Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 26 Mar 1982

Vol. 97 No. 4

Social Welfare Bill, 1982: Second Stage.

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

This Bill gives effect to the undertakings given by Fianna Fáil in the recent general election in regard to social welfare increases. The Bill was passed by the Dáil on Tuesday last, two days before the budget and it now comes before the Seanad one day after the budget. I am sure Senators will have realised this is the first time ever in which a Social Welfare Bill has come before them so promptly. Members of the House will, however, be familiar with the political circumstances which have given rise to this situation. The increased payments come into operation from Wednesday next, 31 March, which is only a few days away. The legislation providing for the increases must be enacted by then and it is for this reason that I have had to move so quickly. I am sure that I can rely on the co-operation of all Members of the House in giving this deserving measure speedy and favourable consideration.

A number of harsher measures provided for in the January budget drawn up by the former Minister for Finance, such as the removal of the food subsidies and the imposition of VAT on footwear and clothing, were not acceptable to this Government because of their impact on the less well off sections of the community. I am pleased however to include in the Bill the social welfare increases proposed in the January budget and to include also some additional items for which I have got the sanction of the Government and to which I will refer later. Fianna Fáil Governments have always been conscious of the need to provide a satisfactory level of welfare services even in times of economic recession and to develop these services and bring about worthwhile improvements in them.

Rates of payment generally are being increased by 25 per cent, apart from children's allowances in which case the increase is substantially greater. It is clear that the increased payments will be of considerably more benefit to those receiving them than the same level of benefits would have been if they had been awarded in the context of increased prices for food, clothing and footwear which would have resulted from the proposals of the previous Government to remove food subsidies and put VAT on clothing and footwear. The present Government's decision to eliminate the harshest effects of the budget proposed by the former Government by maintaining food subsidies at existing levels and cancelling the proposed new 18 per cent VAT on clothing and footwear will be a substantial relief especially for those who are dependent on social welfare payments.

I will now turn to the effect of the increases on individual payments. Section 2 of the Bill provides for the increases in social insurance payments. The personal rate of contributory old age and retirement pensions for persons under age 80 is being increased by £8.05 to £40.25 while pensioners aged 80 years or over will get £43.05. The addition to the pension for an adult dependant is being raised to £25.70 where the adult dependant is under pensionable age and to £30.05 where the adult dependant is aged 66 or over. Accordingly, a married couple both over pensionable age will get £70.30 as compared with £56.25 at present and, if the pensioner is aged 80, the new rate will be £73.10 as against £58.50 at present. The new rates for a married couple represent well over 50 per cent of average industrial earnings.

The new personal rate of widow's contributory pension which also applies to deserted wife's benefit will be £36.25 for a person under pensionable age, £36.95 for a person aged between 66 and 80 and £39.45 for a person aged 80 years or over. An invalidity pensioner aged under 66 will get an increase of £7.10 bringing the personal rate to £35.50, while the rate for a person aged 66 or over will be raised by £7.25 to £36.20. The addition to pension for an adult dependant is being increased to £23.05 for a pensioner under age 66 and to £23.50 for a pensioner aged 66 or over. The personal rate of disability and unemployment benefit is increased from £25.30 to £31.65 and a married couple will receive £52.15 as against £41.70 at present. Maternity allowance is also being increased to £31.65. The maximum rate of death grant goes from £75 to £100.

Section 2 also provides for increased occupational injuries benefits in line with the general increases in social insurance payments.

Increases in social assistance payments and in the rates of children's allowances are provided in section 3 of the Bill. The standard rate of non-contributory old age pension is being raised by £6.90 to £34.45 for persons aged under 80 years. It will go up to £36.95 for persons aged 80 or over. The maximum rate of payment in respect of an adult dependant under 66 years of age is being increased by £3.45 to £17.30 bringing the overall maximum payment for a married couple to £51.75 and, where the pensioner is 80 years of age or over, to £54.25. The allowance payable in respect of a prescribed relative looking after an incapacitated pensioner is being raised to £19.30. The additional allowance payable to pensioners living alone is being increased to £2.70.

The maximum weekly personal rate of widow's non-contributory pension is being increased from £27.05 to £33.80 where the widow is under age 66, from £27.55 to £34.45 where the widow is aged between 66 and 80 and from £29.55 to £36.95 where the widow is aged 80 or over. The improvements in widows' pensions will automatically apply to the social assistance allowance for deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives. Increases in the prescribed relative allowance and living alone allowance for persons over age 66, in line with those payable with non-contributory old age pensions, are also provided. The social assistance allowance payable to single women aged between 58 and 66 is being increased by 25 per cent bringing the maximum rate of the allowance to £29.50.

Unemployment assistance personal rates go up to £26.25 in urban areas and £25.45 elsewhere. The rates for adult dependants are being increased to £18.95 and £18.50 respectively, so that the rate for a married couple will be £45.20 in an urban area and £43.95 elsewhere. Small-holders with land under £20 valuation in certain disadvantaged areas whose means for unemployment assistance purposes are assessed notionally by reference to land valuation will also have their special rates of unemployment assistance increased by 25 per cent.

Recipients of supplementary welfare allowances will also get the benefit of a 25 per cent increase bringing the maximum rate of supplementary allowance for a married couple to £43.95 per week with additional payments for children.

The increases for dependent children of social welfare beneficiaries have been calculated in such a way that, taking account also of the increases in the general scheme of children's allowances, an increase of 25 per cent is provided in payments for children.

The increase in children's allowance rates is also provided in section 3. The present rates of allowance of £6 for the first child and £9 for each additional child are increased to £11.25 for each of the first five children and £17.50 for each subsequent child. This will effectively mean an increase of some 45 per cent in those payments in the nine month period from April to December 1982. On this occasion the increases in children's allowance will have effect from April instead of July but for administrative reasons the current rates will continue to apply until July when arrears from April will be paid. Additional orders will be included with the normal July children's allowances book issue to enable the increases due for the months of April—June to be paid retrospectively. This will be done in conjunction with the July renewal of allowance books.

The reduced rates of social assistance pensions and allowances payable where the weekly means exceed a certain amount are also, of course, being increased. The application, in previous years, of uniform percentage increases to all reduced rates of pension resulted in a scale of means and pensions under which weekly pensions were reduced at one stage by £1.40 for every increase of £1 in means. The reduction for each £1 increase in means is now £1.20 and this Bill provides in section 4 for the removal of this anomaly so as to ensure that reductions in pensions will be made in steps commensurate with increases in means. The abolition of this anomaly, at a cost of some £760,000, together with the increase in the rate of pension would have the effect of greatly stretching the scales of means and pensions to an extent that would make them far too cumbersome and complicated. To avoid this, section 4 also provides that the steps of means in the tables will be increased from £1 to £2.

Section 6 eases the means test for certain single parents by enabling them to increase their earnings without suffering a reduction in social assistance payments as a result. At present the means test includes a provision, in the case of applicants with children, to disregard any earnings of the applicants up to £104 a year for each child. The provision which I am now making is to increase the "disregard" to £312 a year for each child in the case of applicants for widow's non-contributory pension, deserted wife's allowance, social assistance allowance for unmarried mothers and prisoner's wife's allowance.

Section 7 provides for a particularly desirable extension of the prescribed relative allowance scheme to invalidity pensioners under age 66. This allowance is at present payable as an increase of pension to incapacitated pensioners who need full-time care and attention and who are over 66 years of age. An exception is made in the case of blind persons who may receive the allowance under that age. Section 7 provides that the age limitation will also be abolished in the case of invalidity pensioners thus extending the allowance to those pensioners no matter what their age.

Section 8 will remove an anomaly in the unemployment assistance scheme. In order to qualify for unemployment assistance under existing legislation married women living apart from their husbands must have a child dependant, even though their position is analogous to that of a single woman who is subject to no such condition. The removal of this anomaly will benefit a number of cases which have arisen.

I would like to mention briefly two additional measures which I am introducing from April but which do not require to be provided for in legislation. I am extending the free telephone rental scheme, which at present applies mainly to social welfare pensioners aged over 66, to eligible blind pensioners under 66. I am also extending the free travel scheme to residents of the State who are in receipt of Northern Ireland or British invalidity pensions and who are under 66 years of age.

Allowances payable under the Health Acts, such as disabled persons' maintenance allowance, infectious diseases maintenance allowances and blind welfare allowances are also being increased from April broadly in line with the increases in social welfare payments. For example, the maximum personal weekly rate of disabled persons maintenance allowance is being increased from £26.05 to £32.55, the rate for an adult dependant from £14.80 to £18.50 so that the rate for a married couple will be £51.05.

In addition to what was provided for in the January budget I am pleased to be able to say that the Government have also decided to increase the domiciliary care allowance for handicapped children from £45 to £55 per month. Also the mobility allowance which is payable to disabled persons will be increased from £200 to £250. Finally, the capitation allowances which are payable to voluntary organisations for the vocational training of disabled persons will be increased. Apart from recouping those organisations for their increased costs these additional payments will enable them to increase the allowances which they pay to their trainees.

These, then, are the improvements which are coming into effect from April. As I said earlier, these measures, when taken together with the Government's decision to maintain food subsidies and remove the proposed 18 per cent VAT on footwear and clothing will significantly improve the situation of social welfare recipients.

In recent years recipients of long-term social welfare benefits have received double payments at Christmas. On such occasions, however, on which temporary increases of this nature have been provided it has been necessary to introduce legislation. Since it is already possible by regulation to provide for permanent increases in rates of payment it is anomalous that temporary increases, such as these double payments, cannot be provided in the same way. I am accordingly providing in section 9 that the power to vary rates of payment by regulation will be extended to cover such temporary increases. This provision will give greater flexibility in relation to the time of year at which such increases can be provided in the future. For instance this year I will be making a double payment for the child dependants of social welfare beneficiaries in September and December. Statutory provision for these payments can be made by means of a regulation under this section. It is particularly important to be able to do this in the case of the September payments because the Dáil and Seanad are unlikely to be sitting at that time.

The only other provision made in the Bill is to amend a number of minor printing errors in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, which have come to light since its enactment.

The overall cost in 1982 of the rates increases and other changes being provided for in this Bill is £230 million and this will bring overall expenditure on social welfare to approximately £1,565 million. The cost to the Exchequer in 1982 of the increased expenditure will be approximately £128 million. Some £102 million will be met by increases in social insurance contributions which are provided for in section 5 of the Bill together with the raising from £8,500 to £9,500 of the ceiling of earnings on which contributions are levied. The raising of the ceiling will also lead to corresponding increases in the amount of pay-related benefit to employees.

The increases in social insurance contributions allow for an Exchequer contribution of 25 per cent to the social insurance fund towards expenditure in 1982. The increase is 1.75 per cent for the employer and 1.75 per cent for the employee. This brings the standard contribution for social insurance from 13.3 per cent to 16.8 per cent of which the employer will bear 11.3 per cent and the employee 5.5 per cent. This is the same increase in PRSI rates as was proposed by the previous Government. Proportionate increases are being provided in the rates of voluntary contributions. Reduced rates of contributions are payable under regulations in respect of certain employments, for example, pensionable public service employees and certain share fishermen and outworkers. These are not covered for all the benefits of the social insurance system and increases due in those rates will be made by regulation. The contribution increases will be effective from 6 April 1982.

I am satisfied that the measures which I have just outlined will bring about a real improvement in the situation of social welfare recipients particularly when account is taken of the more sensitive budget strategy of this Government. It is my intention to maintain the process of improvement.

Before concluding I should like to take the opportunity to mention briefly some areas which I consider to be in need of attention. The social welfare code is a complex one. In my previous term of office I was responsible for the enactment of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act which was a major contribution to the simplification of the system by bringing many complex legislative provisions together in the one Act. It was always my intention to continue the review of various aspects of the social welfare code with a view to further rationalisation and removal of anomalies.

The rationalisation of the means scales as provided for in section 4 of this Bill is an example. It may be only a small step but the beneficiaries concerned will get an additional £760,000 as a result. Details of the new means scales are being published in booklet form. An example will help to illustrate the point. Under existing provisions the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension of £27.55 is payable to a pensioner with means assessed at £6 per week. If his means were £8 per week his pension would be reduced by £2.40 to £25.15. Under the provisions in this Bill a pensioner in a similar situation would have his pension reduced from the new maximum of £34.45 to £32.45, a reduction of £2 only, whereas previously the reduction would have been £2.40.

I am also looking at the consolidation of the very complex code of regulations which forms part of the social welfare system. This is an area in which I am satisfied that more worthwhile progress could be made.

I also intend to review the supplementary welfare allowance scheme to ensure that everything possible is done to improve its operation and ensure that it fulfils its original objectives. This scheme has been in operation for almost five years and is now in need of major review and improvement. It is the one scheme which deals at the closest quarters with financial need at the most critical level. Of all the social welfare schemes it is the one which must operate most quickly and flexibly to meet needs as they arise.

My immediate task, however, is to have this Bill put through as quickly as possible so as to allow for the implementation of the improvements which it contains. The first of these improvements in payments takes effect from 31 March so the matter is urgent. I commend the Bill to Seanad Eireann and ask Senators to give it speedy and favourable consideration.

Social Welfare Bills are rarely the subject of contentious debate in this House or in the other House. On this occasion we have a Bill, the substance and the detail of which are common ground between this Government and the previous Government. This is a healthy thing. While we all share the general objective of easing the burden on the social welfare classes, it is a good thing that we are of one mind as to what are the most urgent things to be done in this regard and the things which are possible to be done at present. There are some features here which are very welcome. We have had increases of 25 per cent in social welfare benefits before, but these were mainly confined to the basic rates. Here we have increases in the supplementary benefits as well. This is a good thing and I hope it will be a feature of all social welfare legislation in the future. We have agreement on the easing of the means test and on the removal of certain anomalies. These are the main provisions the Bill contains, besides the pay-related contributions and certain other minor improvements.

It is clear that there remain many other anomalies in our social welfare system. There are also instances in which the social welfare system is abused and this can be particularly true in certain cases in regard to pay-related benefits. These anomalies and abuses certainly must be tackled. Today we have before us, as the Minister has said, at short notice and as a matter of urgency, a Bill with the particularly narrow scope of giving effect to the social welfare provisions not just of the budget of this week but of the budget of last January also.

As the Minister has agreed, we still have a great deal of work to do to remove anomalies, but this is work for another day. Last year we had a Consolidation Bill. Later in that year we had two Social Welfare Bills. We now have another Social Welfare Bill, and may well have a Social Welfare (No.2) Bill in 1982. I hope some Minister will be back here to deal with some of the very urgent problems we have.

There is one point I should like to refer to in this regard, that is, that, having had a Consolidation Bill in 1981, we find ourselves, less than a year later, already building up legislation by reference. If we look at section 2 of this Bill it is difficult to refer back from that section to the Consolidation Act which is the principal Act. I would commend to the Minister that he give earnest consideration to a point that has been raised many times in this House. It was raised many times by Senator Eoin Ryan, Leader of the Seanad, that is that there are certain types of legislation in respect of which we should not consider ourselves bound by the centuries old tradition that we have Consolidation Bills or Amendment Bills only. There is no reason why we could not take the Consolidation Act of last year and, when we make the amendments, we insert these, so that we then have a single Social Welfare Act which contains all the information.

Perhaps some of my colleagues may feel that if we do this with Bills we make them all too readily understandable to the layman. Our learned friends in this House may think that that is not an appropriate thing. But for the practising politician, for the member of the public who wishes to understand what is the situation, this is something that should be done. While I am urging that the Minister should come back as soon as possible with a Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill to remove the many remaining anomalies, I suggest that when he does he give serious consideration to this question of being able to produce a Bill which will be a merging of the Consolidation Bill of 1981 and the new Bill which removes these anomalies.

I do not think it would be profitable for us this afternoon to discuss, as it were, our favourite anomaly in regard to the social welfare code. Everybody probably has a favourite anomaly because there are so many of them. It might well be a matter that we could discuss by motion in the Seanad in the course of the next few months. If we did bring forward a motion of this type it might be helpful to the Minister in the preparation of legislation which he indicated to us he has in mind towards the end of his introductory speech.

Therefore I shall confine myself to what is in the Bill and raise just a few points. They may be so simple that the Minister can give me an immediate answer and, if not, they can be pursued further on Committee Stage. When I look at section 2 I wonder why it is necessary to deal with the basic rate of payments in subsection (1), while it takes us another ten subsections to deal with the supplementary benefits. I would pose the question to the Minister: would he not be giving us a cleaner Bill, a more understandable Bill, if it were to be drafted with a single subsection which amends the Schedule? As far as I can see all we are concerned with here are the amendments of Schedules.

In regard to section 5 I have a point I should like to raise. We normally express gratitude to Ministers for providing us with an Explanatory Memorandum and I thank him for the one he has given us here. But I am afraid I found it misleading. I should like to ask the Minister if, towards the end of page 2, under the heading of Widow's (Contributory) Pension, the memorandum is correct, or if there is a misprint there. It seems to me that the group between the ages 66 to 79 are completely omitted. The explanatory memorandum has given us a table with two categories only whereas, as far as I am aware — and the Bill tends to confirm me in this opinion — there are three age categories in this regard. One finds a discrepancy also in regard to pay-related benefit in section 5 of the Bill where the new employer's contribution is given as 11.3 per cent and, on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum, as 11.6 per cent. I mention these points because perhaps there are some differences in what has been spoken about in the explanatory memorandum and in the Bill. If so it is not clear on the face of either of them what are these differences. I should be glad if the Minister could clarify this point.

The only other point I wish to raise is on section 9, not in regard to its substance, with which I agree, but in regard to the way it is expressed, that is that this allows for temporary increases. Having put in temporary increase, I should like to ask the Minister why he maintains, in his new subsection (1) of section 308 of the Principal Act the word "vary", when subsection (2) of section 308 of the Principal Act tells us that decreases are not possible. I should like to know why we need to have the word "vary", why we could not refer to increases, the two things concerned being temporary increases and permanent increases. These are some minor points I should like the Minister to clarify.

Naturally I welcome the Bill. The Minister has said that the Bill comes to us at a time which is different. It went to the Dáil immediately before the budget and to us after the budget, whereas, in the past, it has been the practice for these Bills to come well after the budget. This leads me to say to the Minister that I know there may well be a temptation for the new Government to turn their backs on many of the things spoken of by their predecessors. But I would urge the Minister and his colleagues to give serious consideration to the White Paper discussion document produced by the previous Minister for Finance in regard to the restructuring of the manner of the handling of our financial business. Rather than looking at what is happening now as an anomaly, after which we should revert to the former situation of everything emerging on budget day, the Government should not dismiss what has been said in that regard.

Finally I should say that I not only welcome the Bill, but welcome the Minister to this House and shall welcome him heartily when he comes along again for a discussion of what are the views of Senators in regard to the anomalies in the code, and, of course, welcome him most heartily when he returns with a Bill to clear up most of those anomalies.

I welcome the Bill. I also welcome the Minister's return to this House as Minister for Health and Minister for Social Welfare.

As Senator Dooge said, this Bill will be welcomed by both sides of the House but it is only fair to point out that there are additional benefits proposed in this Bill beyond what was originally proposed by the former Coalition Government. As the Senator pointed out, all of us have our own special hobby-horse with regard to social welfare and he suggested that perhaps we would leave our hobbyhorses behind us for some time. At the same time I should like to refer to two or three points in the Bill that I welcome as a politician at local and national level and to refer in particular to benefits that will help women and children.

I welcome the increases in children's allowances as announced by the Minister for Finance in the budget and by the Minister here. These increases will not come into operation until July for administrative reasons, but they will be backdated to April. This is most welcome. Under previous Governments people have had to wait for months for benefits; they will still have to wait but now they will get payment in bulk retrospectively.

I welcome the Minister's statement with regard to unemployment assistance for separated married women. Discrimination against women in the social welfare code has been the subject of much agitation and debate in recent times.

There is an active campaigning group at the moment who, quite correctly, have identified areas of discrimination and have set out to remedy them.

It is still discriminatory.

I should like to continue without interruption. I regard this measure by the Minister as an important step forward in easing anomalies and eventually in abolishing them entirely which we will have have to do in any event by 1984 under EEC legislation. I know that we had the commitment of the Minister to take all necessary measures to eliminate them.

I welcome the increase in the domiciliary care allowance for handicapped children from £45 to £55 per month. This is an issue in every area of the country. To give this help is a practical manifestation of a caring Government and a caring society. In his statement the Minister said he was especially perturbed about the operation of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. He stated:

It is the one scheme which deals at the closest quarters with financial need at the most critical level. Of all the social welfare schemes it is the one which must operate most quickly and flexibly to meet needs as they arise.

All politicians have come across these cases. They have been brought to our doors at all hours of the day and night by people desperately in need. The supplementary allowance scheme has been identified as one that needs to be looked at again to ensure greater speed and flexibility in its operation.

This Bill is most welcome. It shows the commitment of the Government towards the equitable distribution of resources to meet the needs of all sections of the population. I welcome the Bill and I welcome the Minister to the House.

I wish to join with the two previous speakers in welcoming the Minister to the House and to congratulate him on his reappointment to what is a very important social ministry. When the Minister's predecessor attended in this House to present to us improvements in Christmas payments she was requested by all sides to ensure that the Department of Social Welfare would have a human face in dealing with people. Under the present Minister's guiding hand in the past there were problems in the Department, particularly regarding payment of what were the entitlements of people. No longer should social welfare recipients be regarded as parasites by society. Sister Stanislaus is on record as saying that people in the lower income groups or those who have no income are entitled as of right to benefits because many of them have contributed during their years of employment and because of their present circumstances are entitled to them as of right. These people should not have to make representations to the Department through Deputies, Senators or local representatives but should receive their payments promptly and efficiently. I am sure the Minister will agree that on his re-entry to the Department he found improvements as a result of pressure we put on his predecessor to ensure that the Department would function efficiently. In his speech the Minister mentioned various improvements which we welcome. They were initiated by the previous Government and I am glad they have been continued by this Government. All of us welcome the increases across the board for social welfare recipients.

There are anomolies, particularly with regard to the prescribed relative allowance. To benefit under this scheme a person must give up gainful employment to look after a relative. No compensation by the State is equal to what a prescribed relative will lose as a result of giving up work to look after an elderly person. The cost to the State of keeping a person in hospital, whether geriatric, psychiatric or other institution, is colossal. The Department should take this into consideration. I would also point out that some people are not able to obtain gainful employment because of a commitment to look after their parents or old relatives. The home help scheme precludes direct relatives, particularly married daughters, from benefiting. There is no point in saying the scheme will be abused. Most people are anxious if at all possible to look after old relatives rather than put them into an institution and they should be helped to do this. I am a member of a health board and this problem keeps cropping up. People who look after elderly relatives save the State an enormous amount of money and should be given every help and encouragement.

You have mentioned many of the good things you are doing in this Bill but I am disappointed you have not continued to reduce the qualifying age for old age pensions and supplementary welfare allowances.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair does not wish to interrupt the Senator but must point out that he should refer to the Minister by title.

My apologies. I am disappointed that the qualifying age has not been reduced progressively. It was regarded as a very welcome step when the qualifying age was first reduced. For four consecutive years it was reduced but it is still at 66 years. I hope there will be a commitment by the Minister to continue this process.

The Minister claimed credit for the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act. This was an Act that threw up quite a few anomalies such as that which came to light in the case of Clover Meats in Waterford. In that regard I would like to compliment all the politicians of all the parties — Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Fein The Workers Party — for bringing this anomaly to the attention of the Government. In that case people were precluded from drawing what would normally be their entitlement. I must compliment the firm involved for having come to the rescue of the Government in ensuring that they paid the workers, but the Government now have to bring in some kind of amending order to repay the company. Any legislation that needs that kind of tricking about with is bad legislation and it is a pity that the anomaly in question was allowed to remain when the legislation was being consolidated.

Another anomaly about which I hear quite a lot of complaints is the fact that PAYE is taken off people's wages when it includes the proportion of PRSI — in other words, the PAYE worker who is paying more than his fair share to the running of the State is now faced with the dilemma of paying PAYE on the PRSI element of his pay packet. This is something which will have to be looked at. It may be that when the PRSI legislation was being enacted, this was taken into account, but many workers cannot understand why they pay tax on some money they never get. That situation should end as quickly as possible; otherwise people in the PAYE bracket will be totally discontented with the implementation of legislation which is discriminatory towards them.

We are glad to hear from the Minister that he intends to have as a norm a double payment for special categories of people particularly at Christmas and indeed in the months preceding Christmas. I am loath to give a Minister powers to do many things without coming back to the Houses of the Oireachtas — and we have seen quite a lot of that in our time. However, I would welcome in this particular area the right of the Minister without reference to the Houses of Parliament to make a double payment to people in the social welfare bracket. They deserve this and they should not have to wait for any of us as legislators to ensure that their special needs are taken into consideration. That would be a welcome feature in any Bill and I commend the Minister for including that power to himself.

I welcome in general terms the introduction of this Social Welfare Bill, 1982. There are some anomalies in it but we are in the invidious situation today of not being able to put down amendments to the Bill. But there are anomalies and no doubt other Members of the House will bring these to the attention of the Minister so that at a future date in a future Social Welfare Bill he will take account of them.

I would also like to congratulate Deputy Michael Woods on being appointed again as Minister for Health and Minister for Social Welfare. When the provisions of this Bill become effective the social welfare expenditure facing us over the year ahead will, as the Minister said, exceed £1,500 million. I want to make a few general remarks on one major component of that enormous figure and on how that component might be reduced. I am referring, of course, to the provision that has to be made under present conditions for unemployment.

Of the £1,500 million I understand that we will be laying out, from the Exchequer and from the Social Insurance Fund, about £350 million in compensation to those out of work. Even making a liberal allowance for a hard core of unfortunate persons who are unfit for work, there must still be some £250 million going to persons, and predominantly to men, who are well able to work but for whom we fail to organise it. I have on several occasions expressed disappointment that this should be the position in a country where on all sides there is useful work crying out to be done, work of community benefit in repairing and improving roads, removing eyesores and so on. I was reminded of this recently when I experienced the disgraceful condition of the roads in and about two towns — Ballina and Charlestown — which happen to be very near a famous airport development project in the west. When I spoke on the Appropriation Act motion on 20 January last, I described this situation, that is, compensating for involuntary idleness when acute community needs abound, as a reflection on our organisational capacity. I suggested that units of infrastructural work should be identified and specified which would be open to competitive contract by workers' co-operatives as well as by private enterprise and on which those who would be otherwise unemployed could be engaged, even for periods at a time, at standard rates of pay, thus reducing the number on the live register. I would like to see new and more efficient ways adopted of tackling our infrastructural deficiencies.

May I again express the hope that, with the ready co-operation of local authorities, the Youth Employment Agency will undertake practical initiatives of this kind? We cannot afford to be smugly satisfied about the increased compensation offered from time to time to the unemployed when many of them could be working in dignity for society's and their own benefit if we managed our affairs better. Apart from being liberal about increases in social welfare benefits, our efforts must go towards reducing at least the component of unemployment relief in our social welfare outlay.

Since unemployment is our major social ill it is understandable that we should concentrate on job creation as a policy objective. I will not repeat the fairly comprehensive comments I made on this topic on 20 January last. While we can, as I have suggested earlier, do something to provide useful work directly — and I would not object in any way to the specific increases for housing and roads in yesterday's budget — I would emphasise the serious risk inherent in any general policy of going for employment at all costs. A direct frontal assault is not the right way. What we need are self-sustaining jobs which add to the national production. Creating jobs in the public sector which taxpayers have to support is not the answer. We have relied too much on this already. Between 1965 and 1981, for instance, while total employment increased by 72,000, public sector employment increased by 108,000, employment in private sector industry and services by 89,000 and agricultural employment declined by 125,000.

I am glad to see that the Government reaffirmed yesterday its intention to have an effective plan to increase output and employment. That sort of plan, in the sense of a coherent and widely agreed set of policies to operate over a period of years is, of course, essential. These policies must be concerned with reducing inflation, improving productivity, protecting and enlarging competitiveness, increasing productive investment, getting better returns from it, moving up scale in product design and added value. These, I would emphasise, are the essential, if indirect, ingredients of a successful policy of job creation and it is the lack of them at present that is such a source of worry to the IDA and to all of us.

To conclude, my main point is that the objective that logically precedes the job creation objective is that of producing more goods and services competitively for sale at home and abroad. In other words, our primary policy aim should be defined as competitiveness rather than job creation. If we seek competitiveness first and achieve it, the great boon of new and secure employment will be added. If we show an over-protective concern for less efficient industries, if we do not insist on an economic return from new and existing enterprises, if we do not progressively wind down our excessive budgetary and external deficits and our high rates of cost and price inflation, we shall be confronted with darker prospects on the employment front and, indeed, with social welfare obligations we might no longer be able to carry.

May I congratulate the Minister on the resumption of his old portfolio and welcome him into this House? Such is the uncertainty of the times that one might not get a second chance to do so.

I will speak very briefly to welcome the Bill. As Senator Ferris pointed out, the people who are going to benefit by this Bill are entitled to these benefits. It is what society has to do for those who are less fortunate and in particular the increase in the unemployment benefits is the kind of conscience money which a defective social and economic system has to provide when it fails to provide a productive living for them. There are, of course, abuses in the system, in the unemployment assistance and benefits system and, as Senator Whitaker has suggested, an imaginative Government might well divert many of the unemployed into the basic work of building up infrastructure. But for all that there remains the unfortunate miserable unemployed whose unemployment is no fault of their own and their indignity and misery have to be in some way redressed. For those reasons no-one can but welcome this Bill.

The Minister is right in saying — it is not simply a point of historical propaganda — in his statement that "Fianna Fáil Governments have always been conscious of the need to provide a satisfactory level of welfare services even in times of economic recession." Indeed, that is one of the explanations of their strength and durability as the major governing party in this State. This, of course, was not always from the most altruistic of reasons, but from the very beginning part of the popular success of Fianna Fáil was their recognition that social welfare had to be initiated by them in the 1930s. It is quite true that the first Fianna Fáil administration brought in a regime of social welfare which was more liberal and imaginative than anything outside the New Deal in America.

I am rarely given these days to praising Fianna Fáil but that claim is historically true. The present provisions and the decision not to go ahead with the removal of the food subsidies and the imposition on footwear is not only politic but humane. By the same token, I sometimes think that the other crowd do not change very much either. We had in the late twenties the same astonishing combination of probity in the public finances with a mind-boggling disregard for popularity. Fine Gael in 1981-82 seem to have the same death wish as they had in the late twenties.

I welcome the Bill and have little to say about the substance of it except to take up something that Senator O'Rourke said. She seemed to be satisfied with section 8 which she seemed to think of as being sufficient to rectify the anomalies in the treatment of women in the whole social welfare code. No doubt Senator Robinson will deal with this more fully. I want to say that I am far from being a frantic feminist but the way in which women are discriminated against in the social welfare code is not simply an affront to women; it is an affront to humanity.

The whole concept of dependency in the social welfare code implies indignity and subordination. It is not so simple a question as dealing with section 8 and remedying that anomaly; I think the Minister would be well advised to anticipate the demands of the very effective lobby group, a very laudable lobby group who are at the moment quite active and who are campaigning for a unified social welfare code. They point our facts which are not always well known. It is one of the cases where the Minister might like to continue the crusading spirit perhaps of the previous Government in that the information available to the public about these anomalies is very scanty. As Daniel O'Connell said long ago in regard to people: ‘They do not know their wrongs.' Not everyone realises that a married woman's unemployment benefit lasts three weeks less than that for a man or single woman. There can be no possible justification for this anomaly. There is also the fact that most deciding officers would turn down married women for unemployment benefit on the grounds that they are not available for work because they have children, even though they have worked for many years before claiming benefit and have paid social insurance contributions at the same rate as everyone else.

It is not just piecemeal rectification that is needed here: there must be an almost constitutional reappraisal of the position of women in society. Indeed, it is one more argument for a constitutional review on the definition for the first time of the concept of family, for example. There is plenty of crusading work for the Minister and I genuinely believe that he is a crusading Minister. I suggest to him, for example, that the whole complicated network of the social welfare code should be looked at de novo. Simplification would result in economies in administrations; that is quite obvious. The position as it stands at the moment, however, should be explained constantly to the people by way of an educational campaign on radio and television. There is no reason why the Health Education Bureau idea, which we see from time to time being availed of to discourage smoking, for example, should not extend to giving information about the complications of the social welfare code.

Is it not extraordinary that Deputies, in particular, are not more active and aggressive about the anomalies in the code? Is it not extraordinary that they are not pushing for the kind of reform for which women in that particular lobby group campaign — for a unified social welfare code? It should not be necessary for women to campaign in this way. This is what Deputies are for, after all — to bring about reforms in the law, or is it that the present system of inequality suits their view of themselves as Deputies?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am sorry. The Chair does not wish to intervene again, but——

I am sorry. I should not criticise the other House.

Finally, if the reason why the overhaul of the social welfare code and the rectification of the anomalies against women is being proceeded with very slowly is because of an alleged lack of money, that excuse will not wash any more. No one in this State will ever again believe that there is not plenty of money when it is wanted for a particular purpose.

As is customary, I would like to join in the welcome to the Minister on his first visit to the House since his recent appointment. However, I have to signal at this stage that there is one section of the Bill on which, because it continues the discrimination in our social welfare code, I will have to take a stand. I had in advance, so as not to hold up the House on Committee Stage, tabled an amendment to section 8, on which Senator Murphy rightly anticipated I will be making fairly lengthy submissions. That amendment would have deleted the provisions that are proposed to be substituted in the Bill. I understand, from a letter I received from the Cathaoirleach, that that amendment would not be in order because it would be a potential charge on the public purse and because, as it would be intended to, it would increase the possible categories of married women eligible to apply for unemployment assistance. Therefore, I am in a position where I am not able to put down an amendment to section 8, but I propose to oppose section 8 and to call a vote opposing it. The reason I propose to do this is that, although it looks like a removal of a discrimination, it is tinkering around with and modifying the discrimination and not abolishing it. For that reason, I was truly surprised, as was Senator Murphy, that Senator O'Rourke got up to refer particularly to section 8 and to praise it as a measure. I regret this, becaue either the position has not been fully understood by Senator O'Rourke, or else she is satisfied with much less than I would be satisfied with. It is a pity, because she is in a better position to influence what will happen in relation to this section. I would hope that, when we come to vote on it and Senator O'Rourke will have had an opportunity to reflect on the precise change proposed and the position that will result from the nature of the change, she will realise that it is still discriminatory against married women.

I agree with the Senator when she points out that we are bound under the EEC Directive to remove all these discriminations by December 1984. But surely, when we have a section of a Bill before us that is proposing to remove a discrimination, we should remove it and not tinker around with it and fiddle with it and reintroduce a different kind of discrimination against married women in ascertaining whether they will be eligible for unemployment assistance. Because the section does not appear to have had the scrutiny which it warrants in that regard, perhaps it is necessary to explain in some detail the cost of the proposed section 8 and what the result will be. I want to refer to the Principal Act and, first of all, explain the present discrimination against married women in access to unemployment assistance and, secondly, what the discrimination will be if this section were to go through unamended.

Since it is a half step, it may seem strange that someone in favour of the removal of the discrimination would oppose a section that is going a half step. However, as I have explained, if it is opposed in this House the Bill has to go back to the Dáil and it is in the Dáil that there is authority to move a proper amendment and remove the discrimination entirely. It is for this purpose that I will be seeking to have a vote taken on Committee Stage on that section.

The proposal in section 8 of this Bill is to amend, by substitution, section 136 (3) of the Principal Act and the Principal Act is the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. If we look at section 136 (3) (d) as it stands at the moment, we see that it provides particular conditions that apply only to married women, which are conditions they must satisfy if they are to be eligible for a qualification certificate for unemployment assistance. They do not apply to a single woman; they do not apply to a single man; they do not apply to a married man; they apply only to a married woman. These conditions, as they stand at the moment in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, are as follows: For a married woman to get a qualification certificate she must satisfy all the other criteria, naturally, and, in addition, under subsection (3), paragraph (d) of section 136 in the case of a married woman either (i), that her husband is a dependant of her or, (ii), that neither she nor her husband is a dependant of the other and she has one or more dependants. The fascinating thing about that section as it stands — and it is also true of the amendment proposed in section 8 — is that the word "dependant" each time it is used means something different. Normally, when we use the word "dependant" in a dictionary sense we mean somebody dependent on somebody else, a child dependent on its parents, an adult dependent because of age or infirmity. Interestingly, the word "dependant" in this section has been defined differently, depending on whom you are referring to as the dependant. That is a vital point to grasp in understanding, first of all, the extent of the discrimination against married women and, secondly, in understanding why this section 8 does not remove that discrimination but only modifies it slightly. This is a very vital point in urging upon this House the need to remove altogether this special unique criterion that applies only to married women.

Taking the first of these conditions that a married woman would have to satisfy — she would have to satisfy the deciding officer that her husband is a dependant of her, but in order to understand that we have to go back to section 2 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. In section 2 we find that there is a definition of what is meant by "adult dependant" and, as I say, it varies depending on whether we are talking about a husband or a wife. Here we are talking about a husband. For a husband to be dependent — it is not dependent in the financial sense that we might think it was; it has a particular technical, legal meaning and in section 2 (1) it is provided:

In this Act, save where the context otherwise requires —"adult dependant" means, in relation to any person —....

(b) a husband who is incapable of self-support by reason of some physical or mental infirmity and who is being wholly or mainly maintained by his wife,

For a husband to be a dependant it is not enough that he be unemployed; he must suffer from some physical or mental infirmity that makes him incapable of work, incapable of self-support, and he must also be wholly or mainly maintained by his wife. That is the technical meaning of dependant when we apply it to a husband.

For a married woman to be eligible for unemployment assistance she would have to prove that she has a husband who is physically or mentally incapable of work and that she is wholly or partially maintaining him and then she would satisfy, or she has an alternative way of satisfying. Under the second category neither she nor her husband is a dependant of the other and she has one or more dependants. We have again the word "dependant". If neither she nor her husband is a dependant of each other, for example if they are living separately, then she has to show that she has a dependant. Presumably it could be an adult dependant in the circumstances I was describing or it could be a child dependant. Here the word "dependant" is defined. It is defined also in section 2 of the consolidation Act. In the case of a child it is a child who is residing with the person, so that a woman could not claim that her child was a dependant of hers if, for example, he came to her every day and she looked after him during the day time, perhaps paid for his lunch, collected him from school and then brought him back to her husband where he is residing: that child would not be a dependant of hers. Nobody else has to establish that he or she has a dependant. Single women, married men or single men do not have to establish that they have dependants in order to apply for unemployment assistance. That is the law as it stands.

Section 136 (3) (d) does not seem serious until you understand the definition of the word "dependant". Under section 8 of this Bill it is proposed to delete the existing paragraph subsection (3) (d) of section 136 and substitute a new paragraph (d). That new paragraph (d) still singles out a married woman for exceptional treatment in relation to qualifying for unemployment assistance. Despite all the talk about equal pay and rights of workers and no discrimination in pay and no discrimination in access to training or jobs, we are still in March 1982 seeking to introduce a special kind of additional barrier for a working married woman who wishes to apply for unemployment assistance. The nature of the barrier does not look too bad if you are just looking at the wording and are not aware of the technical legal definition of "dependant". The change would be, in the case of a married woman, that her husband "is a dependant of her". If she can establish that, she can apply for unemployment assistance. That still refers back to the definition of "dependant" when we are talking about a husband under section 2 of the 1981 Act. The definition of dependant would be governed by it because we are substituting a section into the consolidation Act and, therefore, it is governed by the definition section.

If we are looking at that provision in section 8 of this Bill, when we look at the phrase "that her husband is a dependant of her" what we mean is that her husband is incapable of self-support by reason of some physical or mental infirmity and is being wholly or mainly maintained by his wife. I submit that that narrows very substantially the wording and makes the barrier to a married woman a much more formidable one, because, if the husband was a student and the wife had been working and would wish to continue to work and went along to the unemployment exchange and was willing to indicate what kind of work she would be available for, and willing to clock on like any other worker, she would not be able to do so. Although her husband would be a student and not therefore having any income he would not be dependent on her. He might seem to be dependent on her to those of us who looked at that relationship between husband and wife because she would be the earner and as somebody out of work she would be getting unemployment assistance, but she would not be eligible under this section we are supposed to be introducing as a major reform, if Senator O'Rourke is to be believed. The position is that that wife would be told that her husband was not dependent on her because it had not been established that he was mentally or physically incapable of work and therefore she would not qualify.

We come to the second possible way in which a married woman under this new section of this Bill could make herself ineligible for a qualifying certificate for unemployment assistance, that is that she is not a dependant of her husband. That seems very straightforward but we have got to remember how "dependent" is defined when it refers to a wife. That is completely different, because dependency when it comes to a married woman is an extraordinarily discriminatory concept. I say that as a married woman. I resent totally the legal definition of a married woman as contained in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. I am sure that Senator O'Rourke would resent it if she addressed her mind to it. I am sure that all other married women in the country would resent it if they addressed their minds to it because under section 2 of the Consolidation Act of 1981 a wife who is living with or being wholly or mainly maintained by her husband is dependent on him.

I am dependent on my husband according to the law, so is Senator O'Rourke, and so is every other married woman in the country who is living with her husband, regardless of whether she is working, of whether she has a job of her own, or whether she is the breadwinner of the family. If a woman is working and earning the income and her husband is a student and has no income she is dependent on him and he is not dependent on her. That is the law of the land and for some strange and wonderful reason we seem to be prepared to leave that as the law of the land. It is not good enough to suggest that section 8 is any kind of a reasonable reform. It is not. There is a clear way in which to remove the discrimination and that is to remove it. Why should a married woman be in a different position as a worker who becomes unemployed? Why should she have a particular barrier to being eligible for a qualifying certificate for unemployment assistance? We will not be able to have that barrier when the EEC insist that we change it by December 1984. Surely under our own laws we can address ourselves to the problem and change it?

I do not propose to discuss a potential other dimension of the problem and that is the possibility that this particular provision in the 1981 Act and in this Bill may be unconstitutional. I find myself in a strange, rather paradoxical position in that I was in court this morning on a potential dispute raising the constitutionality. That matter is still to be heard before the courts and, for various reasons including the fact that I am a practitioner involved in that case, I do not wish to discuss the issue at all. I am more inhibited than if there was not a case because I would feel that it is relevant to discuss the compatability with the Constitution of this kind of discrimination. Merely on grounds of introducing reform and removing discrimination, how can we purport to remove a discrimination when we leave such a flagrant discrimination on the Statute Book and reinforce it by this section of the Social Welfare Bill?

The Minister said he was interested in reform of our social welfare code, that he would be looking into this and that he was interested in removing anomalies. Here is an anomaly and we have the possibility of removing it. We can remove it without any prejudice to the time for this Bill to come into effect. Like every other Senator in the House I am very anxious that this legislation giving the 25 per cent increase and some other benefits to recipients would come in at the date required. It is possible for this House to amend by deleting that section and for the Dáil to bring in the amendment which I would like to see, which is the removal of the discrimination in the Consolidation Act, and then we can pass it. We could meet specially to do it on Monday. Both Houses could pass the Bill, as amended, on Monday and that would remove the discrimination. It is, as I have indicated, a matter which I propose to press on Committee Stage.

There are also one or two other matters in the Bill. First of all, we ought, when noting and approving the increase of 25 per cent on social welfare benefits and allowances, to be aware, as was so forcefully put by Sister Stanislaus on television the other night, that 25 per cent of a very low income is not a great benefit. It may be that it is marginally ahead of the cost of living but the problem of poverty in Ireland is that the rates are already very low.

The Minister in his speech provided helpful tables at the end to show us what a widow with three children, an unmarried mother with her child or children, a deserted wife or a pensioner would be living on. These are extremely low incomes given the very high inflation rate, the high cost of living, the high cost of energy, heating, light and so on. As well as looking at anomalies in the social welfare code it is time we addressed ourselves to the very substantial difference in income and living standards between the average industrial wage and social welfare, whether it is benefit or allowance. That is an indictment of our society.

We have two broad classes of people. those on welfare who are on far too low a level of income and those of us who are fortunate enough to have jobs and, therefore, to have a completely different range of income. We need to look very carefully at that, particularly in view of the fact that we already have a very high unemployment rate and that it is unlikely, under present circumstances, that there will be any early change in that rate. I do not want to sound begrudging in the matter. I obviously welcome a 25 per cent increase. I acknowledge that this was the increase which the Coalition Government were committed to but we must not give ourselves too big a pat on the back because it will not bring much comfort or much luxury to those on social welfare incomes.

I would like to refer to section 6 which the Minister in his speech referred to under the heading of single parents. He said:

Section 6 of the Bill eases the means test for certain single parents by enabling them to increase their earnings without suffering a reduction in social assistance payments as a result. At present the means test includes a provision, in the case of applicants with children, to disregard any earnings of the applicant up to £104 a year for each child.

That is £2 a week for each child. The provision of section 6, as outlined by the Minister in his speech, would be that this would be increased to a disregard of £312 a year for each child, that is £6 a week for each child. That is an improvement. I do not think it will make anybody very wealthy but it is a decided improvement.

My difficulty is — it may be that it is just a very complex provision of the Consolidation Act — that as I have looked at section 6 which amends Rule 1 (4), of the Third Schedule, it is not clear to me that the amendment extends to single mothers, deserted wives and so on. The reason is that the only change that is made in Rule 1 (4) of the Third Schedule is the inclusion of the part that is in brackets there —"or for the purposes of widows' (non-contributory) pension, £312". It may be that "widows' non-contributory pension" is a code for the other allowances but they are not expressly amended. I would be concerned if this improvement in the calculation of means only applied to widows. It is a Committee point but since the Minister is under pressure and has asked us to deal with this Bill as speedily as possible, I ask him to indicate in his reply whether I have misunderstood the nature of that amendment and whether it does what he outlined in his speech and indeed as indicated in the explanatory memorandum provided with the Bill.

There is a more significant anomaly that applies to unmarried mothers, that is, that they are the unique category of social welfare recipients who have only one category that they can qualify for. There is only the unmarried mother's allowance. I know the Minister is aware of this problem because representations have been made to him for a number of years by Cherish and they were also made to Deputy Eileen Desmond when she was Minister for Social Welfare.

It is very difficult to know why this discrimination is continuing. It means that any single mother who has worked for years as an insured employee, who has paid her contributions and who then becomes an unmarried mother, cannot qualify for a welfare benefit. She can only qualify for an allowance. This makes a difference in many ways. If there were a total reform of our social welfare code one could argue that there should not be any difference between the benefits to which a contribution is made and the allowances to which no contribution is made. If we are drawing that distinction in relation to widows, deserted wives and pensions, let us also draw it in relation to those mothers who contributed as workers and who, therefore, ought to be able to avail of the higher rate.

With the assistance of the tables provided by the Minister at the end of his introductory speech, we can see that the difference would be quite significant for a single mother with one child. Under the proposed rate in this Bill a single mother getting the unmarried mother's allowance, which includes in it one child, would get £42.60 but if she was getting unmarried mother's benefit at the benefit rate she would be getting £47.50. That is a significant difference week by week for the particular mother and a recognition that as a worker she had been making her contributions and that she was as much entitled to benefit as any other worker.

That is an unjustifiable discrimination in the existing code; it is probably not one that can be amended at this stage in this Bill because there is no section dealing with it. I urge the Minister, who has had ample representations, who has had written and oral requests from Cherish for a number of years, to address himself speedily to correcting this anomaly and to putting the single mother on a par with other single parents, and with the widow and the deserted wife, in relation to being entitled to benefit. Indeed it is curious that in a number of cases — I am not disagreeing with this — a wife or a widow will be drawing the benefit rate because of the fact that it was the husband who was the insured worker but in the case of the unmarried mother, she is the insured worker and yet she gets no benefit for the contributions she has made. The only thing she can qualify for is the allowance.

I should like to make a final point on the broader indication by the Minister at the end of his speech that he is particularly concerned about reviewing and reforming the social welfare code, could I ask him to indicate in his reply when the regulations under the 1981 Act may be issued? At the moment, although the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act was passed in February 1981 we are still operating under the regulations as published in a statutory instrument in 1934, the Unemployment Assistance Qualification Certificate (Regulations) Order 1934, as amended by the Unemployment Assistance Qualifications Certificate (Regulations) (Amendment) Order 1962, in relation to unemployment assistance. Similarly in relation to supplementary welfare and all the other various categories the regulations and the forms to be filled in are all under the old law and therefore under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933.

I am very sympathetic to the problems involved in consolidating the regulations. Whatever the difficulty of consolidating the Bill, consolidating the regulations is an even more formidable task. I am asking, for the record, when it is likely that the consolidated regulations can be published and whether the Minister is in a position to expedite this. I would agree very forcibly with the points that Senator Murphy made. It is strange that we do not look more at the social welfare code. It is strange that politicians do not address themselves as much as they should to the anomalies, to the inequities, to law getting out of date, to law getting so obscure that it is incomprehensible except to the legal technician, to regulations falling very far behind and not being issued under an Act when there has been a consolidation Act and so on. It is not just politicians who do not place sufficient emphasis on reform and updating of the social welfare code. It is also lawyers. There are very few lawyers who specialise in social welfare law. This is explainable by the fact that there are very few paying customers who can afford to retain lawyers to advise them on their problems in relation to the social welfare code. We have not got to the stage where the provision of legal services is a provision determined by need rather than by ability to pay. If we did have an approach that legal services were provided to people on the basis of need, then I believe that we would have and need to have a very significant concentration on social welfare law, a concentration on the law itself, the substantive law, on the procedures for deciding and on the procedures on appeal under the social welfare code. It would be a very good thing if there were to be more interest among lawyers and academics and also, primarily, among politicians in reform of the social welfare code. Therefore, I welcome the Minister's statement of intention in that regard and I hope that we will have an early opportunity in this House, either by motion or on another Bill, to discuss some of the urgent reforms and in particular the removal of discrimination against women and against married women which still permeates our social welfare code and, above all, that insulting concept of dependency of a married woman.

I want to make three brief points. It is traditional to welcome Ministers to the House on the occasion of their first visit. It is nothing personal, but the last time the Minister occupied his present position there was an administrative breakdown of monumental proportions. Having to hold that man responsible for it, I am unable to welcome his reappointment to that position.

That does not arise on the Bill before the House.

Presumably if congratulations arise, a Chathaoirleach, it would also arise that one could be allowed to dissociate oneself from congratulations. I do not mean it personally.

The other two matters I want to refer to are matters contained in the speech. The speech was, for the most part, totally irrelevant to the Second Stage of this Bill and had it been made by a Member of the House it would have been ruled out of order because it ranged over the scope of consideration of the matters which——

I would like to point out that the Chair listened to the speech and does not accept your view and cannot accept your view on that.

I accept that you do not accept my view. It is, nevertheless, my view. Presumably, I am entitled to express my view.

That is appreciated.

There are two other matters that I want to refer to. One is that the Minister referred to the increases for children and this is included in a Schedule to the Bill. I am not holding the Minister responsible for this because it is a continuation of what was suggested by the previous Government, but it is not acceptable that the increases for children laid out in the various schedules to the Act should be 25 per cent. Let there be no doubt about it; they are not 25 per cent. What has happened is that the increases in respect of children have been reduced from the 25 per cent to take into account the extra children's allowance which is being paid to all children irrespective of whether or not they are children of social welfare beneficiaries. In other words, the relative position of the children of social welfare beneficiaries is being disimproved.

Not really.

I will explain it to the Senator.

Take for example Schedule B. If the Minister would like to explain it I would be delighted.

Not during the Senator's speech. The Minister will have an opportunity when he is replying.

Take for example Schedule B of the rates of benefit. One sees quite clearly that the increase in respect of the fifth child is considerably less than in respect of the earlier children under the social welfare legislation. They are taking into account the increases which are being received under the new revised children's allowance scheme. But as a result of that, the children of social welfare beneficiaries will be less well off because their 25 per cent will include two sections, the increase of other social welfare benefit and also the increase which all children will be entitled to under the revised children's allowance schedule. That is one thing I find unsatisfactory in the Bill. The very fact that it may or may not have been in the other Government's Bill is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant. I have always maintained that position in this House.

The Minister also provides in section 9 of the Bill a power — to which Senator Dooge has already referred — to increase temporarily or vary. The same point struck me as struck Senator Dooge as to why the word "vary" goes in when by the succeeding section of the Consolidation Bill the Minister is precluded from reducing. Why he continues with the word "vary" I do not understand. But the Minister explaining it indicated that this year he would be making a double payment for the child dependants of social welfare beneficiaries in September and December. Am I to take it from that the Minister is not going to make any double payments except in so far as child dependants are concerned? Is the Minister indicating to this House that there will be no double payments at Christmas time in respect of ordinary social welfare recipients, widows and the old, for example, who may not have child dependants. The Minister's speech is very strange in that regard and the House would benefit greatly if before it gives him the power he seeks under section 9, he would indicate exactly what is in his mind with regard to section 9 on this occasion.

In making representations to the Minister I listened with considerable interest to the contribution of Senator Robinson. I would completely subscribe to what Senator Robinson said about dependency and the various problems arising as result of the definition of that word. I may not have the opportunity of speaking again in this House on social welfare legislation but I do not think that the concept of insurance and benefits should necessarily be extended to an unmarried mother. That view of the social welfare legislation is an attempt to change fundamentally what is an insurance scheme. An insurance scheme is making provision for something that may happen in the future and which would be, by and large, outside a person's control.

Entitlement to benefit under an insurance scheme is quite a different concept from an allowance which might be given by the State to take into account a particular social condition. We should not go too far in abolishing the concept of the difference between benefit and allowance because it is quite useful.

In section 5 the reference to the various rates of contribution is 5.5 per cent by the employed person and 11.3 per cent by the employer while in the explanatory memorandum it is 11.6 per cent. I presume the remaining 0.3 per cent refers to occupational injuries benefit because the two do not tie up with one another. The only additional item I can see included is occupational injuries, which presumably is covered by different legislation. It is not made quite clear from the Explanatory Memorandum. I hope the Minister will be more successful on this occasion than he was in the past.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I know he will have a very onerous and difficult job. The shortage of cash will add to his problems.

I do not share the view of my colleague. The Minister will be adroit in applying his skills in this area. The question will be whether the money is available or not and whether there is political will for a real redistribution of the wealth, particularly in an area where people are vulnerable. The people in the vulnerable and most deserving areas are there because of the type of economy we have. We do not have the fullest possible concern for them, and this is not only in respect of this Government but in respect of all Governments. All I say is that the job is arduous and onerous, but it can be tackled well.

It is not sufficient to say that we will give the Bill a speedy passage through the House and that we will give it our co-operation. Of course we will give it our co-operation and we are delighted to see it. My party colleague, who shares many of my views in respect of social reform, the former Minister for Health, Deputy Eileen Desmond, was largely responsible for providing the level of benefits available in the Bill. The groundwork has been laid for future development. Knowing Deputy Desmond as I do, it is not surprising that she gave of her best endeavours in the interest of the people I referred to. It has always been the concern of the Labour Party since it was founded in 1912 that such people would be uppermost in our thoughts at all times and that we would have very serious regard to the question of dealing with the underprivileged and the deprived in our society. While a lot of progress has been made in certain directions, the struggle is still on. The battle is far from won in this area of social concern. If we are seriously concerned about advancing the cause of social justice, as Deputy Desmond and others of my colleagues are, I suggest that the new Dáil and, hopefully, the new Seanad, would show more anxiety in this area and move more rapidly in the direction of bringing about real social justice.

The Social Welfare Bill, 1982, is welcome. Let me immediately say that it does not provide all the answers nor does it go anywhere near to the elimination of poverty. I know that in respect of the elimination of poverty the former Minister had more ideas in her mind and had she had an opportunity we would have been discussing not only this Bill but would have been considering further steps towards tackling the question of improving the standard of living of the most deprived section of our society, the section that depends on the State for assistance. She would have put those ideas into action in the area concerned with the elimination of poverty and the proper redistribution of wealth. She would not have been able to do it on her own. She would have needed the political will of her colleagues in the Cabinet. I am sure she would have pressed very hard for it. I trust that the new Minister for Social Welfare, who has the adroitness to do so, will manoeuvre himself into a suitable position so that he can further the idea of the elimination of poverty. I do not expect it to be done overnight, or even next year or the year after, but certainly I expect him to use his skills in this direction. If we do that perhaps we could get action in the areas of unemployment, the serious lack of housing and other intolerable inequalities.

I have listened to spokespersons of this Government and of the Coalition Government and it came across to me indirectly that justice must await progress. I was listening to that when I was a boy in the thirties. They were saying then that the question of social justice must await the question of progress. It is still being said. My voice may not express the Gregorian chant but I submit that the primary needs of all the people must be satisfied, whatever the resources of the nation may be. Justice demands that the humanitarian cause should be heard and attended to. This Bill does not go anywhere near resolving all the humanitarian demands, nor does any other Social Welfare Bill. Nevertheless, despite the arguments about the 25 per cent, in fairness I must say that aspect is to be welcomed in the sense that it is heading in the direction of an obligatory charge upon the nation's income. We have seen this coming gradually and it is not the solution of everything but we must recognise that it is a step in the right direction.

The economic system is the cause of widespread poverty and distress. It has lavished riches and abundance on many people. The primary obligation of those people who have gained abundance — I am not excluding my fellow trade unionists — is to relieve hardship and suffering which follow in the wake of poverty caused by the economic system. All Members like to get this annual Bill through the House very quickly and I am not trying to hold up its progress but, as I have said, it does not satisfy the criteria for dealing with the elimination of poverty. Those who have benefited from the system which caused the evil in the first place must be made to face up to and acknowledge the justice of the fact that they cannot be relieved of bearing the cost of alleviating that suffering. The 25 per cent is not the solution to the problem, but it makes the problem less acute for the underprivileged. It does not touch upon the wider aspects of dealing with the question of poverty.

After 60 years of self-determination as a nation our society is still characterised by many of the elements of the economic imbalance and underdevelopment that we have been experiencing for years, despite the fact that the structure of the economy has been altered significantly and output has accelerated at times. The Social Welfare Bill, 1982 should be regarded as a welcome short-term element in a policy to combat poverty, but the whole area of poverty must be dealt with effectively. Whatever initiatives have been taken by my colleague, the previous Minister for Social Welfare, those initiatives should be followed up and Sister Stanislaus and her team should get all encouragement possible. They were doing a great job of work which unfortunately came to an end and that further boost is necessary for them.

Discrimination is immoral and unChristian and for the love of our fellowmen it is on the head of each of us to see that this discrimination is removed. The 25 per cent is welcome, but provision should be made for all social welfare recipients to receive at Christmas and in September or October the benefit related to child dependents. I do not know whether I have read this part correctly, but as I understand it long-term old age pensioners and widows are excluded from this. Is that correct?

It is an extra measure. I will explain it in my reply.

I am glad to hear that. I am not a lawyer and I do not intend to go into this at any great length, but on section 8 it seems to me as a layman that something is being done to eliminate discrimination, but discrimination against married women still exists. Unfortunately, the position is still that their unemployment benefit is for a shorter term than others enjoy. That should be dealt with. Also, in order to qualify for unemployment assistance they are obliged to prove that they are separated or that the husband is an invalid. This is discrimination and I do not know whether it can be remedied in the context of the amendment, but it must be tackled. I am talking about total justice.

I urge the Minister to commit himself to the income-related pensions upon which his predecessor had commenced work. She had committed herself to a White Paper on this and I trust that the present Minister will see that through.

A growing number of long-term unemployed people are being reduced to seeking unemployment assistance. This means a drop in income for them and, consequently, great hardship. I ask the Minister to look at this to see if some special measure can be introduced, perhaps not to solve the problem but to make it less acute.

I welcome the Bill. I welcome the Minister to the House. Perhaps I will not always agree with him and I am looking forward to a few good old arguments with him. However, as long as he is aiming at the objectives which I believe should get priority, I will support him. The organised nation must look to the welfare of the underprivileged at all times. Many of us have this obligation and, as I said earlier, I am not aiming my remarks only at people who have had wealth lavished on them. When I speak of abundance I refer to many categories of people. We all have an obligation here and we must not cry "Wolf" at one section of society. Once again I wish the Minister the best of luck and I look forward to further developments in this area. If he continues to bring legislation of this nature in here we will not have any great difficulty in giving him the necessary co-operation.

I would like to thank the Senators for their very extensive comments on the Bill and for their almost unanimous welcome to me as Minister in this office for the second time. I do not want to delay the House too long, but I will try to deal with some of the points, many of them important, which were raised on Second Stage.

Senator Dooge made quite clear the basic fact that the substance of this Bill is common ground for the previous Government and the present Government. Some elements were added which I managed to negotiate, particularly in relation to the disabled and the handicapped, and then we have the major ones which were the subject of the recent election. I will not repeat those because Senators know them, but leaving those elements aside we have a great deal of common ground here, and there is a 25 per cent increase.

Senator Dooge also mentioned the matter of abuse in the pay-related benefits scheme and in schemes generally, and this relates also to what Senator Whitaker said. While we are not taxing social welfare benefits, I would certainly be concerned to remove abuse and waste within the system and I will press forward with administrative systems to avoid abuse and ensure as far as possible that benefits go to those for whom they are intended. I could mention examples of what I did during my last period in office which were not, perhaps, as well reported as other elements of late. One was the increase in the referee system. By getting a proper salary scale for medical officers who conduct this system I was able greatly to increase the complement of medical referees and reduce by an average of 4,000 a week those who were claiming disability benefit. This is a direct management approach which ensures that there is fair play and that those to whom benefit is due will receive it. This means a very significant saving.

Senator Dooge also mentioned the fact that anomalies can arise even in a consolidation Act. He knows very well that in drafting such a measure all we could do was to bring together all existing legislation. I pay tribute to two of my predecessors at this Department, the present Taoiseach and Deputy Frank Cluskey, who both attempted to get this consolidation done. It was only because of the size of the task that it was not completed in their time, and by the time I took office there had been so many more changes that consolidation became a mammoth task. It was very difficult for the members of the Standing Committee on Consolidation Bills to find the time necessary to deal with it. The proposed measure covered legislation going back over 70 years. For instance, the Act relating to old age pensions dates from 1908. At least our reference point for this legislation is now 1981, although many changes have taken place since. Perhaps there should be a periodic reconsolidation, especially in an area such as social welfare where so much change needs to take place. That might be the correct approach.

Senator Dooge also mentioned the 11.6 per cent and the 11.3 per cent. Because in the case of employers that part of the occupational injuries scheme was in excess, it was possible to reduce it by 0.3 per cent.

A number of Senators referred to the use of the word "vary" in the section dealing with the power to make regulations. It would seem at first view that the Minister should just say "increase" and that would be the main intention, but there is also the element of varying for a time such as a week or a month. The draftsman advises that the word "vary" is appropriate.

Senator Mary O'Rourke welcomed the children's allowances and the retrospective element. She also welcomed the removal of discrimination against separated married women. This will cost about £200,000. My predecessor had not come to the stage of having a Bill drafted but I know she was anxious to have this element removed and I was happy to get approval for this measure. Senator Robinson also raised this point very forcefully and I will come back to it later. Senator O'Rourke made the point that it is an improvement, although it may not be considered substantial enough. It will certainly be my target to remove as soon as possible other elements of discrimination.

Senator O'Rourke also welcomed the increase in domiciliary care allowance and other allowances for the handicapped. The January budget did not provide for these increases. I know it has not always been normal to increase the domiciliary care allowance each year. Last year I increased it and I was anxious that it should continue to keep pace with inflation. Accordingly I sought Government approval to increase this allowance, together with the mobility allowance for the handicapped and the training grants. These are very important to handicapped people as well as to those who care for and maintain in their own home a mentally handicapped person under the age of 18 or a physically handicapped person of that age. Senator O'Rourke recognised that fact and welcomed it. She also welcomed the review of the supplementary welfare scheme, which is very important.

Senator Ferris referred to payments which existed previously. He spoke of the need for a human face in social welfare. Of course, it is very easy to have a human face if one is handing out money without asking questions, but the man who must ask the questions is the officer of the Department of Social Welfare. He must ask questions about a variety of matters, especially where there is not a benefit scheme. This puts the officer in a difficult position and we must stand behind him. I fully accept the need for a human face in so far as this is possible. The review of the supplementary welfare scheme is critical because it affects people who are in greatest financial difficulty. I also accept what Senator Ferris said about entitlements being a right.

Senator Ferris and Senator O'Leary raised the matter of administrative problems. I will not go back into the changeover which took place — I do not think Senator O'Leary was here at the time——

I was born in 1941.

He was not in the House but he gathered it from the media. This is enabling administration. That enabling administration was the computerisation of all the pay-related social insurance. This was a historic development of enormous magnitude. A lot of problems arose in it. It would either be tackled and done or left and you would go on working in a fairly hopeless way getting more and more people coming along being less able to deal with them and give them the service they wanted. I had the task as Minister of bringing about that change. It was an extremely difficult task. I depended on all the records coming from the Revenue Commissioners. The House will be quite aware that the Revenue Commissioners had records of a lot of employers who had not made their returns. An employee would come along to get a benefit and it depended on what came from the Revenue Commissioners. There was no return. That is all on the record of the House if the Senator wishes to have a look at it.

It was a very big undertaking but it has been done. My successors, Deputy Eileen Desmond and Deputy Mary O'Flaherty acknowledged on the record of the House in June 1981 that the problem by the time they came into office had been cleared up. The problem was in the period before that. There was great difficulty in trying to get that cleared up. There was also a strike at that time. That was tackled and the change was made. It slipped back a little in August after it came in. I did not press unduly about it because I knew the reason was that some difficulties arose in staffing. They were sorted out after a reasonable time. It was not until that was done that we could begin to talk about having videos, first of all, in Gandon House and Oisin House, then in Cork and in due course in all the other places around the country. That is the change which is taking place. We can have a debate on that at any time. There is no business in the country with the kind of turnover activities involved in that area, so it was a major task and one which the staff in the Department undertook particularly well though some of the difficulties which arose could not have been anticipated. I can refer the Senator later to the record of the other House in relation to that. It might help to put his mind at rest in that respect.

It is on the record but it is slightly contrary to what the Minister said.

The Minister must be allowed to speak without interruption.

We want the record straight.

I will get the record for the Senator. The anomalies are there and I want to see them eliminated. Any Minister for Social Welfare comes to a Government, be it a Coalition Government or a Fianna Fáil Government, with a shopping list of anomalies that he would like to have eliminated immediately. Of course you come back to the budget. We have been particularly sensitive about budgets and finances, and the probity of our finances recently. The Minister for Social Welfare can only hope to get a certain amount at a particular time.

I got for old age pensioners and widows in three successive budgets, three successive Social Welfare Bills, 25 per cent increases. The 25 per cent this year is a 25 per cent against a higher rate of inflation than last year and the year before. It is not easily achieved. I accept what Senator Harte said, that we still have a distance to go and we have many anomalies within the system to get at. Certainly, the question of bringing about improvement in the course of a particular year and a particular budget is not quite so simple when you come to the amount of money that is involved nowadays.

The Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act and the question of Clover Meats were mentioned. The Act did not do any of that of course because the Act only brought together in one book if you like all the existing legislation so any of the comments that were made in relation to that were totally unfounded. I know that point was made in a variety of places. This is one of the things you have to put up with sometimes in politics. We had to certify that the legislation exactly as it existed before the Consolidation Act was carried totally and in every detail into the Act, though with the updating of the language, and that in any way in which it was updated the original provisions were still maintained. The benefit of having that together in that Act means that parliamentarians can turn back now, take out the pieces much more simply and deal with them section by section. That is what I would like to see done with the Act from here forward in terms of improvement and removal of anomalies.

The question was raised about PAYE being paid on the pay-related social insurance. There was an allowance made at the setting up of it for the pension element when a ½ per cent was taken off for the PRSI to allow for the tax benefit which was there previously on the pension element. This would not apply to the other elements of the PRSI. On the pension element there was a 0.5 per cent allowance made for the employee at that time; otherwise I think the point the Senator made is a fair one.

Senator Whitaker said that this year we would be spending £1,565 million on this Bill and what it entails on the levels and rates which are involved in it. He also, from his own calculations, reckoned that unemployment would cost over £300 million. It is actually £315 million but it is more or less the same argument as the Senator makes. I agree that it is particularly important to find new ways of providing employment. One of the principal objectives of the new Dáil and the incoming Seanad should be to use the imagination and the ingenuity of the Government and of the Deputies and Senators on both sides of the House in tackling the very practical problems that exist.

I believe that in this budget we have a number of measures that will be helpful in that respect. The £50 million into the construction industry will be very helpful to the unemployed. Senator Whitaker tried to cover this point to some extent by saying that there were some on the register who were not fit to work but that there are increasing numbers who suffer from an involuntary idleness. This is a very true point because in recent times people very anxious to get work were forced into unemployment. They are anxious that work will be created. The employment incentive scheme, being increased from £20 to £30 and from 24 weeks to 52 weeks will be very full. I am not responsible for that but it has a very big impact on the total cost of the social welfare area.

Senator Murphy welcomed the Bill and said that this money to some extent was conscience money for all of us. Now, when employment is not available, it is a true point. He also recognised that abuses occur. I accept that. Within the terms that I stated earlier, we must acknowledge these are essentially rights of people but we must ensure that they go to the right people in the right way. Beyond that, I will certainly do what I can to avoid abuses and cut them out when they occur.

Senator Murphy said the provision in section 8 was not adequate but recognised that it was an improvement. The previous Government did not make any such provision in their budget. As Minister for Social Welfare I got this extra £200,000 from the Minister for Finance although I am not saying that my predecessor might not have been able to do this too if the Coalition had stayed in power.

Senators raised the question of making available to all information about the social welfare system. There is a great need for an improvement in the number of these offices throughout the country. Here there is a capital requirement involved but I will do anything I can to accelerate such a programme. Advertising is very important. Because of the numbers involved the system has been under a great deal of pressure in recent years and this has caused a great deal of difficulty.

Senator Robinson raised a question about section 8. I have tried to make clear that we are removing a discrimination against separated married women. Senator Robinson says the provision in this section is not adequate, that there should be a wider removal and that all discrimination should be done away with immediately. The Government are committed to doing away with the rest of these discriminations over a phased period — before December 1984. I am very anxious to see these discriminations removed from the system. It must be borne in mind that there are very widespread implications in Senator Robinson's proposed alternative because it affects the element of dependency throughout the whole social welfare system. Consequently, her proposal has very far-reaching financial implications. That is why discriminations are being phased out over a number of years. If we took that measure out we would be tinkering with the system and we would have to look into all the other areas — disability benefit, unemployment benefit and so on — to try to find the implications and repercussions involved. In my view the issue is quite clear. The proposed amendment will ensure that separated married women can claim unemployment benefit in their own right.

I am not trying to rush this Bill through the House but these books have to be sent to social welfare recipients all over the country, an enormous administrative task. These books are of vital importance to thousands of people. We all know why this Bill must be passed today. Last January the budget was rejected, an election was held and another budget was introduced. If social welfare recipients are to get what is due to them from 31 March we will not be able to do that if we adopt Senator Robinson's suggestion.

I want everybody to be clear about that. The implications of what is proposed are quite wide. We are talking about revising a budget which has been voted on in the Dáil. The Government are committed to that budget and the Opposition were committed to a broadly similar budget. If the Seanad reject this budget, the Dáil will have to reverse that decision — the Dáil is ordered to sit next Tuesday afternoon. This means the Bill will be delayed; the measure will then come back to the Seanad and if again they reject the amendment, which will benefit separated married women, we would have to wait 90 days for the Bill to pass automatically. That is what we are talking about and Senators should be very clear about the issue before they take any steps in that direction. I want them to realise that if these payments are not made from 31 March they will not be paid for a considerable time. All parties in the Dáil recognised that point and there was speedy approval of the Bill. I am sure Senator Robinson appreciates the difficulties that will arise. We cannot have an amendment because it would mean an increase in costs which in turn would mean we would have to throw out an improvement which is proposed in this Bill.

Senator Robinson also mentioned that the 25 per cent increase was acceptable but not enough. It is always easy to say that but if one looks at pay-related social insurance one will see that the employee has to pay an extra 1.75 per cent. Last year the increase under the former administration was .25 per cent. Because of our unemployment problems, particularly among young people, there is a 1 per cent increase for the Youth Employment Agency. This means a 2.75 per cent increase on PRSI, a very substantial increase, which can be accepted only because of our extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

In the context of the general economic background the increase of 25 per cent brings the old age pension for a married couple to £70.30 per week. I am very happy to see that level achieved, which is in excess of 50 per cent of the national wage in the transportable goods sector. It took three years, with a 25 per cent increase each year, to get to this level. There are also other benefits — a double week at Christmas, free light, fuel allowance and other measures. I accept that times are difficult, but as a result of not putting on the 18 per cent VAT on clothes and by continuing the food subsidies, we will have a 2 per cent reduction in the inflation rate. Both the previous Government and the present Government in doing that are making a fair contribution in this year and in the circumstances of this year. Likewise increasing the £104 per child to £312 costs £200,000 and is of some assistance to single parents. I do not claim that it is going to solve all the problems but it will go some way in that respect.

Senator Robinson raised the question about the code in regard to the means test for widows vis-à-vis other groups. The Senator raised also the question about the regulations. This is quite relevant and it is a very big and difficult area. It is one for which there is very little political thanks. The Consolidation Bill took up an enormous amount of the time of politicians. Even to get the committee to meet a number of times with the draftsman and to go through these matters was very difficult. I am going to attempt to consolidate the regulations.

We will go out of our way to thank the Minister.

However, it is a big task. Because so many other pressing matters arise, that sort of work is not done generally. However, I appreciate the value of it and I can assure the Senator that I will try to consolidate the regulations.

Senator O'Leary talked about the administrative difficulties in relation to benefit for child dependants. What we have done is exactly what the previous Government were doing in relation to child dependants, that is, combining the very substantially increased children's allowances with the benefits to ensure that an overall benefit of 25 per cent applies all the time. That has been done mathematically in the preparations.

If one takes the basic flat rate and the number of children, by virtue of the fact that the benefits for children are increasing all the time one can have more from one's flat rate and child benefits than when working and in receipt of children's allowance. It is logical to ensure that all people with children, whether working or not, have the benefit and that if you are not working your personal rates are good enough to match what you might have otherwise. Anomalies can arise whereby through increasing the benefit far too greatly one can end up having a greater income while out of work than while at work and this could lead to a considerable reluctance to go back to work. That happens in some cases.

The Senator raised also the question of the double payments in September and December. These relate to the £4 million on the family income supplement. It is a special supplement for dependants at that time. The double payment at Christmas is a separate question and will have to be dealt with separately. It is not included in this.

Dealt with favourably, I hope.

I was the one who introduced it. So, if I am there, I will be keen to continue it. I was very keen to press for it last year and would like to see it stabilised in the system.

Senator Harte welcomed the improvements involved and talked about the importance of political will. I agree that particularly when times are bad the political will is very important if we are to protect those who are vulnerable. I would agree with him that my predecessor was concerned in this respect. I would agree also that the struggle is still there and will have to be pursued.

Senator Harte also expressed the hope that we could further eliminate poverty and raised a number of questions in relation to that. There was £250,000 included in the previous budget for poverty. That has been increased to £2 million. There will be a substantial amount of money available for the National Community Development Agency which arises from the studies that were done following the pilot studies on poverty and a review that was done subsequent to that. There is also a task force for the elderly in respect of which there is £500,000. I can assure Senator Harte that the question of tackling poverty is something which we will pursue very keenly.

The Senator raised also the national pension plan. As Senators may know that the draft national pension plan was just prepared at the time when we went out of office. One of the difficulties is that, once you have a budget, you have to revise all the figures, which means that there is a problem again in relation to the present budget. I will pursue that, though I recognise that we are back to the drawing board in terms of calculations. However, I will pursue it as urgently as I can.

I thank the Senators for their very extensive, sincere and relevant comments on the Bill and I wish them every success in their own campaigns.

The Minister has responded fully to most of the points raised. However, there was one point which I raised which he did not refer to at all and which I do not think I can raise on Committee Stage. That was the discrimination in the social welfare code against the unmarried mother.

I did not deal with all the points because I was concerned that I might be detaining the House. I accept the point the Senator makes. One of the Senators later took up the point and was very much against including a benefit in that respect. We will look at the question raised.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The amendment in the name of Senator Robinson, which has now been circulated, is out of order on the ground that it involves a potential charge on the public revenue.

I have received a letter from the Cathaoirleach to that effect so it is now going to be necessary to take a different step, as I indicated.

Top
Share