Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Dec 1975

Vol. 83 No. 5

Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Bill, 1975: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Killilea

Last night I was trying to explain that the contribution made by the local people in each country through the rates was made to a section of the community who were entitled as of right to exactly the same as their neighbours not within the social welfare code on the non-contributory basis. I was trying to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that it had not been stated that disabled persons' maintenance allowances would be excluded when assessing income, whereas the Bill specifically stated that children's allowances and maintenance payments for the upkeep of disabled children were not to be taken into account. Disabled persons' maintenance allowances should not be included.

I would also ask that the value of a person's house should not be taken into account when assessing means. I do not think this happens in any other section of the welfare legislation.

With regard to payment to people on strike, Senator O'Brien rightly stated that the types of strikes where this payment can be made should be clearly stated. It is not proper that people on an unofficial strike should be paid by the ratepayers of a particular county. Those on a strike other than a strike declared by the union and backed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, should not get these payments. The Parliamentary Secretary should specify clearly what type of strike would qualify for payment of the allowance. He will have to be very clear on that if this Bill is to go without amendment.

In regard to the provision of an appeal, it is good to have an independent arbitrator, but I suggest that those independent arbitrators should make their decisions quickly and allow payments to be made or not to be made, as is the case. Indeed, I would ask that the Department speed up every type of appeal and not alone this one. Senators will agree that in all such social welfare appeals a lapse of two, three, four or five months is not unusual.

Then there is the thorny question about the collection of the money. It has been the practice to have the local councils the paymasters to collect this money through the rates. The State should not ask local councils to make this payment. At numerous meetings of the General Council of County Councils there have been protests by different county councils against the collection of money for payment in social welfare. They are right. The person who has the privilege and the luck to have a job contributes to the social welfare code. The money paid in by him, together with that of the State, should provide for those people who are not so lucky to have employment.

Last evening I referred to an anomaly in the payment of maternity grants. Those women under the contributory social welfare code can get hospitalisation plus three months' leave of absence from their work. A women not in the contributory scheme will probably get three or four days' rest in a hospital and will then be sent home because the bed will be needed. That is wrong. Everybody should be treated equally. It is an opportunity now for the Parliamentary Secretary to provide in this Bill equal rights for all women. All women should be treated equally and should be seen to be treated equally and by the State. After all, on the day of an election each of them has only one vote, but the important point is that each of them has one vote. That shows the equality of the democratic system.

The payments under this legislation do not compare with payments in other codes. It is the lowest of them all. I do not see any reason why it should be so. If the State applied equality there should be no problem about having the supplementary welfare allowances comparable with other social welfare payments. It is something the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government should look into. There is no such thing as third-class citizens in this country. In this Bill we are trying to create a new third-class citizen. It is unwise to do this. For that reason I recommend that the payments made in the weekly amounts in this Bill be increased and made comparable to those in the other sections of the welfare code.

This Bill should be advertised properly. Every one of the 30,000 people who will come under this Bill should be notified in public advertisements that they are entitled to those payments. There will be many people who in 12 months' time will not know about the existence of this Bill.

I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply.

Mr. McCartin

In the course of this debate the old poor law system came in for a lot of criticism. I hope the time will come when legislators will sit down here and introduce legislation that will justify their saying that what we did today was mean, grudging and narrow in its assistance to the underprivileged. The poor law system is a very old system. I saw the end of it myself. There were things about it I did not like, but those who introduced it were, perhaps, courageous and generous in their own way.

Somebody spoke here of a supplementary allowance of £2 and £3. I am serving only my second term as a county councilor, and I remember making representations to have assistance paid to people increased to £1 or to 25/-. It was not supplementary; it was the only income these people had. Even before the introduction of this legislation the situation had eased a lot. The allowances under the system in the past two years were certainly much more generous than what most people believe.

Another factor about it is that it was much easier and quicker to have an application processed than under any other Department or any other section of Social Welfare. I have known payments to be made in a matter of three or four days. The number of people who actually fit into this category is very small. Most unemployed get unemployment assistance and disabled persons get disabled persons' allowance from the health boards. Recently the health boards have changed their system of sending around a home assistance officer to deliver the money personally. The money is being posted. I hope the same will be done in this case.

This has been a very good system. The home assistance officer in every dispensary district had a small area and he knew people personally. Comparing his position with the position of the social welfare officer who does the investigations for unemployment assistance, the home assistance officer was in a much better position to know who was entitled to benefits and who was not. In some areas a lot of scandalous publicity is given to a small number of cases where people get unjustified payments under false pretences, as was pointed out by the Opposition yesterday. This has not happened as much under the home assisttance officers as under the social welfare officers. The home assistance officers knew the people of their areas intimately. The social welfare officers have too large an area and certainly in a large number of cases do not seem to keep abreast with what people are earning and what people deserve.

The question was raised of a person with a big family. In many cases employers cannot live up to the level of such a person's wages to the amount he would get if unemployed. As far as I can make out from the way the Bill is drafted, measures could be used, to supplement an ordinary income up to the level of social welfare payments. Something like this will have to be faced sooner or later. All over Ireland we have many large families. Some system of supplementary income should be devised to compensate such people for the loss when they take up employment. Sooner or later we will have to face this problem. It is not fair that a father of a large family should find himself at a loss when he takes up employment. That point is sufficiently recognised by most people. There is no need for me to labour it.

The allowance in kind is a good idea. It has on rare occasions been operated by local authorities. The Department of Social Welfare had in the past no authority to do this. I made representations on one or two occasions and was informed that it was very difficult. With the sort of people we are dealing with it is inevitable that in some cases—for the sake of their dependants or sometimes of themselves—it would be advisable to give them an allowance in kind rather than money. I am confident that this will not be abused. I hope it will be extended into other fields of social welfare.

There is another section of people for whom I have had to seek home assistance in the past—single women under the age of 57 years. It is a pity that these people have been excluded from unemployment assistance. I have heard people shout about inequality of the sexes when there was not any justification for it. In this case I cannot see any reason why a single girl with no means and no job cannot qualify for unemployment assistance as a single man can. In rural Ireland we have been faced in the past with a system where there was nothing available for these people except home assistance. For the sake of them we have, I am glad to see this improvement in the legislation which gives a bit more dignity to the whole question of assistance.

Senator Horgan referred to the possibility of giving some sort of supplementary allowance to students. I would agree that it is only proper that this reference should be made but we must be very careful not to abuse or extend too widely any system of payments of this nature. Most of the people seeking higher education can look forward to getting qualifications or degrees and thus putting themselves into a position to get very highly paid jobs. In spite of what we say about education and the dedication of people who have spent long years studying, this is what most of them look forward to. It is only fair that when these people qualify and become the earners of high wages they should be in a position and should be required to pay back the money that has already been paid to them in supplementary allowances. One of the tests of whether people genuinely want this education is their willingness to make a sacrifice to get it. In a lot of cases where children were deprived of education in the past and people took up jobs rather than pursuing their own education, it was obvious that either their parents or themselves were not willing to make the sort of sacrifice required to obtain this education.

There is not a lot I can add to the points made by other speakers. The Parliamentary Secretary said the same rule for means test would be applied as in unemployment assistance. This is fair. We have special rules for people in the agricultural community in the 12 western counties, and while that scheme has been very successful I would not like to see that being extended any further. The situation will have to be reviewed for many reasons and this scheme of supplementary allowances should not be based on any sort of land valuation. While this system served the farming community very well in the past, it has become outdated and it gives rise to scandal in a small number of cases. Even a small number of cases can create a very grave situation.

I welcome the measure. I agree that local authorities should have to make some contribution. It is not true to say that they are in no position of authority as far as the administration of the scheme is concerned, because the county councils have their representatives on the health boards. Through these representatives the county councils have authority and power extending into the health boards, power perhaps out of proportion to the numbers of county councillors. From a political point of view the views of the local elected politicians are generally very dominant where important decisions are being made at health board level. I like to see it that way. I would like to see them having more representations, but for the representation they have it is only fair that the county councils should raise a certain amount of the money. When the day comes that all the money will be handed down from central funds, as it is in some cases, we in the local authorities and county councils will have a very hollow sort of power. If we follow this right through we are seeking a situation where the local authorities will not have any real power.

I liked to see the local authorities having this power in the past.

If somebody was deprived of something they felt entitled to, I much preferred to have them coming to me with a county council problem than with a Department of Social Welfare problem. No matter who is Minister, I have always found it very difficult to get through to the Department of Social Welfare. If it is a county council problem the chances are that the person involved knows his home assistance officer and the people in the community care office, and the county councillor can get a reply within a matter of days. It is entirely different when you write for clarification of facts to the Department of Social Welfare. At the best of times it takes weeks, and usually months. There never has been any need for the formal appeal system to the local authorities. If somebody did not get home assistance and felt entitled to it, a simple phone call would have the case reviewed, and reviewed again and again if necessary. There was not this formal procedure involved. I never failed, and I do not think any county councillor can say that he ever failed, to have the machinery put into action and to have complaints fully investigated.

If all that we looked for could not be given that was because the money was not there. The State could not afford it. The legislation did not lay down that it must be paid but within the limits of the legislation that existed people got what they were entitled to under the system in operation until now. It is easier to investigate complaints through the health boards than through the Department of Social Welfare. The Department deals with large numbers of people, and it is very difficult in many cases to come face to face with the persons who made the decision and ask them why exactly they made it.

I hope there will not be a very large number of people requiring this type of assistance. Through the other schemes I found that there were not a very large number because the local authorities tended to bring most people into the disabled persons' allowance category rather than into home assistance. They did this for economic reasons, because home assistance was paid out of rates. Generally it was found that people who fitted into the home assistance class had a health problem of some sort. If the county councils had a small number of people to whom they made payments in the past and if the amount of money that they seem to be spending was very small, the reason was that they tried to fit it in under the disabled person maintenance allowance rather than unemployment assistance.

It is regrettable at the moment that under the disabled persons' allowance there is a maximum of £7 or £8. The result is that you could have a man who was getting £20 a week unemployment assistance. He might be a small farmer. He becomes ill and immediately he is reduced to the maximum disabled person's allowance. This means that when a man is in good health he can get £20 to £25 per week plus having the ability to work his farm, and when he becomes ill his income is reduced to £7 or £8 a week, which is the maximum under the disabled persons' allowance. In the past it was much lower than that.

Recently the alternative has been to go to the home assistance officer and get a supplementary allowance from him. Usually you found that, no matter how hard you pushed it, it was very hard, even with the supplementary allowance from the home assistance officer plus the disabled person's allowance, to bring up the figure to the level of unemployment assistance that man was getting previously. I do not see why there should be this maximum on the disabled person's allowance, or why it should not be increased so that if a man is disabled he gets an allowance equal to for what he had been getting so that he will be able to maintain his wife and children. Under the present circumstances most of it will be coming from the Exchequer anyway. I do not see any need to bring the two schemes into it. The disabled person's maintenance allowance should be extended to cover the man completely.

I welcome this legislation. I do not think what immediately proceeded it was as unjust, as cruel and degrading as some people think. I believe this is a genuine improvement. It is the tightening up of a loose end. To a great extent, it streamlines the whole social welfare system. It is only right that the health boards should administer this, because they are dealing with all the related items. This is a step in the right direction.

Cáit Uí Eachthéirn

Is mian liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo agus táim cinnte go gcabhróidh sé lena lán daoine atá bocht agus a lán daoine atá ar an ngannchuid. I welcome the principle behind this legislation. I welcome any legislation that tries to improve the lot of the needy. The sincerity of our democracy will be judged by the way we treat the underprivileged among us.

The Parliamentary Secretary said the main object of the Bill is to change the name which had attached to it the stigma of the poor law and the workhouse days. It is intended to call this benefit a supplementary welfare allowance. He also said the object is to convince needy people that this allowance is their's of right, and does not depend on the goodwill or discretion of anybody. It will take a long time to convince the recipients of these benefits that this is so. They have been conditioned to believe that, whatever allowance they are getting, they are getting it through the goodness and generosity and sympathy of the local welfare officer, or through the influence of a local TD, or Senator or county councillor.

During the debate in the Dáil the Parliamentary Secretary said that some people nearly believe that the assistance officers are paying this money out of their own pockets. He is right in that. The best way to get rid of that mentality would be to pay this allowance by cheque to long-term recipients. If that is not possible, perhaps it could be paid in the same way as the old age pension is paid. We would be doing a two-fold service. We would be removing the idea from these people that they are getting charity, and we would also be preserving their dignity and self-respect.

The Parliamentary Secretary said there were differences in treatment of similar cases. This is quite true. He also stated that the entitlement standards varied from county to county. This is equally true. In poor counties such as Mayo and Kerry where there are many poor people the amount collected in rates to give this assistance could not be as great as the amount collected in richer counties, some of which have only about 40 people on the home assistance list. Because of that, it would be fairer to put the extra charge onto the Central Government. £2½ million is a very low price to pay to preserve the self-respect of all needy citizens. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see if this could be done.

It would be much less humiliating for these people to fill in application forms rather than to be cross-examined and harrassed. As Senator Dolan said, there was a time when even the number of hens was counted. This was a very humiliating experience for people who are very sensitive. They have their pride and we should handle them very kindly.

I welcome the section of the Bill which gives the right of appeal. It is a well-known fact that in every community there is hidden poverty. Poverty often exists in the midst of plenty. Some people are ashamed to admit they are getting home assistance and some would starve before they would apply for it. As Senator Killilea said, this new assistance will have to be publicised. The community care groups, the Saint Vincent de Paul Society and district nurses should all be informed of this benefit. They come in daily contact with those people.

The Parliamentary Secretary said he hopes there will be enough flexibility in the Bill to deal with emergencies. When a person is in dire straits, red tape should be abolished even at the expense of making many mistakes. If a mistake is made, there is a way of recouping the money paid out, as in the case of unemployment assistance. If a person makes a wrong statement he has to repay the money over a period. The same applies to the old age pension. We should err on the side of being too lenient rather than being too strict, which has often been the case.

The assessment of means includes free lodgings and free board. I do not agree with that. If you give the full amount of this benefit to the person receiving free lodgings, he or she will then be able to contribute in some measure towards their board and lodgings and this will give them more independence. Otherwise they will feel they are getting charity.

There are cases where old age pensioners, people receiving disability benefit and sick people, have been taken in by non-relatives. People who are so charitable as to take people like those into their homes should be treated far more generously than they are at present. I know of a few cases where this has been done and all they receive is a mere pittance of £3 or £4 a week.

The children of unmarried mothers have been penalised to some extent. I know of a child whose mother deserted her and went to England and married. Her grandmother has been good enough to look after the child. She gets something in the region of £5. That would not buy a pair of shoes. I do not know how the grandmother is able to maintain the child. She would not qualify for an orphan's pension. She is in a sadder situation than many orphans who have sympathetic relatives and friends. The same sympathy is not usually extended to the child of the unmarried mother. Such children are the victims of circumstances. They are penalised by society and they should receive greater help from the State when they are being looked after by an aged relative.

Senator O'Brien made a good point when he said the more responsible parent should get the allowance. Under the unemployment assistance code, if the wife is not getting her due share she can appeal to the Minister and have the money paid directly to her. This can cause family friction. Some clause should be written into the Bill to enable the allowance to be paid to the more responsible parent.

We must have regard to the fact that everyone cannot get the same value for £7.50. They may not be able to cope. Some people can make £7 go as far as £20 but others can only make £7 go as far as £3. This may be because of education, a lack of training in home economics, budgeting and management. We need far more social workers. It is all right for a home assistance officer to assess means but people need help after they get the allowance. Social workers should call on them and help people on low incomes. A maximum of £5 was bad before but I do not know how anyone could possibly exist on £7 a week today. Help should be given to them by way of a follow-up service from social workers. I am glad this has been introduced. It is long overdue. I am glad there is a uniform standard for every person in need. I hope we will get rid of the idea that people are benefiting because of the generosity of heart of an official who happens to call on them.

Mr. Kerrigan

Like other Senators, I welcome this Bill. It is an effort to bring people who have been forgotten for many years into some scheme which will give them back their dignity. We have ignored the plight of these people for too long. In present economic difficulties, normally they would be forgotten. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government for this reason. The pressures on the Government of demands from internal and external agencies are heavy. We are going through a rough time and it would be the easiest thing in the world for them to say this was not one of their priorities. I am proud to say it is a priority and they should be commended for introducing this Bill.

There is an old adage that the poor we will always have with us. I do not accept that. This Bill is an effort to ensure that they are not poor to the extent that the have to wait for a handout not as a right but as a gift. They have this right and they should be given back the dignity they lost.

We could continue to talk about aspects of home assistance until tomorrow morning, but I do not think that is necessary. While we are critical of the home assistance scheme, we do not extend that criticism to the officers who try to administer it. These officers were limited in so far as the legislation did not allow them to do things we wanted them to do at local level. At times, not alone were we frustrated, but the officers were frustrated. This Bill will bring about a change which will enable the health authorities to run the scheme with the help of the backup services about which Senator Ahern spoke, the community care services. Money alone will not change things. A backup service will have to be provided and tying it to the health authority is one way of ensuring that this service will be available. Normally people in this category cannot get out of it. They are not born poor. They are made poor by the system within which they have to live. This is an effort to break that cycle of poverty. It should be commended.

I welcome the provision in section 14 that, in an exceptional case a single payment can be made to people. This is necessary at times to break that cycle. The idea is a good one. Possibly it has its shortcomings. There may be criticisms of the Bill but, all in all, I welcome it. It is a step in the right direction. Whatever anomalies arise will be dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary. We are taking a step—a small one—but one that is long overdue. The Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1847, and the Public Assistance Act, 1939, were the last two measures in which we thought of trying to stop this objectionable method of payment to people who richly deserve better. I welcome the Bill and I hope any anomalies which arise will be corrected.

Mr. Burton

I welcome the Bill, as I am sure all public representatives do. Any improvement in the social welfare code is welcome at any time. This Bill, while it rationalises what has been done already brings in new measures which will be a big improvement. Its introduction brings a new dimension to social welfare. It is brought in at national level and it will abolish differences as between one county council and another. It lays down the basis of payment.

How difficult it was for people to get assistance 20 or 30 years ago. What a compliment it was to get the few shillings, and it was only a few shillings at that time. A great many changes and improvements have taken place since which, indeed, are very welcome. This now copperfastens the policy as regards payments to those people who are eligible for such a payment. In the old days the home assistance officers had a different approach. Some of them were little tin gods, and they gave the impression that they were providing the money out of their own pockets. In latter years, the home assistance officers who were dealing with this matter, from the superintendents to the field officers, had a more sympathtic approach. There might be little imbalance at times but, by and large, they did a very good job. They brought cheer to houses where, under the circumstances, there was little.

An appeal system in the Bill is very welcome. I do not anticipate that there will be a great many appeals. Still, it is well to provide for any that may occur. It will give the applicant a sense of confidence that his case will be properly investigated. The Minister has the option of getting it arbitrated by an officer of the health board, or an individual. Preferably it should be somebody from outside the health board. However, that does not cast any slur on those people. They are all excellent officers. To have a new approach and new consideration from an outside individual would, in itself, be a good thing. It is to be welcomed. It will do away with the frustration of people waiting for something to happen.

I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary will ensure that cases are finalised in a short time. It would not look very well if they went on for a considerable time. This shows real concern for the underprivileged and is a genuine effort to improve the position of less well off people. It recognises those citizens who feel more or less outside the community.

It will do away with the old idea of begging that it was more or less charity, which it is not. Some people are still of the opinion that it would demean them to make the application. This Bill gives them the right to certain payments. That in itself is a good thing because it levels off the payments from one county to another.

In 1970, the Health Act was passed. At that time home assistance was administered by the county councils or the old health authorities. The option was given in the Bill that this function could be either retained or handed over to the regional health boards. Cork County Council were one of the ten councils who retained administration of this service. I am quite sure that was the proper thing to do. We were providing the money and we thought it proper to have a say in its administration.

I am not at all enamoured with the regional health boards—far from it. They have grown into a vast administrative empire remote from the people, and most of the administration is by remote control. I am quite sure that, if the option were given in this Bill, the same councils would retain the administrative side of providing this money for supplementary social welfare payments.

I know some people would consider it unfair to health boards to describe them like that, but it was much easier to get things done when home assistance was being administered by the county councils, to get information and to lodge representations in the proper quarters. There are so many Departments and health boards now that it would take a long time to get around to them all. Those of us who are not members of health boards find it very difficult even though we have been in public life for some years. The option should have been given to the county councils.

All of us have long experience, as public representatives, of coming across these problems. Unfortunately, things are happening in our society which would shock people. I do not want to cast any slurs but we have some people known as shabby genteel. People who are down on their luck find it very difficult to make applications for payments and to look after their own interests. I have had personal experience of more than one case brought to notice of a public representative by a kind neighbour who will always qualify the information by saying:"Do not mention my name." They did not want to be associated with defending their neighbours but unfortunately the case was only all too true. The local doctor is generally very good and indeed the St. Vincent de Paul Society, who in their quiet way investigate these things, but, as I said, they are small in number. This Bill takes away the sense of charity and the lowering of dignity and ensure that people get what they are justly entitled to. Indeed, there are many who criticise the unfortunate people who have to apply for assistance. You will hear them saying "How in the name of goodness can so and so qualify for home assistance?" These critics do not know the circumstances. They never had any problems such as a shortage of food or a shortage of clothes for the children or, indeed, housing accommodation. It is a case of "I'm all right Jack" and let the other fellow look after himself.

This Bill will improve the approach and the attitudes to those people who have to apply for assistance. In Cork we provided a free fuel scheme. It was rather extraordinary that it became a controversial matter as regards the amount of money, not as regards the approach. The cost of providing it in 1974 was £87,000, subject to correction, and this year it was £108,000. We made a check on such schemes within the 26 or 27 council areas and those who provided free fuel were very much in the minority. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of it.

It struck me as significant that there was no scheme in other areas. That, of course, should have been provided. Our neighbours, the Cork Corporation, have such a scheme and they get a full refund. That, of course, applies to the corporation. Our generosity will add a fuel scheme to our home assistance bill for the basic year of 1975. I am not too clear on that, but there is a rumour that it will be our minimum payment for future years. While we were helping where necessary it was not a full scheme, as everybody knows, because it would not be possible. Indeed it is far from free. It is known as a free fuel scheme but has to be paid for. The amount of home assistance being provided by the Cork County Council this year is £108,000, subject to correction. That will be added to our home assistance bill and will become liable for payment as a minimum amount, I presume, plus 40 per cent of this scheme. However, it is necessary to provide it.

I should like to raise the matter of the single woman's allowance. This was welcomed when it was introduced. The Minister and his Department and the Government must be congratulated. Some of these unfortunate women find themselves in very poor circumstances. It was lack of provision that had made them so; probably the mother had died and they had looked after the family. The family grew up and probably one of them married, brought in a wife and the position became untenable for the single woman. She had no rights of any description.

Under this heading at present the statutory limit to payment is £8. This is based on board and lodging. I cannot understand this because, no matter where a person is, they have to have board and lodging. The majority of those unfortunate people are in a bad situation because they helped somebody else. The £8 limit, which is based on a costing of board and lodging, excludes them from the allowance. I cannot understand that.

Mr. R. Barry

Neither can I.

Mr. Burton

These people have no income of any description. We introduce this Bill to improve the position and we immediately debar them from it by the regulation we have. I know two or three people whose claims have not yet been settled. I quote from a letter from the Department:

I am directed by the Minister for Social Welfare to refer to your letter regarding the single women's allowance and to state that your claim was disallowed on the grounds that your weekly means exceed the statutory limit of the allowance.

The regulations provide that any benefit and privilege—board and lodging—is assessable as means. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at that. I cannot see how, if the allowance is there, a person is immediately debarred because somebody has to feed him. That is what it amounts to. I think it is very unfair.

Under the terms of the Bill there is provision for paying rent. I should like to ask one question. Is there provision in the Bill for payment of extreme cases of rent arrears? A home assistance superintendent told me he taught there was some reference to this in the Bill. He also said that, where it is necessary to give assistance for the payment of rent, it should be paid to the landlord.

As regards the payment of assistance of one kind or another, I support the idea that steps should be taken to have it paid to the responsible parent. In all cases the mother is the responsible parent. The nearest tavern will get most of it if it is handed to the father which is very unfair. It does away with what the Minister and the Department are trying to do to bring some relief to these people. It is also suggested that, in order to be eligible, these applicants for social welfare payments have to register at labour exchanges. If they are offered employment—and most social welfare applicants would welcome it—which is not suitable, what becomes of the allowance? Do they opt out or are they pushed out?

It has been mentioned during the debate that payments in some instances are being made through the post. I believe one month is the longest period without a review. I suppose in extreme cases it is three months. The proper approach is to send payments by post because it saves people the trouble of having to queue up at local dispensaries as they did in the good old days.

Section 17 reads:

(1) Where a health board grants supplementary welfare allowances to any person (in this section referred to as "the beneficiary"), every person who is liable to maintain the beneficiary shall be liable to contribute to the health board according to his ability to any allowance so granted.

I might be a little dense now, but I do not understand this. Then it continues:

(2) Whenever a person who is liable to contribute to supplementary welfare allowance granted to the beneficiary fails or neglects to make such contribution, the health board concerned may apply to the District Court for an order directing the person liable to contribute to make such contribution to the allowance so granted.

(3) Before making an application to the District Court pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the health board concerned shall serve notice of the application on the person liable to contribute.

(4) Whenever the District Court is satisfied that the person liable to contribute to a grant of supplementary welfare allowance to the beneficiary is, at the time of the hearing of an application by a health board pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, able to contribute to the allowance so granted, the District Court shall fix the amount of the contribution to be made by the person so liable and shall order the payment thereof to the health board either by way of a lump sum payment or by way of such weekly or monthly instalments as the Court shall think proper.

This is a matter I should like to have clarified.

I support the Bill. As I already said, any improvement in the social welfare code will be supported by all public representatives as they have had such long experience and have seen so many problems.

Mr. Keegan

My contribution to this Bill will be short. Like other speakers I welcome any effort to improve the lot of the weaker sections of our community. This Bill merely gives a new name to one of the oldest systems of public assistance we have. For as long as I can remember I have been hearing about home assistance, public assistance, and this Bill gives a new name to a system that has been in operation in this country since the days of the British occupation. Therefore it is a system that has been used expensively by the people. It is a tragedy in our society that in 1975 we have the people drawing public assistance whose parents and grandparents lived on public assistance. Something more is needed to correct that situation. A more positive effort must be made to induce these people to seek further education and to take up some form of worthwhile employment. It must be demoralising for them and it must also be frustrating for those who administer the scheme to see sons and daughters continuing on where there parents left off. Therefore it is very important to ensure that the scheme is administered properly. Senator O'Brien said yesterday, and I agree with him, that some form of crash course is needed to induce the officers who administer the scheme to adopt a different approach to the people who apply for public assistance or social welfare benefits. Unfortunately, we have many people still administering this scheme, which is a continuation of the older scheme, who have never received the proper training.

We must remember we are dealing with the weaker sections of our community, with people who are not in a position to "fight their corner", as the saying goes. They are often abused and humiliated by angry social welfare officers. As somebody said, one would think it was his own money he was paying out. Unfortunately, I also have experience of that. I have seen women in tears after meeting the social welfare officer, and being abused in public. That is a most degrading situation. I hope the Minister ensures that all the officers administering this scheme will receive specific instructions to deal with people in a more humane manner. That is much more important than the actual payment. I agree entirely with Senator Burton that we should use the post because many poor people are too embarrassed to go into a crowd, and they stand in the dispensary corridor. They would be happier to receive benefits through the post.

There are also people who are incapable of travelling to the dispensary to pick up their allowances. We must get away from that system of congregations at street corners or dispensary doors, this system of queuing for payment of this mere pittance which they have been receiving over the years. We need to instil some form of confidence in those people. They need reassurance that they are citizens, that they are wanted and respected in our society, and that there is need for them to be exposed to the abuses or moods of the welfare officer, or the health inspector, as they prefer to be called. To tell Mary so-and-so in front of a crowd "Come back on Friday and I will give you something. I have nothing for you now", is not the right way to treat people. The weaker sections of the community are entitled to sympathy and understanding and this needs to be instilled in the minds of the officers who administer this scheme.

The method of screening applicants for assistance is also worthy of comment. I have known cases where people applied through their public representatives for public assistance. Then the local officer visits the applicant's house. If it is clean, and he sees a radio or a television there, he claims there is no evidence of poverty. The son or daughter in England or America may have sent home the price of that television set or radio and may have sent some new items of household equipment. These people should not be penalised because they keep their homes clean, and show no evidence of poverty. The Parliamentary Secretary should ensure that the terms of reference given to those officers are based on human understanding. That is very important. There can be poverty in a house that is clean and tidy.

Another aspect in the administration of this scheme is that many officers are reluctant to cater for people who seek benefits through their local representatives. That is important, and worthy of comment. We are public representatives, and as members of local authorities are approached time and time again by people seeking public assistance and social welfare allowances. They are abused by the local officer because they went to Councillor, Deputy or Senator so-and-so. They are told "Why did you not come to me and keep away from those people?" That is entirely wrong. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me. As public representatives, people expect service from us and the only way we can give a service is by ensuring that those people get their right. Therefore a reminder should be given to the officers administering the scheme to humanise their activities as far as possible. By-passing public representatives cuts out the democratic process. That is very important today when we hear so much about bureaucracy, totalitarianism and dictatorships.

The administrators of this scheme should always heed the public representatives who are responsible people and who are, after all, only trying to help the weaker sections of the community. That is what this Bill is all about—helping the less well-off sections of our community who are unable to help themselves. The coming year in particular is going to be a critical one for this scheme. The costs of this Bill will soar. because of the very high figure of unemployed and the thousands of school-leavers unable to secure employment. Many of those school-leavers may very well be the sons and daughters of people already on public assistance.

This scheme will need to be well administered in order to change the old system. I believe that the full cooperation of everybody involved is necessary. I am slightly worried about this Bill because I feel it will create a more top-heavy administration. In the old days the scheme was administered by the county councils, or local authorities. The county manager usually had the last say. Controlled at local level meant dealing with the one county or borough and made administration easier. The function of the health board is becoming more difficult to administer because of the number of bodies involved—the local authority, the health board and the Department of Social Welfare. Therefore more administrative costs will be involved. I have always criticised the health boards because of their top-heavy administration. Senator Burton mentioned that fact earlier. Every effort should be made to simplify the methods of administering the scheme. A top-heavy administration involves more and more costs. As a result, the people for whom the scheme is meant may not derive the full benefit from it. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that maximum benefit goes to the people who require it.

Special instructions should be given to all the administrators of the scheme to speed up the methods of screening and processing. Only last year I heard of an application which took eight months to process. I made many phone calls, wrote many letters, and in the end I had to spend one full day travelling between the headquarters of the Midland Health Board in Tullamore and the local office in Mullingar. In the end I succeeded in getting a few bob for a man who was entitled to it. I also succeeded in having his arrears paid out as well. These things should not happen. I am convinced that, unless the Parliamentary Secretary gets tough with those people and tells them to cut out all the red tape, people will continue to suffer hardship because of these factors. We have many people in the social service who want their t's crossed and i's dotted. In other words; everything must be above board before they are prepared to sanction a payment.

The method of appeals is very important. In the old days if you were dissatisfied with a decision of the local health inspector you had to resort to the county manager, who, in most cases, was sympathetic and understanding. It is a little bit more difficult now to appeal, because in most cases the SAO will not override the decision of the local officer despite the fact that the evidence submitted by some local representative will be authentic and will be the truth. Nevertheless they will not yield or bow to a public representative. It is a sorry situation that is entering into the administration of any scheme.

This scheme will also make provision for people who have been refused unemployment assistance. It is very difficult to establish unemployment. You know all that is involved in the processing and screening of applicants for unemployment assistance. I discovered of late that people who do not qualify for unemployment assistance, because they failed to comply with the regulations which says they were not available for work and so on, are now going over to this new scheme and have been on it for some time. That is going to impose further liabilities on the different contributors to the scheme. I would like to see free travel provided for the beneficiaries under this Bill. They are an underprivileged section of our community and they should be entitled to the same facilities as old age pensioners and so on. It would help to give them a new confidence that they are being looked upon as equal citizens, and I believe that is worthy of further consideration by the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials in the Department.

Again there are many additional applicants on the list. A surprisingly large number of people have come back from England with their wives and families and they will increase the demand on the services available. These people have been working there for years, going from job to job. They have no social welfare benefits of any kind and they have nothing to draw from England. That imposes a further strain on our resources.

The question of the type of person who will get these benefits is very important. If a husband who is addicted to drink draws the allowance and gets no further than the local, his wife and family may be in great need. Therefore, it is important that the officers give the money to the person who will handle it in the most useful way, and in nine cases out of ten it is the mother in the home. The social welfare officer should be brought on a crash course to humanise their activities and to instruct them how to administer the scheme.

This Bill is a continuation of one of the oldest systems we have. One thing we must try to do is to create a situation whereby people will no longer need these social welfare benefits. The only way that it can be done is through job training and the creation of suitable employment, so that those people for whom unemployment has become a way of life, may be put back into productive employment. In County Westmeath I knew fathers and mothers who were on public assistance, and at this present time their sons and daughters are on public assistance. The only way such people can be uplifted is by retraining. It is unfortunate too that the sons and daughters of those people do not avail of secondary education despite the fact that it is there for them.

This scheme is going to be widely used this year because we have families who have returned from England, because school leavers will find it difficult to secure employment and because the numbers unemployed will continue to rise. The difficulty will arise continually in regard to the people who qualify for unemployment assistance and the people who qualify for public assistance under the various health boards.

Finally, I would say the scheme will go along towards serving people's needs while unemployed. However, in this day and age something more has to be done to convince those people that it is much more important to seek productive employment. The answer, of course, will be that the employment is not there for them, but some of them need to be convinced that there is much more to the dignity of the human being than living permanently on those benefits. Sons and daughters who are in comfortable employment and sheltered positions should be convinced that they have an obligation to help their elders.

In European countries in particular there is a greater awareness of family responsibility. People there make a special effort to look after the aged, sick and infirm. Unfortunately, that is not the situation here. The tendency is to put the responsibility on the State and that is not right. If some father or mother rears a family who are fortunate enough to secure sheltered positions, they have an obligation to provide for their parents, who have given them birth. Those people should be alerted to their responsibilities in life.

Mr. Markey

Public assistance, although it has been a very small service financially, in practical terms and in the help it has given the people, has played a very important part in our society since the introduction of the 1939 Act. That Act was just a continuation of the definition and the terms of the Victorian Poor Law system which the English foisted on this country in the 19th century, but I think there is now a greater need than ever to have updated legislation and to have an improved system of benefits. People will always look to such legislation if they cannot provide for themselves or their dependants, and there is therefore a demand that society should help them out.

A lot has been said about the eradication of poverty, an aim which is in conflict with the age-old dictum that the poor we will always have with us. I am not inclined to go along with that. The eradication of poverty to zero or as near as possible will largely depend on the will power and determination we put into that effort. Social welfare, like education, is something we are not at times aggressive enough in our determination and willpower to pursue to good and positive results. What is needed is a change in social attitudes, a positive change which will reinforce the emphasis that any Government can put on the eradication of poverty. It is only as a result of a change of attitude by the public, a change that will channel its way through to Government activity, that we will see a real eradication of poverty.

Social welfare is something which gets its share of negative criticism. It is often said that people who receive social welfare benefits should do a certain amount of work in return for these benefits. I do not agree with that attitude. It is an easy attitude for taxpayers to adopt when they feel they are being unduly harassed by the amount of tax they have to pay. I do not regard it as either feasible or in accordance with the dignity of the human being that a person who spent 35 years of his life standing behind a shop counter should, if he loses his job, have to go and take up a pick and shovel and work in a completely different manner than he has been accustomed to. People who make this kind of criticism should bear in mind the dignity of the human individual in times of misfortune. It is a very precious thing in the eyes of that individual and it should always be regarded as such in the eyes of the society in which he lives.

People who are in receipt of social welfare assistance should always be aware of their rights. The National Social Services Council have done a tremendous amount of good in this respect. I was delighted to see that a number of local authorities this year have given some assistance from the rates by contribution to these social services councils. For far too long people have not known what their rights were and all too often were subject to the influence of politicians who could tell them: "This was something we felt like giving to you," when in fact it was their right. The dignity of the recipients must always be respected. It must be seen to be enforced from the very moment the social welfare officer interviews the recipient.

The training of officers involved in this work is very vital. The home assistance officers under the 1939 Act had no great amount of training for the important service they carried out. There is a greater need than ever before for the employment of social welfare officers and social workers generally in health boards.

There is no doubt that the Government have made great strides since 1973 in the field of social welfare. Almost two-thirds of the recommendations outlined in the Report of the Commission on the Status of Women as regards social welfare have been effected through legislation. It has been said that this additional amount given in the Bill will be an unduly and heavy impost on the rates. The answer to that can be seen if one looks at the reliefs that have been given since 1973 by the Government in regard to rates, namely, through the easement of means tests whereby people can more easily qualify for social welfare benefits and the reduction of qualifying age limits for pensions. All these have meant that these people had not to resort to public assistance, which was a 100 per cent charge on the rates. They were able to come under the other social welfare benefits thereby relieving rates to that extent. There will no longer be the 100 per cent charge that existed since 1939, any increase over the 1975 level being met 60 per cent by the Government. That is a commendable effort on the part of the Government.

I welcome this legislation. It is in accordance with an objective we should always aim at, namely, a change of attitude towards the plight of the less privileged and the people who cannot cater for themselves or their dependants in our society.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

The discussion on the Second Stage of the Bill has been very constructive. All of the contributions made, with the exception of one I will refer to later, showed a concern and consideration and a degree of knowledge and compassion for the position in which people who would be covered by the provisions of this Bill find themselves. While it might not be appropriate for me to say so, I found the discussion here in the Seanad on this Bill far more encouraging and knowledgeable than the one that took place in the Dáil. That may have been because the Second Stage was taken in the Dáil during the Mayo by-election and tended to distract some contributors from the main purpose of the discussion taking place.

A number of issues have been raised by Senators during the discussion. One that has been referred to on at least two occasions is the saying: "The poor we shall always have with us". I was glad to hear the Senators who referred to this saying they rejected it. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that there is sufficient in our country to ensure that every single man, woman and child need not go hungry, need not be without sufficient shelter, need not have insufficient clothing. The fact that we have substantial numbers of people in our society who suffer from this neglect is due to the way we run our society. We profess to be a Christian people and yet, because of the way we organise and run our society, these ills are with us. They are not ills visited on the Irish people by God. They come about through the activities of individuals and sections within our society. They are man-made problems. They lie within the capacity of man to solve them, if we have the will to do so, if we have the will to live up to the Christian beliefs which most of us profess to have.

The Bill is a major step forward in the code of social welfare. It replaces a Bill that in my opinion was designed to degrade persons who sought assistance under it, the Home Assistance Bill. One of the stronger pressure groups for the reform of that Bill were the officers who administered home assistance. It should be said that they administered home assistance within the confines of the law as it stood and they found it very difficult to do. They, more than anyone else, were aware of the defects and the humiliating position in which people seeking assistance under that Act were forced to place themselves. It is proper that we should acknowledge the compassionate and concerned way in which the vast majority of these officers discharged these duties under an Act which they found difficult and distasteful to administer on many occasions.

Another point that was raised during the discussion was the need for training, and I fully accept this. The appointment of home assistance officers in the past was not done with any great regard for the necessary qualifications and the duties that person would be asked to discharge. We have had discussions with the organisations catering for home assistance officers and as a result a working party has been meeting for some time now with a view to drawing up recruiting standards and a training programme for those who will in future administer this Bill, which will replace the old Home Assistance Bill.

I made reference to the one exception, that was Senator Garrett's speech last night. I do not want to dwell too long on Senator Garrett's contribution. I have often wondered how the Home Assistance Act operated for so long in a modern society. I wondered how an Act which was first framed in 1847, immediately after the Famine, was again looked at in 1939 and amended somewhat and was then ignored up to the present time. I listened to the contributions of Senator Ahern. Senator Killilea.

Senator Dolan and other Fianna Fáil speakers, and thought they were very fine contributions. They showed a degree of knowledge and concern for those who availed of the Home Assistance Act, and I wondered how the Government which they had supported could have ignored the terribly degrading effect that the operation of the home assistance scheme had on some of our people. Senator Garrett answered that question for me. One could see that in 1847 the people who thought up the Poor Law system were progressive people in their own time. They were people who were concerned and they operated within the constraints of the then current social thinking, but it is somewhat surprising and depressing to find a man in 1975 with the same mentality as they had then stalking the corridors of Seanad Éireann. That is what I think of Senator Garrett's contribution.

This Bill is a major step forward in reforming our whole social welfare code. Senator Garrett said it did nothing to assist those in need, that its only effect was to transfer more liabilities by way of rates on to local authorities. We should have a look at what the Bill will do in replacing the Home Assistance Act. First, it will give applicants, as a right, a minimum rate—not a princely sum—of £7.75. No one will have a wild time on £7.75 but it is 75 per cent of an increase on the average payment that is now being paid under home assistance, and 75 per cent of an increase is fairly considerable even if it is based on a very low rate.

However, Senator Garrett spoke about the abuses under the social welfare system, and undoubtedly there are some abuses of it. It is impossible to administer any kind of liberal scheme without leaving it open to some abuses. My opinion is that the abuses are small and not of any great significance in financial terms. But there are abuses of other systems by people who can far less justify abusing them than people on the lowest possible income in our community. There are abuses of our tax system by company directors and people with very substantial incomes. There are abuses of all sorts of things; but it would not, I hope, be argued in this day and age that we should not make any advance in our social welfare system because it might open it up to some small measure of abuse.

Senator Garrett spoke of a man in his own part of the country who had a wife and 17 children and he deplored the fact that under the terms of this Bill that man would receive £47 a week. I ask anyone with any degree of imagination to consider what would be the standard of living of 19 people living on £47 per week. How could anyone deplore the fact that they were being given so much money? It is only £2 odd per week per person. I can only say I was encouraged after that contribution to hear Members of his own party repair some of the damage and injustices he had done to those in receipt of social welfare. I am glad to know his views are not representative of those of the majority of his colleagues in this House.

Business suspended at 12.50 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Cluskey

Before the adjournment I mentioned some of the new features covered in the Bill, which is to replace the Home Assistance Act, the main features under the Bill are that a uniform national basic rate is provided, a uniform method of assessment of means and, most important, the right of appeal by an applicant who has been refused benefit. Many Senators mentioned that postage and payment by cheque would be of considerable help in eradicating the stigma that has been associated with the old Home Assistance Act and I accept this point fully. I did mention in the other House that, under regulations to be provided under the terms of the Bill, as far as possible—and this would be in the vast majority of cases —recipients will be paid by cheque. It is not possible to do it in all cases but with the exception of a small number of people it will be possible to do it, and this will help considerably in eradicating the stigma associated with the home assistance scheme.

A number of speakers mentioned the financing of the scheme and spoke in critical terms of the fact that the local authorities would be asked to contribute 40 per cent of the increased cost of operating the scheme. I do not accept that criticism. Up to now, as the House is aware, the full cost of the home assistance scheme was borne by the local authorities. Under this Bill of expenditure based on expenditure in 1975, as the base year, and any additional expenditure over and above that, 60 per cent will be borne by the Exchequer and only 40 per cent borne proportionately amongst 31 local authorities. It is very easy to exaggerate the effect and the impact that this will have on local rates. Far from putting a burden or an additional burden on the rates, for the first time the Exchequer is accepting responsibility for the major portion of expenditure under the terms of this Bill.

Senator Garrett mentioned the impact that it would have in his own county. It is only fair to say that in Mayo a considerable effort has been made by Mayo County Council over the last two or three years to increase the moneys payable through home assistance. They argue—and one can understand why—that had they not been so active over the last two or three years the bill they will be presented with after the operation of this scheme would not be so great. I appreciate the efforts that they have made in Mayo to pay greater amounts on their home assistance, but I think that they are losing sight of the fact that under the terms of this Bill an adequate or reasonably adequate basic sum can be paid, at least one that is considerably more than is paid now and the State is prepared to take up 60 per cent of the increased expenditure. Senator Garrett during his contribution complained bitterly that in one instance that he knew, and there were others, a person had been awarded £1 per week.

Senator Garrett and other speakers asked why take 1975 as the base year and they asked that 1972 or 1973 be taken as the base year. If they examined that argument a little more closely they would see that it is greatly to the advantage of the local authorities that 1975 would be taken, because if you look at the development in the social welfare code over the last two to three years you will see that a considerable number of people have been taken into the code. I mention just deserted wives, unmarried mothers, prisoners' dependants, single women, plus the easing of the means test which made it possible for tens of thousands of people to qualify for old age pensions, and all these people who were not previously covered by the social welfare code proper would have had resort to home assistance. The number of people in 1975 as compared with 1973 who had no other means of sustaining themselves has decreased quite sharply, so it is to the advantage of the local authorities that 1975 should be taken as the base year.

I do not want to delay the House except to try to answer some of the points made. Senator O'Brien, Senator Killilea and others were somewhat disturbed that dependants of people who may be engaged in a trade dispute would qualify for allowance under the provisions of this Bill. I think that they would agree that it would not be the desire of our society to wage economic war against women and children dependants of people who may be engaged in a trade dispute. One would be quite justified in ensuring that State funds were not used to pursue an industrial dispute or to subsidise an industrial dispute. Under the terms of the Bill this cannot happen. But there have been in the past and there undoubtedly will be in the future, cases—I have known some of them personally—where people engaged in a legitimate trade dispute were members of organisations—or indeed may not have been members of organisations—which could not give them any financial assistance during that dispute. The underlying principle behind this Bill is, as I believe it should be, that the main qualification for assistance and allowance is need. Undoubtedly people who found themselves in that position qualified under that criteria. I do not think that one would wish that in such circumstances the very necessaries of life would be withheld from women and children who were dependants of the person engaged in a trade dispute.

I do not think that there is much more that has come up during the discussion except one point. Senator Killilea spoke about two women— sister, I think he said—and gave an example that one woman had married a small farmer. The other sister had married an industrial worker. They were engaged in their business of providing a livelihood for themselves and their families. When it came to hospitalisation, particularly with regard to maternity cases, one qualified for maternity allowances while the other did not. I accept that there is a problem in relation to a considerable section of our population who are not covered by the social welfare security code. I refer to people who fall into the category of the self-employed, many of whom have not got any great income and many of them would be earning less than the average industrial worker. It is a great defect in our social welfare code. The Government are examining this situation very closely at the moment. We hope to bring out a discussion document on the question of the self-employed which would eventually lead to their inclusion within our social welfare code. It is a very complex and difficult problem in so far as the proportion of people here who fall into the category of the self-employed is in the region of 31 per cent. If one compares that with the percentage figure in Great Britain, which is 7½ per cent, you will see the magnitude of the problem it presents to us. It is one we must tackle to ensure that the widest possible coverage and protection are given to people who, when faced with these normal contingencies of illness and so on which stop them from working for a period, find themselves in very severe economic difficulties.

I should like to refer to the contributions that have been made. I consider them, in the main, to be of a very high standard, very well-informed, and they showed considerable concern by Members of the Seanad for people who will benefit under the provisions of this Bill. I recommend its acceptance to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.