more effective controls and more cross references, we can in a more natural way reduce the opportunity for abuse. That is the direction in which we have been going. This move has been welcomed by all Deputies because the system is more effective and is cutting out a lot of delay and waste of time, as well as reducing the scope for abuse. That makes everyone happier.

I thank Deputies for their very constructive contributions to this debate. I am very pleased the Government have supported me in maintaining the position of all those on social welfare while, at the same time, providing something extra for those in greatest need, particularly those on supplementary welfare and unemployment assistance.

Mrs. Barnes

May I make a special plea that some of the savings might bring about equality for widowers and unmarried fathers who are looking after their children? We did not have time to mention them in the debate.

Dr. Woods

I am always anxious to use savings to provide for some of our priorities, and I approach my Cabinet collegues on that basis. The savings made last year were directed towards improving the system. Whether we can continue along those lines in the future remains to be seen. However, I will bear the Deputy's proposals in mind.

Vote put and agreed to.