Social Welfare Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This year's Social Welfare Bill is the first major piece of legislation to come before the House in fulfilment of the new partnership Government's programme to protect and improve the position of those dependent on social welfare.

We are more than maintaining the real value of social welfare payments; substantially improving payments for children and providing extra support for families at work; restoring the confidence of workers and employers in the Social Insurance Fund; and providing improved benefits such as better maternity provision, including entitlement to maternity benefit on their return for volunteer development workers, easier access to invalidity pension for people who are very ill, and a free colour TV licence for certain pensioners, which I am introducing from the beginning of April next. Social welfare today is complex and far reaching. It touches the lives of almost every person in the country in one way or another. We provide a weekly payment to almost 1.5 million people — 800,000 persons and their 700,000 dependants — and spend over £10 million each and every day of the year.

In the recent MRBI opinion poll about the most beneficial aspects of the budget, the two items that by far made the most favourable impact were the increase in child benefit and the general social welfare increases. I am not surprised with that reaction given the role of social welfare in today's society.

I am reversing measures introduced last year. I am restoring disability benefit and dental and optical benefits to people who are long-term unemployed and people who have retired under the PRETA — pre-retirement allowance — scheme and pensioners who lost out under the 1992 change.

I am bringing back into entitlement to treatment benefits — this is dental, optical and aural benefits — workers earning up to £30,000 per annum, or £60,000 if the worker has a dependent spouse.

I am increasing substantially the amount of daily earnings to be disregarded for the purpose of unemployment assistance for casual workers. I am easing the conditions for receiving unemployment payments for the 27,000 part-time workers who, for the first time, came into benefit this year by reducing from two days to one day the loss of employment which a part-time worker must incur to claim.

I am providing an extra £12.5 million to address the needs of people who have recourse to supplementary welfare allowance for assistance with their exceptional needs.

Overall, we are providing an additional £180 million a year for social welfare. The extra money brings the overall expenditure this year to £3.7 billion, that is over £10 million a day for each day of the year.

The main improvements provided for in this Bill are: an increase of 3.5 per cent from next July in the weekly rates of social insurance and social assistance payments; a special increase of 4.9 per cent from next July in all short term rates of payment; a substantial increase of 26.6 per cent from next September in child benefit to £20.00 for each of the first three children. The rate for the fourth and subsequent child is being rounded up to £23.00; a new grant of £200 for mothers on the birth of twins; increases in the income limit for family income supplement from next July. All families in receipt of FIS will be £12 a week better off; a special increase of 11.7 per cent in the carer's allowance gives a new rate of £59.20 a week which is in line with long term payments; increases in the minimum and maximum rates of maternity benefit; a special increase of 20.6 per cent in the orphans's non-contibutory pension which will now be the same as the orphan's contributory allowance of £39.00 a week and the alignment and consolidation of parts of social welfare legislation to facilitate the introduction later this year of a Social Welfare Consolidation Bill.

The main business of my Department is ensuring that those who, through illness, unemployment or old age are unable to provide for themselves, are looked after financially. We are continually developing new ways of carrying out that business through improvements in the delivery of services and the introduration of alternative payment methods.

Faced, as we are, with the overwhelming problems caused by current levels of unemployment, I plan to expand our traditional role and become more pro-active in our response to this huge problem.

There are two key requirements for those who are seeking either their first job or a subsequent one. They are education and experience, preferably both. If we want to help job seekers who are unemployed, we need to provide more training, education and work experience for them. This applies in a special way to young people who are not receiving the State financial supports which go to those in third level education. It is right that we as a country invest heavily in third level education. But it is also right that we should invest in young people between 18 and 21 who do not get this opportunity. They especially need training, skills, work experience and often "second chance" education.

It is essential that we encourage younger unemployed people to avail of further education and training as soon as possible after leaving formal education. They must be diverted down that route rather than on to the unemployment cycle and dependency on social welfare.

We have made considerable progress in the last few years through initiatives which I introduced to make the regime of unemployment payments more flexible to the needs of our customers and more responsive to changing work patterns. We have now a range of educational oppportunities schemes which give unemployed people a second chance to complete or extend their education. They can even go further and take on third level courses.

Over 2,000 unemployed people are currently participating in second level courses and a further 330 are in full time third level study. Young lone parents also need access to this type of second chance education. I intend to encourage lone parents to take up these opportunities which do not affect their weekly payments.

I have provided also opportunities for part time work which include payment of a weekly allowance from my Department and opportunities to do voluntary work without interfering with the flow of unemployment payments.

In my view it is far better that unemployed people get work experience or training than be excluded from the workplace and left on the dole. It was for this reason that I proposed to the Government in 1991 that we pay the unemployment payments and the extra benefits for a period of, say, six to 12 months and allow people to work as an employee, or a self-employed person or to receive training. The proposal in relation to the self-employed was adopted by the Central Review Committee of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and put into action in the 12 Programme for Economic and Social Progress unemployment black spots. At present we pay extra benefits to 2,200 people who are at work through these schemes and 240 self-employed people are receiving a payment while seven thousand five hundred are now at work in the work experience scheme — the employment subsidy scheme — and 610 in training, the job training scheme.

These initiatives are the success stories of the past few years. I intend to build on that success and expand them further. In addition, I will be paying particular attention to the needs of people with disabilities and groups such as lone parents.

Unemployment is the greatest challenge facing this Government. In real terms that means creating enough jobs. To achieve that we need a realistic and pro-active approach. I am considering at present a new programme of measures to support people in making the transition back into the workforce, either as employees or working for themselves. It will also embrace training opportunities, work experience and further second chance education. This programme of measures will build on the success of the area-based companies set up under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress working closely with the new county enterprise partnership boards.

The new initiatives will be directed to long term unemployed people and will offer a range of supports to get them back into the workforce in a manner and at a pace that suits their circumstances. They will also provide those working in the black economy with an opportunity to put their affairs on a proper footing. I plan to bring my proposals to Government shortly.

As part of our job creation drive, the Government announced last year the introduction of a new PRSI exemption scheme. The scheme applies to employers who took on additional full-time employees in the period from 19 October 1992 to 19 March 1993. The additional employees taken on must represent a net increase in the number of employees in their employment since September 1992. To date, applications have been received in respect of some 1,100 unemployed people. I am now in section 18 of this Bill, making legislative provision for this scheme and extending the date for applications to 19 September 1993.

The exemption means that employers will not have to pay their element of the PRSI contribution for each additional employee for the tax years commencing April 1993 and April 1994. Employers will also be exempt from payment of the employment and training levy and the health contribution where the new employee holds a medical card.

At the average industrial wage of £260 per week, the PRSI exemption amounts to a direct subsidy to employers of £31 per week of £1,647 per annum for each new employee taken on. This is a very valuable incentive for employers and I would urge as many employers as possible to avail of it before the closing date next September. The extended closing date will allow the exemption scheme to be included in the range of initiatives which I have already referred to in the context of back to work supports.

I want to say a few words about students in fulltime education and the proposal in this Bill concerning their eligibility for unemployment assistance during their summer holidays. Each year about 12.000 full-time students "sign-on" for the dole during their summer holidays. This summer dole costs in the region of £8 million. In addition to receiving unemployment payments, many students also claim rent supplements while living away from home during the holiday period. This cost could rise to at least £60 million a year, plus the cost of rent allowance, if all students were to take up this practice.

In future students in fulltime education will no longer be eligible to claim unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare allowance for their summer holidays other than in circumstances which will be prescribed in regulations. This measure will not apply to mature students or those in "second chance" education schemes. This will bring our arrangements for full time students into line with what happens in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and in other EC countries.

I have under consideration at present a scheme of summer work for students which would give them a weekly payment in place of what they would have got on unemployment assistance. I have in mind that this scheme will cater particularly for those students who depend on a summer job to supplement their grants and who cannot find summer work.

Essentially, what I have in mind is a scheme which would allow students to do community work, voluntary work or work provided by public sector bodies and receive a "wage" approximating to their unemployment payments. I would envisage the scheme operating for a fixed period over the summer holidays with the student working a certain number of hours or days in return for the payment he or she receives.

The total amount invested by taxpayers in a full-time third level student is in excess of £10,000 over the course. Contrary to what student representatives are suggesting, there are many thousands of students who would be anxious to put back into the community their skills, energy and enthusiasm.

I am sure that there are many voluntary organisations working the community who would welcome the opportunity to utilise the skills and expertise of our third level students for a number of weeks during the summer holiday period. Simiarly, local authorities, health boards and other public sector bodies could avail of that expertise for work which needs to be done in their respective areas.

My Department is working on the details of the proposed new scheme and I will be consulting with organisations such as those in the voluntary sector, regional interests, the new partnership groups as well as local and public authorities. I intend to bring the scheme into operation this summer.

Section 14 also provides that young people leaving second level will not be eligible for unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare allowance for a period of three months after completing their second level education. I am making arrangements to ensure that these young people can register for FÁS immediately and that their eligibility for courses will be continued. Parents on social welfare payments will continue to receive the child dependant allowance in respect of children aged 18 or over for the three months in question. Up to this it was only families on long term payments who were entitled to child dependant allowances in respect of children over 18 in fulltime education.

I have outlined to the House already the adjustments which I propose to make to measures introduced last year. I have today made regulations which revoke a number of those measures and adjust others to substantially improve the position of people adversely affected by them. In addition, I have a number of regulations in hand which I propose to bring into force as soon as the Oireachtas passes this Bill.

The regulations revoke the condition for disability benefit requiring at least 13 paid PRSI contributions in a recent contribution year for people on long term unemployment assistance and pre-retirement allowance; revoke the condition for dental and optical benefits requiring at least 13 paid PRSI contributions in a recent contribution year for people on long term unemployment assistance and pre-retirement allowance. These measures will benefit some 140,000 people on long term unemployment assistance and 15,000 people on pre-retirement allowance immediately and many more in future; restore dental and optical benefits to workers earning up to £30,000 per annum; restore dental and optical benefits to pensioners affected by the change in the contribution conditions requiring five years paid contributions; relax the condition for entitlement to unemployment benefit for part-time workers by reducing from two days to one day the loss of employment which a part-time worker must incur. These regulations come into force immediately. They increase substantially the amount of daily earnings which will be disregarded in assessing earnings from casual insurable employment for the purposes of entitlement to unemployment assistance.

Section 13 of the Bill provides for regulatory powers to prescribe the amount of the daily disregards. The current level of disregard amounts to the daily rate of unemployment assistance for each day worked plus an additional amount of £10.

I propose to increase the total disregard to the daily rate of unemployment assistance plus an extra £15 for each day worked. This is a significant increase which makes casual employment a real option for unemployed persons. For example, a married man with two children will now be allowed to earn up to £34.42 for each day in which he works without affecting his rate of unemployment assistance for the days on which he does not work. The regulations will come into effect from the beginning of April.

I would like to outline to the House how I propose to address the supplementary welfare allowance scheme for dealing with payments to meet exceptional needs.

The measures which were introduced last year were not intended to remove the basic discretion which health boards have to make payments when they consider that circumstances warrant this. I recognise, however, that despite the various clarifications which issued last year, the circulars as they stand have given rise to serious concern. I want to ensure that the discretion which health boards have is exercised in a sensible way to ensure that people in genuine need are helped sympathetically and effectively.

I am drawing up a code of practice for dealing with fuel debts, which will involve fuel providers such as the ESB and An Bord Gáis. The code of practice, when developed, will replace the guidance originally offered by the circulars issued last year and those circulars will be withdrawn. I am consulting with the ESB, An Bord Gáis and with the health boards in relation to developing this code of practice. I am providing an additional £12.5 million this year to meet additional demands on the scheme and I will be publishing revised guidelines covering all aspects of the scheme following the review which is taking place at present. It is important that we have a consistent approach to the way the scheme is administered and the measures I am taking are designed to achieve this.

I would now like to mention briefly the main provisions of the Bill. However, for the benefit of Deputies, I wish to clarify some confusing statements that are not based on the facts which were made outside this House. I have made a great many adjustments, by regulation, and I have done so today. However, some changes require new powers and they will be dealt with in the legislation today. I have covered the changes that will be made in the Bill and by way of regulation.

Section 4 of the Bill provides for a significant increase in the weekly rate of carer's allowance from £53 to £59.20. This increase brings it into line with other long term assistance payments. I want to ensure, in so far as we can, that people who give up work or another social welfare payment to become a full-time carer will not find that their long term entitlements are adversely affected. I have under consideration at present the question of entitlement to credited contributions for periods in receipt of the carer's allowance. This is important because periods out of the workforce can have a detrimental effect on pension entitlements later in life. Section 10 provides for the extension of "after death payments" to a spouse in receipt of carer's allowance to include the adult dependant allowance. At the moment persons in this situation qualify for six weeks payments of the personal rate only.

Sections 3 and 4 provide for the increases from July next in the weekly rates of social insurance and social assistance payments as announced in the budget.

Section 5 provides for the increase in child benefit from 1 September next to £20 per month for each of the first three children. The rate for the fourth and subsequent children is being rounded up to £23 per month. This section also provides for the new £200 grant for twins, which will come into effect from 1 July next.

Section 6 provides for an increase in the amount of weekly earnings disregarded for pay-related benefit purposes.

Section 7 increases by £20 the weekly income limits below which families can qualify for family income supplement. The new income limit for a family with four children will now be £235 per week and £314 per week for a family with eight or more children.

Section 8 provides for increases in the minimum and maximum rates of maternity allowance payable from July next. The new rates will be £65 minimum and £159 maximum. This section also provides for regulatory powers to entitle to benefit certain applicants who do not meet the employment and contribution conditions attached to the scheme. This measure is designed to facilitate volunteer development workers who wish to claim maternity allowance on their return home.

Section 9 provides for regulatory powers to entitle to invalidity pension persons who are very ill but who cannot qualify because they have not been incapable of work for at least 12 months. That is, of course, an improvement.

Section 11 is a further improvement and extends the definition of an adult dependant to include one of a cohabiting couple who does not have the care of children. Formerly, only dependants having the care of a qualified child qualified for an increase as an adult dependant. This section brings the provisions for an adult dependant in the case of cohabiting couples into line with those applying to married couples for all social welfare payments.

Section 12 improves the provisions for entitlement to disability benefit. Payment of disability benefit is limited in certain cases to a maximum duration of 52 weeks, but a current claim may link with a claim in the previous three years for the purpose of reducing the duration of entitlement. The purpose of this section is to reduce that three year "linking" period to one year. Under existing provisions the total amount payable to a couple where one spouse/partner is getting unemployment assistance and the other spouse/partner is getting a social insurance payment or old age pension is limited to the appropriate married rate of payment. Section 15 brings the legal provisions for pre-retirement allowance into line with the arrangements for unemployment assistance in this regard.

As I have already said, section 13 provides for regulatory powers to prescribe amounts to be disregarded in assessing income from employment under a contract service. In addition, this section provides that long-term social welfare payments received by a spouse-partner, as in the case of short-term payments, will not be assessed as means.

Sections 16 and 17 provide for the usual increase, with effect from 6 April 1993, in the earnings ceiling up to which PRSI contributions are payable. The ceiling for employees and the self-employed is being increased by £1,000 to £20,000 per annum. The corresponding ceiling for employers is £21,300, also an increase of £1,000. These sections also increase the minimum annual contribution from the self-employed from £234 to £250 and the special reduced rate contribution payable by the self-employed from £116 to £124.

Section 18 provides for the introduction of a PRSI exemption scheme for employers who take new employees from the live register, which I have already explained.

Section 19 provides for regulatory powers to assign the collection of social insurance to persons other than the Collector General of the Revenue Commissioners. This section enables regulations to be made, subject to approval by the Minister for Finance, to assign part of that responsibility to other people.

Section 20 provides that old age (contributory) pension and widow's (contributory) pension will not be payable on the basis of an insurance record of a self-employed person unless all self-employed contributions which that person was liable to pay have been paid. The section also contains a provision enabling the Minister to exempt people from this requirement having regard to the circumstances of a particular case.

Section 21 exempts recipients of pre-retirement allowance who are in self-employment from their liability for social insurance contributions.

Section 22 disqualifies persons found to be fraudulently claiming a social welfare payment from receiving any social welfare payment, other than child benefit, for a period of nine weeks. Under current provisions, where a person is convicted of fraudulently receiving a payment, an automatic disqualification applies for the receipt of any social welfare payment, other than child benefit, for a period of three months. This section also provides that a person who receives an automatic disqualification for either nine weeks or three months shall not be entitled to claim supplementary welfare allowance during the period of disqualification other than in respect of his or her adult or child dependants.

Section 23 provides for the allocation and issue of personal social services numbers and requires any claimant to furnish his or her number and that of dependants when required to do so for the purposes of any social welfare payment. The personal social services number, formerly known as the RSI number, will become the social services number for all social welfare schemes and should not be confused with the former proposal for an ID number. I regret Deputy Allen is not listening.

Mr. Allen

I am listening, I am consulting an unpaid adviser.

Dr. Woods

I merely want the Deputy to note my reference to the personal social services number because it is not an ID number and does not involve the technicalities of such a number.

Section 24 is designed to remove an ambiguity relating to the assessment of non-cash benefits as means in the lone parent's allowance scheme. Section 25 removes the requirement that the sex of a person be taken into account in determining whether the person is unable to obtain suitable employment. Section 26 provides that unemployed people participating in certain prescribed training courses will be insurable for occupational injuries benefit only, that is class J PRSI. It is intended to include courses such as EUROFORM, Horizon and the NOW programme under this provision.

In order to facilitate the introduction of a Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill later this year, the opportunity is being taken in sections 27 to 41 to align and consolidate various provisions of the social welfare code. Among the provisions dealt with in this part of the Bill are claims and payments arrangements, the powers and duties of social welfare inspectors, offences and penalties for offences, overpayments and their recovery, suspension of payments, notification of increase in means, and consequential repeal of existing provisions.

The last consolidation of social welfare legislation was in 1981 when I introduced the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. That was, in fact, the first consolidation of the legislative provisions since the unified social insurance system was introduced in 1952. I intend, in introducing this new consolidated legislation, to provide a simple layman's handbook for easy reference by community, welfare and social groups who provide information and advice on social welfare matters. I hope to have that Bill in the House before the summer recess.

Sections 42 to 52 provide for a number of amendments to the Pensions Act, 1990. This Act, which I introduced into this House, was a major step forward in the protection of members of occupational pension schemes. It is inevitable with any new major development like this that there will be a need to effect changes in the light of experience in operating the legislation. Consequently, I am introducing a number of amendments which have been recommended by the pensions board. They are mainly technical changes aimed at further enhancing the protection of scheme members and include such items as new definitions, regulatory powers to deal with problems arising in the calculation of preserved benefits and provisions relating to the winding up of pension schemes.

The Pensions Act currently applies very effectively to occupational pension schemes established in the State and to their members based within the State. As well as the technical items already mentioned, I am seeking to ensure that the Act operates more effectively for Irish members of pension schemes established outside the State and for employees based outside the State who are members of Irish pension schemes. This Bill provides for the making of regulations to deal with this issue.

This is another substantial Social Welfare Bill. The increases provided for in weekly payments will more than maintain and safeguard the position of those who depend on social welfare. In addition, the Bill provides for a number of other improvements. I hope to bring forward a new Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill before the summer recess which will promote greater access to and understanding of our legislation. I look forward to a constructive debate on the issues raised in the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Allen

The Social Welfare Bill, 1993, has been introduced against the backdrop of horrific and growing unemployment figures, serious alienation of many people in society manifesting itself in crime in both urban and rural areas, in the growing problem of suicide, witnessed so tragically in recent weeks, and in a growing underclass throughout our society. What we need is a Social Welfare Bill of vision and direction but instead we get a Bill that will increase dependency among our people.

This Bill has no vision or direction. It does not indicate the Minister's principles or policies in regard to the many social problems that must be faced and supported by the State, nor does it give any indication as to how the Minister plans to integrate the unemployed back into the workforce as soon as possible. In this Bill items and issues have been moved around, the main issues are dealt with in a small number of sections and the remainder of the Bill contains technical adjustments to make the social welfare code more practical from a bureaucratic viewpoint. It makes no attempt to get rid of the poverty trap. The reality for many people working full time and on low incomes is that they would be better off on the dole, and there is little hope for the sick or those on long term unemployment benefit. The Bill lacks imagination, deals inadequately with aspects of welfare and gives no indication as to how we might integrate the unemployed into real and meaningful employment.

The Bill gives no clear statement on the EC Directives on Equality or on matters relating to social welfare inequalities between men and women. This outrageous situation has gone on for far too long. There are still thousands of women who do not know whether they are eligible for benefits and many women who have received some benefit do not know if they are due further moneys. Some of them do not know to whom they should apply or if there is a standard method of application. Some do not know if they must prove their case through the legal system and others have been told that they must employ a solicitor to pursue their case, with all the costs that this involves for the claimant.

More than 1,500 women in Cork have been forced to sue the Government in an effort to secure the social welfare back payments due to them following the EC Directive on Equality. I understand there are thousands of other women who have been forced into a similar situation due to a reluctance by the Department to make those payments. It is unacceptable that anybody should have to employ a solicitor to get their just entitlement. If people are entitled to back payments following an EC Directive, they should be paid automatically; legal representation should not be necessary. The allegations I have made can be backed up by a Cork solicitor who confirmed that on behalf of 900 women he has sued the State for failure to implement the EC Directive and that a High Court order had been made in that regard. Furthermore, he confirmed that a number of other solicitors are taking similar action.

The Minister and the Government must face up to their responsibilities on this issue and make a clear-cut statement at the end of this debate which will fully inform women as to their entitlements. Without the efforts of voluntary groups, who regularly publish information on the matter, the general public and women in particular would be totally ignorant of their rights in this regard.

The amount of money being spent on bureaucracy and on the delivery of the social welfare services is unacceptable; far too much money is being swallowed up by this type of red tape. I would welcome any moves to simplify the social welfare code and any such moves will be welcomed wholeheartedly by this side of the House. Few people understand the social welfare system and there is far too much waste in administrative costs in employment exchanges and offices throughout the country.

The time has come to tidy up the social welfare system and to make it more user friendly. I welcome the Minister's declaration of his intentions to do this in a Bill he will introduce later this year. Very often the system is anti-people and it attempts to block people from gaining information rather than giving them the information to which they are entitled. Basically the system is a largely complicated and confusing one which creates many barriers to work. The lines of communication between the general public and the Department need to be harmonised and made more user friendly.

We should remember that persons who draw social welfare are either victims of illness or of our economic failure. There is a definite need for a clear-cut code of practice which would inform people as to their entitlements under the social welfare scheme and ensure that people are treated as human beings, not merely as individuals who are looking for something for nothing, because too often people feel that way.

When will the Department of Social Welfare organise a scheme of gradual eligibility which would provide that persons only marginally outside the limit may not be deemed entirely ineligible for a scheme? Far too often the position is either black or white and people are victims of the inflexible eligibility limits. I regret that the carer's allowance scheme is as inflexible as ever. Even though there are welcome changes in the scheme the same barriers exist for those who wish to claim the allowance. There are still only 4,000 people eligible for the allowance and the improvements made are limited to them. There is a need to initiate a comprehensive policy centred around the needs of carers and those for whom they care. The ageing of the Irish population has major implications for families and social policy. Our response should be to place greater emphasis on community care as a means of meeting the needs of frail and dependent elderly persons.

At present community care is largely care by families, more often than not by women. Due to the limitations placed on the scheme carers who are under considerable strain receive very little practical support. There is an urgent need for a co-ordinated integrated approach, incorporating the areas of health, social welfare and housing. There is an overdue need for a short term policy as well as a long term strategy. Even though the Minister may plead that there are budgetary constraints on his efforts, much cost could be saved in the long term in areas such as geriatric care and acute hospital care if there was a proper and adequate carer's policy. The Minister must create priority principles in relation to the carer's allowance scheme. He must make the adjustment necessary to ensure that the needs of the elderly are fully met without imposing strains on carers.

The ESRI report on carers shows that care in the home is provided almost exclusively by one individual, usually a woman, and that this individual is usually the spouse or the offspring of the elderly person being cared for. Carers provide an average of 46 hours care per week, more than six hours per day. The report highlights the fact that carers receive little or no help from others and that the average support received from health boards and State agencies is about two hours per week. The report found that carers experience a considerable amount of stress and are under constant physical and emotional strain. The findings of the report show that an integrated management approach should be adopted, acknowledging the important role played by the carer. Since the carer is the key provider of care in the home more support services are needed to ensure effective care without placing undue strain on the carer. This support should include direct payment to the carer as well as other back-up facilities.

Unfortunately, the Minister has taken the easy option once again by increasing the allowance to a limited number of people. His policy in this area could be described as short-sighted and narrow-minded. It does not recognise the importance of 1993 as European Year of the Elderly and it does little to foster solidarity between the generations. In spite of what has been said today the major barrier, the means test, still exists for the many thousands of carers throughout the country. In the past 12 months people's hopes were raised and they thought there was a line of salvation for them but their hopes were cruelly dashed.

The Minister has made an allocation to combat the problem of moneylending. However, the practice he is addressing on one hand he is encouraging on the other. The recent circulars to community welfare officers regarding payment of supplementary welfare allowances and aid to thousands of local authority tenants towards their outstanding rent bills will certainly create a paradise for moneylenders. The decision to impose a £100 limit on the amount of aid to be provided for clearing emergency electricity and gas bills is short sighted in the extreme and is causing widespread hardship.

The Minister, and his Department, by issuing these circulars, have contributed more to the growth in the practice of loan sharks in recent months than has any previous decision by the Department of Social Welfare. The Department has failed miserably to deal with the matter in this Bill. The Minister announced today that regulations will be issued to deal with those vicious circulars but I will not be convinced that the problem has been resolved until further guidelines are issued. We do not know what is involved in these regulations. They should have been contained in the Minister's speech so that we could make an informed——

Dr. Woods

They are.

Mr. Allen

All we heard was a general statement — there was no detailed information — of the Minister's interpretation of the regulations and how they will deal with the vicious circulars that were sent out in late 1992.

The so-called household budget scheme proposed in the Bill is nothing but a token gesture to deal with this problem. The Minister, and the Department, do not seem to understand that thousands of people are living at and below subsistence level. They are living from hand to mouth, trying to keep the wolf from the door, and the wolf has many guises. The unrelenting pressure for money at certain times such as Christmas, First Communion, Confirmation and back to school time leaves people with no choice but to borrow, and if the money is borrowed from a moneylender the wolf returns in the form of the weekly knock on the door for repayments. These people are in a no-win situation and it is very difficult to break the vicious circle.

When will the Government introduce the consumer credit Bill about which we have heard so much in the past four years? We have yet to see details of this Bill. I hope it will be introduced shortly and that it will set down standard rules for all forms of credit, particularly moneylending. Courts should be given power to impose penalties, including jail sentences, on loan sharks. I hope that the legislation introduced will have jail sentences included in the penalties. I pay tribute to the many credit unions who have saved people from the abyss. However, expecting credit unions to bail people out of the poverty trap is simply shifting the responsibility.

Does anybody remember the "dirty dozen"? This was the term used by the Minister, Deputy Stagg, and many others in the Government who promised on behalf of the Labour Party to reverse Deputy McCreevy's "dirty dozen" social welfare cuts. When that is added to the recent increase in hospital charges one can wonder if we are not experiencing sleight of hand governing as the norm in this country. The "dirty dozen" became a major issue for many Deputies in this House, especially Labour Party Deputies, who made names for themselves on the Opposition benches. These cuts in social welfare were made in a number of different ways in 1992. A leaflet was dropped in to the households in the Kildare constituency of Deputy Emmet Stagg and Jack Wall who said that if they were returned to power Deputy McCreevy's savage social welfare cuts would be reversed. I understand this leaflet was dropped in many constituencies throughout the country.

Proinsias De Rossa

It had a major impact in Kildare, seeing that Deputy McCreevy topped the poll.

Mr. Allen

These issues were the subject of a major battle in Dublin. Many of the "dirty dozen" proposals will remain in place, to the shame of any party or individual who promised to reverse them.

The restrictions introduced into the supplementary welfare system will add to the growing problem of illegal money lending and all that entails. The supplementary welfare allowance cuts were introduced in a sneaky way by circular and did not appear in any legislation. The Department of Social Welfare circular 14/92, issued last summer, stated that exceptional need payments should not be used to provide recurring help with electricity or gas bills and specified that a claimant could receive only one such payment in any one year to a maximum of £100. It also precluded exceptional need payments in respect of local authority rent arrears. Circular 18/92, issued in October, reaffirmed the broad thrust of the earlier circular by specifying that in the case of fuel bills a superintendent community welfare officer could not authorise payments exceeding these guidelines.

Having regard to the views of some people working in the community welfare area I will not be convinced that the damaging thrust of these circulars has been withdrawn until I see the regulations. It was the opinion of legal advisers of the EHB that circular 14/92 was ultra vires. I wonder is it now being withdrawn because it was illegal in the first place. Will the Minister address that issue in his response?

There was not any consultation with health board personnel on the effect of the circular. The reason for issuing the circular was said to be a large increase in expenditure on supplementary welfare allowances over the past few years. However, an analysis of the increase in the Eastern Health Board indicated that the increase in expenditure was caused by an increase in the level of substituted payments and in the level of rent supplements brought about by the Government's inactivity on housing. What the Government were saving on housing they were paying to private landlords by way of rent supplements. I hope the Minister will let us have the regulations quickly.

The Department estimate that there would be a saving of £1.4 million, but that has been strongly challenged by community welfare officers who believe that the thrust of these circulars was illegal. I would ask the Minister to respond on that point.

I would ask the Minister to publish all circulars issued by his Department to community welfare officers in recent years so that we as legislators and the public know what is happening. At the moment circulars can be issued and there is no accountability to anybody for their contents. Will the Minister also set up a social welfare advisory group representing Members of this House and all organisations that deal with poverty, as is done in other countries, and allow it to consult with the Department? It should be possible to examine such circulars and to consult with the Department on them. Such a group could advise the Department and other legislators in relation to the development of social welfare and social security.

The changes to which I referred were the subject of a document widely circulated by the Labour Party. They should be ashamed to come in here and support a Bill in which many of these provisions are retained. The promises and commitments made are now forgotten for the sake of power.

Section 14 of the Bill deals with students' unemployment assistance. It says that unemployment assistance will not be paid to students. The Minister has come in here today talking about grandiose schemes of community based jobs. If the jobs are available, why are they not available to the long term unemployed, the young people and not so young people who have been unemployed for years and who are crying out for jobs? Instead of victimising students over a two month period in the summer why does the Minister not give these jobs to the hard pressed, disillusioned long term unemployed people? The Minister's figure of £60 million is fictitious, a figure that would apply only if every one of the 12,000 students got unemployment assistance.

Dr. Woods

It is actually £90 million if they claim the rent allowance as well.

Mr. Allen

As the Minister knows, the means test applies, as well as other restrictions.

Dr. Woods

Not if they all do as some are doing. They go out into separate flats. It is those circumstances to which I am referring.

Mr. Allen

It is £60 million plus the rent allowance. The attack on third level students must be separated from the attack on second level students. The scheme put forward today is not a work scheme; it is a cost control measure, just like previous programmes which were good in theory but which in reality were coercive measures. This programme, which the Minister says is community based, will taint other programmes which could be introduced. These measures will hit low income and middle income families who are doing their utmost to get their children through college. There are enough barriers already to families in the middle and lower income groups. These measures will adversely affect those families. In fact, these measures——

Dr. Woods

How will they be adversely affected when they are still getting the money?

Mr. Allen

I did not interrupt the Minister.

Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Ryan)

The Deputy to continue, without interruption.

Dr. Woods

I will explain it on Committee Stage.

Mr. Allen

The fact is that the number of students going to college from the lower economic sectors is reducing steadily. Well off families will find this measure an imposition but poorer and middle income families will find these measures an almost impossible barrier to overcome. This is the thin end of the wedge to introducing a work for the dole programme. Work programmes for the long term unemployed must be programmes in which they are encouraged and not coerced. This is the first sign of a programme of coercion which will be introduced gradually. I am amazed and disappointed that the Labour Party are so silent on this issue.

The saving of about £6 million, despite being a substantial amount, is in fact shortsighted and disastrous. The Minister referred to experience in Great Britain. The system introduced in 1987 by the Thatcher Government has had detrimental effects on students in the United Kingdom and I have seen reports which verify that. This is a repeat of the last kicks of the Thatcher Government in 1987. I am ashamed and surprised that the Labour Party and people in the Government who were supposed to have social consciences are going along with it. I will be tabling amendments to this proposal on Committee Stage.

Is the Minister being realistic when he says voluntary groups and community groups throughout the country will assist and participate in a scheme to take on an individual for two months? If the Minister were close to reality he would realise that voluntary groups are dissatisfied with the 12 month span in the FÁS schemes and to ask voluntary organisations to get involved for a two month period, during the summer, is unreal.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

Mr. Allen

The barriers to many families in this country to third level education are major. This latest hairbrained scheme by the Minister will create insurmountable barriers for many families.

I should like to deal with the targets set by the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the reneging by this Government on some of those targets. The political credibility of the Government's reneging on the specific commitments made in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress is surprising to say the least. I hope the social partners will be vocal in their objection to a major reneging on some of the provisions. The deferral of child benefit payments is sneaky. Its deferral to September is a cost cutting exercise and is seen as an act of hypocrisy especially in view of what we have heard about child care recently.

Dr. Woods

How could that be with the £16 million?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy's time is up.

Mr. Allen

In relation to social welfare numbers, the social services number is a new departure. Can the Minister confirm or deny that information given under the social services number will be passed on to the other services? In view of the inadequacies of the Data Protection Act I am opposing that section also because it is an attempt, in a sneaky way, to introduce a national identity number.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is misinterpreting it.

Acting Chairman

I would ask the Deputy to conclude because his time is up.

Mr. Allen

In the absence of proper safeguards it must be opposed. In conclusion——

Acting Chairman

I thought the Deputy had concluded.

Mr. Allen

——this Government, who were expected to bring in far-reaching provisions in the Social Welfare Bill, have widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Acting Chairman

I am calling Deputy Liz O'Donnell who has 30 minutes.

Ms O'Donnell

I welcome the Minister to the House and some of the measures he is introducing. The Social Welfare Bill, 1993, is the first Social Welfare Bill of the new Coalition Government of Fianna Fáil and Labour. It is introduced into this House at a time when unemployment is high and rising, when there are difficulties with the public finances, when direct and indirect taxes are severe, when interest rates are high and social welfare expenditure is expensive. This is a huge area of public policy and as a new Deputy it appears to me that it gets scant intellectual attention from this House. It affects the lives of 1.3 million people, two out of every five households in the country. The total expenditure this year will be in excess of £3.7 billion, as the Minister has clarified. Social welfare deals with the economics of the poor and as far as this House is concerned it has a separate existence from the economics of the contented in Ireland. A reform approach is needed instead of the ad hoc relief approach of adding on percentages every year.

The Commission on Social Welfare set out several years ago to look at the whole area of policy. Much ongoing lip service has been paid to the recommendations made by that commission which was a very good commission. All that was necessary to ensure substantially greater progress in combating poverty and increasing social welfare payments was to maintain the percentages of national income being spent on social welfare at levels pertaining in 1986. This has not been done. It is interesting to note that the priority rates set by the Commission on Social Welfare for income have not been reached in 1993. These were set at £65 to £78 for a single person and, for couples, £104 to £124. This is the only specific commitment given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which has not been honoured. What we need at this stage in relation to social welfare is to acquire a clear statement of policy from the Government. To this end we need an all-party committee of the Oireachtas to examine the entire social welfare code. I would envisage the Economic and Social Research Institute, the Combat Poverty Agency, the Conference of Major Religious Superiors and other interested groups working with this committee in both research and on a consultative basis in real partnership so that the many and varied complex social issues can be dealt with and to monitor the implementation of the outstanding recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare within a specified time-frame.

In the absence of a regular and healthy debate in this House on social welfare a number of myths have evolved in the public mind. The first is that the social welfare bill is out of control and is getting worse by the minute and that is unsustainable in some way. Let us deal with these myths and put them to bed. During the six years from 1986 to 1992 our GNP increased substantially. However, the percentage of GNP spent by Government on social services, health, housing, education and social welfare has declined during the same period while the number of people on social welfare has increased. The percentage of our GNP spent on social welfare has declined from 14.7 per cent to 13.8 per cent. There has been an increase of 94,000 people on social welfare. The percentage of national income spent on social welfare declined from 14.7 per cent to 13.8 per cent in those years.

It is useful to look at the public service bill which has increased by more in absolute terms than the social welfare bill between the years 1986 and 1992. The public service pay bill increased by £1,097 million whereas the total social welfare bill increased by £938 million. When we compare the gain in public sector pay we will see there has been a gain of £5,877.92 In relation to average industrial employees there has been a gain of £2,889.64 and for social welfare recipients there has been a gain of £972.96. The rise in income for public service employees has been six times that of social welfare recipients. These are shocking figures. This disparity between the growth in the public sector income and the growth in social welfare incomes is unjustified. The 1993 budget failed to tackle the rising costs of public service pay which has increased by 9 per cent this year. Therefore, it is clear that the social welfare bill is not increasing.

I should like to deal with a certain public begrudgery often badly articulated by some people in society concerning social welfare recipients. Let us look at the people who receive social welfare because it will serve to clarify some of the myths which abound in relation to social welfare recipients. There are 776,982 recipients of social welfare and when one includes their dependants the figure rises to 1,390,050. It is interesting to note that one in every three social welfare recipients is an old age pensioner. Could anybody begrudge payment to an old age pensioner? I think not. One in every eight social welfare recipients is ill — begrudgery is out of order here too — one in every four is on family income support or supplementary welfare allowance and other schemes which support families and other people in need, and one in every three is unemployed. One can see that there are the same number unemployed in terms of percentages as there are old age pensioners. Who among us would begrudge giving support to the poor, the old, the ill and the unemployed?

One of the main areas which the budget failed to tackle was that of exclusion. A third of our people are trapped in this triangle of exclusion. We ignore this fact at our peril. We must look at all the side effects of exclusion — suicide, unhappiness, depression, alcohol abuse and disfunctioning families. All of these effects flow from our flawed policy in dealing with exclusion. It is time for an imaginative way forward in this area. We need an integrated holistic approach which not only throws increased percentages at the problem every year but which seeks to improve the quality of life of those people who are excluded.

I wish to refer to sections 3-7 in Part II. This Part provides for the increases in the rates of social welfare payments announced in the budget to be paid from July. I welcome these increases, particularly the increase in the carer's allowance. However, as the previous speaker said, some aspects of the carer's allowance require urgent attention. There is a very low take-up of this allowance — only 4,000 people are eligible to receive it — because of the very restrictive means test. This means that the people we want to see included are not included. The Commission on the Status of Women has recommended that the means test for this allowance should apply to the person being cared for rather than to the carer. This entire area needs to be looked at. I think the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Equality and Law Reform should look at this allowance in the context of care in our community.

There is provision in the Bill to increase to £20 per month the rate of child benefit for the first three children and to £23 per month for the fourth and subsequent child. This is the only area where the promises outlined in the Labour Party manifesto appear to have been implemented. I very much welcome these increases, as promised. However, I note that the child benefit premium payable to families for the fourth and subsequent child is not being significantly increased. This is to be regretted, given the fact that poor households with three or more children account for over 60 per cent of children living in poverty. The increase from £20 to £23 in this instance is inadequate.

The Progressive Democrats Party has always argued that adequacy in relation to need should be the cornerstone of our payments system. We regard child benefit as an effective and necessary mechanism for achieving this. We also believe that further increases in child benefit are warranted for older children. There is universally accepted evidence that the costs for adolescent children are significantly greater than those for younger children and infants. Therefore we suggest that a supplement should be paid in respect of all children aged 13 years and over. I will move an appropriate amendment in this regard on Committee Stage.

It has to be said that children are part of the bounty of life. The Progressive Democrats Party believes that the State should share with parents the costs of rearing and maintaining children. Child benefit should become the central plank of our child income support policy and, more importantly, should be age graded. A case can be made for a totally unified and simplified system of child income support, as is the case in most European countries. Any new system of child support should eliminate the need for the present family income supplement. It is time that the entire area of adult dependency and child dependency was looked at so as to avoid poverty traps. The prevention of poverty traps and the elimination of disincentives can be brought about in the long term by more generous child benefit payments and reducing higher marginal tax rates on low paid employees. As resources permit, family income supplements could be discontinued and child benefit payments, plus realistic marginal tax rates on low paid employees, could be used to prevent poverty traps and eliminate disincentives to work. I wish to remind the Minister that the Commission on the Status of Women has recommended that so long as it remains with us the payment of family income supplement should be directed towards the primary care giver in a family. I welcome in general terms the provisions in section 7.

Part III provides for changes in the conditions for the receipt of maternity benefit, invalidity pension, etc. All these changes are to be welcomed. However, I should say that I grieve for the ground we have lost in terms of the payment of maternity benefit to unemployed pregnant women and women who did not, as a result of the 1992 cuts, have sufficient contributions. I will be putting down amendments which will seek to restore those rights to pregnant women. The extension of payment after the death of a pensioner to his or her spouse is both timely and welcome.

Section 11 provides for the extension of the definition of an adult dependant. This provision should be welcomed in that it provides for equality between cohabiting couples and married couples. In future a cohabiting couple will receive a personal rate plus an adult dependant rate, which was not the case previously. However, this raises a series of questions for me as a woman about the extension of the dubious concept of adult dependency as it applies to women. The Social Welfare (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1985, fell short of the spirit of the EC Directive adopted by the Council of Ministers in 1978, which proposed that each married couple was to receive equal treatment in regard to social welfare matters. Because of all our previous legislation and procedures — we had fostered the notion of adult dependency in relation to unmarried women — we were unable for financial reasons to equalise the provisions upwards and were therefore forced to equalise them downwards, thereby allowing cohabiting couples to benefit substantially at the expense of married couples. This anomaly was rectified in the 1992 Act. To continue to foster the notion of adult dependency runs against the spirit of the EC Directive. I wish to issue a warning to women that, having won the right to claim benefit in their own right inside of marriage, they should be wary of extending the flawed concept of adult dependency outside marriage. By opting for the dependent status contained in section 11 women will allow the Minister for Social Welfare to have them anomalously removed from the live register, thus artificially adjusting the live register and perhaps disentitling them in their own right to training and other opportunities in, for example, the VTOS and other schemes.

The issue of social welfare practitioners in trying to establish whether cohabitation is occurring is somewhat of a minefield. The Minister and his Department have failed over the years to issue guidelines to field staff as to what constitutes a cohabiting relationship. In Britain this issue has given rise to widespread criticism of the entire notion of adult dependency, whether in marriage or in a cohabiting relationship. If this type of dependency is going to continue to be recognised in the foreseeable future I should like the Minister to set out for everybody's information the grounds on which a finding of cohabitation is allowable. For example, does there have to a common household, financial support, a stable relationship, a sexual relationship, public acknowledgment of the relationship, etc.?

The recently published report of the Commission on the Status of Women deals extensively with adult dependency and how it impacts on women. I would refer the Minister to the recommendations in that report which aim to ensure that adult dependants receive payments in their own right and that child dependant allowance is paid to the primary care giver. To judge from the many submissions received by the commission, both the nomenclature and the concept of dependency are unacceptable in terms of equality for women. Economic dependency has a negative impact on women's morale, status and overall welfare.

I had some problems with section 12, but the Minister clarified these points in his speech. I will get in touch with his Department later in order to clarify them further.

Section 14 proposes the most major changes in the social welfare system — it goes to the heart of the entire system. The system's guiding principles of adequacy, redistribution, comprehensiveness, consistency and simplicity have been shattered by the provisions in section 14 which proposes to disqualify third level students from receiving unemployment assistance during the summer months. It is a sine qua non of any social welfare system that payment be made on an equitable and deserving basis. The political question here is quite simple: is the Labour Party going to allow Fianna Fáil to continue to engage in these sort of cutbacks or will its alleged social welfare commitment win through? I note that some of the cuts referred to as the “dirty dozen” have been reversed, but the irony is that they will be financed by students. I was staggered and shocked at the provisions contained in section 14, and the subsequent half-baked announcement by the Minister offering work schemes to the 12,000 students concerned only added insult to injury. This panic reaction by the Minister has served to draw further attention to the overall inadequacies of both the educational and——

Dr. Woods

It was not subsequent; it was simultaneous.

Ms O'Donnell

The work schemes are not included in the Bill.

Dr. Woods

The two were simultaneous.

Mr. Allen

We still have no details.

Ms O'Donnell

This panic reaction by the Minister has served further to draw attention to the overall inadequacies of both the educational and the social welfare systems. Our grants system is generally regarded as useless. A student in receipt of a full grant is a rare species. If this measure were proposed in the context of an overall review of the grant system perhaps it would be more acceptable to students.

Where is the Labour Party? There is not one Labour Member in the House to defend this. Where is their commitment to students, to the unemployed, the marginalised and the alienated? Where is the justice of the Labour Party's manifesto? The Minister for Education has been droning on about her concern for hungry and cold children going to school, and quite rightly so. Does the Minister for Education not see that 20-year-old students can be hungry and cold too? Third level students are her concern. Did she agree to this provision?

Under the proposals in this section school leavers will be unable to sign for unemployment assistance or claim supplementary welfare allowance for three months from the end of July. If they are not going on to college they will not be eligible for their first social welfare payment until November 1993. For this group the only State assistance will be the extension of the child dependant allowance to their parents' social welfare claim, if their parents are in receipt of social welfare. Alternatively they may qualify for one of the 12,000 jobs the Minister has miraculously pulled out of the hat. Where are these jobs? Will the Office of Public Works participate in the scheme? The Minister in his speech used the phrase "I will be consulting". It is irrational to introduce this legislation when the Minister is only intending to consult in relation to these works schemes.

Voluntary and community groups have not received details. They are worried that there seems to be no provision for training and that there will be no vetting procedure if students are assigned to work with them. The care of children and the disabled cannot and should not be carried out by untrained students. There has been no consultation with the various groups on whom the Minister intends by compulsion to dump our students to work with. The success of all voluntary activity is voluntarism. Will the Minister outline the discussions he has had with interested parties who will provide such employment? What number of places has he secured by way of jobs for students? What will be the hourly rate of pay? Will students be insured under the Social Welfare Acts? Will public liability insurance be available? Will the work be full time or part time? Was the Minister for Education consulted? Was the Minister for Enterprise and Employment made aware of the Minister's new job creation proposals? What role, if any, did the junior Minister at the Department of Social Welfare play in bringing these proposals before the House? Does it not fly in the face of the role of the Minister of State in supporting people in poverty and in need? Has the Minister decided on students' rights to travel? Will they be able to travel freely around the country to avail of these works schemes?

If this was a well thought out programme of voluntary work in lieu of State financial support, it would receive a much healthier debate in this House. Sooner rather than later the Department of Social Welfare will be forced to draw up community development employment programmes as an anti-poverty strategy. This is not in dispute and I wholeheartedly support it. With one stroke of the pen the Minister may have antagonised a substantial number of community-based groups whose support he will need in the months and years to come. He has discredited what was originally a very good idea. Such a partnership with voluntary and community development should be a positive policy, not a benefit sanction, as presented in this Bill.

What will be the real effect for the average student who has just completed the leaving certificate examination? It will delay eligibility for benefits and opportunities. For example, there will be a delay for a further three months, from 12 to 15 months, before he or she is eligible for FÁS schemes or social employment schemes.

Dr. Woods

It is made clear that it does not apply. When the Deputy reads the speech at leisure she will see that.

Ms. O'Donnell

I am glad that is clarified. It assumes that all school leavers want to go on to third level education. This is not the case. Such an assumption penalises a substantial number of young people. As unemployment assistance is already means tested quite restrictively, this provision reduces the income to households already on low income. It discriminates against 18-year-olds who have stayed at school. It continues a childlike dependency and assumes a good and supportive relationship between parents and young people which does not always exists.

The blanket exclusion from welfare of third level students shows a deep distrust of students and young people by the Government and a corresponding disregard for hard pressed low to middle income parents, on whom students will be forced to depend if they cannot find jobs and are ineligible for work schemes. It is also a serious erosion of the social guarantee that should exist between the State and young people. This policy change is arbitrary and discriminatory in regard to young people. How many student bank loans whose repayment schedules were dependent on welfare payments will be put in serious jeopardy? Before taking up paid employment the Minister, by his action, will have consigned their credit rating to zero. Is the Minister not aware that most students work their butts off in a very competitive environment? In the present economic climate they are not even guaranteed a job when they leave college. Far from penalising students like this, we should be supporting and encouraging them at third level, including the holiday periods.

The amendment of section 201 of the Principal Act, which debars students from receiving supplementary welfare allowance, seeks to change the words "full time education" to "a course of study". I seek assurances from the Minister that students will be allowed to continue receiving supplementary welfare allowance where they have an adult or child dependant or where there are urgent or exceptional circumstances. I would ask the Minister to confirm that these categories of students will be afforded the benefits of supplementary welfare allowance. I refer him to section 201 (2) and (3) of the 1981 Act.

Will the voluntary training opportunities scheme be affected? Will students who become orphaned be precluded from receiving supplementary welfare allowance? Will disabled students in receipt of disabled person's maintenance allowance be affected? Will students who are lone parents be affected?

Dr. Woods

The answer to all those questions is no.

Ms O'Donnell

That is fine. These questions have to be asked. The section is a disaster and the Minister would do well to withdraw it.

Part V, section 22 of the Bill deals with fraud. The Progressive Democrats are committed to the elimination of fraud in the social welfare system. There appears to be considerable concern at the extent of real or perceived fraud in the system. In 1985 the special investigation unit of the Department of Social Welfare interviewed 8,000 people in connection with unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. As a result of these interviews 15 per cent ceased to claim. In the period 1987 to 1989 the current Minister requested Craig Gardner to report on the extent of social welfare fraud. The Minister has consistently refused to publish the findings. Discussions I have had with people working in the field indicate general concern within the Department at the high incidence of fraud, yet the Department does not appear to have the resources to tackle it on a huge scale.

In reply to a parliamentary question I tabled recently the Minister stated that 530 people are employed in the detection of fraud nationwide. This, when compared with a figure of 1.3 million people in receipt of social welfare payments, would seem to be insufficient. While I welcome and support any measure to eliminate abuse in the social welfare system, I will not agree to benefits being withdrawn for a period of up to nine weeks, as provided for in this section, on the report only of a deciding officer without due process of law and adherence to the rules of natural justice.

Section 22 (2) extends the provisions of section 22 (1) to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. As the chief executive officers of the regional health boards are the deciding officers for the purposes of establishing entitlement to supplementary welfare allowance in accordance with section 204 (4), the section referred to, section 22 (2) of this Bill, does not have any legal effect unless the appropriate amendment is made to section 204 (4). I would respectfully suggest that this section be deleted.

On section 23, has the Data Protection Commissioner, who had misgivings in relation to a social services number and expressed reservations about the ID card, been consulted?

I would like to refer to the role of community development and an interaction between community development and social welfare. No discussion on poverty and social welfare is credible any longer without a recognition and analysis of the vast potential contributions to be made by the community development and voluntary sectors to job creation and anti-poverty strategies. There was a commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and by the Minister to a charter for the voluntary sector. Much lip service has been paid to the concept but as yet there is no formal structure through which this sector can truly participate in policy development at any level. For the much bandied about doctrine of subsidiarity, under which decisions are taken at local level, to become a reality we need more decentralisation. This must occur in the context of a total reform of local government.

I wish to make one further point in regard to students. It is interesting that the Minister seems uncertain as to the amount students are costing the State by signing on in the summer. His figures seem very vague.

Dr. Woods

It is more than £8 million and that does not include the supplements. If every student did what certain students are doing that is how much it would cost.

Ms O'Donnell

Did the Minister ascertain the number of cases of fraud? What lies behind these proposed policy changes? Is it abuse-based? If that is so, I would like to see the figures relating to the abuse. I do not think legislation like this is justified without bringing before this House the reasons for it, and if it is abuse-based we should be told. I am not convinced. The Minister's figures are uncertain and wavering. I would like to see figures and details of any prosecutions brought for fraud. What the Minister has said is not enough and I will strenuously oppose this measure. If I were a student I would be outside the gates of the House protesting.

Proinsias De Rossa

Before I commence, let me indicate to the House that I propose to give ten minutes of my time to Deputy Sargent of the Green Party.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 1:

1. To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann deploring:

(1) the inadequacy of the increases provided and the long delay in their implementation,

(2) the failure to reverse the social welfare cuts introduced in 1992 which have caused such widespread hardship,

(3) the decision to withdraw unemployment assistance from students and school leavers which will penalise a substantial number of young people,

(4) the lack of any progress towards integration of the tax and social welfare system, declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill."

Many people who are dependent on social welfare had hoped that the election of the Government would mark a fundamental change in the approach to poverty and social deprivation. They were particularly hopeful that with such a substantial number of Labour Party Deputies in the new administration the fight against poverty would take its place among the most urgent national priorities.

They feel very badly let down. Successive reports produced by the Combat Poverty Agency have highlighted the extent of poverty in Ireland. Let me remind the House that the Combat Poverty Agency is the agency which this House established some years ago to advise the Department of Social Welfare and the Minister of the day on what steps should be taken to deal with poverty in Irish society. One such report, prepared by a team of British and Irish experts and published by the agency last May, found that the rate of poverty in Ireland was one of the worst in Europe and growing. A further report from the agency in June last showed that there was a huge gap in income levels between families on social welfare and those on the average industrial wage. This report, hopefully, will help to dispose of the myth that life on the dole is too easy and that the unemployed do not really want to work.

In their pre-Christmas review the Justice Commission of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors said that almost one million people were living in poverty. Those findings again are based on studies carried out by the National Economic and Social Council, the Combat Poverty Agency and the ESRI. They pointed out that the percentage of national income spent on social welfare had declined from 14.7 per cent in 1986 to 13.8 per cent last year. At a local level a study by the Combat Poverty Agency reported in today's The Irish Times which highlights the level of poverty and deprivation in Limerick found that 86 per cent of Limerick Corporation tenants were dependent on social welfare, with 32 per cent in receipt of an unemployment payment. It pointed out that Moyross, a community of 1,000 households, had only two grocery shops, no public phones, no chemist and no resident doctor.

Against this background one would have at least expected that measures for combating poverty and reforms of the social welfare system would have figured very prominently in the Programme for Government. Instead, poverty got little more than a token mention, and social welfare was dealt with in less than half a page of the 58 page document, receiving virtually the same space as sport.

Social welfare measures on their own cannot end poverty. That requires far greater structural changes in our economy and our society and is especially dependent on getting the huge numbers on the dole queues back into productive, well paid employment. It will also require the integration of the tax and social welfare system.

The Programme for Government contained a commitment to examine the feasibility of this move but, unfortunately, the matter has been taken no further and neither the budget nor this Bill provides for any moves in this direction.

We strongly urge that the complex issue of how to fully integrate tax and welfare systems should be examined speedily and in the context of a major drive to ensure full tax compliance in all sections of the income earning population. This, combined with an expansion of employment through well targeted fiscal and industrial policies is the only secure basis for a significant redistribution of income which integration around an acceptable minimum income would involve.

What social welfare measures can do, in tandem with tax reform, is to attempt to lift people above the poverty line. Judged against this objective, this is a totally inadequate response to the plight of those living in poverty. While the Bill introduces some minor reforms, the overall thrust of it is a continuation of the pattern of cutbacks and restrictions which had been the dominant feature of the policy of the last two Governments in the social welfare area.

Despite the criticism made by the Labour Party last year regarding the delays in implementing the new rates announced in the budget, the meagre increases are again being withheld until the latest possible dates in July. The child benefit increase will not be paid until September. Up to the early eighties these increases were paid in April. They have been pushed back further and further each year so that now there is almost a six month gap between the announcement of the increases in the budget and the dates on which recipients actually get them. In the meantime those on social welfare have had to endure price increases on a range of items, which have gone up from 1 March as a result of VAT increases. In addition important benefits like disability and unemployment benefit, unemployment allowance and supplementary welfare allowance remain, in real terms, below the priority rates set by the Commission on Social Welfare.

The decision to deny unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare payments to third level students during the summer period and second level students for three months after finishing school is an unacceptable attack on young people. It is clearly designed to improve the appearance of the live register figures, without actually putting any more people to work. It will further impoverish students, many of whom are already existing on the breadline due to a totally inadequate grants system. In many third level institutions the summer break can be for up to four months. Those students who are available and willing to work during this period but who are unable to find employment either in Ireland or abroad should be entitled to unemployment assistance on the same basis as any other unemployed people. The decision will further penalise working families who are already struggling to keep their children in college at great sacrifices to themselves.

This proposal has already been strongly condemned by youth and student organisations. The National Youth Council of Ireland described the proposal as arbitrary and pointed out that it would take no account of family circumstances. The council forecast that the move would reduce the number of young people from non-professional backgrounds attending third level education. The Union of Students in Ireland pointed out that, as there are no jobs to be had in Ireland, the move was effectively telling young people to emigrate.

At this point I should like to draw attention to a chart on participation in third level education provided by the Union of Students in Ireland. I ask Members to bear in mind the point made that the unemployment assistance restriction on those who are already participating in third level education could well result in a reduction in the number of participants who come from non-professional backgrounds. The document containing the chart, "The Case Against Section 14 of the 1993 Social Welfare Bill", issued by the Union of Students in Ireland and dated 19 March 1993, does not give a source for the chart, however, I presume that it is based either on college statistics or on CSO statistics. It is pointed out that the number of students in Higher Education Authority designated colleges who come from farming, higher professional and lower professional backgrounds amounts to 63 per cent, while the number of students whose parents are salaried employees, intermediate non-manual workers, other non-manual workers, skilled manual workers, semi-skilled manual workers and unskilled manual workers amounts to a grand total of 37 per cent. It is significant that the number of students from the socio-economic grouping of unskilled manual workers amounts to 0.3 per cent; the number of students from semi-skilled manual worker backgrounds comes to 2.4 per cent; the children of intermediate non-manual workers make up 12.7 per cent of the total and children whose parents are salaried employees make a total of 8.1 per cent.

Those statistics compare with the following: the number of students whose parents are employers and managers amounts to 17.4 per cent of the total; students whose parents are lower professionals make up 11.1 per cent; children whose parents are higher professionals amount to 17.1 per cent of the total and those from from a farming background make up 17.5 per cent. Already there is a huge imbalance in the make-up of the student population, and the Minister's proposals will do nothing other than aggravate the imbalance.

One of the most disappointing aspects of this Bill is its failure to reverse the social welfare cuts — the "dirty dozen"— introduced by the former Minister, Deputy McCreevy. Indeed, the failure of the Labour Party to insist on a reversal of the cutbacks can only be seen as a cynical betrayal of the electorate by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and his colleagues.

The Minister claimed that he is reversing a series of cuts made last year. I find that difficult to believe: there is no action on the issue of maternity benefit; there is some stepping back on contributions in relation to disability benefit, but the pay-related benefit is still abolished; there is no action on injury benefit; there is no action on redundancy factors; there is a promise of some rolling back in relation to part-time workers but there is no proposal for the abolition of last year's cutback; with regard to dental and optical benefit, the long-term unemployed are restored to benefit and there is an increase in the exemption earning limit from £25,000 to £30,000 but the principle of means testing social insurance still remains; there is no action on the deserted wife's benefit; there is no action on equality transitional payments; there is no action on disqualifications; there is no action on health board payments, supplementary welfare allowance; there is some rolling back with regard to part-time firemen and firewomen but again there is no abolition of last year's ruling in relation to part-time workers.

Dr. Woods

They can earn £34 a day and still get the payment.

Proinsias De Rossa

The point is that the Minister is attempting to pretend that he is rolling back last year's cuts——

Dr. Woods

It costs money.

Proinsias De Rossa

——when in fact he is only tinkering with them. I propose, as I go along, to give some examples of the way in which the cuts are affecting people. The Labour Party opposed those cuts when they were introduced in the 1992 Social Welfare Bill. Labour Party candidates campaigned strongly against the cuts during the general election campaign and, as a result, won many votes from those who had suffered as a result of Minister McCreevy's cuts.

When the new Administration was criticised for failing to include a commitment to reverse the changes in the Programme for a Partnership Government, Government Deputies indicated that the matter would be dealt with in this year's Social Welfare Bill. However, the Bill leaves virtually all of the "dirty dozen" cuts intact, with only minor changes made in a number of areas. As I have already said, cuts which hit women on maternity benefit, deserted wives, redundant workers and part-time workers are all untouched. There is no reversal of the cuts in pay-related benefits and there has been no withdrawal of the controversial circular from the Department of Social Welfare which restricts the ability of community welfare officers to make payments to those in acute need. Fianna Fáil Deputies may not have fully understood the extent of the cuts when the Social Welfare Bill was going through the Dáil last year, but they must now be well aware of the severe impact of these measures on many of their own constituents.

Given that there has been a general election and a change of Government since the cuts were introduced, it is important that the Dáil be allowed to vote on these matters once again. The people have a right to expect some political consistency from the Labour Party in particular. If the cuts were wrong and merited opposition last year, Labour Party Deputies should vote against them again this year.

I have no doubt that if Deputy Kemmy and his backbench Labour Party colleagues were interviewed about the Bill, about the withdrawal of student dole and about the failure to reverse Minister McCreevy's cutbacks, they would "tut-tut" about them and warn that the Fianna Fáil Party cannot take the Labour Party for granted, but do they have the courage to come into the Dáil Chamber and do something about it? Deputy Kemmy may recall speaking in the debate on the election of the Taoiseach in July 1989, when, in comments directed at his constituency colleague, now Minister O'Dea, he said, "You cannot play Mighty Mouse in your own constituency and behave in this House like a churchmouse". Deputy Kemmy seems to have turned out as the greatest churchmouse of all. I suggest to Deputy Kemmy that he cannot play Mighty Mouse on "Morning Ireland" and play Mickey Mouse in Dáil Eireann.

One aspect of the cuts which concerns me most is the secrecy surrounding the operation of the supplementary welfare schemes. One of the most damaging cutbacks introduced last year by Minister McCreevy was the restriction placed on the ability of community welfare officers to make discretionary payments for such matters as ESB bills and rent arrears. The cut was particularly mean as it hit people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to spin out inadequate social welfare payments to cover all bills. I draw the Minister's attention to a specific case in my own constituency. A husband and wife have an income of unemployment benefit of £92 per week, an income that is inadequate for them to survive. They have outgoings of about £110 per week. That does not include any payments or expenditure on food, clothing, cigarettes, drink or going to the pictures. That woman has been refused assistance by the community welfare officer in regard to her ESB bill simply because she got assistance last October and is not entitled to any more because of the existence of circular——

Dr. Woods

That is not the situation, give me details of the case.

Proinsias De Rossa

I will certainly give the Minister details of the case. I have spoken to the community welfare officer involved and I told him that the Minister for Social Welfare said in the House that community welfare officers have full discretion. He said that he had to comply with the requirements of circulars 14/92 and 18/92 if he wished to keep his job.

Dr. Woods

If the Deputy gives me details of the case I will sort it out.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister should write a letter to the community welfare officer stating that circulars 14/92 and 18/92 do not apply any longer and then he will gladly help that woman. I do not want the Minister to deal with a specific case, I want him to withdraw the circulars to which I referred. Dealing with one individual will not solve the problems of others who are being refused help daily by community welfare officers because of circulars 14/92 and 18/92.

In his speech the Minister said he was reviewing the matter, looking at a code of practice, issuing new guidelines and then withdrawing circulars 14/92 and 18/92. In the meantime, people are being refused assistance.

Dr. Woods

The community welfare officers have been told the position.

Proinsias De Rossa

I appeal once more to the Minister to announce the withdrawal of those two circulars. He told me that the review is underway and that the guidelines will be in place shortly. In the interest of the unfortunate people who need help, will he make this announcement?

Dr. Woods

The community welfare officers are involved in the review. The Deputy should stop playing politics.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am not playing politics. People are being refused assistance.

Dr. Woods

Bring the case to me.

Proinsias De Rossa

Withdraw the circulars.

Mr. Allen

This is happening all over the place.

Proinsias De Rossa

Free the hands of the community welfare officers, that is all I am asking the Minister to do.

Ms. O'Donnell

This is the Gay Byrne approach.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is Second Stage of the Bill and the Deputy must be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Allen

The Minister is interrupting.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am making a straightforward appeal to the Minister. The guidelines will be out in a few weeks' time and he claims he is providing almost £12 million extra in supplementary welfare allowances.

Dr. Woods

I am providing a sum of £12.5 million extra.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am delighted to hear it and I will praise the Minister whenever he deserves it. However, he should withdraw circulars 14/92 and 18/92 which would not cost much so far as the Department of Social Welfare is concerned. However, it would make life easier for a relatively small number of people who deserve to be treated better than they are at present. I appeal to the Minister to do it in a general way and not just to deal with this case because it is only one example.

Dr. Woods

I outlined what is being done across the board.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister intends to wait until the guidelines are in position and the code is worked out with the ESB.

Dr. Woods

You cannot live in a vacuum.

Proinsias De Rossa

What is wrong with reverting to the situation which pertained before July last year? It will not cost Deputy McCreevy a night's sleep as he is already out of the firing line. The Minister has a reputation as a man who responds to real need. I ask him to live up to it and to withdraw those two circulars.

I want to make a final point in relation to the Minister's proposal to introduce a Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill, which is a good idea. However, this House does not really need to spend a great deal of time looking at the consolidation of something which is already in place. We need to spend a lot of time looking at how the system can be reformed and how we can integrate the tax and social welfare systems to eliminate the poverty traps and to lift people above the acknowledged poverty line.

Dr. Woods

I hope the Deputy will do that when the Bill is introduced.

Proinsias De Rossa

I intend to do so. A consolidation Bill implies that you are simply putting together what is already there, smoothing the corners and making it easier to administer. Obviously we need better administration but we also need practical policies to lift people out of poverty which means, fundamentally, giving them more money on which to live.

Mr. Sargent

A cursory examination of the Bill may suggest that there are increases here and there. However, they do not address the real needs of the people we represent. For those on the breadline — about one third of the population — the reality is that the increases will not be introduced until July and that the general rise in the cost of living, compounded by a rise in VAT, will cause a lower standard of living. Why must there be such a delay in implementing budgetary proposals? What is the difficulty in introducing measures which will correspond with the tax year?

I note that other changes will not be delayed, social welfare officers will not have to wait until July to operate additional powers. Will the Minister spell out in more detail the exact powers given to his officers? From what I am told by my constituents, an inspector can call to a single person whose door may be opened by a visiting brother or sister and the inspector jumps to the conclusion that the person is cohabiting or married to the occupier, with the result that he or she is penalised on the basis of suspicion. What control exists over the powers of social welfare inspectors? What safeguards are in place to avoid mistaken judgments such as the kind of one to which I referred? I hope that the Minister subscribes to the principles of fairness and equality with regard to inspectors; similarly I should like to affirm that all children — as provided for in the Constitution — should be cherished equally. Will the Minister, therefore, say why varying amounts of money are shown for children in the list of revised benefits? The recommendation of the Combat Poverty Agency is something of a yardstick for measuring the humanitarian content of provisions in social welfare legislation. One glaring departure from the recommendation is the lack of any adequate supplements for people on social welfare towards ESB bills, television licences or — where applicable — telephone bills.

I am perplexed by the frequent use of the term "family" which can mean different things to different people. For instance, does "family" mean two parents only? What about one parent families or one adult with a parent dependant? Is this a family within the context of the Bill? We must have consistency as well as fairness and in relation to fairness the Green Party welcomes the provision that the sex of a claimant for unemployment benefit or assistance will no longer be a factor in determining whether employment is suitable for the claimant involved. However, in the interest of consistency why is there a reference to pensions for widows but not for widowers? I have already tabled a parliamentary question in regard to the issue as a result of representations from people directly affected by this discrimination. Does the Minister realise that a husband can be financially dependent on his wife? In Germany the term "houseman" is used commonly, but in Ireland if a wife dies her widowed husband, who may have three or four young children, is left high and dry. If he is sufficiently lucky to have paid employment he must make arrangements to have his children minded while he works outside the home. He will have to get help with the housework as he finds himself assuming responsibility for the work of two people in the home. To employ such type of help is often very expensive, yet no such assistance is available. If a widower becomes unemployed following the death of his wife he is again considered to be single, footloose and fancy free, even though he could have three children and has to maintain repayments on the family home, not to mention a family car. This anomaly between the position of widows and widowers needs to be resolved urgently. We must remember that we are in the year 1993 and the age of the "houseman" has arrived.

Unfortunately, this anomaly obtains throughout the social welfare system. The most glaring hang over from Dickensian values can be observed in the farcical amendment being proposed to section 25, Part V of the Bill, which requires that if one — male or female — is to be eligible for unemployment assistance, one must be genuinely seeking but unable to find suitable employment having regard to age, physique, education, normal occupation, place of residence and family circumstances. How depressing. More than 300,000 people are to be forced to keep the sunny side up, to keep on seeking the elusive 40-hour week, five days a week, until they reach the age of 65, when they will receive the gold watch and have a little time for their grandchildren, probably having been too busy in their own children spent much time with their own children as they grew up.

However, all is not black; there is a sign of some hope in the provisions of this Bill. For example, one is entitled to work one day a week and claim assistance for the remaining four days. However, work does not often become available in eight-hour, calendar day packages. What about two hours' work per day, say, cleaning a public house in the morning, or one and a half hours' daily doing deliveries for a shop? Taken over a week that amounts to one days' work.

It behoves all of us, especially the Ministers for Social Welfare, Finance and Enterprise and Employment, to recognise that the nature of work and society is changing. If we allow the IDA to grant-aid machinery to extract timber from forests, putting a number of people out of work, then we simply cannot turn around and say "Off you go now and genuinely seek paid employment". A Government that promotes automation, rationalisation and competition must transform or adapt its values and rules to suit the society it has intentionally, or unintentionally, helped create. I am glad that boring and dangerous work can now be done by machinery, but I am angry that the wealth such machinery creates will not pay the people it will have displaced. I am also angry that employers find it easier to get grant-aid for machinery than to employ people on a part-time, shared work or full-time basis. Can the Government begin to see that the link between work and income is breaking down? People need an income for a week, but they may never have paid work for a week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must now ask the Deputy to bring his remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Sargent

If there were a shorter working week and work-sharing more widely available, more people would have some work in a week. The big stick of losing a benefit still hangs over people who are shareholders in the nation rather than children of the nation being given pocket money. We are entitled to some dividend from the State's business activity — a dividend is not a handout — a citizen's dividend, otherwise known as a guaranteed basic income, which in the long run constitutes the only hope for this country, so that such work as can be found is more widely available. This would mean that those with paid work would also receive a dividend, as would those without paid work. However, those in full-time employment would have such dividend removed or annulled through tax anyway, just as people on high incomes are taxed at a higher rate. The net effect of such a guaranteed basic income would be elimination of this ridiculous polarisation between employed and unemployed. The ultimate effect of a guaranteed basic income is that we would all receive a dividend from the State and be able to contribute to society through paid or voluntary work. Goodness knows, there is plenty of work needing to be done. I might add that a basic guaranteed income scheme has already been costed and has been shown to be feasible. However, such costing would be the task of the Minister and his Department. Suffice it to say that, even though the Greens have advocated a guaranteed basic income since the early eighties when the party was formed, individual Members of my party and those of Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left share the belief that a basic guaranteed income scheme carries huge merits over the present system, notwithstanding amendments tabled to this Bill.

I notice that the Minister proposes bringing back into the dental, optical and aural scheme those workers earning between £25,000 and £30,000 annually, while at the same time announcing that those in full-time education will no longer be eligible to claim unemployment assistance during the summer holidays except in some very vague circumstances. While over the years we have been able to proclaim the equality and advances made in our educational system——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry. The Deputy has now encroached appreciably on other Members' time.

Mr. Sargent

I will conclude within the time allocated.

The Minister is endeavouring to devise a system which will deprive the less well off while at the same time compensating the more privileged in our society.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry, I must now call Deputy Moynihan-Cronin.

Mrs. Moynihan-Cronin

I should like to share my time with Deputy Pattison.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. Moynihan-Cronin

I should like to refer to a couple of provisions of this Bill with which I am concerned. According to last month's budget there are approximately 4,400 people in receipt of carer's allowance who receive payments of up to £59.20 per week. While the decision of the Minister for Finance to increase the long term assistance rate by 11.7 per cent to £59.20 is welcome, I contend such carers do not receive due recognition from the State for the services they provide. By providing service for old or incapacitated family members carers take on a massive burden which would otherwise be borne by the State. The present total cost to the State of carers is estimated at £8 million. Without such carers there is no doubt that the cost would be much greater.

I contend that the rigid means-testing for the carer's allowance adversely affects the numbers of claimants who, generally speaking, would have a limited income. According to official statistics an estimated 450 people have appealed, having been refused the carer's allowance, suggesting that the system under which such allowances are granted is not sufficiently clear to its potential users. I contend it should be rendered more user-friendly. For example, from the outset people should be informed whether or not they are eligible for such allowance.

In view of the numbers of aged and incapacitated people being cared for by relatives, the figure I have mentioned reflects the rigidity of the means-testing applied in respect of this service resulting in minimal expenditure of approximately £8 million. We must remember that such services provided by relatives represent a massive saving to the Exchequer. For example, without carers the State would be faced with a bill of several millions of pounds for the provision of long term accommodation for those people. Therefore, I contend there is a need for an urgent, comprehensive review of the means-testing mechanism in respect of carers. As a first step I would suggest that the income ceiling per week be raised by £20, bringing the lower category of income earners within the provisions of the scheme, thus affording them the opportunity of receiving a small amount of benefit. Second, I contend that people in this income bracket should be given some tax relief in respect of their work as carers.

I might bring to the attention of the House that the vast majority of carers are women. It is unfair to expect Irish women to provide such service in a totally free, gratis fashion. I am aware of some people in receipt of a carer's allowance who when they reach the requisite age to qualify for the old age non-contributory pension are deprived of their carer's allowance. I am also aware of women who must give up their job in order to look after the elderly relatives rather than put them into full-time care. Such people should be compensated.

I should like to deal now with the questions of low wages and the family income supplement. It is clear that poverty affects not only those people dependent on long-term social welfare assistance but also many thousands of families who subsist on low wages. In many cases low wage earners are worse off than people in receipt of social welfare payments. I know of many families who subsist on a weekly wage of approximately £130 to £160. However, if family wage earners on low income engaged in overtime, that can preclude them from receiving the family income supplement. In addition, many families do not qualify for a medical card with the result that they are exposed to medical expenses, school transport costs and do not qualify for any free school books. Unfortunately, such families claim that they would be better off, financially, if they were unemployed.

The family income supplement scheme is an effective one and it is aimed principally at aiding the low wage earner. Since it was introduced in 1986 it has been changed considerably. It is estimated that the income limits have been raised by 50 per cent on average, substantially ahead of the rate of inflation. As a result of the increases provided for in the budget an extra £2.5 million will be provided for the scheme this year and over £5 million in a full year. However, the Minister for Social Welfare should review the guidelines for eligibility to ensure that families caught in the poverty trap will not be precluded from availing of the much needed family income supplement if they work short periods of overtime.

I would now like to address the issue of self-employed seasonal workers — there are many such workers in my own constituency. There is a major problem in assessing the income of these workers. Indeed, I am aware of cases where an arbitrary amount of income has been attributed to such workers and the workers concerned have not been told how the figure was arrived at. I am also aware of cases where documentary evidence of actual income has been rejected by social welfare officers. This results in people being awarded £5 to £10 per week in unemployment assistance for about six months of the year. How can these people prove that their actual income is lower than the figure decided on by the social welfare officer? Why should the onus of proof lie with the applicant?

I ask the Minister to examine these issues as people are being arbitrarily deprived of their rights and expected to survive on extremely low rates of unemployment assistance during the winter months.

Mr. Pattison

Like every other Social Welfare Bill which has come before the House the good parts of this Bill have been welcomed while the bad parts have been condemned. I wish to emphasise the good parts because they have not been highlighted sufficiently in the debate so far. In particular we should welcome the increase in child benefit. We should also welcome — perhaps last year we did not think we would see this happen — the reversal of some of the cuts made last year which resulted in some entitlements being curtailed. The most telling cuts have been reversed in the budget which is not bad going for the first budget of the Government, the first of possibly four or five annual budgets. I welcome this because the cuts were severe and hit the long term unemployed and those in receipt of long term sickness benefit. The remaining cuts have not been reversed but they were not as severe as the cuts which have been reversed. I hope, as the term of office of this Government proceeds, that improvements will be made to the social welfare code to rectify any anomalies which have arisen from the remaining cuts. As I said, the most important cuts have been reversed in the budget and this is to be welcomed.

Despite the criticism which has been expressed about this Bill from the Opposition benches many improvements have been made. The Labour Party in Government is committed and will continue to endeavour to ensure that the Programme for Government continues to improve and protect the position of those on social welfare.

In this Social Welfare Bill the payments for children have been substantially improved and extra support for families at work will be provided. Under this administration, child benefit will be increased from £15.80 to £20 per month, an increase of 26.6 per cent, for each of the first three children and from £22.90 to £23 for the fourth and each subsequent child from September 1993. These improvements should go some way towards making life somewhat easier for the many families who depend on social welfare. In addition to the increases in child benefit the Government is also providing a new grant of £200 for mothers on the birth of twins.

With regard to the family income supplement the income limits are to be increased as and from next July. As a result of these measures families in receipt of family income supplement will be £12 per week better off in real terms. The family income supplement scheme has been changed substantially to cope with new developments since it was introduced in the mid-eighties. During this period the income limits have been increased ahead of the rate of inflation and the scheme has been extended to cover a wide number of people in receipt of social welfare. This, coupled with the relaxation of the minimum hours requirement, has worked to increase the number of people eligible to receive the family income supplement.

In relation to the difficult question of money lending the Government has made available an extra £1.3 million in grants to the voluntary sector. These have been designed to combat money lending. There has been a number of appalling cases where people have been forced to rely on money-lenders. I hope these new measures will allow people to avail of money from sources other than illegal money-lenders. In total the Government is spending an extra £62 million a year on child income support, £50 million in the form of increases in child benefit and £12 million in the form of higher child dependant allowances and increases in the family income supplement.

In the budget last month the weekly rate of carer's allowance was also increased, to the long term social welfare payment rate. Although the system needs to be improved further this increase is most welcome. The carer's allowance was introduced in 1990 and was designed as an income support for carers providing full-time care and attention for social welfare pensioners. It plays a vital role in recognising the sacrifices made by those who care for their elderly relatives at home. However, it is fair to say that the qualifying conditions need to be improved to allow more people receive the allowance.

Furthermore, the carer's allowance should be updated continually as statistics prove that people are now living longer; medical science has made it possible for elderly people to leave acute general hospitals but in many cases they have to receive full-time care and attention at home. The health services cannot provide an adequate hospice care service to cope with the problem. However, this should not be a problem as a nation or a Government are judged on the way they look after the old and infirm.

I hope the Minister for Social Welfare, together with his Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Health, will take a good look at this matter which is the source of increasing concern for relatives who have to give up work and make immense sacrifices. The carer's allowance, as presently constituted, will not suffice. I am aware that there are many good private nursing homes but, unfortunately, there are not that many homes that public patients can go to. These people cannot afford to stay in a private nursing home as on average it costs twice the rate of the old age pension to keep an elderly person in a private nursing home. If relatives can keep the person out of the public hospitals by caring for them at home it would save money in the long term.

I now make a special appeal on behalf of widows, particularly those whose husbands had the free electricity allowance and free telephone rental. When a husband dies, his widow, especially if she is under 66 years of age, loses those benefits immediately. To lose one's husband is a traumatic experience but in addition a woman has to face losing a major part of the family income as well as other benefits. Even if we could arrange to put a stay of 12 months after the date of death of the spouse, on the benefits in question, it would give a woman some time to readjust.

I join with my colleague in asking the Minister to give further consideration to the assessment of unemployment assistance claims. Because of the high level of unemployment, unemployment affects as many self-employed as those in jobs. The method of assessing those who were self-employed for unemployment assistance seems to be very severe. The self-employed who have not found employment for many years find that assessments for income are still being raised against them. This area should be examined. I accept that contradictory appeals may be made to the Minister: Members may be appealing to him to curtail the number of social welfare officers while others talk about alleged abuses of social welfare and call for more vigilance on the part of social welfare officers. These are the contradictory arguments put forward in this debate.

In conclusion I want to emphasise the positive aspects of this Bill. They are very welcome and will go a long way to help the poor, the needy and the aged in our society.

Mr. Dukes

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, with your permission, I propose to share my time with Deputy Paul Bradford.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dukes

It is absolutely outrageous that we should have to share time on Second Stage. The limitations on Second Stage debates are totally artificial and are designed to make life comfortable for the Government by gagging Members of this House. I am confirmed in that view after listening to the two previous speakers from the Labour Party who could barely conceal their burning desire to oppose the Bill because it does so many things they opposed in the past and fails to do so many of the things that they would like to see happen. To be accentuating the positive must have been a labour of some considerable difficulty for Deputy Pattison and I congratulate him on having the stomach to come in here and do that.

There are a great many holes in this Bill. When I looked at the Fianna Fáil-Labour Programme for Government, I found the promise to provide "in the short term" for maternity leave for adoptive mothers. We would have expected to find such provision in this Bill, but it is not there. Unless something is done about this during this year, it will not come into effect until 1994 at the earliest. Even if something is done before the end of this year, it cannot come into effect before the beginning of the next benefit year. Another promise made by this Government has been reneged on very quickly. We are entitled to ask: "Why?" I wonder if Fianna Fáil is being hidebound and obstructive as usual or if the Labour Party is not doing its job? Was this, perhaps, another cosmetically attractive promise blithely entered into without any consideration as to how it could be implemented? If we reflect on this we find that the cost of implementing such a maternity benefit would not be very substantial at all. In 1991, for example, a total of 590 adoption orders were made, and as we know the number is declining every year.

If every adoptive mother in whose favour an adoption order was made was entitled to the maternity allowance paid at the new rate set out in this Bill the maximum theoretical cost of implementing this undertaking in the Programme for Government would be £1.3 million in a full year. Now, of course, the actual cost would be considerably less than that because a number of those who would qualify for it would qualify for maternity benefit and a substantial number in whose favour adoption orders would be made would not claim for either maternity benefit or allowance and, of course, numbers would not make that claim in the current year. Therefore the cost of implementing that particular part of the Government programme would be very small indeed in this year. It is one of five measures listed in the Government's programme under the heading of "Women's Rights", which we might realistically have expected to be implemented this year especially after the birthing of this Government, which was such a long drawn out affair. None of the five measures which might have been implemented this year has been put into effect. I am forced to come to the conclusion that the Government's commitment to women's rights as set out in the programme is simply lip service and nothing more than a pretence.

Section 9 provides that in certain circumstances, which are not yet specified, persons who are incapacitated for less than one year may be entitled to receive an invalidity pension — this will apparently be dealt with by way of regulation. I hope that such regulations will have to be debated in this House rather than the kind that come into effect unless they are opposed within 21 sitting days. I take a particular interest in this area because I believe the system currently in operation for deciding whether people are entitled to an invalidity pension actually oppresses some people. It has been the vehicle for some of the most unjust, prolonged and wasteful administrative pettifogging that has ever been my misfortune to see.

I have a case on file which has been ongoing since February 1988. The individual in question has been in receipt of disability benefit for a good part of that period, but he has never been continuously on disability benefit for 12 months. When he gets near that point, "hey presto", he is hauled off to appear before a medical referee, who solemnly pronounces him fit for work so that his disability claim very often comes to an end. He then spends some time with the Department pretending he is looking for work and has some chance of getting it but they finally believe the evidence of his own doctor and of another medical referee who say he is not fit for work so he goes back on assistance. When he gets near the point again when he might qualify for an invalidity pension: "they say ‘no', we have changed our minds again." He is hauled before another medical referee and the whole merry-go round starts all over again. That is institutionalised torture but it is not by any means an isolated case. Members on all sides of this House will have come across such cases. In the particular case I mention, I have been in contact in regard to it at length with the director of the social welfare services office on 14 separate occasions and I have been in touch with two successive Ministers for Social Welfare about it on five separate occasions but the nonsense goes on. The State is oppressing that individual and others, but this Bill will do nothing to change that.

Some small changes are proposed in the method of assessing means for unemployment assistance. Those changes are welcome as far as they go, but they do not go very far. There are still some nonsensical features in our means testing system. An example brought to my attention recently was that of a small farmer who applied for an old age non-contributory pension. An officer of the Department of Social Welfare solemnly assessed the capital value of his farm and concluded that it had a net yearly value of £450.46. I have seen the assessment and it shows that that officer does not know a great deal about the value of farm land. That conclusion was reached in spite of the fact that audited farm accounts showed a net loss of £591 in 1991 and £621 in 1992. The assessment was carried out just before that individual stocked his farm last summer and he had £4,250 in the bank which he used to buy stock.

Did the Department assess the net yearly value of that £4,250 as a capital sum? No, that £4,250 was treated as income for the year and when the two were added — the £4,250 plus the fictional net yearly value of the capital value of his farm — he was assessed as having a weekly means of £91.39 whereas in reality that farmer was recording a loss of £10 a week in one year and almost £13 a week in another year. He was disqualified from receiving an old age non-contributory pension. That is the type of means testing that is being carried out and bears no relation to what is happening in the real world. Neither does the system we use for means testing young people living at home who apply for unemployment assistance. I am sure Deputies on all sides are aware of this problem. Such young people are frequently credited with an absolutely improbable proportion of their parents' income resulting in them leaving home to live in a miserable flat where they will qualify for the full personal rate of unemployment assistance plus a rent allowance. The State ends up paying out more money and a whole series of new social problems may be created, alienation or even worse and we call that a social welfare system. We are creating new problems that will come back to haunt us in the future. In the long term, the State is paying out more money than it would if it paid those young people a reasonable amount of unemployment assistance while they are living at home.

The crowning glory of this Bill is the iniquitous section 14, which is designed specifically to exclude third level students from unemployment assistance. The "dirty dozen" that were so trenchantly criticised by the Labour Party prior to the election have now become the baker's dozen with this extra measure thrown in and the Labour Party is one of the bakers. This must be one of the meanest and discriminatory measures I have ever seen in a Social Welfare Bill. We are told that students on vacation will be considered for participation in some new form of community work schemes. We have not yet seen the details of those schemes although the Minister waffled a little about this earlier. Why should those schemes be specifically reserved for students on vacation if they are worthwhile schemes? Surely nobody can say that students on vacation have some unique talents not to be found in any other group in the population? This is a charade; the Government realises it has made a mistake in introducing this bone headed provision but it cannot bring itself to remedy that mistake in the only honest and decent way that exists, which is to remove this section from the Bill. If those schemes for which students would qualify are worthwhile they should be introduced, but we should get rid of the nonsence of pretending that they are reserved for students who are otherwise being discriminated against. Bureaucracy is running wild in this Bill.

Section 33 is an interesting section. It requires a person who has made a claim for assistance to notify the Minister in writing of any increase in his or her means even where the investigation of that person's means has not taken place. Therefore, when one applies for assistance, one waits for a social welfare officer to carry out a means test and if there is an increase in the meantime, even before the assessing officer makes his assessment, one must write to the Minister or cause somebody else to write to inform the Minister that one's means have increased. The Minister who proposed this measure and the Government who solemnly put it before this House in a Bill would qualify as the shadowy tyrants in a work by Kafka. They certainly do not live in the real world.

Why has the Minister found it necessary to have old age contributory or retirement pensions paid four weeks in arrears rather than one week in advance as was the case up to now? If the purpose of this provision is to avoid the cash flow problem of having to pay some extra weeks' pension to those qualifying pensioners who opt for the direct debit payment system this year, it is another example of petty and mean-minded administration which will place an unnecessary — even if it is temporary — hardship on a group of vulnerable people.

The oppressive, mean-minded and repressive nature of this Bill is clearly illustrated in Part VI which rejoices in the title of Pre-Consolidation Amendments to Align and Consolidate Various Provisions of the Social Welfare Code. We will have a Consolidation Bill, but we have an appetizer in Part VI of this Bill with the pre-consolidation amendments. We would usually look to such a chapter in a Social Welfare Bill for evidence of a sympathetic approach to the operation of the system, but nothing of that kind is to be found here. An examination of the provisions in Part VI of the Bill reveals that they are all either restrictive or punitive in character. If that is pre-consolidation, I would not like to see the real consolidation; that chapter is perfectly in tune with the character of this entire Bill which is cold, unfeeling and uncaring.

Mr. Bradford

I apologise if my comments are repetitive but, unfortunately, there is no great departure, new ethos or idealism in this Bill and, therefore, I will have to dwell on more or less the same areas as previous speakers. I do not wish to be in any way disrespectful to the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, but in reading the Bill and listening to the speeches here, it is difficult to find any section which would indicate that the Minister or the Labour Party had any impact on the type of policy as enunciated in the Social Welfare Bill. If any of our constituents had been sent on a round trip to Mars last October and returned either on budget day or last week, following the introduction of the Social Welfare Bill, at best they would say that the more things change, the more they stay the same and, at worst, they would find it difficult to believe that a general election took place and that a new Government is in office. There is no evidence in this Social Welfare Bill of a new Government whose agenda is based on change. The social welfare system continues to be dominated by red tape and bureaucracy. There is no initiative to take people out of the social welfare system, the Bill is based on keeping people in the system. A figure of £3.7 billion was given for the total social welfare bill for 1993. That is an enormous sum of money and it is difficult to say we are getting value for money.

Our social welfare system is based on fire brigade action. We tackle the problems but do not deal with the causes. We spend hundreds of millions of pounds on unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance but do little to take people out of that system and put them back to work. A person on unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance who wishes to take up employment for three or four weeks or perhaps for two or three months, finds it extremely difficult to get back onto social welfare. For weeks afterwards they are on a merry-go-round of meeting the social welfare officer and being sent to the supplementary welfare department of the health board. Therefore, it is not worthwhile for a person to take up short term employment because by the time they can return to the social welfare payments they have lost both time and money. This problem should have been addressed in this Social Welfare Bill. We should have done something to ease a person's re-entry into the social welfare system. The result of that omission will be that persons who are offered short term jobs will refuse them.

I welcome the incentive which may help take a few people off the dole, that is, the change in the PRSI exemption scheme. Unfortunately, while the Minister for Social Welfare is making progress in that regard, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, through the FÁS programme, is abolishing the FÁS employment incentive scheme. Therefore, what is given to the employment sector on the one hand is taken away on the other. That is very disappointing.

I wish to mention some specifics of the Bill. In regard to the carer's allowance, when Minister Woods introduced this scheme some years ago he announced with pride and good intention that it would benefit 28,000 people. During the course of the last Dáil the Minister was asked on several occasions the number of people who qualified for the carer's allowance. The information supplied showed that the figure never reached the 4,000 mark. Therefore, a scheme which was designed to assist up to 28,000 people but which is now assisting perhaps only 4,000 or 5,000 people is a failure. We must admit that and go back to the drawing board. I welcome the small increase in payments under the scheme but when one thinks of the thousands of people who would benefit from full time care and attention and who would prefer to have that care in the confines of their own home or with their families, it is obvious that the scheme has not worked and must be redirected.

If one contrasts the amount of money the State spends on keeping a person in health board funded institutions — from £300 to £500 per week — with the miserly £50 or £60 per week which we are refusing to give a person to keep a relative in the comfort and confines of their own home, one would have to suggest we are adopting the wrong approach. We must redirect our efforts to keeping people at home rather than in institutions. That approach, too, would involve a saving to the State. We must review the carer's allowance scheme in order to make it work.

I must refer to the Minister's attack on students in this Social Welfare Bill. In his speech this afternoon he tried to gloss over the proposed change by saying that it is similar to the position in Great Britain or continental Europe. That is not comparing like with like because in continental Europe and, indeed in most parts of the United Kingdom, students have some possibility of obtaining work. Students here are facing a search for employment at a time when 305,000 people are unemployed. The majority of students who claim unemployment assistance during the summer months do so because they have no opportunity of obtaining work. I agree with Deputy O'Donnell when she asked the Minister to produce evidence which suggests that some students are making fraudulent claims. It is wrong for him to attack all students on the basis of fraudulent claims by a few, if there are such claims. I hope the Minister can produce evidence to back up the draconian measures he has introduced.

I would support the comments made by Deputy Dukes in relation to means testing. We need to review our means tested social welfare schemes at all levels. The present system is very cumbersome. Those who undergo means tests are drawn through a web of confusion and red tape which is mind-boggling in its intent and is demeaning. We should streamline the system of means testing in all respects.

Eamon Ó Cuív

Cuireann sé áthas orm fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit chuig an díospóireacht seo.

There is much I could say about social welfare, but because of the time limit, I will confine my remarks to some very important basic issues. I have always been struck by the complexity of the system. I pay tribute to the Minister who, over a number of years, has slowly but surely succeeded in making some dent in simplifying the system. Most social welfare recipients at times have problems in regard to the delivery of the service. It is only fair to recognise that there has been an improvement in the supply of information and in the delivery of service to clients of the social welfare system, but that being said there is still much work to be done. For the ordinary social welfare recipient the social welfare code is a mystery and many people do not understand how the means test is applied. Therefore, there is a need to continuously review the delivery of service and the supply of information to the social welfare client. If such reviews were carried out less work would be placed on the social welfare service in the long run and people would not be asking the same questions about how calculations are made. If we are to make progress in the social welfare sphere it is necessary also to tackle, in a very radical way, the complexity of the system. There is a plethora of different types of payments and different means tests for different schemes, though many are similar. That makes it virtually impossible, unless one has studied the system, to understand how assessments are calculated. This area must be examined. I hope that during the lifetime of this Government a major effort will be made to produce a streamlined and reformed system.

We have to consider also the potential of our people. I have always resented the idea that social welfare recipients are considered to be different from others. They have the same potential as have other members of society if they are provided with the same structures, but the system often inhibits that potential. We sometimes think of motivation and incentive in the realm of tax breaks for the high tax earner but I have always believed that if we could motivate the mass of people here, the result would be much more spectacular. However, to motivate people it must be made profitable for them to work. For example, at present there is effectively a 100 per cent tax on the efforts of small farmers, fishermen, and others who are self-employed and that tax inhibits those people from increasing their incomes. This area must be considered in the long term. There is a well of talent that could be released if the opportunity to do so was provided.

In that regard I would like to refer to the importance of the social employment schemes as an outlet for this demand in many areas. In the west and, particularly in the Gaeltacht area of Connemara, there is a great demand from the people on the ground for opportunities to take up social employment schemes. They see the advantages of these schemes as being non-means tested and of giving them an opportunity to work and contribute to their communities. However, there are limits to the number of schemes available and to the finance provided for such schemes. There are rules stating that you can be on a scheme for only one year and in order to get back onto a scheme you have to first go on the dole. One rule I can never understand is that in order to be eligible for these schemes you have to be over 25 years of age; if you are under 25 years you have to go on a Teamwork scheme. That is total nonsense. As a person who worked in this area for a number of years I found that the integration of workforces of various age groups led to a sharing of skills.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 23 Mar 1993