Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Mar 1991

Vol. 406 No. 8

Private Business. - Social Welfare Bill, 1991: Committee Stage.

Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I regret that my proposed amendment to this section has been ruled out of order. I would ask the Minister to look at the proposal in this amendment whereby an indexing of the amount allowable for an adult dependant would be included in the regulations. Perhaps the Minister would consider a figure of £75 per week as the earnings that would be allowable in that type of case.

I would also ask him to look at the anomalies between the private sector and the PAYE sector. For example, in the PAYE sector the earnings for an adult dependant are taken on a current basis whereas the earnings for the self-employed are taken on an average over a yearly basis. I ask the Minister to apply the yearly average system to the earnings for the adult dependant in the PAYE sector.

Section 2 makes the normal provisions for definitions. Subsection (2) of this section defines the term Social Welfare Acts for the purposes of this Act or any other enactments as being the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, and every enactment which is to be construed together with it as one. As the self-employed are not eligible for unemployment benefit, they are excluded from the scope of the FIS scheme.

Deputy Dennehy and Deputy Wyse raised the question of the need for a new consolidation Bill. I recognise fully the need for such a Bill and for consolidating the legislation on a regular basis. Indeed, I was responsible for the first consolidation of social welfare legislation since the unified social insurance system came into force in 1952, when I introduced the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. In this regard I am glad to inform the House that preliminary work has already started on a new consolidation Bill and I hope to be in a position to complete the work within the next year. Significant progress is also being made in consolidating the various social welfare regulations. I mention that on this section because it is the most relevant section dealing with this matter. As I have said, a number of Deputies, particularly Deputy Dennehy and Deputy Wyse, raised the question of the desirability of again consolidating the legislation. That process has begun and I hope there will be progress in relation to it in the not too distant future.

In relation to the points raised by Deputy Stagg, there are various views about its limits and operation. The best way to look at it is in relation to the situation of the whole household. We set up the Household Review Group which are examining household incomes following the Hyland case; the group are due to present a report to me in the very near future which will provide an opportunity to look at the whole question of the interrelationships of earnings and payments. In that context the Deputy was suggesting that the level should be higher than the current figure of £55; he is suggesting a figure of £75. These questions can be considered when I receive the report of the review group.

The Minister may not have heard the other point I raised. At present the PAYE adult dependant is assessed on a current basis as far as their earnings are concerned whereas the self-employed adult dependant is assessed on an average over a period of 12 months. This creates an anomaly as if the part-time worker — usually the wife — goes over the limit the husband's payments are immediately affected whereas if the adult dependant — usually a wife — is self-employed the earnings are averaged. Quite often, if somebody goes over the limit the payments are cut whereas if a person is self-employed they would need to go over the limit on an average basis over a period of one year. Perhaps the Minister will try to remove that anomaly?

There is a difficulty in the operation because of the way in which incomes are assessed in relation to self-employed earnings as distinct from PAYE earnings. I take the point made by the Deputy and I will look at it from the point of view of having equality.

If the P60 was taken from the adult dependant on PAYE at the end of each year it would give the average amount earned in that year and would create equality with the PAYE and self-employed workers. I am not trying to take from the self-employed person.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Since I came into this House I have repeated for the Minister, on many occasions, that if he could manage to have a fire in his offices where all the rules were burned, with no damage to personnel, it would be the best thing that could possibly happen. As I previously advocated, I welcome the putting together of the rules in relation to social welfare because it is very hard to understand how there can be such differences in payments. There can be a difference of £1 per week between people of the same age and income. There have been so many changes and new payments introduced that I very much welcome the concept of a new consolidation Act to bring all the social welfare bits and pieces together.

When does the Minister expect to receive the report of the Household Review Group? I understood it was due in the last six or eight months. Will the Minister make the report public? Obviously, the recommendations contained in the report will be of great importance and a signal in regard to future policy within the Minister's Department.

I expect that the report will be available soon after Easter.

How are the group constituted?

The chairman is John Curry and there are various experts, including some from within the Department. The whole idea was to take a fresh look at the problem which would be helpful in looking at the complexities and difficulties which arise. The main problem was that the complexities were even difficult for the experts.

I can imagine.

Deputy Browne probably could have told them that in the first instance. The members of the board comprise Dr. Finola Kennedy, an economist, Dr. Claire Carney, Department of Social Science, UCD, Mr. David Byrne, Senior Counsel, Mr. Tony McCashan, social policy analyst, NESC, Mr. John Hynes, Assistant Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mr. Michael Guilfoyle, Principal Officer, Department of Finance and Mr. Eoin Ó Broin, Assistant Principal, Department of Social Welfare, who is the secretary. Although the group are all experts they have found it very difficult to solve some of the problems because, when you solve one problem another arises.

Whenever we make changes here, out of the goodness of our hearts and experience, we find that it alters something else because it is very difficult to look at all the interactions at once although we know that something needs to be done in a specific case. It is Members in the House who most often create the difficulties and the anomalies but it is also Members who point out the anomalies afterwards. In that regard we have been rationalising many of the payments; we rationalised the child dependant allowances from 36 different rates to three by averaging upwards although the Commission on Social Welfare advised averaging downwards. However, we did not believe that should happen. As a result there is now a minimum of £12 for each child dependant and there are only three different rates.

The lone parent's allowance scheme is another rationalisation bringing together many different aspects. It took a couple of years to bring them together without causing difficulties for some of the people involved. We have been rationalising the payments in a variety of ways.

I believed in consolidation in 1980-81 and I said at the time that ten years was about the life span of a consolidation Bill in this area. With all the work done in between, it is time to begin the consolidation process again. One of the difficulties is that the same people who worked on the Social Welfare Acts will be working on the consolidation Bills. That process has begun and will continue; it will certainly help to have a Bill which draws all the strands together and which will be a ready reference point. When the time comes to introduce the Bill in the House I look forward to having the co-operation of the Members in getting the legislation through quickly. I say that advisedly because when it was brought in before that did not happen and an attempt was made to delay its passing. It was really a waste of time politically. I hope we will not have a repetition of that problem but I believe Deputies are very responsible in relation to this and realise there is nothing new in it anyway; there cannot be anything new in a consolidation Bill. A consolidation Bill provides ready useful consolidation of all the legislation and is particularly valuable to people working in the area whether they are social workers, those with a legal interest in it or Members of either House. We look forward to advancing that during the year.

Let me advise the House that we are on Committee Stage when we are required to apply ourselves to what is in the legislation. While passing references may be entertained, we should avoid being over-speculative because that is not permitted on Committee Stage. Has Deputy Byrne a comment to make that is relevant to Committee Stage?

I would hope so, given the reference to the Household Review Group from the Minister's mouth. Presumably our collective response to a consolidation Bill would be positive and we look forward to seeing a consolidation Bill before the House. I am confused about the Household Review Group and the delays. Will the Minister not agree that it would have been very important to have the group's report prior to this Bill being debated? I understand the budget creates certain conditions and that certain time factors are involved, but I am sceptical and worried, given that it is in black and white in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that “A review of the treatment of households within the social welfare code has been completed by a special Household Review Group”. The Government when negotiating this deal with the trade union movement and when the programme was being printed knew that the Household Review Group had completed their work. The programme says, “The report of this Group will be discussed with appropriate interests”. Needless to say, the House is clearly a group which should be interested in that report. Why has there been such a delay? Why is this document not before the House?

I do not know if I heard the Minister correctly but he seemed to say changes are made in this House out of the goodness of hearts. Surely we do not bring in legislation out of the goodness of our hearts. We have political programmes and given political commitments to the electorate before we come in here and so there is nothing really coming from the heart. Let us be honest. If anything is brought forward it is as a result of a political commitment to the voluntary social agencies and the electorate in general.

Again, I appeal to the House to home in and concentrate on what is directly before us. Household review groups are not——

Before the Minister replies I have two questions. When he referred to the review group he said he expected a report shortly. Does he expect that to deal with the proposal I made on the increase in the amount of earnings disallowed for the adult dependant allowance payable?

I would expect it to be relevant to it. It is one of the ways in which we deal with households and in that sense it would be relevant to it.

In reply to Deputy Byrne, first, as far as the review is concerned the Programme for Economic and Social Progress states:

A review of the treatment of households within the welfare code has been completed by a special Household Review Group. The report of this group will be discussed with appropriate interests.

The review has been completed but the report is not completed. It is a question of dotting the i's and crossing the t's before the report will be ready. Both statements are factually correct. The review was completed at that stage and the report will be available fairly shortly.

The other question the Deputy raised was very interesting. It is about the goodness of our hearts. Deputy Byrne is not here a long time yet but let me say the House, the elected representatives, in my experience do their work out of the goodness of their hearts. Deputy Browne, who brought this to my attention reminds me of a person who works by his heart because of his genuine interest in people. Very often amendments are made because of the views of Deputies and the fact that we agree that something should be done. They are not all made by backroom strategists who put a programme before the people and say, this is it, this is to be our lot for the next so many years. Deputies have a much more active role in the whole democratic parliamentary process. That is the process I was referring to. It is a very good process.

Could we dispose of section 2?

May I ask the Minister——

The House realises we are still on section 2.

May I press him very briefly——

I know Deputy Stagg has an amendment to section 3 and perhaps, it could be extended to deal with some of the speculation, prophesying and theorising we have here. The Chair is obligated on Committee Stage to require the House to concentrate on what is in the section, not what might have been. That is all right on Second Stage but not on Committee Stage. When time is running out we will be criticising one another for not having employed the time available in a better fashion.

Will the Minister look at the anomaly that exists within the definitions, the treatment of the self-employed dependant and the PAYE dependant.

We have to work on the most up to date information available in particular cases. I appreciate the difficulty the Deputy has raised and I will certainly look at it.

I thank the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, before section 3, but in Part II, to insert the following new section:

"3. —(1) The recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare in relation to a common basic payment or minimally adequate payment shall be recognised as the Official Poverty Line.

(2) The Official Poverty Line rates shall be established at:

(a) for a single adult, £50.00 per week in 1985 prices,

(b) for a married couple, 1.6 times the weekly rate for a single person in 1985 prices,

(c) for each child under the age of 18 years, £10.00 per week in 1985 prices.

(3) The Official Poverty Line rate shall be indexed annually in line with the Consumer Price Index.".

I move this out of the goodness of my heart. It would be an expression of the Government's good intentions, without a necessary cost, to put a preamble, as it were, into this Bill expressing what they would see as a minimum requirement if resources were available. I also see it as very positive from the Minister's point of view. I am aware the Minister has to fight his corner around the Cabinet table against many other demands to get resources to provide the services in the social welfare area that are required. It would give support to the Minister in that regard if there was an official poverty line recognised by the Government, the Minister and the Dáil. That recognition would also give hope to people that that was an achievable, desirable target to reach. The guidelines I have proposed for that poverty line are contained in the Government's Commission on Social Welfare whose report has, I understand, been accepted in principle. The Government should take this amendment and express it as a preamble to the Bill, an expression of our good intentions from the goodness of our hearts, as the Minister has said. It would give hope, and recognition and strengthen the Minister's arm in his discussions with his colleagues which I am sure are ongoing.

My arm has been very considerably strengthened by the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I do not know how much people have noted that but it is a reality. The programme gives us great support in achieving the level of payments we want to reach. The difficulty with the point made by Deputy Stagg is that he wants to establish an official poverty line while we want to establish a level of payment. We must bear in mind that many of our payments are made to people who have other incomes and whose other incomes are not means tested. Consequently the level of those payments matter. Obviously the level of such payments on top of whatever other payments people may have will enhance their position. One can say that the standard of living for those people should be at a certain level, but to define an absolute poverty line would be extremely difficult because of all the variations and circumstances.

The ESRI research in the poverty area over the last number of years has focused much attention on the derivation of poverty lines. However, the ESRI state clearly that there is not an entirely satisfactory and convincing method of drawing a unique poverty line. Many would argue that adopting an all or nothing approach where people are sharply categorised as being poor or not poor is not appropriate. If reality is better described as a continuum from very poor to very rich, drawing such a cut off will certainly involve a significant degree of arbitrariness. For reasons similar to those set out by the ESRI it would not be appropriate to refer to an absolute poverty line in legislation.

The more appropriate forum for this type of discussion and where it actually took place is the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. In the kind of forum the programme provides one can set the levels of payments which are appropriate in a more practical and realistic way. That is what has been done through the commission and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The programme, as the House knows, has been agreed by the social partners and represents a major consensus on policy development. This is especially true in the area of social policy. The Government have specifically committed themselves under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to continue to protect social welfare rates against inflation and to move by 1993 to the priority level of rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare involving an estimated additional full year expenditure of £65 million on the assumption of an annual 3 per cent inflation rate and thereafter to increase social welfare rates further and progressively in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare as the resources of the economy grow.

Recent reports have highlighted the particular requirements of families and the need for a particular focus towards families. In this respect the lines that were used in the ESRI report which were quoted subsequently by the Combat Poverty Agency were valuable internal comparisons and in comparisons over the years but not for the purpose mentioned here by Deputy Stagg. They are valuable in that they show a pattern and one can see over the years up to 1986 who had been losing out and who had been doing better. That is where their strength is. They are just scientific instruments to measure the variation over the years of the way in which different groups had changed position. One of the groups pinpointed were the long term unemployed especially the long term unemloyed with families. If one looks at what we have been doing since then and at the commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress one will find that we are continuing along the line of bolstering and bringing up the levels of people who were identified in these studies. The lines used are not absolute lines but they are useful for research comparisons.

In the context of resources on the scale necessary to implement the additional child income support measures recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare, some £69 million in 1990 terms will be devoted to child income support over a ten year period. The measures to be taken are to be worked out in the light of up to date information on child and family circumstances and in the light of available resources. These commitments are firmly based on the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare which, as stated in the programme, now provide a broad framework for the development of social policy. The programme already achieves what Deputy Stagg wants but allows the flexibility for the policy to adapt to changing needs as and when these are highlighted.

In addition such a flexible approach acknowledges the role of non cash payments, for example the value of the medical card, free schemes, subsidised housing, education and so on. The non cash benefits were not taken into consideration in the other studies. Both the ESRI and the Commission on Social Welfare acknowledge the role of these and the fact that the free schemes and additional allowances form part of a person's basic income. This issue among others is not taken into account in the Deputy's amendment.

I hope the Deputy will realise that what the Government are doing is what people have sought since I came back here in 1987. People wanted a linking to the commission's report. There was a great deal of criticism of the lack of firm commitment to the report. We were doing what was necessary but we had not made a total commitment to the costs which would go with the report or to the levels stipulated in it. These commitments are now built into the Programme for Economic and Social Progress as part of policy. As Minister for Social Welfare the Government's commitment gives me an important support from year to year. Already we have reached priority rates in a number of areas which are part of the programme for 1993. I am quite confident that we will meet all the priority requirements by 1993 as promised in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.

There are two points I would like to raise at this stage. From all the negotiations I had with people, particularly social welfare recipients, it appears that despite the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission on Social Welfare will not be arrived at for a long time. At this stage people on short time unemployment assistance should be receiving £10 a week more than they are receiving now.

I notice that in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress the aspirations are there but are qualified by the phrase “as the economy grows.” As Deputy Stagg mentioned, there is great competition around the table for the resources. Is it not reasonable to assume that the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission on Social Welfare are unlikely to be met for perhaps ten years? The Minister might address that point. The fundamental problem is that the poor will always be at the bottom of the pile. This is not a criticism of this Minister personally; it could be a criticism of any of his predecessors. In view of the conditions under which the poor have to live and work, is it adequate to state that their lot will be improved as resources become available? Is that good enough for the poor?

I made a pre-budget submission to the Minister in which I asked that he look at the possibility of implementing over a three year period the payment levels recommended in the Report of the Commission on Social Welfare. That has not happened. The gap has not been narrowed by even one-third this year, taking account of the rate of inflation. One million people are adjudged by experts and Government commissions to be living below the poverty line. One-third of all households and all recipients of welfare payments are below the poverty line. The commission stated that all recipients should be entitled to common basic payments of £50-£59 a week, in 1985 terms. I am asking that the commission's recommendation in regard to a minimal adequate payment be adopted by the Minister and that nobody be below that level.

I recognise that the gap which existed in 1985 between the payment and the recommendation has narrowed, but it is narrowing so slowly that the poor continue to be affected. The Minister talks about his commitment to the report. He could demonstrate that commitment very clearly by adopting this section of the report as a preamble to the Bill. Such an action would clearly show that he is not just paying lip service to the report. I thought the Minister would be pleased to accept this amendment because it would strengthen his hand in the negotiations with his Cabinet colleagues.

The restriction on our ability to table amendments is very clear. About 60 amendments have been ruled out of order on the grounds that they would constitute a charge on the Exchequer. I am disappointed that my amendment has not been taken because it ties in with the sentiments which have been expressed in the debate. Amendment No. 3 states:

In page 6, before section 3, but in Part II, to insert the following new section:

"3.—(1) The minimum rate of benefit of assistance payable to an adult in respect of the periodic benefits or social assistance, specified in the Schedules, shall be not less than £65 per week.

(2) The minimum payment in respect of each dependant child shall——

(a) in the case of each dependant child under 15, not be less than 40 per cent of the adult rate,

(b) in the case of each dependant child between 15 and 17, not be less than 55 per cent of the adult rate, and

(c) in the case of each dependant child aged 18 or over, who is living at home and in full-time training or education, not be less than 70 per cent of the adult rate.".

The commitment to social welfare in the famous Programme for Economic and Social Progress is a major disappointment. I am also disappointed that ICTU did not negotiate a far stronger deal on social welfare. The programme refers to moving by 1993 to the priority rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare in 1985. The commission felt then that the rates were so pathetic that there was an immediate need for an injection of capital to upgrade the bottom levels, and they listed these as a priority. The report, however, goes substantially further in its recommendations. Even if priority levels were reached by 1993, that would be eight years after the publication of the report. In other words, the Government are eight years behind the times. The commission estimated that a minimal adequate income for a single person would be in the range of £50-£60 a week in 1985 terms. If we take a figure of £55 a week in 1985 terms, that would equal £62 in 1991 terms. So much for the argument that the Government are on target. The priority rates are substantially less than the commission recommended.

We have a good basic spectrum of social welfare benefits and payments. There is a progressive range of payments for various categories, although I am not in a position to compare it with what is available in other countries. The difficulty is that the payments are not adequate and are substantially behind the level recommended by the commission. It is important that we recognise the required basic payment. We suggested different rates of child benefit payments. Obviously the expense incurred in rearing children varies and there are greater demands on parents at certain times. The cost of rearing a child at the infant stage is considerably less than when the child is between 16 and 18 years. We have suggested having a range of age bands. Does the Minister accept the idea in principle of having age bands, irrespective of the cost to the Exchequer? Teenagers particularly those between 15 and 17 years, make great demands on their parents by way of pocket money, feeding, and clothing and benefits should be higher. We suggest that parents of children over 15 should receive 40 per cent of the adult rate in respect of that child and this should rise to not less than 55 per cent of the adult rate in respect of a child of 17. If the Minister decided to take this on board, it would be seen as progressive.

I support this amendment, but unfortunately the more the Government try to increase social welfare payments the wider and more apparent the poverty trap becomes. The effect of providing less incentive for people to seek work is also apparent especially for those who are married and have a large number of dependants.

The Green Party would like to see a system of basic income for all to replace the social welfare system. The present social welfare tax system has the effect of leaving some employees earning £12,000 a year no better off in money terms than those earning £3,000 a year, so that the only way out of the ludicrous system which I have just illustrated is the introduction of a scheme of guaranteed basic income. This would mean the payment to every adult, whether male, female, employed, unemployed, pensioner, self-employed, married, single, divorced, separated, co-habiting or whatever, with a basic income. This scheme is to a great extent self-financing, as the employed and self-employed would lose their allowances and reliefs in compensation for receiving a basic income.

Have we gone back to Second Stage?

With respect, Deputy Garland has been addressing the House for a minute and a half and we will let him demonstrate that the matter he is addressing is relevant to amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Stagg to section 3. Like other Deputies, Deputy Garland is entitled to a short run in but I suggest to the Deputy that the run in should be nearly finished.

I accept that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. There would be no means test for this basic income. A system of basic income would totally transform both the economy and the lives of the unemployed. Instead of putting obstacles in the way of returning to the workforce, basic income would result in a higher take-up of work, including part-time work and work for charitable organisations and voluntary groups. It also would enable small businesses which cannot afford at present to pay a living wage to employ someone who would otherwise be unemployed, providing them with a top-up to their basic income, and giving them a feeling of their worth in society. I would refer to subsection 2 (b) of Deputy Stagg's amendment, wherein he proposes that a married couple should receive 1.6 times the weekly rate for a single person. This unfortunately conforms to the existing and now out-of-date concept of the family. Certainly, it has to be admitted that two people can live more cheaply than one. This would be fine if the vast majority of social welfare recipients were living together as married persons. However, whether we like it or not there are now many irregular liaisons; marriage breakdowns followed by second relationships or homosexual relationships. We are into a very different scenario but the Minister's response has been to come up with this ridiculous co-habiting rule — which by implication Deputy Stagg approves of. How can it be established that a second relationship is stable or unstable? When is it considered stable? The rules for cohabiting——

That is a totally different matter.

With respect it is the same question. The only way to deal with this is that everybody should be treated the same whether they are married or single. We should get rid of the need for inspectors under the bed. We have had enough of that.

I will return to the points raised at the outset by Deputy Connaughton. First, I want to make it clear that the commitments in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress are not, as the Deputy has said, simply an aspiration but a firm commitment. Obviously they are conditional on the economy continuing to make progress. It has been pointed out that as the resources of the economy grow we can proceed to these higher levels of payments. There is a firm commitment in the programme and other things being anyway equal, we are going on that road.

On the question of the level of social welfare payments and what the Commission on Social Welfare have had to say on this matter, the commission made a series of recommendations to improve the standard of living for social welfare recipients while at the same time attempting to maintain the incentive to work. The points made by the Deputies illustrate the practical dilemma: that one must maintain a reasonable incentive to work at the same time as having satisfactory levels of social welfare. The commission addressed this aspect of the problem. The total annual cost of achieving the commission's rates of payment in 1990 terms is £327 million. The full implementation of the commission's recommendations in relation to the rates of payment present very serious problems of resources, which can only be resolved as the economy grows. The commission recognised these difficulties and identified priority increases as the first step in bringing the rates of payment up to the minimum acceptable levels. The Government have committed themselves in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to achieving the priority rates recommended by the commission by 1993 and thereafter to increase social welfare rates further and progressively in accordance with the commission's recommendations as the resources of the economy grow. The rates recommended by the commission, expressed in 1985 terms were: priority rate £45; and assistance rate £50. Expressed in 1991 terms the priority rate becomes £54.60 and the assistance rate becomes £60.80. In this Bill we are bringing all the long term rates up to the priority level from £54.60 to £55. It is a marginal increase but some of the rates are higher than that again. Payments in respect of the elderly tend to be higher. That point was made by the commission in the first instance. Some of the short term rates mentioned by Deputy Stagg, supplementary welfare allowance and short term unemployment assistance are only £45 at the moment and they are getting priority in this Bill and are being increased by 11 per cent to bring them up to £50. We are bridging the gap there and bringing the rates closer to the priority rates. Given what we are doing in this Bill, I see little difficulty in surpassing the priority rates by 1993.

In what year would we reach recommended rates?

In many cases we will reach them before the full period. However when Government look at this they have to look at the total additional cost which is £400 million, and over ten years the inflation rate must be taken into account. We are, therefore, talking about providing substantial extra resources. I would see us getting to the priority levels before the recommended date.

In the case of old age contributory pensions and retirement pensions, following this Bill the personal rate £64 for those under 80, for a person with an adult dependant under 66 it is £104.80, and for a person with an adult dependant aged 66 or over it is now £110. These rates are ahead of the rates generally recommended by the commission. What we are doing is keeping those higher rates ahead of inflation. Inflation is under 3 per cent; they are getting 4 per cent and are staying ahead. We are not doing what the expert with a more academic approach might do and stopping these rates until the others catch up. We are keeping everybody moving ahead by something above inflation and, at the same time, giving the extra increases to those who need to close the gap.

The invalidity pension is £56.40 per week. The widows contributory pension and deserted wives benefit for those under 80 is £58.20. We are bringing all the long term benefits above the £54.60 in this Bill and some of them are being increased by more. The Government are making very good progress in this area. I would like to assure the Deputies that the Government intend to continue this programme of improvements.

Deputy Byrne made comparisons between us and other countries. It is difficult for us to compare with other countries that have much greater resources, but when comparisons are made one realises that the long term unemployment basic rate, following this Bill, will be £55 and £33 for an adult dependant. In Northern Ireland the same benefit is £41.46 — this may go up slightly following the budget.

How much is a pint up there?

It is going up.

It has a long way to go to catch up.

We can look at the other allowances. An adult dependant gets £25.59 but here is is £33. We were behind these rates only a few years ago but we are now ahead. I would like it to be clear that we are making considerable progress. The payments here for the elderly and retired are also better.

In regard to social insurance payments, the priority rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare have already been achieved in the case of the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment, the occupational injuries benefit scheme, the old age contributory and retirement, invalidity and widows contributory pension schemes and deserted wives benefit. The disability benefit, unemployment benefit and general maternity allowances schemes are the only social insurance payments which are not at the commission's priority rates. However, a pay-related supplement of up to £17.40 can be paid in addition, following this Bill, and that will bring the overall payment above the commission's priority rate. This is something Deputies are inclined to forget when they talk about the rates of disability benefit and say it is lower now that we have brought the basic unemployment rate to £55 as against £50. However, the £50 is normally associated with a pay-related benefit increase of up to £17.40 and the average there would be about £12. The whole idea of the commission was to do away with pay-related benefit and to bring the basic levels up to these other levels we mentioned. That is what we are doing. As those benefits rise the pay-related benefit is coming back to meet them. We are following the line set by the commission to bring the basic levels up so that everybody gets that basic level irrespective of the pay-related element.

With the extension of the provisions of the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, to cover women who are working for more than eight hours a week, many of the women who now qualify for the general maternity scheme will become entitled to the maternity allowance for women, the minimum rate for which is £76 per week.

Of approximately 383,000 persons in receipt of the various social insurance payments, over 286 or almost 75 per cent are receiving payments at a higher level than the commission's priority rates which we are to reach by 1993. I can assure Deputies that we will continue to make progress and be ahead of the target set.

In relation to social assistance payments, the priority rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare have been achieved in the case of all long term social assistance payments, that is, long term unemployment assistance, pre-retirement allowance, old age and blind pensions, widows non-contributory pensions, deserted wives allowance, prisoners wives allowance, single woman's allowance and lone parents allowance. The rates for short term social assistance payments are £4.60 below the priority rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. The Government have, however, given a firm commitment to increase these rates to the commission's priority rates by 1993. This year has seen a major step in this direction with an increase of 11 per cent in the weekly rate of short term social assistance payments, short term unemployment assistance, the carer's allowance and supplementary welfare allowance.

Of the approximate 350,000 people in receipt of various social insurance payments, over 287,200, or 82 per cent, receive payment at a higher level than the commission's priority rates. For example, of a total of approximately 733,000 social welfare recipients, over 573,200, or 78 per cent, receive payments at a higher level than the commission's priority rates. The House will see that we now have the 78 per cent, or the 80 per cent, above the priority rates and it is clear that we will more than achieve the 1993 target.

In relation to the child dependant allowances, Deputies have been advancing different proposals. Broadly, we are following the lines recommended by the commission which constituted the broadest overall consideration. The streamlining of the child dependant increases, which commenced in July 1988, has been continued. The number of different rates for child dependants under the various social insurance, occupational injuries and social assistance schemes is being further reduced from five to three. Since July 1988 the number of different rates of child dependant allowances for all social welfare schemes has been reduced from 36 to three. There are now only one-twelfth of the number of different rates of child dependant increases compared with three years ago. In addition, the difference between the highest and lowest rates of child dependant payments has been significantly reduced. Prior to July 1988 the difference between the highest and lowest levels of payment was £8.20 per week. The minimum child dependant allowance, introduced in July 1989, is also being increased by over 9 per cent to a minimum of £12 per week. I might make the point that the rates for child dependant allowances here are now considerably higher than those obtaining in the United Kingdom. It will be seen that we have more than met the recommendations of the commission with which I think Deputies should be happy.

Deputy Garland pointed out that these rates are now beginning to cause some difficulty with higher numbers of members of families which, with £12 per week for each child, adds considerably to the basic payments. In order to counteract that we have increased the family income supplement and the child-related tax allowances.

The overall question of the tax and benefit dilemma raised by Deputy Garland was referred to in the report of the Commission on Social Welfare, at paragraph 8.5 which had this to say:

If the present system were replaced, for example, with a universal social dividend at the unemployment benefit rate (£39.50) for all adults, with no extra payments for any category, plus £10 per child, per week, for all children, up to age 19 years, then total dividend expenditure would be about £5.1 billions...

So it will clearly be seen that we are not talking about those levels at all now, we are talking about much higher rates. At that stage the rate for unemployment assistance was £39.50 with a dependant rate much lower also. The present rate of long term unemployment assistance is £55 with a £33 adult dependant allowance. It will be seen that we are talking about a huge volume of money creating enormous difficulties for taxpayers in meeting such commitments. Of course these matters are being considered, and will continue to be mainly by relating the tax element to the social welfare one, in order to arrive at the best possible combination.

Deputy Stagg used the figure of one million people living below the poverty line. This is thrown out as a cliché repeatedly. I should say that our payments go to approximately one million people. In almost all cases we provide payments above the priority rates recommended by the commission. I should make clear that a large proportion of our payments are paid to people with other incomes, which is a totally different question in that people do not know what other incomes those people may have. Therefore, it is not correct to say that there are one million people in that group. There are people who are poor, others who are very poor. I recognise that fact——

There are people who are very poor not in that category at all.

We have also gone further with the family income supplement. Initially it was thought approximately 35,000 people would benefit therefrom. When we assumed office people complained that there were perhaps only 3,000 to 4,000 people benefiting. People contended that that was very bad, that we were not getting the money to those people, obviously poor, and in need of it. We took various action, including increasing the rates so that between 6,500 and 7,000 people now collect that benefit. We also undertook research to ascertain the total number involved. Our research showed that there were approximately 12,000 to 13,000 people only who would qualify, that people had other sources of income not shown in earlier studies. It was discovered that, when it came to effecting payment, people did not qualify because their incomes were higher than had been understood. We must still endeavour to get that benefit to more people although we have increased the levels.

There are two things I should like to make clear. One is that many of our beneficiaries are now insurance-based. We are increasing the numbers of insurance-based beneficiaries which is what Members said they wanted. For example, we are now making all the self-employed insurance-based so that they can have other income and the means test has been abolished in their case. Therefore, the figure of one million people below the poverty line is certainly not accurate.

Taking the amendment before us I contend that what the Government are doing consitutes the correct line to be pursued. In the light of that perhaps Deputy Stagg would withdraw his amendment.

Having listened to the Minister, one got the impression he deluded himself and endeavoured to wipe out of his psyche that there are one million people in this country recognised as being on the poverty line. On behalf of those people I contend there is no point in the Minister standing in the House saying how excellent are his benefits; that if one lived in Britain or Northern Ireland one would be much worse off. It is those recipients of social welfare in this country who are experiencing poverty; it is their daily struggle. There is no point reminding them that, if they lived in, say Bangladesh or some other Third World country they would have big pot bellies from malnutrition. It is the responsibility of this Legislature to enhance the lives of those people, to give them an adequate standard of living, particularly when it is clear to so many of them that we have now a two-tier society, they constituting one tier and the remainder, comprised of many of the 166 Members of this House, the second tier.

We have an obligation to the huge mass of humanity out there to provide them with an opportunity to exist with some self respect. The poor here are not interested in the poverty of other countries and I would rather the Minister did not pursue that line.

The document produced in 1985 made recommendations which the Minister has conveniently forgotten, because he seems to be looking down a glass tube and focussing in only on the priority recommendations. The priority recommendations are subsequently inferior in value to the actual recommendations. I would remind the Minister, for example, that in 1985 one of the recommendations — which the Minister seems to have forgotten — was that all social welfare recipients should be entitled to a common basic payment of the order of £50 or £60 per week which, by today's standards, would equal at least £62. When one looks at the proposed payments — when the Bill is passed we look forward to the payments in July but some unfortunate people have to wait until October — one can compare them with what was recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. I would like to cite two examples. If we take the basic rate of approximately £62 in today's value and what is recommended in the Bill for payments to people in receipt of social welfare supplementary welfare allowance and unemployment assistance we will see that there is a differential of £12. In other words, the Government are recommending the basic minimum payment of £50. Had the recommendation been taken on board the amount would be £62.

I assure the Minister that the real world of poverty exists out there. I assure him that the £12 differential on which the Government, and previous Governments, have fallen short is a substantial sum of money to people in receipt of a supplementary welfare allowance or unemployment assistance because essentially we are talking about the lowest minimum payment to people. They are the poorest of the poor and £12 extra would be a substantial sum to them.

The Minister tried to convince us that he had taken on board almost everything the commission had recommended and that he was surpassing their targets. A quick glance at this voluminous document indicates that the recommendation is that a differential of the order of 10 per cent should be maintained between insurance and assistance payments. If the Minister says he is taking on board the recommendations of the commission I cannot understand why he is going in the opposite direction. As mentioned on Second Stage unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit are both at the rate of £50 per week and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. Insured workers——

Plus pay-related benefits.

We are talking about insured workers and the Minister gets their money and invests in whatever way he wishes.

They took that into account.

The point I am making is, how can the Minister say he is adopting the recommendations when one recommendation states that a differential of the order of 10 per cent should be maintained between insured and assistance payments. The Minister has done the complete opposite by equalising both payments for insured workers and those in receipt of assistance which flies in the face of that recommendation.

Another recommendation states that single applicants for unemployment assistance, aged 18 to 25 years, should be entitled to a standard weekly allowance irrespective of household circumstances. We, on the left, have argued this point until we were blue in the face and the Minister has thrown it out as something we should work towards. The Minister says he is attempting to adopt all the recommendations in the report and is reaching his priority targets to bring certain rates up to certain levels. He has said he has exceeded them in certain areas and suggested we look at what is happening in England and Northern Ireland. The fact is that we are talking about recommendations, not priority levels. The priority levels were those which were to be implemented in 1985 to increase the lowest payments as a matter of priority. The priorities do not constitute the recommendations in the report.

In response to the Minister's 20 minute reply to the earlier contributions——

There were many contributions; the Deputy's contribution was not the only one.

The Minister read from a script although he complained about other Members reading from scripts last night. The Minister reads from a script even when responding on Committee Stage.

It was factual information.

Let the record show that the Minister on Committee Stage read from scripts in view of the fact that he complained about other Members reading from a script last night.

It was factual information.

When reading his script the Minister talked about the need to retain the incentive to work. By implication he said, and I interpret him as saying, that the only way to make the lazy unemployed work was to starve them into it. I am sure he will correct that. The Minister is saying that he could not pay enough money to people so that they could have clothes, shelter and food in case it would be a disincentive to their being available as cheap labour to be exploited by private employers. I regard the position put forward by the Minister as patronising and insulting to those who are unemployed. It never ceases to amaze me that, as we organise our society, we must punish workers to make sure they go to work and we must give incentives, tax breaks and direct payments to the owners of capital to encourage them to exploit the workers we will not pay. We have a carrot for one group in society and a stick for the other and never the twain shall meet. The Minister's remarks seem to indicate he fully accepts that position. One of the figures the Minister keeps trotting out is out of date as it is for 1990.

The figures I gave were for 1991.

The index figures for the commission which the Minister is using are 1990 figures. If the 1985 figures given by the commission are indexed they would come to £62 and £100 and not as stated by the Minister. The Minister gave us the out-of-date figure to try to demonstrate he has achieved much more than he has achieved. It never ceases to amaze me that the Minister can, on the one hand, say we cannot give them enough as it would be a disincentive to work and, on the other hand, say we have reached our priority for 70 per cent to 80 per cent of all people affected. I wonder what the people in receipt of £50 disability benefit would say? While this is described as a short term payment, my experience is that it is not a short term payment. I have met people who are in receipt of disability benefit for 20 years without a break and who, of course, should have been informed of their rights to apply for invalidity pension by the Department of Social Welfare. I have never yet met anybody who was told by the Department of Social Welfare, "you may transfer from disability benefit to invalidity benefit after one year of disability benefit".

I do not think it happens because the payment is higher. There is a cost to the Department of Social Welfare and they keep quiet about it so that people do not know their rights.

The Minister kept referring to the priority level of payment and said that the priorities were being met. The priority level of payment he was talking about has been described by a Government Commission on Social Welfare as the minimal adequate payment. They should not make it a priority to reach that level. They should make it a priority to exceed that level right across the board. My amendment would simply strengthen the Minister's hand in this regard. I cannot understand why he regards my amendment as undesirable or unnecessary.

The Minister is saying to people that they have never had it so good and they can effectively forget about the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare as he has implemented nearly all the recommendations. Having read the recommendations of the commission and looked at what the Minister has done I do not think they meet. I expect the Minister to accept my amendment. If he does not accept it I will press it to a vote.

Deputy Byrne and his colleagues appear to be using double standards. For most of the eighties Deputy Stagg's party and Deputy Connaughton's party ran the affairs of this country, and their poor record of service to the less well off in our society is evident to everyone.

Rubbish.

That is not correct.

I am very pleased that the Minister has recognised here——

Fianna Fáil have been in power for most of the time since the twenties. The Deputy should not be talking about the three years the previous Coalition Government were in office.

Their record in office is well documented. Their lack of concern for the less well off in our community is well known.

Fianna Fáil have been in office long enough to put things right.

That is why both Fine Gael and Labour are sitting in the Opposition benches and will remain there for a very long time to come.

Fianna Fáil were very glad to get the support of the Progressive Democrats to put them on the Government benches.

Deputy Stagg, please allow Deputy Wallace to continue without interruptions.

The Minister has shown his clear understanding of this very sensitive area. He has recognised the priority areas. One cannot talk about the less well off in our community or refer to the deficiencies in the system unless there is the intention to do something about these problems. The Minister has clearly recognised the problems in this area. The reduction in the number of payments in child benefits from 37 to three over a very short period was the only way to deal with this issue. As many people in this House have pointed out over the years, there were too many anomalies in this area. It was only when the present Minister took on board the problems in this very complex area of social welfare that we saw any progress. We have to acknowledge that major progress has been made in this area. The wide-ranging increases given across the board in this Bill——

There has been an increase of only 10p in the childrens' allowance.

Deputy Stagg should compare this increase with what his party gave when they were in office.

An increase of 10p is not wide-ranging——

The Deputy should look at their record before he criticises the people who are now in office. Deputy Stagg was silent when some of these measures were going through the House.

I was not here.

The Deputy's colleagues were and he should ask them what they did before he starts pointing his finger here.

Deputy Wallace was here and he supported the increase of 10p per child.

When the Government wanted to eliminate the alleviation allowance because of equalisation of payments the Members on the opposite side of the House were very silent.

The Deputy would do well to stay silent.

You should get your facts right before you start pointing your finger at Ministers who are genuinely and sincerely tackling the problems——

Acting Chairman

I ask the Deputy to address the Chair.

I am sorry. The nonsense from the other side of the House cannot be let go unanswered.

If the Deputy was sitting——

I did not interrupt Deputy Stagg and he should have the manners to let other Deputies make their contributions. I am as interested in the less well off in our community as anyone because I live among these people, something which cannot be said for most people. I meant what I said about the double standards which are being used——

The Deputy should get back——

Acting Chairman

Deputy Wallace to continue without interruption.

Much has been done but more needs to be done.

Now the Deputy is talking.

The view of the Members of this House are very important, and I recommend the section to the House.

Deputy Byrne asked about the comparison with other countries. He believed that our rates were behind those of other countries in any event. However, when I gave him a comparison he tried to make a different argument and asked why I was introducing this. As I have pointed out, we have limited resources and we are not in a position to provide all the things we would like to provide. I should say to Deputy Byrne that we are providing in the Bill and the budget a sum of £164 million.

This only goes to show the level of unemployment and poverty in our society.

We should not lose sight of what we are doing. Let us deal with the section which is before us. A sum of £164 million——

The Minister should speak to the amendment.

Acting Chairman

Order, please.

I am coming to the amendment.

We are supposed to be dealing with my amendment. The Minister has made three Second Stage speeches so far.

Acting Chairman

When Deputy Stagg was speaking the Minister did not interrupt him.

Deputy Byrne has had his say and I want to reply to him. I know Deputy Stagg would be happier if I did not mention Deputy Byrne's existence.

I am very happy with my colleague Deputy Byrne.

I am replying to Deputy Byrne at this stage.

The Minister will notice that Deputy Byrne is sitting on my left.

I want to refute what Deputy Byrne said. He said the Government are looking only at the priority rates. We are not looking only at the priority rates. As Deputy Wallace rightly said, when Fine Gael and Labour were in Government they did very little about this issue. We are taking practical steps to improve the position of those people about whom Deputy Stagg has spoken.

There is an increase of only 4 per cent.

During the whole period 1983 to 1986 the real increase which the short term unemployed — the people Deputy Stagg and Deputy Byrne are speaking about — got from the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition was 5.9 per cent.

The officials who gave the Minister the figures would have given him different ones in 1986.

During 1987-91 under Fianna Fáil and under the Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats the real increase——

These are official figures.

——is 30 per cent. That is five or six times more——

That is how they calculate the figure when you are in Government.

This is five or six times better——

The Minister should not be trying——

Acting Chairman

If Deputy Stagg continues to interrupt the Minister I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

The Deputies should not try to mislead people with these statements and bluster. The hard reality is that the Government are giving the money to the people who need it. That is the bottom line. The Deputy could not define what he regarded as the poverty line. He could not define it——

I have defined it. It is written into the amendment.

If the ESRI or anyone else was asked to give a poverty line for use in this context they would not do so because it would not be applicable. It is only an instrument used in a research study where it has some value on a comparative basis. However, it has no value in this context. What is of real value in this area is the considered views of the social partners who produced the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, and the views of the commission who considered all the aspects.

Deputy Byrne and Deputy Stagg tried to misquote me and misuse what I said. I said the commission had made it clear that they had borne in mind the incentive to work, which Deputy Garland raised, as well as the provision of adequate payments. That is what I said and that is what they did. Deputy Stagg spoke about the carrot and the stick. The carrot in this Bill is the sum of £164 million. That is the reality of what the Government are doing——

This amount would not have to be as big if the Government solved the problem of unemployment.

It will never be big enough for Deputy Byrne. Deputy Byrne and his party are almost total spacers in relation to these matters. They are far removed from reality and are so far out on the left that they have lost contact with the people on the ground.

They are on a soap box.

They have gone into orbit because the people they used to depend on have fallen apart. Everyone is trying to help them get back on their feet but they do not know where they are. If they had stuck to where they were they would be better off.

What does this have to do with the amendment?

On a point of order——

Acting Chairman

Resume your seat, Deputy.

May I raise a point of order?

Acting Chairman

Yes, as long as it is a point of order.

The Minister will be very disappointed after the local elections to find that The Workers' Party have done so well.

Acting Chairman

That is not a point of order.

They are on the soap box again.

Deputy Stagg raised the question of long term disability benefit. Most people in receipt of this benefit know that they have the right to transfer to invalidity pension——

They do not. Why are they not told automatically?

Would the Deputy let me finish this point?

Acting Chairman

Please allow the Minister to finish, the Deputy can then make his own contribution.

The Minister is doing too good a job.

My Department carried out a study on the people concerned — some of the people to which the Deputy has referred may not have been included — and found that 40 per cent of those in receipt of long term disability benefit did not want to transfer to invalidity pension as that pension was taxable. I will review the information given to those in receipt of long term disability benefit to make sure that they know what their rights are. It is made very clear in our information sections that they do have this right but I recognise, as the Deputy said, that some people may not be aware of it. The number in receipt of invalidity pension has increased during the past few years and continues to increase perhaps because people are now better informed of their rights in that regard.

People cannot have it both ways as it is essentially a short term payment. As I have said in the House before, the payment is stopped in most other countries after a period of six or 12 months when a decision is taken as to whether the person should be transferred to invalidity pension or go back to work. However, in our case those who are not in a position to say that they will not be able to go back to work can continue to receive this benefit. I agree that there is a need to look at the position of older people. I should not say old as I do not want to offend anybody in the House but as the Deputy raised that question I will certainly have a look at it.

The Minister has made great play of the fact that an extra £164 million is to be made available but in relation to the report of the Commission on Social Welfare the question he must ask himself is if he can find a family anywhere in Ireland in receipt of long term unemployment assistance —— among the one million or so people living on or below the poverty line and can convince me that they are not having a bad time. As I said earlier, there is a great deal of slagging going on, and I have been listening to this for many years. Indeed, I could outline during the next ten to 15 minutes many of the good things that were done by the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition. For instance, the family income supplement was introduced during their term of office. However, such slagging is of no use to the man and wife with two or three children in receipt of unemployment assistance. I would like the Minister to acknowledge that such people are far from being well off. Indeed, having regard to Government policy, they will find it far more difficult in the future to get local authority housing and their phone calls will be far more expensive.

I fully accept that one cannot divide wealth which has not been created but I should say in relation to the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission on Social Welfare that, having listened to the Minister for the past two hours, I genuinely believe that it will be many years before social welfare recipients receive benefits at rates recommended. The Minister seems to be certain that the targets outlined in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress will be met but during the first two months of the programme there was an unprecedented rise in the unemployment figures — 8,000 in one month and 4,000 to 5,000 in the next. That will have an impact on the figure the Minister mentioned.

It is clear that social welfare recipients will be as far away as ever from the rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare in 1993. It follows, therefore, that the family to which I refer will always be at the bottom of the pile. It is very difficult to see what the future holds for them. I do not care how many millions of pounds are tagged on by the Minister, we will always have to come back to consider the position of the basic family unit living in a town, a city or in the country who have to compete with others in this big commercial world of ours who have far more money to pay for education and so on. I am concerned that the Minister does not seem to accept the view that the outlook is not very rosy for them. Unless the Minister says something different I will have to accept that these people will be no better off in three or four years time. I would like him to comment on this matter.

The Deputy has identified the difficulties facing families in the modern world. I accept that families are under pressure but let us consider the position of a family of husband, wife and five children. That family will receive £148 per week outside of the £8 per week fuel allowance during the winter months, the back to school allowance, certain other supports and the Christmas bonus. The figure for an eight child family is £192 per week.

They will need every penny and more if they can get it.

I accept that.

They are not being allowed to find it.

It is not there.

In relation to the amendment proposed by Deputy Stagg, we are providing a substantial basic child dependent payment. Three or four years ago the rate was as low as £7.60 but the minimum rate will now be £12. Child benefit is added to that, and here again we have been increasing the higher rates. They are the levels we have reached in this section. A family with five children will receive £148 a week unemployment benefit as a result of this matter. There is also the question of people at work on low pay. What has been happening here — and this relates to the questions raised about child benefit — is that the emphasis has been placed on the family income supplement and the child related tax exemption. There is £16.5 million being provided in that area as a result of the changes in this Bill. There is also an adjustment in child benefit for the fourth child. We have to look at children as a whole, and that matter will have to be considered further as we go into next year. We want to integrate as far as possible child dependant allowances with child benefit, child related tax exemptions and family income supplement, which is based on children and increased in accordance with the number of children in a family. We want to bring these benefits together and to get a uniform package for families, whether the parents are at work on low incomes or out of work and depending on these payments. All I can say to the Deputy in relation to the points he has made is that I appreciate the problem he mentioned. We are increasing and we will continue to increase the rates and a commitment along those lines is given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.

On a point of order, would you direct me as to the arrangements whereby backbenchers from Fianna Fáil receive advice——

Acting Chairman

That is not a point of order.

They have equal rights.

It is permissible for backbenchers to receive information, advice and statistics from officials, or is that service confined to the Minister?

Acting Chairman

That is not a point of order.

With due respect, are the officials here to service the requirements of the Minister or are their services available to all backbenchers, no matter what party they belong to?

Acting Chairman

The Chair has no control over what the Deputy is saying.

Therefore, we can approach the officials for information in the same way as Deputy Callely has done.

Acting Chairman

I repeat that the Chair has no control whatsoever over this matter.

The officials are most co-operative outside the House and I am sure the same applies inside it.

I am sure the Deputy is quite capable of contributing without assistance from the officials.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 66.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Micheal P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and Ferris; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 9, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Promises are made in the budget in relation to increases but people have to wait a long time to receive them, sometimes until October. The budget is introduced in January but then there has to be further legislation to implement its proposals. The increases announced should be granted in April as people are usually in need of the extra money, and should not have to wait an age to receive it.

My colleague, Deputy Byrne, upstaged me somewhat by suggesting bringing the payment date forward five or six days earlier than I proposed but I think the general trend of what we are saying is the same. We are asking that the date on which people are expected to pay up when there is a deduction for taxation or otherwise be the date on which increases would be paid. In this case we are talking about an across the board increase of 4 per cent to social welfare recipients. That will be effectively eroded by the time it is paid. As spokesman on behalf of the Labour Party, I will not accept the section which provides for payment in June or July. I demand that payment be brought forward to an April date. That is quite possible and easy to do. The technology is now available to have books and other matters ready by that date, and that does away with the old excuse. I am concerned that in this instance there is an increase in the VAT rates on items that affect poor people particularly. I am concerned about the VAT increase, up to 12.5 per cent on fuel which in itself will nearly erode the increase of 4 per cent as proposed. Therefore, I will not accept section 3 as it stands and I hope the Minister can see his way to change the date of payment back to April as we proposed.

Let me make one very important brief little addition — if I am being received.

I assure the Deputy the pleasure is ours. We can hear him quite well.

I was wondering, Sir, if you had a hidden switch under your arm. I want to speak for the record. I was thinking of the note takers and the task they have afoot.

Does the Deputy see the little red light in front of him? If that is on he is being received.

I support the case Deputy Stagg is making and I want to add a further dimension to it. Many Deputies, particularly Deputy Ivor Callely who sits on Dublin City Council with me, will appreciate that there is an annual review of rents at local authority level. Unfortunately this year an old age pensioner, for example, in receipt of the £2 per week increase proposed in this Bill will by the end of the year be marginally worse off because of the effects of the fuel increases, for example, and the automatic increases now imposed each year by local authorities. I am referring to Dublin City Council on this occasion. Rentals are increased way ahead of the payment date for these increases. Therefore, this year we will see people who qualify for only the minimum £2 per week having to meet increased bills for electricity and heating. The price of smokeless fuel has gone through the roof. It is incredible that VAT should have been added to the price of this commodity. The vulnerable elderly will find the cost of heating their homes very high and the net result is they will be worse off by the end of the year. I ask the Minister to please bear in mind that everything else goes up in price nearly as soon as the Minister for Finance sits down on budget day. Dublin Corporation do not hold back, neither do the ESB nor garages and people selling paraffin oil and fuels. They apply the increases and the poor unfortunates have to wait for us to go through this ritual and even longer — and some have to wait until July and others until October — for payment of the increases. Therefore I ask that the date be brought forward as quickly as possible.

I understand and appreciate Deputy Byrne's sentiments. You, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as a member of another body also are aware of annual rent increases by local authorities and the effects they may have on social welfare recipients.

In regard to the amendment, for the past number of years specified payment dates have been the system used. There is no change in that regard. I am sure the Minister will comment on that. Maybe parliamentary draftsmen have everything in perspective by certain dates and may need time or whatever or maybe there is only a certain allocation in the budget and that time is an important factor in the context of the operative date for the increases of the nature provided in the Social Welfare Bill. Generally one would have to recognise that the streamlining of the social welfare system must be welcomed, while acknowledging the generous increases in most payments. I know some work has been done in the Dublin area to assist social welfare recipients but right around the country perhaps some measure could be introduced to provide a one-stop shop where people could be advised straight away in relation to when a budget announcement or any announcement is being made relevant to a social welfare recipient and as to when and how the payments will be made. Freepost was available prior to An Post becoming semi-State and I do not know whether it is still available. Perhaps the Minister will also set up a freefone system.

I could not agree more with the last speaker concerning the importance of paying social welfare increases. In the next section or two of the Bill I will have much to say about the child benefit scheme for which, for some unknown reason, an even later date than applies to the payments we are talking about is provided for. The Minister present is not the only Minister concerned; for as far back as I can remember there was a time lag between budget day and the dates the increases were paid. What is the reason? At one time we did not have the technology that is available now and it was not possible to implement the increases before certain dates by virtue of the change of rates and so on and the numbers of recipients in the system. That can hardly be the case now. From experience I had in another Department I am sure we can very readily overcome that. It is amazing what can be done about issuing cheques and so on in a short two or three year period. This year the 4 per cent increase will have evaporated entirely by July when increases in VAT and fuel prices are to apply. More important, rent increases for local authority houses even in rural areas have been very steep this year. At my clinics many people, all on social welfare, are unable to pay the local council the increase in the rent demanded. If ever there was a year the increases should be paid as quickly as possible this is the year. What can we expect in the future in this regard? Is it possible that next year or the year after, we can expect an announcement on budget day and 30 days later all the recipients will get is what they were absolutely entitled to?

The main points made by a number of Deputies relate to the date of payment. The amendments put down bringing the date forward to April were ruled out of order on the grounds of cost. Deputy Stagg raised the question of VAT changes. In fact, the Minister for Finance gave away a net £37 million——

Not to the poor.

Not to this category.

——in VAT changes which resulted in the Minister having to find the money elsewhere — an overall reduction in the level of the consumer price index which includes the items to which Deputies refer.

A wide variety of household items were reduced in price by the Minister for Finance because of changes in VAT in the budget. About that time I found a circular from one of the local supermarket groups to the effect that 5,000 ordinary household items had been reduced in cost because of the lowering of VAT. We should keep this in perspective.

Does the Minister want to read the list?

I looked at the list. It is true that a large volume of household items were reduced in price by the Minister for Finance. It cost a lot of extra money to make that adjustment.

The Minister's colleague found that a lot of VAT was not being passed on to the consumer.

That is a separate question. I appreciate that and the Minister for Finance has been anxious to ensure that the benefit would be passed on. Certain investigations were carried out in that area. Certainly our local supermarkets were passing it on.

Advertising is not allowed in this House.

I did not mention the supermarket group, but it is a northside one.

Dublin Corporation differential rents are a matter for Dublin Corporation. Naturally we are concerned that people should be able to keep as much as possible of the increase we provide. The corporation normally take into consideration the fact that the increases are intended to cover other items as well. The Deputy is a member of the corporation and he and others can air that question there.

Deputy Callely referred to one-stop-shops and we wish to have as many of those as we can. We are increasing the number of information officers throughout the country. I agree with the Deputy's point about the need for one-stop-shops and to provide immediately the information people require.

In relation to the freefone system, we provide freefone for certain specific items, for instance, the FIS. We provided a freefone service for a week after the budget and this was well used.

The basic question relates to the timescale involved in the increases. Deputy Callely made the point, as did Deputy Connaughton, that for a number of years the commencement date for increases had been July and not April. Over the last eight years increases have been provided from July. During the sixties and early seventies the date was October for instance payments, with assistance payments taking place from August each year. During 1973-75 increases took effect from July. In 1987 in the budget proposed by the Labour Fine Gael Coalition the increases were deferred until November 1987.

Deputy Stagg would prefer not to be reminded.

I would have preferred if the Labour Party had not been in Government at all.

When I came in as Minister for Social Welfare I felt that this was wrong——

We all agree on that.

——and we brought it forward again to July. The cost here is important. The relevant Minister if he or she is wise will want to get the biggest increase possible that can be applied to the payments. We must remember that once the increase is given it is there for good. If it comes in from July it is in for all of the next and subsequent years. If one gets a smaller increase, as happened with some other Governments before our Government——

(Interruptions.)

——one must stick with those small increases. To bring the proposed increases forward to April would cost over £40 million. In terms of the funds available this year my objective was to give the highest level of increases which are there from the day they are installed. I hope that clarifies the position. It is a question of priorities, of getting the higher rates.

Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 4.

Amendments Nos. 10 to 17, inclusive, have been ruled out of order for reasons which have already been explained and which have been accepted.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

The arguments against the section are the same arguments we put forward in relation to section 3, and for the same reasons. I am putting forward the same point of view on section 4 as on section 3 and I want the Minister to look at this section from our viewpoint.

It is on the same ground that four of my amendments have been ruled out of order.

I am deeply concerned at the treatment some people experience in collecting supplementary welfare allowance. In my constituency an unmarried woman of 20 and her child were badly treated by a particular official and I am not sure what to do about it. People who are in need are extremely vulnerable and are subject in many instances to abuse and humiliating treatment. They have nowhere to go. The report of the commission recommends a radical change in the delivery of supplementary welfare allowance. What redress is available for people who have to live in an area and who are dependent on an official who is offhand and inconsiderate? Is there any redress?

This is a bone of contention which has been raised on many occasions. As present chairman of the Eastern Health Board, I can say that research has shown that the welfare officers are doing excellent work in very difficult circumstances.

Is the Deputy speaking for the Minister?

These officers have to ask some very difficult questions.

It is how they ask them that matters.

It is my understanding that officers of the Eastern Health Board area do an excellent job providing the supplementary allowance when necessary. The people who go to a health centre in need of supplementary welfare allowance may be emotionally upset and highly strung. They may not have found themselves in this position before and may find it difficult to deal with the questions asked. A lot of good work is being done by most of the welfare officers in the Eastern Health Board area.

Regarding the amendment, I would point out that the short term unemployed are getting an increase of 11 per cent. The amendment also refers to supplementary welfare allowances.

We are dealing with the section, not the amendments.

Do I take it that the Labour Party and The Workers' Party are objecting to these increases?

Let me assure the House and the Deputy that the Labour Party are not saying we do not want the increases to be granted. The increases are not sufficient.

The increase is 11 per cent while inflation is 3 per cent.

I presume I have the floor.

Irrespective of who is in possession, we should avoid a tete-á-tete or anything more acrimonious. Deputy Stagg, without interruption.

The payment date leaves people on very low incomes for longer than necessary. I would point out that 11 per cent of very little is very little.

Inflation is 3 per cent.

There is a 4 per cent increase across the board. We are not opposing the increase but opposing the fact that the Government are not paying it in time. Regarding community welfare officers, I am well aware of the volume of work required to be done by them arising from the increased number of people living in poverty. Nobody gets any money from a community welfare officer unless he or she is in dire poverty.

That is not true.

It is true. The community welfare officers are under severe pressure due to the increased incidence of poverty. In my health board area, of which Deputy Callely is the chairman, new instructions, of which the Deputy must be well aware, have been issued to community welfare officers. They have to get proof of everything in writing. Birth certificates, marriage certificates, receipts for the pram and receipts for the mattress must be supplied. That is new. Deputy Callely is newly appointed as chairman of the Eastern Health Board as well. There are huge discrepancies between what happens not just as between health boards but as between one health centre and another where there are different officers. The guidelines seem to be woolly and they set out to punish the recipients.

They have to be flexible.

This lack of consistency causes problems as well. I agree that the way the public are treated when they are at their lowest is less than satisfactory. I know the Minister does not like any strong language to be used about officials and in most instances I would excuse the officials in view of the pressures upon them. The old school of home assistance men are mostly retired. Some of them are dead and they had huge funerals because all the poor to whom they were nasty went to their funerals. Where the new school of young officers is operating, my experience is that there is no problem. The old officers may need a workshop to educate them on how to handle the public.

Is the Minister aware that in some areas the wives of people in receipt of DPMA are asked to sign on at the employment exchange? I do not agree with this. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the matter. Is this a new requirement?

The wives are asked to sign on and indicate that they are available for work.

Section 4 covers unemployment assistance payments as from 24 July and the payment of supplementary welfare allowance from 29 July. You asked why we were opposing it.

It would not be my function to ask why you are doing anything. I asked if you were opposing it so that we could have a debate on it.

It is important to explain why we are opposing it.

It is not necessary.

Are we not absolutely blessed with the interventions of Deputy Callely?

Deputy Callely is not yet Minister for Health.

The Chair will deal with Deputy Callely as he would with any Deputy on any side of the House if he persists in interrupting.

We appreciate that the Minister for Social Welfare is not responsible for those who administer the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, that it is administered by the health boards. Perhaps, that is the reason Deputy Callely, as chairman of the Eastern Health Board, feels he should answer for the Minister for Health. He is not the Minister for Health yet.

I suggest to the Deputy that if on the one hand he resents Deputy Callely responding to him he should not tantalise or provoke him into so doing.

He is encouraging me.

We are not opposed to the increases. However, we are pointing out that the increases are inadequate. The payment to an adult under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is £50 per week and Deputies on the other side of the House will appreciate that that amount of money does not do an awful lot to keep body and soul together. Two adults will be collectively worse off because their entitlement, courtesy of the health board, will be £83 per week. I would not be proud, as a TD in any political party, of those figures; they are miserable when put in their proper context.

We all know that the people seeking assistance from the community welfare officers are the most genuinely poor, deprived and disadvantaged in our society. I take on board that there is a tendency for TDs to listen to their constituents' complaints and be shocked at what we hear about the happenings in the health board clinics. That is not to suggest that people, not least our constituents, are not telling the truth. Politicians tend to listen to their constituents and unless they have proof that contradicts what they are hearing from them tend to take what they say at face value. I have on occasion gone to a number of health centres, although I do not tend to do this. I went to the health centre on Cashel Road, Crumlin, because a constituent had complained about the difficulty she was having. What shocked me most were the difficult conditions under which these people had to queue in the open, the sparse facilities. The huge numbers shocked me. There was no system of queuing and nobody knew exactly where he was in the queue. It was like cattle going on board the B & I. It was horrendous and I found it very disturbing. In fact I went to view another centre in the inner city and I was not happy with what I saw also.

These vulnerable people, the poorest in our society, have to seek assistance under very bad conditions. I wish to put on record that I do most of my work on the telephone and I deal with health board officials regularly and I have nothing but pleasantness from the community welfare officers. I do not know to what extent the allegations made against them are factual, we take what we hear at face value, but we have to accept, of course, that some of the complaints must be genuine. The work of community welfare officers is horrendous. Perhaps a case could be made for retraining them and allowing them to deal directly with the public on a week on, week off basis. That would allow them to alternate between office work and dealing with the public. They face a very trying time.

I am not happy with other aspects of section 4. When one compares what is being offered in the Bill with what was recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare, one will see that many areas remain to be addressed. Under supplementary welfare allowances, the Commission made two recommendations one of which is that there should be clear guidelines for discretionary payments available under the scheme. The absence of guidelines creates tremendous confusion for the public and politicians. Everybody knows somebody who has gone to a community welfare officer and had his or her case rejected while a person supposedly of similar circumstances and family size receives benefit from a more friendly or humane community welfare officer in another area.

The Commission recommended that the supplementary welfare allowances at present administered by health boards should be administered directly by the Department of Social Welfare, as the health boards are administering the money of the Department of Social Welfare. Will the Minister comment on the progress been made in this regard? It is important that the Department of Social Welfare are structured to administer supplementary welfare allowances. In addition, has the Minister done any work on the guidelines for discretionary payments? The report recommends that the guidelines should be reviewed every two years.

The commission recommended that the income needs of young people aged between 16 and 18 years should be met by reform of the social welfare scheme. Has the Minister addressed this issue? The Commission also recommended that in assessing the means of single adults living at home, board and lodgings should not be counted except for those aged under 25 years. Will the Minister comment on the progress he has made to meet this recommendation? I congratulate the Minister on giving a minimum payment of £5 to everybody who is eligible for social assistance but I criticise him for not implementing in full the recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare, that single people aged between 18 and 25 should be assessed on their board and lodgings but should be entitled at least to £10 per week regardless of their parents' income. The 1985 report of the Commission on Social Welfare is the bible for social welfare as far as I am concerned. The Minister has gone nowhere near conforming to the very progressive and worthwhile recommendations of the Commission. People who will get £5 per week under this Bill are those who qualify for social assistance having been means-tested but the Commission argued that irrespective of the household income a person should get a minimum payment of £10 per week.

The Minister spent 20 minutes on self praise, as Deputy Stagg said. He was attempting to make us believe that he was surpassing the recommendations in the report of the Commission on Social Welfare, but he has not gone anywhere near meeting their recommendation on unemployment assistance.

An Teachta Browne after whom I will call An Teachta Ivor Callely.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I cannot help but congratulate Deputy Callely on the speed with which he gets up to make speeches now, because I had the unique experience of being here in traps waiting to come out in the 525 one day; Deputy Callely was in trap one opposite and Minister Ray Burke came out of trap one, the sprint box, and left everyone standing. For some strange reason Deputy Callely could not rise on that occasion, but he has come on.

Let us be clear about this. Deputy Browne left the House. There was nobody in the House.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Excuse me, Deputy Browne was sitting here all the time. You were waiting for an hour to make a speech and you forgot to get up.

You walked out of the House.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): No, I did not, I beg your pardon.

You walked out of the House, or else you were not used to Parliamentary procedure. You should have known you could have risen and spoken and you did not take that opportunity.

I am surprised at Deputy Browne——

We won that day.

Deputy Browne, these fond recollections do not help. If Deputy Browne will do as he is required under Standing Orders, if he addresses the Chair, he will find a more sympathetic and understanding audience then he will get if he addresses any individual Member.

He was caught napping on the day.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): When I made my speech here on that Bill and was still sitting in the House someone did not get up. As I explained, A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I was here all the time despite someone's very bad memory.

But you did not speak.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wanted to rise on this occasion to say that while I can accept very readily what my colleague, Deputy Fennell, has said about an incident, these things happen unfortunately. As has been pointed out also, many of these workers are under tremendous pressure; there are queues and so on. It would be unfair of me not to compliment them on the work they do. When there is a problem, when somebody is in need of help immediately, I find that they are tremendously helpful. I suppose all of us as TDs fall down on the job at times as well; we come under pressure. It is only fair that we should appreciate what they do because they rescue people in poverty and in difficulty who need help. There is an ideal way of doing things that is not always done.

I would worry more sometimes about people in the Civil Service handling situations. The other day, for example, I rang up one of the Minister's sections and when I got through the person who answered the telephone told me to hold on a minute and left down the telephone for about five minutes. I did not mind but when he came back I said to him that it just so happened that I was a TD but what would happen if I had been ringing from Kerry — I asked the Minister about putting in a free phone service at one stage. He proceeded to give me a lecture to the effect that TDs do not get any special treatment. I just could not get a word in edgeways. Eventually I said to him that when he had calmed down I was not looking for special treatment; I was only worrying about the cost of a telephone call. I asked him if that was the way a long distance telephone caller would be treated.

Again I have to say he is the exception because I find that 99 times out of 100 the officials we deal with are very helpful and have a good sense of humour. There is always this bad apple in a pile. In fairness he should be taken away from telephones and told to use a megaphone because he should not be dealing with the public. However he is the exception. People dealing with people in trouble are often under pressure themselves but I think they do a very good job.

Bíonn caora dhubh sa tréad is gile, is dócha, an Teachta Ivor Callely.

I am very glad to agree with the latter part of Deputy Browne's statement in relation to the community welfare officers doing an excellent job. However, I have to differ with his opening remarks which were totally incorrect.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I only congratulated you.

Much has been said about the community welfare officers working within the health centres. In particular Deputies Fennell, Stagg and Byrne referred to Eastern Health Board areas and isolated incidents. I hope they are isolated incidents. I also wish to refer to what Deputy Stagg said about a very rigid regime being operated by officers and the policy of the Eastern Health Board with a large set of new recruits. He was implying, maybe, that they were faceless officers interrogating individuals looking for assistance. I would like to indicate that there are no such new faceless officers within the Eastern Health Board area. There is no such rigid policy. I take this opportunity to say that if Deputies have difficulty at any time I would greatly appreciate it if they would bring it to the attention of any of the board members or managerial officers of the Eastern Health Board to have it investigated.

Or the chairman.

Or the chairman, of course. I would be happy to assist. If there was a rigid regime in place, that would restrict the community welfare officers on occasions when they have to be flexible. Once again I want to put on the record of the House our appreciation of the excellent job that most community welfare officers carry out in very difficult circumstances.

Deputy Byrne referred to the Minister's work in relation to what he described as the bible on social welfare, the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. The record speaks for itself. The Minister has done an excellent job in the whole area of social welfare and that has been recognised not alone inside this House but outside it as well.

The record shows the inadequacy of the progress being made.

The Minister has streamlined the whole area of social welfare. He has improved payments. That cannot go unnoted and it is unfair of Deputy Byrne to refer to the Minister in the way he did.

I would like to thank the Deputy for his assurances on that matter. In principle I disagree with this allowance. It should be changed because it is demeaning and humiliating and is subject to decisions by people who have no guidelines to follow.

I do not like complaining about officials. Nobody who is doing a job like this goes out of his way to complain and I am not somebody who would make trouble. The vast majority of community welfare officers are doing the best job they can and they are under great pressure; but where somebody is not doing as good a job as they should and is being unpleasant something should be done because people can suffer from that. I certainly would take the Minister up on his invitation. My experience was not similar to Deputy Byrne's. Two people were being rehoused, one from another area and from the constituency, and the difference in application of the benefits to each of them was so dramatic I have to question it. It was not just a question of the person making the application being emotional. An appointment had been made in a new flat that had been allocated to the women. She took her year-and-a half-old baby out and got two buses to be there. The community welfare officer did not turn up but left her high and dry. That is not good enough. I would object strongly if somebody did that to me for any reason. I want to make the point that where there is an officer that is unpleasant or unhelpful or downright nasty, something should be done. Maybe the job they are doing on a daily, weekly, monthly basis is too awful and they get into a situation where the world seems like a very miserable place, and perhaps they should be moved or rotated into some other work.

Perhaps the chairman of the Eastern Health Board should move down to the front and answer the questions for the Deputy directly.

I would say that is where he would like to be.

He would certainly be welcome to answer all the complaints or any of the complaints. This seems to be a specific complaint. It has been fairly well aired by a number of Deputies. If the Deputy likes to give us details afterwards we will certainly take it up with the health board. As some Deputies have said, at the end of the day we are paying for the service and it is administered by the health board.

The Deputy also raised other questions about the supplementary allowance scheme saying that she disagrees with the scheme anyway and thinks it should be abolished. A lot more needs to be done with the scheme but there will always be a discretionary payment. The objective should be to reduce discretionary payments to the lowest level possible, by increasing the level of payments in the first instance, and ensuring that everybody has access to them. The discretionary element has been reduced considerably by way of a number of schemes we have introduced, for instance, the back-to-school scheme which eliminated the discretionary element, leaving one scheme applicable right across the country with one set of rules and conditions though they may not always have been applied in exactly the same way.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share