Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Oct 1993

Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill, 1993: Fifth Stage.

I move: "That the Bill do now pass."

I should like to say briefly that this is important legislation. Deputies have referred to it as such and said how important it is to consolidate and simplify as far as possible the legislation. The activities in which we are involved are extensive and consequently the legislation must be reasonably extensive to cover all the activities of social welfare. This Bill makes the law in relation to social welfare more accessible, simpler and easier to fathom. Deputies who have dealt with the Social Welfare Acts over the years will be particularly happy to have one consolidated Act which contains everything up to the present day. That will be of tremendous benefit. It will be very helpful to Members of the House and to social welfare officers and those who are professionally involved in trying to establish what the legislation is in any particular set of circumstances. In that sense it will be particularly valuable.

This Bill brings together over 80 years of social welfare legislation. That in itself is an achievement. The value of this document on an annual basis is £3.7 billion. When we see a consolidated Bill we are inclined to forget that its power is so extensive and its influence on our society is so great. Strictly speaking, this Bill, contains all one needs to know about social welfare. It could be regarded as an encyclopaedia of social welfare legislation and information.

The humility of it.

The value of this Bill is £3.7 billion.

May the Minister live to eat those words.

There is nothing that is not in the Bill.

The dirty dozen cuts are reversed.

Deputy Doyle shall allow the Minister to make his speech without interruption.

I want to pay special tribute to the special committee of the Dáil and Seanad who put the work into this legislation and to the civil servants who put in a massive amount of work in the preparation of the Bill.

This is the second time that I have brought forward a consolidation Bill. I was responsible for the 1981 Consolidation Act.

That was not encyclopedic.

I hope this 1993 Bill will suffice until the end of the century. I do not know who will be here in ten or 12 years' time to do the consolidation. Some of the new young Members should take note because presumably they will be directly involved.

We are working also on the consolidation of the regulations and I hope shortly to bring all the regulations together. That will facilitate Deputies. Deputy De Rossa will be thrilled as he will be able to quote them to me in the House on a daily basis. We will first deal with the assistance schemes. During the session I hope to come back to the House with the consolidated assistance schemes.

This Bill simplifies and streamlines the legislation. It certainly makes it much easier to understand and to deal with, which delivers on one of the promises made in the Programme for Government. I thank Deputies for their time and attention which was of assistance to me in getting this consolidation Bill through the House. I hope the enacted Bill will be in place to the beginning of the next century.

I do not think we could refer to this Bill as the lay person's guide to social welfare because it still contains a good deal of departmental jargon. However, it is certainly a step in the right direction and will be particularly useful for those who work in the field professionally and for the public representatives. It will be much easier when the correct information is readily accessible.

Sadly, social welfare is a growth industry. We have responded to the problems of society by introducing a plethora of schemes and anything we can do to streamline them is welcome. I said earlier that we need to consolidate the social welfare system and the Minister might reply to this point. Schemes were introduced to respond to problems as they arose but the number of schemes in operation would allow one to take a PhD in social welfare. We need to take an overall look at the policy area so that the system can be made easier from everyone's point of view. The Minister said he would consolidate the regulations but it is very important that the regulations should be debated in this House. We have often referred to this at Question Time and it has been the subject of intense debate. From time to time changes in the regulations have resulted in drastic disimprovements to particular social welfare schemes which have caused financial distress to our constituents. We need time to debate the changes in full and to have a constructive discussion. I hope that in future when proposed changes are to be made we will have the opportunity to debate them in full, unlike the occasion when changes were introduced by the Minister's predecessor. I hope the Minister will concentrate on this in the not too distant future.

I congratulate the Minister and the committee on producing this consolidation Bill. It will be very useful. I hope the Minister's customers — as he refers to social welfare recipients — will not be continually increasing and that we can stem the rise in unemployment. It is a constant source of concern that such a small number has to support the increasing number of social welfare recipients. I am delighted that in the recent past the Minister has become involved in back to work schemes and employment creation activities. I am anxious that promised integration of the tax and social welfare system goes ahead. I know the Minister of State is dealing with this.

The abuse of the system has to be vocalised. Those who pay their taxes with good will are becoming more and more demoralised by abuses, albeit by a very small number, of the social welfare system. We will lose the goodwill of those who willingly pay their taxes to support those who do not have jobs if we do not try to tackle the abuse of the system. I would like to see the Minister concentrate in policy terms on tackling abuse.

I welcome again the work the Minister has done in streamlining the system. This has made the quality of life of those on welfare much better and more dignified. This is as it should be. I call on him to continue the fight against abuse.

Unlike Deputy O'Donnell, I do not agree that dignity has been given to those on social welfare. The only thing that will give dignity to those on social welfare is an adequate income to live on so that they do not have to go from office to office and submit appeals in order to achieve a half decent level of income.

A number of points has been raised in the course of the debate. The proposal came from the Fine Gael benches that there should be a debate in this House on the regulations. Long have I argued that too many regulations have been passed simply by being introduced by the Minister. Because there is no provision to debate them, they are effectively passed without debate. Many of them, particularly in the social welfare area, have serious implications for the livelihoods of many thousands of people. The argument against that is that the House would not be able to do any other business if it were to debate regulations, and I accept that. However, as a way around that we should set up a committee on secondary legislation, a special committee to consider regulations introduced by Ministers. In that way important regulations could be identified and anomalies which arise from time to time in new regulations introduced by Ministers could be addressed. We have had examples of such anomalies in the past year in respect of regulations introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare which subsequently had to be altered. The type of anguish caused to people, particularly those dependent on social welfare, by regulations which do not take into account their human impact could be overcome by setting up a committee to examine such regulations before they become law.

I welcome the fact that the law in regard to social welfare has been consolidated between two covers. That will make life easier for those who administer the system and ourselves, who frequently must refer to various Acts to discover if claimants — or customers, as the Minister refers to them, although I would refer to them as the victims — are receiving justice. However, the compilation of this compendium or encyclopaedia of law does not address the question of the precise manner in which the law impacts on people and that is reflected in particular by the number of appeals lodged as a result of the way in which the system operates. The annual report of the appeals office illustrates that approximately 42 per cent of all appeals are successful. That means a significant number of errors is being made——

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but, as he is no doubt aware, on the Fifth Stage of a Bill the contributions are usually short. In any event, debate can only take place on what is contained in the Bill and I am sure the Deputy will have regard to that long precedent of the House.

I am sure you, Sir, will appreciate that because we are dealing with a Bill which is a compendium of all social welfare legislation and contains a reference to virtually all social welfare matters, I could refer to a great many issues if I wished.

I beg to differ with the Deputy. All those points were made on the Second Stage and long Committee Stage debates and should not be repeated on Fifth Stage.

I am not seeking to go back over all the matters; I merely want to emphasise one, the question of appeals. A large number of appeals, many of which are valid, are lodged in respect of social welfare matters. Following the publication of the annual report of the appeals office a newspaper headline stated that 50 per cent of all appeals fail but, in fairness, that headline should have stated that 50 per cent of appeals are successful.

I am sure the Deputy will find some other way of dealing with appeals at some future date, an early date perhaps.

I assure you, Sir, I will not delay the House much longer. I have one or two points I wish to make on this Stage of the Bill which will take me only a few minutes. I ask you to have patience as I will conclude as quickly as possible.

I am a man of great patience.

I want to emphasise to the Minister that something needs to be done in respect of resources and staffing for dealing with appeals and in regard to the training of people to deal with claimants of social welfare who are obviously not getting adequate information in respect of their entitlements. I ask the Minister also to examine why it is in areas for which the Department of Social Welfare has discretion that the greatest number of appeals arises. For example, the area of unemployment assistance generates the highest level of appeals and the number of appeals in respect of proving ill health is also a matter of concern. Obviously, there is a problem in repsect of decisions where the discretion lies with the Department of Social Welfare. Therefore, I ask the Minister to examine that matter.

Will he give us a specific date for the publication of the new guidelines on supplementary welfare allowances? When this Government came into office we were told they would be available within a few weeks but nine months later there is till no sign of them. Those are the points I want to make on the Bill and I urge the Minister to take them on board.

I want to make a brief point on this comprehensive legislation. I welcome the fact that the social welfare code has been consolidated between two covers. Whatever about the merits or demerits of what is between the covers, I welcome the fact that all social welfare matters are dealt with in one document. I am sure the Minister and Deputies will agree that the social welfare code here has become a labyrinth of conditions and provisos and it is extremely difficult for consumers to maintain any type of coherence in respect of social welfare entitlements.

I wish to refer to Part IX of the Bill, which deals with liability to maintain a family. I agree that within both the letter and spirit of legislation a man is liable to maintain his wife and family under our present legal and social arrangements. However, a difficulty arises in regard to the level of maintenance. I am concerned about means testing and how it is applied. In circumstances where a District Court makes an order, as happens almost every day of the week, in regard to the amount of maintenance payable to a spouse — in most cases the wife — it becomes an order of the court. Both parties leave the court in the knowledge that the district justice has made an award but it has become an ever-increasing practice of the Department of Social Welfare to give no credence or consideration to such awards. I have dealt with numerous cases where an award of a district justice is literally torn up by officials of the Department of Social Welfare. I could cite many instances of District Courts making an award of, say, £65 to a wife and her children and the Department of Social Welfare — perhaps a week later — ordering the payment of, say, £100 even though the circumstances of the case were not altered.

I have given the Deputy some latitude but he is straying from the Bill.

Will the Minister comment on the determination of the means test and why an award made in a District or Circuit Court need not be regarded by the Department of Social Welfare? This raises many questions about the manner in which we have allowed our social welfare code to evolve. I imagine the means testing procedures would be the same——

The Deputy's point is extraneous to the measure before the House.

Regrettably, it is a matter not addressed in the legislation and is giving rise to serious concern——

We can only talk about what is in the legislation.

The legislation is not comprehensive because it does not address the matter.

Given that the Bill is encyclopaedic and that nothing has been left out, to quote the Minister's words, in what section will I find the reversal of the decision in respect of the remaining "dirty dozen" social welfare cuts as promised? I accept the Minister's assurance that nothing has been left out of the Bill but I ask him to direct me in regard to the decision to reverse of the "dirty dozen", in particular, the nine remaining cuts that have yet to be reversed.

Second, and with more hope of getting a positive answer, did the Minister give any consideration to the concept of district service companies? I raised this matter with the Minister some two years ago in another Chamber when we discussed social welfare at length. I asked him to seriously consider the formation of district service companies which would be constructed around each district exchange and would allow unemployed persons to register voluntarily with those companies who would market their skills. Unemployed persons would be guaranteed a minimum weekly payment of their social welfare benefit and they could build up earnings greater than that amount as they got back into the workforce and their skills were more in demand. Fine Gael presented a document yesterday in relation to increasing jobs in the service area. Another aspect is that the people who employ persons from the district service company, utilise the skills of unemployed persons and help them get back into the workplace would be given tax allowances and credits.

I had hoped the Deputy would refer to what is in the Bill.

I discussed this matter with the Minister and I would like to know his thinking on the concept of the district service company to help people on social welfare to get back into the workplace.

This Bill has gone through the due process of debate in this House and I now call on the Minister to reply.

Since the Bill is encyclopaedic it covers all the matters raised. As the Deputy will realise I have heeded her suggestions and those made by other Deputies. Consequently, I introduced the back to work allowance and job facilitators have been appointed in our offices around the country to facilitate the Department of Social Welfare, relationship between the FÁS schemes operated by the Department of Education and others. I want to take a pro-active approach to the provision of employment and make the necessary links to help the unemployed to get back to work. We are in a better position to do that now because of computerisation which has led to improved organisation in the Department.

Regarding Deputy De Rossa's point, I refer to people in receipt of social welfare benefit as "customers" because I want them to be treated as customers. The Deputy referred to their dignity, those people are treated with dignity because they are treated as customers. We try to relate their needs to what is available and seek to provide greater support for them. I am hopeful we will be able to do more for those people by providing real links with FÁS on an individual basis. We have had discussions with FÁS and are advancing further plans. We will also consider the district service company concept.

It is not in this edition of the encyclopaedia.

No. Some of my powers have been contested. People are reading between the lines of the Bill to see if I have powers and, fortunately, I do. I have been able to continue with our plans in the area of social welfare and we are getting support in respect of them.

Deputy Flanagan raised the question of the courts allocating, say, £65 for a wife and child and that the Department might make an award of £100. The Department of Social Welfare tends to me more generous. However, the Department will claim the money it pays out, that provision is included in the Bill.

The Department is paying first and asking questions later. The Department should examine the means first before making any payment.

On another occasion the Deputy will say that benefits in respect of deserted wives are not adequate. The Department's payment is often more than that allocated by the courts, it seeks recovery of the equivalent amount and differences can arise in that regard because the Department sets a different standard in terms of the amount of money. This area requires more attention and is fraught with difficulty.

Deputy Bradford mentioned the need for a lay pension's guide, we will shortly publish a guide. It is not appropriate to call it lay person's guide, it will simply be called a guide.

A simple guide.

As simple as such a guide can be.

An idiot's guide to social welfare.

We have some of the most experienced and best simplifiers of texts in the business. If what is included in the legislation is not covered Deputy Flanagan and others will ask further questions. The guide is well advanced and will be available shortly.

Regarding the streamlining of schemes, Deputy Doyle raised the question of further changes after the passing of the Bill. Any changes I made this year are included in the Bill.

The Minister reversed three of the 12 decisions, nine remain outstanding.

I reversed more than three and they are included in the Bill. Any further changes will not be included in the encyclopaedia and another will have to be compiled. I am hopeful that another consolidation Act will not be required until at least the year 2000. Deputy Bradford can rest assured that we will streamline schemes further. The difficulty is that when schemes are streamlined people's needs are not adequately catered for and this causes problems. People wish me to insert simple lines in the Bill but many would lose out as a result of such additions. The matter is not as simple as it might appear.

Deputy O'Donnell expressed the hope that the Department would not increase its demands to any great extent. We hope unemployment payments will reduce, but pension payments will increase because people are living longer. Payments for children are decreasing but payments for single parents are increasing. It will always be complex because it depends on sociological factors at the time. I accept the points made about the integration of tax and social welfare and the problems of unwarranted claiming.

"Unwarranted claiming" is a polite phrase for abuse.

The terms we refer to are "fraud, abuse and unwarranted claiming", and they cover everything. People will often refer to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which shows a tiny amount of fraud but that relates only to fraud proved in court. That is why we talk about "abuse, fraud and unwarranted claiming". I accept that we must show the taxpayer we are doing our job in that regard or they will not be happy with expenditure on social welfare. On the other hand, most people want to see those who are genuinely in need being supported so long as they know that the Department is not being wasteful or careless in spending such large amounts of money. In disbursing large sums of money there is always the possibility that fraud will occur and there will always be some people who will abuse the system. However, we have become more skilful in dealing with fraud and abuse mainly through management systems and better compliance.

Can the Minister give a definition of "unwarranted claiming"?

That would arise where people claim a benefit to which they were not entitled.

Not necessarily knowingly?

Yes, and in those situations the Department might not seek to recover the money.

That could not be defined as fraud or abuse.

That is the point. We are trying to make sure that the system is delivering to those for whom it is intended.

Deputy De Rossa talked about the importance of dignity and a great deal has been done to simplify and to consolidate legislation to help in that area. A great deal has also been done to improve the standard of the offices and to facilitate payments into bank accounts or post office accounts.

The Deputy was also concerned about appeals and the problems that arise on appeals. Approximately two million decisions per year are made and there are about 18,000 appeals annually. As Deputy De Rossa said, about 42 per cent of appeals succeed. When appeals succeed, it means that more information has been provided. It is important to get all the information and reduce the number of appeals as far as possible but when we are talking about two million decisions, we will have a substantial number of appeals in any event. Some of the appeals refer to land or estates when there is a claim against an estate where a pensioner has died having claimed money to which he was not entitled. The claim is against the residual estate and appealed by the beneficiaries of the estate. Obviously such cases can take a long time.

There are also cases in which a person who has been given six months to live has been found fit to work and has to appeal it.

We introduced special measures this year to deal with that type of case and to deal with invalidity pensions in cases like that.

We set up an independent appeals office which is working well and we recently appointed two extra appeals officers. We also set up a decisions advisory office in the charge of a very senior person because we want to reach decisions and provide more information in order to reduce the number of appeals. The office was set up about six weeks ago and is only now getting under way.

I know Deputy De Rossa was very busy at the weekend——

A very successful weekend.

——but over the weekend we published a code of practice.

I missed that.

We put it out on Friday so that the Deputy could have it over the weekend. I was sorry the Deputy did not get it in time. I will make sure he gets a copy immediately; in fact he can have this one as well as the press release explaining it.

The Deputy was very keen that everybody should be consulted at sufficient length but now there is a firm code of practice.

Does this mean Deputies will get from the Minister's Office circulars which are being sent to community welfare officers——

The Deputy can have this one anyway.

——and which define the supplementary welfare scheme?

The Deputy can have this for a start.

I thank Deputies for participating in this debate on important legislation. This is a very valuable work and I congratulate the Deputies, Senators and the officials who put such tremendous work into the preparation of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share