Deputy De Rossa is in possession and has 28 minutes left.
Social Welfare Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share some of my time with Deputy McCartan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I had just started my contribution on this Bill last might. I made the point that despite the fact that the Minister and the Government had introduced various rationalisations of a fairly minor kind and some improvements, the reality was that the poor remain poor. That is not just the view of The Workers' Party, it is the view of a large number of organisations working to have poverty eliminated in the State. They also feel that the Government have failed in their declared objectives.
Social welfare is not a solution to poverty; the only effective solution is a decent, well paid job for those who are capable and fit for work. Social welfare should be a system of providing for those who cannot work through illness or other problems. Nevertheless, unfortunately, close to 250,000 people depend on social welfare because there are no jobs available for them. Tens of thousands of others depend on the family income supplement because their income from their jobs is so low that they are in a poverty trap. Having said that, the social welfare system should be designed to provide a barrier of safety net to protect those in need from the worst effects of poverty.
Given the level and extent of poverty, the provisions of the Bill are totally inadequate. It will do nothing to make those who are already poor less poor, it will simply ensure that most people on social welfare are not any worse off than they were before.
As I mentioned, this is not just the view of The Workers' Party but that of organisations such as the Combat Poverty Agency and the Catholic Social Services Council. Let me quote what the Catholic Social Services Council stated following the presentation of the budget in the leaflet entiled "Budget Comment":
Unfortunately, the CSSC considers that the Minister has failed to meet, in any substantial measure, his two dominant aims. As this Comment argues, the 1989 budget has introduced some measures that will benefit the poor but has failed to address the more basic challenges of a reform of the social welfare system or of job creation on the urgent scale now needed. Going on this budget, action on poverty remains far from a national priority. The government has missed yet another opportunity to translate its rhetoric into effective action.
As I said, that is not a statement issued by The Workers' Party, but rather by the Catholic Social Services Council, set up many years ago by the Roman Catholic bishops of this State, who have been working over the years to try to alleviate the worst excesses of poverty.
In their submissions and the submission of the Combat Poverty Agency it is quite clear that poverty is an increasing problem for a large number of people. I refer to the report of the Combat Poverty Agency on an ESRI report where they list on page ii of Part I those people worst affected. In paragraph 2.3 they state that using the objective cut-off lines of about £32, £40 and £48 for a single person per week and their equivalents, that is, 40 per cent, 50 per cent and 60 per cent of average disposable income respectively, up to 34 per cent of people are living in poverty. They go on to detail those most at risk. They state at paragraph 2.4:
The key trend to emerge is that the percentage of people below the relative poverty lines increased considerably between 1980 and 1987. This is an accentuation of trends towards larger households in poverty that was emerging between 1973 and 1980 and reflects a change in the nature of poverty over time.
In paragraph 2.5 they state:
Households headed by the unemployed, families with several children and farming households stand out as the three main groupings vulnerable to poverty. Those in low paying jobs, female single parents and the sick and disabled are also highly at risk of poverty.
The report goes on to detail the extent of poverty in our society. This Bill has to be viewed against current attempts by Government politicians and right-wing economists to sweep the problem of poverty back under the carpet. There have been a number of attempts in recent months to deny what is plainly evident for all those who want to see, that poverty here is now worse than at any time since the fifties. The interview given by the Taoiseach on the weekend of the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis is just the latest example of this and of the efforts to challenge the honesty and integrity of the statistics on poverty produced by organisations such as the Combat Poverty Agency and the ESRI.
The indisputable fact is that the research undertaken on behalf of the Combat Poverty Agency by the ESRI in one of the most comprehensive studies on poverty ever undertaken showed the statistics I have already quoted — using a cut-off line of £48 per week, roughly 60 per cent of average disposable income, 34 per cent of people are living in poverty. Surely nobody could claim that anyone living on the equivalent of less than £48 per week could be living in anything other than poverty.
The same report found that households headed by the unemployed, families with several children and farming households stood out as the three main groupings vulnerable to poverty. The report points to the increasing impact of unemployment. Thirty three per cent of all households with less than 50 per cent of average disposable income are headed by an unemployed person. Attempts are being made to suggest that the figures produced by the Combat Poverty Agency are misleading because they do not take into account what are described as non-cash benefits. This line was trotted out by the Taoiseach at his Ard-Fheis and is a favourite line of that great guru of right-wing economics, Dr. Seán Barrett, who also holds the perverse view that paying social welfare contributes to the continuation of poverty.
What the Taoiseach and Dr. Barrett chose to ignore is that all sections of society benefit from non-cash benefits and there is considerable evidence to suggest that the well off benefit to a greater extent from these non-cash benefits than the poor. Concessions such as mortgage relief, relief on life assurance policies, subsidies to private schools and third level education all benefit the well off to a far greater extent than the poor. Dr. Barrett is one of the most prominent economic ideologues of the right and is typical of a group of economists who persistently try to put a veneer of intellectual respectability on the principles of greed and privilege which characterise so much of the economic policy of the right. Dr. Barrett is not averse to taking a second salary from the State in his position as a member of the board of Bord Fáilte or to enjoying the non-cash benefits of the heavily subsidised third level academic life, but he seems to begrudge the poorest families in the State assistance to put food on the table.
The principle of increasing most social welfare payments simply in line with inflation would only be adequate if the basic levels of social welfare payments were themselves sufficient, but this is not so. Even with the inflation linked general increase and the special increases given to the long term unemployed an adult on long term assistance will still have to exist on less than 80 per cent of the amount the Commission on Social Welfare identified as the basic minimum necessary for survival. It must be kept in mind that minimum needs are just that. In most cases such income will do no more than keep people in a sort of half life, a twilight zone, of never being able to do more than live in frugal misery.
For many people on social welfare the increases given in this Bill are simply token. The personal rate of old age pension will go up by £1.70, widow's contributory pension by £1.50, disability benefit by £1.40 and the prescribed relative's allowance will go up by 70p from £27.20 to £27.90. In many cases a significant portion of the increases have already been clawed back by increases in differential rents, in the case of local authority tenants, and, in the case of those in receipt of a rent allowance, from supplementary welfare.
The decision to push the date for payments of social welfare increases back to the end of July is particularly mean and petty. Up until 1983 social welfare increases were paid at the beginning of April but since then the date for implementation has been pushed back by successive Governments, and this year the gap between the announcement of the increases in the budget and their actual payment will be more than six months. Let it be said that Fianna Fáil were critical of this practice when in Opposition, but it is one they have enthusiastically taken up now they are in Government. In the Dáil debate on the 1986 Social Welfare Bill the then Fianna Fáil spokesperson on social welfare, Deputy McCarthy, accused the Coalition Government of pushing the payment date back towards Christmas. Deputy McCarthy and his colleagues have done their bit this year is bringing that Christmas date even nearer.
The provision in the Bill to increase the amount of weekly earnings disregarded in calculating the rate of pay related benefit is a further attack on the pay related system. The result of this move will be to further reduce the value of pay related benefits. This is a sinister attack on a very important part of the social welfare system but one which has received little notice.
In his Budget Statement in 1987 the then Minister for Finance, the former Deputy Ray MacSharry, said:
We intend to proceed with the proposals of the previous Government to reduce pay related benefit for new applicants from rates of 25 per cent and 20 per cent down to a new uniform rate of 12 per cent.
This year's reduction in pay related benefit is part of that process. The effect of this attack on pay related benefit has particularly hit those who have just lost their jobs. Pay related benefit is paid in addition to the basic level of unemployment benefit for a period of 15 months and is based on the recipient's gross income in the previous tax year. It has been particularly important in providing a buffer for the newly unemployed to help them adjust from paid employment to much lower social welfare levels, but because of the cuts in pay related benefit those who lose their jobs now face a very substantial drop in their incomes.
In a recent article in The Sunday Tribune, Mr. Paul Tansey, their economics correspondent, published figures which showed that in 1982 a person who lost a job could expect to get in unemployment benefit 83.3 per cent of the income he or she was earning previously, but that because of the gradual reduction in pay related benefit this has fallen to 62.8 per cent in 1989. This attack on the pay related system must be resisted if the value of social welfare payments is not to be further undermined.
These reductions are particularly objectionable because workers are paying very high levels of PRSI contributions which are supposed to go towards financing pay related benefits. Although the amounts workers qualify for in pay related benefit have been steadily decreasing, there has been no decrease in the amounts workers are asked to pay in contributions. There is need for a strong campaign to protect what is left of pay related benefit and I hope the trade unions will raise this issue in the framework of the Programme for National Recovery.
While there is a number of progressive and welcome proposals in the Bill, such as the introduction of a scheme of social assistance for widowers, it does not address the problem of poverty in any serious way. The most damning indication of the low priority attached by this Administration to social welfare is that, despite all the evidence of poverty, the amount allocated for social welfare in 1989 was reduced by more than £88 million compared with the 1988 figure. Such cutbacks in the face of the sort of poverty visible to everyone other than, apparently, the Fianna Fáil Party and their supporters in Opposition, the Fine Gael Party and the Progressive Democrats, are nothing short of criminal.
Before I let Deputy McCartan in I would like to refer briefly to one or two other points. The Minister has made much out of a proposal that he intends to pursue husbands who have deserted to get money from them for maintenance for their wives. It seems from what is proposed here that there will be a claw-back from the maintenance being received by women and, we hope, by men, when the new scheme is introduced. When I heard this proposal first I thought the Minister was going to go out and try to get maintenance for wives, that the wives would in turn benefit from this. According to the Minister's speech and the Bill, he is proposing to take a proportion of any increase which wives get in maintenance from here on and where they get any kind of maintenance this will be clawed back and the wives — or husbands — will not be entitled to it as a top up of the deserted wife's allowance or benefit which they are already in receipt of. That trick ill becomes this Minister. I regard it as wrong that he should attempt to promote this as in some way as doing justice. In effect he is doing an injustice to the unfortunate people who are caring for children and who are left abandoned by either husbands or wives.
I welcome the Minister's proposal for widowers but I ask him to move urgently on the proposal he has also indicated he intends to consider, that is an allowance for fathers who are unmarried and caring for children.
In joining with Deputy De Rossa in the contribution of The Workers' Party to the Second Stage of this Bill I would like to read into the record two documents I received today which are very pertinent and relevant to this debate. The first is a very useful survey carried out by the Darndale-Belcamp unemployment action group. A cover letter from the project leader stated that the report was prepared due to the ongoing hype by certain sections of the media and some of our politicians that people living in poverty contributed in some way to creating their own situation. The group believe this analysis shows the true facts and reality of poverty in Ireland today. In doing that they seek to introduce a realistic dimension into the debate on this Bill and to show how much has to be done if any Government are to tackle poverty seriously as we know it, and by definition of that, indicate how far the Minister has failed in this Bill to do anything to tackle the poverty that is rampant throughout society and in particular in his own constituency.
The analysis is based on four families on the estate. The first is a typical family of two adults and three children on unemployment assistance. Their total income is shown to be £111.80. Covering all basic essential such as food, clothing, bus fares and the like the total cost found is £111.23, giving a family living at subsistence level a surplus of 57p per week to leave aside for all other items, all emergencies, all savings and all planning for the future.
The survey breakdown on food items and the like indicates that the total that could be expended on fresh vegetables is just over 6 per cent. Poverty equals ill health because of the diets forced on people in such circumstances. The survey shows that under the Minister's proposals a widow living on a widow's pension of £67 per week would have a total expenditure on basics just to survive of £65.68, leaving her with £1.32 per week to plan for other items.
The picture gets worse when one considers the single parent, such a common feature of the poverty trap. Overall income is £80.5p per week while basic necessities for the survival of mother and child total £84.77, leaving them with a deficit of £4.72 per week which they have no capacity to meet.
The final example given is of two adults and five children on the low income of £137 per week and not in the usual way looking to social welfare for assistance. This amount is typical of the pay of many members of the Defence Forces or of people in the public service and many other low income areas. They will have a deficit of £60 per week because their necessities cost a total of £197. That is the scale that has been illustrated in this very useful report delivered to the desks of many public representatives in this House and to the Minister just this morning.
I want to point out the Minister's great scheme of searching for jobs that we have often said simply do not exist. For a long time Jobsearch have been hounding the unemployed and doing very little else. It is interesting because it has drawn to my attention this morning a letter from the Minister's Department explaining why a family of a father and four children were disallowed unemployment assistance in November 1988. He was sent for a job from Jobsearch and on the morning he was due to go to work his wife who had been delivered of a child in hospital was due to be discharged from hospital. She had serious back problems previously and had had an operation and because of the delivery was extremely debilitated. The husband had a letter from her doctor indicating that she needed attention in the short term once released from hospital. He went to the exchange, explained his position and said he simply could not go to work that morning. He was cut off unemployment assistance because he was not reporting for work. He had no choice but to stay at home with his family. That is the type of treatment being afforded to people by the Minister and his Department. I had to write to that person's public representative, Deputy Woods, Minister for Social Welfare, to plead that he be allowed back on to assistance and that when Jobsearch was presented to him again they might allow for the fact that his wife has to go back into hospital this very month.
The Minister has failed abysmally in his efforts to help in the vast majority of cases. The day after the Budget Statement in this Chamber I went as a city councillor, to a public meeting with the officials, and they introduced rent increases for local authority tenants right across the board. A document came into my possession within days of that meeting stating that CIE were demanding increases in bus fares. Irrespective of the itsy-bitsy response of the Minister for Social Welfare to poverty, any increase is whittled away within weeks, if not days, by agencies and other people looking for increases in prices and so on. As long as the Minister and the Government continue this approach to poverty, ignoring all the advice and submissions of so many people and failing to deal with the fundamentals, people will be left in the poverty trap. What little they get one day will be taken from them the next.
I commend the Minister on his achievements during the past two years and the humane approach he has adopted. He has worked extremely hard, speaking to every section of the community, to backbench Members of Fianna Fáil and to anyone else in relation to social welfare problems. He has succeeded in obtaining various concessions, despite constraints on the Cabinet.
I have lived and worked in the north inner city all my life and have been aware of the social problems around me. Many families in the area where I was brought up lived a hand to mouth existence, living from one dole day to the next. In the forties and fifties, poverty was endemic in the north inner city. Families were living in tenement buildings with barely enough money to put food on the table. Children in many parts of the area never wore new clothes or shoes. Deputy Wallace outlined yesterday a similar situation in Cork. Since those days, I have seen a steady improvement in the standard of living of families at the bottom of the social scale. Housing conditions have improved dramatically. Many very nice houses have been built, especially in the city centre. There have been improvements in health care and the provision of a free health service for people on low incomes, as well as increases in social assistance payments over the years, mostly by Fianna Fáil Governments. All this has led to fundamental changes in the living patterns of the unemployed. Perhaps when the financial position improves, the Minister might consider positive discrimination in regard to second level and possibly third level education in the inner city areas.
Despite the many improvements over the years, we have to acknowledge that room for further improvement exists. Unemployment is one of the great social ills of our time. One of the main priorities of this Fianna Fáil Government is the creation of more jobs. It must be admitted that jobs are not being created or saved at a rate that would satisfy all of us. Businesses have been closed and jobs have been lost due to changes in technology. Production lines operated by person power are almost a thing of the past. It is difficult for any Government in this technological age to get people at work. Ten or 15 years ago in my area many people worked on the docks. It was quite common at a funeral to see 1,000 dockers lining the quays, but today in the docks area there are only 300 people.
They took the boat.
No. The whole system of international transport has changed. It has nothing to do with any Government. If we did not change, we would have nothing. It does, however, cut down on the number of people working.
Technology does not have to mean fewer people working.
New technology must be introduced because, although we are an island, we are affected by the world economy. Nowadays one or two people can unload a container, whereas heretofore a group of 15 or 20 people would have taken a week to unload a cargo. Today that cargo can be unloaded in a day.
Technology could create jobs in other sectors.
Yes, technology will create jobs in the service industries. Tourism can play a major part in the economy. The schemes operated by FÁS and CERT are designed to bring extra people into the workforce.
Long term unemployment in endemic in parts of Dublin Central and is a difficult problem to solve. There are instances of families who have never worked, perhaps for several generations. Such a family environment destroys the incentive to seek work, even when the wish to work is present. With the best will in the world, some of these people would be considered unemployable. Our Government and any future Government will have to consider they have failed if jobs are not available for everyone who wants to work. The vast majority of the unemployed do not want to be in that position.
This Fianna Fáil Government will not and should not be thanked if, having succeeded in stabilising and eventually abolishing the national debt, nothing is done for the great mass of the unemployed. However, I have great confidence in future employment prospects in this country. Great flair and imagination are needed to solve the problem and these qualities are possessed by this Government. I have never taken the view that this country cannot sustain a fully employed adult population. When we look at the geographical size of Ireland in comparison with other European countries, we realise that with the proper attitude we can achieve this goal.
Unemployment has a very profound effect on the individual, as well as the family unit who are socially and economically affected. The longer a person is unemployed, the greater the psychological impact. Hopes of employment disappear. Long term unemployment has a tragic effect on the family, as well as imposing severe financial hardship. In recognition of this, the Minister for Social Welfare has made major improvements in payments to the long term unemployed. The increase for a single person is from £42 to £47 and for a married couple the payment increases from £70 to £76.
Married couples with two children will receive £97 per week, an increase of £6.60 per week. The percentage increase is more than 10 per cent but the allowance paid to the long term unemployed has been increased by 25 per cent. When we consider that the CPI last year increased by less than 3 per cent we will appreciate the excellent job the Minister has done. The Minister recognises the problems of the long term unemployed and has given a huge increase in their allowance. Many people have given him credit for this work.
We have a big problem trying to create jobs in our area and for that reason we welcome the decision to establish the financial services centre at the Custom House Docks site. I have no doubt that there will be a knock-on effect in the surrounding area but we must ensure that the residents of the centre city are not discommoded by the major changes that will take place. We must ensure that they are allowed to live in peace and harmony and are encouraged to integrate with the new residents. My duty to my constituents is to ensure that new developments do not make aliens of those who live in the city centre as happened in the London docks area.
We have been told that because of the type of hi-tech work involved at the financial services centre it will not be possible to employ local people, but I do not accept that. A proper FÁS training programme will equip people in my area to do any of the jobs in the centre. Many people from my area occupy top positions in the country.
I should like to refer to the deserted wife's allowance. Marriage breakdown is one of the great problems of modern society. There is great heartbreak when a marriage breaks down and nobody wishes to add to the burden of such families. However, when a family unit breaks up and the partners separate the duty to provide financial support still rests within the family, be it the husband or the wife, or both. There is an attitude that when a marriage breaks down the State should support the separated spouse and children of the union. Where a husband and wife have well paid jobs they are more than capable of supporting the children. The partner who leaves the family home must continue to give financial support if at all possible. When I see widows and single parent families trying to live on their social welfare allowance it grieves me particularly when I bear in mind that in the case of some separations rich partners do not give any support to the family but expect the State to pick up the tab.
I am glad the Minister has undertaken to rectify this glaring abuse. The cost to the State of the deserted wife's allowance is £52 million and that must be paid for by the hard pressed taxpayers. Once again the PAYE sector must bear the cost. I congratulate the Minister on his efforts to rectify this anomaly.
I am worried about the claw-back provision, although I accept the need for it. The State must be equitable in all its schemes. Where husbands are making payments to the family income they will be deducted from the deserted wife's allowance but we must keep an eye on this to ensure that people do not suffer any hardships.
It will create deeper poverty.
I do not think it will. The greatest poverty is created by the partner who walks away from the family and does not support those left at home. That should not be tolerated. I am pleased to know that the Department will be pursuing defaulting husbands. I am pleased that the deserted spouse will be pursued through the courts to ensure that adequate financial support is given to the families.
I am concerned about the activities of moneylenders particularly in deprived areas. For many years I have been associated with the credit union movement and I was chairman of the north Dublin district branch. That organisation rarely gets the praise it deserves. Most of those who work for the credit union movement do so on a voluntary basis. For most families births, first holy communion, confirmation, weddings and Christmas prove happy occasions but they also prove to be very expensive. We all have pleasant memories of such occasions but there are people who find them distressing times because they have to resort to moneylenders to pay the bills. The advice given to these people is that they should save for those special days but how can one save if every penny one gets goes to buy groceries and other necessities? It is unfortunate that most of those people have to turn to moneylenders, some of whom are ruthless racketeers who are oblivious to the trauma and heartbreak they cause. They charge outrageous interest rates and in many cases insist on the borrowers paying back five times the amount of money borrowed. Some moneylenders use physical violence in their endeavours to collect their immoral earnings. I have seen families torn apart as a result of the vicious activities of moneylenders. Many wives are afraid to tell their husbands they have borrowed from moneylenders and some husbands cannot understand what their wives do with the housekeeping money. There is often great strain and conflict in those families. Many women who have borrowed from moneylenders have told me that they cannot tell their husbands because of what might happen to them or their children.
On occasions legitimate financial institutions are guilty of charging interest rates above the norm. I am pleased that action has been taken to help those who are in the clutches of the moneylenders by the establishment of a guarantee fund of £100,000. I understand that the credit union movement, and others, will be involved in the distribution of that money and I wish them well. I hope that as a result of the establishment of this fund, credit unions will be able to set up business in the few black spots where they failed in the past due to delinquency problems. People who succeed in paying off moneylenders with a credit union loan will pay less interest and I hope they will be in a position to save some money. The problem of moneylenders was widespread in Dublin some years ago but, thankfully, it is now confined to certain areas.
Section 21 contains an interesting provision in regard to records maintained by an employer. It deals with those who are claiming social welfare benefits while at work. Heretofore a company would have to bring half their staff in to prove that this person was working. Now I understand any records produced would be accepted. Perhaps the Minister could make that retrospective. I wonder if it would be prima facie evidence in law that a person was employed once documents were produced to show that such person was on the books of a company. Over a period that would sort out the problem. Many people on PAYE who know quite a few people claiming social welfare while working, feel quite aggrieved about it and wonder why this problem has not been solved before now.
In my own constituency of Dublin Central can be seen some of the worst poverty and unemployment in the country. We are all seeking improvements and the Government are doing the right things. I hope we will have a greater sense of urgency in relation to employment prospects. I would like to again commend the Minister for his humane feeling towards those who are less well off. He will certainly have my support in doing anything he thinks will improve the lot of those people.
I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on this Social Welfare Bill. I listened with interest to the Fianna Fáil speakers over the last few days. If a popularity poll were now held within that party Minister Michael Woods would rank in the top three. The Fianna Fáil script writers have dished out the usual kind of Government speech very far removed from what I listened to when we had the opportunity to sit on those benches some years ago. At that time crocodile tears were shed week after week about the poor, the old, the lonely and the unemployed and what Fianna Fáil would do for them when they were swept back into power on a wave of popularity. They have been back in power two years supported by this party with a consensus to do what is good for the country in terms of keeping inflation and interest rates down and keeping exports up. All of these things, which were in train, have been continued; but we have been put over a political barrel and Fianna Fáil have been a complete and abject failure when it comes to solving the fundamental problem of creating jobs and eliminating the problem of poverty which result in frustration, anger and cynicism among our younger population.
We are now faced with 1992. Many local authorities have submitted a list of schemes to Brussels which amount to much more than the £500 million which the MEP for my own Connaught/Ulster constituency promised before the last election, much of which will never see the light of day. It is as if the population here are only travelling to the match while the other countries are already togged out and waiting to play. I do not know what Fianna Fáil intend to say over the next three months to tide them over the month of June, but if half of the battalions of unemployed out there on the streets decide to use their vote as a protest against what is happening, there will certainly be red faces on the Government side when votes are counted in June. The Government have failed to use the support given to them by this party in Opposition to create jobs which would eliminate poverty, the problem of low incomes and all the rest.
Brussels will not solve our problems.
We have to solve them ourselves. Unless there is flair, motivation, incentive and leadership on the part of Government we will never get out of the rut, the cul de sac, in which we are at present. I am reminded of the words in the song years ago, "Oh Ireland what has happened to the promise and the dreams" etc. We heard words of boom and bloom and they have gone too, faded away.
Deputy Woods, the Minister for Social Welfare, is a good and caring constituency worker; but in his capacity as Minister for Social Welfare he ranks extremely high among his Fianna Fáil colleagues, and why not after they have supplied him with scripts and managed to keep people reasonably happy down the country. However, we are not out of the woods yet. Around the Cabinet table they wonder how much the electorate will bear before there is a revolution. They say they will give Deputy Woods so many million pounds and let him lash it out under the various schemes, tinker around with the engine of social welfare, make a few modifications here and there and let it continue on until the end of the year and hope Fianna Fáil will still be in power.
In fairness to the Minister, he has done something which was not achieved even in our own time in Government, that is, he recognised the status of widowers. They may not have got all they should have, but it is very traumatic to see the circumstances, personal and social, in which widowers find themselves on the sudden death or loss of a spouse and they are left with a young family. Often the widower is incapable of looking after the children to the same standard as his deceased spouse. That recognition is important, and I am glad to give the Minister credit in that regard. I hope a proper level of compensation can be added to that recognition after some time.
There is an army of over 241,000 unemployed people on the streets who are cynical, apathetic and frustrated. They have to suffer the indignity of standing in the rain and the wind and jostling their way inside to a small area often in a disgraceful condition to sign for State money. Many of these people are willing, anxious and eager to work. I know Deputy Woods, in his capacity as Minister, does not have a magic wand to create jobs that match the qualifications and aspirations of the unemployed, but his Department should be linked with those Departments involved in job creation and in the process of bringing forward schemes that will lead to the creation of jobs.
Every Tuesday the employment exchanges across the country boast that thousands of people are standing outside waiting to sign and draw their money. The Minister has saved £90 million in the Department of Social Welfare. I certainly cannot condone any kind of abuse of social welfare and the Minister has taken certain steps to eliminate it, but this saving of £90 million has been taken from the soft targets. That £90 million could be used to balance the scales in a way that would not be more costly in time to come. We have all heard local authority representatives speak about the very poor state of country roads. That amount, £90 million, would resurface 18,000 miles of road at £5,000 per mile, which is the average rate for resurfacing and which, under the Department of the Environment, will cost a colossal amount over the next two years.
As I have said, these young people and the unfortunate people who are out of work are cynical, frustrated and angry. When they turn on their televisions they see advertisements referring to the élite, high style, high fashion and high cost, and that creates an even wider gulf between the haves and the have nots.
I am not sure that the Minister, Deputy Michael Woods, would be the hit that Fianna Fáil representatives seem to think he is were he to speak to Irish emigrants in Camden Town or other places across the water or on their arrival back at Knock Airport. Many of these young people have been assessed under the social welfare system here as being living at home. A 20 year old on the maximum allowance of social welfare should get about £37 but because he is assessed as living at home with his parents that amount would be reduced by £10, £12 or £13. That means a 20 year old is expected to get up in the morning, go out on the land, check the cattle, feed the dog, cycle down to the village and still be expected to compete with his or her peers on an allowance of that nature. These people are condemned to exile as a result. The human indignity of walking, cycling or having to be driven by somebody to an employment exchange to draw that amount of money puts them in a position that, if they have any motivation at all, they will leave the country and leave they do. Many of them then end up on the streets of foreign countries or are used as slave labour for sub-contractors.
In that context I want to bring to the Minister's notice something that is extremely serious in the context of those emigrants who are forced to leave. Many of them are forced to work in the construction industry. They end up on building sites in London and other countries ill equipped to work in an area like that. For example, I have a letter from the registrar of Hammersmith hospital referring to a young emigrant from my own constituency who, because of the social welfare system here emigrated. On 17 June that person fell from a four storey building and suffered severe head injuries. The registrar gave a medical report which I am not competent to understand but he said in his concluding remarks:
It is now 18 months since this patient's unfortunate accident and there has been little or no change in his clincial condition. It is the opinion of most Neurologists that if there has been no improvement after a year then subsequent changes are virtually out of the question. I personally have been involved in this patient's care in the last five months and can be sure that there has been absolutely no improvement whatsoever. I am afraid, therefore, that we must come to the conclusion that his distressing, vegetative state will never improve and he will require continual nursing care for the rest of his life.
That young man who is in his twenties, has a wife and three children, fell from scaffolding because he was probably ill equipped and ill trained to work on building sites.
The Department of Social Welfare, in conjunction with the centres for the unemployed and the UCATT union who are dealing with immigrants in England, should make an effort to see that those who arrive in London and are forced to work in these jobs at least have some idea of what they are doing. A young person from an urban area who has no experience of working in England may have to work on the 20th floor of a building and because he is not used to that work he can end up in serious difficulty.
A recent report in The Irish Times indicated that most of the 35 people who were killed on building sites in London in the last year were Irish and 13 of them were not identified. Information given to me recently indicates that in the seven years to last March 129 people were killed on building sites in London and 2,259 were seriously injured. Many of these people are emigrants who were assessed under the social welfare system here but who, because of the low rates of social welfare allocated to them, were driven to emigration, condemned to exile.
In regard to the young man I have mentioned, his family, friends, neighbours and the community have had to band together on more than one occasion to attempt to raise finance to keep his wife and family and to pay the council rent. While leniency can be shown by the authorities it is never the ultimate.
The Jobsearch scheme is a complete joke. This is where the real savings occurs by the Department. On numerous occasions fine strapping young men who could dig a trench around Merrion Square with a pick and shovel in a day, visit my clinic and tell me that they have been spoken to by individuals in pinstripe suits from Jobsearch who tell them how to make a telephone call, how to speak into the receiver and so on. They are advised how to approach a sub-contractor in relation to getting jobs. The removal of these people from the unemployment list is only a temporary measure and does not address the fundamental question of the creation of jobs for those who are prepared to work. Every Deputy here can give examples of people who, under the Jobsearch scheme, have to walk long distances to the place of assessment for work and then are given the most degrading positions. I am well aware, as is the Minister, that many of the people who were interviewed originally for the Jobsearch scheme were already working and subsequently signed off. I certainly cannot condone that.
In relation to the demographic trend in the west of Ireland, it is now mostly elderly and young people who are living there due to the emigration factor. Because of the assessment system people who might have left money in the bank for their burial will withdraw it and lodge it in the house. This leaves them open to the same kind of racket that took place some years ago where people travelled around the country beating up these people and causing death in some cases, with robbery as the sole motivation. That system of assessment should be changed.
In the many cases people on long-term disability benefit have been assessed as being medically fit for work. It appears as if the system is operated on the basis of the doctors in the country as against the doctor from the Department and the referee usually decides in favour of the Department. In some instances when the case is appealed it is overturned in favour of the claimant. During that period the person is off the register. Many of these people are genuinely not able to work. It is very difficult to detect the bad back syndrome which, like the moving statues some years ago was very prevalent in this country. It has now gone too far and there are a number of genuinely distressed people who are being assessed as medically fit for work and when they are quite unable to work.
In regard to employer incentives, the changes in this area appear to be very much favoured by Government Deputies but there is still not sufficient incentive for employers who wish to take on people.
The family income supplement area needs to be overhauled. We have been given examples of people who work six days a week and if their employment is reduced to a three day week, between the payment for three days and the unemployment benefit for the other three days they lose out on the family income supplement because Saturday is not counted as a day of claim. Some employers, dependent on that type of operation, would request employees to work on Saturday. The Department would need to examine that aspect.
If the Minister wants to be remembered as a kind, caring, humane, forward-looking, progressive Minister, he could certainly do something with regard to the prescribed relative allowance. Our historical background has created a strong inter-family dependency. The disabled person's grant has been abolished in recent years. This means that people who wish to keep an elderly relative at home in the privacy, comfort and dignity of a room of their own, now receive no assistance. If one cared to calculate the average weekly cost country wide of maintaining an elderly person in a geriatric unit I am sure it would amount to several hundred of pounds. There are many families who would be willing to keep such elderly people in the comfort of their homes but are forced — through circumstances beyond their control — to have them accommodated in geriatric units.
I know that not all personal relationships are good and that such circumstances do arise, but it would be worth-while exercise were the Minister to undertake a financial equation of the saving that could be effected and the consequent personal comfort to be gained by keeping many elderly people out of geriatric units in the comfort of their homes. I contend the prescribed relative allowance should be paid directly to the person who has taken the decision to remain at home on a full-time basis to care for an elderly relative. That is another matter that warrants examination. Certainly, in the interests of human dignity, the Minister could strike a blow for everybody by deciding to introduce a provision whereby, under proper conditions, elderly people could be maintained at home rather than having them accommodated in geriatric units at much greater expense to the State.
Many fishermen on the west coast have assessments made of their incomes when they are not working in winter time. Many such fishermen would be very poor accountants and would not maintain their books very well. There should be a proper system devised to grant them allowances for the repair of fishing nets, purchase of diesel, repair of engines, overhaul of boats and so on, taking into account the vagaries of the weather and the ups and downs they encounter on the ocean waves.
With regard to smallholder's assistance, I have heard of social welfare officers being driven around the country by taxi, getting lost and seeking directions, in order to assess their means. I can assure the Minister that, if a social welfare officer were to arrive in a rural area by taxi, get lost and seek directions, one could be quite sure he would be sent down the wrong road by a neighbour or anybody else in the locality because that kind of news spreads like wildfire in the country. Such assessments would need to be validated by somebody with a knowledge and understanding of agriculture and the various circumstances and difficulties smallholders encounter.
I have listened to many Members speak about the harassment of individual smallholders and so on. On one occasion only did I attend an appeal by a smallholder against his claim for assistance. In that case I have to say that the appeals officer handled the case with the essence of courtesy and fair play. I might add that the relevant claimant had asked me to attend. In that case, I could not fault the appeals officer. However, that may not be the case nationwide because others have related different stories of harassment by social welfare officers and appeals officers. That has not been a problem in my part of the country to the same extent as would appear to be the case in others.
While the Minister may be held in great esteem by his colleagues, that esteem does not appear to extend to all other Members of this House. I understand the Minister has a difficult and complex Department to administer. Equally I am aware he has effected a saving of £90 million at the expense of many unemployed people, having forced others off the live register, many of whom have gone abroad. The Cabinet would need to bear in mind the fact that the consensus on this side of the House has led to circumstances in which the Minister's Department, to a large extent, could become redundant. I am sure everybody would like to see it become redundant, in the sense that we would not want to see long queues building up at employment exchanges in future years and the abolition of such queues would indeed constitute good Government and politics.
We have given the Government underlying support for the benefit of the country as a whole. But leadership on the part of Government has not been forthcoming in the creation of conditions in which those at present drawing unemployment benefit could lift themselves out of the morass in which they find themselves to a new and better way of life.
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate and to have an opportunity to tease out some issues which have been of concern to me over the past year or so, and to examine some of the provisions of this Bill as they seek to improve the lot of social welfare recipients. I should also like to examine some of the innovative schemes introduced by the Minister over the past 12 to 18 months. The Minister has involved himself specifically not only in monetary matters in so far as his Department are concerned but also in a whole range of other issues that have warranted scrutiny and attention for some time. This involvement on his part has meant that necessary schemes could be introduced or existing ones rationalised and streamlined for the benefit of social welfare beneficiaries.
More than any of his predecessors, the Minister has addressed himself to the twin fundamental issues affecting the operations of his Department. The first relates to financial matters with regard to benefits and social welfare payments. The second was the conclusion that the Department needed to have their operations upgraded and modernised. The Minister set about those twin aims on assuming office in 1987. Of course, he could not do so without bearing in mind overall Government strategy or the operations of other Government Departments. We should not forget that the policy of this Government, on assuming office, was to continue the strict control on Government expenditure and borrowing, to improve the position of the deprived in our society, particularly those on low incomes, to lighten the burden of personal taxation and to promote increased employment. Those were the four principal aims of the Government on assuming office. Of course it falls to the Minister present to assume responsibility for dramatically improving the position of the deprived in our society and those on low incomes.
The provisions of this Bill constitute the third stage of this process emanating from this Government's third budget. There are a number of increases granted — with which I will deal later — which signal the commitment of the Minister to improving the lot of the under-privileged and those on low incomes. A great deal has been written and spoken about poverty in our society, particularly over the past few years. As we know, many seminars have been held; on the subject; reports have been produced by various interested individuals and organisations, and the whole question of poverty has been debated at national level for quite some time. Real poverty has undoubtedly been caused by high unemployment. The most successful way to deal with poverty is to get more people back to work. This would allow available resources to be spread evenly among a diminishing number of social welfare recipients. In that way we would meet our aim to improve the lot of those on social welfare and on lower incomes.
The Minister has ensured that everything possible is being done to ease the plight of the less well off. The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to increases in rates of social welfare payments and other improvements in social welfare schemes, announced in the budget. We live in difficult economic times and resources are scare. This places an increasing burden on the Government and on the Minister for Social Welfare who must utilise available resources in the best possible way. The Minister has taken a number of positive steps in the Bill apart from the various financial increases.
In the past year the Minister referred on more than one occasion to the FIS and has indicated his disappointment that not enough people who qualify have taken up the scheme. The Minister has done his best to highlight this fact. At some stage over the past two years the Minister decided to have carried out a detailed study of the FIS and that report is with the Minister now and he referred to it in his contribution today. In May 1988 just over 5,000 people were in receipt of family income supplement which was an average weekly payment of £17.89. I have been surprised by the fact that people on low income who visit my clinics have not applied for the FIS. There is probably a communications difficulty here and information from the Department is not getting through to those who would qualify for the scheme. I know that the whole question of the communication of information from the Department is something that has concerned the Minister in the past and that he has worked for some time to ensure that information is readily available in an understandable form to members of the public.
The Minister has initiated a new approach in helping widowers and deserted husbands with child dependants. This issue was constantly highlighted for many years not perhaps in a co-ordinated way but on an individual basis almost. Widowers and deserted husbands who have had to care for their children at home found themselves unavailable for work. They were only entitled to the lowest social welfare allowance. They were not well organised in articulating their difficulty. I am glad that the Minister has taken on board the representations from all sides of the House over the past year and a half or so and has now found it possible to set this difficulty aside for deserted husbands and widowers who will benefit greatly from the improvement. I understand that something of the order of 5,500 men are in that situation. I compliment the Minister for making the change. This is not a change that will be widely publicised. Indeed, in purely electoral terms, it is not very important either. However, it is an important issue for a small number of people relative to the total number of social welfare recipients. At the moment a widower with two children in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance gets £56.80 a week. Under this new scheme that will increase to £74.80 a week. That is a very substantial increase of £18 a week. From talking to individuals in this situation I know they appreciate the improvement very much indeed. Of course, larger families will gain more. The 5,500 men who will benefit from this scheme are glad that at last a scheme has been introduced which will help them in their very important role in caring for their children. The Minister is to be complimented for dealing with this issue.
I agree also with the change in relation to the rural-urban anomaly in the rate of unemployment assistance. I represent a largely urban constituency in Tallaght-Clondalkin. That anomaly was present in the area and it caused a lot of grievance and annoyance to people who came under the rural scheme. It did not make sense because many of these people were living in housing estates which just happened to have been built in a field that was designated rural rather than urban.
The difference in rates has now been dealt with by the Minister. Those who were on the low rate will now receive the top rate of unemployment assistance. The change will also have a beneficial effect on the staff of the Department as they carry out their work in the front line. Where civil servants have had to deal with different rates, even though people were coming from the same parish, it must have been very confusing and very time-consuming to monitor the operation of both rural and urban unemployment assistance schemes. The scheme has now been streamlined and that will help the staff of the Department of Social Welfare in dealing with the public. That is something to which the Minister's attention had been drawn for some time and I am glad that the Minister has now found it possible to make the appropriate change.
I am delighted to see some action being taken in relation to deserting spouses. This issue arises frequently nowadays and I have come across it frequently in my constituency. Often the deserting spouse, usually the husband, has been seen by his own wife to have simply walked away from his responsibilities. I have often received representations from wives who say that this should not be allowed. They should not have to take from the State the deserted wives' allowance knowing that the deserting husband could be made to contribute his share of financial responsibility to the wife and family. The case has often been made that something should be done about this. The difficulty has been that the wife did not always have the resources to pursue the deserting husband in order to obtain proper and adequate financial support. Now that the Minister, through his Department, will be getting much more involved in this process, I think deserting spouses will think more carefully about walking away from their financial responsibilities, whatever about their own personal relationships, in the family home. It is right that the message should go out from the Minister that his Department will pursue deserting spouses to ensure that they, in so far as is possible, meet their family responsibilities.
The most important part of the scheme is that the person left at home, particularly the deserted wife, will not suffer financially while the process of pursuing the deserting spouse is underway. If that was not the case, then the scheme would be flawed. The Minister has taken the view that the deserted spouse should not suffer while the process of pursuing the husband — if he happens to be the breadwinner — is underway, particularly when the wife has to remain at home to rear the children. I am glad the scheme is now in position and that the message will go out to deserting spouses that they simply cannot walk away freely from their financial responsibilities and expect the State to pick up the financial responsibility for the family. The Minister in taking action on this matter is to be complimented.
I heard Deputy De Rossa refer at one stage to the fact that the fraud, so far as the Department of Social Welfare are concerned, is not all with the welfare recipients. I agree with that. The Minister has shown by his actions in the control of fraud and abuse over the past year that he is not differentiating between any group that has any business with the Department of Social Welfare, whether it is a social welfare recipient or those involved in employment etc. He has taken a number of steps to pursue very diligently those people in business who defraud the system in relation to the payments of tax and PRSI. The Minister has initially singled out a number of sectors — for example, construction, contract cleaning, forestry and security industries and introduced a system whereby these industries are now required to notify his Department when they take on new employees. The Minister has advised us that the preliminary returns — because the schemes are at a very early stage — from January have indicated that over 500 employees have been taken on in this sector and have been notified to his Department.
This situation was getting completely out of hand over the past number of years and it had very serious and adverse effects on the legitimate economy. Legitimate businesses who paid their taxes and PRSI on behalf of their staff were unable to compete with other companies who were defrauding the system in relation to the payment of PRSI and taxes. They had an unfair competitive advantage over those who were legitimately honoring their tax and PRSI requirements.
As well as dealing with whatever abuse by social welfare recipients, the Minister has gone after the employment sector where abuses were evident and singled out a number of industries. Early indications are that his approach is proving successful. We should not say that the Minister is interested only in fraud by social welfare recipients; he is also interested in the other side of the coin. That is a point I wished to make because fraud by the employment sector has caused serious difficulties in competition.
I want also to refer to the pre-retirement allowance change which the Minister has also introduced and which is provided for in the Bill. In last year's budget a pre-retirement allowance scheme was introduced. The legislative basis for this scheme was contained in the Social Welfare Act, 1988, and I understand the regulations to implement it are on the way. The Minister has also allowed for some amendments to be made to this Bill. It is a very innovative and compassionate approach to dealing with this type of social welfare benefit because under the 1988 legislation to be eligible for the scheme there were specific conditions attached. Generally speaking, the scheme will relieve certain persons of the need to attend the local office while at the same time providing them with alternative arrangements for receiving their basic entitlements. That will be welcomed by the people who wish to participate in the pre-retirement scheme.
I would like to refer briefly, on what I consider to be the Minister's innovative approach to the organisation of his Department. During the early stage of his term of office, since 1987, the Minister has committed himself, and received approval from the Government, to carry out a major computerisation programme in his Department. The effect of such a programme would be to provide a better, more modern and up-to-date service to social welfare recipients and to those people who need to do business with the Department of Social Welfare because of their personal financial circumstances caused by unemployment etc. The Minister has extended the computerisation scheme to the payment of cheques in his Department, which allows for greater efficiency. That may be one of the reasons I detect a decrease in the number of complaints from recipients who previously experienced difficulties and delays in receiving their cheque entitlements. As far as I am concerned the level of complaints has decreased rapidly and I receive very few complaints now. Presumably, that is because of the computerisation programme so far as the payment of cheques is concerned.
The programme does not stop there. It involved a considerable financial investment to computerise the other exchanges in Dublin and in Cork, and it is being extended further afield. This suggests that the Minister is anxious to give a good service to those on social welfare and that he is anxious to ensure that information is available at the point of entry for particular recipients. They can go to the social welfare office in their own locality and get the information they require because of the development by the Minister of the one stop shop. This is an important development so far as social welfare is concerned. Very often when people need to go to the Department of Social Welfare for the first time it can be very confusing and disheartening for them, unless the right staff are available to assist and provide them with up to date information.
I want to commend the Minister for his attack on the moneylenders and on the introduction of a very innovative scheme to be run in conjunction with credit unions and in which he has made a financial commitment and investment. This will be of tremendous help to people who are unfortunately caught in very difficult financial situations and who see no way out. The Minister's commitment to these people through the action plan to get them out of the grip of moneylenders, which he announced some months ago, will help them once and for all get out of the vicious circle in which they find themselves as a result of doing business with moneylenders and to realise that to have recourse to this source of borrowing is not the correct step to take.
I hope the introduction of this scheme will ensure that financial institutions and credit unions are more caring in their approach to those who come to them to borrow money. The credit union organisation have a very proud record in this regard but I am not sure that all money-lending institutions have always acted in the best interests of those who seek to borrow money. I regularly meet people who have borrowed far and above what their income allows for by way of weekly or monthly repayments. I question why people under pressure are given loans by several different institutions or additional loans by the same institution without the institution checking out whether an applicant is in a position to make normal weekly repayments without destroying his or her family. The scheme now promoted by the Minister will perhaps bring it home to the lending institutions that more care must be given in lending money and, therefore, there is a responsibility on them to ensure that an applicant is in a position to make payments and to reasonably carry on with his or her family life.
The Minister has also carried out a rationalisation of the fuel scheme. This scheme had gone completely out of control over the years and I believe very few records were available as to who precisely qualified for the scheme or who did not. The Minister decided to intervene in this scheme because there was so much unfairness in its operation. Some people were availing of the scheme though they were not so entitled while others who would have qualified were not receiving their entitlements. Because the fuel scheme is now administered by the Department of Social Welfare, who process and pay the fuel allowance for all social welfare recipients, this will lead to a great deal more efficiency and will be of benefit to those people who are in need of assistance so far as the fuel scheme is concerned.
A similar situation arose in relation to the footwear scheme. This was a much abused scheme and needed to be completely and radically overhauled. In rationalising the scheme the Minister set down the exact conditions of entitlement, etc. so that those concerned will know exactly what their entitlements are and there will be no ambiguity in future.
I welcome the increases proposed in the Bill, particularly the 12 per cent increase for the long-term unemployed. This increase comes on top of the 11 per cent increase introduced last year, which means an increase of 23 per cent over a period of two years. If we also take into account the changes in regard to the urban-rural payments this means that in some cases people on long-term unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare assistance have got an increase of the order of 25 per cent during the past two years. That is no mean achievement during these difficult times. I suppose it says something for the strength of the Minister in going to his colleagues in Government, spelling out the needs of the people he represents and ensuring that the best possible assistance is given to those on long-term unemployment which, in some cases, amounts to an increase of 25 per cent.
I look forward to next year's budget. I believe further improvements can be made for those people on social welfare through the continued modernisation of the Department, as spearheaded by the Minister and his excellent staff. I hope that through Government policy fewer people will need to draw social welfare as time goes on because they will be back at work and that improvements will continue to accrue to those people who will still be in need of social welfare entitlements.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I should like to share my time with Deputy Mary Flaherty.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill. Social welfare and the mechanism by which it is administered need close study so that we can bring a fresh approach to the many and varied problems afflicting the entire code. First we have to remember that we are endeavouring to cater for people depending on welfare who are either permanently or socially deprived. In dealing with this problem and these people we have put in place over many years a mechanism of payments which is hard to follow and causes confusion in the minds of many.
There are large pockets of exceptionally high unemployment in my constituency of Cork North Central — in some areas it is as high as 78 per cent among the male population. The increase in payments to long-term social welfare recipients is welcome. However, I understand that only the recipient, that is, the insured person, and not his dependants will receive an increased payment, thus rendering the percentage increase to be much lower than appeared to be the case when first announced.
We spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money annually but it has been obvious for some time that the system controls us rather than we controlling the system. It is time to change and put our house in order. People entitled to social welfare benefits should be paid adequately and we should make no apologies for catering sufficiently for those people and families who need and deserve assistance. The fact that a large percentage of the State revenue is committed to this purpose should never deter us from providing this support. However, it does beg a vital question: what is the cause for such a necessity to the extent that we know it to exist today?
Social welfare recipients will always be with us and I am alarmed at the extent of the problem which has grown to virtually epidemic proportions in recent years and which threatens to engulf us. We will have to look at the factors involved and codify the entire system of payments so that we can cut out the anomalies and focus on the essentials. The system needs to be grasped by the scruff of the neck and given a good shaking up. In doing so people will be hurt but far more will benefit. If, in the end, we get a better system it will be worth the effort.
For a country which is supposed to be advanced and modern it is nothing less than a crushing indictment of our system that we have so many deserving of welfare support. We see critiques on our economic performance by international evaluators which point to our well-being and monetary resilience. These assessments sit uneasily on the many new groups within our society who now come within the scope of qualifying for welfare payments. It is obvious that we are building a two-tier society and that the gulf between the haves and the have nots is growing all the time. This is very worrying and is the reason there is such a pull on our social welfare resources. Too many are caught in the poverty trap and we must release them from it. In the so-called exercise of balancing the books, we have tightened the trap and in some cases, locked it on people who have no hope of escape.
We have created the poverty trap because we never gave people either the opportunity or the incentive to work. Even in areas of limited opportunities, we kill off incentives by crushing financial impositions on employers and workers alike. This must stop. We must create a financial climate in which employers will be encouraged to take on employers instead of being taxed for it and on the other hand, employees will have the incentive to work, through lower income taxation.
We live in precarious times, with serious issues to be resolved. We will not create a climate of renewal by a cost-cutting spree alone, a myopic book-keeping exercise that has condemned thousands of our fellow countrymen and women to penury for life. There is no even-handed justice here. It has only accelerated the two-tier society, which is anathema to all of us.
It is the responsibility of the Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, to devise a system whereby employers can afford to employ additional staff, resulting in a reduction in the numbers of those unemployed. Surely, it is not beyond the powers of imagination of the Cabinet to devise a reduction in employers' PRSI contributions. This would greatly enhance the prospects of creating jobs for the unemployed. Such a reduction in revenue would be balanced by an increase in PRSI contributions and income tax from those newly reemployed, together with the consequent reduction in social welfare payments.
Fresh breezes need to blow through the corridors of power. This Government should live up to their promises but, in that, one can only express great expectations, such has been their appalling record in this regard. The issues of social welfare are great and need the fresh hand of independent assessment, not the craw-thumping statements of a Government which over the past two years have done so much damage and created a disastrous climate of ill-will. Only a tremendous effort will reverse the dangerous trend that the Minister and the Government have set in train.
I thank Deputy Burke for sharing his time with me and I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this Social Welfare Bill. I share the view expressed by our party spokesman and Deputy Burke that this is a very conservative Bill. It misses entirely any opportunity for radical change in the system and such a change is very badly needed as we struggle to provide employment for the huge numbers who are unemployed for very long periods or shorter periods and those who are leaving the country in such numbers annually to find work elsewhere. This will be an ongoing task, a task for a decade ahead.
Our social welfare system is an integral part of the problem about creating employment. It is tied in, with the PRSI contributions, directly with the taxation system. It has for some time now been the view of Fine Gael that PRSI should be treated as part of the general taxation system and that we should move towards a basic income system which would make unnecessary the present complicated social welfare system. It would simplify matters greatly and bring dignity and respect to people. It would acknowledge the changing face and nature of work and the fact that periods of unemployment, changes in employment, the moving into and out of employment and taking on of different types of work may have to be recognised and given their value in the years ahead.
Nothing of this kind of thought or consideration in depth enters into this Social Welfare Bill. It tinkers about with the system, misses a major opportunity and fails to make a substantial contribution to the greatest challenge now facing the country — since we have made progress at last with taxing our debt, a task which I know is ongoing — that is to free our economy to provide work for people here and give an opportunity to those who have left the country to come back and find a role here. This Bill will do little or nothing to help people in those categories.
The existing system as Deputy Burke has said, grew up in an ad hoc fashion, with benefit added on to benefit and scheme added on to scheme — schemes which had good intent initially but had to be modified later when they were abused or over-expanded, or had not given the expected results. Despite the consolidation Bill, it is essentially a rag-bag of schemes in which there are still enormous anomalies. I welcome the announcement that the child benefit scheme is being left as it is. However, as it stands, child benefit is now available in regard to children up to the age of 21 years for certain limited categories of parents and not for others in similar circumstances but on slightly different benefits. This system is riddled with such anomalies. We all have become aware of particular cases. There is the case of a boy of 18 years, still in his leaving certificate year, for whom the children's allowance was cut off on the next appropriate date to his birthday and who had a father who was unemployed. This was because, while the child was in full-time education, the father was not in receipt of benefits that enabled the child benefit to be continued up to the age 21 years. People in other long-term categories would receive it, but here the need is equally great and yet these people are not being considered. That serious anomaly still remains to be dealt with.
The many changes in the Bill are welcome and make improvements to the schemes but those schemes continue to grow in anomalies and in inadequacy. The levels of increases have been commented on and I shall not dwell on that matter. I am glad that an effort was made to reach out to those on particularly low levels of income. A 12 per cent increase by any standards must be seen as a substantial increase. However, as Deputy Burke pointed out, it is modified by this word "streamlining". I shall refer to that later and hope the Minister will reply in more detail to the sections in the explantory memorandum which detail streamlining. Could he give me a reassurance that this does not simply mean "cutback"? The Minister achieved great savings last year. I gather they amounted to £70 million in a situation where fewer people were employed and fewer people were paying PRSI. It is extraordinary that that could have happened. Obviously, some categories of people have been cut off in that time. I have no argument with the Minister and congratulate him on any success that he may have had in dealing with fraud, but many other categories of people have been dealt with rather roughly by the system.
The levels of increase afforded have brought people an increase of a very small amount of money, indeed. They fall very far short of the amounts recommended by the various commissions and agencies involved with the poor. These indicate that an amount closer to £60 per annum would be necessary to live with any form of dignity. This is a direction which must be striven after. While welcoming the increases, we lament how far short they are of the minimum necessary for dignified living.
I should like to refer to the need to look at the basic income proposals supported by young Fine Gael and now a long-term objective of our party. It is the only solution towards bringing dignity, fairness and evenhandedness and removing the disincentive to work. It would be a transformation which obviously would have to take place in stages but it is our objective and I would be interested to hear if the Minister's party share our aims in regard to income support, social welfare payments and taxation in the long term.
I share the welcome for the changes in the Bill in relation to deserted wives. This has been an ongoing problem and I am glad the Minister is making the improvement. Perhaps now that the Department are moving one step to take on a certain responsibility in ensuring that husbands who desert live up to their commitments, they will throw their weight behind the mother and children in ensuring that that occurs and that they will carry the can in the interim. Perhaps it would be possible to look at the treatment of children whose parents are not married or cohabiting. The system might be extended to ensure that the children born outside wedlock are treated in the same way and the fathers should be asked to perform the function for which, in all justice, they should initially be responsible and which the State should take up only if they are unable to do so. In many cases the taking up of maternity payments and maintenance awards for children is so difficult that many parents simply do not avail of them. We should look at this area in the context of equalisation of the treatment of children in the Children Act.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to one group who have been robbed by the action of the Government last year of all entitlement to social welfare payments. I refer to part-time workers, waitresses and others working in the hotel business. The Minister is a north Dublin Deputy with a working class constituency very similar to mine and many part-time hotel staff reside in his area. He may have had representations from this group who, since the changes in the Social Welfare Act last year, are totally without entitlement. For example, a woman who has been working steadily in the hotel business for three or four years finds that she is not entitled to maternity benefit and her baby is due shortly. This occurred because last year the qualification for benefit increased from 26 to 39 weeks. Many of these part-time workers have casual work which depends on functions. They could work very long hours coming up to St. Patrick's Day, Easter and Christmas but it is usually very quite at the off peak season. Some of these women might work for 18 hours one week, which is the requirement to qualify for benefit, but the increase from 26 to 39 weeks has effectively meant that not many of them would be working an even 18 hours during that period. However, many of them work for 22 hours one week, 33 hours in another and it can go as high as 35 at certain times of the year.
They have made the convincing argument that if their contributions were assessed on an annual basis and divided among the weeks they would qualify on a 39 week basis. I should like the Minister to introduce an amendment to provide for this. It would be a modest amendment but a fair way of dealing with the position. It would retain the 39 weeks qualification but would acknowledge that the workers have been cut off from money to which they are entitled. They are generally in low paid employment, quite often they are the only wage earner in the family and now they are without benefit in the weeks they are not working, something they have enjoyed for the last decade. I do not think that this was intended. They are the accidental victims of the changes made last year. I ask the Minister to specifically reply to this point. As there would be a charge on the Exchequer, it would be difficult for us to move an amendment.
The Minister made welcome changes in relation to separate payments. Many of us meet families in difficulties with separate payments because of alcoholism, gambling, lack of responsibility and so on. In most cases the father does not live up to his responsibilities and it is very clear that because the dependent element was paid to the wife, the erring partner went off with an undue share of a very limited amount.
I should also like to draw the attention of the Minister to a related problem, fuel vouchers, which are paid to the husband, the principal recipient, not the dependant. The thinking may be that the money may not be properly used or may not get to those for whom it is intended, but clearly fuel vouchers are intended for those who are handling the domestic bills. It is a minor change but in the spirit of the amendment and in the context of the very tight budget of families dependent on social welfare, obviously £5 per week over the winter is a lot of money. We should ensure that it is used for the purpose intended.
There are a couple of things that puzzle me and perhaps the Minister will clarify them. There is a reference in the explanatory memorandum to a streamlining of the increases in adult dependant allowances under the unemployment paying schemes and to provision being made for a further streamlining of child dependant allowance increases. I would like the Minister to explain what exactly is involved here. I am aware that the net increases referred to by Deputy Burke will not reach everybody as the increases only apply in respect of the person unemployed and not for his dependants. Section 23 relates to self-employment contributions and as I have not seen a copy of the Minister's speech perhaps he might be good enough when replying to refer to these. Can he tell us in what circumstances he would anticipate applying the provisions contained in the section? There must be some reason for including these provisions and I would like some further clarification.
I was going to comment on the way women are treated under the social welfare system but I notice that Deputy Barnes has come into the House and I have no doubt that she will deal with this matter very thoroughly. I have attended a number of appeals with women in respect of the payment of social welfare benefits and I would like to add my voice to the case I know she will make very well for equal treatment for women. The fact that a woman is married and has children is used as an automatic reason for refusing the payment of unemployment benefit. I have attended appeals to make sure that this attitude is not adopted. If an employer were to adopt the attitudes which are evident in the social welfare system in the processing of claims from women, in particular for unemployment benefit, he would find himself before the court. I ask the Minister to ensure that every effort is made within the Department to eliminate this discrimination against women, that strict guidelines are laid down and that it be made clear that it is equally illegal to refuse women benefit as it is to refuse them employment on the presumption that they would be unable to provide some form of care for their children. There are many cases where a husband who is unemployed, and looking for work, is willing to care for the children.
I welcome the amendments to the provisions for the pre-retirement allowance. I am wondering if this allowance will be paid in the same way as the retirement pension is paid at present. This is a welcome change. I would also like to draw the Minister's attention to, and to express my own interest in, the educational opportunities pilot programmes. These programmes should be extended and the regulations loosened as much as possible as one of the biggest difficulties we are going to face is how to treat those who become unemployable. If people can be encouraged in periods of unemployment to achieve educational qualifications we would save ourselves a great deal of money in the long term. They would also be helped in using up their time in a much more human and dignified fashion. We should extend these programmes without cutting across the educational grants scheme and the existing position in regard to access to education. There should be no restrictions in place, however, on entry to certain basic courses for the unemployed. I ask that this suggestion be looked at very sympathetically as with our present high levels of unemployment, which will continue into the foreseeable future, these programmes offer an important outlet for the unemployed.
In conclusion, let me say that many of the changes outlined in the Bill are welcome but a huge opportunity has been missed. All we have seen is a conservative tinkering with the social welfare system. The question of integrating our taxation structure with the social welfare system still remains untackled and this Bill will not help in our efforts to provide more employment.
At the outset let me say that the main Opposition spokespersons, Deputies Mitchell and O'Keeffe, have faced an impossible task over the past two years. I sympathise with them in this regard. As spokespersons for the main Opposition party——
Come out to Ballymun.
We will deal in a few moments with the points the Deputy made. It is quite obvious that she has not bothered to read the Bill. Legislation has been brought forward which will improve the present position immensely. It has been brought forward in a very efficient fashion and no one has been able to pick any holes in it.
The Deputy has not been listening.
Every Deputy who has contributed to this debate has concluded his contribution by saying that he widely welcomes and agrees with the main provisions of the Bill. This is only as it should be. There was a little bit of hypocrisy attached to the speech of Deputy Flaherty who told us that for a long time Fine Gael felt that PRSI should be included in the general taxation bill. I have to ask the logical question as to what happened between 1983 and 1987. If this was the view of Fine Gael, why was this not provided for in legislation? It is hypocritical, and I use that word deliberately, of Deputies, particularly those who may have been Ministers in the previous Administration, to come into the House to tell us that something needs to be done and that it is disgraceful that nothing has been done. If Deputy Flaherty wishes to bandy words about I will match her. I can draw on our record.
Many people did not think it was possible to achieve what has been achieved to date. In his opening remarks the Minister gave one example of where progress has been made. He referred to the case of a family with five children in receipt of long-term unemployment assistance and indicated that over two budgets he has increased the rate of allowance by £29.10. He also pointed out that this is more than three times the amount of increase made available by the Coalition Government, £9.20, in the previous two budgets. We cannot look at these increases in isolation. We also have to take into account the present rate of inflation which is now so low that it does not impinge on those increases. If Deputies on the Opposition benches look at our record they will have to say that they agree with what is contained in the Bill. They may niggle about certain sections but, as I say, I sympathise with the main spokespersons who are faced with a difficult task.
Deputy Burke opened his contribution by saying that we need to put our house in order. I would like to refer, as I did in my contribution last year, to the position in 1987 when at that stage the national debt had more than doubled from a figure of £12 billion to £24.5 billion. Considering that and Deputy Burke's opening remark that we would want to put our house in order, it is a bit funny, but he can be assured that we are heading down that road. The public put Fianna Fáil in here to do that job and it will be carried out. He also said we were obsessed with balancing the books. He must make up his mind what he wants to do. Does he want to ignore the books totally or does he want to get the house in order?
This Minister, by sheer hard work and nothing else, has been able to come up with conditions that benefited social welfare recipients and at the same time did not help to double the national debt. He has worked hard at eliminating fraud. He has been most fair in his approach and he has directed cash to the least well off.
I wanted to refer to this before she left. Deputy Flaherty automatically assumed the term "streamlining" meant people's payments being cut. This was most unfair considering she could have drawn on last year's experience. In 1987, there were 36 different rates of child benefit in existence. Last year the Minister reduced that to 24 and this year he has reduced it to 12. In all cases these rates have been rationalised upwards. It is unfair to say streamlining is by definition cutting back on funds to people who need them.
The Minister got rid of the anomaly between the urban and rural unemployed. Again he has rationalised upwards. He has brought the rural payment up to the level of the urban rate. A very large amount of money is involved here. For instance a husband, wife and five children will get an increase of just under £15 — including child benefit and the payment they will get £14.85. This rationalisation upwards is estimated to cost £3 million. Let people be fair. Let them read what is happening and be aware of reality. The urban-rural change will affect most constituencies. People might think of me as representing a totally urban constituency in Cork city but 37 per cent of my area is rural. There are areas on the fringes which we would consider part of the city, Douglas being the classic example where the old divide was involved. People on one side of a street were collecting a higher rate than people on the other side. That was obviously discriminatory. I congratulate the Minister for taking the initiative here as he has done in so many other areas. Last night Deputy Harney was seeking an all-party Dáil committee. That is totally unnecessary. The Government are well aware of the problems that exist and the Minister took steps last year and again this year to improve almost every scheme. He has achieved more in those two years than a dozen committees would achieve. There is no need for an all party committee; the work is being done.
We all recognise there is a problem with financing. There is a need for finance without doubling the national debt in the short period of three years and seven months. This could be achieved by investigation, sheer hard work and control in areas where there was abuse. The Minister has moved to control fraud and abuse of the social welfare schemes. He has moved not only against recipients where there was obvious fraud, but he has looked at fraud in the business area too. During the Coalition era, the mid-eighties, many otherwise honest people perceived that they were foolish if they did not participate in dole fiddles. All that is changing now. Every public representative had people coming to his clinic saying they knew ten, 12 or 14 cases of people fiddling the system. At that time there was a total lack of governmental and ministerial initiative or control and otherwise honest people thought they were foolish if they did not get in on the fiddle. That is now changing.
Any system can be abused but the proof of that change is that £37 million approximately was saved through tackling fraud last year. That money was redistributed immediately to the most deserving cases. It did not go into the Exchequer coffers. In 1987, in 1986, 1985, perhaps even going back to the seventies when Fianna Fáil were in office, the really deserving cases were not getting the maximum benefit possible. The taxpayer was paying more than he should and there was general chaos. The Minister has shown that by careful management and control many millions of pounds can be made available for the least well off.
These controls need not always be aimed at the social welfare recipient. Very often employers and speculators were creaming off vast profits at the expense of others in the same industry. This year the Minister has specified four areas where new, more rigid controls are being brought in to ensure such activities are brought to a halt. The most obvious is the construction industry where the greatest damage was being done not just to this State through the failure to pay insurance and taxes but to competing companies in the industry. I know many small legitimate employers, and some large ones were put to the wall by the activities of the unscrupulous operators who had no respect for either their employees or their competitors, and obviously they had no respect for the country at large.
The trade unions generally have been most anxious to get controls into this area and they support the Minister's efforts in this regard. I hope the construction industry will support his efforts. I felt there was some ambiguity about the response from the CIF earlier in the year. If the black economy is to be tackled effectively and the legitimate trader given a fair chance, some form of record keeping and accountability will be required. Nobody wants paperwork for the sake of satisfying the structures of bureaucracy, but I believe it was the failure to require accurate records of employees that brought about most of the trouble in the industry. There were allegations of massive activity of this type in the Cork area in a few years. I hope the implementation of the new regulations alongside the activities of the trade unions who were also working in this area will eventually eliminate the bad practice.
Section 21 of the Bill removes the ridiculous requirement that existed up to now in regard to the giving of evidence about people being employed. This must be welcomed. Under section 22 the rogue employer can be convicted of certain offences and will be liable for repayment on demand of any social welfare payment gained as a result of his negligence or deliberate attempt at fraud. This is welcome also. These provisions are long overdue. I say to Deputy Flaherty and others, there is no need to rob the State to make meaningful improvements. If you do your homework and are willing to work hard that can be achieved. General support from the trade and honest practitioners is there and we should avail of it.
Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom and there are areas where I would like to see action taken under the Bill. One of those is the pro rata pensions and mixed pensions. Last year the Minister had the courage to deal with pro rata pensions and he has gone a long way towards redressing the anomalies which have been a source of complaint. A second group are caught up in a similar situation which is not of their own making. These are the people in the group known as the mixed insurance category. They have adopted the suitable acronym DOAPS, which stands for Deprived Old Aged Pensioners. I have been in consultation with a number of these people for the past two years in my constituency and I understand fully their frustration and resentment. They point to the fact that post-1974 contributors can do much better than they, even though the latter were contributing for many years before 1974. I am aware that the Minister is having their position considered by the National Pensions Board and I would ask him to request an early report with a view to rectifying the position of these people. The Minister's record over the past two years shows his genuine care for those who are deprived through no fault of their own. In this case the fault does not lie with the people involved and I would ask for a speedy response to their problem, with a view to achieving a fair and equitable solution.
Deputy Wallace pleaded yesterday for greater flexibility in dealing with those in receipt of unemployment benefit where retraining and opportunities for further education are concerned. He gave the example of a voluntary group in Knocknaheeny in Cork who wished to establish a co-op to this end and who have laid down guidelines as to what should be done to allow people to be more creative and innovative in trying to solve their problems. I agree totally with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Wallace and would strongly support the suggestion of using that group for a pilot scheme.
During the past year the Minister introduced a scheme to assist the credit unions and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to help people caught in the clutches of moneylenders. This scheme was based on a programme initiated by the Lough Credit Union which operates in my parish in Cork. I am glad we in Cork are giving a lead in some of these areas and I would strongly back the call for the co-op known as Support to be used as a pilot effort.
The Minister is anxious to allow as much freedom as possible to people on unemployment benefit to further their education prospects and to deal with the psychological aspects of unemployment. He and the Minister for Education are to be congratulated on introducing the educational opportunities scheme. The Minister for Social Welfare has also introduced the part-time job incentive scheme and the voluntary work option. The problem with the educational opportunities scheme is that only VEC courses are recognised. I had the personal frustration last year of seeing a local group in Mahon in Cork trying to organise an educational opportunities scheme but failing to do so because of lack of flexibility in the operation of the scheme. The Minister, the manager of the local employment exchange and the nuns who were running the scheme were supportive and the unemployed persons wished to attend, but regulations prohibited it. I would look for greater flexibility in this area and greater discretion for the Minister and the local exchange manager. These people should have the right to examine a scheme to see if it is of general benefit to the public at large and, if so, to give sanction. The most crucial term here is "flexibility". I would ask the Minister to include a provision whereby he would initially have the right to decide individual cases but thereafter could delegate this power to local exchange managers. Some such amendment might be included on Committee Stage. It would be widely welcomed.
Cynics may decry this approach and say it represents an acceptance of the long-term unemployment figures. We must accept that unemployment will be with us for a long time and we must make the greatest number of opportunities available to everybody to improve their situation. It is of paramount importance that we do not restrict these people. It is illogical to make life so restrictive that opportunities generated by local initiative and effort cannot be availed of, despite the fact that it would not cost the State anything.
Section 20 of the Bill takes account of changes in modern technology in that an officer's certificate will be accepted for facts recorded on computers or micro film. This is a logical approach which allows for changing technology. This provision also extends to organisations such as An Post, who propose to micro film cashed social welfare pension orders, for example. This is a step by another semi-State body in the adoption of modern technology.
I use the opportunity afforded by this debate to expand on the co-operation required between An Post and the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister is most anxious to ensure that every social welfare recipient should get not only the highest possible rate of payment but also the speediest and most efficient service. He can see no reason why a person should be stigmatised or unnecessarily inconvenienced because he happens to be unemployed. A programme is under way to utilise new technology to bring about changes in this regard. Employment exchanges are being modernised to meet the challenge, but post offices will continue to play a critical part in the payment system. The availability of suitably located exchanges and post offices is essential, especially in areas of high population.
I appeal to the chairman and chief executive of An Post to accede to my request and that of local residents to provide a sub-post office in the parish of Mahon in Cork. This is the fastest growing area in Munster and was identified by Cork Corporation as their first effort in regard to the new town concept. By definition this should include all the facilities required in a town, including a post office. A major shopping centre has been provided, in which one or two units are still available for rent. One of these would be a perfect location for a sub-post office. Bearing in mind the massive number of social welfare transactions which would take place there, I have asked the Minister for Social Welfare to support my case for a post office.
I would also point out to the chairman and chief executive of An Post that I recognise the great transformation which they have initiated since the change of status of their company. I support their efforts to run an efficient and profitable service for the State. I recognise that their survey at Mahon indicated that it would not be commercially viable to establish an office there. However, I should like to ask An Post to take into account the progress made to date by the Department of Social Welfare, under the guidance of Deputy Woods, in modernising the social welfare payment system. The Minister has expressed the view that all recipients of payments from the State should have bank and post office facilities available to them, like other members of the community. Bearing that in mind, and the great inconvenience caused to my constituents anxious to transact postal business, I should like to appeal to An Post to provide a post office in Mahon.
There are so few provisions in the Bill that one can criticise that it might appear to the general public that all the Opposition and Government speakers can do is to praise the Minister. We are complimenting him on a job well done but we are asking him to take up a number of issues along the way. However, we must be realistic when suggesting changes. Deputy Harney referred to the stigmatising and the degrading of recipients by asking them to subject themselves to a means test. I abhor means tests for old age pensioners. I have boycotted such a test operated by my local authority since 1974 on the basis that those who were subjected to it had helped to build the State and, consequently, deserved more. In that instance we should make an arrangement that would not embarrass those elderly citizens. I do not think it is feasible to abolish all means tests because they differ from scheme to scheme. The State could lose hundreds of millions of pounds if it did not operate means tests for certain schemes. I was surprised to hear Deputy Harney's suggestion particularly when she represents a party whose policy is to improve the public finances.
I welcome the decision to allocate £1 million to the family income supplement scheme. The Minister has told us that this money will be used to increase the income ceiling and the number of children in respect of whom FIS will be paid. I am concerned that so few people are aware of this scheme and I suggest to the Minister that he publicise it, particularly in rural areas. It is important to bear in mind that for certain recipients the amount of the allowance has been increased by 25 per cent. The person at work who receives a low income should be catered for and the Minister should consider giving more assistance to those people. The gap between unemployment benefit and what those on a low wage receive has been closing and the Minister should do something about that.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on improving the free electricity scheme for the elderly, a scheme which was introduced by the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance. Many of us have been campaigning for years for an improvement in that scheme. I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to allow unused units to be carried from one billing period to the next. That represents an enlightened approach. Elderly people find it difficult to read a meter and are afraid to use up their quota of units. I should like to compliment the Minister on including natural gas in the free fuel scheme in the Cork area. I found it difficult to criticise any of the provisions in the Bill and I should like to compliment the Minister on his enlightened approach.
The Deputy is not allowed criticise the Minister.
I should like to point out to Deputy Dennehy that I will be welcoming some of the provisions but criticising the Minister for some omissions. The first point that must be made in a debate of this kind is that poverty is a national scandal and must be top of the political agenda. We should not pretend that poverty does not exist in our society or that there is not inequality. We are still light years away from the concept we should all aspire to, equality of opportunity. Under our social welfare system we should strive for equality. Political will, budgetary allocations and co-operation between the Departments of State are needed if we are to do that. Through our social welfare system we offer a sop to cope with poverty, inequality and the lack of opportunity for those who live in deprived areas.
I must acknowledge that the Department of Social Welfare have been tackling those problems. It is only right and proper that one should acknowledge the commitment of the officials of the Department to their work. They have always shown compassion when dealing with problems and have been anxious to rectify any injustices brought to their notice. However, there are areas where an injection of the same compassion and understanding is needed. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that training will take place in those areas. It is important to recognise that it is not the fault of the unemployed that they do not have a job. They are in that position because of our economic and political difficulties. Those who are employed should help the unemployed. They should recognise the privilege of being employed and should not try to undermine the dignity and independence of those people.
Unfortunately, social welfare has done that to the extent that one of the resources we must build into our social welfare system is the psychological building up of the claimant who finds himself in a situation where he has to claim. I know very few who want to go through the difficulties and the bureaucracy, the means testing, the interrogations and investigations necessary to get enough, or sometimes less than enough, to keep them. Who with any energy, enthusiasm and dignity would want to go through that if he had an opportunity to work? We owe it to the people to give them jobs. The political will is there on all sides of the House to create the jobs that will remove the huge demand there is on social welfare at the moment and, more particularly, remove the endemic poverty which emerges as a result of unemployment.
The Minister showed that families and benefits for families are a priority by addressing himself to this issue first. I welcome this, but I hope the Minister will accept it if hot on the heels of that welcome, I say that the benefits should be greater or that the system should even be reformed. The Minister and the Government have put paid absolutely to the suggestion of not paying child benefit directly to mothers, or indeed fathers where that arises, but in the Irish situation we are talking in the main of a very high level of women in the home as mothers and homemakers. We have a higher level of women working in the home than is the case in the rest of the EC. We have a higher level of social and even moral pressure on women to stay within the home and be good wives and mothers. The only acknowledgment of the important work of bringing up the next generation is the small amount of child benefit that women are paid directly in the home.
I am delighted the Minister is here because I want to make some very definite points on this area of child benefit. In France and Germany the child benefit, which is much larger than ours — I take the point that they are wealthier countries — is paid directly to the family regardless of the salary of the income earner or earners. All kinds of tax clawbacks are operated at other levels, but that child benefit is paid for the development and rearing of the children. In France the child benefit increases after the age of five; it again increases at the age of 10; it increases again during the teenage years in line with the higher expenses for clothing, education and so on. In Germany it actually extends where children are in full-time education, to the age of 27. So we are not talking here of some elitist or esoteric privilege or bonus that women have been getting on the side. We are a child and family-centred country and we are proud of it, but if we are to have a sound family policy we have to acknowledge and support it by giving direct payment and acknowledgment.
There are already alarming signals being sent out because of the penalties imposed on parents, particularly mothers, by the lack of acknowledgment of that work in the home resulting, according to a survey carried out by Dr. Ann McKenna, in a drop in the birth rate in Ireland to 2.8 per family which is one of the most dramatic drops in birth rate. The replacable population rate in demographic terms is 2.5 children per family and every member state except Ireland which has the highest birth rate still, is now operating on an average of 1.8 children per family which is below the replacement generation level. France and Germany are now trying desperately to cope with this by adding huge bonuses and allowances for any family with more than three children, and are regretting that they did not acknowledge, recognise and support firmly enough procreation and child rearing. Ireland has an opportunity to learn from that. Time is running out for Ireland as Dr. Ann McKenna says in her report. The declining birth rate will create difficulties for all of us with regard to taxes, pension for the older generation etc. As one of the people about to ride off into the sunset, a Cheann Comhairle, I would be worried that we were not regenerating enough young people to be able to afford your pension and mine. There is a fundamental economic, not just social, issue here and that is why that direct payment to the family has to be, even in an objective economic sense, seen to be of absolute fundamental importance. I welcome the fact that the Minister has attempted to improve it to the extent that he has raised from 18 years to 19 years the limit for child dependency and has allowed the fifth child allowance to be extended to further children in families.
One disappointment is that there has been a freeze on the child benefit itself and, as any parent knows, the costs are not frozen. We have to seriously think of multiplying the allowance much more and making it a really decent allowance. I am not being negative here because there are ways in which we can pay a realistic sum of money to the child rearing parent. We could claw back on the tax of income earners at high income levels or introduce legislation to ensure that a nonearning spouse who is completely economically dependent on the one breadwinner will have a legal, automatic, proportionate entitlement. We have already done this with regard to social welfare in certain circumstances and I will refer to that later. In the same way, with regard to independent income earners, I would not be loath to introduce that measure so that women in particular will not be economically as dependent as they have been up to now, a dependency which is far beyond that of women in other member states. The problem is that women will be forced to make very difficult decisions which will have huge implications, as happened in France and Germany. They will have to decide whether it is worth their while to have a family and give up their economic independence. That is a problem that exists already.
In an interview given by the Minister recently he said that in this year's budget at least the child benefit was not interfered with. I would like to think that until we bring in the alternatives I am suggesting there will never be such an interference but rather that the allowance will be greatly increased. There should be acknowledgement of the family and particularly the role of the mother in the home.
Like everybody else, I welcome very much the Minister's intitiative in bringing in equality in social welfare. The changes with regard to widowers and deserted husbands are long overdue. Everybody felt that there was injustice in that regard. This is tied in with the changing attitudes and the changing roles of men and women in the family and also with the changing structures of work. Matters such as work structures, social welfare, pensions and so on should be flexible so that men will be able to take on child rearing roles. Rather than penalising them as we have done up to now we should encourage them and in that regard the new measure for widowers and deserted husbands is to be much welcomed.
I would remind the Minister that there is a small but growing group of fathers who have taken on the task, as unmarried fathers, of bringing up their children and they also deserve and need support. The Minister has rightly pointed out that in bringing in that change, he and his officials will have to deal with six separate social assistance schemes. This is one of the difficulties that arises. The savings that will accrue in that area will be of tremendous help not just to the Minister and his Department but also to the economy as a whole. I welcome very much the Department examining the possibility of replacing all those schemes, with all their anomalies and difficulties, with one scheme. I would like to think that the next time the Minister makes social welfare changes in this House he will also make that change. It is part of the reform that is needed in this area.
With regard to the changes introduced to claw back maintenance allowance owed by husbands to the State, I would like some more elucidation on this matter. It would be a tremendous step forward if the State — by that I mean the Department of Social Welfare — would take direct responsibility for reducing the length of time in which a woman has to prove she is deserted. The three month period can be extraordinarily long and can be a very traumatic time for a woman, particularly as she has already gone through the emotional shock of being deserted. It has always been reprehensible to demand that she should have to make contact with her husband in order to prove whether she could get maintenance from him. There have been cases where women have been afraid to do so and have been penalised under the system for that reason.
It happens in the case of husbands, too.
I take Deputy McGahon's point that where the deserted spouse is the husband, the same should apply. There should be full equality and I would make the same passionate case for them. However, it is usually the wife who is the deserted spouse. Would it be possible for the maintenance to be claimed directly by the Department of Social Welfare from the husband so that payment to the wife would not be interfered with and she would not be penalised in any way as a result?
We can discuss that matter on Committee Stage when we will have to consider some small matters but basically that is the general idea.
That is to be very much welcomed. I welcome, too, the introduction of flexibility with regard to education. This is also tied in with another section of the Bill, as the Minister stated in his Second Stage speech, and that is the section with regard to retirement allowances. I welcome the flexible arrangements for unemployed people in the over 60 age group, many of whom regard themselves as semi-retired and not really members of the labour force.
I would like to make a point which caused indignation the last time it was mentioned here. I attended a recent seminar addressed by Professor Thorborne from Sweden who has carried out a tremendous amount of study on changing work structures and so on. He made the point during the seminar that two factors had struck him with regard to employment — unemployment in Ireland. One of the factors was that there was a very low participation rate of women in the workforce as compared with the rest of Europe and the other was that there was a very high participation rate of elderly men. The women in the audience responded very positively to the acknowledgement and recognition of both these factors but the men totally ignored the first factor in regard to the low participation rate of women and felt that their integrity and dignity were being attacked. The women felt that Professor Thorborne was right to draw attention to the unique position in Ireland with regard to the structure of work. Even in the European context, one of the areas we will have to consider is earlier retirement for everybody. The reaction we got to that matter was not just from politicians but from economists, civil servants, public servants and so on. There is a tremendous attitudinal change to be gone through in that respect.
Deputy Harney recommended that perhaps an all-party committee should sit and discuss this matter. I want to refer briefly to some of the recommendations of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights when they published a report in 1984 on social welfare matters, particularly as they affected women. These are matters that must be examined urgently, we hope, incorporated in the next reform package.
Certainly the Minister has attempted to deal with the matter of part-time work and employers who do not pay their PRSI contributions. It is a scandal how women are being expoited at present with regard to part-time work, being restricted to working hours which ensure they are precluded from making PRSI contributions and the protection it would afford them, to say nothing of sickness, holiday pay and so on. I will not dwell on that issue now because I know we shall be debating it on legislation in the labour area.
Reverting to the evaluation of women's work and contribution in the home, particularly as child minders, is it possible that the non-contributory pension be paid directly to a wife when she reaches the eligible age? As of now it constitutes a double payment to the husband. As a result many women experience real stress and deprivation through their husbands not allowing them sufficient, leaving them with a sense of dependency even at pension age. Many women have made the case rather bitterly to me that after a lifetime of care and dedication to spouse and children they are left desolate, that surely the least they might expect would be a pension.
My heartfelt cry to the Minister would be to have all of the anomalies obtaining removed in one fell stroke through the concept of the basic income which, if granted to everybody, based on age, regardless of marital status or employment — except where, in the case of employment, it would be credited — we would be giving direct payments to people now engaged in what is termed informal work, not seen to be gainfully employed, recognising their value to society and the inherent economic independence that should accompany such recognition.
I would also appeal to the Minister to use the moneys saved on the elimination of abuse in his Department on the establishment of a proper dental and optical service for women, particularly insured workers' wives who remain in the home. Women have lobbied for years because of the desperate state in which they find themselves in that regard. It is a matter of tremendous disappointment that that service has not been implemented, and in fact we have raised women's expectations only to have them dashed.
Other Members have referred to the prescribed relative's allowance. It is scandalous that that allowance is paid to the dependent relative rather than the carer. I am sure this arrangement costs the State much more.
I would also appeal to the Minister to extend paid maternity leave, in respect of which there will be tremendous pressure and I hope a directive from Europe as we approach 1992. The present period of maternity leave of 14 to 18 weeks does not really give the mother and child the start they need. Also paternity leave must be introduced so that fathers are given a chance to share equally in child rearing and family relationships.
I welcome the reforms already implemented. I know the difficulties the Minister faces but I should like to think that, even on Committee Stage, he would be able to address some of the points I have raised.
I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this debate, as I do annually because it has been my experience since becoming a Member of this House that, generally speaking, it tends to be a debate free of acrimony, when Members have made valuable contributions and adopted a very positive attitude to the provisions of the Bill. Deputy Barnes's contribution is just such an example. Most Members who have already spoken have approached the matter in a very positive manner. In itself that is to be commended. It also gives the lie to the public criticism levelled at politicians, that they do not care, are not interested in the poor or the less well-off. Indeed it would pay such critics to listen to some of the contributions made on Social Welfare Bills in this House.
This Bill underlines the Minister's total commitment and dedication to improving our system of social welfare so that those in greatest need will benefit most. The provisions of this Bill are wide-ranging, addressing a huge number of issues. As has been the case for the past two years the Minister has availed of the opportunity, in introducing this Bill, to initiate new schemes or modify or improve existing ones. If we take the provisions of this Bill along with those of the most recent budget we find that 23 new or improved schemes have been introduced by the Minister, much to his credit and that of his Department.
I also agree with Deputy Barnes's sentiments with regard to the staff in the Department of Social Welfare. As in all Government Departments there will be good and bad but, over the past four or five years, the commitment and dedication of the staff of that Department have been recognised by the public and certainly by us public representatives. We are very ready to criticise when things go wrong, when people do not do their jobs properly. Equally we should be positive and give praise where such is due.
Having said that, the Minister is introducing a number of new schemes by way of the provisions of this Bill; one I particularly welcome is that pertaining to widowers and deserted husbands, the new payment to be made to those wishing to care for their children. This is an issue I have mentioned in all my contributions on Social Welfare Bills since becoming a Member of this House. It gives me great pleasure to welcome the introduction of this scheme and commend the Minister on having taken the relevant initiative. Deputy Barnes mentioned equality a number of times. In these days of equality consciousness it is good to note that the concept is applied positively in both directions. It is my firm conviction that the introduction of this scheme will particularly help the children of spouses who, for one reason or another, have split up, so that children who may be deprived of one parent will have the remaining parent to care for them. Another innovation which I welcome was announced in the budget and referred to by the Minister in his speech at the time and that is the change in the free electricity allowance scheme. None of us could understand how it could be so difficult to allow old age pensioners to carry their free electricity units from one bill to another. I never got a satisfactory explanation for that although it was something that was questioned for years. The Minister in keeping with his fresh approach to these things has started the discussions which I hope will lead to the introduction of a change very shortly.
Debate adjourned.