I, too, welcome the amendments brought forward by the Minister this afternoon. It is good that we can have some effect on the legislation other than just merely talking our way through the various procedures. I would have liked to think that we could have put down more amendments but I appreciate that many of the changes suggested would have revenue implications and therefore it is not as simple as it might have appeared initially. The important thing with regard to social welfare matters is that we try to simplify the system, and as I said on Second Stage, the Minister has gone a long way towards that. I urge him to go further. This Bill seeks to go somewhat further by rationalising the number of child dependant allowances from 36 to 12. As I have said before, there is room to go much further. I firmly maintain there is no justification for more than two rates, one for younger children and one for older children whether it be from the age of ten or 12 years upwards. There should be a differential between the obvious difference in the cost of rearing a child in the two age groups.
We need to rationalise the number of unemployment allowances of one kind or another. At present, somebody may be entitled to more money on long-term assistance than on unemployment benefit so the whole question of social insurance and the remuneration one gets having paid social insurance has been further eroded. I am not necessarily sorry this has happened because, as I said this morning, I firmly believe that social insurance is just another form of tax. It is the worst form of tax in that it is a tax on employment. We had a long discussion on this point before lunch but we did not get a chance of putting any of the proposals to a vote. Whether you argue that social insurance is necessary or not, the present social insurance scheme needs to be radically reformed so that it is more of an incentive to employment or at least removes the disincentive to employment. Deputy De Rossa made the point that capital and labour should be put on a par. I would not agree with that because at a time of high unemployment which leads to so much poverty and dependence on the State it is important that we go overboard in trying to encourage employment. I would like to think that in future proposals we would do that.
The notification of commencement of earnings procedure which is referred to in this Bill needs to be extended to all sectors. I have no doubt that that procedure will have huge benefits. The Minister, in giving figures last week referred to 500 names submitted by employers who had taken on people. This will be the most effective way of combating fraud. We should not introduce this procedure, without other procedures being in place, such as an identity card. I am talking about an identity card not simply for welfare recipients but a national identity card from which there would be huge advantages in terms of not having to use passports going to other European countries, and in terms of tax fraud, welfare fraud, under-age drinking, crime and so on. Instead of having the fear that big brother is always looking over our shoulder, we should be more mature about these things and recognise that we are amongst the few European countries that do not have this form of identity.
There would be enormously beneficial effects from having such an identity card. If we could extend the notification or earnings procedure and have ways of verifying who exactly people are, when inspectors call on places of employment, then the kind of procedure I would like to see in place for the unemployed could very easily be put in place. I do not like the present signing on procedure which is very degrading. It does not act as a deterrent to people who are working and claiming benefit. Obviously some people are working and claiming benefits, and it is easy to go and sign on once a week. However, for the vast majority of people who are unemployed, signing on is very degrading, particularly since the facilities, as Deputy O'Keeffe said, are so bad at so many of our exchanges. People have to queue in the street and many cover their faces with newspapers. When one approaches an employment exchange, everyone knows that one is unemployed. We do not give the unemployed the kind of dignity they deserve. If we had an extension of the new notification of commencement of earnings procedure and made employers liable, and followed up this procedure, we could be much more flexible when it comes to signing on. It would also release a lot of social welfare officers or other employees of the Department of Social Welfare who could be deployed in implementing the welfare system in more useful ways, either giving information or being involved at local level in ensuring that people have access to one stop shops and so on within easy reach of where they reside.
I welcome the decision to abolish the distinction between the urban and rural rates. This was long overdue. The 1934 distinction came about presumably because rural people tended to have their own fuel, to live on farms and to have their own vegetables and so on. This distinction was very unrealistic when one saw that in estates in Tallaght, in Shankill and so on, one group of people were considered rural because they lived in houses provided by the council and others were considered urban because they lived in corporation houses. That was a farcical situation and I am delighted it has been remedied.
I also welcome the inclusion of deserted husbands and widowers in the social welfare schemes although keeping a distinction between the treatment of men and women in the social welfare code is wrong. Deputy Mattie Brennan referred to bachelors being entitled to claim the prescribed relative allowance and having a separate allowance under the social welfare code. The entitlements and needs of people are similar, and therefore the social welfare code should deal with them on the same basis, regardless of sex.
Deputy De Rossa made a point about unmarried fathers, and I agree with him, although in this country one does not very often meet what are described as unmarried fathers.
The appeals procedure in relation to social welfare decisions was referred to as was the fact that social welfare recipients tend to be considered guilty before they have been tried. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Bell in this area. I have mixed views on whether we should discontinue the payment from the time a person is suspected of being involved in a fraud, but people should be entitled to access to information, which is more important. I wonder about the implications of the data protection Bill for the Department of Social Welfare and whether claimants would be entitled to access to the information kept on file in relation to their cases. To have any kind of fair welfare system one must have a fair, objective and independent appeal system. We still do not have that. The Commission on Social Welfare recommended the introduction of an independent appeals procedure for social welfare cases, and I agree with them.
Deputy O'Keeffe and others referred at length to the facilities and I agree with them. It is important to respect people's privacy. We should treat people in as humane and as caring a way as possible. In lots of instances that would require the expenditure of money on improving facilities at employment exchanges and social welfare offices generally. I urge the Government to do that. In so far as Dublin city is concerned, some of the better advertised facilities tend to be available in very run down places. What these facilities are like inside would leave a lot to be desired if they are anything like they are on the outside. We need to put more effort into that whole area.
I sought to move an amendment in relation to how we deliver payments to persons. In relation to privacy, I know it is not possible for everybody to have a bank or post office account and that generally speaking social welfare recipients tend not to have accounts of this kind. The Craig Gardner Survey on Consultancy in relation to fraud in the welfare system recommended that we move towards the electronic transfer of funds. I would urge the Minister to move in that direction. It would help to protect the privacy of claimants, it would encourage people who otherwise do not use facilities like post office accounts to perhaps think in terms of them and it might help them to manage their affairs a bit better, it would have savings implications and from the point of view of fraud in the social welfare code there would be a deterrent.
From time to time major fraud has occurred in transferring money through the post and when money is being transferred en masse to employment exchanges and so on.
Pro rata pensions are mentioned in this Bill. The Minister sought in the miscellaneous sections at the end of the Bill to clarify the regulations that were made last year in relation to this matter. While the Minister clarified the situation somewhat, his clarification did not meet the difficulties that some people have, particularly in what are called a mixed insurance categories. I would like to think that this pro rata pension would be what it says — a pro rata pension, and that if people made contributions they would get some kind of benefit at old age on the basis of the contributions made.
It is a pity we have only two opportunities in the year to discuss welfare matters. I take the Minister's point about the need for us to consolidate the Social Welfare Acts again. I sat on the last committee in 1981 that consolidated the Acts up to then. It would be no harm to do that again within the next 12 months. As the Minister said, prior to doing that we would need to further simplify the system to ensure that the anomalies that exist are corrected and to ensure that the kind of distortions that exist as between social insurance contributions and the different rates for people who are on similar earnings do not continue. That means rationalisation of payments, simplification of the system and opening the system up to those categories of persons such as the prescribed relative, young people and so on who are currently excluded and very unfairly excluded in many cases.
