Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Mar 1989

Vol. 388 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare Bill, 1989: (Second Stage) Resumed.

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

Before the debate was adjourned I spoke about some of the innovations the Minister introduced in the budget. I mentioned the change he was bringing about in the free electricity scheme which will allow pensioners to carry over unused units from one billing period to another. This is a welcome move. I take this opportunity now to ask the Minister to modify this scheme a little more to review the living alone condition in certain well-defined circumstances. Everybody in the House is aware of cases where single sons or daughters, more often daughters, have given up work to care for an elderly parent who needs constant care and attention. In those circumstances the elderly person loses the free electricity allowance because he or she is not then living alone. A move to change this regulation would be welcomed by all sides of the House and would be an encouragement to people to look after their elderly relatives at home. I know there would be difficulties in doing this but certain conditions could apply, for example, a certain age could be specified or it could be a requirement to supply a medical certificate stating that the elderly person required constant care and attention. I am sure the Minister will take note of what has been said by a number of speakers and do something about that scheme.

I would like to compliment the Minister in general terms on his approach to suggestions made by his own backbenchers and by Deputies on the other side of the House. He has always shown a willingness to listen to suggestions and act on them where possible.

Because of the Minister's flexible attitude and his willingness to initiate schemes geared to the needs of those on social welfare, I would like now to urge him to take a look at the regulations in relation to unemployment assistance and the qualifications for such. Our unemployment figures now stand at approximately 235,000. Even the most optimistic forecasters concede that for the foreseeable future we will not be able to provide jobs for all of these people. I use the word "jobs" in this context rather than the word "work" because I have no doubt but that we could provide work for a considerable number of the people who are unemployed.

At the moment instead of allowing people to make a positive contribution to their community or to their own self-development we currently say to them that they are idle and must remain so, that the State will pay them for remaining idle and if they do anything other than remain idle the State will stop paying them. We tell them to go out and look for jobs in areas where every second person is unemployed. We also tell people who have reached the age of 55 and 60 years of age that they must be available for and seeking employment when we all know that the chances of people in that age group getting a reasonable job are practically nil. This approach has resulted in the talents of very many capable people being wasted. They have to sit at home and do nothing, contributing nothing to their own development or that of their communities. This is a terrible waste. In our culture a person's status in society is measured by the job he holds and the income he earns and a person's self-esteem depends largely on his status in society. Consequently a person who has no job has little or no status and therefore little or no self-esteem. It has been proved by successive studies that the longer a person is unemployed the lower his self-esteem becomes. Our present system reinforces this state of affairs by encouraging idleness and discouraging any attempts at self-development. We are punishing any show of initiative or effort to investigate means of becoming self employed.

There have been examples of groups of unemployed people who have sought to set up co-operatives, as in the case of one group in Cork, or a group in Dublin who set up a dramatic society, but who lost their entitlements to social welfare assistance because they were not available for work. I have personal experience of an individual who began to investigate what he felt might be a viable enterprise that he could set up for himself. He set up a meeting for himself on a day that he was due to sign. He went to the employment exchange to explain what was happening — this was about 18 months ago — and the rules were so rigid that when he did not sign on the proper day he was struck off the register for six weeks. That type of rigidity in the regulations, which existed in the past and is slowly changing because of the innovations of the Minister, is a major disincentive to everybody. Why do we not allow a person who has no job the right to use his God-given skills and talents while he waits for a job opportunity? Why should there be a period of enforced idleness when that time could be used productively for the individual or for the local community?

I feel very strongly that the social welfare system as it pertains to the unemployment assistance scheme should be more flexible. The Minister should be allowed to make regulations which would provide that those who find themselves without a job spend their time productively. I have no doubt that if the present Minister was given that opportunity by way of regulation under the social welfare system he would grasp it with both hands and would put even more measures in train which would dispel the sterile idea that a person on unemployment assistance should sit at home and do nothing.

As I have said, in the past two years the Minister has introduced schemes which show that he is more than willing to help people to help themselves. Other Deputies have mentioned the educational opportunities scheme and in this Bill there is the pre-retirement scheme. I commend the Minister for the tentative steps he is taking through these schemes. I realise that the reason he has not gone any further at this time is that he is literally hamstrung by the social welfare legislation. The principle behind the moves he has already made is a good one and should be extended. I strongly believe that the legislation, whether through this Bill or a future Bill, should be framed in such a way that power is given to the Minister to make regulations to introduce schemes like the ones he has already introduced, whether they be on a local or a national basis.

I might go a step further and suggest that we get rid of the whole concept of an unemployment allowance or, to put it another way, an allowance for unemployment. Why do we not adopt a more positive approach to those who are not fortunate enough to be able to get a job? We should get rid of all the negative connotations surrounding dole and unemployment assistance and adopt a more positive approach completely. That could possibly be done by scrapping the idea of unemployment assistance and by deciding to give people who have not a job or a source of income a living allowance which would enable them to participate productively in society, whether in the form of educational courses, community work or whatever. I would say as an aside that the educational opportunities scheme to which I referred earlier is an excellent scheme and one that should be developed and extended right across the country. That could be done by allowing people to pursue courses and, by regulation, allowing the Minister to designate courses, whether public courses in VECs or privately run courses. As long as the Minister felt they were suitable courses he should have the power by regulation to introduce them under the educational opportunities scheme. Any course which would help a person's self-development or help him to acquire new skills which might be more useful in securing a job should get the go-ahead from the Minister and he should be allowed to do that.

Why do we not allow people who are unfortunate enough not to have a job the freedom to work on a voluntary basis for a set period of time with local committees to help develop their own communities? The Minister has already introduced one such scheme on a limited scale. If schemes such as these were introduced, particularly for those who have been made redundant in their later years and who have little hope of full-time permanent employment they would be of benefit not only to the person involved but also to the community in which he lives. As I have said I recognise, as I think does all sides of the House, the Minister's commitment in this area and the moves he has made in the past two years. It is up to all of us in this House to support and encourage him to introduce more schemes such as this and to get rid of the stigma attached to a person who is unfortunate enough to lose his or her job and who is left feeling that he or she has nothing to contribute to society.

Provision is made in the Bill for measures which are directed towards the family. This budget, like the two previous budgets introduced by this Government, was introduced in a time of harsh economic circumstances. The Minister has managed in the past two years to find ways of directing the huge amounts of money being provided for social welfare to the areas that are most in need. One feature of the budget, and now confirmed in the social welfare legislation before us, has been its approach to providing measures which help the family at a time of grave economic crisis. Two years ago the Minister increased the social welfare budget. He increased it again last year and this year it has been increased even further. The measures introduced for the family in this budget alone cost £42 million. As everyone would concede, that has been done at a time of grave difficulties. That shows the commitment that the Minister and the Government have made in this area.

That is unique.

The Minister is unique in that he has been able to do this at a time of economic stringency but this Government are not unique in honouring their commitments. We have always——

Taken U-turns.

Not at all. We have always honoured our commitment to social welfare recipients, to the family and the poor. We have always shown that commitment by the introduction of changes in social welfare, ploughing money into needy areas. We do not merely pay lip service, as have other Governments in the past when they awarded amounts like £9.60 to stay-at-home spouses and various other commitments never honoured, in times when money was being spent and borrowed as if it was going out of fashion. This Government have a real commitment to the needs of the less well off in our society.

Deputy Barnes spoke at some length about the family, contending that we are a child-centred family centred society and that we should have a policy geared to the family unit. This Government have shown in this and previous years that they have that commitment to the basic family unit in our society.

There has been considerable talk about the child benefit scheme and its advantages for families in that it is the only benefit paid directly to the wife. I do not know why that should be so. Irrespective of whether a person is a social welfare recipient or an earner, the stay at home spouse, whether it be husband or wife, should have the right to a minimum percentage of the income earned. Most of the discussion on child benefit focused on the fact that this money would be lost to the wife and may be the only amount she receives.

I know it is the case that many wives may receive very little from mean husbands and so on. However, the way to tackle that problem is by the introduction of some form of legislation. I recognise that that is probably more properly the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. But I contend that the stay at home spouse should have the right to a minimum percentage of the income earned by the other. If we are to show concern about the family unit we should encourage at least one spouse to remain at home through our social welfare and taxation systems — as I believe we are doing in part by way of the provisions of this Bill — so that the family with one spouse only working would receive the same allowance as the family where both spouses work.

Farmers have made much play of the fact that they feel they are not being treated equally under our taxation system. The same contention could be made in the case of families where there is one income earner only.

I welcome the new provision to eliminate abuse in the construction, contract cleaning, forestry and security industries on the part of contractors and sub-contractors. This is a provision which should be welcomed by all sides of the House. It should be remembered that those who draw benefits to which they are not entitled are robbing those to whom we want to direct such payments, the less well off in our society. The Minister is to be commended on his initiatives in this area. The loophole that obtained with regard to builders and sub-contractors to date has had to be closed because it led to widespread abuse. It meant that most builders of any size got around the regulations by engaging sub-contractors. Indeed transport is another industry that springs to mind in which this loophole obtained. The sooner this type of abuse is arrested the better it will be for everybody.

The appeal system has been improved enormously in recent years. However, it could still be more open and be seen to be more caring. Most applicants' view having gone through an appeals procedure, is that it constitutes an inquisition, that one appears before an appeals officer with little hope of winning one's case. I would appeal to the Minister to ascertain whether he can do anything to improve that procedure further and allay applicants' fears.

As a Deputy representing a rural area I commend the Minister on having abolished the rural versus urban rates of unemployment assistance because that system was outdated even though it had been in existence for the past 20 to 30 years.

I compliment the Minister on his approach to the task in hand and look forward to more initiatives on his part in the future.

Having sat in the House all day I am slightly punch drunk at the succession of Fianna Fáil Deputies who have been eulogising the Minister. It makes me wonder, apart from his good looks, what are his unique qualities. Because I am a somewhat unconventional Member people may expect me to be critical of the Minister. That is not my intention apart altogether from the fact that I am not a member of the Fianna Fáil Soldiers of Destiny Party, the party of negativity, who opposed everything introduced in this House over the past four and a half years when Deputy Dempsey was only a young man.

I am still only a young man.

I want to congratulate the Minister on the good work he has done over the last two years as Minister for Social Welfare.

There is a popular belief, or more properly myth, in this country that many people are starving or near to starvation. I do not believe that. It might be popular to say so but I do not believe that anybody here is near the poverty line. I suppose it all boils down to a question of definition of poverty. I do not think there is anybody hungry in this country. I have said before and will repeat that our social welfare system has been feather-bedded by successive Governments and is now one of the best in western Europe. For example, 40 years ago there was not a family here who were not supported to some degree by a few dollars from America or a few pounds from England. We have now created a social welfare system better than that obtaining in the United Kingdom who have the wealth and investment of centuries behind them. I wonder how long this can last. In many ways our system could be described as a social welfare paradise. Much of the hardship — and there are varying degrees — I contend is the result of excessive gambling — about which I know a little — and drinking. We have a very caring society. I, too, am concerned for those unfortunates whose jobs have foundered. I come from a town with the highest unemployment rate in Ireland — 32 per cent, almost double the national average. I have seen industry after industry crumble without being replaced. I know there is great stress in Ireland but I object to the use of the word "poverty". Poverty does not exist in this country as it exists in Ethiopia, the Sudan or India.

Having said that, I want to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Boylan.

Is that satisfactory to the House?

Agreed, if it is accepted that two of our Deputies can do likewise afterwards.

I appreciate that the Minister has acknowledged the plight of widowers whose payments were seriously out of line with those of widows. A widower's children get hungry at the same time as a widow's. There was a serious anomaly in respect of those payments for many years. I am glad the Minister has put it right, but I cannot understand why he is asking them to wait until October for the money. The saving to the Exchequer must be only nominal so perhaps the Minister would look at that to see if he can bring forward the payment date.

I also agree with the Minister's decision to bring payments in rural areas into line with payments in urban areas but I again fail to see why that distinction was drawn over the years. I also agree with the payment of child benefit in respect of people up to 19 years old, who are at school and whose families, we may presume, make sacrifices to keep them at school. That is a commonsense and practical approach.

Another area that deserves the Minister's attention relates to children who leave school at 16, under educated and ill equipped for life and who, perhaps, come from deprived areas in the city. One of the reasons so many turn to crime is that they come from deprived families, in some cases where the father has been unemployed for a long time, and they have no money at all in their pockets, while every ten minutes the television exhorts them to go for a pint. These are adults with L plates, without money, so they go out and steal it. There is a case for the introduction of a payment to children coming from families where there is long-term unemployment, to bridge the gap from 16 to 18 years old. They should be given some money of their own and some little dignity. Will the Minister look at that?

While acknowledging the Minister's concern and the concern of all Deputies about social welfare recipients, I must ask what about the working man on a lower income. In many cases people have given up their lowly paid employment and gone into the ranks of the unemployed to avail of the many benefits such as rent reduction, medical cards, children's footwear allowances and so on. To many people it is more attractive to be unemployed and to do nixers. I know of people who have given up their jobs to do that as they are better off unemployed. It is a matter for serious concern that people should think in that negative way. The unfortunate working man, particularly the lower paid worker, is paying for everything. He pays income tax, he pays to get his children to school, he pays water rates and doctors' fees, too, as he has no medical card. It is really a very small band of people who are paying for everything. The attractions of going into the social welfare system are huge for people on lower pay, and then they have the possibility to do nixers. The Minister should look at this area.

Deputy Dempsey referred to the building industry, the industry that really lends itself to abuse of the system. In the Border area the building trade has all but ceased. The builders in Dundalk have now moved to London and the Isle of Man because of lack of opportunity here, despite the much vaunted claims of Fianna Fáil that when they are in power the building industry booms. Now it is booming in foreign places. The builders in the Border region are faced with unfair competition particularly for public works contracts. They have to stand by and see lucrative contracts in the south being awarded to Northern Ireland firms who are grant aided, who undercut southern Irish companies and, having got that advantage, use scab labour or clients from the North of Ireland who are signing here and are possibly signing on in the North as well. This has been going on for years. The special investigation unit in the Department have a fair idea of the extent of that outrage.

Another area I would like to address relates to desertion, a despicable crime that is sadly on the increase. The number of unfortunate women being deserted has escalated recently. The numbers have doubled and possibly trebled. While it may be a symptom of the times it is a despicable trend. I can understand a man or wife parting but I cannot understand a man — I will call him a man although I could call him by another word only parliamentary decorum prevents me doing so — deserting his children and expecting the State to pick up the tab. People who do that should be pursued and if necessary left without social welfare payments themselves. It is all too easy for married men to desert their children today and while this problem is very hard to balance, steps should be taken against every man who deserts his children.

Finally, I should like to say to the Minister that the prescribed relative allowance is one with which all of us in public life are concerned, and we are all inundated with requests to get elderly people into geriatric homes. In many cases the beds are not available particularly when it is Fianna Fáil policy to close hospitals despite their con claim before the election that health cuts hurt the old, the sick and the disadvantaged. That was another con trick they used to get into power. Having said that, beds are not readily available at present because of the Government's policies.

More and more people should be encouraged to bring their aged relatives home, and keep them at home, and a realistic payment should be made to them. We are all aware of the inflated and unbelievable bureaucratic assessments of what it costs to keep people in hospital. A realistic payment to people who are prepared to take their relatives home and to care for them in the home environment should be made. That prescribed relative allowance should be increased and the whole scope of that area should be widened. I want to renew my plea to the Minister to look at the possibility of bringing forward the date of payment to widowers, of which there are about 5,000 in the country. Do not ask them to wait until October, but bring in legislation to enable payment to be made to them before that.

I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on this Bill. This Minister is in charge of a Department that has an input into every home in the country. In his introduction, the Minister stated that he had taken a major step — I would not call it a major step, I would call it a step. As I have often said, Fianna Fáil are never slow in heaping praise on themselves or their Government, but they are, and have been, rather selfish when it comes to recognising the worth of others.

I want to refer to my own party, Fine Gael, in opposition and our constructive attitude which has brought about the climate where these modest social welfare increases are now higher than the inflation rate. Were it not for the guidance, direction and support we have given here in the Dáil over the last two years that would not have happened. If it was not for the work of the last Government reducing raging inflation from 20 per cent to the present figure of 2 per cent, we would not be in the position we are today, despite bitter opposition at the time from Fianna Fáil when they were on this side of the House. I was not in the House then but I read the reports. They used every opportunity to trip up that Government in their sterling efforts to bring some sanity to the finances.

There are a number of points I would like to raise with the Minister and I will not be selfish like the Minister or his Government. I will pay tribute to what I recognise as improvements in our social welfare code.

The first item I would like to refer to is the family income supplement. That should be welcomed but there is an anomaly here because the wife has to collect it. This is an embarrassment to a husband who is working and who got the best job he could. If his income is not sufficient to provide for his family, his wife is expected to go to the local office to collect the balance that may be ascertained by the Department of Social Welfare. It should be possible to make that payment to the husband through his employer. In fact, there is a double cost involved — the employer pays his PRSI contribution, it is channelled into the Department and is channelled out again. If the employer was allowed to pay it direct to the employee to give him a reasonable income, there could be a saving. Some mechanism should be found to deal with this.

I do not like embarrassing people on social welfare because I know the majority of them are anxious to get work but, through no fault of theirs, the jobs are not available. That could be truly said for 90 per cent of people on social welfare. That is the feeling I get from talking to people, they are anxious to get some form of work which would be beneficial to themselves and their families.

We also have the problem of the management of low incomes. That does not apply only to social welfare recipients; it applies to all households. People on social welfare have difficulty managing the money they receive. In some households £150 could keep people quite comfortably but the same sized family next door with an income of £300 could be living in bad circumstances. The vocational education committees should provide classes to show people how best they should manage their income. That applies to myself and to every household in the country. I agree with Deputy McGahon that a great deal of poverty could be prevented, generally it is the children who suffer from bad management of the family finances.

In relation to PRSI for the self-employed over 55, unless I am mistaken, when these people reach the age of 65 and qualify for old age pension they will not get supplementary pension. That is wrong. There is also a very hazy attitude as to whether they will receive a refund of the moneys they are paying in. If that is the case, and I believe it is, there should be a scaled increase of social welfare for those people in recognition of the contributions they have made, from age 55, 59 or 60, rather than that they do not get a contributory old age pension but only qualify for the ordinary old age pension. There is no recognition of the contributions they are making and, in the meantime, the State has the benefit of that money. That is an area the Minister should look at in order to bring about some improvement.

There are two items to which I would like to refer. The Minister said he has made major savings in social welfare payments over the last 12 months or two years. Some of that would be brought about by emigration, which is sad, and other savings would be brought about by the detection of people who were working while drawing unemployment benefit. Nobody in this House would condone that sort of activity, and I have no doubt it was happening. At present employers have to give the names of their employees when they take up work with them. This will rule out that kind of abuse. I welcome that development because we must ensure that scarce resources go to the people who are entitled to them.

There were two other areas where the Minister made massive savings — I believe they were soft targets. The first was in the free fuel scheme. In rural areas there were major cutbacks but thankfully we had a mild winter, otherwise many old people would have died from the cold because they were deprived of the free fuel because they had two or three acres of land and it was deemed that there would be sufficient firewood to provide them with heating. That is nonsense and it is not acceptable.

The Minister has abolished the rural rate of unemployment benefit and brought it up to the urban rate. That is correct, and the same should apply to people living in rural areas who should get free fuel, because old people cannot go out and cut firewood to provide heating. If they are a very close family, then perhaps in-laws, cousins or other relatives might come to their aid. Unfortunately it is a sad reflection on our society today that few people think of or care for the old who could die from the cold.

There is also the small farmers' assistance. I have come across umpteen cases — and I have stated this here previously to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and Food — of people living in dire poverty because they have been assessed by people in the Minister's Department who have no knowledge of agriculture.

I can give the Minister instances where social employment officers who assessed the income of farmers who own 20 acres of land and five or six cows immediately assumed that each one of those cows would have a calf. These officers listen to the top prices for continental calves, being quoted on the radio and they think each calf will earn the farmer £400 or £2,500 in round figures for six. This is absolute nonsense. A farmer would be very lucky to sell three calves. If they are heifer or friesian calves he would be lucky to get £150 or £200 for each of them. It is only occasionally he will get the top price. Some calves are retained as replacement stock but they are regarded as income. This is wrong. No consideration is given to the cost of maintaining the stock. Farmers on small holdings very often buy in feedstuff for cash. These people are not accustomed to keeping accounts. They may buy 20 bales of hay at a time. We may hear that hay is worth only £1.50 a bale but those people may have to pay £3 or £4 a bale in order to have it delivered. The social welfare officer will not take that into account in assessing a farmer's income. He will go by what he reads in the paper about the price of fodder and the prices stock are making at marts. I ask the Minister to review this situation immediately because there are many cases of genuine hardship and poverty. Many young families are suffering and some children have to go to school without their lunches because their parents do not have any money. Usually these are hard working decent people trying to make use of the little piece of land they have but it is not sufficient to give them an income. Very often these people are too proud or embarrassed to fight their case with the social welfare officer. This area needs to be examined immediately and I have deliberately stayed on this point in order to hammer it home.

I want to give an example of the real hardship which can be suffered by these people. A man came to tell me that he could not send his daughter, the last child in a family of five, on a school trip to Dublin because he did not have the £10 for the bus fare. This child could not understand why she could not go on this trip with her friends. That is real hardship affecting innocent children. The reason that man did not have £10 for the trip is because his unemployment assistance had been reduced the previous month from about £80 to about £22 per week, a dramatic decrease. I know the Minister will take this on board and do something about it.

With regard to the child dependant allowance, recipients will be paid up to 19 years of age where a child continues in full time education. This is a very welcome provision. At present if there is a handicapped child at home an allowance will be paid for that child up to 16 years of age but if that child stays on in education and undertakes a commercial course or carpentry course the benefit will be withdrawn. If the child is kept at home the parents will receive an unemployment allowance for that child and this will encourage parents to keep the child at home. They may get an allowance of up to £30 per week from the health board. Unfortunately the attraction is to keep these children at home rather than send them to school where they may get the best opportunities and so be able to gain meaningful employment later. We are talking about a very small amount of money——

The Deputy is talking about the DPMA. It comes under health. They go on to the disabled person's maintenance allowance after domiciliary care but I appreciate the point the Deputy is making.

I ask the Minister to take it on board and have it examined. I have already welcomed the discontinuance of the non-urban rates of unemployment assistance. People living in rural Ireland often have greater costs than people living in urban areas. People living in urban areas have all the services at their disposal but some people in rural areas have to take a bus or hire a taxi if they want to travel to a shop or local town.

I want to refer to the living alone allowance and the free telephone and ESB schemes. Stringent regulations are attached to these schemes. We in this country have always had a great tradition of looking after the aged in our society, whether they are our parents or in-laws, but circumstances have changed. Nowadays many people find it difficult to get by. People had smaller incomes long ago and were able to live comfortably but this is no longer the case. In many instances a daughter stayed at home to look after her aged parents. For want of a better word her life was spoiled in that when her parents died she was left with a void in her life, had no income and had no possibility of getting employment. An allowance should be given to such people in recognition of the work done by them. An allowance is paid at present in respect of a son or daughter caring for his or her aged parents but if two or more of the family stay at home and one of them is working no allowance is paid. This is wrong and recognition should be given to the contribution made by the person who stays at home. The work they do is saving the State a considerable amount of money. If these sons and daughters did not stay at home to look after their parents the only alternative would be to place these old people in nursing homes, if this was possible. Like Deputy McGahon, I find it impossible to get people who are genuinely in need of hospitalisation for a short time placed in St. Felim's hospital in my constituency because there are not sufficient beds.

I also want to make the case for husbands and wifes who take care of their aged parents. In many cases these husbands and wives are rearing young families at the same time. Many wives may have stopped working in order to stay at home to look after their parents. Even if they were not working previously — and I do not make any distinction — an allowance should be given to these people in recognition of the work done by them.

Those are some of the points I regard as important. I welcome the efforts being made by the Minister and I know he will take on board the comments we have made. I have listened to the debate and the concerns expressed by many Members. This debate is important because it is often said that when we come into this House we lose contact with the ordinary people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have been more than impressed by all of the contributions made. People are genuinely concerned about the unemployed, the aged and the sick in our community and I can assure the Minister that my party will fully support any efforts he makes in improving the lot of these people.

With the consent of the House I should like to share part of my time with two of my colleagues, Deputy Swift and Deputy Cowen.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I should like to refer to a number of comments made by my constituency colleague, Deputy McGahon. I am sorry that the Deputy has left the House because I feel obliged to reply to one or two of his remarks.

I agree with Deputy McGahon that Dundalk has the highest unemployment rate in the country. He seemed to be pointing the finger at Fianna Fáil but I have to say — I think this is on the record, and the record speaks for itself — that when his party were in Government they sat on the demise of the Dundalk industries and it will only be as a result of the policies brought forward by the Fianna Fáil Government since February 1987 that Dundalk will eventually come back to what it was, one of the best towns in Ireland. Various items like the 48 hour rule which have helped the general upturn in the economy have also helped to bring Dundalk back partly to where it should rightfully be.

Deputy McGahon also referred to Northern building contractors. There is no doubt that that was a problem in Dundalk over the last ten years. It is quite pleasing to see that over the last year or so most of the public contracts given in the Dundalk area have gone to local builders. One builder has, I think, about four contracts on his hands and is employing local people. That is to be commended.

I am inclined to agree with that Deputy's views about the prescribed relative's allowance. In nearly every county there is a waiting list for admission to geriatric hospitals. This has nothing to do with the policies of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour. There will always be such waiting lists. If a thousand beds were available in every hospital, they would all be filled. The Minister for Health is on record as saying that he would be more inclined to have old people at home. In this regard, the prescribed relative's allowance should be looked into in an effort to allow that to happen rather than to have old people institutionalised.

The area of poverty has been mentioned. It has been the great buzz word of the media over the last year or so. I am glad to see Deputies on the far side of the House acknowledge that it is not as bad a problem as it is made out to be. It is all relative. Poverty in Ireland may be richness elsewhere. If you visit some of the Third World countries, you will see what poverty is really all about. Having said that, in certain areas or pockets there is poverty. The Government have recognised this. There have been various ESRI reports which have highlighted it. The Government, in their Programme for National Recovery stated that they will give this area high priority. It must be acknowledged by all in the House that since we came into power the social welfare area has been the least effective of any with regard to cutbacks in the public expenditure programme. Indeed, a figure of £265 million has been spent on families alone by the Government over the last few years.

Over the last two years substantial increases in social welfare benefits have been given, particularly to those on the lower end of the scale somewhere in the region of 25 per cent. That is to be commended by all. The area of the low paid is something the Government have given high priority to. The Minister mentioned that the family income supplement had been reported on and that before July he would bring forward proposals which would beef up that supplement. That, too, is to be welcomed. While it is a good scheme, it has not been properly taken up. There should be a widening of the limits to bring in more people.

Flexibility was mentioned by a number of speakers from both sides of the House.

This is the hallmark of this Minister. In quite a number of instances his assistance was called for. I remember athletes who were going abroad to compete in the Olympic Games and who were on unemployment assistance or benefit and the Minister stepped in to allow them to continue to receive their social welfare payments. Again, people willing to take up part-time educational courses were helped by the Minister on occasion.

The problem is he is restricted by legislation. That is something which he and future Ministers will have to constantly review to see where they can put a little more flexibility into the scheme. Rather than Deputies or the general public having to contact the Minister to put something right, perhaps we should be looking to devolve more power to the local employment centres. The people there could make the decisions on the spot, rather than having to do a lot of paper work to correct the situation.

A number of Deputies mentioned emigration and there is no doubt that this House is united on that problem. This is something with which the country nearly always has had to live and despite our efforts in the past, we have not put it right. People follow capital. I am not being political about this, but during the time of the last Government there was a black hole and a great deal of money flowed out of the country. In England one can see people do follow capital, from the north to the south where the jobs and capital are. Since coming into power this Government have seen the black hole phenomenon disappear. Money has come back into the country and while things have not picked up as quickly as we would like, capital has come back and the job figures are taking a turn for the better. The most recent job figures make pleasant reading for everybody.

A number of Opposition speakers mentioned that the Government were not doing enough with regard to emigration. The DION people were given £500,000 this year. These are the committees abroad dealing with emigration. Again, the Government should be given credit for that.

Turning to a number of items in the Bill, the increases in social welfare payments are very welcome. They bring up the basic level of unemployment assistance to £47, which is quite an increase. People are looking forward to July when that increase will come into operation. The new child related tax exemption will help those on low incomes. It is a hallmark of the Government that they are trying to do whatever they can for such people. These people feel that they are losing out as a result of having a low wage and say that they would be better off on social welfare benefit.

All parties in the House would agree with the introduction of the widower's and deserted husband's assistance. This is long overdue. I note that the Minister is now talking about a lone parent allowance. This is something which should be looked at. It will cut down the number of allowances at present in the system. As Deputy McGahon has said, we have one of the most sophisticated social welfare systems in the world. The Commission on Social Welfare stated that we should make an effort to cut down on the various allowances, of which there is a plethora. This would simplify and codify the social welfare system. The Minister is looking constantly at this area and should be complimented on his efforts.

Doing away with the rural rate of unemployment assistance is to be lauded by all parties. I do not know why it existed in the first place. Probably there was an historical reason for it. This brings equalisation into the system. I was looking at the figures of medical card holders recently. The greatest increase in the number of medical cards was in Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare and Louth. More rural areas showed decreases in the number of medical cards held. That would lead one to believe that the people in the urban areas suffer slightly more than people in rural areas. Maybe it is because there is an upturn in the agricultural sector. While I welcome the equalisation of the two rates the figures show that people in urban areas are suffering more than their rural counterparts.

I agree with the efforts of the Minister in the Bill in regard to deserted wives. How will it all work in practice? It will take one or two years before we know because I visualise a situation where a court order is made which could be flouted. The Minister and his Department will have to keep a constant eye on that aspect. I also welcome the exemption on fostering allowances in regard to means testing because health boards have had trouble in getting foster parents for children because they would lose financially.

The appeals procedure was mentioned by a number of speakers. I am not happy at the fact that Deputies or the public cannot make contact with appeals officers. This should be allowed because, otherwise, it will lead to complicated bureaucracy. When people have to go on supplementary welfare allowance, there is quite a difference in health board areas. In some areas a person is entitled to quite a lot whereas other areas are restricted. It depends on the funding of the health board and the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Welfare should look at this matter.

The free electricity allowance scheme has been mentioned by a number of speakers. I note that the Minister will allow a carry-over of units, which is welcome. However, the area causing most concern is where old people are not entitled to the allowance if someone is living with them. I know the Minister is concerned about this and something should be done as quickly as possible for old people who are worried that they will not receive the allowance when someone is living with them. Perhaps the Minister would permit the allowance to be paid if the person living with the recipient was over 80 years of age.

A number of speakers, particularly on the so-called Left, referred to the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. However, many of the recommendations have been implemented over the last while but some Deputies have been quite selective in highlighting some aspects of the report. One of the recommendations was that a child dependant allowance should be payable to all long term recipients until the child reaches 21 years, where he or she is in full time education.

In the Bill before us we are talking about an age limit of 19 years and the Minister has indicated that he hopes to extend that to 21 years. Another recommendation was that the self-employed should be brought within the scope of social insurance and that has been done. The commission also recommended that all public servants should be liable to the standard rate of PRSI and the intention is to do that. They also recommended that social insurance should be extended to ministers of religion and that is being done. The list goes on and on. The report said that the child dependant allowance should be rationalised and the Minister has made great progress in that area over the last three years. Another recommendation was that children's allowances should be improved and that there should be differentiation according to the age of children, with higher payments for older children and larger families. The Minister has made that effort in the Bill. For people to say that we have not done enough in the area of social welfare does not stand up to scrutiny.

I welcome the Bill, it is my third time to speak on a Social Welfare Bill since coming into this House. We have made great strides in every Bill and the Minister and the Government are to be complimented. The Government made it quite clear that, while they will make savings in other areas, they will not cut down on social welfare. I fully approve of that policy.

I compliment the Minister for Social Welfare and the Government for this latest Social Welfare Bill which brings a further improvement in the social welfare system. It was introduced — like the previous one — against a background in which the Government are taking great steps to right an economy which was rapidly going downhill.

I disagree with Deputy McGahon's remark that there is no poverty and that, to some extent, people are living in a social welfare paradise. You cannot live on unemployment assistance or a widow's pension in a social welfare paradise. You may not be on a starvation diet, as is the case in other parts of the world, but you certainly are not living in paradise. The whole reason for introducing a Social Welfare Bill is to look after those people and to acknowledge that things are difficult for them. They need State assistance and the better off people in the community can look after them. Having said all that, I am sceptical at times when some Members of the House — admittedly a tiny minority — work themselves into a paroxysm of socialistic fervour and say that we should allocate even more resources which we do not have or imply that we should further tax the hard pressed PAYE worker to provide greater benefits. This is not practical politics and in the long term it would not work.

I welcome the general increases as they have at least kept pace with inflation and, in many cases, have exceeded it. I particularly welcome the increases for the people on long-term unemployment assistance. A single person will get an increase of about £5 per week which is a very big increase, especially taken in line with a similar increase last year. There is no doubt that the long-term unemployed are being catered and cared for more by this Government than by any Coalition Government we have had up to now.

The abolition of the difference between the rural and urban unemployment assistance rates which had not changed since 1934 will be welcomed by all of us whose constituencies have a rural content. This may have had some relevance in 1934 but it certainly has none in 1989. There have been calls over many years for the abolition of this difference, and once more it was left to a Fianna Fáil Government to abolish the difference. This is to be welcomed.

I also welcome the initiative taken by the Minister, Deputy Woods, to provide for deserted husbands and widowers. Many of us have repeatedly called for provision to be made for these people. There was no logical reason for a Government who provide assistance for widows and deserted wives — rightly so — not to acknowledge the role being played by husbands who have lost their wives or whose wives have deserted them. They need assistance just as much as women. I welcome the initiative the Minister has taken in that respect.

The Minister is to be complimented for extending the occupational injuries scheme to members of the Garda Síochána. We often compliment the men and women of the Garda Síochána for the magnificent job they do but compliments cannot match an expression of practical concern. The Minister has demonstrated his practical concern by providing that members of the force who are injured or become ill in the course of their duty qualify for disablement benefit after a period of 26 weeks.

I also welcome the initiative to allow those in receipt of unemployment assistance take up part-time education courses which I hope in due course will enable them to avail of employment opportunities without having to look over their shoulders to see if some over-zealous official is seeking to disqualify them. I hope at some stage in the future the Minister might look at the position of those on unemployment assistance, with children in full-time education. Regardless of the age of their children, parents should be allowed to claim for them if they are in full-time education.

We all welcomed the introduction of the social employment and jobsearch schemes but to be practical anyone over the age of 50 should not be compelled to take part in a scheme or to take a course against their wishes.

I welcome the provisions in this Bill especially those which relate to people in receipt of long-term unemployment assistance. I compliment the Government and the Minister for making further improvements to our social welfare system which will be welcomed not just by almost every Member of this House but by the general public.

There are a few points I would like to make in relation to this Bill. What has impressed Members most as regards the performance of the Minister is that he has applied common sense in tackling a number of the problems which have arisen, but there are two areas where he has to continue to try to make progress. First, he has to try to simplify the existing system by introducing more uniform rates. At present there are far too many allowances, and there is a need to eliminate any abuse or fraud in the system. Secondly, there is a need to integrate the social welfare system with other areas of Government expenditure targeted at similar groups. In particular there is a need for greater co-ordination in the activities of certain sections of the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare as there is duplication at present and there is a need for greater co-ordination in the activities of the Department of Labour and the Department of Social Welfare.

In relation to the activities of the Department of Labour and the Department of Social Welfare, there is a great need to synchronise the activities of Manpower and employment offices and to ensure that they work from the same record system. At present they operate on different record systems. When first established employment offices were meant to cater for a small number of unemployed people in rural centres of population. At one time these centres would have catered for up to 300 people living within a seven mile radius but now they may have to cater for anything up to 2,000 people. Unfortunately, this is a sign of the times.

In relation to the operation of the social services in health board areas, there is a need for the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare to work more closely together so that the social welfare system would not be seen, as it is at present, as a mechanism for the payment of various allowances but rather as forming part of an effective and streamlined caring network.

Probably the most important point I have heard in this debate was one raised by Deputy Dermot Ahern — and this is a hobby horse of mine. He said there is a need to regionalise the activities of the Department of Social Welfare, particularly the processing of applications for unemployment assistance which is the lowest rate of payment. In my constituency a person goes to the employment office in Tullamore to sign on. Then he is assessed by an official and the file is sent to Dublin. A decision is made which is relayed to Tullamore, and it is then made known to the person concerned. If the person wishes to appeal he has to return to the office in Tullamore with the file, which is then sent to Athlone, following which a social welfare officer from Athlone comes to assess the person once more. The file is again sent to Dublin for a decision. It is sent back to Athlone and then on to Tullamore. Having gone through this great maze of bureaucratic nonsense we probably end up with the same decision that was made six or seven weeks previously.

This is absolutely ridiculous. There should be no need in the event of an appeal for the file to be sent to an appeals officer in Dublin, but what is most galling is that I, as a public representative, cannot pick up a phone to contact an appeals officer in the Department of Social Welfare to ask him to justify a decision made.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to take a look at this area where there appears to be very little communication between public representatives and those who make decisions within the Department.

I suppose Deputy Cowen's contribution was in a way a model in that in such a short time he could include so much. He pinpointed a couple of very fundamental, practical suggestions relating to simplifying the system, dealing with fraud and controlling measures in the system. That will be one of my main objectives.

As regards integrating social welfare with health and labour I regard that as a very important development which I will pursue as actively as I can. As the Deputy may know, we are doing a great deal of work at the moment on the supplementary welfare allowance system but so many community welfare officers are doing so many different things that difficulties are created. However, that is being examined and we are regarding it as a priority.

I am also very keen to regionalise and localise the system and everything is being developed in that direction. There are many implications in that, and the Deputy can be assured we are following it through. There is disability benefit direct entry in quite a few places around the country and, as the Deputy said, it can be handled locally. This is far more efficient and effective, and eliminates waste of time and duplication of work. Appeals for unemployment assistance would be part of the whole localisation of the schemes. I am glad Deputy Swift mentioned the Garda and the occupational injuries scheme which has been welcomed by the Garda. It is an important development for them.

Deputy Ahern covered quite a few points which I will take on board, including the question of flexibility. Deputy Boylan put some very interesting points to us in relation to the FIS. He spoke about the payment through the employer. I would be reluctant to make these payments through the employer because the employer would have this information and there could be a danger the wages would not increase pro rata. There is a benefit in paying it directly to the individual, but I admit there could be other ways of doing that and I appreciate the point made by Deputy Boylan. He also raised the question of the free fuel scheme. The operation of the free fuel scheme in rural areas and the regulations which are there at the moment are longstanding. There is no change in them, but I appreciate the point he made that people in rural areas should be treated in the same way as people in urban areas. We can look at that next year.

Deputy McGahon talked about 16 year olds and said if we gave the money under a social welfare scheme we might keep them away from crime. The danger with this is that it could bring many other young people out of the education system. That is the great concern here but the Minister for Education and the Minister for Labour have jointly set up the Youthreach programme designed to help people who have stepped out of the educational system at that early age. We will see how that goes. There is a major investment in that area at present.

Deputy McGahon was also worried about unemployment assistance becoming too attractive and the danger of people taking unemployment assistance and doing nixers. We will try to maintain control to prevent that. On the other hand, the improvements in the FIS will be very important when people are near the margin. I bring to the Deputy's attention the child related tax exemption scheme, a novel scheme introduced in the budget which the Minister for Finance will bring in with the Finance Bill. People at work on lower incomes will get considerable benefits from it. A total of £20 million is being devoted to help to offset the difficulties the Deputy sees in that area.

I thank the Deputies generally for their contributions. As usually happens with social welfare, their contributions were very wide-ranging and searching and some very useful ideas were put forward. The measures included in this Bill represent an unprecedented improvement in the level of income maintenance support provided by my Department and will improve significantly the position of those depending on social welfare, particularly families. The approach I have adopted is to concentrate the available resources on improving the basic levels of payment in line with the recommendations in the Report of the Commission on Social Welfare and the ESRI poverty report.

The 1988 and 1989 budgets provided significant increases for those dependent on the lowest levels of payment. These increases are not reflected in the results of the ESRI survey, which was taken before last year's increases came into operation and, obviously, before this year's increases came into operation. Two years' increases are in operation since the ESRI survey was carried out. It is important that people who are going to comment on this area recognise that fact and at least comment in a factual way. I am talking about comments made publicly. Many Deputies have recognised the major improvements I have brought in——

Is the Minister suggesting that those increases are in operation now?

——since the ESRI survey was carried out.

Are these increases——

The Minister without interruption.

It has been suggested in this debate that even large percentage increases are of little value when the basic income is low. Let me provide some examples of what the increases mean in cash terms for those dependent on social welfare. Let us look at pre-July 1988 and post-July 1989. Let us consider a widower on supplementary welfare allowance with five children. I mention this kind of case because the ESRI study showed that families, large families in particular, were among those who were doing worst in the current circumstances and they mentioned particular categories which have been mentioned by the Deputies. For a widower on supplementary welfare allowance with five children last year's increases and this year's increases amount to £41.85 per week. A married couple on supplementary welfare allowance with five children have an increase of £21.25 per week. A married couple on long term rural unemployment assistance with five children will have an increase of £22.45 per week. A married couple on long term urban unemployment assistance with five children will have an increase of £20.65 per week. A married couple on unemployment benefit with five children will have an increase of £10.15 per week. This last instance is indicative of the general range of increases.

A striking feature of the examples I have given is the narrowing of the gap between the various schemes in the levels of payment provided to families with an equal number of children. For example, prior to July 1988 the payments being made to a five child family ranged from £75 to £117.20, a gap of £42.20 per week. Taking account of the measures included in this Bill, the payments being made range from £115.30 to £127, a gap of only £11.30 per week as compared with the previous £42.20.

Another way to look at these figures is to consider the increase in real terms taking again pre-July 1988 and post-July 1989. What is the increase in real terms allowing for the effects of inflation in the meantime? For the widower on supplementary welfare allowance the increase after allowing for inflation is £35.90 per week. For a married couple on supplementary welfare allowance with five children the increase is £13.80 per week. For the married couple on long term rural unemployment assistance, again with five children, the increase is £14.60 per week. For the married couple on long term urban unemployment assistance with five children the increase is £12.70 per week. Those are the increases after allowing for inflation in that period. I mention them to emphasise the fact that the increases are substantial in themselves, taking into consideration the consumer price index and the rate of inflation.

The other significant improvements made during the past two years include major advances in the streamlining of payments generally. The number of rates payable in respect of adult dependants has been reduced from ten to six and the rates payable in respect of dependent children have been reduced from 36 to 12; the introduction of new social assistance schemes for widowers and deserted husbands; the introduction of a pre-retirement allowance; the abolition of the lower rural rate of unemployment assistance at a cost of £7.25 million in a full year; an increase from 18 to 19 in the age limit up to which increases are payable for dependent children, where the child is in full time education, as a step towards increasing it to 21; the extension of social insurance to the self-employed and the extension of cover for occupational injuries to the gardaí.

To a large extent these improvements have been made possible by the success of a programme which I initiated to eliminate fraud and abuse in the social welfare system. During the past two years alone, this programme has resulted in savings in excess of £92 million. I am glad to hear Deputies acknowledge the importance of the need to vigorously combat fraud. At the same time I share their concern that we must not target everyone on social welfare as guilty. The best way to ensure that this does not happen is to have effective measures in place which are seen to work by all.

In 1987 I brought in new legislation compelling employers to keep records of wages paid to employees, showing the amounts paid and the period in respect of which the payment was made. Cases are now being processed through the courts where employers have failed to comply. Indeed, a number of cases have been dealt with by the courts and employers have been convicted and in some cases fined up to £740 for breaches of the regulations.

Last year I brought in legislation whereby employers in the construction, security, cleaning and forestry industries are required to furnish me with the details of all new employees taken on since 1 January 1989. For the month of January my Department were notified of the commencement of 528 new employees and 23 of these were referred for further investigation. These investigations are underway at present.

Deputy Durkan raised the matter of including cases where people receive State contracts and suggested that we should look for lists of employees. I have noted what he said in that respect and I regard the steps we have taken to date as our first steps in this area. We will see how we get on and I would certainly be prepared to extend them further, once we have gained the experience of operating them.

Deputy Bell referred to the activities of the special investigation unit of my Department. I wish to make it very clear at the outset that my Department do not under any circumstances make use of paid informers or spies in the course of their work. It is very easy to castigate the good work done by this unit and other social welfare officers. That gets us nowhere.

For the record, the social welfare officer has considerable powers of entry and inquiry. If premises are being used as a place of employment then the social welfare officer has the right of entry and inspection of employment records. As already indicated, these powers are proving to be invaluable in the fight against fraud and abuse. I do not think that this House would have it otherwise.

The social welfare officer does not have deciding powers. He cannot cut off any-one's social welfare entitlement. When information is received about a person, that is then investigated and a report of the outcome of that investigation is furnished to a deciding officer. The deciding officer will decide on entitlement on the basis of that report.

Whether it is a report to a deciding officer or a submission for prosecution, the social welfare officer will in the course of the investigation put the allegation fully to the client, ask him whatever questions are relevant and invite him to make any statements or observations he may wish. Where an offence is suspected the suspect is made aware of the fact and of the nature of the offence and that he is not obliged to say anything unless he wishes to do so but that anything he may say will be taken down and may be tendered in evidence. Before signing any statement, the statement is read back to the client so that he knows what he is signing. These procedures are in accordance with Judges Rules and are operated within advice received from time to time from the Chief State Solicitor's Office.

Likewise appeals officers and deciding officers are required to operate within the rules of natural justice. There are procedures for the handling of appeals and clients are fully informed at their hearing of the case against them.

The worthwhile effect of the steps I have taken to combat fraud and abuse of the social welfare system can be seen from the fact that savings attributed to measures to control such abuse amount to some £93 million to date. I have been able to plough this back into the improvement of the system through higher payments and special measures directed at those in greatest need.

I share the concern expressed by a number of Deputies about the position of part-time workers under the social insurance system. This was raised by Deputies Bell, Flaherty and Barnes, among others. I am examining at present the question of changing the current criteria for insurability so as to provide better coverage for workers in this situation. I am also considering the possibility or desirability of having an earnings criterion.

Numerous Deputies spoke about the question of flexibility. Deputy Noel Dempsey spoke at length on this matter and the desirability of the Minister for Social Welfare having power to make appropriate regulations. Deputies Harney, Wallace, Durkan, Stafford, Flaherty, Barnes, Dennehy and Ahern all mentioned aspects of the question of flexibility. This question of flexibility within the unemployment schemes is one that has concerned me for some time. As Deputies know, I have already tried to introduce the greatest possible flexibility into the current system. I have provided opportunities for the unemployed to take holidays just like anyone else. As Deputies have pointed out, the unemployed must be treated with dignity and they should be allowed the same chances as anyone else. I have allowed unemployed persons with the talents to get on a national team to participate in events outside the State, not just the Olympics, without losing their entitlement. I have encouraged their participation in education courses so as to enable them to remain in the labour market.

I am concerned to ensure that the criteria of availability are not used to force the unemployed into a situation of being unable to do anything without running the risk of losing their entitlement. We have to be realistic in our application of these criteria and I will continue to keep the situation under review and where necessary will introduce any amendments to the legislation.

Deputy Bell spoke of the plight of the homeless in our society. In addition to the normal State support services for the homeless the Government have introduced a number of special measures in this area. Last year a special additional allocation of £3 million was approved to finance the provision of accommodation for homeless persons by voluntary organisations over a three year period. In addition, a special grant of £50,000 was made to Focus Point in recognition of the significant contribution which that organisation has made in tackling the plight of homeless persons in Dublin. Arising from these measures voluntary activity in this area has increased and as a consequence the Government have provided a further £1 million this year for accommodation for homeless persons. That will be dispensed by the Minister for the Environment.

Assistance is also available to voluntary organisations dealing with the problems of the homeless under the scheme of grants to voluntary organisations which is operated by my Department. I am pleased that a sum of £750,000 has again been made available this year to assist voluntary organisations in their efforts. This scheme has over the years provided valuable assistance to very many voluntary organisations. Last year £86,000 was made available specifically to assist projects dealing with the needs of the homeless, including grants of £20,000 each to the Catholic Social Services Conference towards the provision of a food centre for the homeless in the north inner city and to the Teenage Care Development Trust towards the provision of a night shelter for homeless children.

Apart from projects specifically related to the homeless I am also providing substantial resources for voluntary organisations operating in other areas. I would like to mention in particular the further sum of £500,000 which has been allocated to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to allow the society to undertake, in consultation with my Department, a major development programme aimed at creating employment opportunities and continuing the programme of home management and personal development courses. As Deputies will know I made a sum of £100,000 available last year specifically for these courses which were extremely worthwhile. Those courses are under way and are proving successful. A number of Deputies, including Deputy Bernard Durkan in particular, mentioned the problem of home management as being a major area of concern and I agree. I think the measures we are taking to assist in this area are very important and will make a significant contribution. I would also like to mention the special sum of £100,000 which has been provided for the Samaritans. These measures clearly demonstrate the Government's commitment to assisting voluntary organisations in a worthwhile way in tackling the problems of the less well-off in our society.

Various Deputies mentioned the need for separate payments and Deputy Flaherty suggested that we should make the fuel allowances payable to the dependent spouse. I will consider that suggestion in the context of re-arranging separate payments. The pre-retirement allowance was referred to by Deputy O'Keeffe and others. Deputy O'Keeffe suggested that the age limit should be reduced to 55 years. I should like to tell the Deputy that we are starting at 60 years but we will monitor the scheme in the coming years and keep the Deputy's suggestion in mind.

Deputy Wyse expressed fears that gardaí could lose out on the occupational injuries scheme. I should like to assure him that he need have no such fears. The Garda compensation Acts only cover the gardaí for malicious injuries. We will be covering all injuries sustained by them in the course of their work, and that has been welcomed by the Garda.

Deputy Bell referred to the free fuel scheme for old age pensioners and mentioned the case of an old age pensioner who has a son drawing unemployment assistance. He asked if the fact that the son was drawing unemployment assistance would preclude the pensioner from benefiting under the free fuel scheme. I should like to tell the Deputy that in our package this year we have included £2.4 million to eliminate such anomalies. That problem will be resolved by next October. The anomaly has existed in the regulations for many years and I am sure the Deputy will welcome our moves to eliminate it.

Deputies Dennehy, O'Keeffe and Barnes referred to the pro rata benefit for mixed insurance. Those Deputies, while welcoming the pro rata pensions introduced so far, were anxious that those with mixed insurance should be looked after as soon as possible. I am anxious to tackle that matter speedily and I have asked the board to deal with it. I understand that they are preparing a report which will include the question of mixed insurance. I will consider that matter as soon as the report is presented to me.

Many Deputies referred to the prescribed relative allowance and had suggestions to make in regard to the carer's allowance. I should like to tell them that that allowance is paid by the Department of Health. However, I have sympathy for their views and I will bear them in mind. It is important to point out that there are cost implications involved.

Deputy McCartan referred to the Darndale report which gave details of the outgoings and income of a number of families for the period 21 January to 31 January last. He referred to two adults and three children living on unemployment assistance. The cost given for food for the week was £55.71; for cigarettes and tobacco, £17.60; coal, £10; loan repayments, £7; life assurance, £5; newspapers £2.50; rent, £2.50; toiletries, £2.36; bus fares, £2.25; bingo, £2; detergents and so on, £1.67; piped TV, £1.30; clothes, 69p; medicines, 65p making a total cost of £111.23. That left that family with a surplus of 57p, an indication of how tight the margin is for those people.

I should like to point out to the Deputy that that family would receive child benefit. I accept that it is used on a monthly basis to pay ESB bills and so on and that, consequently, it is not taken into consideration in the weekly income. However, that would increase the overall surplus to £10.97. The increases provided for in the Bill before us will mean that the income of such a family will rise to £120 per week leaving a surplus of £19.17. That is an indication that we are helping such families. I accept that the increases will not overcome the problems but we are helping them.

In my reply I have answered most of the points raised in the debate. We could spend a lot of time dealing with all the points raised but my time is limited. I should like to pay tribute to those who contributed to the debate for their wide ranging and incisive speeches. It is a pity that the media, and the public, do not have an opportunity to listen to the contributions made in the House on social welfare issues and are not aware of the impact they have on our schemes. I try to implement many worthwhile suggestions made in the course of these debates within the resources available. However, I will bear in mind the suggestions made in the debate.

Question put and declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

On Tuesday, 14 March 1989, subject to agreement between the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 14 March 1989.
Top
Share