Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Mar 1993

Vol. 428 No. 2

Social Welfare Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Social Welfare on Tuesday, 23 March 1993:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 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."

—(Deputy De Rossa.)

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

I was talking earlier about the removal of third level students from the unemployment assistance register during holiday periods. There are currently 78,000 third level students, of whom 66,000 find alternative means of getting by during the summer months. Some of them find employment in Ireland and others work abroad. We should welcome the fact that some of our students benefit from experience abroad. My daughter is going to the United States and I can see nothing but good coming from that. Certainly I would not frown on it. Many families have sufficient means to cater for students during the holiday period. Some of them find that grants and loans will get them by. The students seeking unemployment assistance are very much in the minority. Some students are already in receipt of benefits, for example, disabled students and lone parents. Is this much ado about nothing and is it worth cutting off students from unemployment assistance?

As somebody who has taught in a regional college for many years, I am aware that the system was abused by students. Students from areas removed from regional technical colleges and universities claimed that they were living in these centres of population during the holiday period and sought not only unemployment assistance but a rent subsidy. This action could not be condoned if such students could be well catered for at home. There are, however, large numbers of students who find it difficult because of parental circumstances to survive on grants and student loans.

The Minister has indicated that if students want to receive unemployment assistance, schemes will have to be devised which will involve work. I see great merit in that suggestion. There must be liaison between the universities, the regional technical colleges and community groups. There is a wealth of experience and expertise among students which could be of benefit to local communities during the summer. We should look at the matter in a threefold way. The universities and the regional colleges should be asked to liaise with local bodies and community groups and to seek suggestions for projects suited to the skills of students.

Many of our students will become teachers and there is a great opportunity for them during the summer months to ply their trade in summer play schemes. Architectual students should be asked to look at a local village or suburb and to bring their expertise to bear in devising a scheme of improvement. This would be helpful to the local authorities and to community groups. A large number of students are involved in learning languages. There is a great opportunity for the State, the universities and the community to become involved in promoting language learning during the summer.

There is a problem with the suggested amount of payment. How can the Minister ask a student to work for five days and earn only £53 while an unemployed person on a social employment scheme would receive double that amount? That aspect of the scheme must be reconsidered. It has great merit but much more thought will have to be given to it.

I refer to section 22 of the Bill. Section 204 of the Consolidation Act, 1981 states categorically that the chief executive officer of a health board is the deciding officer in relation to supplementary welfare allowance. My experience is that many of the chief executive officers have conferred that right on the superintendent of community care. There is a contradiction here. Section 22 states that where somebody is found defrauding the system that person is to be cut off for nine weeks and will not be entitled to supplementary welfare benefit for that period, except for an adult dependant and a child dependant. Am I right in saying that the deciding officer of the Department of Social Welfare is now usurping the powers of a chief executive officer in a health board? Is this in fact legal under the Consolidation Act 1981? What happens, for instance, when a deciding officer disqualifies a person on the grounds of fraud? Can the chief executive officer of the health board quite legitimately state that there are exceptional circumstances here and he is using his prerogative to make a supplementary welfare payment to this particular person? I am sure the chief executive officer will say he has every right to do so. I would cite also the case of a single person who is cut off by a deciding officer. Who is to feed that person for nine weeks? Why are we closing every door? Will that person be easy pickings for a loan shark? Would such a person not be fed in prison and get an allowance? Surely a caring Minister should look at this provision again. At the end of the day why would the rigours of the law not be appropriate in circumstances where somebody perpetrates fraud?

Section 12 deals with interruption of employment. Up to now we have been calculating the interruption period from 6 April to 5 April in the following year. What is suggested in the Bill is that from here on the interruption period will be calculated from the day of the interruption so that a person could have spent 300 days and now find himself entitled to only 12 days. I see that there is a hidden difficulty here that will only manifest itself down the road and that the Minister, and each of us as TDs, will be ballyragged about it because the Minister is removing a major benefit to people on disability benefit. Surely the difficulty lies with the general practitioner who certifies the person as being sick. Maybe we should be looking at GPs who are certifying people. If there is fraud out there it is on the basis of people being certified as being sick when that is not the case. If that is so, it is the GPs around the country we should be looking at and not individuals.

Mr. J. Higgins

I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy John Browne.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. J. Higgins

At my clinic recently in Ballina town a lady of 62 years of age came to me in absolute desperation at her inability to survive on her husband's disability benefit. The husband who is also 62 years of age has been ill for the past three and a half years. He worked all his life as a labourer and is now trying to exist on £87.30 per week. His rent to the urban council is £13 per week, leaving £74.30. They use three bags of coal at £7.50 per bag because they do not qualify for fuel allowance. The cost of the coal amounts to £22.50 leaving a balance of £51.80 per week. Their electricity costs a conservative £5 a week. That leaves them with £46.80. Meagre insurance policies cost them £4 per week, leaving £42. Television repayments cost £16 per month or £4 a week — that is the only luxury item they have. That leaves them with a net sum of £38 per week. They have not got a dishwasher; they have not got a washing machine; they have the minimum number of domestic appliances, and a television set but no radio. They have £38 per week with which to feed and clothe themselves having given their lives to the service of this State. They have gone to the supplementary welfare officer in vain on several occasions. They have told him of their plight. They have shown graphically their day-to-day costings, their week to week costings, what they spend on essentials in order to keep body and soul together and they have been turned down because the discretion of community welfare officers in coming to decisions has been largely terminated. In a situation like that that discretion should be restored. Where it is possible to prove chapter and verse that one is not capable of surviving it should be possible to give another £20 minimum to assist in propping up that kind of family. These people are not living. They are not even surviving. They are existing, they are living in misery and, unfortunately, their lot for the foreseeable future will not improve. In that situation one cannot live with any kind of dignity.

There is a massive chasm widening between the social welfare classes in this society and the well off, between the "haves" and the "have nots"— and I do not include the PAYE people among the "haves". When I talk about the "haves" I mean the entrepreneurs, the well-to-do, the people to whom we pander in the Green Paper on Education, the people among whom we try to nurture a philosophy of an enterprise culture. The people on social welfare are trying to exist at subsistence level on weekly payments from the Department of Social Welfare and they are turned away from the door of the community welfare officer, yet on the other side of society they see the captains of industry appearing before tribunals, inquiries and court hearings. The people who are supposed to be leading society are the subject of inquiries and the people on social welfare see the "squandermania" with millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' money. We do not realise it yet but we are fast reaching a stage in our society where we have, in unemployment, unleashed a Frankenstein.

I hope the unemployed will not take to the streets. However, they are becoming increasingly organised and they are very articulate. They know their entitlements and they are able to read the signs. They see the divisions and inequalities in society, and their patience will not last forever. If they take to the streets this country will be in a very serious predicament indeed. We would be well advised to read and react to the warning signs before things get out of hand. We heard the bland statement of the Minister for Finance during the week when he declared quite publicly that the anticipated growth in unemployment for this year will be 25,000 bringing the total to 325,000, 22 per cent of the population, now the largest percentage within the EC. That is the conditioning process, the process of acclimatising people to the harsh reality. That type of bland defeatism — maybe it is realism — is leading us down the road to a very delicate and desperate situation for the foreseeable future. What has happened in other countries can happen here also.

I look at the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which was the blueprint of the previous Taoiseach. I look at the section headed “Social Welfare and Social Reform”. There is much in it, some items fulfilled and very welcome. Many other things too numerous to itemise have not been completed and fulfilled. It is difficult to see how they can be in the current tight economic climate. There are one or two basics which do not cost anything which have not been addressed and would actually save money. The Minister stated:

Further attention will be given to greater integration of social assistance provisions and a streamlining of means test to ensure a more effective and client orientated system. This will include the greater integration into the social welfare system of the supplementary welfare allowance provisions and other related provisions currently administered by the health boards.

Put simply, what is meant is a simple single means test, which we still do not have. In my office I have a file that contains conflicting assessments of a person's means carried out in subsequent weeks, first by a community welfare officer and then by a social welfare officer. In the interests of equity and common sense — apart from efficiency and economy — I wish there could be final settlement on some kind of means test, whether that be a notional means test or an actual means test, a factual assessment of means.

It is ridiculous that somebody on a small farm could be visited by a social welfare officer and have his or her means assessed — a gross income being listed and a figure for net income being arrived at after subtracting expenses incurred — and on the following week be assessed for eligibility to a medical card by another officer. That person, by virtue of a notional assessment based on a global figure in terms of the value of an animal or something else, could be assessed as having means amounting to a figure 60 per cent greater than the figure as assessed by an equivalent officer the previous week. That happened in one case of which I am aware. There is something fundamentally flawed and inequitable in that system. It does not make sense that the two assessments do not equate. It is inequitable, it is wrong and it is false economy. We have a habit of creating bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.

Recently I was talking to a woman who went out of business because her rates had trebled. Now she pays no rates and she gets a widow's pension. Therefore, the local authority gets no rates and it pays out a pension. That woman listed for me 11 officials who might knock on her door when she was running the small business. They were the rates officer, the rent collector, the social welfare officer, the tax inspector, the weights and measures inspector, the health inspector, even the egg inspector, who carries out an inspection of any premises in which eggs are stored. Many officials can knock on the door of anyone in business. Of all the self-perpetuating bureaucracies Ireland must be the finest example. Unfortunately, the more EC directives we have imported into our system the more we perpetuate the ridiculous bureaucracy. I have suggested a simple measure that will not cost anything and I urge the Minister, and the Minister of State, to consider it. The Office of the Ombudsman has referred to this in his four most recent annual reports but a change has not been implemented — there have been pious platitudes but no action.

In relation to the payment of student dole, there has to be some merit in getting work for money paid. The principle of extracting work for payment of money is basically good, but at present there are 300,000 people signing on at employment exchanges every week. In many cases those people have been unemployed for up to and beyond five years and they would give anything to be afforded the dignity of taking up a shovel, of having a reason for drawing the blinds and getting up in the morning, but they do not have that dignity. I am contacted every week by two FÁS officers in my county, from Castlebar and Ballina, who ask me to put pressure on the Government to release the much-vaunted job proposals and social employment schemes. If we have the money, the expertise, the structures, the projects and the management skills, the long term unemployed should be the priority.

Many long term unemployed are living at home in misery and see absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel. The proposal to put students on work projects will not work. There may be intermittent, occasional, isolated oasis projects here or there but to claim that the proposal could be carried out on a nationwide basis is incorrect. In some urban areas it might be possible to get a group of people together but, by and large, we do not have the resources, expertise or management skills to make the proposal work.

I do not believe that the Minister in his heart of hearts considers the proposal to be possible or practical. The theory is fine but, in my honest opinion, in practice it would prove to be beyond the resources of the Department or any other Department or agency given the task of administering it. Students should not be brought out just for the sake of having them do something. If we are thinking of getting students to cut nettles in graveyards, we should forget it. If it is not possible to implement this proposal — I do not believe it is possible — we should admit that and abandon the measure. That would be preferable to chaos during the summer months resulting from there being no schemes, no dole payments, and a large number of students roaming the streets with not a shilling in their pockets.

Social welfare matters are extremely complex but of all of the matters that need urgent attention the priority has to be the long term unemployed. In the interests of equity, peace and the salvation of this country — we do not seem to realise that there is a Frankenstein that could and will unleash itself on our society unless corrective action is taken — I urge that that social difficulty be given urgent attention.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá áthas orm a bheith anseo i mbliana mar tuigim go raibh Teachtaí anseo anuraidh nach bhfuil fós ann. Ní foláir ná go bhfuil áthas ar an Aire freisin gur sa Rialtas atá Páirtí an Lucht Oibre i mbliana agus ní sa bhFreasúra. Murach amhlaidh bheadh figiúirí i bhfad níos airde ná an dosaen salach le plé acu i mbliana. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go geal leo sa Rialtas.

In the few minutes I have I should like to deal in general with problems that have arisen in social welfare, rather than criticise some of the measures in the Bill.

The Fine Gael Party was given tremendous help last year by Labour Party Deputies when we found it difficult to ask supplementary questions about the carer's allowance and the farce encountered by people who are genuinely looking after people when they apply for payment of the carer's allowance. I do not wish to belittle the £6 increase in the allowance, but carers have much the same chance of qualifying for that increase as one has in a national lottery draw when an extra £500,000 is thrown in for a special occasion. It is almost impossible to qualify for the carer's allowance and that has been discussed in the House in the past three years. It is a farce that a carer who earns £2 will be subject to deduction, pound for pound, on any amount above that. I am amazed that the Government made no attempt to change the ridiculous system.

The carer's allowance is probably the best scheme we have in terms of value for the Government. People are prepared to keep their elderly parents and relations in their homes yet they get no reward for that. If the spouse of a carer is on social welfare or is in employment the carer's income is assessed as being half the income of the spouse, which automatically results in disqualification for the carer's allowance. It is my hope that by this time next year the Labour Party will have made some input to back up all that its Deputies said about the unfairness of the system while in Opposition in the past three years.

I am concerned about the position of the self-employed. It is impossible to accept, as I said in the House on other occasions, that someone who lost his or her job last week can be told that he or she has an income this week of £150 because that was his or her previous income. I know of a man who was told he has an income of £155 a week simply because for three months in the latter part of last year he worked overtime. That man is now out of work but because of our system, which could not stand up to any challenge, he is deemed to have the same income he had when working. We know that the person would not be looking for unemployment assistance if he were being paid. This farce continues. I hope I will not have to talk about it again in next year's budget, if I am here, because it cannot be defended. If you lose your job you lose your income and there is no point in pretending otherwise. It is outrageous.

A working wife may earn £55 without being penalised. However, if she inadvertently earns £56, £57 or £58 per week, all her benefit is cut. It is quite obvious that if a person goes £2 or £3 over the limit it is through innocence because no one would risk losing £38 in dependant allowance. If somebody earning £150 did this they might be chancing their arm and hoping they would not be caught, but there is no justification for applying a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I know a student who is being assessed at present in relation to his means last summer by dividing his ESF grant by 52 and deciding that he had so much money to spare during the school term that he had £25 per week all during the summer holidays. Can you imagine a student travelling 20 miles, paying for his bus fare, meals and books being expected to have £25 per week in the summer season? I have said every year since I came into this House that the social welfare system is crazy. I am sure the Minister heard me saying so on other occasions. If every office in the country went up in smoke, burning all the rules and regulations, perhaps we could get back to some form of sanity, because it is glaringly absent at present. How can students have money left for the summer holidays when they cannot survive on what they have? The concept of students working for their dole money is a con job because it is an effort to create jobs which do not exist. I do not know who thought of this idea, but it is silly.

The conditions applying to net income in regard to medical cards have been changed, but I have discovered that the health boards have not been notified about the change and that only PRSI is taken into account. Who came up with the idea that if somebody pays £40 in tax it is income? I can accept that someone paying £15 in PRSI should have it taken into account, but there is a difference when somebody takes £40 off your income as taxation. I hope the Minister will do something about this.

If a person is allowed £25 under the family income supplement that amount does not change over the whole year regardless of whether you earn another £100 or lose money.

Dr. Woods

It is very generous.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is very stupid. I know a person who has dropped £44 in income, but he must wait until the end of the year before his case is reviewed. The Minister must do something about this. Why should someone whose income has changed be stuck with a decision made when he or she had a reasonable income?

Mr. Kavanagh

I should like to share my time with Deputy Broughan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kavanagh

The overall Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare has increased from £2,000 million to £2,122 million, an overall increase of 6 per cent, double the rate of inflation. We must look at this figure to see what the State can afford in these very hard times to look after the least well off in the community — the unemployed, the old, the sick and the young people who need assistance from the State to keep body and soul together. As long as I have been a Member of the House no one ever agreed that the social welfare rates were sufficient, we always fought for improvements in them. However, I recall a time when I was in Government when the inflation rate was at 25 per cent and an equivalent amount was given in social welfare by the then Minister for Labour, Eileen Desmond. An increase of that size was never given before, or since, but I recall at the end of the year that the rise was not as good as it seemed because the rate of inflation had risen to 26 per cent. I am glad that all the increases announced this year are in excess of the rate of inflation and I hope that if the economy stays strong and healthy the small increases granted will help people's purchasing power.

It is interesting to note that there has been an increase of 3.5 per cent in adult and dependant rates and in child benefit and social insurance and social assistance payments. These are the largest areas in the social welfare budget. While one would welcome higher increases, we all know that we are facing the biggest economic recession ever known in this country. There has been an increase of 5 per cent in disability and unemployment benefit and an increase above the rate of inflation in the carer's allowance. We know that the Minister for Social Welfare made a strong case as there have been reductions in the Estimates for other Departments. There is no argument from any side of the House that the Minister for Social Welfare should ensure that any money which can be squeezed out of the system should be directed towards the least well off in our community.

The Labour Party has been attacked almost exclusively since their participation in Government. All parties in Opposition seem to be paying a sort of reverse compliment to the Labour Party by blaming them for all our ills although it has been in Government for only seven or eight weeks. The Labour Party entered Government for a period of five years and I hope people do not think that five year programme can be completed in five weeks.

One of the planks on which I fought the general election was on the "dirty dozen" cuts in social welfare. Many of them have been reversed in the budget and the most extreme cutbacks have also been reversed by the Minister. I compliment him on taking a more sensitive approach to his Department than his predecessor. I am glad that the result of the election brought home to people the fact that you cannot ignore your constituents; you must at all times have your ear to the ground and attend clinics regularly to appreciate people's difficulties.

I welcome the changes in unemployment assistance under which the amount of earnings to be disregarded has been increased by 50 per cent. I particularly welcome the promise made during the election campaign to improve the child benefit scheme, the first for many years. The pledge was made during the election and I am glad that it was implemented within the first week in Government by a Labour Minister in the Department of Social Welfare.

I am happy to note other changes proposed in the provisions of this Bill which will relieve the circumstances of many social welfare recipients to some degree at least. The proposed child benefit increase, which had been ignored over many years, will be of enormous benefit to families where resources are best targeted at mothers who will receive such benefit into their pockets enabling them to spend it on their families. That is one promise which has been delivered.

The issue of the payment of unemployment assistance to third level students over the summer period is one with which we have all experienced difficulty, whether that be the Labour Party in Government or Fianna Fáil in Government. The argument has been made strongly by the Opposition parties that the Minister's latest proposal constitutes a retrograde step. I welcome the changes announced today by the Minister of State vis-á-vis parents on social welfare whose children are attending third level colleges, which changes will ameliorate their position somewhat. Like other Members I shall be anxious to know how the proposed schemes for students in third level education will operate in practice. We shall be seeking more information in regard to such proposals.

I represent a county with considerable tourism attractions. At a recent meeting of our local authority we pointed out the need for more young people to act as guides and instruct visitors to our country over the summer holiday period. There was a near accident recently in the Glendalough area when young people from County Meath were involved in a very serious incident, one person having been very lucky not to have been killed there. I suggested that it would be beneficial to employ young people during their holiday period to act as guides in many areas — where beaches and so on are quite dangerous — for visitors who will be unaware of the dangers of tides etc. I contend that many such young people could be gainfully employed by local authorities, acting as guides, wardens and so on in tourist areas. It is difficult to say how many would be needed. I should imagine that something in the region of 200 jobs could be provided in a county like Wicklow, certainly for young students on holiday, thereby ensuring they would be gainfully employed in that period. I am sure most would be anxious to undertake such work.

I found Deputy Cox's contribution this morning most constructive, probably the only constructive speech that has emanated from the Opposition benches since we resumed our business after the general election. He mentioned areas and issues with which he was concerned and drew up a list of proposals and directions to be followed by the Department of Social Welfare. It would be difficult to disagree with many of the ideas he put forward. If we were to adopt that type of approach in Government Departments, particularly in the Department of Social Welfare, enormous progress could be made. We are all anxious to make progress and succeed over this very difficult period for the country generally. A constructive approach on the part of everybody would be much more beneficial than endeavouring to find fault with parties who may have taken certain stances in the course of the general election and who are endeavouring to deliver on promises given.

Already the benefits of my party being in Government are being felt in my constituency. For example, I welcome the five-fold increase in housing there. I am also glad that the first Bill passed by this House secured the jobs of workers in Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta in Wicklow. I welcome the new factory announced for Wicklow and another for Bray. I am also glad to note approval of the extension to the Talbotstown national school which had been sought for some time past. In addition, consideration is being given to improvements in the Arklow Harbour area and money is to be allocated to Wicklow by-passes. At least we should acknowledge that developments do take place if and when representations are made to a Government who will listen.

I am delighted to compare developments which have taken place within the short period of the Labour Party being in Government as opposed to that when the Progressive Democrats formed part of the last Coalition Government and when there were cutbacks in social welfare. This is evidence that Members of the Fianna Fáil Party will listen to strong representations if and when voiced by people who understand the needs of our people. I am glad to say that there is now a Fianna Fáil Minister in the Department of Social Welfare prepared to sit down with his junior Minister of the Labour Party in order to devise improvements for the least privileged in our society.

I am happy to hand over now to my colleague, Deputy Broughan.

Mr. Broughan

First, I should like to welcome the Minister's return to the Department of Social Welfare. During his previous period in office he demonstrated real capacity to cope and a deep knowledge of the intricacies of the social welfare system and its close relationship to the taxation system. Since returning to this Department he has reinstated the same calm, competent touch in its administration.

I should like to welcome also his junior Minister, Deputy Burton, who has a long track record in taxation and social welfare and has prepared many papers and books for the Labour Party over the years on the requisite reforms in the overall social welfare area.

The introductory remarks of the Minister yesterday demonstrated graphically the task confronting us with 1.5 million, one-third of our population, almost completely dependent on the State for their welfare. However, it should be remembered that the plight of two-thirds of that group has been brought about directly by the curse of unemployment. Therefore, the overall task and drift of this Government's activities in relation to social welfare and everything else must be towards reducing the numbers of unemployed and the attendant expenditure of £3.7 billion on social welfare payments through the provision of jobs. For example, had we 200,000 people unemployed our present social welfare bill would be considerably less than £3 billion. That is the direction in which they should be gearing their objectives. The overall drift of the previous administration was to cut social welfare allowances per se, as an end in itself, without ascertaining its graphic social consequences. It would be my hope that this new Government has a different objective, will play a different role and resolve their present budgetary problem without resorting to making the poorest in our society suffer.

I welcome all the social welfare improvements to be effected this year in the first tranche of the implementation of the Programme for Government, such as the 3.5 per cent increase in social insurance and assistance, the 5 per cent increase in short term rates, the policy of targeting available resources at children, allowing for child benefit of £20 for the first three children from September next, a dramatic increase. I also welcome the extension of the eligibility ceiling for family income supplement to £235 for a family of four. All of these increases will alleviate the position of families merely existing on social welfare payments. Such families are never concerned with matters such as long term budgeting, long term investment, equities or whatever, issues often discussed in this House, because they have no discretionary income at their disposal having purchased the bare necessities of life.

However, we must never be complacent about the less privileged in our society. I would ask the Minister to remember especially the real levels of so many of these social welfare payments and what they mean for their recipients. The old age non-contributory pension and blind pension are to be increased to £59.20 from July but in this day and age can any citizen exist on that amount? Who would like to be faced with that prospect? Also from July — this is an area I am very familiar with as I deal with such cases each week — the lone parent's allowance is to be increased to £74.10. This is survival money. As Deputies are aware, there are many restaurants and new hotels in this city in which one could spend this amount on a meal for two without being unduly lavish. Yet, we expect people to live on that amount for a week.

The old age contributory pension is to be increased to £68.90 while the invalidity pension for a single person is to be increased to £60.80. Those increases are very small if we take into account supplementary welfare allowances and other benefits. It is astonishing that we expect citizens to exist on this amount.

I ask the Minister, a constituency colleague, to do something to tackle the jobs crisis. It is intolerable, almost a decade after the report of the Commission on Social Welfare was published, that we have not reached some of the basic monetary targets.

Social welfare recipients always ask why they have to wait until July or September for increases. Many Members rushed out to announce proudly the new rates on leaflets; yet on the night of the budget we increased indirect taxation. Indeed, the party of the Deputy opposite has to take responsibility because it shifted the burden of its economic policy. Indirect taxation is always regressive and as a consequence the people on social welfare have been suffering. They will always say to us, who started it? Was it the former Taoiseach or the late George Colley? It is unfortunate that increases are constantly deferred.

In relation to child benefit is there not a clawback despite the fact that there is a big increase? I note, for example, that the child dependant allowance paid to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit will be increased by 30p or 2.4 per cent from £12.50 to £12.80. Therefore, while people will gain on the swings they will lose on the roundabouts.

In relation to the carer's allowance, I congratulate the Minister for granting an increase but, as he is aware, unfortunately, many women — it is women in the main who carry out this important task — lose out because the regulations and the means test are so strict. I will return to this issue later.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has one minute left.

Mr. Connaughton

The Deputy should have one hour.

Mr. Broughan

I would like to bring a number of points to the attention of the Minister. As he is aware, in relation to alleviation payments and supplementary welfare allowance, last January in many areas on the north side of the city a leaflet was issued stating that assistance with normal ongoing bills would not be considered. This is the kind of brusque note people in desperate straits received from the Eastern Health Board — they were told to get lost. The Minister should ensure that his recommendation that there be flexibility in this area will be implemented quickly. I am aware that both he and the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, are working on this issue.

Recently the Minister assured me in our constituency that he would try to make it possible for students to do community work. I am still very dubious about this and I wonder if the Minister's Department, and the Department of Education, would consider a system of grants to help students who will not be able to find work during the summer. This workfare scheme should not be applied to students from a working class background in particular. Last Saturday in my constituency I met the fathers of two students who were unemployed and they were angry about this matter. They want to know what was the situation.

Under the previous Administration many changes were made by way of regulations. When introducing future Social Welfare Bills the Minister should inform us of what is likely to happen during the year. In relation to the means test the benefit and privilege rule should be looked at particularly with regard to young people and those parents who are barely surviving.

I welcome the initiatives taken in relation to the VTOS and PRSI exemptions. We are on the right road and I applaud the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Burton for the initiatives they have taken. I hope that they will be able to take some of the points I made on board.

Ms McManus

It is strange to hear a Government Deputy blaming the Opposition for the taxation policy followed in the budget.

Mr. Broughan

In previous budgets.

Ms McManus

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Bill is the poverty of thinking within the Government. No attempt has been made, for example, to see social welfare within the larger context of taxation and job creation policy. There is no comprehension of the dignity of the individual and the degradation inherent in the outmoded concept of adult dependency which I find offensive nor is there any recognition that the social welfare system can be transformed into a positive force for job creation and the creation of a pro-work culture.

The introduction of a basic income support for all citizens would form the basis for many new types of economic activity which in our present jobs crisis must not be ignored. Instead, the Bill perpetuates the old dependency relationship which keeps many thousands of people in subjection rather than in security.

Our social welfare system is antiquated, lumbering, inefficient monster which succeeds in diminishing people as much as supporting them.

Dr. Woods

It is not that bad, and I have been all around the borough.

Ms McManus

The people who come to see me, and other Deputies, often feel helpless and powerless and unable to meet their household bills every week. The system seems to have been designed to deprive them of their rights as much as to enable them qualify for those rights. The Minister had an opportunity in this Bill to face up to reality and tackle the difficulties which people face but he failed to take it. Instead the Government is unable or unwilling to do more than tinker with the rules and regulations.

The Government has failed to bring all allowances up to the levels recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. The lowest rate recommended was £64.50 for a single person and £103.20 for a couple in 1993 terms. When we take inflation into account — many predict that this may be 3.5 per cent — the lowest rates are almost £10 below the figure recommended by the commission.

Very often increases in social welfare are cancelled out almost immediately by increases in council rents which are pegged to income and by increases in service charges which are pegged to council rents. I am aware of instances where last summer people went to their social welfare office to collect their £5 increase and then handed over that £5 to the council to meet the increase in rent. Very often people are struggling to live with some dignity and self-respect. They spend much of their time wating in queues in overcrowded rooms, being made feel degraded, to collect what is theirs by right.

There has been much talk by the Government about the increases in social welfare provided for in the budget but these are very limited. The old age contributory pension is due to be increased by £2.30 per week while deserted wives' benefit is due to be increased by £2.10 per week in July. This works out over a year at 15p per day. The mothers of Ireland who have been left holding the baby are well aware of the limitations of such increases. The cycle of poverty continues and little attention was given to the issue in the budget and in this Bill. But now the screw has been tightened in a very immediate way for people living on social welfare. In the past many thousands of poor people were able to depend on the community welfare officer to meet their acute needs, like paying the ESB bill or arrears in rent to the council. That support has been knocked out from under them and now they are coming back to the public representatives and asking us how they will meet their bills. No matter how well meaning the community officer may be, he or she is not in a position to provide that vital support that existed in the past.

The increase in the carer's allowance simply brings it into line with other social assistance payments. It is estimated that only 2 per cent of all those involved in caring can avail of this allowance. The work of the hidden battalions of women who care daily for elderly parents, invalids or young children, is never really acknowledged. No value is placed on this vital work, although it saves the State millions of pounds every year. It would mean a great deal to carers who receive the allowance, although the cost to the State would be negligible, to receive credited contributions in order to keep their pension and other benefits alive. This undertaking was given when the carer's allowance was introduced in 1990. It should be tackled. Credits for carer's in receipt of the carer's allowance should be allowed. We should recognise at long last that this caring work, which is primarily carried out by women has a value.

The decision to disallow social welfare benefit for students who cannot find work during the summer holidays is another cynical attempt to manipulate the unemployment statistics. This new method, which has not been tried before, is a carbon copy of the British Tory policy, although their students can avail of grant and loan schemes. The proposal to introduce community service schemes does not recognise that there are already over 300,000 people registered as unemployed or that many students are living in rural areas with little or no public transport provisions and far away from areas of population. I cannot see how a community service scheme can be set up in areas like that. At present we have all sorts of difficulties in creating job schemes for people living in rural areas and I cannot see how this scheme would be feasible.

I have very strong views on second chance education and the mature students who take the leap into education — very often at great economic loss to themselves — because they are so passionately determined to avail of an education they may not have had the opportunity to avail of in the past. A letter from one such student to The Irish Times hits the nail on the head:

The loss of approximately four months unemployment benefit, on top of the many other drawbacks which rejoining the education system involves, will be a far greater disincentive to those in the lower socio economic groups than any positive effects of last year's extension of the third level education grants system to mature students. The Government has succeeded with this recent move, in introducing into the sphere of "second chance education" the same inequality and injustice that already exists in other spheres.

Dr. Woods

As a matter of interest, Deputy, they are excluded.

Ms McManus

I am glad to hear that. I thank the Minister for that information.

Dr. Woods

If the Deputy had read my speech she would have seen this.

Ms McManus

I apologise for raising that matter now. I welcome that point of information. This was raised in the media today and people were not aware of this exclusion.

Because of the demographic bulge many thousands are leaving school every year and they will be hit by this change. I hope the Minister will exclude them from this scheme also in view of the importance of availing of unemployment assistance. We have to ensure that our young people go on to further training and see education as an opportunity to grasp and not as something beyond the reach of them and their families. The president of the National Youth Council of Ireland pointed out that if we do not do that we are flying in the face of the Culliton report, which makes it abundantly clear that the longer a person is without training or employment the greater difficulty they will experience in finding a job. There are so many pressures on young people not to go on to further education once there are economic demands at home that it is incumbent on the Government to change its view on further education. The Government should encourage young people to come into education and, indeed, pay them if necessary to ensure that every person leaving school has an equal chance. At present it is an absolute disgrace that in certain local authority areas when a student applies for a higher education grant he or she is prevented from availing of it because his or her parents cannot afford to pay arrears in rent or service charges. This happened in the past and was subsequently raised in the Dáil. I understood it was not an obstacle any more, but today I have a case where somebody in my local authority area is being prevented from availing of a grant because of her parents' debts. That is wrong. It should be eliminated from the regulations immediately.

The joint programme for Government undertook to examine measures to facilitate unemployed people who wish to study or take up further education opportunities. I remind the Government of that commitment, because there seems to be a widening gulf between the commitments made in the joint programme for Government and the reality of Government policy. To give an example, we could look at what the Labour Party described as the "dirty dozen". No action has been taken in the following areas: maternity benefit, injury benefit, redundancy, deserted wife's benefit, equality transitional payments, disqualification, health board payments. There has been a promise of some rolling back on part time workers but no abolition of last year's rule; indeed, pay related benefit has been further reduced.

Before the budget the population at large were willing to recognise that the twin problems of unemployment and poverty could and should be tackled by the new Government. That opportunity was lost. The cynicism and despair that has arisen as a result of the Government's failure to take that opportunity is very deep. I urge fresh thinking, particularly in relation to education, to encourage young people to avail of our system of education, in which we take great pride.

Mr. Leonard

This Social Welfare Bill is much better than anybody anticipated and is far more generous. It is the job of Opposition speakers to create a stir; but, having listened to them, I feel they were very low key and in many cases they complimented the Minister on what he is doing. That is as it should be.

A Leas-Chean Comhairle, with your permission I wish to share my time with Deputy Hugh Byrne and Deputy Callely, although Deputy Callely has not turned up so far.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Callely

I am small, but I am here.

Mr. Leonard

I am sorry, Deputy. The daily expenditure of £10 million on social welfare puts into context the problem the Minister faces. A figure of such magnitude is frightening and it is likely to increase significantly during 1993. Members from rural constituencies will be aware of the number of returning emigrants, who are not alone seeking living accommodation but medical cards and social welfare benefits.

I welcome the Minister's approach to child benefit and the carer's allowance. In general it was a caring budget. I would like to see the carer's allowance maximised, and the only way that can be done is in conjunction with the health boards. Any member of a health board will be aware of the number of geriatric patients clamouring for beds and the daily cost of such beds — an average of £30 to £35 — is much too high. In my area in a number of small geriatric hospitals the cost per patient per day can be as high as £50. Having regard to those costs we must examine the possibility of caring for more of our elderly in their own homes, with a community input.

I welcome the Minister's approach to second chance education and the provision whereby 2,000 unemployed are currently attending second level courses and a further 330 are full-time third level students. In my area two chief executive officers of the vocational education committee have done tremendous work to ensure that unemployed adults continue to get education and training so that they will be ready if jobs come on-stream. The people I mentioned, who have done tremendous work, do not get proper recognition when they seek additional facilities or funding. People who show initiative and enterprise in seeking adult education should be facilitated in every way possible, including the provision of the necessary accommodation and equipment.

The whole social welfare system is unwieldy. It needs to be streamlined to avoid the unnecessary work caused, for instance, by duplication. I refer in particular to the means testing procedure whereby a non-contributory old age pensioner, despite having satisfied the criterion for benefit, is assessed again in terms of means if, subsequently, he applies for a medical card. Co-ordination and co-operation at all levels — departmental, local etc — is needed to make the system more workable.

Mr. Byrne

The background to the Social Welfare Bill is a record level of unemployment. The budget figures predict that the number on the live register will increase to 328,000 in 1993. Higher unemployment means a higher dependency ratio. The combination of these underlying trends places an ever greater demand on the social services. I congratulate the Minister on making the best of a very tough job. His long record in the Department of Social Welfare is one of reform and attention to social justice. I recognise that a section of our people will always need State support, but I regret that they are not now even getting the resources they need and deserve.

The causes of unemployment are twofold. First, mass unemployment has placed huge demands on our resources. People who should be paying taxes and contributing to the economy are on the dole. Second, we have not exercised sufficient political courage in making the choices necessary to ensure that our scarce resources are targeted at the most needy. Work, not welfare is the solution for the 300,000 plus on the dole. Within the social welfare policy it is crucial that nothing acts as a brake on the impetus towards employment creation. In general, this can best be achieved by the implementation of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare and the integration of the tax and social welfare codes. No progress has been made along those lines this year which is disappointing. I welcome the appointment of the Minister of State, Deputy Burton. Her duties are specifically to oversee the integration of those two codes in future years. Her work is likely to meet with a great deal of opposition from vested interests, particularly from the Department of Finance but I wish her well in that important work.

On the question of how we choose to use our resources, I will cite one example. We should compare the budget allocation for public service pay with the allocation for social welfare. Between 1986 and 1993 the numbers in the public service remained relatively static, but the number on social welfare increased by 102,000. Despite the fact that this additional number of people have been dependent on social welfare since 1986 they have had to survive on a 51 per cent increase in resources between them. In the same period a static number of public servants enjoyed an increase of 54 per cent in pay and those in employment gained because of the reduction in tax rates from 1986 onwards. That top rate was decreased from 58 per cent to 48 per cent and the standard rate from 35 per cent to 27 per cent. The cumulative cost to the Exchequer of income tax reliefs introduced in 1988, 1989 and 1990 was much more than £800 million. In 1993, should we have cared to do so, it would have cost £150 million to raise social welfare payments to the minimum level recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. Instead, only £71.5 million was found and, given our very stretched resources, this is apparently generous.

Appearances are deceptive. We should compare the £71.5 million given in extra social welfare payments to the £297 million increase in public sector pay. We were correct in our decision to reduce taxes in the past few years, but lower taxes must be accompanied by pay restraints and in the public sector this has not been so. This increase of 7.4 per cent in public sector pay this year is an outrage. It is funded in two ways. First, the hard pressed private sector pays for a public sector in which standards of productivity and efficiency are a great deal lower, and this situation endures apparently without consequence. Second, the unemployed, the disadvantaged — those without power to strike and disrupt — forfeit a basic standard of living to subvent public service pay. Effectively, we have pandered to the powerful and ignored the poor. The hypocrisy of the social partners is glaring.

On the question of rural poverty, the brunt of our political inadequacy is borne by the unemployed and the disadvantaged. In County Wexford, 25 per cent of the people are unemployed and the numbers who are disadvantaged and excluded from the mainstream of society are even greater. This Bill will result in certain small advantages for them, which is to be welcomed. However, it is not enough. Long-term solutions lie in employment. A certain amount of employment must be created in rural Ireland because of the flight from the land, which causes not only dire economic hardship but a loss of morale which is equally as bad. I wonder how many of today's urban poor were yesterday's rural poor. Rural poverty and depopulation is not only a serious problem in itself; it is the source of a multiplicity of problems elsewhere. Those least able to cope with being down on their luck in Dublin and London are, generally speaking, from a rural background.

I would like to raise two specific matters with the Minister. The first relates to lighthouse keepers. Lighthouses around Ireland are being decommissioned and de-manned and a centuries old tradition is being ended. When I raised the issue of lighthouse keepers and their proper compensation in a special debate on the Adjournment on 9 March last, the Minister, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan, expressed his appreciation for the service those brilliant men had provided. I ask the Minister today to offer more than platitudes. Twelve lighthouse keepers have been served with compulsory redundancy notice, effective from 1 April next. In the history of the State, they will be the first people who pay the public service rate of PRSI to receive compulsory redundancy notices. A compulsory redundancy notice is not a fitting end to such an honourable service.

The second matter I would like to raise with the Minister relates to share fishermen. I am pleased to see Deputy McGahon in the House because I am sure he shares my view on this matter. I wish to bring to the Minister's attention that share fishermen now find themselves in a no-man's-land. Since the Griffith and McLoughlin cases boat owners found themselves relieved in law of having to pay the employers' share of PRSI for fishermen working on their boats. There is now no scheme in existence for share fishermen. They are unjustly and unfairly deprived of the benefits of PRSI. I know the Minister met recently with the IFO but the IFO does not represent the view of the share fishermen, some of whom I met recently. I ask the Minister to take these points on board and to ensure that when fishermen become sick or unemployed they, too, will have the protection of social welfare.

Mr. Callely

I compliment the Minister for Social Welfare on bringing before this House the Social Welfare Bill, 1993, which proposes extensive social welfare changes and regulatory measures in relation to social welfare. The Bill contains 52 sections, addressing a broad range of matters relating to approximately 1.5 million people. Social welfare expenditure will amount to more then £10 million a day, 365 days a year, with increases to all social welfare recipients well ahead of inflation. This highlights the priority this Government gives to social welfare recipients, and I hope this trend will continue in the next four to five years.

Mr. McGahon

Is that why it gave £350 million to the public service——

Mr. Callely

We will deal with that matter.

Mr. McGahon

——as mentioned by Deputy Byrne?

Mr. Callely

One matter needs to be put in perspective. There is a large number of people, particularly those in a working environment, who, while they appreciate that many people are in need of assistance from the State by way of social welfare payment, feel they pay excessive taxation and do not get a just reward at the end of the week. Very often those who are working, after paying all their taxes including levies, such as the new 1 per cent levy, take home little more than those on social welfare payment. This is one area that must be addressed in a sensitive and progressive manner. The Minister and all relevant Departments should consider this matter which warrants investigation.

I have reservations about certain aspects of the Bill. I would have welcomed the inclusion of certain provisions but I hope, that with successful lobbying of the Minister and Minister of State, these areas will be addressed in the future. In the short time available to me I want to refer briefly to a number of matters. I welcome the increase in the carer's allowance to £59.20, bringing it into line with long term unemployment payments. When the Department of Social Welfare introduced this allowance I believed this was an area of great potential, that it would ensure that people in need of constant care would not have to go into State or private nursing home care but could be cared for in the home. The potential in relation to the carer's allowance has not been achieved. I take this opportunity to call on the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Health to set out an agenda with a view to maximising the potential that exists.

Many of my constituents are prepared to provide the necessary care for the elderly, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but the payment of £59.20 does not meet the requirements. Health boards provide subventions towards the care of the elderly, at a minimum cost of £42 a week and a maximum equal to the cost of a bed in a private nursing home, which could amount to £200 to £500 a week. The Minister for Social Welfare has done well in bringing this allowance into line with long term unemployment payment but it should be considered in terms of the cost of caring for people in institutions.

The proposal in the Bill in relation to a code of practice is welcome. Great confusion has been caused in recent months in relation to a circular issued by the previous Minister. That matter has been clarified, but supplementary welfare officers are not fully taking into account exceptional needs. I call on these people, prior to the introduction of the code of practice, to address this area of supplementary welfare, particularly as it affects those in need, and not to be confusing the matter.

While I welcome the setting up of an appeals officer there should be a further structure for a final appeal for those whose disability benefit has been cut off but who are still submitting certificates. The present system is very bureaucratic and involves a lot of paperwork.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would be grateful if the Deputy would bring his speech to a close.

Mr. Callely

In the Year of the Elderly I lobbied the Ministers for Finance and Social Welfare. I am pleased that the Minister has taken the opportunity to allow for a free colour TV licence, even if it is limited to those in receipt of free fuel. I understand that the Minister wishes to extend this.

The Minister should consider the feasibility of opening a free telephone line for people who want social welfare information and making it available at all social welfare outlets. I regret that I have to conclude, as I would welcome the opportunity to refer to the summer work schemes for students.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must call another speaker.

Mr. McGahon

I propose to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Mary Flaherty.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. McGahon

My views on social welfare are rather unconventional which will not surprise several of my colleagues. I would remind the Chair of our visit to India some years ago in which the Chair had his finest hour when he addressed 10,000 people. We saw poverty there on a scale that beggars description. When I hear suggestions of poverty here I feel anger, because we have no poverty. We may have self-induced poverty from the evils of gambling and drinking, and Governments cannot be blamed for that. This country is only 70 years old and the progress we have made is staggering. That can be exemplified by the fact that we pay £12 to £15 a week more in unemployment assistance than is available in England, a country with the might of centuries behind it. I do not believe this "bull" about poverty in a country that can gamble £6 million a day, can drink £8 million a day and can spend millions on the lottery at the weekend. We have cultivated a social welfare mentality which has gone out of all proportion. We have the best social welfare system in the world, which, unfortunately, because of the political system every Government will featherbed to the exclusion of the working man.

The number of poorly paid people who are now refusing work or who are leaving employment for the benefit of the best social welfare system in the world is staggering. As Deputy Callely suggested, it is in the interests of people to be in receipt of social welfare and to do nixers. The black economy is alive and well here and perhaps that is no harm. I have turned a blind eye to poorly paid people who do occasional nixers, but I would not turn a blind eye to people in conventional jobs who are signing on and receiving large sums of money from the backs of the unfortunate workers who are paying through the nose to carry several monkeys on their backs. Having visited India and seen frightening sights I was thankful that we have developed a caring society, but I draw the line at people signing and working.

I do not accept the unemployment figures. Perhaps because I am an Opposition Deputy I could point the finger and cry about that, but the unemployment figures are bum figures. Sadly, there are thousands of people who cannot obtain employment and who do not have the opportunity to do nixers; but there are many thousands who are milking the State, and that is what I object to. I believe in giving social welfare payments to people who need them but not to those who are stealing from the backs of the people who are working.

I have no difficulty with this Bill. It gives a reasonable increase. Facilities to safeguard the dignity of people who have to go to unemployment exchanges have been improved in recent times and a certain amount of privacy has been provided. I welcome that. I have a difficulty with the carer's allowance, which was a magnificent concept. The cost of keeping an aged person in hospital is enormous and staggering figures amounting to £700 a week have been bandied about. This scheme must be broadened. Only a few thousand people are actually in receipt of the carer's allowance. I had a bereavement about a year ago; before that my very aged father had to be cared for on a 24 hour a day basis, which was very costly. Such care is beyond the means of the average family. A sum of £60 a week is a relatively small amount of money to encourage people to keep their aged relatives at home. It is a concept that can be broadened in the future.

Miss Flaherty

As my colleague knows, his views and mine are somewhat different. I share his concern about some of the issues he raised, but it is impossible to compare poverty in India with poverty here. Poverty is a comparative thing. It is a question of having a reasonable standard of living and a reasonable quality of life in the society in which one happens to live. That is the kind of poverty we should keep in mind when discussing the problems here.

I share Deputy McGahon's view on serious fraud. Like the Deputy, I would turn a blind eye to some areas. Later in my contribution I will refer to the proposal to go after old age pensioners when they die to reclaim money from their estates because they might not have declared their few pounds savings. That is an extraordinary proposal.

Organised fraud is an attack on those who pay for the system and those who depend on the system. We would join with every effort of the Minister to eliminate serious orchestrated fraud, which impoverishes everybody and creates hostility between people who depend on social welfare and those who are paying for it.

I am sorry that the Minister is not here, but I am glad that Deputy Woods has been reappointed to this Department. If one must undergo surgery one would much rather that it be at the hands of a skilled surgeon rather than the sort of axeman approach that was all too evident in the approach of the outgoing Minister. I acknowledge that Deputy McCreevy is a very nice gentleman with very strong views, not dissimilar to those of my colleague, Deputy McGahon. Deputy McCreevy's approach to the Department of Social Welfare left a trail of damage behind. I am glad to see that some of it is being repaired in this Social Welfare Bill. To that extent we welcome the Bill, in particular the restoration to old age pensioners of their optical and dental benefit and the restoration to workers of treatment benefits up to a high level. Thankfully, at least two of the "dirty dozen" have been dealt with. I also welcome the proposals to clarify the area in relation to supplementary welfare. I am concerned that the Minister has given no indication of a timescale within which he intends to introduce the new code of practice. People are suffering on a daily basis and community welfare officers are struggling to interpret the variety of circulars with which they have been issued. Tomorrow could not be too soon for this code of practice to be introduced, as it is urgently required.

It is unfortunate that I had to phone the Minister's office to get action with regard to local social welfare payments. I am sure the Minister would not want me to continue doing that but until there is some clear, coded improvement or if I find that the needs of people are not being met in the way they were up to now, I will continue to take that course of action. If one were a returning voluntary worker expecting twins, one might find this a very attractive Social Welfare Bill. I am aware the Minister was obviously constrained by the growing numbers of unemployed but apart from reversing a small number of last year's negative measures there is not a great deal to signal new ways forward in this Bill.

I listened to the extraordinary contribution of Deputy Byrne in which he attacked public service workers and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress agreements. It was as if the Deputy had no hand, act or part in this. The Government was an equal partner to this agreement. I share his view that perhaps it is an area that should have been examined. However, it was up to the Government to suggest to the unions alternative ways of spending the money allocated to the public service. It did not do that. It did not suggest a package to the unions involving a pay freeze which would have allowed for the appointment of an extra 2,000 gardaí, the reappointment of school caretakers, the commencement of programmes to employ security personnel in our schools and investment in energy efficiency measures in local authority houses. The Government did not offer to provide jobs for sons and daughters, brothers and sisters if the unions were willing to agree to this. That was not put to them. It is unacceptable to bemoan an agreement and bemoan the fact that the money has been eaten up in increasing pay to one group while the Government have made no effort to alter that situation. This is an opportunity that should have been seized and put to the unions and those involved in the various partnership programmes. More importantly it should be on the agenda for the future.

I believe in partnership programmes, they are important and they create stability. However, there is no reason why a Government should not take an initiative of the kind I have mentioned, sell it hard and see if it would be accepted. There is such a deep anxiety concerning the level of unemployment that people would be willing to accept proposals which would lead to job creation, even if it meant that their share of the income would be unchanged. It is an affront to our consciences that so many people have no stake in this country at the moment and the numbers are increasing daily. It diminishes the pleasure we get from our employment. We worry for our children, our brothers and sisters. Most politicians are used to this sense of insecurity but it is now widespread in almost every walk of life.

I welcome the marginal improvement in the level of the carer's allowance. I was spokesperson for social welfare when the Minister introduced that allowance. That allowance fell far short of what people had expected and was a major disappointment when it was introduced. People had expected that allowance to relate to the carer's work and time given to the care of young or old dependants. However, it was just another basic income maintenance allowance that was only available if the carer had no other income. The allowance has been a failure because it is means tested and is only available to carers with no other income; it does not give additional recognition to the role of the carer. The carer might as well be on supplementary welfare benefit or unemployment assistance. Those benefits would categorise the carer's allowance more neatly. The allowance is of no benefit to carers because it is subject to means testing; the carers could simply have been included as a group in one of the other social welfare schemes. A better approach might have been for the Department of Health to provide a reduced carer's allowance that would have been more widely available. I meet people regularly who are disappointed with the carer's allowance. Others do not even know that such an allowance exists. The carer's allowance affects mainly older people and old age pensioners who are very disappointed when they are told they are not entitled to it, having learned of its existence through the media. This is an issue that will remain on the agenda and must be addressed.

I was disappointed that no further reference was made in the Bill to the establishment of a single means test which has been on the agenda for some time. The adoption of such a measure would make calculations of benefits easier for all Departments and save the State a good deal of money. The Minister might explain what has happened in relation to the commitment given at many levels to the implementation of such a measure. The Fine Gael Party has done much work in this regard and the matter should be put back on the agenda.

The expansion of educational opportunities for the unemployed is another matter I kept on the agenda by debating it with the Minister in the House. One element in this Bill which will be of assistance to the unemployed is the increase in daily earnings which will be disregarded in assessing earnings from casual insurable employment. Any measure that makes it easier for people to take up available work legitimately is welcome. Much more must be done in this area. There is potential for the introduction of new schemes that would increase flexibility in this area. I am also concerned that there are no proposals for further developments in the area of education. Perhaps the existing schemes could be expanded and when the Minister is replying he may be able to give an assurance that such schemes will be developed. The number of people involved in education who are long term unemployed is very small. There has been a great improvement but it was an improvement from a very small number of 15 to 20 some years ago to over 1,000 now. However, given the scale of our unemployment those figures are totally inadequate. This area has enormous potential for expansion which would be to the benefit of society and the future potential of the people involved in finding employment.

I am also concerned that in relation to the existing schemes women are virtually excluded unless they have remained in full-time employment. Women wishing to return to work are excluded from those educational opportunities unless they have been in the workforce. This is an issue which we had hoped to have addressed and it is one that we will not be able to introduce by way of amendment, it would be ruled out of order because it would be a charge on the Exchequer. Nevertheless, making that point will enable us to ascertain the Minister's thinking in relation to it. Women are excluded from those opportunities and for a society that claims to value the great work women do in rearing children, the net result, if they take on such work full-time, is that they will lose their entitlement to even those limited opportunities. I am concerned that while we have had a substantial improvement in child benefit, which I welcome, we are still at the bottom of the league in European terms for the support of families with children. There should be a comprehensive examination of this area because it is families with children who experience poverty most.

My colleague, Deputy McGahon, raised the question of the low paid and the attractiveness of social welfare. Coming from my constituency I see the struggle which many people on social welfare have to endure to exist. These people know it is not worth their while applying for the type of low paid work which is available. To suggest that some of these people are having a good life when I know that they would not have had a day out in memory is beyond comprehension. These people have to plan a confirmation three years ahead and Christmas is a time of desperate anxiety as they wonder how they will cope with the demands. I have in mind one particular family with only one child——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. I do so merely to advise her that the time available to her is now quite exhausted.

Miss Flaherty

I thought I would get my one minute warning.

An Ceann Comhairle

I apologise to the Deputy if she needed a warning.

Miss Flaherty

I am concerned about child support, education opportunities and the fact that there is no indication that the Minister is making provision to allow leave to adoptive parents. These are social welfare provisions which we will have to come back to. From my experience of the Minister I know he will be creative in his approach to the Department. Obviously he did not have a great deal of time to put his own stamp on this Social Welfare Bill. I hope he will be willing to take up some of our suggestions and that we will see the system reformed rather more than was indicated in this Bill in the years ahead.

Dr. O'Hanlon

With your permission, Sir, and that of the House I would like to share my time with Deputy Liam Fitzgerald.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.

Dr. O'Hanlon

First of all, I compliment the Minister on his Social Welfare Bill and on the benefits he has been able to bring about despite the financial constraints of which we are all aware. We are spending £10 million a day on social welfare. This year there are realistic increases for those who depend on social welfare for their livelihood. In the current year also the Minister has improved child benefit, as well as the family income supplement, which will be of great benefit to families, particularly larger families where the parent or parents are working. Restoration of the conditions for eligibility pre-1991 for disability benefit is important and also the restoration of the conditions for optical and dental benefits.

The social welfare system is a client orientated service and the manner in which the service is delivered is very important. I compliment the Minister on the improvements that have taken place during the past number of years. I compliment also the staff, particularly those in the constituency I represent, for their caring and concerned approach to the delivery of the service. One area in which there has been substantial improvement in recent years is in the provision of buildings. I would like to see the work which has gone on over the years continued because it is important that there would be adequate buildings, as far as possible on the ground floor, for elderly and incapacitated persons.

Restoring the conditions for pre-1991 eligibility for disability benefit is, of course, of benefit in that it will reduce the demand for disabled person's maintenance allowance from the area health boards. Nevertheless the disabled person's maintenance allowance should be transferred to the Department of Social Welfare. It is not logical that we have unemployment benefit and unemployed assistance for those who are unemployed under the Department of Social Welfare. We have disability benefit but no disability assistance. The disability assistance is transferred to the health board and paid by way of disabled person's maintenance allowance. If somebody is unfortunate enough when drawing unemployment assistance to suffer a serious illness there is no easy mechanism for transfer as there is from unemployment benefit to unemployment assistance. They are obliged to apply to the health board first for supplementary allowance and perhaps wait up to three months before they receive the disabled person's maintenance allowance. The system could be streamlined, made more efficient and cost effective if disabled person's maintenance allowance were transferred to the Department of Social Welfare and became disability assistance.

A new development which has taken place during the past number of years is that farmers — particularly farmers with small holdings who derive a small income from the land — who went out to work in local industry, because the farms were not sufficient to provide a livelihood for their families, paid into the social insurance fund. Many of these people who suffer from cardiac illnesses, arthritis or serious skin disease are unable to work on the land. I saw one man who had his disability benefit withdrawn on the basis that he had an income from his farm. I would ask the Minister to examine this area to ensure that people who suffer serious illness and who are genuinely incapacitated medically would be considered for disability benefit having paid into the social insurance fund, particularly where they have a very small income from the land.

The carer's allowance has been mentioned a number of times today. Indeed, I have always complimented the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, on bringing forward the carer's allowance. It replaced a prescribed relative's allowance, which at the time it was abolished was £28 per week, but the number of people who qualified was extremely low.

Miss Flaherty

It was not means tested.

Dr. O'Hanlon

It was means tested. A young man who was fostered to a family——

Miss Flaherty

It was not means tested.

Dr. O'Hanlon

—— when he was two years of age grew up in the household. His foster mother, now in her eighties, is crippled with arthritis and unable to leave the house. He was unable to leave the house and did not qualify because he was a fostered child. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, extended the range of eligibility to include these people and all carers and he also increased the rate to the present £59. Of course, we would all like to see the carer's allowance paid to everybody who looks after an elderly person, but it is not practical. I estimate it would cost approximately £300 million per year if it were to be given to every person in receipt of old age pension who is looked after by a relative or a friend. I would like to see some support for people who are genuinely incapacitated as well as support for the carers who look after them and more flexibility in regard to the income of the household.

The death grant is not payable to insured workers who were born before 1901. There were very good reasons for that when the death grant was introduced in 1971 because it was payable only to people who were insured at that time. The time has come when it should be extended to all insured workers irrespective of their age because the number of people born before 1901 is extremely low and the cost involved would not be high.

I welcome the arrangements for school leavers. I believe there is dignity in work and the concept of giving young people an opportunity to work is welcome. Since we first entered Government over 60 years ago Fianna Fáil has had a very caring tradition and has been responsible for many of the major developments in the social welfare area. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, is a considerate, compassionate, concerned and caring Minister in that great tradition.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I endorse the points made by Deputy O'Hanlon about my constituency colleague. Despite any differences of opinion we may have had, the Minister, during his years in the Department of Social Welfare, has always demonstrated a very caring, concerned and sympathetic attitude to those most in need, those who are marginalised and those most at risk in our society. I very heartily endorse the points made by Deputy O'Hanlon in this regard. I will have much more to say about this during my contribution.

I am delighted to welcome this Bill, which, from my experience as a politician, I believe identifies and provides for key areas of need in our society. If I was asked to sum up my general feeling about the main thrust of the Bill, how it fundamentally approaches its clients and customers, I would have to describe it as a caring Bill. That is how it appears to me. Some speakers — and they have a legitimate right to do this — have criticised the Bill and have said it is a failure. While these speakers might put forward very laudable aspirations as to what the Minister and Government should be doing for those who are dependent on social welfare, there has been a distinct lack of realism in a number of the contributions I have heard. Little or no account seems to have been taken of the fact that our dependency ratio is extremely high. On most recent calculations approximately 1.5 million people, young and old, are dependent on social welfare; this is approximately half the population of the country. These speakers also seem to have failed to grasp the fact that the cost to the taxpayer is in excess of £10 million per day. To me, logic, reasoning and commonsense must dictate that every extra penny spent from a finite pool of resources is either at the expense of competing essential services or necessitates placing an even more intolerable burden on an already overburdened taxpayer.

I think all of us would acknowledge that our priority as a society must be to do everything possible for the aged, the unemployed, the poor and the marginalised in our society. That is a most laudable aspiration; it is a principle which I think all of us would cherish and hold very dear. Given its financial and economic background, the Bill faces up to these responsibilities in a fair and caring manner. For example, the decision to grant a 3.5 per cent general increase in weekly payments from July next will cover inflation. The increase last year was 4 per cent — it was in excess of the rate of inflation for that year. I know everyone would like the increase to be even better this year, that perhaps it could be double the increase proposed by the Minister. However, we have to be realistic and acknowledge the enormous constraints on the Exchequer.

One of the factors we have to take into account when measuring the effectiveness of the 3.5 per cent general increase is the increase in child benefit. I am delighted to welcome the increase of 26.6 per cent from next September. Some Opposition speakers have made international comparisons, but these are not always valid as other variables have to be taken into account when one makes such comparisons. This increase, added to the general increase, will enable recipients with dependent children to keep well ahead of the rate of inflation. It gives due recognition to the needs of the voiceless in our community, our young children, and will give a welcome bolster to the limited resources of needy families who find it difficult to make ends meet.

I regard the increase, in child benefit as a firm statement by the Minister and the Government of their commitment to the family and to dependent children in our society. In talking about this specific category of dependent families it is very important to ensure that the correct mechanism is used. By giving the stronger bias in favour of child benefit it ensures that the mother in such families, generally the homemaker and budget manager, will have that much more control over the means — and in many cases these are very limited — at the disposal of the family.

In recent years the lowest wage earning families in our society have been recognised as being genuinely in the poverty trap. It has to be said in fairness that prior to the introduction of the family income supplement there was very little monetary incentive or reward for those wage earners to continue in employment and stay off the dole queue. The FIS, as it is referred to, has correctly and justifiably targeted this group. The provision in this regard goes some of the way — it does not go all the way — towards addressing this dilemma for this category of wage earners.

The decision to increase by £20 the weekly income limits below which families can qualify for the supplement is fair and reasonable. We would all like the increase to be more. For example, a family with four dependent children will be able to earn up to £235 per week and still qualify for the supplement. By my calculations this represents an increase of approximately 10 per cent. Even when annual wage increases are taken into account, it should still enable more families to qualify during the current year. The news that all families in receipt of FIS will be £12 per week better off is to be welcomed.

Some people have referred to the position of the self-employed in this context. I, too, would like to refer to this issue. There are a number of people involved in partnerships, working in unemployment black spots — I will refer to this issue in greater detail later — or striving to set up businesses for themselves. These people need various forms of assistance. I regard the FIS as one way in which they could be assisted. I would encourage the Minister and the Government to target those people who are striving very hard to set up businesses for themselves on a very low margin at the end of the week, month or year.

The supplementary welfare allowance system operated through the health boards as a form of supplement or assistance to families in genuine financial need is an issue which I am sure crops up frequently for all of us during the course of our work as politicians. This allowance is intended, in principle, to empower community welfare officials when identifying this need to use their professional discretion as to how to respond caringly, based on the merits of each individual case. I have to say that many complaints have been brought to my attention during the past year, and in particular during the past six months, about the hardship, stress and, in some cases, exasperation people have felt in their dealings with community welfare officers. I am not knocking community welfare officers. Despite all the clarifications which were made subsequently, some of the circulars which were issued causes some difficulties. I know that the measures introduced last year were a genuine attempt to halt or address the escalating cost of the provision of the supplementary welfare system. As I said, I received a number of complaints and I found it very difficult to have them dealt with satisfactorily or successfully.

The entire area of supplementary welfare is a very sensitive one. The right balance must be struck between the effective use of disposal of scarce and very limited resources while at the same time ensuring that genuinely needy families do not go without. The problems confronted in this respect by community welfare officers can often be extremely complex. There can be one or even many varied reasons why one family simply cannot get by while another in seemingly similar circumstances can. We all know of families who are constantly in arrears in paying their rent, who receive threats of eviction from local housing authorities, whose electricity or gas supplies are frequently disconnected and who never seem to have sufficient money to clothe their children. These circumstances can arise because of alcoholism, an ongoing disposition to avail of the services of loan sharks, downright carelessness or a simple inability on the part of the parents to manage the household budget. There can also be a myriad of other reasons. Whatever the reason or reasons, I have always believed, both during my time as a teacher in the inner city of Dublin and as a politician, that simply throwing money alone at problems is not the solution. In this context I welcome the decision of the Minister to withdraw the circulars issued last year.

More importantly, I welcome the review currently in progress to draw up a code of practice for dealing with fuel debts. I am glad he envisages this as part of a budget plan, which would address this serious sensitive and complex area. By encouraging and giving an incentive to all applicants for supplementary welfare allowance to participate in this plan, I am convinced that the allowance scheme can be administered much more fairly, effectively and caringly. Consultation with the ESB, Bord Gáis and the health boards in the development of this code is the wisest starting point.

The Minister is providing an additional £12.5 million this year for the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. This clearly shows that new mechanisms which he envisages are not being used merely as a substitute for cash commitments. Other speakers have referred to the inadequacy of the cash commitments, but I believe this is a genuine and realistic allocation.

The Minister has announced that he will give immediate effect to other regulations, for example, the decision to delete the condition that 13 PRSI contributions must be paid in a recent contribution year for eligibility for disability benefit, long term unemployment assistance and those on the pre-retirement allowance. This is to be welcomed, as is the same decision in relation to eligibility for dental and optical benefit for the same categories of persons. The restoration of dental and optical benefits to those earning under £30,000 per annum, as well as to pensioners without five year's paid contributions, is in the interest of fairness and justice. If the constraints had remained, the PRSI system would have fallen into disrepute and its credibility would have suffered badly.

When the carer's allowance was first introduced by the Minister I welcomed it as a starting point, a move towards making provision for people making a contribution to people in need. People in urban and rural areas are prepared to give up work and social welfare payments and to make an enormous commitment in providing round the clock care for people who need it. Due recognition should be given to them. I welcome the Minister's decision to bring the payment of this allowance into line with other payments. These provisions are another step towards giving due recognition to people who provide this essential service.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I wish to share my time with Deputy Crawford.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Department of Social Welfare has probably become the most improved Department in recent years. Some of us will recall a time when it was impossible to get a reply from that Department and the Order Paper was festooned with questions in an effort to elicit information. There has been an improvement but much progress has still to be made.

A substantial part of the £3 billion spent by the Department of Social Welfare is actually causing poverty. As much as £500 million or £600 million is causing poverty rather than alleviating it. Our whole system of social welfare is littered with poverty traps. It is an indisputable fact that any married couple, with two or more children, on the average industrial wage will be worse off than on unemployment assistance, even though those in receipt of unemployment assistance are poorly off. That is the classic poverty trap. I highlighted this in an article in the Irish Independent in January 1988, the week of the budget, at which time the difference would have been £2.88 a week. In each budget since then the gap has widened. There is no incentive to work. Even those badly off on social welfare cannot be expected to take up a job and be worse off. This matter is well documented and I cannot understand why the Government has not got its act together. Ray MacSharry when Minister for Finance brought in two budgets which worsened the position. Deputy Albert Reynolds when Minister for Finance brought in two budgets which worsened the position. The present Minister for Finance has introduced two budgets which have worsened the position.

The problem seems to be that the Department of Social Welfare, which should be a prime mover in eliminating poverty traps, looks only at its departmental brief and does not look at the totality of the effect of Government and other relevant intervention in the work-place. For instance, the Department of Social Welfare will say that somebody on unemployment assistance who has two children will get, say, £120 per week, but they do not take account of the fact that if that person lives in local authority accommodation his differential rent will be substantially reduced as compared with the rent of somebody on the average industrial wage. The difference could be as much as £15 or £17 per week. The person on unemployment assistance will also get a medical card and may get some assistance with electricity bills, school uniform costs etc.

The Consolidation Act specifically prohibits any assistance to a person in employment. It does not matter if that person has eight children and is earning only £150 per week. Is is true that in those circumstances that family would qualify for family income supplement, but they are treated for tax and rent purposes as if they have no children. Another anomaly is that a worker is assessed in every means test on gross rather than take home pay. The fact that children of workers are disregarded in the tax code whereas the children of the unemployed on social welfare are rightly looked after is one anomaly. The other anomaly is that workers are assessed on their gross wage, which they never see. These two factors contribute to the poverty trap. They justify my comment that a lot of the money spent by the Department of Social Welfare is actually causing poverty.

This is not the only item of expenditure by the Department which is causing poverty. We have the ludicrous position that unemployed young people at home will forego unemployment assistance on their parents' means. A father or a working mother will often refuse to have a form filled in by the employer for their children. They may not want their children to know what they are earning or they feel it is not relevant. A young unemployed person in those circumstances will, if he leaves home, now qualify for full unemployment assistance, full rent subsidy of perhaps as much as £50 per week plus the medical card. I know hundreds of young people in those circumstances. This has the effect not only of putting people out of their family homes and pushing up the social welfare bill and the supplementary welfare bill but of increasing the housing bill.

Not only are we paying rent subsidies to young people in these circumstances, we are also making it very difficult for married couples, to get a private flat because of the demand created by the young people seeking flats. This, in turn, creates an extra demand for local authority housing. The Government is spending millions of pounds breaking up families and creating poverty. This has been highlighted by me, and other Members, many times over the past few years, yet the problem continues. What surprises me is that when the previous Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy McCreevy, brought in his so-called dirty dozen cuts he did not seek to eliminate these obvious anomalies which are causing poverty and costing money. Why is the Minister not addressing such problems?

Deputy Fitzgerald rightly alluded to the problems caused last year by the circulars related to supplementary welfare assistance. In general, although it has warts, the supplementary welfare system is working reasonably well and helping to forestall much potential anarchy in the streets. That is not to say that it is the perfect system; it is not. It is true that there are variations in the way it is applied in different areas and, indeed, in different parts of the same health board region. Many of the problems which the Minister tried to address in circular 14/92 could have been dealt with if he accepted the principle of granting interest free loans in certain cases, something I proposed as far back as 1988. Such interest free loans could be repaid by deducting money each week at source. This is not a very original suggestion. It is a feature of the UK social security system and has been for several years. It has had an amazing effect there. It alleviates all the worst problems. People do not have to go to moneylenders or have their electricity disconnected. They do not get to the stage where they are likely to be evicted from their homes because they cannot find money. It also has the advantage that it is a discipline against excessive claims because people can get an interest free loan to meet the emergency but it is repaid over a period by being stopped at source.

Why have we not adopted this very sensible suggestion that I made as far back as 1988? It arose from an initiative taken by a community welfare officer. In a matter of a week he was faced with two horrendous moneylending problems and he made a deal with the moneylender who agreed to reduce the amount of money to be repaid to him. A grant was to be given to the person concerned on the basis that it would be repaid weekly. However, when the suggestion went to the Department for retrospective approval it was refused. I urge the Minister to go all the way on this. He could redress the wrongs of circular 14/92 and at the same time address the issues it sought to address by giving the supplementary social welfare system the potential to give interest free loans in certain circumstances. It would help a great deal with the worst and most urgent problems.

I have many points to raise but, in fairness to my colleagues, Deputy Crawford, I will not go on at length. I wish to make two other points. We still have within the State system in the region of 17 different means tests. We have means tests for supplementary welfare, unemployment assistance, differential rent, medical cards, civil legal aid, higher education grants and so on. There is one test after another all taking up official time in different sections of different Departments and sometimes in different sections of the same Department. This causes a great amount of inconvenience to people who are very often in great difficulty because they may have to make eight or nine different applications.

What happened to the inter-departmental committee on means testing which, I was told in a reply to a question five years ago, four years ago and again three years ago, proposed that there should be a single means test? The proposal was that this single means test be carried out at local health centres and that the certificate of means should be acceptable within the period of the making of that assessment by the local authorities in respect of rent, the health board in respect of medical cards, the Department of Social Welfare in respect of unemployment assistance, the community welfare officer in respect of supplementary welfare assistance, the courts in respect of civil legal aid and by the Department of Education in respect of higher education grants. Why is there all this duplication that is costing a fortune and taking up a great deal of official time in different Departments when we are so short of staff? Why can we not have one official in each health centre responsible for a single means test which would then be valid in various areas for a given period? This is not a new suggestion; I have been proposing it for several years in this House and I am amazed that nothing has been done about it.

I appeal to the Minister to at least acknowledge that workers should not be disqualified from entitlements like medical cards or higher education grants on the basis of their gross pay, because they never see their gross pay. The Government should accept the principle that all means-testing should be on the basis of take-home pay. I would go further; it should be based on disposable income because out of a worker's take-home pay he has to deduct mortgage payments, the cost of transport to work and so on. I would settle for means-testing being based on take-home pay as an improvement but it should be based on net disposable income. This, as the Minister knows, is already the case in the United Kingdom under their Social Security Act, 1984.

My final point is about how we levy social insurance. I accept that the way we levy social insurance is the way it is levied throughout the European Community and that the level of social security contribution is higher in some other EC countries. However, no country has the acute unemployment problem that we have. When our emigration figures are added to our unemployment figures we have an unemployment rate greatly in excess of twice the European average. This is an emergency. It is a monster ready to explode unless we address the problem, yet under our social insurance system there is an effective 21 per cent tax on jobs — 12.5 per cent paid by employers, 7.5 per cent by employees plus the 1 per cent employment levy. Bearing in mind that PRSI is paid on all income up to the income limit, that represents an even higher percentage of taxable income. When PRSI as currently levied is added to our penal income tax — our allowances are low and our bands are narrow — there is a real disincentive to employment, especially when combined with the means testing regime.

I urge the Minister to find a way of levying social insurance other than by way of payroll. I suggest that he again consider a suggestion I made some years ago that some of the social insurance should be levied on the turnover of high turnover companies rather than on the payroll of companies that have a high labour force. At present there is the absurd position whereby a company such as CIE, employing 12,000 people and having a turnover of £400 million, can pay as much as £35 million in PRSI contribution for the privilege of employing those thousands of people, yet a company that has a bigger turnover and employs perhaps as few as 100 people can pay as little as £250,000 in PRSI contributions. I am not saying that the system could be changed immediately from one based on payroll to one based on turnover, but I do believe, given the disincentive effect of the present system on employment creation, that we should try to find other sources for social insurance contributions from the business sector, and I suggest that turnover is one aspect that could be examined. Our present unemployment problem makes that an urgent requirement.

Mr. Crawford

I welcome the small increase made in the area of social welfare. I agree with the comment made by Deputy Mitchell that the Department of Social Welfare tries to help people as quickly as possible, an attitude not shared by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, which still has to pay out many headage payments applied for in June last.

Since I was elected to the Dáil, only a short while ago, there has been much talk about equality. One inequality I cannot understand is that although a widow who is left with a family is given some help, a widower who is left to look after a family is not given any help. That issue has been raised with most of us as Dáil Deputies and it is an anomaly that should be remedied urgently. A widower who is left with children has as much pain and as much suffering to endure as a widow.

In relation to the carer's allowance, I heard my Monaghan colleague, Deputy O'Hanlon, say that there was not sufficient to give to everybody. I accept that. The former Minister for Social Welfare, Minister McCreevy, made the point that while the payment is called the carer's allowance, it is a carer's allowance in theory only because there are so many reasons for excluding people from qualification for the allowance. I wish to give the House one example of the difficulty people face in qualifying for payment of the carer's allowance. I know of a couple who, because of the clawback system, found themselves just £3 better off when the wife received the carer's allowance than they were when they relied solely on the husband's income from a FÁS scheme. The issue of small farmers was also raised by Deputy O'Hanlon. Many small farmers are not being assisted in the way they should be.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must advise the Deputy that his time has been exhausted.

Mr. Crawford

This issue relates to the system of means testing. There should be one means test for all assistance and benefits. People in receipt of disability benefit are being curtailed. Deputy O'Hanlon also raised the issue of the death grant. The death grant should be available, especially to those who have made a contribution to their country in the past, and a great anomaly exists in that regard.

Mr. Ferris

I welcome Minister Woods back to the social welfare portfolio. I am pleased that he is joined by a colleague of mine as Minister of State and I am sure that they will work well together, as they have already done in the preparation of the Bill.

I have crossed swords with the Minister in the past as an Opposition spokesman on social welfare. I have always tried to be constructive in my comments because I recognise that social welfare touches the lives of a third of our population — almost one million people depend every week on the Minister for Social Welfare and his Department as their only means of livelihood. Is it therefore essential that this legislation, which is reviewed, updated and consolidated regularly, should be user friendly. It is important that those in need are able to turn to their social welfare officer in the knowledge that the officer is there to help. That has not been the case in the past. Social welfare officers have made it difficult and almost embarrassing for people to approach their local officer for assistance or advice in relation to their entitlements.

There is an old saying that no news is good news, and the corollary to that is that at times good news is no news. For a couple of days now I have listened to Opposition Deputies who have specifically targeted areas of concern but have forgotten the positive aspects of the Bill, and there are positive aspects of the Bill. It gives effect to the beginning of a Labour Party commitment to target families at the point at which assistance is most needed. The children's allowance has been increased to more than £20 in this, the Labour Party's first year in office, which represents a 26 per cent increase at that level. For third and subsequent children the increase is to £22.90 and £23. Those measures are part of a commitment that will build up at that level and will target families in need and in most need.

Many families have previously been unable to benefit from receipt of the family income supplement because one spouse is on a social welfare scheme. At times those families have been in need of bread and butter money. The supplementary welfare allowance also has the odium of means testing connected to it. It is recognised that people have had to bare their souls in public, without privacy, to supplementary welfare officers in order to receive payment for the basic necessities.

I am pleased that the Bill contains measures to remedy some of the anomalies created by the previous Minister for Social Welfare. The former Minister prevented the long term unemployed from receiving the disability benefit when ill and I am glad that the Minister has made an important change in addressing that anomaly. The Minister has also addressed the anomaly by which people could qualify for receipt of invalidity pension only after 12 months' receipt of disability benefit. In the past I have experienced the heartbreak of asking the Department to give the additional money and benefits provided by the invalidity pension to people who were dying of cancer but, because those people had not been sick for 12 months, previous legislation precluded them from receipt of the invalidity pension. The changes made may be small changes in the eyes of some people but to people in need, on the periphery of our society, they are fundamental changes. Many of us feel that there are very few members elected to this Parliament who will really represent them. Calls are made for all kinds of improvements. In the area of social welfare it is important to target those who are most vulnerable.

People who have contributed through years of contributions should not be penalised. We have a system under which the vast majority of old age pensioners are not those who contributed during their working lives but are people who divested themselves legally of everything they had, with the exception of their home, in order that they might qualify for the old age pension. Those people are able to drive up in their new cars to collect their old age pension and their free fuel. However, the unfortunate people who worked for years and have run out of stamps are unable to receive the old age pension without going through the odium of means testing.

I hope that the regulations which the Minister introduces in regard to changes in benefits and entitlements for students will address the anomaly whereby students who have completed their second level education, who do not intend going on to third level, have reached the age of majority, are genuinely seeking work, living at home and signing on for work are precluded from benefit during that time when it is important for low income families to have their children looked after.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must bring his contribution to a close.

Mr. Ferris

Nobody wants to see young people leaving school and signing on the dole. The vast majority of Members represent people who want to work and who do not want to draw money for unemployment. This is true of people in all walks of life — everybody would prefer to work. If there is an incentive to work, and compensation for work, the demands on the Minister will be lower and we will make more progress in the areas of greatest need.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I wish to thank the Deputies for their contributions; some were critical but most were constructive and added to our interest and knowledge in the whole area of social welfare. It is unfortunate that the media are absent on an occasion like this when we are discussing bread and butter issues affecting 1.5 million people every week. Deputies are intensely and deeply interested in the problems of the people, their resolution, the means we can use to solve them and the best use of our resources. Members on all sides of the House have dealt with issues which are important and it is a pity that that is not seen.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Minister should not be critical of the media, not many Members of his party are in the House.

Dr. Woods

Deputies have made their case very effectively. I am about to answer some of the questions Deputy Jim Higgins raised and it would be a pity if he wasted my time.

Mr. J. Higgins

There is nobody in the House to hear the Minister.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Dr. Woods

In view of the loss of time I will have to change my approach to replies.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Minister lost only two minutes.

Dr. Woods

It was more than that.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Minister should not have criticised the media when Members of his own party were not in the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.

Dr. Woods

Deputies Burke, Sargent, Doyle and Crawford, among others, raised the question of introducing a widower's contributiory pension. Needless to say, we would all like to see such a pension. As Deputies know, I brought in a widower's lone parent allowance to bring widowers into a means tested pension. This meant that for the first time widows, widowers, separated or divorced persons and anyone else who has to bring up a family on their own were covered by the lone parent's allowance scheme.

However, there is not a widower's contributory pension scheme. The first question that arises in relation to such a scheme is that it is a matter for the social insurance fund and contributions under it. In general to bring in a scheme which would equate with that for widows and deserted wives would cost approximately £50 million per year. That problem would have to be addressed and resources provided; obviously, it cannot be done overnight.

The EC recognise the need for such a scheme and a number of years ago it set about providing for equality of treatment in areas not covered by the 1979 directive, including a widower's contributory pension. Despite our efforts little progress has been made at European level on this issue, but it will have to be addressed in future and I recognise the points made by Deputies in that regard.

Deputies O'Donnell, Moynihan, Cronin, Pattison, Bradford, Doyle and Broughan, among others, raised the question of carers. For the first time the carer's scheme gave support to the person providing care for an elderly person in need of care. That was a major advance. It was a social welfare provision on a means tested basis. As Minister for Social Welfare, I introduced that provision. It is a good scheme — 4,500 carers are in receipt of the allowance and the improvements we made this year in increasing the long term rate will of course bring further carers into the scheme. I have undertaken to look at the means test to see if it can be made less restrictive, particularly in relation to carers with a working spouse. I will also be consulting my colleague, the Minister for Health, in regard to provision which might be made more generally for carers. I am directly responsible for carers, those on low incomes. Beyond that there is the question of people on higher incomes and how they can be catered for, a matter which will involve the Department of Health and about which I will have discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Health.

I dealt with the question of supplementary welfare allowance in my introductory remarks. There will be other opportunities to discuss that matter later.

Several Members raised the question of the personal social services numbers. I should make it clear that in January 1991 it was decided that my Department would take over responsibility for the RSI number allocation with a view to its more widespread use for social welfare, tax and related services. That was done in April 1991, so that now it is my Department which issues the relevant RSI number. What we are doing is providing a personal social services number and the legislative background for their issue. To date that has been done largely on an administrative basis.

As part of our overall strategy young people are now allocated personal social services numbers at the age of 16 and retain that number for all social services thereafter. As some Members suggested, there is scope for extending those numbers further to be used in areas outside the traditional ones in which we operate. I might remind the House that that is something which would require separate provision. Therefore I have separated that to be dealt with comprehensively and fully discussed should it arise. As far as I am concerned, I am covering what we do at present and providing the legislative backing for those RSI numbers currently in use.

Quite a few Members referred to consumer credit and moneylending and inquired about the Consumer Credit Bill. From the social welfare point of view I am very anxious to see that Bill published. A Government decision on that Consumer Credit Bill in October 1992 gave the go-ahead for the drafting of the heads of that Bill. That is being dealt with by the consumer credit division of the Department of Employment and Enterprise. My Department has passed on a draft to the parliamentary draftsman of the section with which we will be concerned, that is, that relating to moneylending and consumer credit in so far as it will affect our clients. That Bill is due to be published in September 1993. Among other consumer credit issues that Bill will deal with moneylending issues, the aspect in which we will be involved. There are five moneylending projects funded by my Department. A process of consultation on these is at present in progress with the national steering committee on pilot moneylending schemes so that our views will be fully incorporated in the Bill being prepared by the Department of Employment and Enterprise.

We have been involved directly in activities to deal with moneylending since 1988, when we established an initial scheme administered by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. More recently we established five pilot projects in Limerick, Waterford, Cork, Dublin and west Clare. Of course, these form the basis of some of the other issues mentioned by Members here this afternoon — for instance, targeting resources at families in particular need, introducing budgeting facilities, all of which can be amalgamated once those facilities have been put in place. Therefore Members will appreciate that some facilities requested are in the pipeline. Some of the requisite infrastructure — for example, the computer network, apart from other aspects of the infrastructure — is in place and more will be provided as we proceed. For example, this year the Government has provided £500,000 for this activity, which will enable my Department to extend significantly our programme of moneylending in the months ahead.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I regret having to interrupt the Minister. As it is now 6.45 p.m. I am required to put the following question on the amendment to the Second Reading in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day. The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the main question."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 43.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Bhamjee, Moosajee.
• Bhreathnach, Niamh.
• Bree, Declan.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Burton, Joan.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Costello, Joe.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Eithne.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Flood, Chris.
• Fox, Johnny,
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Gallagher, Pat.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hilliard, Colm M.
• Hughes, Séamus.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Derek.
• Moffat, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Penrose, William.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Upton, Pat.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Níl

• Ahern, Theresa.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cox, Pat.
• Crawford, Seymour.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Currie, Austin.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Dukes, Alan M.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Keogh, Helen.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McManus, Liz.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quill, Máirín. Rabbitte, Pat.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies Gilmore and Kenny.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 1 falls and I declare the Bill to be read a second time in accordance with Standing Order 93 (2). May I now ask when it is intended to proceed with the Committee Stage of this Bill?

Dr. Woods

Tomorrow, subject to the agreement of the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 25 March 1993.