Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1980

Vol. 93 No. 11

Social Welfare Bill, 1980: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I am very happy that my first appearance in this House is to promote a Bill which will make significant improvements in our social welfare services, and be of particular help to those genuinely in need of them.

Before I deal with the provisions of the Bill I would like to explain to Senators why this year's Social Welfare Bill has an unfamiliar look. It contains some complex technical sections which are designed to facilitate the consolidation of all social welfare legislation. As Senators are aware, the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill, 1976, is with the Standing Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills but four further statutes have been enacted since it was introduced in 1976. Arrangements to have these Acts and the present Bill incorporated into a revised measure are well advanced. I propose, in due course, to withdraw the present consolidation Bill and to introduce the revised Bill. This will assist the Standing Joint Committee in their examination of the matter.

The principal technical changes arise out of the creation of a new Schedule—the Eighth Schedule—to the Social Welfare Act, 1952. This new Schedule sets out the rates of social assistance payments on the same lines as the rates of social insurance payments are set out in the Third Schedule to the 1952 Act. It will thus be possible to provide for future changes in rates of assistance by amending the Schedule without making changes in the main text of the Principal Act or other statutes. Before I leave this point, I should mention that the technical or structural changes in themselves do not affect entitlements under the social welfare code.

The new Bill will give effect to the increases in the rates of social welfare payments and other changes in the social welfare schemes announced in the budget. The explanatory memorandum which accompanies the Bill sets these out and to facilitate comparison includes tables which in previous years were incorporated in the text of the Bill itself. I trust that Senators will have found the memorandum of assistance in their consideration of this legislation.

During last year the Government's commitment to keep social welfare payments in line with increases in the cost of living was fulfilled and, in addition, real improvements were brought about in the value of these payments. The increases now being provided for—25 per cent on the long-term payments and 20 per cent on the short-term payments will continue this process.

Retirement pensioners, old age pensioners and widow pensioners and other persons on long-term payments are generally regarded as requiring special attention in the social welfare context and I am sure that the desirability of higher increases in their case will be readily acknowledged.

I should point out that these percentage increases are on top of the temporary increases of about 6 per cent provided from October of last year under the terms of the national understanding. The decision to continue these increases means that the annual rate of increase over the rates provided from April 1979 exceeds 31 per cent for long-term and 26 per cent for short-term payments.

I would now like to illustrate the effects of the increases on individual payments and to express them in cash terms which is the form in which they will be judged by recipients.

The maximum weekly personal rate of non-contributory old age pension is being raised by £4.20 to £21.00 for persons aged under 80 years and by £4.50 to £22.50 for those over 80. The reduced rates of pension payable where weekly means exceed £6 are also being increased. A further step is being taken this year towards rationalising the scales of means and rates of pension. Since last year's improvement, pensions are reduced by £1.30 for every increase of £1 in means. Under the present Bill, the stages between rates will now be lowered to £1.20. This will extend the scale of means and pensions to include six additional rates of pension and reduced rates of pension will be payable up to a means limit of £23. For a pensioner with qualified children, of course, the means limit will be higher. The maximum rate of payment in respect of an adult dependant under 66 years of age is being increased by £2.10 to £10.55. The overall maximum payment for a pensioner with a dependent spouse will, therefore, go up to £31.55 and to £33.05 if the pensioner is over 80 years. The additions to pension payable to pensioners with qualified children are being raised by £1.15 to £5.70 a week for each of the first two children and by 90p to £4.40 a week for each subsequent child.

This year a number of further changes to individual schemes have been found to be possible. Two such improvements affecting blind persons are being made in the Old Age Pensions Acts. The qualifying age for blind pension is being reduced from 21 to 18 years, and the amount of a blind person's earnings which may be disregarded, when means are being assessed for pension purposes is being increased.

Section 6 of the Bill provides for the increases in the general rates of unemployment assistance. The increase in the personal weekly rate of assistance will bring the maximum up by £2.85 to £17.00 in urban areas and by £2.75 to £16.45 in rural areas. The rates for adult dependants are being increased to £12.25 and £11.95 respectively and the rates for dependent children to £5.30 for each of the first two and £4.10 for others. Thus the rate of assistance for a married couple with two children is being increased by £6.70 to £39.85 in an urban area and by £6.55 to £39. in a rural area.

The means of certain smallholders in specified disadvantaged areas may be assessed notionally for unemployment assistance purposes. The assessment is based on land valuation but only where the valuation is £20 or less. In these cases, special rates of unemployment assistance are payable. The notional system of assessment is a concession having regard both to the present levels of farm incomes and the means test for unemployment assistance generally.

The special rates payable to smallholders who continue to avail of notional assessment will be maintained at the level payable from October 1979. The additional increase of 20 per cent will only apply to those smallholders on factual assessment.

Any smallholder whose means are assessed on a notional basis may have his means assessed on a factual basis if this would be to his advantage and some 3,000 smallholders have already opted for factual assessment and are receiving unemployment assistance at the rates generally applicable. Smallholders on factual assessment will receive the general 20 per cent increase provided in the Bill.

Sections 7 and 8 of the Bill deal with two improvements in the unemployment assistance scheme being provided this year.

Section 7 will increase the amount of earnings from seasonal fishing disregarded in assessing means for unemployment assistance purposes to a maximum of £120 as against £80 at present.

The six months' continuous residence requirement for unemployment assistance purposes is being removed by section 8.

Sections 9 and 11 provide for increases in all rates of non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions and other improvements. The improvements in widows' pensions automatically apply to the social assistance allowances for deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives.

The maximum weekly personal rate of widow's non-contributory pension is being increased by £4.20 to £21 and the amount for each qualified child by £1.40 to £6.90. Provision is also made for reductions of £1.20, as opposed to £1.30 at present, in pension for each £1 increase in means and for additional rates of pension.

Section 13 applies a 25 per cent increase to the social assistance allowance payable to single women aged between 58 and 66 bringing the maximum from £14.65 to £18.30, and section 14 applies a 20 per cent increase in the rates of supplementary welfare allowance.

Section 10 provides that a deserted wife who becomes widowed will qualify automatically for widow's non-contributory pension at the same rate as the deserted wife's allowance which was in payment to her. Under present procedures, a woman in receipt of a deserted wife's allowance whose husband dies must, if she wishes to obtain a widow's non-contributory pension, apply specifically for it; this entails a reinvestigation of means. The means test and the rates of payment are the same in both schemes, and I consider that title to widow's non-contributory pension should be conferred on such widows with the minimum of formalities. While the provision will convey no monetary advantage, I know that the simplification of procedures will be welcomed. It will, of course, be open to a widow to apply for a reinvestigation of her means if she considers that a higher rate of pension should be paid to her.

The present definition of orphan for social welfare purposes includes a child whose parents are dead and who does not reside with a step-parent. It also includes a child whose mother dies while deserted wife's allowance or benefit was payable to her and whose father does not wholly or mainly maintain him. Cases have arisen where a woman who was deserted by her husband dies but, prior to her death, had not applied for, or had not qualified for deserted wife's allowance or benefit. Similar situations have occurred where a husband was deserted by the wife and, on his death, the children were left without rights to benefit. Accordingly, it is proposed to expand the definition of "orphan" to include the child of a deceased parent, who had been deserted prior to death where the other parent has abandoned the child. The provisions in sections 12 and 22 of the Bill will enable orphan's non-contributory pension, orphan's contributory allowance or orphan's pension under the occupational injuries scheme to be paid in respect of such children.

I will now turn to the increases in the rates of contributory benefits and pensions under the social insurance scheme which are provided by section 15 of the Bill. The personal rate of disability and unemployment benefit is increased by £3.40 to £20.45 and a married couple will now receive £33.70, an increase of £5.60 per week. Allowances for children with these benefits are also being increased.

The personal rate of invalidity pension is being increased by £4.40 to £22.05 with an addition of £14.30 for an adult dependant, while maternity allowance, which is a short-term benefit, is being increased to £20.45 in line with disability benefit.

The new personal rate of widow's contributory pension and deserted wife's benefit, will be £22.50 and, for those aged 80 or over, £24.05. The additions to widow's contributory pension and deserted wife's benefit for qualified children are being raised to £7.50 for each child. A widow or deserted wife with three qualified children will now get £45, an increase of £9 per week.

The personal rates of contributory old age and retirement pensions for persons under age 80 go up to £24.50 and, for those over 80, to £26.25. The addition to pension for an adult dependant is being raised to £15.65, where the adult dependant is under pensionable age, and to £18.30 where the adult dependant is aged 66 or over. Accordingly, a married couple both over pensionable age will get £42.80 as compared with £34.25 at present and, if the pensioner is aged 80, the new rate will be £44.55, an increase of £8.90 per week. In the case of these pensions, the increased amounts for child dependants will be £6.40 for each of the first two children and £5.30 for each subsequent child.

All the personal rates contained in section 15 of the Bill are the maximum rates, payable where the contribution conditions for the benefit concerned are fully satisfied. Most people qualify for the maximum rates, but when the claimants' insurance records are deficient, reduced personal rates are payable. As is normal, these rates will be increased by regulations. I would remind Senators that it is only the personal rates of benefit that are reduced where there is a deficient record. The allowances for a dependent wife and children remain unchanged.

A persistent criticism of the disability benefit scheme is that it can act as an inducement to malingering. It is alleged that some workers claim benefit in respect of unnecessarily frequent short absences from work.

At present, a person is disqualified for payment of benefit for the first three days of illness unless those days fall within 13 weeks of a previous period of illness or unemployment. A person can thus get disability benefit from the first day of a sick absence occurring within three months of the end of the previous claim even though the second absence may be as short as three days. In order to tighten control in this area section 17 of the Bill will apply the three waiting days to every claim to disability benefit, except in the case of a person who becomes ill while unemployed or who suffers a relapse within three days of returning to work. The position in regard to waiting days for the purposes of unemployment benefit and injury benefit under the occupational injuries benefit scheme remains unchanged.

Rates of benefit under the occupational injuries scheme, including amounts in respect of adult and child dependants, are being increased by section 20. The increases being applied are in line with the increases under the general social insurance scheme. However, this year, for the first time, disablement benefit is being treated as a long-term benefit and the 25 per cent increase is being applied to it.

The allowance payable in respect of a prescribed relative giving full-time care and attention to an incapacitated pensioner who has attained the age of 66 years is being raised to £11.75 and in the case of a pensioner living alone, the additional allowance is being increased to £1.65.

Beneficiaries under the schemes of unemployment benefit and assistance, disability benefit, invalidity pension, injury benefit and supplementary welfare allowances can be affected by an anomaly as regards entitlement to an increase for an adult dependant. This is being dealt with by sections 6, 14, 19 and 23 of this Bill. A beneficiary under these schemes who is single or widowed or receiving deserted wife's benefit or allowance may be paid an increase—known as a "housekeeper's allowance"—in respect of a woman who is wholly or mainly maintained by the beneficiary to have the care of at least one child. However, certain married persons who are separated from their spouses cannot at present be paid the allowance even though their circumstances may be analogous to single or widowed persons. The amendments provide for the payment of the "housekeeper's allowance" to married persons in appropriate circumstances.

The amounts of children's allowances are being increased again this year. The monthly allowance for the first child will go up by £1 to £4.50 and by £1.50 to £7 for each subsequent child. The new monthly payment for a family of three children, for example, goes up to £18.50, an increase of £4.

Children's allowances, which are paid directly to the mother, constitute an important source of income for large families particularly in the lower and middle income groups. The adjustment in the child income tax allowance announced in the budget statement will ensure that the full value of the increase in children's allowance is directed mainly towards these families. The increased rates will be effective from 1 July 1980.

Section 25 provides for increases in the grants paid in respect of multiple births which, at present, are fixed at £100 in respect of triplets and £150 on the birth of quadruplets or any higher number. These amounts are to be increased to £300 and £400 respectively from 1 April 1980.

Section 26 raises the earnings ceiling from £5,500 to £7,000. The rates of pay-related social insurance contributions are also being increased to meet the employer's and employee's share of the cost of the improvements in the social insurance schemes. The effective increase of 0.8 per cent on the current rate of contributions, 11.2 per cent, applicable to persons eligible for all benefits, will be borne by employers and employees by increases in their contributions of 0.7 per cent and 0.1 per cent respectively.

While the section provides for the new rates of contribution by the substitution of "3.5 per cent" for "3.2 per cent" and "8.5 per cent" for "7.5 per cent" in section 6 (1) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, I should point out to Senators that the present rates of contributions are not 3.2 per cent for employees and 7.5 per cent for employers. The rates were, in fact, temporarily increased to 3.4 per cent and 7.8 per cent respectively by section 5 (2) of the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1978, for the tax year ending on 5 April 1980. This provision will lapse next month leaving the original rates in section 6 (1) to be increased from 6 April 1980 by this Bill.

Increases are also being provided in the rates of voluntary contributions. All these changes will be effective from 6 April, 1980. The new rates and the increased earnings limit are expected to increase the yield from contributions by £44 million to an estimated £380 million in the current year.

Any necessary increases in the special or "modified" rates of contributions payable in respect of certain employments, for example, civil servants, outworkers, certain share-fishermen, will be made by regulation.

The overall cost to the Exchequer of the provisions of this Bill will be £90.2 million in 1980. Of this amount, social assistance will account for £57.3 millio, all of which will be borne by the Exchequer. The total increase in the cost of the social insurance changes is expected to be £77 million and will be met out of the social insurance fund. This fund is financed by contributions from employers and employees and by an annual subvention from the Exchequer. As increases in pay-related contributions from employers and employees will yield an estimated £44 million, the extra cost to be borne by the Exchequer will be about £33 million in the current year.

The changes in the Bill which I have outlined can be summarised as the increase of long-term payments such as pensions, both contributory and non-contributory, by 25 per cent, the increase of short-term payments such as disability and unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance by 20 per cent; the increase of children's allowances by an average of about 28 per cent; the extension of entitlements for various categories, for example blind persons, widows, orphans, seasonal fishermen and the taking of measures to prevent abuse of the disability benefit scheme.

I am satisfied that the provisions of the Bill will bring about a real improvement in the social welfare system, and I, therefore, have pleasure in recommending it to Seanad Éireann.

Mr. Howard

The Minister began his speech by informing us that it was his first occasion visiting the Seanad. May I, therefore, say that he is very welcome here and extend to him my very sincere good wishes in his position.

I do not intend to oppose the Bill that we are now debating. I, in fact, welcome the modest increases that will become available under this Bill and the minor improvements that have taken place in certain aspects of the social welfare legislation. When we look at the situation of the people who are on social welfare we think particularly of the old, the needy, the widows, deserted wives and the unemployed. When we relate their situation to the actual amount of money that we make available to them I am justified in saying that it is a rather meagre sum on which these people are expected to exist.

When we talk of social welfare recipients we are dealing with the weakest and, in fact, the most deprived section of our people. When we were debating the 1979 Bill I said that I am not always satisfied that we as a community or as a society fulfil the duty we owe to these particular people. I believe that we constantly fail to recognise that what we expect these people to survive on is totally inadequate to provide a decent standard of living and that, by doing so, we often fail as well to recognise the contribution that some of these people, particularly those on old age pensions, have made to the building of this nation. As a community we avail far too often of the slightest excuse to pass on to others the responsibility that we owe to these people. It is tragic that the old, the needy and the infirm amongst us have to depend on the charity of relatives or neighbours to get them through difficult times.

I should like very briefly to look at the scale of income that will be available to some of these categories of people under the Bill. And while the sums given, as the Minister has said, represent a certain percentage increase we could, at this stage, question if that increase will be adequate should inflation continue to increase over the coming months. Will the increase that has been granted be sufficient to maintain the standard, poor and all as it is, of living that is available to the people who will benefit from this Bill?

When we look at the pension that is available to the retired, the old age contributory people, to persons under 80 years, we are talking of a weekly income of £24.50. If a person is totally dependent on that sum of £24.50 to buy food, clothing and provide heating and cooking facilities then obviously that person is on the poverty line. The invalidity pension will be £22.05 per week. Unless the person who is dependent on that figure has available to him or her the charity of a family or neighbours that £22.05 will, in fact, be totally inadequate to provide that person with any acceptable standard of living.

I would like to refer to the non-contributory old-age pension for those under 80 years of age which will be £21. The observations I have made in relation to the other cases that I have referred to are valid again. In relation to unemployment assistance the differential, small as it is, between the rate payable in urban areas and in rural areas will still continue. I asked for the justification of this difference last year, and I ask for it again. Even though the difference may be small why should it exist at all? A disabled person's maintenance allowance, again, at £20.05 per week is a rather inadequate sum to provide any reasonable standard of living.

I am disappointed that the opportunity was not availed of to bring about a few improvements in the social welfare code. For example, the Government did not see their way to reduce the qualifying age for the old age pension to 65. I am disappointed to see, in relation to the means test, that the base of £6 is still being persisted with. This base of £6 per week means has existed for a number of years. The time is long past when it should be reviewed upwards. In relation to the same aspect I regret that the means limit still remains at £23 per week. For example, if a non-contributory old age pensioner has means that can be assessed at £23 or over per week he is automatically deprived of benefit.

Very often that means of £23, £24 or £25 per week has been acquired over a life-time of hard work when that person has been thrifty, because he has means that can be assessed as equalling or exceeding £23 per week, he is penalised for the thriftiness he has shown during his lifetime. On the other hand, one will find that perhaps somebody who had a similar opportunity to be equally thrifty acted otherwise, his or her attitude is appreciated and rewarded as against the position of the person who through hard work and thriftiness succeeded in putting aside something that equates with an income of £23 per week.

I ask the Minister to look at that aspect of the situation. I am a member of an old age pension committee and month in month out we are confronted with cases relating to old age pensioners. Their pension should be looked at and adjusted upwards substantially.

One matter that concerns me and many other public representatives is the considerable delay that has been experienced by people who apply for pensions and social welfare benefits. These delays can run into many months. I hope that when the Minister is replying to the debate he will be in a position to give us an assurance that these delays will be elimimated before very long.

There is a scheme that comes under what we are discussing here, that is the fuel scheme, in which certain people in receipt of social welfare benefit obtain vouchers to the value of £1.50 per week during the winter period. As I understand it, the benefits of this scheme are confined to 17 towns and cities, mainly in the East. These 17 towns and cities were designated as long ago as 1942. Thirty-eight years have elapsed since then and the time is long past for confining the benefits of this scheme to 17 towns. It is true to say in relation to old age pensioners, widows, deserted wives and people in receipt of unemployment benefit in other towns and cities throughout Ireland that their needs for heating and fuel for cooking are as great as the needs of the people who, luckily, reside in the designated 17 towns and cities.

Quite obviously there is discrimination there. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give this matter his early attention and see that the benefits of this scheme are extended and made available to the same categories of people throughout the country. I will not oppose the Bill. I welcome the improvements that it brings about and I have no wish to impede its progress from the House.

Lady Goulding

I wish to welcome this Bill. I have not read it thoroughly but I made a few brief notes on it. I welcome very much the increase in the children's allowances. This will make a great difference to many mothers who have six or seven children who find it very difficult to get by on what their husbands earn. This allowance to them will be of great benefit. I understand very well that Senator Howard would like to increase all these allowances. This may perhaps come in a few years' time, with the coming of silicon chips when we will be able to produce more and there will be more money in the kitty to give out. I will be the first one then to suggest that the unemployed should get a higher rate. I cannot see at the moment how it would be possible for this to be borne by the Exchequer.

The other point that I wish to make is that the gap that existed for those who are blind between the ages of 18 and 21 has now been closed. This is a great step forward because I think it was very unfair that in the past they were not covered. Now they will get their disability allowance,

The allowance for old age pensioners over 80 has been increased considerably. Again, of course, we should like to increase it more but maybe in the future we shall. The disability pension has gone up considerably. I know this will be a great comfort to a great number of people that I have the good fortune to work alongside in the north of the city. A little extra will help them very considerably. In the future maybe it will go higher.

Another point is the extra money given to unmarried mothers. This is badly needed. Although it is only a small amount it will be of great help to them. I welcome this Bill, which I consider to be very good, I look forward to going into it in more depth. These are just a few points I picked out.

Mr. Harte

First of all, I would like to welcome the Minister to the House and make the observation that the beginning signs suggest that we have a conscientious and diligent person. I hope I am proved to be right later on and that I have not to take back those kind remarks. Whilst I have criticisms to level at some parts of the Bill it would be unrealistic to say that increases are not good and that improvements have not taken place. I must acknowledge that. My argument is quite consistent with what I believe and what my party believe.

The increases are very welcome, and we have no intention of delaying the Bill in any way. We want to get it through the House as quickly as possible. We want people to get the money as fast as possible. The big problem—this happens not only with this Government but has happened with successive Governments—is that we are dealing with the effects and not the cost of the social welfare problems. I cannot blame any particular individual for that because it goes back to the foundation of the State and was inherited from other places. Senator Goulding made the point that if we make enough later on more could be given. She referred to the silicon chips. The way society functions is if we make enough later on we will see what we can do for the poor, the underprivileged and the deprived. If we are not doing well, they do not come into the overall reckoning to the same extent as every other person in the community.

The social welfare increases are really only catching up on past neglect, the partial removal of the food subsidies, the staggering recent price increases, local authority cut-backs. These will hit hardest the people on social welfare and low wages. Many people on social welfare have to use gas cylinders. Postal charges are to be increased soon. The increase in the VAT rate may not affect the lower paid as drastically as those in the higher bracket. They all play a part in eroding the benefits. We will be in the same position next year, having a Social Welfare Bill introduced, probably with reasonably good increases, but the same vicious circle will start all over again.

I would like to take issue with the Government over one thing. I know their philosophy would not allow them to go as radically as I would like to see them go. At least I can say to them that the decision to reduce by a very substantial amount the funds that are available to the National Committee on the Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty is deplorable. These projects and services are designed to assist the poor. The latest figures available shows that 40 per cent of this Committee's funds have been expended. I have a particular interest in this since it was my leader, Deputy Frank Cluskey, who convinced the European Council in 1974, the Council of Ministers, to extend the whole antipoverty programme, not only to Ireland but to a lot of other countries, thereby identifying with the needs of the poor in general. This committee was put into a system where it is very difficult to bring about radical changes which would to a greater extent than would normal increases in social welfare, not solve the problem, but make the problem less acute. We will not solve the social welfare problems in our society. They are there and all we can do is deal with them and make them less acute. The national committee on the poverty programme because of this cut-back are being denied an opportunity to at least eat into the selfishness which exists in our society and highlight a lot of areas of social concern and thereby make the lot of the people on the lower incomes and particularly social welfare recipients in all categories, that little bit better off. That is all it could do but at least even that bit is gone at the same time as we are doing this. It would not be very hard to make an argument that we can produce more money for art and cultivation. I am basic. When there are poor about, the knife and fork come before the art and the cultivation. I urge the Minister to think about the pilot scheme on poverty. He has shown some good signs. I would like to know if he has something in mind that could ease my resentment of the lack of a radical approach to try to solve the problems to a greater extent than what we can do by mere increases in the social welfare payments.

People are getting a good increase now, but there is individual aggression over the common ownership which makes us accept the existing order. We look on it as being something unchangeable. The best we can do is to try to alleviate or make the problem less acute, by introducing payments every so often, if everybody else is satisfied that they are doing well. We are not in a position, by the very nature of society, to introduce any legislation that would see a better redistribution of the country's wealth because the type of legislation needed would have to be very strong. very forceful, very radical. So the fact is that legislation introduced to give people increases in social welfare payments is feeble legislation. It is not getting at the causes but dealing with the effects.

I am not saying this in a dogmatic way but there are plenty of editors, priests, parsons, lawyers and other men of substance around but they do not have any remedy to offer to the poor. They all say it is sad to see the poor and they all say how sorry they are that there is so much misery in the land. But none of them is prepared to stand up and offer any solution to the problem. What happens is that, because of pressures, some sort of feeble legislation is introduced and mild charity abounds with no radical cures. Whoever said that the poor will always be with us was right because there are not enough people in the political field prepared to exercise pressure to bring about the type of radical changes necessary and which should be introduced by so-called men of substance.

I am glad to see the increases. I cannot understand why it is necessary to come in with legislation year after year and why people are so afraid to go radical because whether we like it or not most laws, feeble as they are, are socialistic, they imply the right of the State to control the individual for the benefit of the nation. For example, in the planning Acts, there are provisions preventing widening of streets or putting houses back to back and so on. The right of an owner to do certain things is taken away in order to protect the rights of other people. If one wants to build an extension one cannot encroach on somebody else's property. Why cannot we have this approach when it comes to social welfare recipients? The Truck Act was brought in to protect employees from being swindled by employers. It is an old Act but that was the basis for it. That is socialistic. So are the Factories Act and the Inspectors Act and so is the Act providing for inspectors to board a ship to see that the equipment and cranes and everything else are in proper condition, because the rights of somebody else would be interfered with otherwise.

The so-called free education scheme which we have to an extent is also socialistic. We have these Acts that can be described as socialistic because they all interfere with the freedom of contract. Why cannot we get to the point of interfering with the freedom of contract of people in the wealth bracket who have had the wealth tax removed? Why cannot we face up to that? It might not have done a lot for social welfare but at least it would have done something; the people who got the money out of the removal of wealth tax do not need it.

Another aspect of the whole question is if one looks back to the early thirties and forties one sees that everybody was in the same boat. Very few people got secondary or third level education. There was more understanding among people then and everybody helped one another. But the society we now have, the selfish scrambling system, has resulted in a moving away of workers from the inner city and away from those left in poverty throughout the country; they are out of touch and they do not care. Somebody has to remind them that there are people on the poverty line and that £39.85 is not going to alleviate, to any extent whatever, the problems of a person on assistance who has a wife and two children to keep. The few pounds he will get next year will not alleviate them either.

We have got the post and telegraphic arrangements and we have socialistic legislation. Why cannot we get a bit further in relation to social welfare? Why cannot we at least get back to the combat poverty pilot scheme again, put more money into it and put pressure on society as a whole who have an obligation to these people in the lower income category and which is not being fulfilled.

No matter what way one argues about it, poverty will always be with us because there is a private monopoly on capital and land and, by and large, most of us are motivated by the profit motive. We seem to be afraid of a society based on live fraternity and service. Yet we go to church and listen to all the Christian speeches. We say it is bad to see people so low down and why do we not do something about it. Why are we not brave enough to start introducing radical legislation and face up to it in that way? One need not call it socialism, one can call it what one likes, but radical legislation is definitely needed if we are going to overcome poverty. It has to be overcome by this force that is not yet employed, the force that will drive out selfishness. That can only be done by the people in power, the people who hold the reins.

It is time that all of us faced up to the need to go a bit further in helping the people who have to depend on social welfare as a means of existence and we should make no apology to the rest of society for doing it. As long as we live with wrong that wrong will only produce more inequality and it exists and it is up to us to try to do something about it. Wrong, in the midst of abundance, really tortures people who are poor. I am not getting emotional and I am not saying anything I have not said before. I speak with authority about this because I was born into poverty, into a very large family in the Dublin slums. I know what I am talking about. I am into my sixtieth year and I am listening to the arguments of people all over the country that private enterprise is going to give full employment, that everyone will be happy and everything will work out well. It does not work, it has not worked and it will not work. And the reason it will not work is because we encourage this selfish scrambling system. We are not prepared to fight the people who put others on the poverty line by this monopoly and grabbing and selfishness. The society makes men greedy for wealth because the conditions of distribution are so unjust that instead of everybody being assured of enough what happens is that many are condemned to want and all considerations of justice, mercy, religion and sentiment are stepped on by the very society we live in.

Let us hope the day will soon dawn when we will be able to come in with a Social Welfare Bill that says we have a system now where there is a fairer and more equitable distribution of the wealth that is created, we are now in a position to say that there are not 25 per cent of the population on the poverty line any more and all the fear of want is gone. Also I would urge the Minister to look at the delays.

Another area which is not in the Minister's bailiwick but about which he might be able to do something is the question of old people on social welfare who have to depend on turf to keep their bodies warm; they have to keep coming back to advice centres on a regular basis to ask for the turf to be delivered. Then after pressure is put on the officials concerned with it, the social welfare recipient comes back in another few weeks to say that the turf has not been delivered for another four weeks. These are a few of the areas which the Minister could tackle. He should make sure that nobody is treated like that. I know it is not the Minister's particular responsibility to have the turf delivered but I believe he could put the pressure in the right area and maybe give somebody a boot in the right direction. I believe it is also possible for him to have another look at the pilot scheme to combat poverty and to let us know what his thinking is in this area.

Mr. Kitt

I would like to welcome the Minister to this House and to congratulate him on the very conscientious job he is doing as Minister.

I want to welcome this Social Welfare Bill. In particular I welcome the 25 per cent increase for those on long term benefits and the 20 per cent for those on short term benefits. It must be remembered that this comes on top of the in creases last October and they are significant cash increases to help the less well off.

Before I deal with any particular aspect of the budget, I would agree with Senator Howard who talked about the distinction between what we call rural and urban payments. As a person living in a rural area I know that people in rural areas have often to go at great inconvenience to various centres to claim for benefit and they have a lot more hardship in many cases than people in the urban areas. As well as that people in urban areas have greater services than people in the rural areas; I am referring to county council service, transport services and so on.

Having said that, I cannot agree with him in his remarks about one aspect of the old age pension. He mentioned that there is no change in old age pension entitlement rates. The upper limit has gone up from £17 to £23 which means there are six additional rates of payment. I support what he says in relation to the means at the lower rate which is still £6 and has been £6 for a very long time. In this day and age I feel that that limit should be increased so that a person would get the full pension when they earn a little more than £6. The fact that they would have a reduced pension is not a very equitable system. It is a fine step by the Minister to give six additional payments in this budget. To bring in six additional payments in one Bill is very commendable. One of the first things I would like to welcome in the budget is the fact that a blind person can be payable at 18 years of age now instead of 21 years. Also the means test for this pension is being eased. That is something I have been asked about by a number of organisations.

With regard to the question of old people, very recently the Minister was in Athenry, County Galway, to open a day centre there which is organised by the Athenry Community Council. They should be congratulated on getting this day centre which the Western Health Board and county council assisted greatly in setting up. At the opening the Minister will remember that a number of speakers talked about the need for a geriatric home in the north-east Galway area. There has been a lot of pressure from the Roscommon people who have sought the establishment of this home somewhere in the area. The reason I mention this is that we have a prescribed relative allowance which I might deal with later on which is a bit confined at the moment. But I am glad that the Minister since he was appointed Minister for Health and Social Welfare has been advocating that prevention is better than cure. I am glad that we have such a fine home help service and that we have these facilities to help people so that they do not have to go to hospitals. Relative allowances like that are a better way of dealing with the problem than having too many homes. But in this area there is a need for a geriatric home and I hope that it will be considered.

I am glad that Senator Connaughton has arrived here because I wanted to challenge a statement that he made in the Connacht Tribune last week in connection with these farmers who are getting smallholders' unemployment assistance. As the Minister stated in his Social Welfare Bill, there are 3,000 farmers receiving this benefit on a factual basis where a pension officer comes out and assesses their income. They will be getting the increase in this budget. But Senator Connaughton stated that if those farmers who were assessed on land looked for an increase they would get into trouble. He also said that if they did not look for an increase they would still get into trouble. I want to put on record that I checked this out with the Department and was told that that was absolute rubbish, that the option was still there for a smallholder either to stay on the notional system or to look for factual assessment if he wants an increase. Factual assessment could obviously help a farmer who had flooding or a very high valuation or disease in his herd and so on. I know that the majority of farmers in the 12 western counties, 18,500 altogether, will stay on the notional system because the multiplier is low and they can be involved in mixed farming. They can have any amount of stock and they will not be penalised as Senator Connaughton suggests.

This is a very disturbing matter and it has caused a lot of concern to farmers who have approached me. I would like to know what basis Senator Connaughton has for making this statement. If he has any evidence I would like to hear it, and I am glad that he is here for this debate. I feel that he has rushed into print without checking the facts. I have checked them with the Department and I understand that there will be an advertisement appearing in the paper shortly stating the position. In fact the position is already stated in the budget and it is stated also in the Social Welfare Bill before us. But I am glad to have this opportunity to get him to clarify it because it is causing some concern.

I spoke about the prescribed relative allowance. This allowance has also been increased in the budget and has been seen to be of great benefit where there has been one relative in the family. The problem is that an old age pensioner may be getting this relative allowance for his son but if the son gets married the allowance is then terminated. It seems unfair, because he then will have a woman in the house who might be very well able to look after that old person. I would ask the Minister if he would look at that scheme, because it is confined.

I would also support what has been said by Senator Howard that the qualifying age for the old age pension might be reduced to 65. I understand the Minister said in the Dáil that this would cost about £12 million. I hope that the money can be found in a future budget to do that.

In conclusion I would make that recommendation and also the recommendations in relation to the lower rate of means for the old-age pension which is £6.

Again I welcome the increases in this budget which are significant cash increases, and I hope that the Minister can continue to help those less well-off sections in our community.

Mrs. Cassidy

I would like also to welcome the Minister on his first visit to the House and to congratulate him upon the large across-the-board increases in long-term benefits which far exceeded the expectations of many concerned bodies before the budget.

However, one comment I would make generally on the administration of the services for which the Minister is responsible—and here like Senator Harte who represents the authentic voice of the Labour Party in this House—I am impelled to play the devil's advocate when we are discussing and debating social welfare measures. Increases in social welfare benefits and payments in themselves are ineffective if they do not make sufficient impact on the lives of the recipients to ensure a real improvement in their living conditions. Today when we are spending more and more of what the State collects in taxation on social welfare we have more real poverty in Ireland than we should be prepared to tolerate. That being so, we are not getting value for our money, and if we are not getting value for our money then we should take a long look at the administration of the social welfare schemes. I am not going so far as to suggest, as a well known Nobel Prize winning economist whose name for the moment escapes me suggested that we would get equal value for money if we simply handed out the money in the hope that the needy would lay their hands on it. But I believe that we should give more authority and money to voluntary organisations who are working on the ground and who are in a position to know where the real needs are. In that regard I am very glad to hear the Minister's commitment on his appointment, which was reported in the newspapers, to increase community involvement in social affairs. I often feel that when we have a good voluntary organisation going, which is working well, when it is taken over by a Government agency it often means the bureaucratic kiss of death. I suggest that we give more money and more authority to voluntary organisations. I do not believe with Senator Harte that the political will to make radical changes is not present. The Bill which the Minister has before the House today shows that that concern and that political will are there.

Mr. Connaughton

I welcome this Bill. It grants relatively good increases to people who are most in need, I certainly congratulate the Minister as Minister for Health and Social Welfare and on, in this first budget, ensuring that this type of increase has been forthcoming. Most people might feel that at this time and at this time of the year the Government might in fact have got away with increases of less than the 20 and 25 per cent increases in social welfare allowances. It is also true that if inflation continues at the present rate, at the end of the year anything less than the increases given will not, in fact, make those recipients much better off. But nevertheless at a time when there is a great tightness of credit and a general lack of available finance it is heartening to see that the people who are most in need of this type of help and benefit are actually getting it.

I would also like to address myself to the question of the old age pension. The means rate of £6 is particularly low and one could say that any person with an income of only £6 or thereabouts in today's money terms should not be impeded, because of that, from receiving a full old age pension. While on this subject I would say that many people around the country were disappointed that the qualifying age was not dropped another year. Many were hoping that the Government would reduce the age by another year, taking into account the employment situation here, the modern trend towards early retirement and the fact that there may not be jobs for people once they get into the sixties. I would ask the Minister to take particular note of that in the forthcoming year and, if at all possible, to do something about it.

In reply to Senator Kitt's comments about the farmer' dole, I want to ask the Minister a straight question, and I will be listening very attentively when he is replying. Of all the persons who are now in receipt of what we call the small farmers' dole, will each and every one of them be getting automatically an increase of 20 or 25 per cent?

Can we put on record in this House this evening that every person in Ireland in receipt of the small farmers' dole unemployment assistance will be granted the entire amount? The Minister's budget speech gave the impression not alone to me but to many others who read it that if any recipients of the farmers' dole wanted to get an increase there would have to be an income test. Let nobody read too much into Senator Kitt's comment, when he alleges I made the point that there could be a spot check on anybody who did not apply for the increase. I want to go on record as saying that there is no shortage of spot checks in this area. At several Garda barracks in the west it has been known that an inspector from the Department—or as we call him, an officer connected with the Department, either as a pension officer or otherwise—has been meeting folk on their way to sign for the dole or to collect the dole, and that in-depth assessments have been made.

To reply to the Fianna Fáil group in Galway County Council, it is true that for a Government supposed to have in their ranks the greatest number of small farmers in Ireland, since Fianna Fáil took office several thousand farmers have been disqualified from the dole. In the last budget between 5,000 and 6,000 were taken off it altogether. I find it very difficult to understand any party getting terribly concerned about the so-called comments made about this subject because, as I read the Minister's speech, this is the way these people will have to be assessed. Spot checks are part and parcel of the present situation as any Senator or Deputy who lives or works in the west is well aware, from a constituency point of view.

The whole question of social welfare is a very loosely tangled area because so many different types have to be helped. It is true that over the years successive Governments have done their very best to ensure that there is a reasonable spread of this benefit to the people who need it most. Nevertheless, like all policies, there are black spots in the service. For one reason or another there are people who should be entitled to these benefits but for some unknown reasons they do not seem to be able to get them.

I find the officials of the Department most co-operative but for some reason, maybe because of a bad postal service or bad communications, there seems to be too long a delay in regard to some people getting their benefits. I am specifically speaking about persons who have no other income, for instance, people who might have to go on disability with medical certificates. I never heard of more certificates getting lost between the post and the Department as happened in the last six or eight months. This is causing genuine hardship to the individuals concerned. It is fair to say that once the documentation is in order, the Department officials at all levels are most helpful but nevertheless it often happens that several weeks elapse before a person gets the money he is entitled to. All one hopes is that the service will be improved to such a degree that that will be stamped out as far as possible.

Generally speaking I welcome the increases. It is important that the people who are in most need are looked after. One would hope that the inflation rate might not rise too high so that before the next budget those increases will be reasonably meaningful.

Mr. Lanigan

I, too, welcome the new Minister into the House, and the provisions made in this new Bill. For the first time in a long time we have a situation where we have a 25 per cent increase in long-term benefits which, irrespective of what happens this year in inflation terms, will mean a genuine and definite increase in the amount of money that old age pensioners and long-term beneficiaries will have in their hands at the end of any particular week. We have an increase of 20 per cent in short-term benefits, and short-term beneficiaries are as entitled to an increase as the long-term beneficiaries. The long-term beneficiaries are the people we should be concerned about more than the short-term beneficiaries, because they are the people who cannot help themselves. They are not people who work. They are out of work because of social, economic and health circumstances. They have lost their jobs because they are sick, they got too old or they are just not able to cope with the job they have been doing. At last there is an attempt being made to help these people. In helping them I sincerely hope the delays in the provision of the services they need will be shortened.

We can stand up here and talk about lack of money, but we do not have the same lack of money as a person who is waiting for his social welfare cheque on a Friday morning and has no money in the house. If there are three or four kids shouting, a wife or a husband shouting, and if there is no money in the house they have to go to the local shop and look for credit. They come to a local advice centre, a TD or councillor. He phones the Department of Social Welfare and they say "The computer has not processed that today," and when the computer processes the cheque it will go through. A computer process is of absolutely no use to a person who is waiting for £5 or £15 when he owes £20 to a shop.

I am not suggesting that the civil servants who operate social welfare schemes are not doing their best, but there is a definite difference between a civil servant in his office who is being paid monthly, who has a permanent job, who has a pension waiting for him at the end of a particular period, of a TD or Senator who has a salary waiting for him at the end of a month, and a social welfare beneficiary. At the end of any week we do not have to wait for our salaries because we can get credit in a shop but a person waiting for a social welfare benefit cheque will not get credit in a shop. These people are suffering from a lack of understanding in the civil service, in the computerised era that we are living in.

People come to clinics, whether they be political clinics, welfare clinics or any other type of clinic. They do not have the money to pay the rent, the rates, or even for bread and butter. They go to the people who have the money to do that. I suggest that our social welfare system be changed to a reasonable system. For example, there should be a computer terminal in Kilkenny so that if a person living in Kilkenny does not get his cheque he should be able to go into a computer bureau in Kilkenny and tie into the computer in Dublin if the computer is at fault, and there should be a reply immediately. That would be a much better system than having somebody write or phone 786444, the telephone number most used by TDs, Senators, county councillors and social welfare beneficiaries. It is also the most abused number, in the sense that there is absolutely no way you can get through unless you have some sort of system whereby you keep it ringing. There is a new computerised system based in Ennis where you dial 786444 and it will keep ringing until such time as the phone is answered, but there are very few people who can afford to keep ringing 786444 from a telephone box in Kilkenny.

The Social Welfare Bill is an improvement on anything that has happened in the past, but it cannot work unless the communications system between the person who needs the benefit and the Department is improved. I sincerely hope that in line with the benefits provided in this Bill there will be an improvement in communications between the prospective beneficiaries and the Department.

People feeling desperate come to my clinic because they do not have one solitary penny in their pockets. We try to get through to the Department, and they say the computer has not processed the cheque. The fact the computer has not processed the cheque does not mean anything to the person who does not have one solitary pound of butter or loaf of bread in his hand. We send these people to the community welfare officer. The community welfare officers throughout the country are doing a magnificent job in providing a buffer between the computer in the Department of Social Welfare and the people who need the benefit. These people deserve a lot more credit than they get because sometimes they get a lot of criticism which they do not deserve.

This Bill provides for improvement in services It provides for improvements in actual returns for the people who need it. I plead with the Minister and the Department to ensure that there will be an extension, a speeding up of the provision of the actual cash benefit to the people who need it, rather than an extension of the amount of paper work that flows between the Minister's office and public representatives or the needy people and the Department's representatives. In other words, we have a Bill which provides for extension and increase in monetary value. Let us get this monetary value through immediately to the people who deserve it. This is one of the best Bills I have seen come through this House. All I ask is that the benefits get to the people who need them much faster than they have in the past.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I would like to thank Senators for their congratulations, their good wishes, and for their very wide-ranging contributions. In the time available they covered quite an amount in relation to this Bill.

Senator Howard made a fairly wide-ranging contribution and some of his points were taken up by other Senators subsequently. Senator Howard welcomed the modest increases and minor improvements. I felt that he might have gone on and said what he really thought—that they were good increases and good improvements. The increases are substantial and the amounts provided are catching up. I accept what he says about the need to have substantial improvements in the total amounts, but this Bill goes a considerable way towards catching up. Beyond that I agree with what he and other Senators said about bringing particularly the long-term benefits up to the levels we would all like to see.

We are inclined to forget that there are some novel features in our social welfare schemes which do not exist elsewhere. Some people who returned from England, for instance, claimed that things have improved a great deal here in recent times, and novel features like the free telephone rental, free television licence, electricity allowance and the free travel arrangements, which are paid for by the Department of Social Welfare, are good and help the total package. I am not saying that in any way to take from the general point, but at the same time we should realise the value in what we have. I agree that this policy of making substantial increases is one that we would like to be able to continue.

The Senator mentioned reducing the qualifying age for old age pensions from 66 to 65 years. Senator Kitt stole my thunder by pointing out it would cost £12 million to do this. Needless to say, this is something we would like to do, and it is a matter which will be further considered within the resources available. The cost is actually £12.8 million. This has to be considered in relation to priorities. We have reduced the age for the blind person's pension from 21 to 18 years. We would all like to see increases in long-term benefits and other measures in the future, and we will be looking for the resources to do this. In relation to the means limit, the upper limit is increased. I accept there is a complicated mechanism in operation, but it is a costly mechanism. That is an aspect that I had to argue in putting the point. In effect, it increases the upper limit from £17 to £23. This is a reasonably substantial improvement and I hope that the improvements can continue.

A number of Senators raised the question of the fuel scheme. This is a limited scheme. It is operated by certain local authorities at present and is subject to review. My predecessor introduced a new principle. The new principle in that sense was, I believe, a breakthrough. It introduced the voucher scheme as an alternative measure, and I would like to build on this coming into the review for next autumn. We will be undertaking a review in that instance and also looking at the possibility of extending the scheme more widely. We hope to revise the scheme by next winter. My predecessor did a good deal of work in this area and I would hope to continue the review of the scheme and that there may be resources to go a good deal further.

Senator Howard and other Senators raised the question of delays for applicants in getting benefits from the Department of Social Welfare. Last year's strike created enormous problems for the Department of Social Welfare. There were 860,000 people involved, and when you run into a situation like the postal dispute it created problems for the Department. I would like to pay tribute to the staff for the way they overcame these problems, which they dealt with in an excellent way. Those problems continued because there was a spill-over which continued to have an effect up to Christmas. The biggest problem arises in relation to situations where the means have to be assessed, particularly where land transfers are involved.

Many cases which were referred to me by Deputies and rural Deputies in particular, relate to the assessment of means where the local pensions committee and a land transfer is involved. There is a statutory requirement to have a transfer authenticated before finalising the means assessment. In many instances you find that these particularly prolonged delays relate to some technicality like that. Nevertheless, I accept the general point in relation to the service.

Senator Lanigan made some very interesting points on the supplementary welfare scheme and the fact that this is operated by the health boards. The emphasis from the Department to the health boards is to be liberal in the scheme as it is a fall-back situation. I am very glad Senator Lanigan congratulated the boards, because many of the people involved do an excellent job. It is not always as satisfactory as I would like to see it, but that was the intention of the scheme and one would like to see it operating effectively.

Furthermore, he made a general point about computer delays. The computer is generally very fast doing calculations. The biggest delays occur in getting things to the computer and getting them back. He also raised the question of the regionalisation of the system. I will give serious consideration to that in whatever respect it is applicable, but it is not always as readily applicable as it appears. I accept that there can be delays when there are postal systems involved. In relation to some of the rural complaints we pursued, we found there were more delays getting the cheques to people in rural areas than there were in Dublin. I am concerned about that. Senator Lanigan called for an improved communications system. This is something which, within the Department, is being improved currently. The whole computerisation system is being advanced. The Senator introduced the concept of regionalisation and this is something I am particularly interested in. I note that he would like to see a computer link in Kilkenny especially. In all of these things, one has to do a work study and look at what is happening and see what the most effective system is. In the Department there is quite a concern to be efficient in that respect and to get the payments made in good time.

I also spent time with staff in the Department who deal with the frontline, officers who are meeting the people. I had discussions with them about their experiences and the kinds of delays which can occur. We try to make more effective the actual face of the Department which meets people at the desks or booths to which they go. I found the discussions to be very rewarding in the sense that people who are on the job could identify some of the points which can cause delays, which are not as obvious when one looks at the system as a whole. I accept that that must be a priority, and it is something we will give attention to.

The other aspects raised by some of the Senators in relation to means tests, and particularly those in relation to rural situations, relate to the fact that there have not been contributory schemes available. I am concerned about that, and I am working with considerable urgency on the examination of the question of a national income related pension scheme. What we can bring from it remains to be seen. As you know, a study was carried out and a paper was produced some years ago. I asked that work in this area be accelerated within the Department and we are working at it to see what can be done. The problem in this area becomes one of very large scale cost. It is the kind of thing which, in the medium and longer term will do a great deal to do away with many of these means situations. I would like to see that happen.

Senator Goulding welcomed the Bill, especially the increases in the children's allowances. As one might expect, because of her interest in handicapped people, she also welcomed the reduction in the qualifying age from 21 to 18 years as a priority for blind persons, and the increases in the allowances for the disabled and for unmarried mothers. These are particularly welcome and, as I have said, it is a process which I would certainly like to continue.

Senator Harte also acknowledged the increases and would like to see this kind of priority continuing. I accept what he said about social welfare increases only catching up and we will certainly try to maintain that process. If one takes it that the consumer price index increase was 16 per cent and that the increase in long-term benefits amounts to 31 per cent, then there has been a fair effort at catching up at this stage.

Senator Harte raised particularly the question of the Poverty Committee and there has been a certain amount of confusion about the actual position. It is the EEC programme to combat poverty, which is due to terminate on 1 December 1980. Taking the shorter period into account, the financial allocation to the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty for 1980 represents, in fact, a slight increase on that for 1979. The committee have been informed of their allocation and I understand they are examining the situation. The figure of £500,000 which has been allocated for the Poverty Committee for this 11-month period is an increase of £2,250 on the figure for last year.

The committee were asked on 26 February to submit the restructured budget to consider the position and to submit their views in that respect. Once these views are submitted they can be considered and I will be quite happy to meet the committee and discuss the priorities in this area.

Senator Kitt raised the question in the Athenry Day Centre and congratulated the people of Athenry for the work they are doing in relation to that day centre for elderly people and for others as well. I am glad he raised it because it brought up the whole question of attacking poverty in our society and the structure which has developed. Senator Harte said that for years there has been this question of catching up and he is not satisfied that radical changes are being introduced. One of the most worthwhile radical approaches is to combat poverty directly on the ground and in the community and by setting up the infrastructures within the community to ensure that poverty will not be allowed to happen. It happens for many reasons other than cash. If the educational and support systems are not there it will not be possible to break out of the cycle. I would see the emphasis on the voluntary community activity as a particularly important one in that respect.

Senator Kitt also saw the need for a geriatric home in his own area and emphasised the benefits of the increases in the prescribed relative allowances which will be very useful. I agree with him in that respect and I would like to see these increased further so that as many elderly people as possible can be maintained in their home and community environment and will not be pushed off into separate homes which are very often distant from their own original home and community.

He and Senator Connaughton raised the matter of smallholders' unemployment assistance. It is important to make it clear what the position is in relation to this scheme and Senator Connaughton asked if I would do so. He asked if all persons will get an increase. Yes, that is true. The October increases were due to finish on 31 March and are now being continued and all recipients, whether they are on the notional or factual assessment, will continue to get that increase. That was an additional allocation in the budget and the resources had to be provided to maintain that increase, which was given under the national understanding as an over-winter six-month increase. It is now being continued and everybody will have increases. The notional cases will continue as they are at present, and the factual cases will receive the 20 per cent. There are 3,000 smallholders who have opted for factual assessment and they will get this 20 per cent increase. It is important to be clear that the smallholder can choose whichever form of assessment, notional or factual, will be of greater benefit to him.

Senator Connaughton said that if the smallholder does not look for an increase he will be looked on with suspicion and may find himself on spotcheck lists. There is no question of that whatsoever; he must realise that these notional schemes are highly concessional in their nature. When they were introduced the figures increased from 8,000 to 30,000, and that is an indication of the value of opting for the notional system which was involved at the time. There has been a progressive development over the last few years to increase the multipliers on the one hand and to introduce factual assessment and also to freeze notionally assessed rates. The rates for persons over £10 poor law valuation have already been frozen in previous years. There is nothing new in that sense and there is no Machiavellian trick involved. This is just a continuation of a process which has been going on.

No reflections whatsoever will be cast on any smallholder who opts to continue on the notional system, nor will any spot checks be carried out on smallholders merely because they do not opt for factual assessment and wish to remain on the notional system. That whole suggestion is completely untrue. The intention is that the maximum amount of resources available to the State will go to the people who need them most and that people who have benefits and concessions, like the notional system, can opt to stay on that system. On the other hand, 3,000 of the 21,000 who are now in the scheme have changed to factual assessment. It is open to people who feel they will lose under the present arrangement to change to factual assessment and to receive the 20 per cent increase which applies there.

There was a question asked about unemployment assistance and the difference between the rural and urban rates. This is something which has been there historically. It derived originally from the fact that a large proportion of the rural recipients were either smallholders or relatives assisting on farms who could normally acquire the basic necessities of food and sometimes fuel at less cost than in the urban areas. This was the traditional situation. I certainly will ensure that the points made by Senators in relation to the rural and urban rates are considered before the next Bill is brought to the House. The differential at this stage is, of course, quite a small one.

The increases granted in this Bill are substantial. Most Senators have conceded that. They are weighted in favour of long-term recipients which is a change influencing the structural position, yet the short-term recipients more than keep pace by having their benefits increased by 20 per cent. This is a policy issue as far as the Government are concerned. There would be those who would have expected lesser benefits especially in the unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit schemes, but the Government's policy here is to ensure that those who are genuinely unemployed and genuinely in need will do more than keep pace as far as that is possible.

The children's allowance increase will result in a real gain, a real benefit. This will be the second year in which real benefits have been provided on children's allowances. There are in addition numerous other smaller improvements which are particularly important to the recipients, for example, the reduction of the blind person's qualifying age. The total cash allocated in this Bill is £90 million, and that is a substantial transfer of resources which is necessary and very desirable.

It is important to attack the structures underlying poverty and help the people who are in greater need. I was glad to see that Senator Kitt raised the question of voluntary community work, because I believe that this can have a very major lasting effect in combating need, loneliness and poverty within our society.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed, to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.