I sincerely thank Senators for the very warm welcome they have extended to the measures contained in the Bill. The welcome was in the main to be expected, but it exceeded my expectations in its warmth and the general acceptance of the measures, indeed the generous lack of criticism of possible provisions which the Bill does not contain. This was evident in Senators' speeches. I thank the Senators who welcomed me to this Chamber this morning and assure them that I have had many happy memories of this Chamber. I am particularly glad to be back with a measure of this nature. Senator Harte said he hopes that each future measure that I will bring before the House will be equally welcomed. I hope so too.
I would like to deal, in order so far as I can do so, with the points made by Senators during the course of the debate. Senator Tom Hussey was the first Senator who spoke, and the point he raised was taken up by Senator Byrne. It was in relation to some special provision for the purchase of coal and fuel during this Christmas season. I am not sure what Senator Hussey was talking about but I assume he was talking about the free fuel scheme. He mentioned a sum of £90 which would appear to be the aggregate of the amount paid in respect of free fuel to each of those who qualified over a period of 30 weeks, assuming they were paid at a rate of £3 per week during the winter of 1980-81.
I should like to make the point that that £3 has now been increased to £4 and therefore the £90 now becomes £120. I accept that the free fuel scheme as it stands is not yet adequate to meet the needs of those who have to depend on it. Before announcing the increase to £4 we had already in hand a review of the whole free fuel scheme. It was not appropriate that we should hold up the payment of the £4 pending the culmination of that review, but I assure Senators that the review is going on and will be completed very shortly. We are very conscious of the fact that the scheme needs extension and improvement and we are trying to devise a scheme that will be an extension and an improvement of the existing scheme.
Senator Gemma Hussey laid particular stress on the position of women's societies and the fact that women in the main are condemned to live on a lower rate of income than men and that women figure largely in groups dependent on social welfare for maintenance. Of course this is a long argument which we have often had in other places and which is a reflection on our society and the attitude society has had towards women generally. It is also reflected in the discrimination against women that still exists in the whole social welfare code, a discrimination which gradually is being eliminated. Because of the EEC requirements, it will have to be eliminated to a greater degree in the future. I commit myself as the Minister responsible to make a speedy elimination of the remaining elements of discrimination that exist against women in the social welfare code.
Another point which Senator Gemma Hussey, Senator O'Connell and others made is in relation to claims of virtue for having introduced this measure. I accept that point completely and I am very glad it was made. It is not something for which we should seek virtue, or haggle about who was initially responsible or how the scheme came about. The aim of the scheme is to bring some measure of comfort at Christmas to the most needy section in our community. It is manifest in the House this morning that Senators on all sides are agreed that it was a worthy thing to do and that it is something we should try to improve in the future if we can.
Senators Cranitch, Ferris, McGuinness, Burke and others made the point about general redistribution of wealth in our society. This is something a number of us have been obsessed with since coming into public life. Many people who fall into the social welfare net are victims of society and of policies invented not by the Department of Social Welfare but many economic Departments, housing, education. There are people who have not got adequate housing in the first instance and who have not got adequate education or adequate recreation, some of whom will never have an opportunity to get out of that net.
That brings us back to the whole concept of the poverty programme to which many Senators referred this morning. The purpose of the Poverty Agency is to research poverty in this country, to try to discover the cause of poverty, to educate the people about the extent and the nature of poverty and to ensure that input not just alone by the Department of Social Welfare but by all the other Departments which by their policies down through the years have contributed to poverty, will be sufficient.
One Senator said that though charity is welcome, it is not the answer to the problem. I agree completely with the point about educating the public on the true nature of poverty and the extent of the sacrifices — if we can call them such; indeed in many cases they are sacrifices — which will have to be made, a sense of foregoing what they already have because it is more than their share of the national wealth, that will have to be made by other sections of the community if we are to bring justice to the people who are in the social welfare net who, had they got fair play from the moment they entered this world would not be in it today. I accept the point that there is no place here for claims of virtue.
Senator McGuinness made the point that Christmas should not be about how much money we have, and I agree with her. Christmas for the old, the lonely and the poor can be a very sad time. While we in this House cannot do very much about the large measure of loneliness that exists at Christmas without the co-operation of the community at large, we have an opportunity to do something about a measure of poverty, and that is precisely what this Bill sets out to do.
Senator McGuinness also spoke of the anomalies that still exist in the social welfare code. I assure the Senator that this is something of which I am very conscious and to which I am giving attention. I accept her point in relation to anomalies because very often when one anomaly is eliminated another is created. In relation to the improvement of the system generally, because of the nature of our society—the fact that so many people at both upper and lower age limits are dependent on a small working force— progress has to be slower than many of us would like it to be.
Senator Honan spoke on behalf of the mentally handicapped, and I thank her for the comment she made with regard to my interest in the mentally handicapped. I assure her that as far as I am concerned the purpose of the International Year of the Disabled is not that we should make gestures or take action during this year but that we should enlighten people and set a framework which would show the path ahead. We will not have made progress this year if we do not ensure that the work we do will be continued. I can assure the Senator that this is a matter which continually will be getting my attention as long as I hold this post.
Senator Bolger made the point that the rate of pensions is extremely low. I accept that, and it is a point I have made repeatedly both in Government and in Opposition down through the years. We condemn people on pensions of the nature we are dealing with here this morning to a standard of living that would not be acceptable to the rest of us. We tend to pat ourselves on the backs if we give these people £7, £8 or £9 a week and we realise that other sections of the community would not accept an increase of that nature because obviously they have more muscle and can exercise greater clout when it comes to getting their share of the national cake. We have a very special responsibility in relation to the people concerned here. As Senator Byrne said, we regard £30 or £40 a week as adequate when others, without a thought, would spend £30 or £40 on one meal and would not regard the meal they got for £30 or £40 for two persons as adequate by way of a night's entertainment. So we have two standards. We will have to eliminate those two standards and let the public see there will not be a section at the lower end of the social scale who are condemned to live in a standard that would not be acceptable to the rest of us.
A number of Senators spoke about the personalisation of the Department of Social Welfare. I can tell those Senators that that is a priority for me. I am very well aware of the problems of the Department of Social Welfare and I want to make it quite clear that everybody who works in the Department of Social Welfare, within the constraints of the resources available, is doing an excellent job. What we have tended to do down through the years is to push work of all kinds on to this Department. Legislation has come in. All the matters with which other Departments could not deal have been hived on to the Department of Social Welfare for consideration, but we have not increased the resources: we have not invested in the technology in the Department of Social Welfare or, perhaps, in many other Departments, that has become acceptable in private enterprise. Then we expect the services to meet today's needs and today's standards which we set in other areas.
The standard I want in the Department of Social Welfare is one that will meet today's needs. It is one that would ensure there would be no one waiting for payments. There has been a considerable improvement in the speed of payment in the Department, but I accept there are still some delays. There are still problems in getting through on the telephone to the Department of Social Welfare, but there is a programme to improve the telephone service and I would hope that very shortly the matter will improve there.
In the Department of Social Welfare there is a system built up over many years where we have not kept pace with what was acceptable in other Departments or outside in private enterprise. While we are pressing ahead with computerisation and improvement of the network and the communications systems in the Department, obviously, as Senator McGuinness said, these things take time. All I can do today is to guarantee Senators they will not take longer than is absolutely necessary within the constraints of the resources that are available to me to attend to the needs of that Department.
Senator McAuliffe too, spoke of the disabled, and the position of the disabled people who are not on invalidity pensions though they may be on long duration disability pensions for more than one year and may have the option of going on disability pensions which would give them the double pensions this Christmas, but chose not to do so because that disability pension is taxable. I would advise people who are on long duration disability benefit to transfer to disability pensions. So far as the taxation element of it is concerned, it is something we will take up at another time. I have noted Senator McAuliffe's point. I tend to hold the view that in respect of income from whatever source, if it is adequate and reaches the level of being in the tax net, it would be rather difficult to organise a tax system which would allow for the exclusion of incomes of certain kinds or extend that exclusion. However, it is a point that I have taken up and I will certainly look into it and bring it to the notice of my colleagues who have organisations which would be more appropriate for dealing with that problem.
I think that deals with the points that have been raised during the course of the debate. I would say once again that the aim of the Bill is to bring comfort at Christmas to the categories of people who, because of their special needs such as advancing age, chronic illness and indeed one-parent families, have particular pressures on them at this time of year. They are in the main people who do not have the prospect of ending their dependence on social welfare payments.
In bringing in a Bill of this nature we have tended to concentrate on people of particular need. I think Senators appreciate that point. I thank them sincerely for the welcome they have extended to the Bill. It is very important that we do the best we can for people in that category who are confined to that level of income at Christmas.
It is more important that we should look at the whole social welfare code and look at the whole area of poverty. We should try to identify the causes of the poverty and see whether it is possible to ensure that many of the people who are recipients of social welfare and who in a more just society would not depend on double payments at Christmas or on social welfare at any time, will be looked after, and having done that that those who are dependent on social welfare be dealt with as humanely and efficiently as possible by the Department.