Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Mar 1999

Vol. 501 No. 3

Social Welfare Bill, 1999: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Belton

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill.

The carer's allowance is very important in terms of home care. There are huge demands on hospitals, including geriatric hospitals, and many people can be looked after in their own homes. In general, elderly people are more content if they have the opportunity to spend their latter years in their own home and with their family. A caring Government, especially at a time of additional revenue, should examine and support this area and broaden the carer's allowance. I am sure every Member has the experience of people visiting their clinics saying they are looking after a parent and would like to combine that with going out to work, but that it is impossible to do both. In such circumstances it is very important, in a caring and Christian society, that carers looking after elderly people in their own homes are given every consideration and support in the vital role they play. In many cases if those being cared for had to go to hospital or a home, the State would have to support the staff and the hospital. While I am sure all Ministers are interested in better bookkeeping, that should not be the only reason carers get every consideration and the carer's allowance should be broadened to bring more people into the net.

When a couple of pension age apply for free telephone rental, they will not qualify unless one of them is incapacitated. The allowance should be given, especially in rural areas, to encourage people to have a telephone, because without doubt people are afraid. I know schemes such as the warning scheme are introduced through neighbourhood watch, but the free telephone rental scheme should be broadened. It is a ready made system and the Department should be seen to play its role in making people a bit more comfortable and secure. From my experience I know people are happier when they have a telephone. The elderly have often said to me that they do not feel as isolated or insecure when they have the phone and I ask the Minister to seriously examine the scheme.

In the past I have asked various Ministers to examine the variables in the non-contributory pension scheme. There are self-employed people who spend all their lives working in their own business and who never ask the State for anything. In many cases they are taxpayers all their lives. When they come to pension age and apply for a non-contributory pension all hell breaks lose. Inspectors arrive and this, that and the other is checked out. Even things that do not exist are checked out. People have said to me that after spending their lives working and never having asked the State for a penny, they are treated with the greatest suspicion when they apply for a pension. This does not show a caring society and is not the way the State should treat its elderly. I ask the Minister to raise the limits on non-contributory pensions. People who worked all their lives and made contributions to the State in many ways should be given some dignity and allowed their due pension. While I know it is popular to say that everybody should be given a pension, I feel there is room to extend the non-contributory pension.

I also wish to raise the means tests for small farmers applying for assistance. When means are being assessed much of the evaluation on stock, etc., is totally and utterly out of date. Small farmers have to buy fodder for their stock to ensure they remain alive because if they die they are worth nothing. The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, knows the price of stock. It is vitally important that those carrying out the assessment are updated on the situation by the local Teagasc office.

Mr. Haughey

I wish to share time with Deputies Kelleher and Michael Ahern.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Haughey

This is a very good and comprehensive Bill. Representations made over many years about anomalies and proposed reforms have been recognised and taken on board by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs in this Bill.

For years it was generally accepted that the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Woods, when he held the portfolio, was an authority on social welfare matters given his humanitarian and caring approach and his grasp of detail about the various social welfare schemes. It now appears, however, that this Minister is an equally effective and dynamic Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and will be remembered for many years to come for the provisions announced in this Bill and the initiatives he brought forward in 1999.

I support the change in the Department's name to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. This name change reflects an expansion of the activities of the Department. It is no longer the Department responsible only for handing out social welfare benefits, rather it is a Department which deals with all aspects of social, community and family life, which is very welcome.

An example of this is the introduction and development of the grant scheme for community development and family support groups. This is money well spent and backs up voluntary community organisations which are under pressure in today's society and allows them to undertake invaluable work for the good of the community, families and society as a whole. It is an example of a little money going a long way. These voluntary and community organisations are doing invaluable work in difficult circumstances. Volunteers are not coming forward as much as they used to. This money allows them to carry out their activities and supports them in their endeavours.

There is no doubt the 1999 budget was one for the elderly. The £6 per week increase in the maximum personal rate has been widely welcomed. The special 50 per cent pension for certain self-employed people who were aged 56 and over in April 1998 and who have at least five years' PRSI contributions since then has also been widely welcomed. There is no doubt there was anger among certain self-employed people in this regard and I am delighted the issue is being addressed.

The changes in medical card eligibility for people over 70 years have been widely welcomed and are seen as a major innovation. I hope there will be a further relaxation of the eligibility guidelines and that it could be phased in over the next few years to facilitate all people over 66 years of age.

An issue I would like to highlight is the date of introduction of social welfare increases, to which several other speakers referred. This year the increases will come into play in June. There would be widespread support in the community for bringing this date forward each year – first to April and then perhaps to January – so that claimants would know exactly where they stand. The date should not be set by way of arbitrary decision. While I appreciate budgetary considerations are involved, it is the one issue people raise with us on the doorsteps, particularly elderly people who say they are not getting their increases until June or July, by which time their rents and so on have increased. In the interests of efficiency, among other things, we should bring forward this date so that everyone knows where they stand.

I would also like to raise the increase for a qualified adult dependant. The increase in this budget is £3 for older people. Again, people are annoyed that the adult allowance rate increase is not the same as the personal rate increase. Perhaps this issue could also be addressed in future budgets, as it is raised regularly with me in the course of my work as a public representative, mainly by women – housewives who have worked in the home. In many cases, the husband gets the £6 increase, while the wife will gets the £3 increase. This is a bone of contention which needs to be examined.

I welcome the increase in child benefit. Given the limited time available to me, I will not go into the question of child care, although I listened with interest to what Deputy Hanafin had to say. Increasing child benefit in this overall context is the way forward; it facilitates those who work inside and outside the home. That is an issue to which I will return at a later date.

I also welcome the major extension of the carer's allowance. Again, there is uniformity across the House on this matter and on the question of caring for elderly people in the home rather than placing them in private nursing homes with the aid of subventions, or in health board contract beds. It makes much more sense, even from an economic point of view, to expand the carer's allowance scheme even further to facilitate older people who live out the end of their days in their own homes. I do not have time to go into the supplementary welfare scheme, rent allowances or the points Deputy Ardagh made on equality in the system in relation to unmarried and married mothers.

I welcome the budget, the social welfare aspects of which were significant. This Bill will go down in history as a major innovative Social Welfare Bill.

Mr. Kelleher

I am delighted to welcome the provisions and broad thrust of the Social Welfare Bill. Looking back over the history of Social Welfare Bills, it can be said that this is a caring Bill which recognises the needs in society and is moving towards assisting those most in need. When we came into Government, we gave a commitment that we would look after the elderly, something which must be broadly welcomed in the House.

All sides will recognise that major changes and advancements have been made in relation to the medical card. The most important provision is the acknowledgement that pensioners were too far behind other social welfare payments and major steps have been made to rectify that with the £6 per week increase. This is an issue which many people have raised with me. Deputy Haughey referred to adult dependants and the fact that £6 is paid to the person in receipt of the pension while the qualified adult dependant, who more than likely is the spouse of the pensioner, receives 50 per cent of that. That is something about which many people are annoyed. It sometimes seems as if the Department is trying to pull a fast one on them in the way this is paid and explained. The Department should examine the question of the qualified adult dependant allowance paid on a pensioner's book.

This budget has been very positive as regards the elderly, an issue we will have to consider in the future, given the demographic changes. Although we have a young vibrant population, demographic trends suggest there will be a large number of elderly people living here by 2025. That is something we must acknowledge now and to which we must direct the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. There are a few issues which I have raised continually over the past years. In view of escalating house prices and the fact that local authorities are finding it difficult to fulfil their housing obligations, elderly people should be allowed share a house while retaining their entitlements as if they were living alone. This would produce a number of benefits. A house would be released back to the council and it would give a sense of security to elderly people if they were allowed share the burden of running a household.

We should also consider a provision whereby an elderly person living alone who takes in a tenant, such as a student, would be allowed retain all entitlements. There are large centres inhabited by elderly people near UCC while students live up and down the road. There should be some provision whereby students could move into this accommodation, providing security and company for elderly people who would also maintain their entitlements. Such a scheme would help relieve the housing problem faced by local authorities and by students trying to find accommodation. It would also provide a good social mix and be beneficial to all concerned.

We will have to revisit the Commission on Social Welfare. That commission was set up in the dark days of the 1980s when the economy was on its knees, the outlook was not positive and Exchequer balances were always in the negative. It is time to re-establish that commission in view of the fact that we have a vibrant economy which is moving forward.

I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill but I am a little concerned about the multi-agency checkpoints provided for in section 26. This section allows social welfare and other State agency officials, in conjunction with the Garda, to stand in the road and check various details. On paper this sounds like a good idea but it could have an adverse effect, particularly in working class areas. We have spent huge resources getting gardaí back into these areas. Where there had been a complete breakdown of trust between the Garda and the public we now have community policing. If the public see gardaí being involved in checking on fraudulent social welfare claimants it could damage the community trust which has been built up, particularly in urban areas. I have cautioned on this issue and it could create difficulties in the long term.

It has been pointed out that these checkpoints will be on roads and motorways. However, over a period I see no reason why it could not happen that a garda could stand outside a housing estate along with other agency officers. This could create huge problems and mistrust. Even though gardaí would be indirectly involved, it would seem to the public and myself that they would be part of an operation to clamp down on social welfare payments. This could undermine the trust we are trying to re-create between the Garda and elements of society.

The bringing forward of payments has been a bone of contention. The budget has been brought forward by one month and is announced in December as opposed to January and people are annoyed that payments do not follow immediately. There should be a phasing in process whereby payments would be brought into line with the calendar year. This would be a positive measure. I welcome the general provisions of the Bill.

Mr. M. Ahern

The International Labour Organisation defines social security as the protection which society provides for its members through a series of public measures against the economic and social distress that otherwise would be caused by the stoppage or substantial reductions of earnings resulting from sickness, maternity, employment injury, unemployment, invalidity, old age and death, and the provision of medical care and subsidies for families with children.

When the Commission on Social Welfare reported in 1986, the term "social welfare" referred to schemes administered by the Department of Social Welfare. Income maintenance, such as disabled person's maintenance allowance, supplementary welfare allowance and other free schemes referred to schemes administered by health boards. There have been many changes since 1986 with schemes such as disabled person's maintenance allowance coming under the aegis of the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. The Department should be responsible for all schemes defined as income maintenance.

Since the 1986 report, the Department has made tremendous strides in protecting the less well off, which is incumbent on any Government. Such provisions distinguish a caring society from a non-caring society. Over the years different Governments have improved the social welfare system and many new schemes have been introduced to help the marginalised. The carer's allowance scheme introduced by the former Minister, Deputy Woods has had a significant impact. Subsequent Ministers have improved that scheme and the current Minister has continued that tradition. Up to 11,500 carers will benefit from the changes announced in this Bill and 3,500 people will qualify for carer's allowance for the first time.

In addition, carers' social insurance records will be preserved and income disregards will be given to carers in their own right. This will be of significant benefit to carers. Free telephone rental and transport are also being provided. I also welcome the £200 per week allowance for respite care which will allow carers take holidays. The Bill provides for an increase of 40 per cent over last year. This means that an extra £18 million is being provided on top of the £45 million spent last year.

One of the major problems of recent years has been the situation faced by small and low income farmers due to the reduction in the price of cattle and bad weather. I welcome the introduction of the farm assist scheme which will be of enormous benefit to small farmers and those less well off. I know some of these farmers and if they did not receive some assistance they would be forced to sell up. The farm assist scheme will help many of these farmers keep their heads above water and allow them continue to farm and live in the countryside.

Old age pensioners have been singled out for deserved increases in the Bill. The target figure of £100 promised in the programme for Government will be reached within two years. We said we would achieve this over five years but we are ahead of schedule. There has been an increase of over 14 per cent in the last two years in the old age pension. The people who built up the country richly deserve this increase.

I welcome the changes in pensions for the self-employed. Many people who were a day or two days short of the ten years did not qualify under the original scheme. The Minister has introduced a new scheme in this area. Regarding the bereavement grant, a funeral is a very expensive and stressful time. The increase in the grant from £100 to £500 will be greatly appreciated and is deserved. The Minister has secured an increase of £317 million this year for the social welfare area. This shows the Government's commitment to the less well off in society.

Mr. Durkan

I wish to share my time with Deputy Kenny.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Durkan

I welcome the positive aspects of the Bill. Improvements are always necessary in the area of social welfare. However, while the improvements this year are laudable, the Government side should not bask in reflected glory for too long because these improvements are necessary. One aspect which has become obvious in the context of increases in the cost of living which particularly affect those who are dependent on social welfare is the need to make the social welfare increases sufficient to erode the impact of cost of living increases.

In terms of the current non-insurance related payments, one will note in the Schedule that the amounts are not extraordinary. There is some recognition in relation to the benefits, but nobody can be complacent when it comes to the amounts of assistance payments, such as unemployment assistance and widows non-contributory pension payments of £73.50. They are inadequate to meet today's requirements. It is not sufficient to state that there has been an increase on last year and previous years because the improvements were necessary. Contrary to what many people believe, the programme the Government has set itself in relation to social welfare increases over the next three years is insufficient to meet today's demands. I hope the Minister will not rest for too long on his oars and assume that everything in the garden is rosy because that is far from the case.

I welcome the increases in the old age, disability and invalidity pensions. However, the lack of recognition of child benefit as a means of improving conditions for many families is a sad reflection. I do not understand why that area was omitted. The Minister and his Department could easily have improved the conditions and quality of life of families but they refused to do so. I do not know the reason for this, but the child benefit area is sadly neglected. In comparison to other jurisdictions, Ireland is way behind. I do not know the reason. Some improvements were made over the years, but there is still a long way to go.

I note the farm assistance programme. However, as somebody who was born and raised in the country and knows something about agriculture, I do not accept that it will in any way address the serious problems in the sector at present. It requires much more attention but that is not happening.

I welcome the introduction of the bereavement grant and I note the provision of pensions for those who were aged over 56 when they first made self-employed contributions. However, this could be extended further in the PAYE sector. The requirement was reduced by the previous Administration to ten per annum. This could be reduced further because the term “pro rata” should mean what it states.

I am amazed that a Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, who is a member of the legal profession, who knows something about people's rights and defends these rights in court, would consider introducing section 26. I do not understand why this section has been introduced. It states:

A social welfare inspector shall, for the purposes of this Act, have power to do all or any of the following:–

(a)to enter, without prior notification, at all reasonable times, any premises or place liable to inspection under this section, [These can be determined by the Minister.]

(d)to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he or she thinks fit in relation to any matters on which he or she may reasonably require information for the purposes of this Act.

The section also states:

(15) A social welfare inspector may, where he or she considers it necessary, be accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána when performing any power conferred on a social welfare inspector under this section.

Mr. Kenny

With or without a search warrant.

Mr. Durkan

The alarming aspect is that the Minister had the guts and the gall to introduce this in the Bill. Ironically, these provisions were tested privately over the last six months throughout the country. The late J. Edgar Hoover in his best days would not have thought of such a good measure. The unfortunate Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs who was jocosely referred to as Inspector Clouseau in another context some time ago will quickly find himself compared to somebody else of a much more nefarious nature if he is not careful.

Section 26 is disgraceful. It is an attempt to bring the Garda Síochána, the forces of law and order, down on the heads of unfortunate people who may have no other means of existence than the few bob they get on social welfare. I do not condone social welfare, income tax or any other type of fraud. However, it should be recognised that people have rights. One does not condemn people out of hand, intimidate or coerce them. If this is what another Minister meant by zero tolerance, the less we see of it the better. It is a clear attempt to move in on a section of the community and show them how it is done.

Recently I attended social welfare appeals. I am worried about the attitude of the officers who are carrying out their work in accordance with instructions. What worries me most is that they predetermine a case. They decide that a person is guilty and they then prove it. There are cases where one can have a suspicion or a person can be accused of something, but one must be able to prove it or one will be in serious trouble. In this instance, cases are taken against a vulnerable group in society and people who do not have influence. They are not in a position to go to the courts or the newspapers. An appeal would be a joy to behold where an unfortunate widow or widower is dragged before the courts to prove their innocence.

Whoever thought up this section should take a sabbatical. If the Minister thought it up in one of his lighter moments, he should also take a sabbatical. It is a clear attempt to erode the rights of the individual. It may be in this area today, and extended to another area tomorrow. I am not given to exaggerating matters of this nature. I recognise the need to ensure that the law is upheld. There will always be people who will try to circumnavigate the rules, but one does not place the common denominator at the lowest level to take everybody out, the innocent as well as the guilty. One does not intimidate people and treat them as if they were guilty before they can explain. I find it worrying that a social welfare inspector can be accompanied by a Garda officer, a customs officer or somebody else. What guarantee is there that people's constitutional rights will be protected?

The Minister made an extraordinary statement to the House. He said that at the invitation of the Garda Síochána he had decided to mount road blocks and inspections. They must have had little to do when that was suggested. I can think of much they and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform could have been doing at that time but which they obviously did not see fit to do. If he is in any way idle in future, he should redirect his attention to his own Department and do some of the things he should be doing. It is a disgrace that he should choose social welfare recipients as targets. I am not suggesting that the Minister of State or his colleague who are in the House tonight are responsible, because I know they agree with me that this legislation is disgraceful and they will live to regret it.

Mr. Kenny

It is revolutionary.

Mr. Durkan

I hope it will be struck out—

Mr. D. Wallace

What about the just society?

Mr. Durkan

—and that the people on that side of the House will quickly recognise that this is a nefarious piece of legislation. I hope the Government parties have the guts to identify whoever inspired it.

The last point I want to make is one I have made on many occasions in the past. It is that when there is a "get tough" attitude towards the poor, social welfare recipients, widows, widowers and so on it also affects people with a disability. The Government will do what it wants, but it will not do so easily because there will be plenty of opposition. I worry about the provision whereby the unfortunate victim of an accident can have his or her entitlements reviewed ten years after losing a limb and be told that he or she is fully recovered and should go back to work and have disability or invalidity pension cut off. That also is disgraceful. I hope there will be no erosion of people's rights in that area, because that would be hotly contested.

Mr. Kenny

I want to concentrate on four items. I regard this provision in the Social Welfare Bill as revolutionary in the wrong sense. The Minister should have checked with me whether eight social welfare inspectors recently visited the co-operative in Belmullet and questioned members of the public who were buying feedstuffs and provisions about where they got the money for such purchases. It seems that this measure is designed to destroy the confidence of people who might be attempting to better themselves in some small way. When we know that former members of the Cabinet and of the party opposite exploited the black economy to the ultimate extent, it is disgraceful that ordinary people who are not expected to sit at home all day moping around the house and degenerating as people because they are on the live register should be accosted by officers of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs as they go about their business.

I am not sure whether that is the intent of this section of the Bill, but if it is this Government will stand indicted for trying to destroy and trample upon any incentive these people have. I ask that this provision be withdrawn from this Bill and that the current powers be used. Social welfare officers have absolute authority to carry out assessments and interviews with recipients of various payments from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. There were never votes for politicians as a result of anything they might do in the context of this Department, but this kind of action will destroy the confidence of many thousands of people.

Let me make three suggestions to the Minister. There has been a spate of armed intrusions, beatings and terrorising of people in rural Ireland. With the increased capacity of roads to take cars at speed, people now leave Dublin in stolen cars, take up residence in empty holiday homes in the west and use these as a base for assaults, raids and nightmare incursions into the privacy of people's houses. There was an incident recently where a man had £29,000 in the house in loose cash. There are thousands of such people who, because of the traditional fear of official investigations, hold loose cash in their houses, hidden where they think it is safe. These people have been beaten up and terrorised. Thousands of them are going to bed this very night terrified of a crunch on the gravel, the sound of an engine or a knock on the door.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

The Deputy will obviously welcome measures to stop these people going to rural areas from the cities in stolen cars.

Mr. Kenny

If Operation Shannon was introduced as previously, we would know who was and who was not crossing the Shannon. If the Deputy wants evidence, I can produce it. I suggest, since the Deputy is interested, that he might use his influence with the Government to bring in a system of savings bonds with a higher rate of interest for people over 65 up to, let us say, a value of £25,000 so that they could keep their money in a financial institution such as the Post Office where they know it would be safe and they would have ready access to it whenever they needed it. It would be worthwhile for the Government to encourage people to put this loose money into safe locations to which they would have ready access and thus remove the opportunity from those who are unscrupulous enough to beat them up and rob them.

Hundreds of thousands of people were driven out of this country because of economic necessity in the 1940s and 1950s and all Governments did sweet damn all for them except show them the boat to Holyhead or the train to Cork to catch the liner to America. Over the past ten years we introduced reciprocal rights for many Irish citizens in the States or in England. If an Irish pensioner goes to England on a holiday for up to three or six months and signs on at their place of residence in England, perhaps with their son or daughter, they are entitled to free travel. It should be possible to offer the same facility to pensioners who return to Ireland on an occasional basis. For the duration of their visit to family and loved ones, they should have access to a free travel pass on public transport by bus or rail. That would be a small measure of recognition for the work these people did for this country in England, the contributions they made to maintain their families in Ireland during tough economic times and the fact that they are Irish.

The Centre for Independent Living is a strong movement which provides assistants to help the disabled. I spoke to a quadraplegic about this subject a few days ago. He is doubly incontinent but his personal assistant is obliged to give up his position because the community employment scheme, under which the assistant is employed, ceases after 12 months. A particular strength of personality is required to be a personal assistant. I cannot understand why the position cannot be continued, even under the part-time job option where people with a contract of engagement for 12 months can, in some cases, have it extended to three years.

People who are confined to wheelchairs need help for the simplest everyday tasks – getting around the house, using the bathroom and being washed and fed. There is no reason that this small group should not be given the dignity and opportunity to live as other people. This scheme should be extended to three years to encourage these assistants to continue their work.

I urge the Minister to take on board these three positive suggestions and to get rid of the disgraceful provision in the Bill providing for the establishment of roadblocks at every corner and crossroads in the country.

Mr. Aylward

I wish to share my time with Deputy Batt O'Keeffe.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Aylward

This Bill is probably the best package of increases I have seen during my years as a Member of this House. The package is produced against the background of a strong economic performance by the Exchequer. However, more importantly, it recognises the needs of the less well off in society and the fact that ground had to be made up towards ensuring equity and fair play for all.

The last budget was seen as favouring the better off in society. This budget, particularly the social welfare measures, places the emphasis on the less well off and, in my view, sends the right message. The provisions in the Social Welfare Bill deliver on many commitments in the Programme for Government and Partnership 2000 and include many welcome measures in support of the needy. They also provide for substantial increases in social welfare payments and significant improvements for older people. That is appropriate given that this year has been designated the Year of the Elderly by the United Nations. I compliment the Government in that regard.

The Bill also provides for improvements for carers and for the support of families and communities. I welcome the provisions for farmers on low incomes and the measures to help the long-term unemployed to get back into employment. I hope the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, will continue to deliver a programme of improvements over the next number of budgets. He certainly set a trend in his first two budgets.

There is still a long way to go. It is just and proper that as resources become available due to our improved economic performance they should be spread fairly and equitably in society, particularly to those most in need. I welcome the £6 increase in the old age pension, an increase of 8.3 per cent. The pension is progressing quickly towards the £100 per week minimum income promised for the year 2002. I agree with a previous Opposition speaker that the figure should be reviewed if current economic improvements continue.

The £3 increase for all other social welfare recipients on maximum rates, a 4.3 per cent increase, is also welcome. Although it is more than the inflation rate, it is still not enough. Everybody would wish to do more. I am particularly concerned, as I have said on numerous occasions, about the position of widows and widowers. For many years they have sought a better deal but they have not been successful. I have strongly advocated that the free schemes in the social welfare system, such as television licences, ESB allowances, telephone rental and so forth, should be extended to widows and widowers.

A married man of 50 years of age with five or six children who is in receipt of an invalidity pension is entitled to these benefits. When he dies his widow, when most vulnerable and in particular need of these schemes, finds her income halved and these benefits taken away. The Minister must give consideration to this issue in the near future.

I welcome the improvements in the carer's allowance, which will cost an additional £18 million per annum, implementing most of the review recommendations. I also welcome the improvement in pensions for self-employed people who are over 56 years of age where pensions are extended with at least five years' contributions. I welcome the new means tested farm assist scheme for low income farmers. This will benefit 6,600 smallholders and a further 6,800 low income farmers and will cost £45 million per annum, a significant amount. There is a similar scheme for low income fishermen, although there are not many fishermen in my constituency. However, it will be most beneficial for maritime counties.

I welcome the introduction of the new bereavement grant which is increased to £500 with easier qualifying criteria. The scheme will cost £10 million per annum. It is important that the Department takes steps to ensure this welcome increase is not abused by unscrupulous undertakers and that the money reaches those at whom it is directed. The changes in PRSI, including the abolition of the employment and training levy, are welcome as are other measures, such as the amendment to the Pensions Act and the extension of the scope of the personal public service number introduced last year.

I appreciate the Minister's concern about abuses of the social welfare system and I am aware that the measures he has introduced to date have been successful. Unfortunately, there are people within the system who adopt a professional approach to abusing it. Not alone do they defraud the State but they also take money which should be diverted to improving the position of those most in need. However, I disagree with the recent proposal to establish a multi-agency checkpoint system which will involve the Garda Síochána, social welfare representatives, the Revenue Commissioners and so forth.

No Department has improved its operations as much as the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs over recent years. In such a Department there should be sufficient alternative methods to track down social welfare cheats. The multi-agency checkpoint system will create huge difficulties. Imagine the position of a young garda living in a housing estate who depends on the goodwill and co-operation of the local community and his or her neighbours in administering the law. He or she will be obliged to stand at a checkpoint to investigate suspected social welfare abuse by these neighbours. That will undermine the role of the Garda Síochána and lead to a lack of confidence and trust. There must be more practical ways of dealing with this problem. I urge the Minister to reconsider. I agree with the principle of abolishing abuses of the social welfare system but I do not agree with this method of enforcement.

Carers have been taken for granted by consecutive Governments and I am glad the Minister acted on the proposals of the interdepartmental review of the carer's allowance. This will benefit 11,500 carers. I also welcome that almost 3,500 people will qualify for the carer's allowance for the first time. Those who care for children in receipt of domiciliary care allowance will be eligible for carer's allowance and eligibility will be extended to the carer of anyone between 16 years and 65 years old who require full-time care and attention. I am pleased the Minister has decided to relax the residency conditions for receipt of the allowance and the full-time care and attention rule; the carer's social insurance record will be preserved and the Department will give income disregards to carers in their own right.

One of the main problems facing carers is isolation. I welcome the extension of the free telephone allowance to persons in receipt of the carer's allowance and the extension of the free travel scheme to carers of people receiving constant attendance allowance and prescribed relative allowance. I also welcome the £200 annual contribution towards respite care. Overall, this year there will be a 40 per cent increase in payments to carers, amounting to an additional £80 million on top of the £45 million spent last year.

There are numerous other improvements which could be made and I hope this will happen in due course. It is desirable that as many people as possible should be cared for in their own homes; the State would make a huge saving. The appropriate payments should be made and perhaps the means test should be looked at.

As regards the new farm assist scheme, most farmers would prefer not to have to avail of social welfare, regardless of the title. However, as the reality of Agenda 2000 dawns on us, there will be more demands for social welfare from farmers. I welcome the new scheme which represents an important development of income support for farmers. We are all aware of the current difficulties facing low income farmers. I am pleased this scheme will be an ongoing feature of the social welfare system. The 1999 budget provides for a full year additional allocation of £15 million to pay for this scheme. Earlier this year, a two-phase fodder scheme costing £41 million was introduced. I wonder if this was the best way to spend that money. It was a fire brigade measure. People in disadvantaged areas were selling fodder to their neighbours, who were not even in a disadvantaged area, at a huge profit. It was a contradiction and there were examples to be found all over the country.

The Bill demonstrates the commitment of the Government and the Minister to the elderly, carers and less well-off in society. It is in keeping with the proud tradition of Fianna Fáil Ministers and their performance in the Department of Social Welfare. All decent increases and innovation over the years have been introduced by Fianna Fáil Ministers. We should compare and contrast that with the performance of Ministers from other parties, which left a great deal to be desired.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

We can judge any Social Welfare Bill under a number of headings. Is this Bill fair, just, responsive, flexible and designed in a way which will help individuals and groups fulfil their potential? The Bill certainly adheres to the criteria of flexibility and responsiveness. The budget has been well covered. However, it needs to be emphasised that in the Year of the Elderly, this Minister has been extremely responsive to the needs, cares and frustrations of the elderly. In our programme for Government we stated we would ensure a significant increase in the old age pension in five years – we are now on our second budget and we have at least three more to come. This year, the old age pension is about £89 per week which is a significant increase on what was granted by the Rainbow Government. This is welcome.

Everyone must deal with the misery and anguish of losing loved ones. Many of us are aware of the difficulty in paying funeral expenses. We are all satisfied that the £100 death grant was not sufficient. I welcome the increase of that grant, in one fell swoop, from £100 to £500. In cases of great necessity, supplementary welfare is also available. This assurance should be made to those who are concerned about meeting funeral costs. It is extraordinary here that the one thing people are concerned about is paying funeral expenses; it is a bill which no-one wants to leave lying in the ledger book. The Minister has responded in a very caring way as regards this matter.

It is a fact of life that many people applied for pensions well after the date of their eligibility. This has been a sore point for many years. The former Minister, Deputy De Rossa made some effort to allow people claim back to 1997. However, the current Minister has taken this issue by the scruff of the neck and has provided £100 million extra so that the elderly can claim back payment from the time they were eligible for their pension under this Administration. I remember calling on the Minister before the budget to include this provision in this Bill and I am gratified he has done so. I am astounded by the number of people who have contacted me since to say they missed out on the date of eligibility; happily many of them will now have an extra few pounds in their pockets.

We are all concerned about the carer's allowance. We would all like to keep our elderly at home for as long as possible and to ensure that they are looked after properly. This Bill is a step in the right direction as there are significant increases in the carer's allowance; 11,500 carers already in the system will benefit from this Bill and 3,500 will qualify for the first time, which is welcome. Carers will receive free telephone rental and free travel. Last year the carer's allowance was increased by £18 million and this year that figure is £45 million. We are moving in the right direction and these are significant improvements.

We will have to ascertain the cost of keeping the elderly in private nursing homes, given that the space in our community hospitals is not adequate. Should we continue to reduce the means test for carers? Should we allow family members to be more responsible in keeping their relatives at home? In view of the escalating costs of private nursing homes, the time is nigh for a statistical study of the cost of removing the means test vis-à-vis paying people a supplement to stay in a nursing home. The demands will be even greater with the removal of the responsibility on the immediate family to contribute to a nursing home subvention. More people will obviously be inclined to indicate that it would be preferable for elderly people to be put into nursing homes rather than kept at home. As that cost escalates it will become comparatively less expensive to keep people in their own environments. All elderly people want to remain at home for as long as they can, until they absolutely need complete medical care. As a Government and a caring community, we should try to achieve that.

The Minister indicated that he is willing to look at the cost implications over the coming years. It is interesting that the only provision which Fine Gael Members could criticise in the Bill is the multi-agency approach and inspections. People have been stopped at checkpoints without this legislation in place. Is it necessary to include this provision in the Bill? If it is possible to do that in the present circumstances, then it is time to review the provision.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid am a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Gormley agus Joe Higgins. I oppose the Bill because it fails the test of the national anti-poverty strategy which states that social welfare must "provide sufficient income for all those concerned to move out of poverty and to live in a manner compatible with human dignity". The key phrase is "moving out of poverty". The level of social welfare increases in the Bill will not help to move people out of poverty but will keep social welfare dependants lagging far behind the rest of society. Given the failure of successive Governments to deal with education and employment disadvantage the message from the Bill and the 1999 budget is at best "as you were".

In the context of the biggest budget surplus in the history of the State, the social welfare increases are very disappointing. They continue the failed policy of recent years. Writing in Poverty Today last year, Professor Brian Nolan of the ESRI stated, “We have so far failed to use our new found wealth to make serious inroads into poverty to ensure that everyone has enough to live with dignity and participate fully in our society.” In its pre-budget commentary, the ESRI warned that the continuation of the policy pursued in recent years would see a rise in the numbers in poverty and make the national anti-poverty strategy's poverty reduction target unattainable.

The Bill continues the policy of previous years and thus fails for one central reason. Its fundamental failure is to ignore the advice of the Combat Poverty Agency which called for an increase in social welfare rates in line with the increase in average industrial earnings rather than the rate of inflation. In failing to do this, the Bill ensures that the poverty gap will continue to widen. Is it the view of the Minister and the Government that £72 per week is an adequate income for a single person, £115.20 for a couple, £141.60 for a couple with two children or £168 for a couple with four children? It is impossible to live in a manner compatible with human dignity on such paltry incomes, which represent the hourly rates of some of the wealthy in our society, and not even the wealthiest at that.

The increases for pensioners are welcome, if long overdue, but one must ask why the rate of increase for others is considerably lower. Why was there no comparable increase across the board? Many people are concerned that the Victorian concept of the deserving and the undeserving seeping into legislation reflects the thinking of this Government. It deeply affects the daily life condition of tens of thousands of the most disadvantaged of our people. This thinking is all too clear in the increased powers in the Bill for social welfare inspectors, including the by now notorious power for the Garda to set up vehicle checkpoints. This has caused justifiable anger at a time when the multi-million pound tax frauds of financial institutions and their high flying clients are exposed on a daily basis.

The Bill creates the potential for abuse of powers by these inspectors. The danger of targeting entire estates is obvious. Are we to be faced with checkpoints at the entrances to housing estates which suffer high unemployment and welfare dependency? There is more than an element of the publicity stunt about this measure because the Minister knows well that the actual level of social welfare fraud is relatively low. This measure creates the impression that many social welfare recipients are claiming illegitimately, thus stigmatising people who are already disadvantaged. It ignores the fact that there are few opportunities in the so-called black economy for welfare recipients. Participants in the black economy are much more likely to be in full-time employment and doing "nixers" not declared to the Revenue than they are to be working and claiming social welfare.

Welfare recipients are already subject to stringent checks and constant monitoring. There is no comparison between the resources available for this monitoring in social welfare and health board offices throughout the country and those of the Revenue Commissioners, who are tasked with the policing of those who defraud the compliant taxpayer of sums many times in excess of those lost through welfare fraud.

There is some improvement in the carer's allowance scheme but the personal rate is increased by only £3 per week. Like similar increases in other areas, it is totally inadequate. The Government, like its predecessors, has yet to give real recognition to the 24 hour care provided by thousands of people at a huge saving to the State.

I wish to relate the provisions of the Bill to the current housing crisis. The entire focus of coverage of this crisis has been on those on middle incomes who have been squeezed out of the market. Little attention has been paid to those who were on local authority housing waiting lists before this crisis began and who are still there, joined by thousands more as the effects of the shortage creep up the economic ladder. Those in direct need of local authority housing are dependent on social welfare. Gone are the days when such housing was available to them at a low rent while higher earners could rely on the market, yet the Government has set its face against a comprehensive local authority house building programme. As a result housing poverty is widespread and is directly related to the other forms of poverty which the Bill all too sadly fails to address.

Mr. Gormley

The Green Party opposes the Bill as it continues the State's reliance on means testing in all aspects of social welfare payments. Means testing is an affront to the dignity of those seeking assistance from the State and an unwarranted level of detail of people's lives is sought. By continuing means testing the Department sets acceptable levels of impoverishment for the poorer sections of society.

It causes a duplication of work. Anything the means test does in terms of preserving the State from excessive distribution of financial resources could be more efficiently done through the integration of a personal taxation system with a guaranteed basic income system. The recent Social Welfare Consolidation Act provides the legal basis and mechanism for a guaranteed basic income, but sets it at an unacceptably low level so that the level of supplementary welfare allowance and the manner of its implementation is such as to cause unnecessary stress to community welfare officers and attack the fundamental dignity of persons applying for that payment.

The State is unwilling or unable to provide for carers who give a crucial 24 hour service. The Bill demonstrates the contingency based system operated by this and previous Administrations. Instead of providing a guaranteed basic income system, which would give a decent income for those who are needed for care in the home, and taxing anything above that basic assistance, the State relies on means tested grants and allowances to paper over the cracks in society. The Bill continues in the spirit of the Department by treating citizens with suspicion and spending taxpayers' money investigating them at roadblocks and inspections, rather than examining the entire system and beginning to reform it from scratch.

A recent question I raised with the Minister, and which was referred to by Deputy Ó Caoláin, revealed the disproportionate amount of money spent in pursuing those who defraud the social welfare system compared with the amount spent investigating the big fish who defraud the tax system and against whom the Revenue Commissioners are apparently powerless to act. In 1997 there were 11,185 overpayments amounting to £14.5 million, which was attributed to fraud or suspected fraud. A further 23,499 overpayments amounting to £6.2 million arose due to a variety of other reasons, including claimant and departmental errors.

We are dealing with fraud of the order of £14.5 million, which is a small sum compared to the amount of money defrauded through tax evasion. Nonetheless, we have a distorted view that these people should be pursued and we adopt a gung ho attitude towards that pursuit. That would be eliminated if there were a proper guaranteed basic income system. Such a system is much more efficient, has been costed by the Conference of Religious in Ireland and has been advocated by the Green Party since its inception. I hope the group set up under Partnership 2000 to examine this will come forward with concrete proposals so that we can look afresh at the manner in which social welfare is administered in Ireland.

Previous speakers mentioned carers. This is not a good Bill for them and the Carers Association has made its views known on this. It called for the abolition of the means test but there has been no significant change except for single carers. It also wanted an end to the rule that carers must live under the same roof to qualify for the carer's allowance. There is some adjustment in the Bill but only 400 carers will benefit. The association also wanted the introduction of a carer's benefit for those who must give up paid work to care at home but has received nothing in this regard. Another demand was to increase the weekly income disregard to £200 net income per week for married couples so that carers could qualify for the carer's allowance in their own right. Again, they have received nothing.

There has been a complete neglect in this area. It does not make economic sense, never mind the humanitarian aspect. Deputy Batt O'Keeffe stated that, if one compares the costings and externalities, the State is clearly saving money. By neglecting carers, we are throwing money down the drain. We have an ageing population. We know the demographic will change significantly and we have the reports supporting this from the ESRI. This is a huge gap and the Minister should re-examine the area. I know from my constituency that there are many dissatisfied people who feel very let down by the Government.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): The Bill must be strongly opposed. It does little to address the need for justice and equality for the poor in society and those in need of material support. It must also be strongly opposed for the notorious section 26, which gives the extraordinary power to social welfare inspectors to join with members of the Garda, customs officers and any other agency of the State which can be mustered in the so-called multi-agency vehicle checkpoints. This is a draconian provision and I am not surprised that, when it was first mooted, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs was apparently too embarrassed to come out and defend it, with the result that we witnessed the extraordinary situation for several days of a senior civil servant carrying out the Minister's dirty work. The Minister, in a very lame fashion, has attempted to justify it in his speech.

What we are witnessing here is a deliberate attempt to target unemployed people and communities and to create a layer of uncertainty and fear and an air of nervousness in them. The State is being given the power in the Bill to have so-called multi-agency vehicle checkpoints outside large working class communities, where every vehicle coming and going can be stopped and the occupants interrogated about from where they are coming, where they are going, what they are doing and so forth. It is an absolutely intolerable power to trawl.

The key question is what is the agenda. It is clear it is not to root out the supposed massive fraud among a vast array of unemployed people but to create a climate of fear and a badgering atmosphere among unemployed people so that they feel compelled and pressurised to take up the disgustingly low-paid jobs on offer from the many employers who constantly moan about the fact they cannot get workers to fill them. How could they give the level of wages they propose to pay? Section 26 of the Bill ties in with the Small Firms Association and its agenda, which is opposed to the national minimum wage of £4.40 per hour being introduced in 2000. The association enthusiastically supports this measure because it wants unemployed people badgered into low-paid jobs to fill the vacancies for which people cannot be found because the wages are so miserable.

The process is to criminalise the unemployed, not because they are fraudsters but to suit the agenda of powerful business interests in society. A building worker out on disability or made redundant when a construction job finishes who goes with some tools to an ageing parent or to do someone a favour could find themselves criminalised by this procedure and treated as a suspect. Their tools would be prima facie evidence that there was something irregular or criminal in what they were doing. That is shameful. Deputy Aylward has severe reservations about this aspect. Deputy Lenihan is present in the House and will probably contribute next.

Debate adjourned.