Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jul 1989

Vol. 391 No. 6

Estimates 1989. - Vote 41: Social Welfare (Revised Estimate).

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £1,545,920,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants.

This Estimate for my Department for £1,545,920,000 is the amount which the Exchequer provides for social insurance and assistance services. The Exchequer meets the full cost of social assistance and part of the cost of social insurance. The bulk of social insurance expenditure is met by employer and employee contributions. When these are taken into account the total expenditure of my Department is over £2.6 billion or £50 million a week. Of this amount 30 per cent represents payments to the elderly and 26 per cent to the unemployed.

The measures taken by the Government to extend social insurance coverage to the self-employed have brought about a significant increase in contributions and consequently reduced the overall demand on the Exchequer. The net cost of social welfare services would have been £39 million higher but for the extra PRSI income received from the self-employed this year. Significant savings have also resulted from increased employment leading to an increase in PRSI income and a fall in the cost of unemployment payments. The measures we have taken to improve the management of the social welfare system and to control abuse and fraud have also resulted in significant savings to the taxpayer. This Estimate includes provision for a further saving of £27.5 million through specific control and antifraud measures. These measures have improved significantly the financing of the social welfare system and have enabled me to preserve all our social welfare services and to provide for major improvements and new initiatives.

The full year cost of this year's budget increase is £156 million of which £50 million is for special increases. We will continue the policy of providing special increases for the long-term unemployed as resources permit.

Regarding improvements in payments over the past two years we not only maintained the value of all social welfare payments but also provided significant additional resources for special increases to those in greatest need. Our approach shows our practical commitment to improving the position of all who rely on social welfare. We focused mainly on families, specifically families of the long-term unemployed and families or workers on low pay. Last year we provided an increase of 11 per cent in the personal rate for the long-term unemployed and recipients of supplementary welfare allowance. A further special increase of 12 per cent for the long-term unemployed was provided this year and comes into effect today.

Taken together with the increases given last year, these payments have risen by almost 25 per cent since then. In practical terms, the weekly payment to a family with five children on unemployment assistance has been increased over the past two years from £106.10 to £127, an increase of £20.90 per week.

In addition to these special increases, the real value of all other payments has been maintained. This year a general increase of 3 per cent applies from this month. The higher rates of pension (old age, invalidity and widows), of disability and injury benefit, maternity allowance and of supplementary welfare allowance will be payable from next week. From today the personal rate of long term unemployment assistance increased from £42 to £47 per week. The rate for a family with three children increased by £8.20 to £107.

The Estimate also provides for the cost of abolishing the lower rural rate of unemployment assistance with effect from today. Since 1934 when the unemployment assistance scheme was introduced a lower rate of assistance has applied to claimants living in rural areas. The Government considered that such a differential is outmoded. People in rural Ireland face essentially the same cost of living as urban dwellers. Furthermore the present situation has led to serious anomalies in that many areas now accepted as urban are outside the urban classification. Claimants of unemployment assistance in parts of Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Clondalkin, Dún Laoghaire and Lucan were paid at the rural rate until today. Similar difficulties arise in other areas such as Cork, Limerick, Dundalk, Drogheda, Ballina and many other towns.

The Government agreed with my recommendation that the only logical step was to abolish the lower rural rate. From today all recipients of unemployment assistance will be paid at the higher rate. This is a very significant additional improvement for claimants in those areas formerly regarded as rural. It includes small farm households who have been recognised by the Government as a group in need of special assistance.

The supplementary welfare rate of payment, which was the same as the short-term rural rate, irrespective of where the claimant lived, will now also be increased to the higher rate. This is a very significant improvement for a group of people in urban and rural areas who are on the lowest level of social welfare payments.

The Estimate includes provision for other significant improvements in the levels of social welfare payments. The number of different child dependant payments has been reduced over two years from 36 to 12; a minimum child dependant allowance of £10 per week will take effect from today; child dependant allowances payable to long-term social welfare recipients have been extended from today to age 19 where the child continues in full-time education—this is an important improvement for families whose children want to continue in full-time education. The higher rate of child benefit is being extended to the fifth child from October next and new social assistance schemes are being introduced for widowers and deserted husbands who are bringing up children on their own.

The introduction of these new schemes means that the payments being made to a widower on supplementary welfare allowance with five children will increase from £80.80 per week to £115.30. This represents a very substantial increase of £34.50 per week. Some £1.4 million has been provided in this year's Estimate for these schemes which is equivalent to a full year expenditure of £5.7 million. These new schemes will come into effect from October next.

The Government have also this year directed additional resources towards low paid workers in two ways, first, by increasing the tax exemptions for low paid workers and, secondly, by making improvements in the family income supplement scheme and undertaking a major promotion of that scheme.

On the income tax side we increased the tax exemption limit to £6,000 for a married couple and brought in a new special tax exemption of £200 for each dependent child. This means that a couple with five children who have income of up to £7,000 a year will not now be liable for income tax. In addition, marginal relief is being applied where the couple's income does not greatly exceed the exemption limit.

Major improvements in the family income supplement scheme will take effect from next week. Overall expenditure on this scheme is being increased by 20 per cent to £6.1 million this year. The improvements include:

increases ranging from £2 to £21 a week in the maximum payments;

additional payments to families with six, seven and eight children;

an increase in the rate of supplement from 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the difference between family income and the relevant income limit;

the weekly income limits for receipt of payment will be increased by amounts ranging from £4 to £38 depending on family size; and

a reduction from 24 to 20 in the minimum hours of work required each week to benefit under the scheme. In the case of a two earner family, their hours worked now may be summed for eligibility.

In practical terms, the effect of these changes means that a family with five children who have a weekly income of £120 will qualify for a payment of £50 per week.

In addition to a new drive to promote FIS through information packs, fact sheets and community and other information services, we have also undertaken a major advertising campaign. The first indications of the success of this campaign, which Deputies will have noticed on the radio and in newspapers, are very positive. The average weekly claim intake has almost doubled. Telephone inquiries to my Department, following an initial peak, are now running at about twice their former daily average. It is too soon to fully assess the results of this campaign. Our information approach is aimed at maximising public awareness of our schemes and services. The response to the FIS advertising is gathering momentum as the message is repeated on radio and in the newspapers. I am confident that this response will be reflected in an increased take-up of the scheme. I want to pay tribute to the trade unions who have circulated their members with the information we have provided.

The FIS scheme has an important part to play in helping families of workers on low pay and will be kept under review. The scheme at present is designed for workers in full-time paid employment. I am examining the extent to which similar arrangements could be applied to other people on low earnings. Overall these initiatives show the determination of the Government to tackle the problem of low incomes, both for those at work and those who are unemployed.

Much of the pressure on the allocation of resources to social welfare has been eased by the introduction of more effective management and control. This ensures that resources are directed to those most in need and those genuinely entitled to support. Substantial savings have been achieved as a result of the measures I have taken over the past two years to combat fraud and abuses of the social welfare system.

These savings have helped me to devote additional resources to achieving greater equity within the social welfare system and to improving the position of those on the lowest payment levels. These savings are continuing and underlie the Estimate, resulting in a more cost effective and better directed service.

One measure I would like to mention in particular is the requirement I introduced for employers in certain industries—construction, cleaning, forestry and security — to notify me of all new employees taken on since 1 January 1989. For the first half of this year new employees notified in these sectors have totalled 7,850. These notifications are checked against an individual employee's social insurance and claims record to ensure that their social welfare record is in order. In about 250 cases some element of apparent fraud or abuse of the social welfare system was found and these cases are currently under investigation. A further 2,500 cases require further clarification though it is expected that most of these cases will in the event be found to be in order. This proves the effectiveness of this step as a control measure and as an important part of my fight against the abuse of social welfare. In the Social Welfare Act, 1989, I took powers to extend this arrangement to provide for notification where contractors or sub-contractors are engaged by employers in designated industries. The necessary regulations to implement this further step are in the course of preparation.

As I mentioned earlier, I will be bringing in new social assistance schemes for widowers and deserted husbands in October. The introduction of these new schemes represents a major step in bringing about equality of treatment between men and women in this area. Traditionally, the main responsibility for caring for children was assumed by mothers and the family was mainly supported by the income earned by the father. With the introduction of these new schemes, the Government have given recognition to the fact that widowers and deserted fathers may also be in this position. This Estimate provides for this major development, involving a substantial increase in income for those concerned.

With the introduction of these new schemes there will now be six separate social assistance schemes providing income support to lone parents. I am examining the possibility of replacing these schemes by one lone parent allowance scheme which would apply to parents, whether male or female, who are bringing up children on their own. Complex legislative changes will be required to provide for such a scheme but I hope to be in a position to bring forward proposals in this matter later in the year.

In line with the commitment given in the Programme for National Recovery, a detailed examination of the appeals system has been carried out. We are determined to ensure that this vital adjudication feature of the social welfare system is seen to be fair and independent by all our clients. We are committed to setting up a separate social welfare appeals office which will retain the best features of the present system in relation to accessibility, impartiality and efficiency. New procedures for processing appeals will be introduced and improved information will be given to clients.

Last year the number of new claims across all schemes requiring a formal decision was about 1.3 million. The number of appeals which were made amounted to only 17,000, less than 1.5 per cent.

The independence of appeals officers in the exercise of their functions is a vital part of the process. The courts have upheld that independence and clearly supported it. The main criticisms of the appeals system over the years have related to inadequate information about decisions, to the appeals procedures, to the right to an oral hearing and to the perception that appeals officers are too closely associated with the day-to-day operations of my Department. I will be addressing these issues over the coming months.

One of my priorities as Minister for Social Welfare will be to standardise means tests and introduce self assessment where practicable. I am examining how these assessments can be used to establish entitlement to schemes administered by my Department or other statutory agencies. This would simplify the process of claiming entitlements, reduce administrative costs and streamline the delivery of the services. I introduced a limited form of self assessment in unemployment assistance through desk top interviews. These have proved very successful. I am now examining the question of extending self assessment to other schemes. I hope to be in a position to announce details of the extension of self assessment and further standardisation of means tests later this year.

In introducing the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1989, in this House, I announced that the Government had decided on a fundamental review of the concept of the household for social welfare purposes. This examination, which is already under way, is being carried out by a review group under the chairmanship of Mr. John Curry who was formerly chairman of the Commission on Social Welfare. The function of the group is to identify ways in which the social assistance schemes could be adapted so as to ensure that the various household situations are treated in a consistent and equitable way. In the light of the outcome of this review, which is to be completed by November next, the Government will consider whatever changes are required in the system and these will be brought forward in time for next year's budget. The Oireachts will then have an opportunity to consider the various issues involved in the context of the associated Social Welfare Bill.

Deputies will be aware of my particular interest in making the social welfare system as flexible and as responsive as possible to the needs of the unemployed. I have taken a number of initiatives in this regard. The long-term unemployed from today have an option to receive either unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance, whichever is the more favourable to the individual claimant. This will remove any disincentive for the long-term unemployed in taking up short duration employment. Otherwise they could find that their rate of payment was reduced if they became unemployed again.

The part-time job incentive scheme provides the long-term unemployed with the opportunity to avail of the increase in part-time working which has been a notable feature of the labour market in recent years. Participants may work up to 24 hours and receive a weekly allowance of £30 for a single person or £50 for a married person with dependent spouse.

The educational opportunities scheme provides a second chance of education for older long-term unemployed persons who left school early. It is proposed to extend this scheme to a number of new centres in the autumn.

The part-time education initiative allows the unemployed to participate in part-time education courses without affecting their entitlement to unemployment payments.

The voluntary work option scheme is intended to encourage unemployed persons to get involved in voluntary work and to encourage voluntary organisations to involve the unemployed in their activities.

This year's Social Welfare Act enables me to make regulations deeming a person in certain circumstances to be available for work or to be exempted from the requirement to be available for work. I propose to make regulations under these provisions shortly providing that participation in certain educational courses will not affect entitlement to unemployment payments. I expect that this facility will be available to long-term unemployed persons in time for those who want to enroll in courses beginning in September. This latest initiative will complement the educational opportunities scheme and the facilities to undertake part-time education. Together they make the pursuit of educational qualifications a very real option for the long-term unemployed.

Other initiatives include a facility to allow unemployed persons to take up to two weeks holidays or to represent Ireland at international events while in both cases retaining their entitlement to unemployment payments.

In May last I announced new proposals for legislation to regulate occupational pension schemes. The necessary legislation is currently being drafted and I intend to introduce a pensions Bill before the House in the next session. This new legislation will be designed to protect the interests of members of occupational pension schemes.

Deputies will be aware of the substantial progress that has been made in improving the quality and the speed of the service we provide to the public. Our success in meeting changing and increasing demands on our social welfare system has been achieved through large scale computerisation, new management systems, revised working procedures, reorganisation of functions and the commitment on the part of the staff of my Department. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and pay tribute to their contribution.

Further progress now depends on the extent to which we can localise our services. This means providing a more comprehensive, more integrated, more streamlined and more secure service at local level. A key element in the localisation strategy is our continuing development of technology and the extension of our computer network. The new localised service means that the role of the local offices around the country will be expanded. All social welfare clients, not just the unemployed, will be able to claim or obtain information on their entitlements at local level. These local offices will give the public access to a more comprehensive and co-ordinated service. Closer working relationships will be established at local level with FAS, the health boards, the Revenue Commissioners and other State agencies.

A major development in our localisation plan and a radical departure for the provision of services to our clients took place yesterday with the opening of the new social welfare pensions office in Sligo. One hundred and fifty staff, formerly based in Dublin, were transferred to special purpose-built offices in Sligo as part of the Government's decentralisation programme. The transfer took place over last weekend with minimal disruption to clients. All old age pensions will now be serviced from Sligo. A further 150 staff covering survivors' and family benefits and allowances will transfer to Sligo before the end of the year. Special computer network facilities will allow for complete access from Sligo to all the data held centrally in Dublin. In addition special arrangements will allow for'phoning the Sligo officers at reduced rates which in most cases will be the cost of a local call.

We must ensure that information on social welfare is available to all when the need arises. I have taken a number of measures to develop our information service, for example, through closer co-operation with voluntary groups in providing information, through a new approach in advertising aimed at maximising public awareness of our schemes and services, through a policy of providing information stands at public events such as the Spring Show and by improving the content and design of our publications and information leaflets.

Our network of information offices in Dublin and around the country deals directly with inquiries from the public and distributes our booklets and information leaflets on all schemes and services. I am examining all options to ensure the best possible information service for our social welfare clients and the public at large.

The scheme of grants to voluntary organisations administered by my Department offers real support to voluntary organisations. Seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds was provided initially this year for grants to voluntary bodies engaged in providing services for deprived or disadvantaged persons in the following groups — children, young people, the elderly, families, single and abandoned parents, the disabled, the physically or mentally handicapped and other persons needing social services. So far, grants have been allocated to 100 organisations. In addition, a further sum of £100,000 has been provided for the loan guarantee fund to help those who need assistance to escape from the grip of moneylenders.

I launched a new grant scheme for voluntary bodies last July. In 1989, £50,000 has been made available for grants to voluntary bodies for schemes involving unemployed people in community and social services activities. This new grant scheme complements the voluntary work option.

A further £600,000 has been allocated to two other voluntary bodies—£500,000 to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and £100,000 to the Samaritans. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul will undertake, in consultation with me the expansion of their employment projects scheme, continue their programme of home management courses and develop their network of good as new shops. The special once-off grant to the Samaritans will enable them to develop their drop-in facilities and expand their outreach programme.

The Programme for National Recovery — The Next Phase and the Programme for Government 1989 — 1993 highlight the priorities in relation to social welfare for the next four years. I am particularly pleased that they endorse and continue the policies of protecting the less well off in our community and improving the levels of social welfare payments.

My Department provide very important services for a vast number of people. We are the largest spending Department in the State. Numerous issues arise trying to meet all the needs of such a large number of people. In the short time available to me today, it has been possible to touch on only a few of these issues. I look forward to the contributions from Deputies to this debate. I commend the Estimate to the House.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I think the House will agree with me that the way in which we deal with social welfare issues in this House is totally ridiculous.

Acting Chairman (Mrs. Barnes)

I want to remind the Deputy that he has 15 minutes.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I was just going to focus on that point. When one is talking about such a vast Estimate it is impossible to do anything other than touch on various parts in 15 minutes; it is not possible to make a full and comprehensive contribution. I am not a masochist and would not suggest that we should spend hours in this depressing chamber, but if we look at the overall position, there are only two debates on social welfare each year — the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, which gives effect to legislative changes in the budget, and a short debate on the Estimates. When we are dealing with the expenditure of £2,600 million a year— as the Minister said in his speech, £50 million per week—it is not just the enormity of the money which concerns me but also the number of people who are affected by the decisions we make. We are talking about over 750,000 social welfare recipients, with approximately 150,000 adult dependants, almost a million people. In that context the kind of decisions we make in this area require detailed analysis and adequate debate in this House. I want to strongly make the point that this is a change which must be made in the procedures of this House in the future.

One of my major disappointments when examining the joint programme for Government by the new coalition is that there is no evidence of any serious commitment to making an assault on poverty. This makes me wonder whether there is an acceptance of the extent of poverty in our country. We are all aware of the ESRI report, which was carried out for the Combat Poverty Agency, which stated very clearly and specifically that at least one in three of our population is living in financial poverty. My view on the attitude of this Government was reinforced by the remarks of the Taoiseach at the conclusion of the last Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis when he said he found it difficult to accept the percentage of our people found by the ESRI to be living on the poverty line. If there is no acceptance of the nature and extent of the problem, it is not surprising that there is so little emphasis being placed on the elimination of poverty in the programme for Government.

I accept that there is an enormous problem of poverty in this country. Furthermore, I accept that it is difficult to find answers to the problems of poverty during a period of financial stringency, but therein lies a challenge. We cannot allow the cancer of poverty of fester without having both the commitment and the policies to tackle it head on. The Minister outlined a series of changes which he has made over the past couple of years. I compliment him, but let me remind him that in the context of the size of the problem these changes, commendable as they are, are minor in relation to the type of fundamental reform which is needed to make some headway in the attack on poverty.

I want to make some proposals. First, I genuinely believe that a serious debate in this House would be helpful. It is absolutely ridiculous that the report of the Commission on Social Welfare which was produced three years ago has never been fully debated in this House. At a very minimum, we should resolve that there should be a serious debate in this House on the extent of the problem of poverty in our society and the kinds of reforms which are necessary to produce solutions.

Secondly, I am convinced that a major cause of poverty is unemployment. I am further convinced that the social welfare system contributes to unemployment. There are aspects of that system which are a serious disincentive to employment and job creation. If we accept that, then there is a duty on us all to try to root out those disincentives in the social welfare system to ensure that it is all systems go so far as job creation is concerned. We can only do this if we accept the fundamental point that unemployment is a major cause of poverty. I strongly believe this is so and for that reason I urge that not just the social welfare system but all systems of State should be trawled so as to eliminate those aspects which contribute to unemployment. It would be helpful from that point of view if an all party committee of this House were set up to examine fully the social welfare system and to suggest solutions along the lines I propose.

Thirdly, a major change needed is the establishment of a single eligibility test based on net income to measure entitlement on a graduated basis to all State means tested benefits. I will ignore the point made during the election campaign —I suppose it was a political point— that this was a return to the poor law. This was a deliberate misrepresentation of the proposal we had made. I am talking about means tested benefits and a single test which would allow entitlement on a graduated basis. This would ease the transition from the dole queue to employment. It would mean that there would be no automatic loss of medical cards and other benefits by somebody leaving the dole queue and taking up a job which might not be very well paid. At present there are 11 different means tests within the social welfare system, there are other means tests under the health board system for DPMA, medical cards, etc., there is a further test within the local authority system in regard to differential rents, there are means tests within the Department of Education for education grants and there are means tests for legal aid. There are a whole plethora of means tests but they make no sense whatsoever in the context of the waste of administrative resources and the pain and suffering caused to people who have to go through such a multiplicity of means tests.

During the last year for which figures are available, in the social welfare system alone over 250,000 means tests were carried out by 235 social welfare officers. This must be changed. The defects in the Government's programme are, first, that it is confined to social welfare and, secondly, that it does not provide that means tests will be changed to net income. This is the vital link between somebody on the dole and somebody who is taking up a job which may be poorly paid. What that person is concerned about is the amount of money that is going to be in his pocket. If he is assessed for his medical card on his gross pay, which he will not be getting into his pocket, and loses his medical card, there is no incentive for him to take up such a job. Accordingly, the Government proposal in this regard is utterly inadequate and I would very strongly urge the Minister to adopt the Fine Gael proposal.

Fourthly, the family income supplement scheme has great potential but, unfortunately, that potential is not being fully exploited by the Minister. There was a review of that scheme undertaken by an eminent university person who recommended changes. But what he has not highlighted at all is the fact that the consultant, John Blackwell, recommended a total change in the system. He recommended that we introduce here a system similar to that obtaining in the United Kingdom and, as far as I know, in every other country where there is a family income supplement, that is a change based on family credit, based on net income. Therefore the emphasis placed by the Minister on the changes announced, of an improvement, with an extra £1 million out of £2,600 million for the scheme is all wrong and unfounded. In so far as money is available this scheme should be recast. If there are choices to be made this should be a priority for any additional funding available.

At this stage I contend there must be substantial changes effected in payroll taxes. The Fine Gael Party proposed to abolish employee PRSI and health and training levies and to replace them by a 5 per cent employee levy. We must tackle this problem. The OECD have reported that, of all their member countries, our tax and welfare system is most biased against labour. If we are seriously interested in tackling unemployment, if we accept that the huge amount of unemployment here is a major cause of poverty, surely we must change this system which is inhibiting job creation.

Of all the measures by way of social welfare to help people there must be a continuing effort to help the long-term unemployed. I am not talking merely about special increases. I am talking about incentives to the long-term unemployed, if possible, to leave the dole queues. That is why I produced a number of proposals to encourage the employment of long-term unemployed. New, innovative measures are necessary if we are to achieve this goal. We must reform the supplementary welfare system to include low-paid workers. We must devise new proposals along the lines of exemption from the payment of payroll taxes for a limited period for a long-term unemployed person coming off the dole queue. We must think of an extension of the early retirement scheme down to age 55. We must talk about the exclusion of benefit deemed to arise from living at home for those aged over 25 and talk about the improvement of the position of those taking up temporary or part-time employment. The proposal we have made of appointing an official in labour exchanges to seek out provisions in that area for the long-term unemployed is useful. The responsibility given such an official to ensure a restoration of benefits and allowances after such jobs cease is also very important.

I am anxious that there be a concerted effort to remove the obvious anomalies obtaining within this system because, clearly, it is an unfair system as long as these are allowed to continue. Just to give the House an example, the 10 per cent artificial assessment against old age pensioners when in fact they may be receiving 3 per cent only from the bank after the imposition of deposit interest retention tax constitutes one such anomaly which must be abolished.

There must be much greater emphasis on support for children. Here the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare are very much to the point. I proposed the introduction of a "back to school" payment. The amount involved would not be enormous but, in the context of priorities, I urge the Minister to consider it when such proposals are being considered by the Cabinet in the future.

I want to see also an extension of the prescribed relative allowance. In this respect the Minister accepted my amendment to the last Social Welfare Bill. I want to see the category of persons to whom the prescribed relative allowance is available extended. Obviously that makes sense from an economic and social point of view. I want to see the establishment of the right to privacy for applicants for social welfare benefits and for people attending at other public offices, too. There is a whole series of other changes that time will not allow me debate now.

The joint programme for government is a major disappointment because it does not even acknowledge the existence of the extent of poverty in this country. There is no evidence that the new Government accept the extent of this problem. There is no evidence of a willingness to respond to it. Neither is there any evidence of a serious commitment to reform our system. On that basis I will be opposing this Estimate.

Mr. Pattison

I congratulate the Minister on his reappointment and wish him well for the duration of his reign.

I might first refer to the following statement of the Minister in his introductory remarks:

Over the past two years we maintained the value of all payments and also provided significant additional resources for special increases to those in greatest need.

That is a small part only of one's consideration of an Estimate. Any consideration of a Social Welfare Estimate must be prefaced by an examination of the overall record of the Minister introducing that Estimate. The most salient fact to point out in relation to Fianna Fáil's social welfare record is that it is one of cuts by stealth. Nobody can claim that Fianna Fáil have cut social welfare rates but that constitutes half the story only. What they have done is systematically cut the provision for social welfare by rendering social welfare entitlements progressively more difficult to obtain and by ensuring that fewer people have the entitlements they had heretofore. In the process they have engaged in a thorough attack on the rights of working people.

They have never admitted what they are doing. The process in which they have engaged, instead, is called "rationalisation" or "simplification" but, to those at the receiving end, the meaning of those terms is daily becoming clearer. For that reason workers especially will view with alarm any commitment in the new programme for government to continue this process of what is described as "rationalisation".

It is necessary to spell out in detail what the Fianna Fáil record on social welfare really represents. For instance, a family in receipt of child benefit will have received no increase in their rate of benefit since 1987. This represents a cut in real terms of 12 per cent in child benefit, affecting every family in the State. If a mature person has a claim for long-term disability benefit he or she will now need 260 paid contributions, that is five years constant employment, compared with 156 paid contributions a little over two years ago. Effectively that provision has deprived many claimants of benefit to which they had been entitled heretofore, particularly younger claimants who cannot get the kind of long-term employment that would give them the equivalent of five years paid contributions. Of course, if one has a claim to unemployment, maternity or disability benefit, the number of paid or credited contributions to render one eligible has been increased from 26 to 39. In the case of a widow, deserted wife, single parent, or prisoner's wife, they will no longer be entitled to claim the half rate payment of disability benefit, maternity allowance or unemployment supplement that obtained as of right up to January 1988.

Similarly, in the case of the dental and optical treatment scheme, now a claimant must have 207 paid or credited contributions as against 156 in January 1987 and 39 contributions in the claim year as against 26 in January 1987. This has deprived many people of their just entitlement. Recently I had a case of an insured person who had over ten years paid up stamps who went to the US on an extended holiday for six months—he got six months leave of absence from his employment—and came back. After a few months he claimed dental benefit and even though there was never any previous claim the claim was disallowed on the basis that he had less than 39 contributions in the governing year. That is fraud on the part of the Department and the Government who think up those cut backs which deprive people who have an excellent record of insurance contributions. This is one of the many examples of the results of these cuts which I come across daily. Thousands of people have had their social welfare entitlements taken from them by this Government.

Another example of the policy of this Government relates to the social employment scheme. The allowance payable to a single person was reduced by £10 per week, from £70 to £60, and the allowance under the Teamwork scheme was also reduced by the Fianna Fáil Government from £70 to £60. Pay-related, unemployment, disability and maternity benefit entitlements have been cut in half. The rates of 25 per cent and 20 per cent have been reduced to 12 per cent. The floor for pay-related benefit has been raised to £68 per week which means that the maximum pay-related benefit has been reduced again. Entitlement to private rent payment under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme has been cut by £1.50 per week. The number of free fuel vouchers has been reduced by four, which costs the recipient £20. A number of different categories of people have been excluded altogether from the scheme. The discretion that used to be available to community welfare officers to deal with cases of hardship has been removed.

I should like to refer to the unfortunate predicament of those who are permanently disabled, one of the most disadvantaged categories in our society. They must now have five years insurable employment in order to qualify for an invalidity pension whereas in the past it was three years. I think this fraudulently deprives young workers in particular who through no fault of their own are permanently disabled either following a serious illness or accident. Unless they are lucky enough to have had almost five continuous years of paid insurable employment they will never be able to qualify for invalidity pension as a result of a decision by the Fianna Fáil Government during the past two years. I call for a review of some of these cutbacks which have been made because they are depriving people who are genuinely in need and genuinely entitled to these benefits. This is particularly the case with the young people because they would not have had the opportunity to chalk up five years continuous work.

One of the meanest cuts of all was in relation to the allowance which was known as the breadwinner's allowance whereby the widow of a recently deceased social welfare recipient was entitled to claim his social welfare benefit for a period of six weeks after his death. That has been abolished if the surviving person has a pension or a social welfare entitlement in their own right. This was something which even the Minister was totally against in the context of the equality legislation. He and his colleagues are on the record of this House as being totally against talking benefits from people as a result of the EC directive. The Minister immediately hid behind this directive in order to justify this action. The payment for six weeks following the death of a social welfare recipient was of great benefit to the widow. I cannot recall what Minister or what Government introduced it but it was a far-reaching measure and it did not cost very much because it was deducted from the widow's pension subsequently. I compliment whoever brought it in because it was an enlightened piece of social legislation and a sympathetic one.

In relation to the transfer of the pension section to Sligo, I hope this will not result in any delay in returning pension books to the surviving dependant. Where the pensioner dies and the book has to be sent back to the Department in order to have the name changed — which process may take a week — I suggest that the necessary power be given to the local social welfare officer to carry out that function. I do not think any risks would be taken if the family of the deceased could approach a local social welfare officer and arrange for the change to be made there and then because it is in the days immediately following the death of someone in receipt of social welfare that the money is needed. It does not arise if the person is in receipt of unemployment assistance or benefit because the local employment exchange can arrange it quickly. Perhaps the Minister will have a look at this matter because he referred to arrangements being made locally in his brief here today. It is a very simple matter. It could be arranged without too much trouble and it would be of immense benefit to those affected.

I would like to mention a few other matters in relation to the Minister's address to the House. I note that he is making provision whereby people can opt either for unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit depending on which is higher. I would have preferred if the Minister increased all benefits so that there would not be the anomaly which we have at present. The anomaly will be more obvious because of the increases in unemployment assistance but the Minister overcomes this problem — if I understand his statement correctly — by simply giving the claimant freedom to choose whatever rate suits. This, of course, relieves the Minister of the obligation to equalise the rates upwards as he has done in the famous Hyland case where he rushed legislation through in this House reducing all the rates in order to comply with the court decision. If he was really concerned about fair treatment he would have increased all rates.

The case for making provision in the family income supplement scheme for the self-employed is getting stronger every day because there are many redundant workers trying to eke out a living and who are lucky to clear £50 or £60 per week. They are doing their best to try to avoid claiming unemployment assistance or benefit. Those with families would far prefer to continue working at what they are doing if they could get a supplement to their resources. I ask the Minister to examine this suggestion in the context of expanding the family income supplement scheme as there is a very great need for such a change.

I am very disappointed that the Minister has not mentioned the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. We do not know the mind of the Minister on this because he has not mentioned it during the course of his address to the House this evening. There is significance in that but I hope the Minister has not consigned the report to the wastepaper basket.

Dr. Woods

I took it off the shelf where the former Coalition Government had left it.

Mr. Pattison

It had not been on the shelf too long at that stage. There were other matters that had been on the shelf far longer. Perhaps in his reply, the Minister will tell us what he is doing with that report?

Proinsias De Rossa

The Workers' Party will be opposing the Estimate today because we consider the amount allocated to be inadequate, given the appalling levels of poverty that exist in this country. However, that is in no way to deny the advances the Minister has made and as other Deputies have done I welcome the Minister's reappointment to the Department of Social Welfare. There is no doubt that he has rationalised and made certain improvements in the system. Nevertheless it is still totally inadequate and does not seriously address the problem of poverty in our society.

Social Welfare cannot be seen as a solution to poverty but it should act as a safety net to protect those in need from the worst effects of the poverty that our society permits so many people to live in. This Estimate is inadequate in that respect. Saying that the moneys allocated will ensure that most people on social welfare will not be any worse off than in previous years or that they will be even slightly better off is not good enough. a major initiative is needed urgently to tackle the problem of poverty. Despite the fact that more than one million people are directly affected by poverty it was clear from the recent general election that poverty does not feature to any serious extent on the agenda of all of the right wing parties. In fact the level of poverty is now worse than has been the case at any time since the fifties.

As I have pointed out repeatedly over the past two and a half years and as research shows, using a cut-off line of £48 per week, which is 60 per cent of average disposable income, means that 34 per cent of the people are living in poverty. That has been borne out by the ESRI report on poverty. That report reflects one of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken in this area. We are talking about a level of income that condemns men, women and children to grinding misery and life in a twilight world in which none would wish to live and in which I am sure none would wish that anyone else would have to live in either. That report found that the low paid households headed by an unemployed person, households with several children and farming households stood out as the three main groups vulnerable to poverty. The report points to the increasing impact of unemployment and to the fact that 33 per cent of all households with less than 50 per cent of the average disposable income are headed by unemployed persons. This level of poverty is the dark side of Fianna Fáil's self-proclaimed economic miracle. Our exports of goods and services and indeed people have boomed but the promised increase of employment, the quid pro quo for years of wage moderation, has not materialised. Yet we are told that cuts in social spending and not just cuts in pay are the key to jobs and prosperity.

The Workers' Party do not accept that poverty is inevitable or that the poor should always be with us. Poverty is not some kind of natural disaster, it is a man made phenomenon. There is nothing inevitable about it. It is caused by deliberate choices being made regarding economic and social policies. These economic and social policies derive from political ideologies. Poverty can be ended by making different policy choices.

Ireland is not a poor little country that will always need help. We have considerable wealth and important resources, with considerable potential deriving from that wealth and resources. What is lacking is the political will to use them in a socially responsible and equitable manner for the benefit of all the people rather than for a tiny elite who continue to live comfortable and luxurious lives. The advent of 1992 presents both challenges and opportunities for this country and The Workers' Party want to ensure that 1992 will mean more than the removal of customs barriers and obstacles to trade, that it must also mean harmony between economic and social objectives and policies, harmonisation of tax and social welfare systems and harmonisation of living standards at the best European levels. It must mean that people in Ireland have incomes they can live on in comfort and dignity.

During the last election The Workers' Party produced a policy document on poverty in which we pointed out the various steps that need to be taken to combat poverty in the short term. We sought the immediate introduction of a positive anti-poverty programme which would make real inroads into the problems of poverty and inequality before 1992. We want Ireland to enter the single market in a state of balanced economic and social development and not with bitter divisions or wide extremes of wealth and poverty or seething social problems and a begging bowl in each hand for our European partners to keep filling. In our document we have set out a basic programme for dealing with poverty and we are determined that the issue will not be ignored particularly by other parties in this House. I urge other parties to spell out their policies on how the problem of poverty should be dealt with. Are we to assume that they have nothing to say to the poor and the disadvantaged except that they must wait for better times?

Among the immediate steps we want to see taken in the social welfare area is a minimum social welfare payment of £50 per week this year rising to £63 per week in 1991. That would be the updated equivalent of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. We want to see payment of the full personal rate of social welfare to all persons who are part of the labour force, those who are normally employed or who want to be employed, irrespective of their sex, family of marital status. We want to see 70 per cent of the relevant rate of social welfare for adults who are dependent on other adults and who do not wish to take up employment paid directly to the adult concerned unless they decide otherwise. We want to see the replacement of existing payments in respect of dependent children by a tiered system which would provide 40 per cent of the adult dependant rate for those under 15; 55 per cent for those between 15 and 18 with 70 per cent for those over 18 years of age who live at home. The removal of all remaining sex discrimination and victimisation on the basis of marital or family status is also another requirement. However, primarily and as a basis for the changes we are proposing, it is essential that the Government we now have introduce minimum wage legislation to end the exploitation of women, young workers and other vulnerable groups. There is also urgent need to introduce legislation to protect part time workers, most of whom are women and young workers.

I note from the programme which was agreed by the current Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats administration that they will try by way of the social welfare system, specifically through the FIS scheme, to improve the lot of those on low pay. While that is laudable, it is not a solution to the problem of exploitation which many employers engage in. It is in many cases simply a subsidy for bad employers who refuse to provide the kind of protection which their employees are entitled to. If we are talking seriously about the question of a social partnership in this State, a social partnership which will help to prepare this country to take its place in the European Community, then legislation must be implemented to protect those who are least able to protect themselves. It is not good enough to say, as some people have said, that it is a matter for each individual country to provide this protection. We have seen, and we know that employers in their own right or of their own volition will not provide the protection part time workers need. Therefore, it is essential that the Government introduce the kind of legal protection the people I am referring to need urgently. I am sure the Minister will say this is a matter for the Department of Labour and I acknowledge that but nevertheless his remit in relation to social welfare automatically covers the people to whom I am referring. It is in his interests to press at the Cabinet table for the kind of protection I am talking about for part time workers and for women workers in particular who make up most of the part-time workforce in this country, a growing workforce.

It is essential to do this from the point of view of our integration with the European Community. Other members of the European Community have talked about the problem of social dumping as it is called, this Euro-speak to which Deputy Dukes refered earlier, which simply means that big employers, multinationals in particular, will locate their enterprises, factories and businesses in those countries in the European Community which provides the least protection for workers. They will drift willy nilly towards Ireland because we are one of those countries which provides least protection. I urge the Minister strongly to take on board the points I am making.

I would like the Minister to address himself to a number of issues, but not necessarily today because he may not have time. The Combat Poverty Agency have under their control a number of projects around the country which have been running for just three years and their funding will end shortly. It is essential that the people engaged in these projects know soon whether the funding will be extended, particularly as many of them are engaged in long-term planning. I would ask the Minister to address himself to that particular point.

I would also like to refer to an amendment of mine with regard to disability benefit which the Minister accepted during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, 1989. He acknowledged the point I made that in many cases people are charged with abusing the social welfare system, they are fined and subsequently their disability benefit is withdrawn. This means there is a double penalty involved. The Minister agreed to reduce the penalty from six months' loss of benefit to three months' loss of benefit. I found out since then that unfortunately this applies only to disability benefit and does not apply to unemployment benefit. This means that in trying to deal with one anomaly we have created a second one. Those on disability benefit can lose their benefit for three months as a result of a charge in court while those on unemployment benefit can lose it for six months. I would ask the Minister to look at that as a matter of urgency.

I want to raise the question of the appeals system, particularly in relation to disability benefit appeals. Some people produce medical evidence from some of the best medical practitioners in the State, consultants of one kind or other, certifying that because of illness they are unfit for work, but the appeals system finds them fit for work. I do not understand how this can be, nor do the people who suffer as a result of these decisions. I cannot understand how a person, who in most cases is not a medical practitioner, can dispute the expertise of a medical practitioner — a consultant who specialises in the particular ailment and is giving his views on that ailment — and decide against the evidence that the person is fit for work. I would ask the Minister to look at the basis on which these decisions are made because a lot of hardship is being caused as a result of these decisions. The time is short and I appreciate the Minister's patience listening to so many cribs and groans, but it is important that he is aware of what is being said outside this House.

Mr. D. Wallance

This system provides for a large increase in the resources devoted to the less well off in our society at a time of economic difficulty. The Government have provided an extra £256 million over the last two years to those on social welfare. For a family of five children on long-term unemployment assistance this means an increase of £29.10 in a weekly income over two years. This is more than three times the amount provided by the Coalition Government — an increase of £9.20 — in their last two budgets.

We hear a lot from the Opposition parties about the needs of the people on social welfare. When two of those parties had an opportunity in Government to do something positive about it they were unable or unwilling to do so. Fianna Fáil policy represents a practical commitment to low income families with children. The Minister has directed resources to those families in greatest need. The cost of the extra provision for children in this year's social welfare package is £42 million per annum. This includes the increases for children dependent on social welfare and for those whose parents are at work and on low pay. This action in the last two budgets is designed to tackle poverty as a priority. Unfortunately, the pressure groups and interest groups are unwilling to acknowledge that major progress has been made.

I do not wish to convey the impression that everything has been achieved. Far from it; we have a long way to go. We must continue to improve the income position of the long-term unemployed. In doing so, however, we will also have to provide them with every opportunity to become part of the labour force again. I made this point forcibly in the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, 1989. As a result, the Minister introduced an amendment to enable him to exempt persons from the requirement of having to be available for work in certain controlled circumstances to qualify for unemployment assistance. I welcomed that initiative at the time. It was of particular interest to a group of long-term unemployed people in my constituency who formed the Knocknaheeny support group. This voluntary self-help group established a co-operative society to encourage the long-term unemployed to take up employment with the co-op. Their intention was that people with skills who are out of work for a number of years should be given an extra incentive to get back to work. For people who have not experienced the depressing effect of long-term unemployment, it is not possible to understand the difficulties experienced by those people trying to get back to work.

The idea is that people would agree to work for the co-op for up to one year. They would continue to draw their unemployment payments and receive an additional sum, preferably through the extension or development of the family income supplement, to meet expenses incurred. I am disappointed that this scheme has not yet been approved. The support group are ready to proceed. They have a range of projects on hand and they want to deal with them. All they need now is clearance to take on unemployed people. This is in the best interests firstly of the unemployed, secondly of the people of the area and, finally, of society as a whole. If the Minister is having difficulty meeting the legal requirements, I would ask him to consider approving this group as a pilot project, pending finalisation of a detailed countrywide arrangement.

The people of Cork deserve this opportunity to fulfil their potential. They have developed this idea to help themselves. I support them fully and I note the Minister does also. It is now time for action. Perhaps the Minister will consider visiting this support group in the near future. Their approach on the question of flexibility in the unemployment payment system is similar to the Minister's. They have made constructive suggestions and are looking for a speedy, favourable response.

I would like to refer to a number of areas of concern in the social welfare system. Certainly they are of major concern to me and many other Deputies in this House and I mention them in a constructive manner for urgent attention by the Minister. Deputy De Rossa mentioned the medical referee system. The first area of widespread concern is the operation of that system. There is a clear need for control on claims for disability benefit. The effectiveness of the Minister's approach can be gauged from the significant reduction of some 13,000 in the numbers on disability benefit since he took office in March 1987. This has not been achieved without creating difficulties on the ground for the recipients. Many people complain of the cursory examination to which they are subjected when called before a medical referee. I understand the Minister has taken action here but I wonder to what effect?

A more important issue is the extent to which medical referees appear to ignore reports submitted by consultants. I call on the Minister to undertake a radical overhaul of this system and engage his own consultants to examine difficult and contentious cases. I am sure the Minister is aware of the disbelief experienced by disability benefit recipients and many public representatives like myself at some of the decisions reached. It is no longer sufficient to say the Department have qualified doctors carrying out this function. The Minister as a matter of urgency must engage consultants to examine the difficult and contentious cases. This would ease people's concerns and make the system be seen to be fair and impartial.

Many people called before medical referees find themselves in a "Catch 22" situation. I can give the Minister several instances and I know other public representatives in the House whom I have spoken to speak in a similar vein about people called before the medical referee being cut off from disability benefit. Some of those people have been hospitalised a week or two later and have operations, receiving disability benefit while they were in hospital. When they come back out they are cut off again unless they have another medical examination. This is an unsatisfactory position for a lay person to find himself in because of divisions or whatever in the medical profession.

I would like to refer to social welfare staff. The Minister has committed himself to improving the quality and delivery of social welfare services. He has taken a number of initiatives. A number of constituents have complained about the lack of courtesy and fairness from a small number of social welfare staff, and I emphasise a small number. This arises particularly in means testing and applies even in the case of old age pensioners. Some staff members employed in permanent, pensionable jobs seem insensitive to the position of people making claims for social welfare payments. I ask the Minister to look into that area.

One example I give is the free electricity scheme. The recent crackdown on abuse of the free electricity scheme has caused considerable difficulties for many old age pensioners. Many were granted the allowance some years ago since when they have grown older and some of them have taken in a member of their family, in some cases a single member on unemployment assistance. In the absence of any apparent controls or checks by the Department in so many years these people have been receiving allowances for some time when according to the strict letter of the law they may not have been so entitled. I ask the Minister to review the hardship imposed particularly on some of these elderly people and grant them some form of exemption. I am not suggesting there should be widespread abuse of the system but there are areas where people must be more humane in their approach, and this is not the case with some people carrying out investigations into these matters.

The general increase of 3 per cent for social welfare payments will maintain the position of all claimants. The special increase of 12 per cent for the long-term unemployed and 8 per cent for people on supplementary welfare allowance gives those on the lowest payments a further substantial rise this year. These increases show the Government's continued concern to improve the position of those dependent on social welfare. They more than meet the commitments of the Programme for National Recovery which was agreed with the social partners.

A major development is the abolition of the low rural rate of unemployment assistance by increasing this rate, and consequently the rate of supplementary welfare allowance, to the higher urban rate. From today the higher urban rate will apply throughout the country and this is to be welcomed.

This year the Government again approved a further special package aimed at the less well off. Fianna Fáil appreciate the special difficulties faced by the long-term unemployed and I am pleased the Minister has increased the long-term personal rate of unemployment assistance by a further £5 a week. The person on long-term rate of unemployment assistance will now receive £47 per week. A married couple bringing up three children on long-term unemployment assistance will get £8.20 extra per week, bringing their total to £107. A family with five children will get an extra £11.40 per week, bringing them to £127 per week. They will all get an increase in child benefit. Taken together with the increases given last year, these payments have risen by almost 25 per cent since last July. They represent a considerable improvement for those dependent on social welfare payments.

I welcome the other important initiatives the Minister has taken to improve social welfare which are provided for in this Estimate. These are new social assistance schemes for widowers and deserted husbands. Coming into effect in October, they will mean a real increase for people in that situation. The Minister earlier this year imposed a liability on deserting husbands or wives to maintain the deserted wife or husband, as the case may be, and the children. I ask the Minister what progress has been made in this area. Will there be any benefit to the taxpayer from this provision this year?

The Minister has radically streamlined and restructured social welfare payments. I ask him to continue this progress and introduce a single social assistance payment. Could he also streamline the wide range of PRSI contribution classes? There are a number of such classes which appear to cover a small number of employees. The number of rates adds to the complexity of the system.

I am very pleased with the decision to allow pensioners to carry over unused units of electricity from one billing period to the next and improvements in the free fuel scheme. These positive improvements are very beneficial to the people. I may sound somewhat critical of the Minister, but I compliment him in that it is very clear since he came into office two and a half years ago that Deputy Woods has shown his commitment, his concern and his knowledge of the problems on the ground. I look forward to the next three to four years to seeing him revolutionise and modernise the system and eliminate many of the anomalies in social welfare. If he makes changes and improvements similar to those of the past two and a half years, then this time two and a half years hence I am sure we will have a much better system for all the community.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Nuala Fennell. It has been indicated to me that the Deputy will share her time, that four minutes of her time will be given to Deputy Boylan.

Mrs. Fennell

I would like to make a brief contribution on this debate. My contribution will probably be a repetition of some of the points made already by speakers. However, I would like to start by congratulating the Minister on his reappointment. I trust that in the next four years he will mount an aggressive assault on the levels of poverty and deprivation in our society. I know that is not what his Department are all about, that they are involved in other areas of payments, but I think we all agree this is the area of priority.

Social welfare payments are not, of course, the answer to poverty and the difficulties many people suffer. While unemployment is so high—there are vast areas where the unemployment rate is 19 or 20 per cent—substantial and worthwhile payments are essential. There is a welfare culture building up in which whole families have to use their time, initiative and resources to find out how they can get as many payments as possible since nobody in the family is working. Nobody would want to be in receipt of welfare payments instead of working, and we must ensure that our efforts towards creating full employment are as strenous as possible.

I commend the Minister on his approach to his brief and on some of his achievements in wrenching the payment of benefits and assistance from the image of poor law times and attempting to bring the operations of his Department into the 20th century. I refer to simple changes in recent years, such as the provision of information literature, telephone access to specific areas of the Department, television and radio advertisements and especially the family income supplement.

I have been paying more than usual attention to the Official Report, catching up on details of debates in this House during the past two years, and I was interested to see a number of initiatives. I am particularly pleased with the changes in the prescribed relative allowances, which came about following amendments put down by the Opposition and accepted by the Minister. This allowance which was a bone of contention for so long can now be paid directly to the carer instead of to the person receiving the care. It is an essential move in what I hope will be fundamental changes ensuring meaningful community care away from institutions, whether for old age pensioners, those rehabilitating or the handicapped. Many of the 2,000 people affected by this allowance will welcome the fact that it will be paid to them as a right. I hope the objective will be to expand the numbers receiving this allowance and to increase payments. I concur with the suggestion that the recommendation by the Commission on Social Welfare should be examined so that the payment would be commensurate with unemployment assistance. The Minister mentioned this in his speech.

Although there have been changes for the better, we have a long way to go to ensure that nobody falls through the net in areas where they are entitled to benefit or are in need. Our system should not cause humiliation or embarrassment to those seeking help. I wonder if there are many cases like that of a man in his eighties living with his daughter in a middle class Dublin south area. I came across this case in my constituency by accident. The daughter has a pleasant house and her husband is working. She also has four children, with all the costs that involves. Her father has absolutely no income. He never accumulated enough payments to give him a contributory old age pension. He moved from one of his children to another but has been living with this daughter for the past ten years. He has a small nest egg which is probably enough to bury him. He thinks he is not entitled to a non-contributory pension and is a very proud man who is afraid to be seen to look for something to which he is not entitled. I persuaded him to apply for the non-contributory old age pension and I have no doubt that he will qualify when his circumstances are realised.

There is also an anomaly in the disabled person's allowance. The case to which I will refer was published in The Irish Times of 10 July. I had written previously to the health board about this constituent. I will give the case in outline and the Minister might say whether there is an anomaly. It concerns a 19 year old man who is mentally handicapped and gets no disability benefit. All he receives is £3.50 per week. He attends a sheltered training workshop quite a distance from his home and has to pay £8.80 for bus fares and lunches each week. He has been assessed by the National Rehabilitation Board as likely to require supervision in any work situation. It has been made known to the health board that he is not fit for work but he has been refused disability or maintenance benefit. This is putting a great strain on his family who have three children at home and one other who is handicapped by a severe mental problem. I would ask the Minister to see whether there is an anomaly which might be affecting other people in this category and to consider the matter compassionately.

An issue of considerable concern is the dental scheme for spouses of insured workers. When the Taoiseach was pressed at Question Time today on measures affecting women introduced by the previous Government he was obviously too embarrassed to mention that the dental scheme was one of the initiatives taken in the past two years. Perhaps he had good reason not to mention this scheme since it is not working. It is a good idea and I was one of those who welcomed it. In my entire constituency there are only two dentists in the scheme for approximately 68,000 people, although I do not know how many qualifying spouses would be included in that number. The Minister must see what can be done because responsibility lies with him. At the end of the day matter will have to be resolved. Why not sooner rather than later?

I would seek clarification regarding the payment of unemployment assistance to a man who is living apart from his wife and children. In the past a disproportionate amount was paid to the wife and children which was inadequate and was not seen as fair. There is a proposed change and I should like some information from the Minister whether it is discretionary. It is important that the requirements of the wife and children should be dealt with reasonably.

I very much welcome the allowance payable to deserted husbands. The fact that there was not an allowance comparable to the deserted wife's allowance caused a great deal of hardship in many homes.

The Minister's Department has become computerised. I saw the system in the RDS and was hugely impressed. This will be a great asset to the Department. Would it not be a good idea since the Department have all the names concerned and details of benefit etc. to provide for everybody in the system a printout telling them what their entitlements are and which they could keep safely, thus avoiding confusion, misinformation and whatever?

I am pleased at the changes and initiatives that have been taken but we still have a long way to go.

Mr. Boylan

I would like to thank Deputy Fennell for giving me the opportunity of making a contribution.

First I would like to congratulate the Minister on his reappointment. I am disappointed with the last Government's attitude to the rural population with regard to entitlements—whether it be small farmers' assistance, old age pension or widows' allowances—where those concerned have small holdings. That is the main thrust of what I want to say in regard to the Minister's presentation which, on the face of it, seems to be very presentable. However, there is no change in attitude towards the section of the community to which I refer.

I would ask the Minister to improve the facilities where the unemployed queue up to collect benefit. It is sad that they have to queue up on perhaps a main street at a little cubby hole or some such shabby office regardless of what the weather is like. Those people are being humiliated. Is this approach an effort to try to drive them off the queue? They are entitled to their dignity like everybody else. I would like the Minister to make a particular effort to ensure that proper facilities are provided for people queuing for the dole.

Harassment of the long-term unemployed is unnecessary. Employers are now liable to report the names of people they employ. This is by way of ensuring that those employed are not receiving unemployment benefit. However, I have heard of numerous cases of people being investigated, had their unemployment assistance withdrawn and, as a result, having to turn to the health board for supplementary help. In 90 per cent of such cases the payments are authorised to be recommenced. My complaint is that while these payments are backdated there is a period during which these people are sent to another area to get the means to support their families. There should be a better system of investigation.

My main point is in relation to the small farmers allowance, the old age pension and the widows' allowance for people who have small farms. The way these people are being treated is nothing short of a national disgrace. The assessments on these small holdings are ridiculous. I have brought this matter to the Minister's attention time and again, the Minister having asked me to forward him the information. I have here a typical example which came to hand just last night. It is the case of a widow with 27 acres on which she had one cow and three other cattle. The mighty masters of agriculture who came to assess this woman's income assessed it at £38.97 per week on the basis of her holding which is described as land of poor quality. If farmers could generate that sort of income from 27 acres there would be no national debt. These assessments are not relevant. It would be impossible to make £40 a week on a holding like that. This unfortunate woman was allowed £19.70 per week. Even 27 good acres will managed would not give anything like that sort of income. This woman's late husband was handicapped. Before his death she had £143 per week income. She is now down to £19.70 a week and this caring Department of Social Welfare say she should be able to get by on that. In fact the stock she had on the farm were sold off to pay funeral expenses. This sort of thing is happening across the board. I do not want to be deemed negative in my approach. There are many improvements outlined in this document but there is still the problem of the harassment of people on small holdings in rural areas who are not getting their due entitlements. I would ask the Minister, for God's sake, to have a fresh look at this and give those people what they are entitled to, the allowances that will give them dignity to rear their families and have the same comforts as people in the urban areas have. It is mentioned that urban and rural rates have been equalised. That is not the case.

Dr. Woods

Today.

Mr. Boylan

That equalisation will not come about as long as the Department have people such as the present assessors making the assessments. What sort of qualifications have they got? They have absolutely no knowledge of the matters they are investigating. I would like to give those people 27 acres of land and ask them to live on it for a period of six months. I am sure they would reach starvation before the end of such time. This is just one example. I am sure other Deputies could cite many more.

I would like to have gone into more detail on other items but because my time was so brief I could not. I am sure the Minister has got the message. I know him to be a caring man who will take on board the problem I am highlighting.

Mr. Morley

First I would like to ask if I could give five minutes of my time to my colleague, Deputy John Browne.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Stafford)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Morley

Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a chur in iúl don Aire as ucht a athcheaptha mar Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh. Tá Súil agam go leanfaidh sé ar aghaidh leis an feabhas a bhí á dhéanamh aige ar na seirbhísí agus na scéimeanna éagsúla sa Roinn.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on his reappointment to the Department of Social Welfare and I look forward to his continuing with the streamlining and improvement of the various schemes and services delivered by that Department. I wish him well in his efforts.

I would like to welcome also the improvements which the Minister outlined today in the various schemes administered by his Department. I would particularly like to welcome the drop of 30,000 which has taken place since he took office in the number of those unemployed.

This Department are one of the most important Departments in the State not just because of the vast sums they administer, amounting to £2.6 billion, but also because it is the Department of Government with which almost every member of the public comes in contact at some stage. Perhaps because of that the public are more aware of its workings, the shortcomings and the plusses, too. That Department, therefore, come in for more criticism than any of the other Departments of State.

I, too, have some criticisms to offer. I hope the Minister will find these constructive and helpful. They are not intended to be negative or vindictive.

The wide range of the Department's activities makes it impossible to give anything approaching comprehensive cover in the short time available so I will confine myself to making a few points which I think are important. These concern areas that are in great need of reform and to which I would ask the Minister to particularly direct his attention and energies so that he might improve on the matters concerned in this his second term in the Department.

Before criticising, it is only fair to say that the vast majority of cases dealt with by the Department are dealt with speedily, efficiently and humanely. The problems seem to be confined largely to three specific schemes, the unemployment assistance scheme, the disability benefit scheme and the straightforward claims which would belong in the category of the 80 per cent to which I referred but in the case of which something has gone wrong with the processing because some query has been raised or some certificate has not been submitted or some form has not been properly completed. Such claims get into difficulty and it seems to take an inordinate amount of time to correct the problems and get the processing of the claim back on course so that the applicant can receive his entitlement within a reasonable time. It should take only a matter of days, if not hours, to remedy such cases, not weeks as it takes at present often keeping a client waiting in great need and in great distress.

The problems relating to the unemployment assistance and disability benefit schemes stem from the delays and the means testing system which applies. The means testing system is totally unsatisfactory, as has already been referred to by many speakers. It is particularly unsatisfactory where it applies to the small farming community and people with meagre means. I welcome the abolition of the differential between the urban and rural rates of assistance. It should be possible to bring a greater degree of standardisation to the means testing system and to devise a system that can be clearly understood by the applicants so that they can establish their means for social welfare purposes. Until the system is reformed means testing will remain an irritant in the system and members of the public will feel they are being harshly treated by social welfare officers and that they are not getting their entitlements.

About 95 to 99 per cent of social welfare officers administering the scheme deal with applicants in a very humane fashion and are as efficient as the system allows but unfortunately the public find some individuals more difficult to deal with. There should be some effort in the Department to implement a training scheme for social welfare officers who will deal with members of the public. People from a city background are often sent out to rural areas. They do not fully understand rural economic activity and there is a certain antipathy on the part of these officers even at the commencement of their investigations.

Delays in processing applications can in part be accounted for by the general cutbacks in public expenditure but that is not the full story. Many of the delays are unacceptable and should be significantly reduced or eliminated. I have a particular sympathy for young people in third level education who when home for the summer apply for unemployment assistance when they cannot get a summer job. There are inordinate delays in having these claims processed and in many cases in assessing means the social welfare officer grossly overvalues means because the young people are living with parents. We need a reform here urgently. It is pathetic to see young people having waited two or three months to have claims processed being awarded a sum of 70p or a few pounds a week.

With regard to disability benefit it is not just the delays which are an irritant but the frequency with which some people are recalled for medical examination. In some cases where the claimant is visibly disabled this frequent recalling for medical examination amounts to harassment. There should not be a need for a medical examination two or three times a year in those cases. Even in more borderline cases and up-to-date certificate from the family medical consultant should be acceptable.

I would not want the Minister to think I wish to facilitate abuse of the system or that I would condone such abuse. Those guilty of abuse should be weeded out so that the £2,600 million available for distribution can be distributed to those who actually need it. Because of the huge numbers seeking assistance the money available for distribution amounts to a very meagre weekly allowance for applicants. That is all that the economy can afford at the moment and it underlines why people abusing the system should be weeded out so that every effort can be made to ensure that all the money available goes to those who are entitled to it.

Acting Chairman

I would remind the Deputy he has agreed to share his time and he has only three minutes left.

Mr. Morley

No person genuinely entitled to benefit should be harassed or deprived of benefit. I do not condone the use of mere technicalities by the Department to disqualify someone from benefit. I am referring to cases where an application form will not arrive on time or a certificate will not arrive on time. We all know of the vagaries of the post especially at certain times of the year. The failure of a document to arrive is not a sufficient justification to disqualify a person from benefit or assistance.

The sum available for distribution is a huge sum of money and there must be meticulous book-keeping in order to account for it. However, my contention is that the Department should have a heart as well as a head and where there are deficiencies in this area I look to the Minister to put them right.

Acting Chairman

I call on Deputy Barnes. The Deputy has three minutes. I must call on the Minister to conclude at 5.33 p.m.

Mrs. Barnes

I welcome this opportunity to make a contribution, even if it will only last three minutes. Let me take up some of my precious time in congratulating the Minister on his reappointment. I hope he will continue to strive to achieve the kind of social welfare system people feel they deserve and is worth subscribing to.

Let me put a number of questions to the Minister. If the Minister does not have time to answer them the might take a note of them. Like other Deputies, I will commence by saying that what we should aim for is a minimum income for all. Let us hope this day is not too far away and that this aim is not seen as Utopian. I welcome the flexibility being introduced into the social welfare system. There must be flexibility when dealing with the particular difficulties faced by part time and shift workers, particularly those who are waiting tables and here mostly women are affected. Some weeks these people work a sufficient number of hours to enable them to claim benefit but there are other weeks when they do not qualify for benefit. The difficulty arises because they do not work a sufficient number of hours each week to claim benefit and therefore they lose out altogether. I ask the Minister to tell us if the number of hours worked could be accumulated to enable them to claim benefit. As more and more people are taking up part time and shift work, we will have to give thought to introducing flexibility into the system. If we fail to do so, as has been pointed out, people will feel they cannot take up such employment and will continue to claim social welfare rather than looking for a job.

I welcome, as I am sure every other Deputy in the House does, the establishment of the commission headed by Mr. John Curry. I hope in considering the question of household income they will included relatives looking after elderly or sick persons at home. They tend to be marginalised and are not seen as part of the household.

We are all aware of the extraordinary pressure on people to borrow from moneylenders and of the suffering imposed upon them when they fall behind in their repayments. If the economy is improving, this should benefit everybody. If the figure of £100,000 is seen to be inadequate and only going so far, I ask the Minister to consider increasing it. I am aware of the extent of poverty and the sense of desperation being felt by these people in our society and I am telling the Minister that this figure may not be adequate. I would like to think there will be flexibility in this area. We are aware from the annual report of the Combat Poverty Agency that that agency never had an adequate number of staff or resources. If we talk about an increase in staff numbers, we should first increase the number of staff in the agencies which deal with the poor and the unemployed.

Finally, going back to a point made by Deputy De Rossa, I ask the Minister to make sure that at all European meetings, particularly of the Council of Ministers, the harmonisation of social welfare payments and the need for a minimum wage be accorded priority. It will not be to the advantage of any country in Europe if there is an attempt to shift cheap labour from one country to another. What we should be striving for is harmonisation upwards not downwards.

Acting Chairman

I now call on the Minister to reply.

Mr. Cotter

May I ask the Minister a question before he commences his replay? My question relates to the self-employed. He may have been asked this question already. Can the Minister clarify the position in respect of those who will only have paid contributions for between five and six years on reaching pension age? Will they be able to buy extra years, and if not, what will be their position?

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

Let me mention very briefly in reply to that question that such people are not included at present. I would like to have included them but the cost would have been far too great. We can go into this matter another time. However, I am keeping the matter under review because to some extent what we can do will depend on the income that is available to the system. This is due to be reviewed at the end of three years and will give us an opportunity to look at all those arrangements. Obviously those around 55 years of age are doing extremely well already, as are those in the 40 to 45 year age groups. If we were to include those over 55 years of age it would be far too expensive. That is the difficulty that arose.

Mr. Cotter

Will they be able to buy extra years?

Dr. Woods

Because of the cost involved this was not considered feasible. However, that question can be looked at in the review. I am very conscious of this problem.

A large number of matters have been referred to and I have very little time to respond. I am aware that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose and I notice that on this occasion the Opposition are planning to oppose. I thank all who congratulated me on my reappointment as Minister for Social Welfare. I am very pleased to be back at the Department of Social Welfare for the simple reason that many of my efforts are coming to fruition. I am very anxious to see this work completed. I am sure that if someone else was appointed they too would be anxious to see it completed.

During the year we passed many measures. Some were referred to indirectly here this afternoon. Deputy Wallace called for some measures to benefit people in Knocknaheeny. It was only prior to the election that we passed the Bill. The next thing we need to do is to make regulations which are quite complicated. Some aspects are straightforward but others are complicated. I am trying to get these regulations made as quickly as possible so as to introduce the flexibility Deputy Wallace seeks.

I am proud of my own record as Minister during the previous Administration. Some Deputies referred to this in one way or another. Some were in favour but others were against. I am proud of that record because during a difficult period we managed to put forward a large number of initiatives and brought about substantial improvements and increases in the social welfare area. I could refer to the different rates and tell the House that the long-term unemployed personal rate was increased in 1986 by £1.75 per week; last year it was increased by £4.20 per week, and this year it was increased by £5 per week. We are trying to meet the Commission on Social Welfare's recommendation. Deputy De Rossa said that we need to increase that figure to £50 per cent—at present the figure stands at £47 per week. To achieve this figure, a considerable amount of money would be needed. This is a major problem but I can assure the House that the Government are committed to tackling it. We want to continue this process and each of the programmes mentioned makes it quite clear that we intend to continue this process. However, there are difficulties and if I had more time I could deal with this matter in more detail.

We now have reached the position where the people who are being caught up with may have to move a little. The DPMA, the disabled person's maintenance allowance, will also need to be considered. This is reflected in what was said by Deputies in the House today. Let me emphasise that we achieved a great deal under the last Administration.

Deputy Fennell expressed concern about the dental scheme. At present this scheme is working very successfully. Previously it was not possible to get it off the ground. However, I am very glad to say that in recent days another dentist has joined the scheme; since the election two dentists have joined. We now have 195 dentists participating and to date 45,000 women have been treated, which is not bad. If we take into account other benefits, about 103,000 have been treated. In Dublin, 53 dentists are participating in the scheme. However only two dentists in Deputy Fennell's constituency are participating. I could suggest reasons for this but I will not do so at this stage. I would like to assure her that the scheme is going well and I will do everything I can to expand it. I appreciate her interest.

Various cases were referred to. Deputy Fennell referred to the case of a man in his eighties. I am sure that man will get a non-contributory pension. I have no doubt about this. She also referred to an application for a disabled person's maintenance allowance. These are not dealt with by my Department, but rather by the health board. Again, I believe that person should qualify and I think she will have some success with this case if she pursues it.

Deputy Wallace also raised the question of medical referees and was concerned at some practices. He asked if we might consider engaging consultants under certain circumstances. I have noted his view and will consider that matter. With computerisation it has been possible to call people up in relation to particular illnesses during the duration of such illness. That is why those recalls come up then. Having had some experience there it certainly would be worth looking at the medical input to see if the timing is appropriate or if it is too frequent.

Deputy O'Keeffe mentioned the ERSI report. I would like everybody to realise that that report is based mainly on 1986 circumstances. In social welfare we have given substantial increases above the odds to the people identified in that report since it was published. The data were taken in the latter part of 1986 and the first couple of months of 1987. The report was not published until considerably later. We have taken very important steps to alleviate the difficulties mentioned and shall continue to do so.

Deputy De Rossa also mentioned the report and the same point is relevant. While welcoming the various measures, he will oppose us at this stage saying that we are just not doing enough. That criticism is always possible of social welfare. I accept that that is what the Opposition will do here. I should like to thank those who recognised the measures that have been taken over the past two years and assure them it is my intention not only to continue the pace and work input but to accelerate it as far as I am concerned. That is the only commitment I can give. Many of the issue arise in a budgetary context and must be taken into consideration in that context. I shall listen to what is said by Members of the House; I have done that over the past two years and will continue to do it. I will continue to improve the system.

Deputy Wallace believes that the system had been revolutionised, or is in the process of being revolutionised. An independent observer from outside would recognise that almost a revolution has been taking place in the past two years, particularly with regard to acceleration in the improvement of the services. I intend to keep that up until we have a first-class service. There is a price tag and that cost affects the renewal of many of the offices around the country mentioned by Deputy Boylan and improvement of the services all round. The localisation that I mentioned is crucial. We see that as providing a totally new kind of service, very much related to the needs in the local areas. That is the direction in which we are going.

Vote put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 72.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Wille.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finnucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and D. Ahern; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan.

Vote declared carried.