Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 1981: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I am pleased to come before the Seanad again this year with a measure to provide very substantial increases in social welfare payments. The Government's resolve to protect the old, the weak, the deprived and the underprivileged sectors in our society is restated clearly by the provisions in this Bill. Social welfare payments are being increased in real terms and not just in line with the cost of living or movements in earnings.

While in recent years considerable attention has been devoted to consolidating the statutory provisions relating to the social welfare code, the real emphasis has been on improving the living standards of social welfare recipients, and of providing substantial extensions of schemes. On a phased basis each year, anomalies have been removed, qualifying conditions have been eased and the scope of certain allowances has been extended to those not previously entitled to them. This is being continued and certain anomalies and minor discrepancies which came to light during the preparation and passage of the Consolidation Act are being dealt with in the Bill now before the House.

The main provisions of this Bill relate to the proposals for increases in the rates of payments which were announced in the budget and also for changes in the pay-related benefit scheme and for the new maternity allowance scheme for women in employment.

The new rates of payment set out in the Schedules represent increases of 25 per cent in the adult long-term rates of payment, giving increases ranging from £5.25 to £6.15 a week in the personal rate of payments of the principal pensions and allowances. The single women's allowance is being increased by £4.60 a week, while pensioners under the occupational injuries benefit scheme will receive increases of up to £7.40 a week. The amounts payable in respect of adult dependants are also being increased by 25 per cent as are the "living alone" and "over 80" allowances.

In the case of short-term payments, that is disability benefit, unemployment benefit and assistance, injury benefit and supplementary welfare allowance, the increase is 20 per cent. All smallholders, including those whose means are assessed on the notional basis, qualifying for unemployment assistance will receive this increase. The amounts paid for dependent children under all insurance and assistance schemes, both long and short-term, are going up by approximately 10 per cent, in addition to the 30 per cent increase in children's allowances.

The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill sets out a number of examples showing the increases being granted. I would like to deal with an aspect not set out in that memorandum, and which is sometimes lost sight of. The value of many pensions is enhanced by the various additional services available. Pensioners over the age of 66 are entitled to free travel and frequently also to fuel vouchers. In addition, these pensioners receive an increase of £2.05 per week if they are living alone. They may also receive free electricity allowance, free TV licence and assistance towards the cost of having a telephone if they are living alone or with certain relatives or with other pensioners.

The monthly amounts of children's allowance are being increased by about 30 per cent this year. The new rates will be £6 for the first child and £9 for the second and each subsequent child. The monthly allowance for a family with three children will be £24 from 1 July next compared to £18.50 at present.

Section 8 of the Bill provides for the total removal of the condition which requires that in order to qualify for old age pension a person must have had at least 15 years' residence in the State. The improvement will be of general application but it is being done at this time to ease the position for South-East Asian refugees who have recently settled in this country. The five year residence condition for blind pension is also being removed.

The pay-related benefit scheme is being revised in two respects. At present pay-related benefit is payable only from the 13th day of incapacity for work or of unemployment in a period of interruption of employment. In other words, there are 12 ‘waiting days' for pay-related benefit purposes. Where two periods of incapacity or of unemployment are separated by not more than 13 weeks, the ‘waiting days' served on the first claim count also for the subsequent claim.

The effect of section 6 is that 12 ‘waiting days' will be applied for pay-related benefit purposes for each distinct spell of incapacity. It does not affect the position of claims for unemployment benefit. Where, however, a person has a relapse within three days of resuming work or his incapacity occurs during a period of unemployment, additional ‘waiting days' will not generally be imposed.

It was not envisaged that pay-related benefit would be paid for very short interruptions of employment due to illness or unemployment and this is why the existing waiting days provision was introduced under the 1973 Act which brought in the pay-related benefit scheme. In the case of unemployment, tax refunds are taken into account in determining the rate of pay-related benefit to be paid in conjunction with unemployment benefit. It has not proved possible to take tax refunds into account in the same way for disability benefit cases. The change being made is an alternative way of ensuring that the objectives of the pay-related scheme will be equitably met in all cases of short absences from work whether due to incapacity or unemployment.

Section 7 provides the second change. The basic rate of pay-related benefit is calculated by deducting £14 from the reckonable weekly earnings and by then taking a percentage — 40 per cent for the first 147 days and 30 per cent, 25 per cent and finally 20 per cent for each subsequent 78 days — of the balance of those earnings. The disregard now in operation was fixed in 1973 and first applied when the maximum rate of disability benefit and unemployment benefit was £6.55 and the yearly ceiling for reckonable earnings was £2,500. It has not been revised since despite the increases in the flat-rate benefit and the ceiling. From next month the weekly flat rate of benefit goes up to £24.55 and the ceiling will be £8,500.

While the provision now proposed will not restore the old relativity, the amount disregarded will now be linked to the maximum personal rate of short-term benefit payable at the beginning of each benefit year. The new disregard will, accordingly, be £20 in the present year and will apply to fresh claims commencing after 6 April.

This Bill provides for a new pay-related maternity allowance scheme for women in employment which relates to the provisions for statutory maternity leave recently introduced by the Minister for Labour and approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. An improved allowance will be payable for 14 weeks to women on maternity leave. The level of payment is designed to correspond to take-home pay when tax refunds are taken into account. The actual payment will be 80 per cent of the earnings which are reckonable for pay-related benefit purposes.

An important feature of the package is that there will be a minimum weekly payment of £45.75 as compared with the minimum of £20.45 payable at present. The minimum payment is based on the average earnings of female workers. In addition, the contribution conditions for maternity allowance are being eased under the new scheme so as to cater for women who re-enter the workforce after an absence of some years.

The new scheme will give considerably greater amounts of benefit to persons entitled to maternity leave. For example, a person receiving the current average earnings of about £80 per week in the food and drink industry will receive more than £300 in additional benefit, while a woman now earning £55 in, say, the textiles industry will receive an additional £200 or more. In addition, the claimant would usually receive tax refunds. I believe that the levels of payment proposed will not only make it easier for a woman to abstain from work outside the home for a suitable interval before and after her confinement, but will make a valuable contribution towards the many expenses which a family incurs on those occasions.

The scheme provided in Part III of this Bill will subsume the existing 12 weeks scheme in the case of women entitled to maternity leave. The additional cost will be met in full by an addition of 0.15 per cent to the employer's pay-related social insurance contribution. This 0.15 per cent increase is included in the overall increase of 0.25 per cent for the employer. This arrangement will equalise the cost of maternity leave for employers. Currently an employer with a predominantly female workforce is severely disadvantaged if he pays in respect of maternity leave. The existing 12 week maternity allowance scheme will continue to apply to women who do not qualify for maternity leave under the maternity protection of employees legislation.

The Bill also contains a number of miscellaneous amendments designed to achieve uniformity in the social welfare code. Most of these items arose from work on the preparation of the Consolidation Act and many of them were debated in the private sessions of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. In fact, I undertook during the Committee's deliberations to provide for some of these items at the first suitable opportunity.

The cost in 1981 of the improvements being provided by this Bill is estimated at £137 million. In addition, £7 million is being made available for improvements in the fuel voucher and telephone rental schemes which do not come under the scope of this Bill, giving a gross cost of £144 million. The increases provided by section 5 of this Bill in the rates of pay-related social insurance contributions, effective from 6 April 1981 will yield an estimated £33 million, leaving £111 million to be borne by the Exchequer.

The new rates of social insurance contributions will be 9.55 per cent for employers and 3.75 per cent for employees as compared with 8.5 per cent and 3.5 per cent respectively, at present. The rates of voluntary contributions are also being increased. The new employer's contribution of 9.55 per cent includes the element of 0.15 per cent to meet the cost of the new maternity allowance scheme. The occupational injuries contribution is being reduced from 0.45 per cent to 0.3 per cent as the yield from the current rate has proved to be more than is required to meet the fund's outgoings; this contribution is borne in full by employers. The earnings ceiling up to which contributions are payable is being raised from £7,000 to £8,500.

The new overall PRSI contribution goes up from 14.3 per cent to 14.8 per cent, with employers paying 10.05 per cent and employees paying 4.75 per cent, the net increase in each case being 0.25 per cent.

I commend the Bill to Seanad Éireann and ask Senators to give it speedy and favourable consideration. In this connection I would point out that this Bill must be enacted before 1 April 1981, the operative day of the increases in the rates of unemployment assistance. Increases in the other schemes, except children's allowance, will all apply from the first appropriate date in April.

Mr. Howard

The Minister has concluded by asking the Seanad to give speedy and favourable consideration to this Bill. I want to say in reply that we recognise the need to have this Bill enacted by 1 April. We are only too willing to extend our co-operation to ensure that whatever benefits the Bill will bestow on people to whom it relates will be available to them as and from 1 April. With regard to favourable consideration we will, I am sure, extend our favourable consideration to the parts of the Bill that we feel deserve these and to other parts of the Bill we will extend certain criticisms that we feel we are justified in making.

I recognise that it is the Minister's privilege to praise his Bill, to praise its contents, to highlight what he feels are advantages and to emphasise the benefits the Bill will bestow on some of the people concerned. I regard it as being my privilege also, while acknowledging the worthwhile aspects of the Bill, to dispute certain claims that the Minister may be making in relation to it, and to draw the attention of the House to where I feel that the Bill has failed to fulfil the needs of the weaker sections of our community, the old, the infirm, the sick and the unemployed.

There are aspects of the Bill and there are provisions in the Bill that I certainly welcome. I welcome the increase in the long-term and short-term benefits. At a later stage I will be suggesting that, taking the Minister's figure of 20 and 25 per cent, it will in fact very likely prove to be inadequate as the year progresses. I welcome the maternity allowance scheme. I welcome the removal of the 15 years residential qualification for old age pensioners. There is another matter related to the Bill which I also welcome, that is in relation to landowners who apply for old age pension and who until recently experienced considerable delays in receiving the pension, due to the necessity of having the deed of transfer stamped. I acknowledge a progressive move by the Minister in ensuring that old age pensioners and the people eligible for old age pensions will qualify for their pensions from the date of lodgment of the documents regarding the transfer of land.

I agree with the Minister's remarks in relation to the weaker sections of our people — this Bill certainly applies to them — the under-privileged in our society who, through age, or sickness, or want of a job, have to depend on the State for existence, for the means of providing them with the basic essentials of life. It is only fair to point out that we live in an age in which the well-organised in our society will use their resources of organisation and muscle to extract the greatest possible share of the national cake they can obtain for themselves without often having regard to those who are under-privileged or who are weak and may not be organised.

The people on social welfare, old age pensioners, unemployed, widows, orphans, are people without an organisation to press their claims, without channels through which they can exercise muscle to obtain for themselves what we would all accept as just demands. For them the strike weapon is totally out; we do not see them involved in protest marches and they occupy a very vulnerable position in our society. I believe the Minister and as a whole the Oireachtas have a duty to ensure that the interests of these people are protected, that they get justice and that the basic essentials of life are made available to them.

The budget, and this Social Welfare Bill that follows from it, are the channels through which we can discharge that duty. For that reason I propose to measure what is proposed in this Bill in relation to achieving that objective. I propose to measure it, first of all, in relation to the background of inflation and price increases that affect our community and, secondly, to measure the amounts that we are legislating to provide for people on social welfare against, for example, the average industrial wage because I believe that that is a yardstick we have to use in estimating the capacity of the money we are making available to the people we are dealing with here to provide them with the basic essentials of life.

In relation to inflation it is generally accepted that it is somewhere in excess of 18 per cent, possibly pushing up towards 20 per cent. The Minister has said that under the Bill the long-term rates will be 25 per cent and the short-term rates will be at 20 per cent. We have to recognise, in measuring these sums, that already three months of 1981 have virtually passed by and, therefore, effectively, for 1981 we are talking of increases that are 18 per cent for long-term benefits and 15 per cent for short-term benefits. The 15 per cent, which I believe will be the real increase to people on social welfare for 1981, will apply to people in receipt of disability and injury payments, unemployment benefit and assistance and supplementary welfare allowances. In view of that, I will argue that, taking inflation into account, these people are already losing ground. They are now committed to having to accept a lower standard of living by the end of 1981.

I followed the debate that took place in the other House in relation to this Bill. The Minister is reported as saying that the average industrial wage is something in the region of £104 which is expected to rise to £121 by the end of 1981. It is against this figure that we have to measure what we are providing in this Bill for people who are unemployed. Unemployment assistance for a single person under this Bill will be £20.40 per week, roughly one-fifth of the average industrial wage in the country. For an unemployed person with one dependant it will be £35.10, again roughly one-third of the average industrial wage. An orphan's pension will be £14.80, approximately one-seventh of the average industrial wage. A widow will receive £26.35, which is one-fourth of the average industrial earnings and an unmarried mother with one child will receive £33.75. Therefore, the capacity of the people who have to live on those incomes as measured against the average industrial wage is certainly limited in every sense of the word.

In relation to the unemployed I detect a certain policy in what is being proposed here. Without a doubt, the amounts that are being made available to the unemployed in real terms are being reduced and it indicates to me that somehow there seems to be a policy of adjusting downwards the position of the people who are unemployed. Their limited spending power has been reduced already and the proposed rates will represent real reductions for them. I do not believe that is a fair attitude to adopt to people who are unemployed. The unemployment figures show that there are over 127,000 unemployed in the country at present. Therefore, there are no jobs available for the people who are registered as unemployed. It is not their fault. For that reason, we are being less than just in what we are proposing to provide them with under this Bill.

I want to give one other example. An unemployed couple, with two children on unemployment assistance will receive under the provisions of this Bill £45.70 plus £1 if they reside in an urban area. That is less than £12 per individual to provide heating, clothing, light and food per week. Nobody could survive at present on a sum as meagre as that.

The Minister referred to children's allowances. He said, as far as I can recall, that children's allowance were being increased by 30 per cent. That is correct, but let us look at the amount involved. Children's allowances are increasing from 35p to 50p per week, that is roughly from 5p to 7p per day. The allowance for dependent children, which I assume from the Minister's speech is being added to this, is being increased from 40p to 60p per week, or from 6p to 9p per day. The combined increase in the children's allowance and the rates for dependent children is from 11p to 16p per week. The value of that can best be measured by an experience I had this morning when I found that the price of an apple at Kingsbridge Station is 15p. That, in true purchasing power, is the value of the increase for dependent children within the terms of this Bill.

I want to refer to the non-contributory old age pension. I note, with regret, that for the fourth year in succession the Minister and the Government have failed to reduce the qualifying age to 65 years. That is in contrast with the achievements of the National Coalition during their period in office when they reduced the qualifying age each year by one year. When the Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 1980 was being discussed I raised a point with the Minister. He referred to it when he was replying to the Second Stage debate. I regret to see that no action has been taken on this particular point since then. The point I am referring to is the failure to raise the threshold of £6 means per week, that is, the amount that is disregarded in calculating the eligibility of a person for a non-contributory old age pension. This £6 per week means has existed for quite a number of years. It is unfair that that basic rate has not been adjusted upwards. I raised that point with the Minister last year. I regret that the opportunity was not availed of on this occasion to increase it to a figure which would correspond to what that £6 was worth at the time it was first introduced.

I want to raise, in relation to the method of assessing non-contributory old age pensions, the question of assessing means, particularly in relation to people, for example, from my own part of the country, who live on farms, either medium sized or small, who apply for old age pensions when they reach the qualifying age. I am a member of an old age pensions committee and from my experience I know that there is no set standard by which the income from a medium or small farm is assessed. It is left solely to the judgment of the pension officer or the official concerned who visits the holding and inquires as to how many cows are being milked, how many cattle are being sold and then makes a rough guess as to the average possible income from that holding.

Many of these calculations are wide of the mark and sufficient consideration is not given to the decline in farm incomes which occurred over the past two years. In the interests of the people concerned there should be a standard means and a standard method by which the income from these holdings is assessed.

Another aspect of the old age pensions situation is that people who have spent a lifetime in hard work, often in difficult circumstances, and who have accumulated a few pounds and set it aside as security for their old age are being penalised for their thrift. On the other hand, the person who had drifted in life and wasted any resources that he ever had is being rewarded. Those who were thrifty and progressive and who arranged some security for themselves in their old age are being penalised. That is wrong and I suggest that the Minister should look seriously at that situation.

The Minister referred to the advantages which old age pensioners can enjoy in relation to free travel, free electricity allowances and a telephone allowance. In my county some people would qualify for free travel, for an allowance towards their electricity bill and for a free telephone, but none of these services is available to them. It misrepresents the case to a certain degree to state that these advantages are measurable and that they apply across the board. I had a case in the past few weeks where an old age pensioner living alone applied to have electricity connected to his house and the cost of connecting the power to his home would come to £1,460. Obviously that is away beyond his means so therefore he is excluded from the Minister's assertion that these benefits are worth so much to different people. I also have two cases in my area of people seeking the installation of telephones and they will be a ripe old age at the present rate of progress, if they ever do have the telephone while they are still on this side of the great divide.

There is one other problem in relation to the old age pension about which I am deeply concerned. As a member of an old age pensions committee I see the people who are affected by this. Some people who are in receipt of UK pensions and who have come back to reside in Ireland have found that their pensions are being reduced because of the differential between the punt and sterling. I am not happy with the explanation for it. When these people appear before the committee one sees that they are people who had to leave their homes many years ago because there was no opportunity for them here. They emigrated to Britain to accept perhaps the worst jobs at the bottom of the industrial sphere. They spent a lifetime of toil with few comforts and in their old age they returned to this country. We had no time for them when they were young, we had no respect, opportunities or jobs for them and now when they return in their declining years we deprive them of this temporary little bonus. It is an extraordinary situation that I am thoroughly ashamed of. If the Minister has a conscience he will feel equally ashamed of this situation.

The fuel scheme has been mentioned and the allocation of £3 per week for part of the year is totally inadequate. We were fortunate to have a mild winter and some people who are alive today owe that to the fact that we had a mild winter. If they were dependent on that £3 per week they would not have the heat that they are entitled to. Three pounds is worth very little when one compares it to the cost of gas, electricity, coal, turf, oil or any other source of heat. I would ask the Minister to increase that figure before the end of this year. When one takes account of the continuing increase in the cost of living and the increase in inflation people in receipt of social welfare payments will be worse off at the end of 1981 than at the present time. Our objectives, as a society, should be to raise the level of payments to social welfare recipients, to bring them to a level where they can have easy access to the essentials of life. Having brought it to that point, social welfare payments should be indexed to the cost of living thereby ensuring that the position of the people in need of social welfare does not disimprove by virtue of changes in the cost of living caused by inflation.

Many of the people we are concerned with here today are people who have found considerable difficulties in the past few months in obtaining their payments from the Department of Social Welfare. That point has been laboured extensively elsewhere, but I feel it my duty to register my protest at the unreasonable delays which have increased the level of hardship for people who are in urgent need, and who are entitled to payment.

An Cathaoirleach

Matters of administration do not arise on this Bill so I would not like the Senator to make them a main topic of his contribution.

Mr. Howard

I felt obliged to register my protest on that. There is one other point that I feel obliged to make. When we are dealing with people in receipt of social welfare, we are dealing with people who very often are in that situation through no fault of their own. There is often a failure to treat these people with the dignity and the respect they deserve. They endure hardship and it is my experience, and I am sure the experience of many others in public life, that these people come to us because they have failed to obtain their just entitlements. The benefits are their right; they are in these circumstances through no fault of their own and they should be treated with dignity and respect.

The Bill has certain good points. I criticise it mainly because it has failed fully to recognise the plight of many people on social welfare. There is a failure to recognise the extent of the problem and the hardship suffered by the old, the sick and the unemployed. It is wrong, bearing in mind the ravages of cost increases and inflation to represent this Bill as giving real and substantial improvements. The Minister should give an undertaking that he and the Government are prepared to review at the end of the summer the income position of the people on social welfare, in the light of adverse changes that may have affected their position because of inflation, price increases and so on.

Miss Harney

I too welcome this Bill and the generous increases given to our social welfare recipients — increases ranging from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. These clearly demonstrate the Government's commitment to helping the weaker sections of our community. That is as it should be, because the old, the infirm, the deserted wife and the unmarried mother are the most vulnerable sections of our society. Very often they have nobody to speak on their behalf and they rely each year on the budget speech by the Minister for Finance to find out what their financial state will be for the following year. It is very hard for people to have to survive on the payments outlined by the Minister. Nonetheless, the increases given in this year's budget represent a tremendous increase in real terms on the payments they have been receiving up to now.

I was happy to hear the Minister say that many of the anomalies currently existing under the social welfare code are gradually being phased out. I would like the Minister in future years to consider the female section of our population, those women who spend most of their time at home as full-time housewives, who are not entitled to very many social welfare payments. The Minister should consider in future years the extension of the social welfare payments to include free dental and optical care for full-time housewives. A recent survey published indicated that the housewives of Ireland have the worst teeth in the country. I know the Minister, as Minister for Health, must also be concerned about this.

I am very glad to see that in the Social Welfare Bill this year, maternity allowances are now to be given to women at work. They will now get 14 weeks paid maternity leave and a further four weeks at their own discretion if they so wish. This is as it should be. Women who want to stay at work, who perhaps through financial necessity have to stay at work, are now being looked after in our social welfare code. Side by side with this legislation this Minister, or the Minister for the Environment, should ensure that women who go back to work after they get married will have available to them child-care facilities properly run by the Department, by the Eastern Health Board and other health boards throughout the country so that children can be looked after. These are all part and parcel of any social welfare legislation, because whilst one may provide —

An Cathaoirleach

Some of these matters do not arise in this Bill.

Miss Harney

I am sorry, but in discussing the welcome payments being made we must also make provision to have the children properly looked after. Whilst it may not be essentially a matter for social welfare legislation, it is nonetheless part and parcel of any legislation in this area.

I would also like the Minister, in the case of widows and deserted wives, to make a special examination of their situation, particularly cases of widows whose husbands died suddenly. A young woman with three or four children could suddenly find, as a result of an accident, that the main breadwinner in the house is no longer there. Salaries of perhaps £100 or £200 a week could have been coming into that house but the family may not have any money saved, because of house repayments and so on. Some sort of special allowance should be made to a widow at times like this to help her carry over through the first month or so after the death of her husband. This sort of payment could be related to her needs, to the salary her husband was earning, to the number of children and to her financial responsibilities.

I would particularly welcome the increases given in the children's allowances. They were very generous increases of 30 per cent. I hope that we will continue along this path to make sure that all our social welfare payments, particularly those relating to children, to deserted wives, unmarried mothers and old age pensioners, will keep pace with and indeed, will be ahead of increases in the cost of living. The only way the weaker sections of our community will ever be brought up to a level with the rest of the community will be by having real increases of this nature each year.

In welcoming the Bill and in congratulating the Minister on his very generous increases I hope that he will seriously consider some of the matters I have mentioned. This being the International Year of the Disabled, I am very pleased that the Minister made special allowances for many of the infirm in our community. That is as it should be.

Mrs. Robinson

We in the Labour group wish to see this Bill passed as speedily as possible so that the increases in it may come into effect, as the Minister said, mainly on 1 April. There is no room for complacency, self-satisfaction or self-congratulation in relation to the provisions of the Bill because the stark truth is that the kind of increases in this Bill will not redress the present cycle of poverty and will not remove the grinding incidence of poverty and deprivation which are part of our society. It behoves us to be very serious and even subdued in this House in considering the provisions of this Social Welfare Bill in realising that for those who are living below the poverty line — a very significant proportion of our population — these increases, although they will make some difference, do not outweigh other factors. It is these factors which I wish the Minister to deal with in his reply.

I do not see the overall rationale of the distinction drawn between long-term and short-term benefits, particularly in relation to unemployment. It seems strange, when the unemployment fate is now 126,000, that we would regard unemployment assistance as short-term and therefore have it come within the lower rate of increase, an increase of 20 per cent rather than 25 per cent as in the case of long-term benefits. I accept that there may be some difficulties in this. It is something we discussed in this House in relation to the doubling of benefits at Christmas. The Minister came some way to acknowledging the possible harshness of only doubling the long-term benefits and leaving out short-term benefits, even though these short-term benefits may be benefits which a family have been dependent on for a number of years.

This is the case now with unemployment assistance. It may be the sole source of income to a family over a period of several years and it looks as though this could be an increasing factor. If a person has pay-related benefit, when the time runs out and he has to depend on assistance once again, the severe drop in income can be extremely harsh. I would like the Minister to deal with this distinction for the purposes of calculating the increase, and in particular to deal with this in the context of unemployment assistance. In doing so perhaps the Minister would be in a position to give us some figures for the periods of time in which people are on unemployment assistance. I can certainly give the Minister the means of individuals and of individual families who have been drawing unemployment assistance for a period in excess of one year and in some cases in excess of two years. I wonder if the Minister is in a position to give us percentage rates on this, given the fact that there is, to some extent, a constant turn-over and movement in these figures. Nevertheless there are a substantial number who are now long-term recipients of unemployment assistance, which we characterise as a short term benefit for the purposes of giving a lower increase.

I would question the Minister's assertion that these measures will give social welfare increases in real terms and not just in line with the cost of living or movements in earnings. To some extent this depends on one's perception of the cost of living. I understand that the cost of living index figure will be disclosed tomorrow and that it is estimated that it will run at something like 20 per cent. Apart from that cost of living index figure there are other cost factors which weigh much more heavily on people who are dependent on a social welfare income or who are low wage earners. These are the very significant increases in recent years and in recent months in energy and transport costs. These are probably two of the main areas of devastating increases for persons on social welfare incomes or low wage earners.

Just to have the facts of this on the record of the House, is the Minister in a position to give us the precise increase in gas and electricity costs from 1 March 1980 to 1 March this year, given that this figure of increase is fairly easily ascertainable? Gas and electricity bills are the bills which hit most the low income families. It is no good producing a £70 electricity bill to a family living on £50-odd a month and expecting them to be able to pay that bill.

Similarly, I would ask the Minister to give us the public transport fares increase from 1 March 1980 to 1 March of this year. There is nothing particularly significant about the months and if the Minister wants to vary them a little I do not mind. I just want to know the net increase in the last 12 months, since there was an increase in the social welfare payments, which will put into perspective the devastating impact on the families concerned.

In this context it would be very helpful if the Minister would deal with the scope of the capacity of a community welfare officer to use the supplementary welfare benefits to assist families burdened by particularly high electricity bills. This is one of the single greatest problems and tensions for families and there appears to be a difference in practice between community welfare officers. For example, if there is an outstanding ESB bill and the ESB prescribe payments of, say, £20 a week to pay off the bill, in some cases the community welfare officer will, where somebody is dependent on social welfare income, pay half of that out of supplementary welfare. He could pay as much as £10 of the £20 out of supplementary welfare benefit. In other cases the community welfare officer will say that he has no jurisdiction to pay any part of the electricity bill or he will pay a much smaller amount. This is a very real problem because most families, certainly most of the families that I have come in contact with, families who are dependent purely on a social welfare income, have outstanding electricity bills. They borrow, short-term, at very high rates to try to meet their electricity bills.

There appears to be no approach on the basis that electricity is a necessity of life, both for light and heat for these families and that it should be dealt with in a standardised way under the social welfare code. I would ask the Minister to deal with this problem and in particular to indicate what is the scope of discretion of community welfare officers in assisting in the paying off of high electricity bills. The same would apply to high gas bills. Although at a rather superficial level a 25 per cent increase sounds like a generous increase it does not compensate for the enormous increases in energy costs, and in transport costs and the fact that the consumer price index is likely to show an increase of 20 per cent or thereabouts when the figures are released.

Far from being in any way complacent about this Bill, we should realise that it will not close the gap. We will still see that gap widening between those earning an income and benefiting from industrial wage increases and those dependent on social welfare benefits. I agree with Senator Howard that this is the appropriate standard for us to use so that we can be aware of the level of deprivation which we seem to regard as decent and as adequate.

There are a number of other specific points that I will mention on this Bill. One relates to an anomaly which I know the Minister is aware of, because representations have been made to him, but which is not removed in this Bill. That is the fact that an unmarried mother, a single mother with a child, cannot benefit from the higher level of social welfare benefits. She can benefit only from the unmarried mother's allowance even if she has been working for a number of years in insured employment, paying her insurance contributions, and ought to be able to get the higher level of benefit. In other words, the unmarried mother is discriminated against in comparision with for example, a widow who is getting the widow's benefit on her own earnings, or any other category of earner who qualifies for a social welfare benefit because of contributions made through earned income in previous years. I know that representations have been made to the Minister by Cherish in relation to this. I know that the anomaly has been pointed out to the Minister and I would ask him to deal specifically with this issue, because it appears to be a totally unfair and unwarranted discrimination which obviously makes life all that harder for that one parent family. It has caused considerable resentment and feelings of inequality and injustice among mothers who have worked for a substantial number of years, in some cases, in insured employment, who cannot under our system avail of the higher benefit level and can only avail of the unmarried mother's allowance.

In this connection I join with Senator Howard in protesting about the still continuing £6 means limit. This was introduced either in 1974 or 1975 — certainly not more recently than 1975 — and it has remained unchanged since that date. It is a totally unrealistic limit; it causes very real hardship and I would ask the Minister in his reply to say why the £6 means test limit has not been raised not by a £1 or £2 but very substantially raised for all the individuals and families affected by it. A great number of one parent families and, as Senator Howard has emphasised, old age pensioners are affected by the unreal level of the £6 means test. This perpetuates its own cycle of poverty because it is a disincentive to trying to supplement a social welfare income which is inadequate to live on.

I should like to come back again to the position of the unmarried mother with which I have considerable familiarity through my association with Cherish. What happens is that an unmarried mother is unable to live with her child on the unmarried mother's allowance so she seeks work to supplement it. She finds that as soon as she starts to earn she can claim only £6 plus another £2 for her child before her earnings will be eroded by tax, so she starts to work on what I might call the black market. She does not declare her earnings because she would be hit by taxation in this cycle of poverty. Then she places her child with a child minder or in a nursery school and, again, this is all done in a kind of black market, unacknowledged way because the same situation probably applies in the case of the child minder. She may be a widow who does this as a part-time job and does not want to acknowledge that she is doing it because she too would have the £6 limit only before she would have to pay tax. The Minister should ponder on the way in which categories of people are being driven into part-time unprotected work to avoid the harsh limit of this unchanged £6 ceiling. This is a matter which urgently needs to be changed.

I should like to make a final point in relation to the provisions of this Bill. The Minister referred to the 30 per cent increase in children's allowances. This on its own will be a substantial level of increase when it comes in, but it does not meet the real problem which has been very well identified and very well documented for the cost of children and the fact that our system at the moment is discriminating in financial terms against larger families. I would refer the Minister to the very detailed analysis and unanswerable analysis of this in the recent NESC report prepared by Councillor Eithne Fitzgerald. That report revealed that, although we subscribe to cherishing children and being in favour of the family, and in favour of encouraging people to have children, we actually discriminate against larger families, and that the cost of children is a very real factor in the poverty of a family on a low income.

This Bill does not take that into account. It does not really adopt any of the proposals put forward in that NESC report, not even the proposal for special allowances at particular times of the year. I would remind the Minister that one of the proposals in that NESC report was for particular account to be taken of the cost of older children in a family and of high cost at particular times of the year such as, for example, in September when children are returning to school and need additional clothing, additional shoes, text books, and so on.

If the Minister were to accept and implement some of the recommendations in that report it would be an acknowledgement, which is very badly needed, of the way in which, as a country, we have neglected children and therefore deepened the poverty of those families and created, in some cases, unbearable tensions for the families and particularly for the mothers concerned. This has resulted in a number of mothers damaging their own health through sacrificing their needs in order to feed and clothe their children, becoming anaemic, becoming unable to cope, and suffering the resulting social costs.

The passage of this Bill must be expedited so that those who will benefit from it can get the increases and allowances which will come their way. We in this House ought to have an early opportunity to consider further measures, not paying lip service to keeping up with the real costs of living — I do not believe this Bill does that — but considering a number of co-ordinated measures which would begin to narrow the gap between those who are the privileged job holders, the wage earners in our society, and those who are dependent on social welfare incomes, on short or long-term benefits, and who have become the very poor and indeed who are getting poorer in our society.

Mr. Kilbride

I have not got very many observations to make on this Bill. The unfortunate old age pensioners, people on public assistance and people in receipt of unemployment assistance will benefit from it and for that I welcome it. There are certain anomalies in it, some of which the Minister could have removed. One is in respect of old age pensions and it is seen as being a hardship. A parent may need personal care. A daughter aged 30 or 40 years may spend the best years of her life performing a very charitable act for her mother or father and no supplementary allowance is payable. On the other hand if she came to their assistance at 56 or 57 years of age an allowance would be payable. If the Minister had given this full consideration I am sure he would have amended the law.

Another aspect is the social benefits that are paid to people who are unemployed. Unfortunately there are quite a number of such people at present. I would imagine the Minister's Department are very extensively employed in sorting out the qualifications or disqualifications of such persons who are in receipt of social assistance by reason of being unemployed, people who are on the dole, so to speak. It is rather disconcerting that very often these people are passed on to the health boards and that amounts of money which should be used to provide health board services are being demanded from the county councils who, in turn, have to raise them from local taxation.

I do not want to go further into that matter but it is very prevalent at the moment. I should like the Minister to take account of the circumstances of the people about whom I have made representations to him. I do not want to over-state the case but it is a tragedy in so far as the poorer sections of the community are the sufferers.

On the question of children's allowances, I know a mother of seven or eight children who received all the payments due on her book up to June 1980. Despite all her representations she has been unable to get any allowance from that date to this. I will give the Minister the details again. I have already written to him about it. He should be able to exercise more effective and more decisive control in a case like this. It is hardly fair that it should go on for eight or nine months. I would not say it is the result of neglect but it is the result of mismanagement to some extent. I do not want to go any further than that. Where people are unable to get the service to which they are entitled that service should be supplemented from another source. An interim payment of the appropriate amount should be made and subsequently the payment should be adjusted to meet the circumstances of the case.

It is also a tragedy — if "tragedy" is the correct word — that a person with small means living in a prefab, and in receipt of a full old age pension, should have his pension book withdrawn and a reduced pension book sent back to him. He has never been told why it happened. The Minister should give him a written explanation. This is not the case of a civil servant who is fairly well off and who is getting a pension by virtue of the work he did.

I should like the Minister to take account of all the difficulties and problems that arise in the administration of the health service. I should like him to design a system which would involve no hardship for people and their families. Over the past years there have been savage increases in the cost of living and in the price of bread and other necessaries of life for people like old age pensioners. Increases in allowances are swallowed up. While they are welcome as a stop gap they do not improve standards of living. I would ask the Minister to take account of these increases in the cost of living and to make appropriate half-yearly adjustments to the social services. With the rate at which costs are increasing no matter how welcome increased allowances may be, they are not keeping pace with costs and inflation.

Séamus de Brún

I do not intend to speak at length on this Bill. I merely wish to welcome it sincerely and to congratulate the Minister and the Government on the great concern they have shown for the less well-off sections of our people, that is, all those who are in receipt of social welfare benefits. I believe, and I think the general public believe, that the allowances and the increases granted by the Minister are very generous in the circumstances. Whatever faults people may have found with the budget to which this Bill is a sequel, it is generally agreed, even by people on the other side of the House, that the increases provided by the Minister in his budget, and now in this Bill, are generous and substantial in the light of the present circumstances and the very difficult times we are going through.

The Minister asked for a speedy passage for this Bill so that its provisions can be implemented as soon as possible and thereby benefit those people for whom we express such great sympathy in this House and, indeed, as do Members in the other House. To show our concern for those people whom we are now discussing we should accede to the Minister's request and give this Bill a speedy passage to enable them to benefit as soon and as substantially as possible, that is, from early April.

All categories of social welfare recipients are catered for in this Bill. it is obvious that the increases are generous in every section of the Bill. It is all very well to talk about those people and the increases that they need, and to say the benefits they are being given here are not in proportion to the increases in the cost of living, but one must remember that the money to provide all these benefits must be found somewhere. Who can provide it other than those paying taxes? Everyone is concerned with the provision of this money. Granted, the increases are not as substantial as the Minister would wish them to be, or as the Government would wish them to be, or indeed as any one of us here would wish them to be. Nevertheless, they are generous in the circumstances. The Minister and his Government are to be congratulated.

In his reference to the financing of this scheme the Minister said:

That is a substantial sum of money. I am proud that we have such a Bill before us giving such considerable improvements to all social welfare recipients. Every category is being provided for in social welfare benefits, children's allowances and all across the board. Special maternity allowances are being given. This is a great improvement on anything we have seen in any financial year in the past. Let me remind people that we have had Coalition Governments in office who professed to have great concern for the less well-off sections of our community but I do not think any Coalition Government ever provided such generous allowances or additions to allowances as the Minister and the Government have provided on this occasion. I welcome the Bill and I hope it will be given a very speedy passage.

Mr. McAuliffe

Any fair-minded person would have to welcome this Bill and many of the provisions in it. I would say that the Minister must be disappointed that so many of the benefits have been eroded in the meantime by increases in prices and the overall increase in the cost of living.

I want to refer to disability benefits. People on disability benefit get letters from the Department asking them to change over to invalidity pensions. A small number of these people cannot change over to invalidity pensions for the simple reason that, if they do, they will come under the income tax code. If they remain on disability benefit that is not taxable, whereas if the change over to an invalidity pension it is taxable. The type of people I refer to are people who worked in the civil service, in a local authority, in the banks, and had to give up their employment as a result of MS, Parkinson's disease, a stroke and so on. They get a small pension. A small pension added to the invalidity pension puts them into the tax bracket.

We see the advantages they have. They get the free electricity allowance, a free licence for black and white television, and they get free travel. Many of these people are not interested in travelling. Our public transport system was not set up to carry people suffering from MS, Parkinson's disease, or a stroke. It is impossible for these people to get into a train or a bus unless they get exceptional help. That exceptional help is not always available. Many buses have a driver, and that is all. What can he do? If a person arrives at a bus stop in a wheelchair, unless some people on the bus get off and lift him in, public transport is no good to him.

I would ask the Minister to consider the type of people I refer to. If they remain on disability allowance they do not get free travel until they are 66 years. Many of them are very young people who had to retire before their time. Their employers were decent and gave them reasonable pensions. Add on the invalidity pension and they are into the tax bracket and the other advantages they get become null and void. I would ask the Minister to give that matter his consideration.

Mr. O'Brien

I welcome the Bill in so far as it is an improvement in dealing with the various categories listed. In his statement the Minister was a little too enthusiastic when he described the increases as "very substantial increases in social welfare". They may appear to be very substantial until you translate their value into real terms, and then you find they are not as substantial as the Minister says they are and I am sure as the Minister would like them to be. There are increases of 20 per cent. When measured against the increase in the cost of living, or the figure for inflation, a 20 per cent increase is an "as you were" situation. That could not be described as something about which we should be enthusiastic.

Many of the points I had intended to make have been covered already. I will not go back over them. I want to draw attention to a couple of items. One is the case of a single man on disability benefit who gets £20.40. Does any reasonable person think it is possible for a person like that to have anything other than a poor standard of living on £20.40 a week? His situation will be improved only minimally if he gets an increase of 20 per cent which puts him up to £24.19 per week. I do not believe it can be contended that that person is above the poverty line.

People in that category have great difficulty in qualifying for fuel grants because of their age and they are at a serious advantage. Some of them suffer from a disability for a very long time and fringe benefits extended to old age pensioners should be extended to them automatically. Because of the illness from which they suffer, while they may by young according to the calendar, they are old in health, in physique, in strength, and in so far as they are not capable of taking up employment. I would ask for consideration for people like that.

The question of old age pensioners living alone depends to a large degree on interpretation by assistance officers employed by the health boards. It often happens that a family settlement includes a right of residence for the old man or woman of the house, as the case might be. Technically they are living with their families but it very often happens that such old people have to maintain their own fires, heating, do their own cooking and so on. Interpretation varies. In such cases we should err on the side of clemency rather than strict application of the law which deprives the person concerned of free fuel, free light, free television, and so on, although in fact, he or she lives alone. Because of the niggardly way in which the service is administered it very often happens that old people have to move out of the home where they were prepared to live, where the settlement provided that they should live, and go into hospital. To maintain an old person in a hospital costs three to four times what it would cost to maintain him or her in a rather generous fashion at home. Health board officials should not be so niggardly and super-strict in their interpretation of the regulations. In many cases, the pensioners are, in fact, alone though it might appear that they are living with families.

A good deal was said in the other House about delays in payments. The Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle ruled that these were matters of administration that should not be discussed. The Minister must be concerned about delays. He would be doing the country a good service if he reorganised his Department so as to eliminate long delays. It can be a terrible experience for social welfare recipients to have to wait two or three months, or longer, for payment and to have to ask the local shopkeeper or fuel supplier for credit. From what I know of the Minister he would not want a situation like that to prevail. It is time the Department was streamlined so as to eliminate long delays. Some time ago the Minister said he would see to it that payment was expedited. At that time I was trying to get an old age pension paid to a man who had been declared eligible 20 months before. In fairness to the Minister I should say that after I wrote him a personal letter on the matter payment was made within a week. In the first instance, that delay should not have taken place. I would ask the Minister to continue his efforts to have prompt payment, to eliminate red tape so that there will not be long periods of uncertainty, during which old people have to implore shopkeepers and business people to come to their rescue with credit.

In so far as there have been increases and improvements I welcome them but when translated into real terms, they are not what they appear. In regard to a statement that was made on the other side of the House about the record of the National Coalition I should say that their record in regard to improving social welfare payments was a very creditable one. They introduced many improvements. To cite one or two only, they reduced the old age pension qualifying age to 66, the first reduction implemented in the qualifying age since its inception in 1908; they included categories of single parents for assistance; they granted payments to unmarried women of 57 and over. In very many ways they improved the social welfare system. They are entitled to great credit for their innovations.

Mr. Harte

In the context of the situation in which we live one could say that the social welfare increases are reasonable. At the same time it would be appropriate to select the Bill as a means of highlighting the inadequacy applicable to some social welfare recipients, that is to say, the inadequacy of how they are dealt with. I refer particularly to old age pensioners, non-contributory retirement pensioners, widows' pensions, deserted wives' allowances and so on, and those on social assistance. From the time I was a boy the attitudes of society do not seem to have changed. The attitude always has been: well, if we do well in the other areas and if there is anything good left, we will spill it over to you. The concept of tackling poverty was never a reality and nobody wanted to know anything about it. I am afraid the attitude has not changed very much in all those years. It has not changed from the time when a very large family, living in the late twenties or the early thirties, received nine shillings and two pounds of neck beef, or something like that, in social welfare benefit. That attitude has been continued throughout our history, whether the economy was good, bad or indifferent, that is that if there was something left over we would apply it to the people, not in the sense of a real re-distribution of incomes, but rather that some percentage would be allocated to the area of real poverty.

When we talk about poverty obviously we are referring to people in the lower income groups, by and large those in the social welfare area of old age pensions and so on. In our society the only means of tackling poverty open to us is by increasing social welfare benefits. Frankly I do not think that achieves the objective. We are missing the whole point. When I say the only means open to us I say that in the context of a free enterprise system. If we are doing well, you will get something; if we are not doing too well, then you will get less. There is another way and that is through a real re-distribution of wealth. There is plenty to be re-distributed and there have been very good times for the economy. I do not exclude the Coalition Government from my criticism. There is inequity in our society. We do not care that 25 per cent of the population, including lower-paid workers, social welfare recipients and children under 14 years of age, are living in poverty. We are supposed to cherish the children equally. The people who talk about cherishing all of our children equally are prepared to keep them living in poverty. There is no point in saying that we have not had opportunities in the past to make some improvements because we have indeed. We had the chance to make some effort through the combat poverty projects, not in the sense that we would hand out benefits and so on, but in order that the people would get to know their rights and thereby be enabled to assert themselves more forcibly in society. It was hoped that self-help would be one of the objectives to be achieved through these combat poverty projects. I am not blaming the Government but, unfortunately, that Combat Poverty Committee have been disbanded. If the will had been there those combat poverty projects could have been continued. In this age of abundance of wealth living alongside poverty we still have the bulk of our children, whom we are supposed to cherish equally, denied a basic human right in this socio-economic sphere.

We cannot continue to tackle poverty in the manner we have been doing. We give piecemeal increases, one Government giving 25 per cent, another 20 per cent and so on. No matter how coldly or logically we quote figures, such piecemeal increases are eroded very rapidly because of the rapid rate of price increases not alone during the term of office of Fianna Fáil but of the National Coalition also. As far as I am concerned poverty constitutes the most significant aspect of inequality in the whole socio-economic system. The structural causes of poverty delve deeply into the very nature of the socio-economic climate in which we live. As long as we are all happy to welcome piecemeal increases that is the way the situation will remain. In perhaps ten, 15 or 20 years time we will still be congratulating some Minister — whether Coalition or Fianna Fáil — on the percentage increases he may be granting. But we will still have the problem of poverty with us because there is no conscious political will to tackle real poverty. We will always be happy to grant such social welfare increases because it is a means of salving our consciences. As legislators I suggest we have no right to accept the flagrant injustices that constitute the results of the social and economic forces which reflect the underlying trends in our society.

Because social welfare beneficiaries are awaiting its provisions we must pass the Bill as quickly as possible. In that sense we welcome the fact that something is happening. But we should not hesitate to attack a system based on inequality. We all shout about inequality in every other sphere where there is some muscle. As Senator Harney said this afternoon, that particular section has not got the political muscle. For that reason as legislators we tend to gloss over the situation, appeasing our consciences by this piecemeal method of endeavouring to overcome the problem. The piecemeal methods are merely attempts at offsetting the problem. Whether we like it or not poverty is an inherent element of the free enterprise system. No matter at what free enterprise system one looks—and this is not an ideological view—there is poverty living alongside abundance. We should not be afraid to attack it lest somebody points a finger at us and calls us reds under the bed. I am no red under the bed. I am not afraid to attack it nor should anybody else in this House. Poverty will remain as long as our structures remain unchanged, in the sense of not tackling the whole question of redistribution of wealth. We accept a recognisable degree of inequality. There is in existence real and socially unacceptable degrees of inequality and consequently poverty emanating therefrom. It is clearly in evidence in the form of the 25 per cent of population I mentioned earlier. A large proportion of people who live in poverty are dependent on social welfare and live below reasonable standards. In a society which claims to cherish all of its children we have no right to ask a certain percentage to live below reasonable standards of dignity and welfare.

The irony of it all is that it is nothing new and will not finish there. I maintained earlier that we had not dealt with our social welfare problems, particularly that of poverty in good times. In times when the structure of our economy had altered significantly, when output had accelerated, Irish society remained characterised by many elements of economic imbalance and under-development. Even the best economic achievements did not remove inequality and poverty from our society. Social Welfare Bills with piecemeal offerings were the best we had to offer.

Frankly I hold out no hope of eliminating this poverty as long as we believe in the system: I am all right Jack and the devil take the hindmost. For some inherent reason we make no effort to end our exploitative attitudes, there is no acceptance of the need to give power to the poor; we do not want to give power to the poor. In my opinion an acceptance of a new order of priorities is called for and not merely piecemeal settlements in social welfare. We should be actively seeking opportunities to help social welfare recipients—I am not saying every social welfare recipient because I am not dealing with people who are just out of work—the people who are subsisting in the poverty area, who have been recognised in ESRI research, combat poverty programmes and so on. We should ensure that these deprived and neglected people in our society get a fairer deal. It will not be solved by piecemeal adjustments. The pace of change in life is too fast, the effects of other economies on ours will be advanced against the idea of tackling the real question of poverty. I submit that that is not a valid argument; there is ample wealth in the country if only it were properly redistributed. In the overall area of social welfare throughout the 60 year history of this State we have not really exercised the necessary political will with which to remove those inequalities.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

First, I shall refer to the remarks of Senator Harte, sincerely made, and which constituted a fair contribution though I would not agree with all of what he said. I appreciate his objective, that of tackling poverty in our society. I would submit to Senator Harte that in this Bill and indeed in last year's also, notwithstanding the extreme difficult economic circumstances obtaining—and Senator Harte will appreciate that these are particularly difficult economic times, not times when we can have largesse to disperse — we gave the two highest rates ever given in our history to beneficiaries.

Mr. Harte

Sorry, but we are talking about 60 years of this State.

Dr. Woods

I appreciate what the Senator says but, referring specifically to this Bill, there is a genuine effort being made here, notwithstanding our present economic difficulties, to distribute income. That is a very real effort and it costs money. It means that we have to find £144 million extra at this point in time to cover this year's expenditure which incidentally brings the total expenditure on social welfare now to £1,092 million. It is no harm to get that in perspective. Here I am referring not merely to what Senator Harte said but to what other Senators said earlier — there are 954,000 beneficiaries in total throughout the whole social welfare system — that excludes beneficiaries of children's allowances — generally, the various unemployment and long-term benefits for old age pensioners and others.

It is a huge and complicated system most of which operates fairly effectively and well in terms of delivering the services. From time to time we experience difficulties with some parts of the administration, which were referred to by Senators. It is important to realise that the total sum now being distributed, or re-distributed, is £1,092 million, which includes an extra £144 million this year. If we look at the percentage of the gross national product — and this is reverting to Senator Harte's point about the distribution of the total wealth — the percentage was 9.6 in 1977 and it is over 11 per cent in 1981. Therefore there is a genuine effort being made to increase the amount distributed in this way.

This Bill provides for the spending of the extra £144 million. It provides the increases we have mentioned: the 25 per cent, the 20 per cent, the 30 per cent in children's allowances. It provides also for a very interesting and somewhat novel maternity scheme which will be particularly important to working women on lower incomes, especially those who have not been able to benefit very significantly from previous schemes. It means that there will be a minimum payment. That minimum payment of £20.45 for 12 weeks now becomes £45.75 for 14 weeks. I think the Senator will agree that that constitutes a very significant improvement in that scheme, the minimum payment being £45.75. I mentioned in my opening speech the effects of this in terms of people in different sectors. It is a particularly important scheme and will be very beneficial.

In the case of an old age pensioner under 80 with an adult dependant over 66 — in other words, an old age pension couple — the pension will go up from £42.80 to £53.55, an increase of £10.75 per week. Given the circumstances of this year, that is a very reasonable and worthwhile increase. The single pensioner has an increase of £6.15, bringing that level to £30.65. When we look at the £53.55 I feel that for the first time we are approaching an amount of money for an old age pension couple which is meaningful. I am very happy to be associated with the introduction of this Bill bringing these amounts into being.

It is very difficult to see these increases in their true perspective and I appreciate that Senators — just as did Deputies in the Dáil — will comment that while there is an increase they would like to see a lot more. The problem is — as some Senators said — that somebody has to pay for them and it is difficult to see them in their true perspective. But the increases provided for pensioners in this Bill compare very favourably with those announced recently in the British budget. They show quite clearly that substantial improvements have been made notwithstanding our present economic circumstances.

From next week a single old age contributory pensioner will receive an increase of £6.15 per week whereas the increase for a British pensioner and also a Northern Ireland pensioner amounts to £2.45. Therefore we are talking here about legislation which brings an increase of £6.15 a week, starting next week whereas they in their circumstances — which are difficult also — are talking about £2.45 commencing on November 1 next. I am sure that kind of increase would receive a very hot reception in this House or in the Dáil. Notwithstanding the circumstances I am very glad we have done so much. Then the increase for a married couple, for an old age contributory pension, from next week, will be £10.75 here while the comparable increase in the UK and Northern Ireland will be £3.90 from November next. Therefore to some extent this puts it in perspective.

Several Senators raised the question of the adequacy of the increases in relation to changes in the consumer price index. Senators Howard and Robinson raised this question and spoke for some time about it. It is relevant to look at what has happened in relation to the consumer price index. If we look at the figures, the factual situation is that earnings have increased considerably more rapidly than the consumer price index and by a considerable extent. Therefore when we compare social welfare payments with earnings we find that social welfare recipients have received advantages from our increasing prosperity. I will give an example of that. For example in regard to the old age contributory pension, between 1973 and 1977, the increase in social welfare payments over earnings for a single old age pensioner was nil; the actual increase against earnings was nil. For the same person between 1977 and 1981 the actual increase against earnings was 22.5 per cent. Therefore, Senators will recognise that there is a very real effort being made here to increase the long-term benefits particularly, which were at such a constant long-term low level, an effort to increase the position in real terms. If we look at the old age contributory pension for a married couple we find that between 1973 and 1977, against earnings it constituted a reduction of 2 per cent; earnings went somewhat ahead of the social welfare benefits. If we look at the position between 1977 and 1981 the increase over earnings of social welfare benefits was 22.6 per cent. I could break that down into different parts and show it in different ways but that will suffice to indicate that there were real increases granted particularly those in the last two years, 1980 and 1981, have been real increases. While I agree with Senators who suggested that they would like to see more done, particularly in certain cases, we will continue to pursue improvements for those genuinely in the weaker sectors of our society.

This is a difficult period but there were difficult periods previously. If we take the 1976 and 1977 period the long-term beneficiaries in 1977 got an increase of 9 per cent, then, in October, an additional 5 per cent. One Senator said he would like to see a two-tier increase with one slice being granted now and the other later. Certainly the position will be kept under review but I think it was far better, again in 1980 and in 1981, to give a 25 per cent increase so that it applies to the whole of the year rather than to give, say, 9 or as, in 1976 a 10 per cent increase with the possibility of another 5 per cent as was paid in that case. It is considerably less in real terms as I think anybody who measures the effects of it will recognise. In 1976, the increase was 10 per cent in long-term benefits and then 5 per cent supplementary increase in October while in 1977 the increase in the budget was 9 per cent and five per cent in October.

In effect, what we are talking about is giving the full 25 per cent here and now and in effect these increases will apply from next week as I have said — hence the urgency for this Bill to be passed.

There were quite a number of other questions raised. Children's allowances are increased by 30 per cent and some of the Senators said that they did not really consider that this was adequate, that the whole thing needed to be changed in a very dramatic and major way. This is something which we are reviewing, but it is also important to point out that children's allowances can only come from taxation. This is one of the realities of the situation and the cost of increasing the children's allowances now by approximately 30 per cent — it varies slightly above it and slightly below it, depending on the number of children — is £12 million. There is no fund to provide that additional cost at this stage and it brings the total cost of children's allowances this year to £92.2 million so you are talking about that much on children's allowances and that will give Senators some indication of the magnitude of the expenditure in that area and the kind of increase which is taking place now. However it is something which we are reviewing in relation to family benefits generally but it is somewhat unreasonable not to welcome openly an increase of the order of 30 per cent because it is a particularly welcome increase and, as Minister, I am glad to be in the position to give this increase this year.

There was a little bit of criticism here and there about my appearing happy or joyful about the Bill, or I was accused of boasting that the increases are substantial and significant. In effect, if Senators read my speech they will not find much boasting in it. I would say, though, that the increases are considerable. I should be happy about this Bill because in the present circumstances it represents the biggest increases ever given in any terms, in real terms as well as in present-day terms, at any time, even over the whole of 60 years. Senator Harte made that point fairly clear in his contribution. Of course I am happy as Minister to be able to deliver increases of this order. I would not be normal if I was not happy to be doing that.

Other questions which were raised were the questions of qualifying age at 66 and the basic means test level which applies to the non-contributory pensions only. I think what Senators failed to recognise here is that the upper level is increased and in effect in those cases if you take a person with a means of £15, because of the increase in the upper level and the lengthening of the scales, he will receive increases of up to 50 per cent as a result of the technical effect of that measure. So there is much more benefit in that than is apparent to the eye at first instance.

Regarding the qualifying age of 66, the main question is that of the cost of changing that qualifying age. It would cost £18 million to reduce it to 65 in present circumstances. The Government opted instead to increase by a greater amount the levels of existing pensions. This is something which will be considered further in future.

The ultimate answer to many of these questions which relate to non-contributory pensions and to means tests is the national income-related pension scheme. That is something which I expect will be brought before the Government very shortly. It is being considered in the various Departments at the moment and I would regard it as a very important measure. I will do all I can to bring out the White Paper on that because I believe that in the longer term this is one of the best means of overcoming many of the difficulties raised in relation to assistance schemes. If there is not a contribution, if there is not a fund, well then you are talking about taxation and if you are talking about the taxpayer paying directly for all the benefits concerned you are talking about a means test. It is not very feasible otherwise because the expense would become far too great.

Some Senators raised the question of the national fuel scheme. Senator Howard suggested that the £3 a week is totally inadequate. Unfortunately, I find, as Minister for Social Welfare, that no matter what I do it comes out when I come into either House as being regarded by some people as being totally inadequate. I must point out that I did achieve an increase of 33? per cent in the fuel scheme in August last and a further 50 per cent from 1 February this year. Also at the same time I brought in a national scheme. In other words I had the scheme extended to cover everyone throughout the country on a general basis. Now I know that within the scheme there are some anomalies, that there are some categories in the 17 towns who have a special benefit but there were a lot of people who did not benefit from the scheme previously and we did manage to have the scheme extended to cover those. To get a scheme extended in the climate of this year, particularly so as to make it a national scheme — to grant an increase of 33? per cent in August last and a further increase of 50 per cent from 1 February — was a very significant development in the scheme. I do not know of anyone in any party in previous years who developed a scheme in any way like that. All I can say to Senators is that it is something which will be reviewed before we go into next winter.

Senator Harney recognised the real increases which were there and made special pleas in relation to support for women at work and for housewives in relation to free dental and optical benefit for housewives. We are examining the various aspects of this in terms of women who are working or who have worked outside the home for some time and so on with a view to seeing what can be done within the resources available.

Senator Robinson spoke about there being no room for congratulations or for complacency. I agree about the complacency but I do not agree about the congratulations. I think we are all to be congratulated on achieving what we have achieved and I would agree entirely that there is no room for complacency.

Mr. Harte

The Minister is not the worst.

Dr. Woods

Senator Robinson raised the question about not agreeing with the distinction between long-term and short-term benefits. The Senator is forgetting that for unemployment benefit in particular there is a 15 month pay-related benefit on top of the unemployment benefit, the basic benefit. If the person then transfers to assistance there is no pay-related benefit. There are adjustments in relation to family size and whatever, but the distinction has been highlighted in the opposite way by some other Senators who said that those who are really in this long-term poverty situation must have special treatment. Here we have had the case of the widows, old age pensioners and other long-term beneficiaries. It is to adjust their position that the distinction was made.

Senator Robinson talked about the price of gas, about the ESB increases and about a family on £50 a week. That was probably a slip of the tongue because even the family referred to here were on £45.75 a week. The consumer price index takes in the overall increases and at the time in which these changes were made that was 18 per cent. They do include increases for cigarettes and beer and various other things. I accept that gas and the ESB have been two substantial elements in that increase but we have more than compensated for the overall increases and where the fuel schemes are available — this applied particularly to certain categories — they also go some of the way towards meeting those needs.

Where Senators have raised the question of poverty and of people being in a poverty cycle, I would be very concerned with this situation and I assure the Senators that it is something to which we will give attention. Globally, what we are doing in this Bill is one of the most important things, that is shifting a great deal of the wealth in that direction. It does not mean necessarily that it is used by all groups or that all groups have equal access to or benefit from it. Where anomalies like that exist I will certainly be concerned to do something about them.

Senator Robinson raised the question of the community welfare officers and the scope that these officers have. It is a fact that the community welfare officer has discretion to meet payments which he or she regards as excessive hardship on the beneficiaries. Another Senator raised the question of having to go to a shopkeeper. One should not have to go to a shopkeeper when the supplementary welfare system is there. I had a meeting recently with the chief executive officers of the health boards. I asked them to bear in mind the difficult circumstances currently being experienced and to take that into consideration in exercising their discretion. I would be anxious that that discretion would be exercised in a way which was practical and useful and which solved the problems, though I accept that they must take care that the more ready use of this discretion does not lead to abuse in some cases. There is an over concern at times about such cases.

Senator Kilbride raised the question of the prescribed relative allowance. This allowance goes to the pensioner and not to the person who is minding the pensioner. But we give credits to the relative who is minding an old-age pensioner for the period involved and that keeps him in benefit in relation to social welfare and pension benefits subsequently, but there is no direct payment currently. Senator Kilbride also raised the question of one lady's children's allowance book. We are having that investigated. It is a specific case. There are 440,000 of these books and there are constant changes in them, in effect, because you have children going out of benefit and new children coming into benefit and family sizes changing constantly. This is something which has to be dealt with on a continuing basis. The question he raised is currently being investigated.

Senator de Brún welcomed the Bill. He felt that congratulations were in order. I have to agree with him on that. He was glad to give it a speedy passage in the House. That is something to which I might make very brief reference. It is essential that it has a speedy passage. It has been delayed already because of all the talk in the Dáil about administration. Assuming that it is passed today, if there is any hitch in the printing stages there could be difficulty. We have a motion, which hopefully will be passed, to deal with this.

Senator McAuliffe raised the question of people on disability benefit and the fact that they are not taxable in that situation, and that when the Department endeavour to change them to invalidity they then become taxable. The reason why the Department are prepared to change them to invalidity is because they have longer-term benefit which is easier in operation and is at higher rates. The rate for a married couple on invalidity is £5 higher per week. Presumably they would wish to have that. If they have in addition an income it is true that that income will be taxable as any other person's income is taxable.

I will look at how this may affect people such as those mentioned by Senator McAuliffe, people with multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's Disease and other long-term diseases. If there are anomalies occurring, I would certainly be keen to see if we could do anything about them.

Senator O'Brien raised the question of people having to go to the shopkeeper. I have covered that in relation to the supplementary welfare allowances.

There is one other point I should mention. Perhaps a wrong impression was given when Senator Howard talked about unemployment benefit because he neglected to say that the pay-related benefit would apply in a case such as he mentioned. If you take unemployment benefit — this is in the argument about long-term and short-term benefits — a man with a wife and three children would receive, including pay-related benefit, average income of £77 a week approximately. That is roughly the situation. I want to be sure that Senators are aware of the order of that benefit. Any of the remarks made would apply to the long-term assistance beneficiaries rather than to unemployment benefits.

I should like to thank Senators for what were in the main constructive views on the Bill and for the support that they have said they will give to it. I would be very glad if the Seanad would give it a speedy passage.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

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

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 25 Mar 1981

Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 1981: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Mar 1981