Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 22 Nov 1991

Vol. 413 No. 4

Supplementary Estimates, 1991. - Vote 40: Social Welfare.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Daly)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £103,000,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1991, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants.

I want to express my appreciation of the work done in this Department by my predecessor, Deputy Woods, and for the very conscientious detailed work undertaken by a highly professional, motivated staff in this Department. I should like to avail of this opportunity to put on record the major contribution of my predecessor and the Department to the development of our social services in recent years. My predecessor has been the longest serving Minister for Social Welfare we have had. I gladly take up the challenge. I will continue to do my utmost to ensure that we develop the services from the very sound foundations on which they have been established and continue the good work of delivering an efficient, effective service to the people in need of the services of this Department in the future.

The Supplementary Estimate of £103 million I am asking the House to approve today is necessary to meet the additional costs that will arise for the period up to the end of this year.

I should like to make a few points, first, that this is the first Supplementary Estimate introduced by this Department since 1987. I will set out the main heads of the £103 million being sought which are: the Christmas bonus, which will cost the Department £26.8 million; unemployment payments totalling £89.2 million, and the supplementary welfare allowance costing £12 million.

I am glad to be able to inform the House that for the third successive year the Government have approved a Christmas bonus of 70 per cent of normal weekly payments for pensioners and others in receipt of long term social welfare payments. The provision of a Christmas bonus this year will cost a total of £28 million for all beneficiaries as against £25.6 million last year. That is a very considerable achievement in view of the current financial difficulties confronting the Government and our economy. Almost one million beneficiaries will gain from the Christmas bonus which will be paid in the first week of December. These include 620,000 people on long term social welfare payments together with their partners and children. The bonus will be paid to pensioners and other people including the elderly, widowed, lone parents, the long term unemployed and people receiving the carer's allowance. Of course, it will be paid by health boards to recipients of long term health allowances.

Some examples will illustrate the effect of the bonus on social welfare beneficiaries this year. For example, a couple on an old age contributory pension will receive an additional £77 bringing their payment in the bonus week to £187, a couple with five children on long term unemployment assistance will receive a bonus £103.60 bringing their payment that week to £251.60, and a lone parent with four children will receive almost £78 extra that week. Therefore, it will be seen that the payment of the Christmas bonus will help people on social welfare to cope with the extra financial commitments they will have in the run up to Christmas.

I want to refer now to the live register, indicate the changes that have taken place and what has brought about the need for this Supplementary Estimate. As all Members will be aware, we have a major unemployment problem which can be seen by the increase in numbers joining the live register. Of course, the problem is not unique to this country but rather is a reflection of an overall international recession. That is not to say that our problems can be blamed on other countries. But I must stress that we are not immune to world trends generally. As economies improve — and all the signs lead us to believe that an international upturn is indicated — so too will our fortunes. Hopefully this will be the last occasion on which we will be faced with circumstances such as these.

However, industrialists should concentrate their efforts on new imaginative programmes to create more jobs. Economic trends are beginning to show positive signs of recovery. There is now called for an all out effort to create more business and industrial development within our economy.

The census figures show that net emigration in the year to April last fell by 30,000 compared with the same figure at 30 April 1990. The rise in the numbers registered as unemployed in the same period was of the same order of magnitude, which connection indicates that the rise in the current level of unemployment is strongly associated with the underlying pattern in migration.

The Government continue to be committed to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress particularly where its focus leads to the creation of employment and the reduction of involuntary emigration. The creation of new jobs and tackling unemployment remain the top priorities of this Government, which again is reflected in the Programme for Government. We are committed to the objective, above all others, of promoting those measures that will effectively tackle the unemployment crisis. All our policies are aimed at creating the right climate for business and investment to bring about increased employment. That will continue to be our primary objective. The most significant element in the Estimate before the House is the increase in the live register. The average weekly live register underlying the 1991 published Estimate was 228,000. The revised live register figure for the purpose of the Supplementary Estimate is 253,000, an increase of 25,000.

An excess of £12 million in the expenditure on supplementary welfare allowance (SWA) is anticipated. This is due to higher numbers than expected being paid allowances under the basic scheme and under the recently introduced footwear and clothing allowance scheme.

The scheme, which is administered by the health boards, operates as one of last resort catering for those who, for one reason or another, do not qualify under the other social welfare schemes administered by my Department. It provides for basic weekly payments for people whose means are insufficient to meet their needs and those of their dependants. It also provides payments to people while their claims to social welfare payments are being processed.

Supplementary welfare allowance is also very flexible and allows the incomes of other social welfare beneficiaries to be supplemented in special circumstances — for example, in respect of high rent or mortgage interest or where, due to ill health, there are special heating or dietary needs. The scheme also provides a speedy response to once-off exceptional needs. The scheme is, therefore, an essential and very important one acting as a safety net to protect the living standards of the less well off and most vulnerable in society.

The additional expenditure of £103 million would have been considerably higher were it not for additional PRSI income of some £5 million and savings in other areas. This increased income from PRSI is mainly due to the impressive and sustained effort to control abuse by unscrupulous employers. That effort will continue. Further savings, again through the intensification of control measures across the whole spectrum of social welfare schemes, effectively resulted in claims being paid only to those to whom they were properly payable.

A saving of £6.7 million has arisen on the lone parents scheme — subhead I. This arises because fewer separated spouses than expected qualified under this scheme, resulting in a saving of £10 million which was offset to the extent of £3.3 million by higher than expected numbers of other categories of lone parents and the cost of the Christmas bonus to lone parents in general.

Expenditure on unemployment payments would have been lower by up to £10 million if the expected take-up of the lone parents scheme by separated spouses had been realised. It was anticipated that a change from unemployment assistance to lone parent allowance might take place, but it did not materialise. There are quite a number of separated persons with children who draw unemployment assistance although they would be better off under the lone parent allowance scheme. For some reason they have not changed over.

Mr. Stagg

Tell them about it.

Mr. Daly

Perhaps we might avail of this opportunity to tell people about it. Certain lone parents would be better off financially if they applied for this allowance but it is for them to decide.

This summer the beginning of a process of change in how my Department deliver their services was launched. The Department's local offices have been re-organised into eight regions. The aim of this regionalisation is to achieve a better service for our customers and to facilitate the provision of a more localised cus-tomer-oriented service. Local offices will be one stop shops delivering a broad range of services under one roof. Offices are being progressively improved and modernised throughout the country. My predecessor recently opened an excellent facility in Ennis which is proving to be very beneficial in co-ordinating services in the interests of our customers.

We are committed to providing a personalised, localised service which meets our clients needs in a caring and dignified way. These are the people who are most vulnerable in our society and they need our special care and attention. They must be cared for in a personal, private and dignified way. I will ensure that this will be done during my term of office.

Mr. Stagg

Hear, hear.

Mr. Daly

This major improvement in the delivery of services is complemented by concentrated efforts to provide the best of service to those in need while also giving value for money in the method of providing that service. With this in mind I am looking at new payment methods and improved signing arrangements. The emphasis will be on a more efficient, effective system which delivers payments in the best way suited to the client and ensuring that those properly entitled to payment receive them without delay.

As well as being caring and considerate we must be firm. We are dealing with huge amounts of taxpayers' money and we must ensure that it goes to the people who need it, eliminating fraud and duplication.

The original Estimate for my Department passed by Dáil Éireann on 11 July 1991 was for £1,160,453,000. The additional sum now required, £103 million, will bring the total Exchequer provision for the Social Welfare services this year to £1,713,453,000. This is a substantial sum of money by any standards. It reaches not only those who have established a right to payment through years of contributions but also those most in need in society. It reaches those who through no fault of their own have come to depend on the State for income support.

Finally, I wish to state that I am deeply committed to the fullest development of the social welfare services as they affect this Department. I hope that during my term of office I can undertake a meaningful contribution to the development, consolidation and delivery of these services to those in need. I hope that the service for those sections of the community depending on this Department will be enhanced and secured.

I ask the House to approve this very necessary expenditure and would welcome the views of the Deputies present. I will take careful note of their comments and will take on board those that can be accommodated within the economic and budgetary limitations.

Mr. Connaughton

I welcome the new Minister for Social Welfare. He will have a very busy time and I have no doubt that he will do a very good job. I should also like to pay tribute to his predecessor whom I always found to be extremely approachable.

This Supplementary Estimate is a monument to the atrocious management of the nation's finances. It must be one of the largest Supplementary Estimates ever introduced in the House by a Minister for Social Welfare. Almost all of the £103 million contained in it relates to the cancer of unemployment in our society. The results of years of economic mismanagement are now becoming transparent. While the short term austerity measures taken to control our public finances, the measures taken to come to grips with our spiralling national debt, the measures adopted to increase competitiveness in the market place and other measures taken to increase employment have had some little success, it is like winning the battle but losing the war.

This Supplementary Estimate relates to money which we do not really have. However, because we live in a democracy where people expect to be treated in a Christian and humane manner we have developed a social welfare system which, theoretically speaking, can deliver financial assistance to various individuals in need. Such social welfare assistance is supposed to help people stay above the poverty line. The delivery of financial aid takes many forms, for example, it is age related as in the child benefit scheme, age and means related as in old age pension schemes and means related in terms of unemployment assistance and so on.

Society owes a great debt of gratitude to the elderly. The economic, social and cultural contributions they made during their working lives represent the foundation stone on which this generation was built. The need to direct financial assistance towards the nation's children is obvious. However, in order to financially protect the living standards of the young, the elderly and the handicapped it is vital for the economy to have a vibrant middle section of men and women who have jobs which will generate wealth, part of which can be channelled back via taxation and social welfare assistance to the groups I mentioned.

The vibrant middle section of our working population is shrinking with devastating results. We are losing on the treble because of this. Today's Supplementary Estimate would not be required had there not been an explosion in the numbers claiming unemployment benefit and assistance since the budget was announced only ten months ago. Ireland's working population has to cough up an extra £103 million. The loss in terms of PRSI and income tax yield by the 35,000 people who either lost or could not get jobs is enormous. The financial loss to the economy in terms of the goods and services which would be generated by 35,000 people in the workforce is significant. The huge personal loss of dignity to the 35,000 people who cannot get jobs is horrendous.

The Government have the worst forecasting analysis of the situation ever recorded in the history of the State. Their figures were very wrong. The Government were £103 million out on the Exchequer provisions for unemployment benefit and assistance and this relates directly to the extra 35,000 people who have joined the dole queues since last January. While provision was made in the budget for an unemployment level of 228,000, there are now approximately 254,000 people unemployed. It is inconceivable that any Government could have got their figures so wrong in the budget. I wish to ask the Minister if they got the figures wrong or if the Government produced a phoney budget, fancy footwork to disguise a very poor budgetary position. Nobody will now take responsibility for that budget as the Minister for Finance who introduced it has been sacked.

Some leading economists are openly suggesting that the number unemployed will rise to 300,000 by 1992-93. It is now clear to everyone that the Government have no clearcut strategies which will reverse this trend and there is a complete lack of clarity in so far as the establishment of an environment conducive to the creation of jobs is concerned.

Nevertheless, we must deal with the position as we find it. A man on long term unemployment assistance with a wife and two children now gets £131 per week. What sort of life style could a family of four have on £131 per week? Comparisons are always being made between people who have jobs and those who do not. I am the first to admit that certain categories of social welfare recipients who have very large families receive a higher income per week than they would if they were in low paid jobs. This, of course, raises questions about the incentive to work. Some aspects of this will have to be addressed immediately so as to ensure that disincentive to work is removed from the equation.

I wish to refer again to the position of a family of four on £131 per week. Contrary to public opinion, it has now been established that vast numbers of unemployed people do not live in council houses. Many unemployed people who have to live on £131 per week have to pay rent on their houses at the full rate or repay mortgages. When school fees, heating, lighting and normal expenses such as clothing and food are taken into account it must be a very long week for such families.

The Commission on Social Welfare indicated as long ago as 1985 that certain specific levels of unemployment assistance were needed in order to bring people above the poverty line. However, to date we are still below those figures. The reason I highlight this problem is that I do not want anyone to tell me that being unemployed or having to live on £131 per week is Utopia. Irrespective of whether or not they are wage earners, every family knows that not a day of the week passes but children are looking for money for books, school outings, school uniforms, entertainment and so on — the list is endless. One would want to have a money making machine to keep families going. This aspect of unemployment must never be forgotten by this House or society in general. There is no glamour — I know the Minister accepts this — attached to making ends meet on £131 per week. The maximum unemployment assistance for a single person is £50 per week. We can only imagine how difficult it must be for such people to live on this amount.

I outline these scenarios today because a great number of commentators seem to imply that, generally speaking, most people would be better off on the dole than working. Certain people would be better off on social welfare than in low paid jobs. Given the cost of living in this country, I contend that families on social welfare have very little money left over at the end of the week to buy extras. I do not have to reiterate the psychological problems unemployment causes. These are horrendous by any standards.

I detect a conflict between the employed and unemployed sectors in the community. Many members of the workforce believe they are carrying the unemployed on their backs and that social welfare recipients get things too easy. However, when people lose their jobs their world is shattered. Many are frustrated with the system. The same applies to young people, gifted in mind and body, who see no hope of getting a job. It is now becoming evident that the Government are again going to take the soft option in 1992. Rumour is rife that they will take a softer option in regard to the Exchequer borrowing requirement. If they follow this path, many more Supplementary Estimates will have to be introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare next year.

A great deal of frustration is felt by social welfare recipients and potential recipients. I do not think 1991 will go down in history as the year people who were eligible for social welfare got what they were entitled to. Social welfare has not been distributed in a balanced and even handed way to some sections of the community.

Many people genuinely believe that they have been denied their rights to social welfare. These vary from the carers of the sick to small farmers who are unable to make ends meet from the land. It varies from discrimination to widows who are unable to claim what is rightfully theirs to people who are nine months waiting for result of their appeals. There is a great onus of responsibility on the Department of Social Welfare to try to come to grips with this huge problem of uneven and erratic administration.

Take for instance the case of widows whose husbands paid the necessary PRSI contributions for the self-employed for the minimum of three years. The last instalment was paid in October-November. Their husbands died before the following April and because of that they were deemed not to be entitled to contributory pensions despite the fact that the three annual contributions were paid. That is not what was intended when the Bill went through the House. I recall being involved in the discussion at the time and certainly that is not what was intended. I understand there are about 50 or 60 such widows in this country. It is unfair that they should be treated in this way, particularly as this is not a recurring problem.

Take the case of a woman who is working 24 hours a day at home every day of every week of the year looking after her mother, who is incontinent, whose every move has to be assisted and who needs constant care. Because there is a wage packet of just over £100 per week coming into that house she is unable to claim the carer's allowance. As everybody knows, if the elderly person was committed to one of our public nursing homes it would cost the taxpayer over £350 per week. Surely there is something wrong there.

Take the case of the small farmer in the west who has lost £150 per head on livestock in 1991 — this is a matter about which the Minister will be aware of more than most — and whose income has fallen dramatically. How is it that the number of people on farmers' dole has not increased in the past two or three years? Despite the huge fall in income it still stands at 13,000 or 14,000? Why is it in times of greater poverty more farmers are not eligible for farmers' dole? I still believe — I know the official line will deny this — a notional assessment is being carried out for small farmers which has nothing whatsoever to do with their expenditure and income account. I will argue that with anybody until the cows come home.

There is no doubt that there is great child poverty in this country and one would have to ask whether the present child benefit scheme could be rearranged to ensure better use of the resources available.

The harrowing experience that social welfare recipients have to endure at many employment exchanges is nothing short of scandalous. I accept that some major buildings have been commissioned and brought into use. Offices that provide little or no privacy when social welfare recipients are being asked personal questions should either be modified or closed down. Everybody is entitled to their dignity. Indeed, for many on social welfare there is nothing left except dignity. How would Deputies in this House — all my colleagues and myself included — and, indeed, civil servants react to being asked the most personal questions when half the people of the town are listening behind us? I have no doubt that we would not put up with it for 20 minutes. If that is the case we should not ask anybody else to put up with it. I will be told, as I have been on several occasions, that it all amounts to extra costs and that there is this, that and the other involved; but if there is a will there is a way.

The Department of Social Welfare recently announced a change in the method by which long term unemployed will be involved in pre-retirement schemes. Perhaps the Minister would refer to this matter in his closing contribution. There is presently a conflict of opinion as to whether people over 55 years of age have to compulsorily become involved in the scheme. The Minister seems to be suggesting publicly that it is only those over the age of 58 who have to compulsorily comply with the scheme. However, some managers of the private employment exchanges throughout the country are of the opinion that 55 year olds will have to join the scheme whether they like it or not. The connotation here is that if 55 year olds have to join the scheme obviously they are not entitled to be on the live register and are not entitled to register with FÁS. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that issue. I raised this matter previously and I was told by the Department that this was rubbish; but this matter is being raised all over the country and I would like to have it clarified.

Can the Minister explain to the House the position of women who have lodged claims against his Department in relation to arrears of social welfare for the period 1984-86? I find it frustrating in the extreme that despite my best efforts, and those of all the Opposition, to put down Dáil questions I am refused under the sub judice rule. I cannot understand why the Department of Social Welfare will not answer the questions I have asked. The High Court, Supreme Court and the EC Court of Justice found in favour of the women concerned. The EC Court of Justice ruled in favour of the women in respect of the time limit. Have the Department paid out any arrears to the women involved? Will each woman have to go to court individually to get their rights? How long more can the Government hide from facing up to their responsibilities? I think we are entitled to an answer to these questions on the floor of Dáil Éireann.

The Department of Social Welfare received £1 million in the budget this year towards financial relief for small farmers. This has not been used. Despite what the Minister's predecessor told the IFA recently, I understand no plans are ready. I understand negotiations are taking place between the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Agriculture and the farming organisations. We are approaching the end of November, the £1 million has not been paid and I understand it will be returned to the Department of Finance and that it will be of no use to any Irish farmer in 1991. Perhaps the Minister would have the position clarified. I recall putting down a Dáil question last April asking how this money would be paid. I was informed that all sorts of interdepartmental meetings were taking place and that this would be a great scheme. However, almost a year has passed and the money has not been paid.

Finally, I have no problem in supporting the Estimate, but it signals a wrong direction, that we did not know what we were doing ten months ago. It signals that either the analysts, the people who prepare the material for the Minister and the Department, or the Minister were genuinely caught off guard. It is extraordinary that there should be a shortfall of £103 million in the Estimate. It is inconceivable that the amount involved should be so large. How sure can we be of any figures proposed in the recent budget? If all the Estimates go down the same road as that for Social Welfare, then God help this country. As legislators the pressure is on us to ensure that the plight of the have nots of society is made easier. There is an enormous responsibility on all of us particularly in bad times — there is no problem in good times — and our mettle will be tested from now on to see what we think of the have nots in Irish society.

Mr. Stagg

Yesterday I welcomed the new Minister to his position. Today I would like to congratulate him on the new attitude he has displayed as Minister for Social Welfare. It is clear to me that he will put people first and that we will dictate the attitude to those in the Department rather than having the "officialese" type of attitude that persisted previously. Certainly the Minister's replies to the House yesterday would indicate an understanding and knowledge of the situation on the ground, which I found refreshing. I congratulate the new Minister on his attitude.

These Supplementary Estimates represent a failure of two types, the first is that of forecasting. The Government failed to foresee the staggering rise in unemployment this year. In the budget speech in January the Minister for Finance predicted that unemployment would rise by 4,000 to 228,000 people. Even that was considered appalling in light of the commitments in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to job creation. The total today is something like 30,000 above that figure.

The second, and more serious failure, is that a Supplementary Estimate has to be introduced at all. This arises from the massive increase in unemployment, which is the direct result of the failure of the Government's economic policies. This has a number of political consequences that touch upon the Government and their relationship with the social partners.

The Government must as a priority seriously reconsider their strategy for job creation. Their policies have failed utterly on this score. We have descended to the level of farce when the Taoiseach can come into this House, as he did on Tuesday, and blame young people for not emigrating as an explanation for the continuing high levels of unemployment.

The commitments in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress are meaningless. The commitment to create 20,000 jobs is a sick joke when the recent Labour Force Survey shows a decrease of 5,000 in the numbers at work. Accordingly the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed have projected that we need nearly 50,000 jobs per annum to begin to bring down unemployment. If we do not reach these levels the Minister will continually come back to this House to ask for supplements, admitting that he got the figures wrong, apologising for the inaccuracies.

The Government will have the opportunity to re-think their job creation strategies with the renegotiations on the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. It would be a travesty if the renegotiations were merely confined to the public service pay bill, important as it is. The reason the Government are pleading inability to meet the public service pay commitment is precisely because of their costly failure to employ people. If they put more people to work, this would increase revenue, reduce social welfare expenditure and make it possible to meet pay agreements.

We have listened to right wing Deputies in Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats baying on about "controlling public expenditure". I exclude the Fine Gael spokesperson for Social Welfare from that comment. Yet the one crucial element in public expenditure they always ignore is the high cost of unemployment. Let no one be under any illusions. When right wing Deputies call for public expenditure control they are using a code. The code is "stick it to the poor"—"make employees pay". Controlling public expenditure means closing down public hospital wards, cutting back on teachers, leaving social welfare recipients below the poverty line, postponing public sector pay and so on.

When it comes to unemployment their hypocrisy is striking. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress renegotiation holds out an opportunity for the Government to adopt alternative employment strategies. It will also make demands on the trade union movement. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have negotiated in good faith. Trade unionists have made the sacrifices over the past four years. They have kept their side of the bargain while the Government and the employers have reneged on theirs. Given this, trade unionists must ask themselves how much longer they are willing to prop up this charade of a social partnership. How much longer are trade unions going to allow their participation in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to be used by this Government as justification of their failed policies?

The Programme for Economic and Social Progress is not a national agreement. At best, it is a glorified pay deal. All the other elements — taxation, social welfare, job creation — had already been laid down by the Government and thrown into the agreement to give it some gravitas. If the Programme for Economic and Social Progress was a real agreement, where is the sanction on the employers for failing to employ people, for failing to invest, for failing to make productive use of economic assets? If the unions reneged on the agreement, the Government and the employers would be the first to withold pay increases, special awards, etc. But where are the penalties for the employers? There are none. It is a one-sided deal, all provided by the trade unions, with the Government reaping the political reward.

I am not suggesting that trade unions walk away from the agreement, though that is what employers have effectively done. I am not suggesting that unions should not negotiate with the Government or employers over pay. I am not suggesting that unions should not deal with the Government on the matters of jobs, social welfare, environment, etc. However, the unions can do all these things without being used by the Government as a justification for Government policies. The reason we are debating these Estimates — a huge increase in unemployment — is one cogent reason for a rethink on the part of the trade union movement. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress deal has failed to create jobs and that failure will undermine all other economic and social goals in the agreement.

The Minister comes to the House today effectively admitting failure, admitting that unemployment is out of control, admitting that the only policy response the Government have is to ask for more money to put people on the dole. I do not believe that the Minister is happy with this situation, but the fact is that he is part of a Cabinet, part of a Government whose policies have brought this situation about.

That Government are bringing about another obscenity under the cloak of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme for Government. At the same time that the Minister is bringing a Supplementary Estimate to pay more people on the dole, they are also introducing tax cuts which, according to the ESRI, will disproportionately benefit the wealthy and will cost £1,000 million. It is an economic crime to reduce the tax rates to 25 per cent and 44 per cent at a trime of spiralling unemployment, high levels of poverty and the overriding need for substantial investment in the economic and social infrastructure. It is a crime. Why is no one in Fianna Fáil saying “enough is enough”? These obscene tax proposals coming out of this Government are not Fianna Fáil policies. They are Progressive Democrats policies and Fianna Fáil are being led around by the nose. From conversations I have had with some Fianna Fáil backbenchers, they know it, they resent it, but they are seemingly helpless to stop it.

All this is bad enough, but there is one more twist. The Minister's Estimates are set to provide social welfare to people at rates below the poverty line. Some could argue, though I would not, that any Irish Government is limited as to what they can do about unemployment, due to the open nature of the economy and our reliance upon the British economy. Even if one accepted that argument, then how much more important it is for the Irish Government to provide for people who through no fault of their own but owing to external factors do not have a job? How much more important is it that they be provided for, with, in the words of the Commission on Social Welfare, a minimum adequate income? However, this is not what the Minister is doing. He is not coming into this House saying that it will be some time before we can resolve the jobs crisis owing to factors outside our control, but that until that time they will at least ensure that people can have a minimum adequate income. The Minister is presiding over a payment structure where almost every social welfare category is paid below the Commission on Social Welfare's recommended minimum adequate income. Those on unemployment assistance and benefit, supplementary allowance, lone parents allowance, non-contributory old age pensions are receiving payments up to 20 per cent below the minimum adequate income. Not only must people suffer the loss of jobs owing to this Government's failed policies, they in turn must suffer poverty existence as well.

In conclusion, I just want to refer to the appointment of Deputy Bertie Ahern as Minister for Finance, which has a bearing on this debate. I have heard so much about the new Minister. I heard that he was a friend of working people, had a good relationship with trade unions, is representative of the real grassroots of Fianna Fáil. When he was appointed Minister I awaited confirmation of this impressive reputation. I expected him to say, "Sorry, but we have to put extra taxes on the wealthy, on capital, on profits. We are going to have to remove all these unfair tax exemptions and crack down on tax evaders. We are going to have to stop subsidising private schools and the Blackrock Clinic. We need the money to invest in job creation, in raising the standard of living of social welfare recipients and the low-paid, in restoring an acceptable level of services."

That is what I expected, but guess what? The Minister was not a day in office when he started using the coded language of the Right wing. He had not even visited his own office when he was talking about public expenditure control, cutbacks, rough times, fiscal rectitude and the whole vocabulary that hides the politics of making working people pay for the failures and incompetences of this Government. I read that local government employees and services are next in line for the chop. If I could paraphrase the old biblical phrase, I would say that by their faults you shall know them.

Mr. Byrne

These Supplementary Estimates make extremely sad reading. They are indicators of the failure of this Government who could get their figures so wrong in such a short period of time, five months. How can any Minister come to this Chamber and stand over the outrageous miscalculation that this Government are responsible for?

In these Estimates we will be talking about a two-tier society and we, in The Workers' Party, are concerned about the bottom tier of our society i.e. the poor, and how they are to get over Christmas. We should look at the stark situation of those living in poverty today. We might also take a fleeting glance at the figures in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which expose the reprehensible attitude of those with money who refuse to play their part by paying their taxes. These are the real parasites in our society, the people who are damaging the health of the old, the sick and the poor, and who by their export of capital and their refusal to pay their taxes either on time or at all, are condemning those caught in the poverty trap to longer periods in poverty.

Anybody who has their feet firmly on the ground cannot but be shocked and disturbed at the level of poverty in this country. It is there for everybody to see. Ireland's poverty rate is one of the worst in the European Community. Recent studies by the European Community and the Combat Poverty Agency show that substantial numbers of Irish people are living in poverty. The stark facts are that about one million people in this country do not have sufficient income to live life with basic dignity, that is, to maintain a minimally adequate standard of living. That is a shocking statistic, a shocking reflection on the ability of the Government to address the needs of our urban and rural poor. Other figures show that 40 per cent of all Irish children live in households below the minimum level identified by the CSW. Large numbers of these are experiencing serious deprivation, one of the major scandals of modern Ireland.

Let me highlight other facts that are equally frightening. The social welfare budget as a proportion of the overall budget has been declining; as also have the expenditure on social welfare as a percentage of gross domestic product and the Exchequer contribution to social welfare, as distinct from the social insurance contribution. All that was necessary in recent years to ensure substantially greater progress in tackling poverty was to reverse any or all three of these trends.

There are some points I would like to raise with the Minister on the Estimates as presented to us. I want to inquire specifically about the non-spending of £13,900,000. That is quite an amount of money that had been earmarked for the poor, the social welfare recipients, but was not taken up. Why might this have happened? When one looks carefully at the breakdown of this figure in the subheads, one sees that £6,700,000 was returned to the Exchequer from moneys allocated for the lone parents' allowance. The Minister addressed that, but if that has been returned because of lack of take-up and people are still drawing unemployment assistance instead of taking up a scheme that is reputedly better in the context of payments, it must be that the Department have not sufficiently publicised this allowance. It is quite outrageous that money that was allowed in the budget for lone parents has not been taken up to the extent of £6,700,000. What will the Minister do this time to avoid a repeat clawback of that money next year?

There are some equally disturbing figures under unspent money in regard to section P, covering areas 3, 5 and 6, which shows that there is over £1,050,000 under miscellaneous grants. When one examines these figures and realises who was supposed to benefit from this money, one wonders why this is being clawed back. We see that the grants that should have been available for fuel for needy people has not been used up, and these include grants for the provision of free television licences and a grant in respect of electricity. Why is this being clawed back when there are so many needy people out there? What is the Department doing to make people who are eligible for these benefits aware of them? The people who are now at the loss of that money are the old and the poor and the most vulnerable in our society.

The figures we are dealing with show the real face of Ireland today. This Estimate is obviously not just about the so-called Christmas bonus of 70 per cent which is a disgrace because it represents a reduction of 30 per cent in what was once a 100 per cent Christmas bonus. It is about extra money to pay for the increased poverty in our country. The figures here are frightening, and hopefully the fear and frustration I express will be shared by the Minister when he looks at the numbers of people involved. The Minister is building in £48,700,000 for unemployment assistance and £12 million for supplementary welfare allowances. However, the stark reality is that there are 160,000, the largest number of people in receipt of any social benefit, in the category receiving unemployment assistance. These are the people, along with those in receipt of supplementary welfare payments from the health boards, who are at the coalface of poverty in our country. The fact that we are bringing in Supplementary Estimates tells the story of massive poverty. Every day of the week the numbers in receipt of these payments rise, and that does not augur well for the future. It highlights the growing poverty. Let me contrast community care in my own area of Crumlin — Drimnagh — Walkinstown, which covers Tallaght with that in Deputy Stagg's area in Kildare to tell the story of where the poverty is. This is a report from the community welfare officers, the people dealing with those most impoverished in our community.

The community welfare officer for Community Care Area 4 said in his report:

The number of recipients and the types of payments made during weekended 30/6/91 are as per the attached schedules. The total cost of Supplementary Welfare Allowances (excluding the Fuel and Footwear Scheme) for the year ended June 1991 was £2,721,580.

His comments are very interesting and they tell their own story about the Ireland of today:

The demand for the service in June '91 has increased by 21% since the same period last year, resulting in an increase in expenditure in the area of over 37%. Payments made to clients awaiting Social Welfare Payments (substitute payments) increased by 17% as compared to the same period last year. These payments represent 28% of all payments made which is above present average for the Board for the level of "substitute payments" ... There has been a significant increase in the number of supplements being paid in the area, particularly for diets.

This would seem to indicate that people have problems with their health.

The level of Exceptional Needs Payments has risen from 30% of all payments to 34% ... There has been a 55% increase uptake in the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Scheme in comparison with the Footwear Scheme last year. Of the children resident in the area 19% received assistance under this scheme.

Can one imagine that 19 per cent of children resident in that community care area are so poor that they have to rely on supplementary welfare payments from the health board? Is the Minister conscious of the demands this increase of 21 per cent will place on the service?

The community welfare officer in County Kildare has a similar story to tell. He states in his report:

There has been an increase of 24% in the total number of cases paid in the area over the corresponding period last year. This has resulted in an increase of over 32% in expenditure on the scheme.

When we take into account the statistics outlined by the community welfare officers, an increase of 24 per cent in the total number of cases paid in Kildare, a 21 per cent increase in the demand for the service in my constituency, where 19 per cent of children are in receipt of allowances under the back to school clothing and footwear scheme, we must realise that sadly the stark reality for people living in urban areas — in this case Kildare, Tallaght, Crumlin, Drimnagh and Walkinstown — is that there is a two tier society. We must address the issue of poverty more successfully than we have to date.

Providing more money for social welfare and supplementary welfare payments is not the solution. The only solution is jobs, but the Government have shown themselves to be inadequate and incapable of creating them. We will continue to come back to this House time and again with Supplementary Estimates involving substantial amounts of money or Social Welfare Bills until the problem of unemployment is tackled. This has to be seen as the first task of the Government. The Minister will continue to be the Minister for Poverty until the godfather of unemployment, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, who is responsible for job creation, creates them when the need for Supplementary Estimates will not be as great.

I have drawn attention to the plight of the poor, the queues at labour exchanges, social welfare offices and community welfare offices; but the point has to be made that if the Minister and the Government, as reported, agree with the findings of the Commission on Social Welfare in their report and implement its recommendations there would be no need to introduce Supplementary Estimates on an annual basis to make provision for the Christmas bonus. If we provided those in receipt of unemployment assistance and benefit with a proper minimum income there would be no need for us to be seen to be charitable at Christmas time. The poor are hungry all year round, not just at Christmas time. If we are serious about alleviating their plight we should raise their income for the entire year, not just for one week prior to Christmas. The last thing we want to be seen doing is throwing crumbs at the poor at Christmas time. I ask the Minister therefore to seriously consider implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare which, if implemented, would result in a single person being given a weekly payment of £63 and a couple £102.

Those of us on the Left are always accused of mouthing on behalf of the poor and the unemployed, of being like an empty barrel, all talk and no action, and of not indicating where money could come from. The Workers' Party argued that the employers, ranchers and the professional classes amounted to an untapped source of funding for the central Exchequer, but we were laughed at. However £500 million was eventually raised by way of the tax amnesty over a very short period of time for Government coffers.

One would have imagined that things would change wonderfully and remarkably following the amnesty, but the 1990 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General tells us about the other side, of the greedy, the rich and the irresponsible who are projected in the media and by others as being pillars of our society. Yet these are the very people who will not pay their taxes and who divert money due to the central Exchequer to other purposes, such as yachts or holidays in Europe, or simply hide it in the bank accounts in Switzerland or the Isle of Man. The biggest scandal of all is that they refuse to pay their dues at a time when so many people in our society are poor.

The Comptroller and Auditor General indicates in his report that for the year ended 31 December 1990 the total amount in taxes written off by the Revenue Commissioners was £50,132,090 under a variety of headings including income tax, PAYE, corporation tax, capital gains tax and value added tax. The poor and the hungry will understand the reasons I am angry. This £50 million, if it had been paid, could have been put to good use in our society.

On page 18 of the report the Comptroller and Auditor General states:

The Revenue Commissioners consider that there is every indication that the amount of taxes to be written off will continue to grow for several years to come since there is a substantial backlog of older arrears still to be examined. In effect, the level of writeoff for many years up to now had not reflected the reality of the bad debts situation at the time.

According to the report for the year ended 31 May 1991, the balance due from employers in pay related social insurance was £137 million, which is a startling figure. However the Comptroller and Auditor General says, sadly, that the amount likely to be collected is estimated to be £29 million.

Let us consider the solution put forward to the problem of fraud and the non payment of taxes which followed the amnesty, self-assessment. I wish to quote yet again from this excellent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in which he said:

Since the introduction of the self-assessment to income tax, 4,500 cases have been selected for detailed screening of which 1,923 had been or were in the process of being audited at 30 June 1991.

The outcome of that analysis of 1,923 cases showed that cases where returns were accepted amounted to 253; additional liability was detected in 1,041 cases and 30 were so serious they were referred to the investigation branch. The report went on to say that the value of the present additional liability established was £11.6 million or an average of £11,143 per case. It went on further to say that the fact that 80 per cent of cases which have been finalised have resulted in or are likely to result in additional revenue being collected is a clear indication that devising and implementing a representative and focused programme of audits is critical to ensuring the effectiveness and reliability of the self-assessment system. The Comptroller and Auditor General made startling points in this report. He said:

The Revenue Commissioners have informed me that their inspection audit visits under all programmes impacted on 9 per cent of the taxpayer base in 1990. Nevertheless, the fact that less than 1 per cent of cases have been subjected to a full self-assessment audit to date must call into question the present capacity of the Revenue Commissioners to implement fully and promptly this review process which is crucial to creating confidence in the self-assessment system.

In short the report is saying that there is a shower of gangsters who owe millions to this country. They have avoided paying taxes and they should rightly be in jail.

I should like the Minister to tell the House that he appreciates the plight of the poor and their right to be angry at our two tier society. He should make sure that the criminals who owe the State so much money in unpaid taxes will be dragged through the courts and put in jail where they belong. This is what happens in that fine capitalist country, the United States of America. I have never heard of any of the people to whom the Comptroller and Auditor General referred spending even one night in jail. Of course we have heard of hundreds of unfortunate poor people in this country having to spend nights in homeless shelters at the side of the road. Tax evaders are responsible for their plight.

Mr. M. Brennan

I congratulate the Minister on his new portfolio and wish him every success. I know that the few points I wish to raise are near and dear to the Minister's heart. I am referring to smallholders and small farmers, in particular on the western seaboard. We who live in the area know the difficulties which the small farmer is experiencing at present. Most of them are in part time employment or in receipt of unemployment assistance to help them sub-sidise their income from farming. They mostly trade in small livestock and the price of calves and year and a half old cattle is not as good as it was. Social welfare officers who assess small farmers do not seem to realise that prices for cattle have fallen and that these people are entitled to an increase in unemployment assistance. I should like to thank the Minister for announcing that the Christmas bonus will in the very near future be paid to the long term unemployed. It is a very welcome payment.

I should also like to ask the Minister to do something about the carer's allowance. It is a scheme which benefits many. However, I know a small farmer living near me whose income from farming has been assessed at less than £5,000 per annum. His wife looks after her husband's mother which means that she does not have to go into an institution. She applied for the carer's allowance but was turned down because of her husband's means. I am sure that the Minister will look at all these cases. Elderly people living at home are given fulltime care and attention and the person to whom I referred who applied for the carer's allowance is entitled to it.

Mr. Garland

I agree with Deputy Byrne regarding tax evaders; he expressed himself extremely eloquently and I am 100 per cent behind him.

The estimated overrun in the Department of Social Welfare this year amounts to an incredible £103 million. This represents an increase of 6.4 per cent. I am a little sorry for the Minister for Social Welfare as he must be embarrassed and ashamed to have to bring in such an enormous Supplementary Estimate to the House. It is clearly not of his doing, nevertheless his very brief speech running to only five and a half pages represents a contempt for this House which I find deeply disturbing.

Mr. Daly

On a point of order, I had 20 minutes to make my contribution and I spoke for my full time.

Mr. Garland

I was not here for the Minister's speech because I had to prepare my speech as a result of the inadequate way in which the Estimates were presented today. However, if the Minister spoke for 20 minutes I owe him an apology.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Doyle)

The Deputy is also limited to 20 minutes.

Mr. Garland

I accept that and I will finish well within that time. If we examine the breakdown of this horrendous figure of £103 million we find the main culprits are an increase in payments to the social welfare fund of £44.5 million, an increase of no less than 42 per cent; an increase of £48.7 million in unemployment assistance, an increase of 9 per cent; and an increase in supplementary welfare allowances of £12 million, an increase of 16 per cent. We all know that the reason for this is the failure of the Government in underestimating the likely live register figures for this year, which were estimated at 228,000, whereas the latest estimates have been revised to 253,000. Not only did they fail to anticipate this increase but when it became apparent quite early in the financial year they did not take any steps to halt this rise.

The Minister made a most inadequate defence of the Government's complete and abject failure in this area by pinpointing the fall in net emigration. This, of course, is partly true and the Green Party (Comhaontas Glas) would be very pleased to reach a position where there was no involuntary emigration. The reason for our high and continually increasing unemployment is the failure of the Government to encourage indigenous industry and tourism.

It is quite clear to all, including the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, who stated it at the recent annual conference of Ógra Fhianna Fáil, that the reason for high unemployment is the overreliance on international investment to create jobs. Deputy Reynolds went on to say, and I quote: "Creating a native industry base takes longer, is slower and is perhaps not as glamorous as announcing an American firm coming in with perhaps 1,000 jobs, but it is the only way in the end". I congratulate Deputy Reynolds for his foresight and for such an admission. This summarises everything that has been wrong with our policies in this area for the last ten years. It is great to see a repentant sinner make amends for his many sins.

Of course there are other reasons for our high unemployment. First there is the unwillingness by industry, trade unions and all political parties, with the exception of the Green Party, to accept that the days of the 40 hour paid week for everyone are over and have been for perhaps the past ten years. Will it be another ten years before the myopic conventional economic thinking is finally shown up as a sham and a fraud? At least in the short term whatever paid work is available must be shared. We should make a start in a small way by insisting on career breaks in Government Departments. I have a series of questions down to all Government Departments on this matter and I am awaiting two replies before collating them. From looking at the replies I have received so far the response in this area is nothing short of pathetic and I will produce the figures in a week or two to substantiate this.

We should insist on the advertising of all State appointments on a job share basis, particularly to facilitate low income families who are placed in the invidious position of having to decide whether one or both partners work fulltime, that is assuming that they are both in a position to take fulltime employment. If only one spouse decides to take fulltime work the take home pay is insufficient to maintain the other spouse and the family. Where both partners decide to take fulltime jobs it results in the possible neglect of their children. We all know the results of inadequate support for children, with vandalism, drug taking, underage drinking and so on. If we could change this position the implications for our social fabric would be incalculable in money terms, not to mention the improvement it would make to our basic living standards.

The other method I would suggest of reducing unemployment impinges on the Department of Social Welfare. It is the substitution of a scheme of guaranteed basic income for all adults irrespective of sex, whether they are employed or unemployed, whether they are old age pensioners or whether they are married, divorced, separated or cohabiting. This scheme would be in substitution for the whole range of social welfare benefits, the administration of which requires an expenditure of £56 million this year and results in frustration, annoyance, injustice and loss of personal freedom. It also feeds the system of political clientelism which almost forces people in this unhappy position to seek the assistance of public representatives in trying to get their correct entitlements.

This week the Minister for Social Welfare replied to questions during Question Time. Since I was elected two and a half years ago the same questions keep coming up and we get the same tired answers from whatever Minister is in power. One matter that is a source of constant annoyance is the cohabiting rule. Social welfare inspectors would need to be under beds to see whether or not allowances to unmarried mothers should be cut off. I have heard authenticated stories of men's shoes being found in a flat belonging to an unmarried mother. Where is this Peeping Tom practice going to stop? It is a gross infringement on personal freedom. The greatest crime of all is that unemployed people are paid not to work. If they get a part-time job and do not record it, the inspector hounds them.

A person quite close to me who tried to better himself by taking an adult second level course went into the dole office carrying some school books and when asked what kind of books they were he truthfully answered that they were school books. He was then told that he was not entitled to draw the dole — in other words that he should sit in his flat and wait, but for what? As the Minister and everyone in this House knows, there are no jobs for these people. That person is not allowed to improve his education to increase his chances of getting paid work.

Mr. Durkan

I am glad to avail of the opportunity of making a small contribution on this debate. First, I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment and wish him every success in that office. Naturally, we on this side of the House will attempt to make matters as difficult as possible for him, and I am sure he will accept that in the usual spirit of cut and thrust that has existed and will continue to exist in this House. The previous incumbent of that office introduced into the social welfare system a number of helpful and innovative measures which I am sure the present Minister will continue. In that regard he can be assured of the continued support of all sides of the House.

The level of unemployment is a stark indictment of Government policy. It reflects a failure of Government policy, particularly in the last two years when it has been shown that unemployment reached unprecedented levels. Based on projections, that position is likely to continue. The Government seem to have spent more time dealing with other issues than with creating employment. The major feature on the political and economic horizon has been for the last couple of years and must be for the foreseeable future the high rate of unemployment. I hope that in the coming year the Government will apply themselves in a somewhat dramatic fashion to addressing that problem thereby reducing the cost to the Exchequer.

I would like to mention a couple of items referred to by other speakers. While the carer's allowance has been beneficial, innovative and helpful, it is now being ruled out of the system by virtue of directions, regulations and measures which have finally honed it down to the extent that it is now almost unworkable. I will give an example of what I am talking about. A wife who looks after a relative on a fulltime basis qualifies for a carer's allowance of £12 per week because her husband earns £5,900 per annum. This is the princely sum she gets, based on her means. There is a saving to the State of somewhere between £300 and £500 per week in not hospitalising a person in need of regular attention. I cannot understand for the life of me why we do not have regard for the degree of time, effort and energy spent by the carer in looking after somebody who needs care. The level of care required should be taken into account when determining the level of payment. Similar situations were raised in a parliamentary question yesterday and I ask the Minister to look at this situation again because it is a short term gain for a long term loss. If the State saves £10 or £20 per week because the carer's allowance is subject to a means test and it costs £200 or £300 per week to keep someone in hospital, the State loses because they have to provide all the services at a much higher cost.

Members have raised the manner in which some social welfare investigations have been carried out. Let me state at the outset that the great majority of such cases are dealt with in a sympathetic and compassionate fashion having regard to the circumstances and vulnerability of the claimant. However from recent questioning it appears to me that a new directive has issued from either the Minister's office or Department heads which is much more punitive in the way in which it attempts to screen applicants. For instance, people are being asked: "Do you have carpets in your home?" What that is supposed to mean I do not know, but it is a leading question. They are asked: "Do you have a television or a video?" I am sure the Minister does not condone the attitude behind this questioning. The cost of social welfare payments is growing, but this is not the fault of the people in receipt of social welfare; it is due to the failure to provide the necessary jobs to ensure that people are not unemployed in the first place. We should be very careful not to introduce regulations that are so punitive as to make those who are unemployed through no fault of their own feel vulnerable or under a compliment when applying for their statutory entitlement. I ask the Minister to look at this again.

We need also to look again at the provisions of the Pensions Act, 1988, particularly at the provisions for those whose contributions were made prior to 1953 and those who paid contributions before they became self-employed and following the 1988 Act are now being forced to make contributions. Many people in this category find, despite their contributions prior to and after 1953, that if they do not have an average of 20 contributions per year, they qualify for nothing unless they qualify for a non-contributory pension. The saving to the Exchequer is minimal but is at the expense of many who are not well off and is causing them a great deal of hardship. I know that the former Minister indicated to the House in the past that he intended to have the Act further evaluated in order to provide pensions on a pro rata basis to those with fewer than 20 contributions on average per year. I ask the Minister to consider this without delay.

Another anomaly in pension schemes that come under the aegis of the Minister for Social Welfare is the provision made for the next of kin of a single person. This has been the subject of some questions in recent times. If a spouse contributing to a pension fund in either a State, semi-State or private company dies the surviving spouse automatically qualifies for the benefits accruing on foot of the pension. However the next of kin of a single person do not benefit, or in some cases benefit is discretionary. For the life of me I cannot see why the family, who must look after the deceased's commitments, cannot benefit from that person's pension fund contributions, which have been deducted at source. This has been the subject of a number of parliamentary questions, but the replies to date have been most worrying and most unsatisfactory. I thought either the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Finance was responsible, but I have since discovered that the Minister for Social Welfare is responsible and I ask him to examine this area. If legislative changes are necessary to ensure that the next of kin of single persons have the same benefits in respect of his contributions as the surviving spouse, the Minister might bring about the changes to eliminate this anomaly.

Many people, both the unemployed and employers, talk about the extreme difficulties involved in taking up short term work. First, the unemployed person almost automatically loses all benefits and allowances, such as the medical card. They are caught in a twilight zone. Indeed employers find themselves in a similar position because they find it very difficult to attract someone from the unemployment register for the same reason. We should make arrangements for a graduated loss in benefit, such as the medical card and other allowances, so that an unemployed person does not lose them the day he goes back to work. We should make it simpler for people to take up employment rather than putting barriers by way of regulations to employment. The problem is that having been unemployed for a number of years the person gives up and is no longer capable of pursuing the elusive goal of employment, which is his right. It is damaging and debilitating both to society and to the individual that it is so hard to find employment. At present there may be employers who want to take on an extra worker but find it virtually impossible because of the restrictions and regulations.

The questions I have raised are based on personal experience of dealing with queries on behalf of constituents. As the Minister will realise as a long-serving Member of this House, there is no better experience than that gained at the coalface.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Daly)

First, I wish to express my deep appreciation to all of those who wished me well in this office. I shall endeavour to deal with specific issues that have been raised. A number of policy issues were raised, on which I could speak for the full ten minutes.

One issue concerned forecasts and the way reliable forecasts could be made for 12 months in advance. The major international incidents that took place earlier this year highlights the difficulty of making accurate forecasts. That is a fundamental problem not only for my Department but for every other Department.

The cancer of unemployment, as Deputy Connaughton rightly referred to it, is one of our major reasons for the Supplementary Estimate. The figures estimated for unemployment have been very much exceeded and we have had to provide an extra £90 million for that. We are also providing for the Christmas bonus. The figures are available for examination.

Deputy Connaughton referred to a matter that was dealt with by way of a parliamentary question yesterday in his absence, the issue of widows who felt they were entitled to a contributory pension. Wrong information was given and, apparently, a misunderstanding in the minds of many widows that they could continue to contribute after the death of their husbands. That is not the case. The Deputy appears to have some specific cases in mind and if he gives me details of them I shall examine them fully. Certainly, there is no question of a widow contributing after the date of death of her husband and then qualifying for a widow's pension on contributions paid afterwards. There has been some confusion about this.

Mr. Connaughton

I was referring to cases where the contributions were paid before the date of death.

Mr. Daly

If the Deputy provides particulars they will be examined fully and I will explain the problems to the Deputy.

Mr. Connaughton

Thank you.

Mr. Daly

The Deputy also asked about small farmers' assistance and claimed that £1 million in our vote was not allocated because arrangements had not been made to make over that payment to small farmers.

Mr. Connaughton

That is right.

Mr. Daly

The £1 million involved does not relate to this Vote but to the Agriculture and Food Vote. Some discussions took place between officials of my Department and those of the Department of Agriculture and Food as to the way that money might be expended.

Agreement has not been reached. It is a matter I shall now take up. Coming from an area that has many small farmers in receipt of assistance, I fully understand the necessity to streamline that scheme. Earlier this year some of the items calculated as means were disregarded.

Mr. Connaughton

That is right.

Mr. Daly

This may make it easier for people to qualify. My predecessor considered the possibility of implementing a pilot scheme that could be implemented nationally if the right results were obtained. That has not happened. I shall certainly determine whether the position can be advanced.

Another issue raised was the pre-retirement scheme. That scheme is optional, although the Deputy appears to be of the opinion that it is compulsory. He said there was some confusion about whether the entry date was at the age of 55 or 58.

Mr. Connaughton

Yes.

Mr. Daly

I will send the Deputy details of the scheme. The former Minister last year initiated changes in the scheme, and if there is any confusion about them I will endeavour to clear them up. I will give the Deputy the information as quickly as possible.

There seems to be confusion still about widows pensions and information will be circulated as soon as the Deputy gives me details of specific cases. In relation to women entitled to payments, and arrears due to them arising from court cases, that matter is sub judice. When the final outcome of those court proceedings is known I certainly shall not delay in dealing with the issue.

I thank Deputy Stagg for his remarks. He was very convincing and spoke with conviction and sincerity. I recognise the problems that he, like most Deputies, come up against when dealing with this highly sensitive issue. He mentioned the failure of forecasts. I am glad he did not suggest that the unions and employers should walk away from the Programme for Economic and Social Progress talks. While the Deputy was critical — he is entitled to his views on the matter, but I do not generally agree with them — he did, however, stress the necessity of continuing with the tripartite arrangement involving the Government, employers and workers, that being a constructive way to iron out some of our problems. Some issues that relate to social welfare are part of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress negotiations and we keep very closely in touch with developments. We will ensure so far as we can that we protect the sectors for which we have responsibility.

Some issues raised were also talked about yesterday at Question Time. I do not consider there is any need to deal with them again.

Deputy Byrne referred to several schemes and, in particular, the savings made in the free fuel scheme. It is estimated that 221,900 fuel allowances and 72,400 smog allowances will be awarded in 1991. In effect, about 2,000 fewer applications for those allowances will be made. However, that does not mean that people have been denied their entitlements. The scheme has been well publicised. Perhaps, as a result of today's debate, people who might be entitled but have not applied for an allowance will make application. That saving has not been made by denying people fuel allowances to which they were entitled but because the Department estimated that about 2,000 more applications would be received than was the case.

A similar position relates to free television licences. It was estimated that 172,300 applications would be received for free television licences but we received 166,000 — a difference of 6,300. Again the saving was made because the number of applications received did not reach the figure anticipated; it was not as a result of denying any person his or her entitlement to a free licence.

The matter of supplementary welfare allowances, and the footwear and clothing allowances, was referred to. The Department estimate the figure of £6.1 million for 1991 while the original estimate was for £5.5 million. An extra £600,000 is being provided to meet the amended estimate.

Yesterday we talked about the lone parent's allowance and the fact that the full amount had not been taken up. As I explained, quite a number of lone parents with children are on unemployment assistance and would be better off financially if they were in receipt of the lone parent's allowance. We do not know why certain people who would be better off in receipt of the lone parent's allowance have not transferred over to that allowance. That is the explanation for the difference in the figures. Perhaps, as a result of the publicity I hope this will now receive, we will be in a position to——

Mr. Stagg

Will the Department write to people and inform them of the position?

Mr. Daly

I am not sure whether the Department can communicate with the people involved. Certainly this is something we can examine. I will re-examine the lone parent's and carer's allowance, the other matter raised by Deputy Matt Brennan and other Members. If any Member wants details of the carer's allowance, such as the number of applicants, the number in receipt of the full rate and the number refused for particular reasons, we will supply that information.

I was surprised at Deputy Garland's attack on inspectors who are there to enforce the laws enacted by the Oireachtas. Their job is difficult. They carry it out having full regard to the dignity of the individual and need the full backing of all Members. It is easy for Deputy Garland to come into this House and seek a cheap headline at the expense of people who are very badly off, considerably less-well-off than ourselves. That is no substitute for constructive proposals on how to deal with some of these issues. Deputy Garland's proposals were very weak and not constructive. What I would like to hear is what we heard from every other Member who contributed to this debate, except Deputy Garland, constructive ideas as to how we can improve the lot of the less well off sectors of our community, how we can better organise our affairs leading to a better service for them and deal with the financial problems all of this entails.

If I have not dealt with any specific points raised by Members I will furnish direct replies to them.

I should like to thank Members who contributed to this debate which has been very useful and constructive from my point of view at this early stage of my period in office in this Department. It would be my hope that all of us can work together to improve and develop the services generally in future years.

Vote put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 2.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 November 1991.