Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Mar 1984

Vol. 103 No. 7

Social Welfare Bill 1984: Second Stage.

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

The main improvements provided for in this Bill were announced in the budget last January and include an increase of 8 per cent in rates of unemployment assistance for the long-term unemployed and 7 per cent for other social welfare recipients. The Bill also provides for the introduction of a new scheme of family income supplement and for a number of changes in various social welfare schemes.

Before dealing specifically with the measures contained in this Bill, I would like to outline the context in which social welfare policy must be considered. Since the Department of Social Welfare were set up there has been a continuing development of schemes and services. Contributory old age, retirement and invalidity pension, pay-related benefit, death grants, deserted wife's benefit and allowance and supplementary welfare allowance have all been introduced, as well as special support for prisoners' wives, unmarried mothers, and single women. In addition a variety of supplements and benefits-in-kind, such as free travel and free electricity have been provided.

The progressive development of the social welfare system over the years has had a number of objectives. The first and most important has been to assist people in particular situations, where they were unable to provide for the necessities of life from their own resources. There are always people, not necessarily easily identified, who are on the margins of society in terms of their ability to support themselves and make a contribution to community life. It is the task of a social welfare system to identify groups of people with a high risk of poverty and to provide direct income support related to need. In the case of loss of income arising from short-term absences from the work-force due to sickness or unemployment, the objective is to provide through pay-related benefits a replacement income which bears a reasonable relationship to the person's normal take home pay.

Another important purpose of social welfare is to redistribute resources from the better-off sections of the community to those in need. The social welfare system achieves this by transferring resources in a number of ways, from those at work who are contributors to those who are sick, unemployed, widowed or old and who generally need support. There is also redistribution from people without dependants towards those with families, in recognition of the additional costs of living in such circumstances. Contributions are levied on workers through the PRSI system in proportion to earning levels, giving, in the overall, a redistribution towards those on the lowest incomes.

The dramatic growth in social welfare spending, particularly in the last decade, highlights the extent of the development of services and the increase in levels of individual support as well as population and employment changes. Gross social welfare spending amounted to £204 million in 1973-74, while in the same price terms, this year's overall spending on social welfare will amount to £491 million. This illustrates the magnitude of the real two-and-a-half fold increase over the decade. Social welfare expenditure now accounts for one-seventh of our gross national product.

The scale of spending in 1984 gives a good indication of the central place of social welfare in our society today, the level of commitment made by the community and also the extent of relative need. Because of this scale of commitment, even marginal changes in social welfare rates, scope or entitlement can have, in the aggregate, very significant economic and budgetary consequences. Furthermore, the number of people who depend on social welfare in one form or another is never static. Provision for increase in numbers must be made in estimating the amount of Exchequer commitment to social welfare parallel with consideration of improvements in individual entitlements.

One of the major pressures on social welfare support comes from the high and growing number of people, with their dependants, who rely on unemployment payments. The current disturbing numbers of unemployed, which on average will be about 30,000 people a week more than in 1983, poses the most serious problem for our community and not just in the social welfare area. Unemployment has now reached into every sector and stratum of our society, bringing with it complete dependence on social welfare for many of the households involved. The hardships associated with prolonged unemployment are well documented and the increasing numbers of people experiencing long-term unemployment are a matter of particular concern.

Social welfare spending in 1984 on unemployment support will amount to about £580 million, over a quarter of all social welfare expenditure. This is some 28 per cent higher than the unemployment provision needed in 1983 reflecting the growth in numbers unemployed and higher rates of individual payment. These figures say nothing about the extent of personal hardship and loss of status in the community associated with unemployment.

The need for effective action to correct the situation was never more pressing but my most immediate concern is to ensure that social welfare support for unemployed households is available as quickly and as effectively as possible and that the special problems facing the long term unemployed are dealt with. This is an essential parallel to overall Government action on the economic front to correct the unemployment situation itself.

I have outlined the purpose of social welfare provision and the growth in the range and scope of services over the years, the cost of which is now being accelerated because of unemployment, in order to place the developments contained in this Bill in their context.

The Bill provides for an increase of 8 per cent in the rates of unemployment assistance for the long-term unemployed and 7 per cent for other social assistance payments, children's allowances, social insurance benefits and occupational injuries payments. These increases will take effect from the beginning of next July for weekly payments and from August in the case of children's allowance.

The increases are in line with the specific commitment given by this Government on coming into office to maintain the living standards of the section of the community dependent on social welfare payments. I am confident that the rates increases provided in the Bill, at a cost of nearly £70 million this year, will protect the purchasing power of benefits until well into 1985.

Since these rates increases were announced in the budget there has been some criticism of the adequacy of the increases in the face of price increases. Reference has been made to apparently large increases in social welfare benefits given by previous administrations. We should not forget, however, that nominally large increases in rates often did little more than compensate for correspondingly large increases in inflation. Another important consideration was the real increases in PRSI contributions by workers and employers which were necessary to pay for the increases in benefits. This Government on the other hand have managed to maintain the real value of pensions and benefits without increasing PRSI contributions above their 1982 rates.

According to the latest figures for the consumer price index, the Government's recent budget measures added about ½ per cent to the underlying inflation rate. This Government's containment of inflation, together with the retention of food subsidies, increased tax-free allowances and income levy exemptions, will allow the most vulnerable groups in the community to benefit from the slight upswing in national prosperity this year and into 1985. It now appears as though inflation will be equivalent to about 5 per cent into 1985 and likely to hold this level for the period for which the increase granted to social welfare recipients is intended to apply. This is why I am confident that the real value of pensions and benefits will be maintained in the period to mid-1985.

This indexation of benefits levels has been provided for within the most severe limitations of Exchequer resources. You will appreciate this more when you consider that social welfare spending will increase by 13 per cent in 1984 relative to 1983 in spite of the weekly payments increase of 7 per cent generally. The additional increase in expenditure would have to be provided for in any event this year due to the growth in numbers of recipients, particularly of unemployment payments and the need to meet the full year cost of last year's 10 per cent to 12 per cent increases. Indeed, the proportion of social welfare spending to be met by the Exchequer this year will be nearly 15 per cent, or £161 million greater than in 1983, representing a recognition by the Government that the capacity of the workforce and employers to make further direct contributions to social insurance through PRSI is severely limited.

I am particularly pleased that it was possible this year to provide a further special increase for people who have been unemployed for 15 months or more. I have already alluded to the particular hardships faced by this group and I consider that the 8 per cent to be paid to people in this situation together with the increase provided last year will provide significant real additional help. This special increase follows the extra 5 per cent which was given to this group last October. In aggregate, therefore, the long-term unemployed will have received an increase of almost 25 per cent in their rates, taking the increase in June and October 1983 and next July into account — more than sufficient to secure a real improvement in their situation.

I would like to refer now to the main provisions contained in the Bill. I do not propose to detail the individual rates increases but Senators will find them summarised in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill, which I hope they will find helpful.

Section 5 of the Bill makes a technical amendment to the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, to allow for certain expenses in relation to the administration of the social insurance and occupational injuries schemes to be paid to An Post rather than to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs as was formerly the case.

Section 6 provides for an increase of 0.1 per cent to 0.4 per cent in the rate of contribution to be paid by employers into the Occupational Injuries Fund through the PRSI system. This contribution will be levied on employers in respect of employee earnings up to a ceiling of £13,000 a year, as at present.

The Occupational Injuries Fund is entirely financed by employer contributions and by fund investments. This increase in employer contribution is necessary to maintain the solvency of the fund in the light of estimated expenditure on occupational injuries compensation this year.

The "floor" for the calculation of pay-related benefit is increased in section 7 of the Bill. Pay-related benefit (PRB) is payable with unemployment, disability and injury benefits and with maternity allowance. It has been a feature of the PRB scheme since its introduction in 1974 that a certain proportion of reckonable earnings is disregarded in calculating entitlement. This disregard or "floor" was set at £14 a week in 1974, over twice the prevailing level of the flat-rate benefit. The floor was not increased until 1981 even though flat-rate benefits rose significantly in that period. Since 1981, the floor has been steadily raised. Section 7 continues this process, raising the floor by £7 from £36 to £43 a week. This increase will apply to new claimants only from 2 April next. Even with this latest increase the floor will still be just over half of its relative level in 1974.

Section 8 provides for the possibility of payment of pay-related benefit in a lump sum to persons who qualify under the enterprise allowance scheme administered by the Department of Labour. That scheme was introduced by the Government at the end of 1983 to provide financial support for unemployed people who wished to start up their own businesses. As an alternative to unemployment payments people who qualify under the scheme can receive a weekly allowance of £50, or £30 if they are single. The scheme is administered through the National Manpower Service. The response so far to the scheme has been most encouraging and, as an additional incentive, section 8 provides that any pay-related benefit to which enterprise allowance scheme applicants would be entitled to receive if they had remained unemployed can now be paid to them as a lump sum. This lump sum will be equivalent to the amount of PRB that applicants would otherwise have received for the remaining portion of the relevant period of interruption of employment, subject to a maximum of 26 weeks. This will provide lump sums up to a maximum of about £1,150, depending on individual entitlements which will be a useful extra support at the start of a business when credit can often be difficult to obtain.

Section 9 of the Bill changes the method of assessment of income from the leasing of land. The Government are concerned to encourage greater use of medium-term land leasing as part of their policy in relation to farming. At present, the means assessment for social welfare purposes of leased land favours the less efficient conacre or 11-month system and this, in turn, restricts the access to land of younger and possibly more progressive farmers. At present the capital value of land is used for means assessment purposes where it is being leased for a number of years. The land in such cases is deemed not to be personally used or enjoyed by the owner. On the other hand, land let on a short-term basis is taken to remain in the occupation and use of the owner and means for pension and other purposes are calculated on the basis of the profits from the lettings.

This section of the Bill provides that, where land has been leased with the approval of the Land Commission, the lessor's means for social assistance purposes will be calculated by reference to the profits from the lease rather than to the capital value of the holding.

Sections 10 and 11 deal with two minor changes to the children's allowance scheme. At present, children's allowances in respect of a child resident outside the State can be paid to the father while he is working abroad for the Government, the State or an international organisation. Section 10 extends this provision to a qualified person other than the father, in other words, the mother.

Section 11 extends the validity of the orders in children's allowance books from three to six months. This measure will reduce the amount of payable orders issued by my Department in respect of children's allowance orders and will enable arrears payments to be made to a much greater extent by order book rather than by separate payment. This problem arises particularly in relation to children aged between 16 and 18 who continue in full-time education and in respect of whom arrears payments for the summer months are generally made at the beginning of the school year.

Section 12 of the Bill provides that the amount of disability benefit, associated pay-related benefit or invalidity pension payable for up to a period of five years to a person arising from injuries received as the result of a road traffic accident will be taken into account in assessing damages for those injuries. This is in line with similar arrangements which already exist in relation to occupational injuries benefits and follows a recommendation in the report on the inquiry into the cost and methods of providing motor insurance.

Part III of the Bill deals with a new development in social welfare, the provision of direct cash support for employees on low earnings with families through a family income supplement scheme.

In discussing the background to this Bill, I outlined the functions of social welfare in relieving poverty and in redistribution of income. This new scheme is concerned with both issues. By a combination of the structures of the social welfare and income tax codes, workers on low earnings can find themselves in a "poverty-trap" whereby it could be more advantageous to them to claim social welfare support than to work. The benefits system has higher rates of payment with increasing family size, whereas earnings are paid regardless of marital or family status.

The family income supplement scheme will provide additional cash support in direct relation to family size and to other income. This will result in improved redistribution of resources to lower paid workers. The scheme will be introduced from next November. It will provide additional support for about 35,000 families at a cost of £2.2 million in 1984 and £13 million in a full year.

Payments of the supplement will be made to families with children where one or more parent is in full-time paid employment and where the income of a family is less than a specified amount. The actual rate of payment to recipients under the scheme will depend on two factors — the number of children in the family and the amount of the family income. The supplement will be calculated in each case as one-quarter of the difference between the family's actual income and the appropriate upper level of income for the family size in question.

The maximum family earnings up to which a supplement will be payable will be £95 in the case of a one-child family. An additional £15 earnings will be allowed for each subsequent child up to the fifth. At this family size the maximum earnings allowable will be £155 a week. As this level of earnings will correspond to average male earnings in the transportable goods industries this year, I do not consider it appropriate to supplement incomes above this level. Accordingly, families with more than five children will all be assessed according to the income limits for a five-child family.

Similarly, the lower income limits will vary from £63 in the case of a one-child family to £95 a week in the case of families with five or more children. The maximum family income supplement payable where earnings are at or below these limits will range from £8 to £15, a week depending on family size. It will be payable to the principal wage earner in the family and the supplement will not be subject to income tax or PRSI.

Sections 13 to 17 provide for the introduction of this scheme along the lines I have indicated, with consequential amendments to the social welfare code. Section 15 provides for the making of regulations to adjust payment of the supplement where the recipient ceases to work and draws unemployment benefit or assistance, disability benefit or retirement pension.

I do not claim that the scheme provided for in this Bill will solve all the problems faced by workers trying to provide for their families on low earnings. However, I consider that the family income supplement scheme will provide a significant level of support for a section of the community whose needs could not be catered for adequately within the scope of the existing social welfare system or the taxation system as currently structured.

Part IV of the Bill, comprising sections 18 to 30 inclusive, provide for the abolition of old age pensions committees and for the transfer of their function in deciding pension entitlement to deciding officers in my Department. There are a number of consequential amendments to existing legislation.

The effect of these measures is to provide that applications for old age non-contributory pensions will go through the same adjudication process as for other social welfare benefits and assistance claims. The system being replaced is out of date and actually obstructs the prompt and effective payment of pensions and this reform will, I believe, be welcomed by those involved in the welfare of the elderly.

The old age pensions committees were first set up under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908. They are appointed by county councils and county borough and borough councils to determine individual entitlement to old age, non-contributory, pensions. There are currently about 355 committees and sub-committees around the country.

Under the present system each old age pension claim is investigated by a social welfare officer whose report to the old age pension committee, or sub-committee, includes a recommendation as to the amount of pension entitlement in accordance with the relevant legislation. The claim must then await the next meeting of the committee for consideration.

The committees are voluntary and part-time and are required to meet once a month but frequently there are delays of as much as three months in deciding claims. To counteract this problem, provision was made in 1978 to enable pensions recommended by the social welfare officer to be put into payment pending the committees' decisions. Committees may cause further delays when they award pensions which are not payable or which are clearly higher than those payable under the legislation. This is a frequent occurrence which necessitates appeals by social welfare officers against such decisions. These appeals are decided by statutorily appointed appeals officers.

At this stage, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the local pensions committees in fulfilling their statutory duties down through the years. The fact that I might not agree with the basic policy under which the committees were established and operated does not take from my appreciation of the contribution, commitment and dedication which individual voluntary members have brought to their task.

Section 19 of the Bill provides for the consequential abolition of the post of clerk to the old age pensions committee or sub-committee and for the provision of appropriate compensation to the clerks in line with Civil Service practice. My remarks about the dedication and commitment of the committees apply with equal validity to the work of clerks to those committees over the years. Their role in co-ordinating the work of committees and in liaising with Department officials has ensured that the system of adjudication worked as efficiently as it could within the constraints which it faced.

Sections 20 to 28 make necessary consequential amendments to relevant sections of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. It is the intention to bring these provisions into operation by regulation in the near future.

I spoke at the start about the context in which social welfare operates and the objectives that the community has set for the system of welfare as we see it today. This Bill has provided for a number of improvements to the social welfare code, notably in the increase in rates and in the introduction of a family income supplement. Much work remains to be done to ensure the most effective and desirable redistribution of resources to those in relative need. The family income supplement, together with the indexation of rates for social welfare recipients, will help to maintain progress in this area.

I also referred in my opening remarks to the massive financial commitment involved for the community in providing social welfare services. It is undoubtedly necessary at the present time and will be in the foreseeable future to exercise a greater degree of control on public expenditure than has been the practice in the past. It seems to me that what may well be of paramount importance is the effectiveness and quality of the services we are providing. It is a question of ensuring that what we are spending is given to best effect and that waste in expenditure is eliminated.

For these reasons, the time is opportune to review the social welfare system to ensure that it meets its objectives effectively and the Government have established a Commission on Social Welfare to carry out this important task. The commission's task is to undertake a fundamental appraisal of social welfare and its interaction with other forms of social support and fiscal welfare and to report its recommendations within two years. I consider the work of the commission to be of crucial importance to the long-term development and effectiveness of the social welfare system.

Ultimately, the purpose of social welfare must be to achieve a more just redistribution of income, wealth and power and thereby remove poverty as far as possible. As a parallel to the commission's review of existing social welfare provisions, the Minister, with the approval of the Government, established an Interim Board of the Combat Poverty Organisation. This interim board will report to the Minister by the end of June next with regard to the structure of a permanent Combat Poverty Organisation and its detailed terms of reference. The Minister has also asked the interim board to advise him on the Irish input into the forthcoming EEC poverty programme.

I consider that the three forms of action I have outlined — the measures contained in this Bill, the Commission on Social Welfare's examination and the renewed combat poverty programme — indicate the Government's commitment to the least well-off sections of our community despite the economic and financial constraints facing us all today.

I commend this Bill to the Seanad for favourable consideration.

At the outset I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Minister of State to the House. I think this is his first visit and I would like to congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well. One could say that when Ministers or Ministers of State for Social Welfare produce Social Welfare Bills they do not come with good news but I can say in fairness that this Bill is slightly better than the news we received in 1983. That was a very difficult and tough measure which, in fact, brought the result within the Coalition that one of the members resigned from the Labour Party. We have a very difficult Social Welfare Bill this year also, and we cannot forget it is being introduced against a background of massive unemployment. The Minister of State has referred to this in his statement. He said that of the total figure for social welfare in 1984, £580 million, will be for unemployment support and that represents more than one-quarter of the total budget.

Unemployment is at the highest point ever in the history of the State and we know it is growing. As a result of this, more and more people are now dependent on the social welfare code for survival. For most of them it is not their own choice but because of circumstances totally outside their control. For the first time in the history of the State the most highly qualified of our people such as technicians, engineers, architects, production managers and many other highly rated people are depending on social welfare benefits for survival. Clearly we have the new poor in our midst.

Generally we can say that with the climate that prevails today the morale of our people is declining, confidence is probably at an all-time low and our living standards are being greatly reduced as the years go by. It is not surprising, therefore, that social welfare costs have reached the huge amount of £2,156 million for this year, as has been mentioned by the Minister. When we look at this figure and bring it down a stage further we find that the cost is £6 million a day. Perhaps that is a better way to look at it because it gives us a clearer picture of what the taxpayer is really paying for social welfare. It is right to assess this situation and to say to the taxpayers, "You are contributing largely to this money, take an interest in it and see what can be done about it". If this situation were spelled out to taxpayers in the country I believe they would take a greater interest in the matter; they might look at the matter in terms of dole abuse and other areas of concern within the social welfare system because it is a frightening situation. Many taxpayers will query and rightly will ask how far this state of affairs can go. As a nation how long can we afford to allow this situation to continue? Can we continue to hand out unemployment benefit and all the other benefits that are in the social welfare code? At some stage we will have to cry halt but having said that I think the people in their hearts realise what they have to do for the very poor and the needy.

Sections 3 and 4 provide for increases of 7 per cent in the weekly rates of social insurance and occupational injury benefits with effect from July 1984. Last week we were told positively that our inflation rate was 10 per cent. Certainly I was disappointed and I would have imagined the Labour people in Government in particular would have said that any increases should be in line with inflation unfortunately that is not the case. The Labour Party said at the beginning of the period of office of the Coalition Government that it would be their philosophy that social welfare recipients would not be affected because we are in a recessionary situation. Again, this is not reflected in the Bill.

Section 4 provides for a very meagre children's allowance increase from August 1984: in other words, two-thirds or more of the year will have passed before this increase is given. When you consider that there was no increase at all last year in the children's allowance, that this 7 per cent now being granted is for a two-year period, it is not fair. A feature of the Bill with which I disagree is that the additional payments that are being given are being delayed as long as possible but what we are taking in terms of revenue from our people comes about almost immediately. It is not a fair system and I have to highlight it.

On a point of order, the proceedings in the other House are intruding through the system in some way or other. I wonder if it could be corrected because it is quite difficult to concentrate on what the speaker is saying.

We will have the matter looked into.

The PRSI contribution is a body blow to all employers and will further worsen the prospect of new jobs being created. I have always felt that PRSI and other taxes generally have hindered the prospects of job creation. The policy of the Government will not help in job creation despite the fact that 216,000 people are out of work and I think the Minister for Finance said this figure will continue to grow. When we consider that 66,000 of those people are under the age of 25 we certainly have a most serious problem on our hands which will have to be tackled by the Government before it bankrupts this country not just in terms of finances but in terms of morale and the confidence of our people.

I welcome the change in the means test under section 9 of the Bill in the case of leased land. In my opinion it would be preferable that the means of the lessor be calculated not by reference to the capital value of the holding but on the basis of the profits from the particular lease. The sections dealing with family income benefit are certainly worthy of consideration and indeed this is a very fundamental measure in the Bill. The Minister has told us that 35,000 families will benefit from this family income scheme. I think it is true to say that this huge number does not do us any credit. We have waited for this measure for a long time. It was promised in 1981. In 1983 the budget provided £5 million for this measure but it was reduced subsequently by £1 million at the famous meeting in Barrettstown. However, it never became a reality. Now we are told that it will come into effect, again very late in the year, in November.

Many people are not happy — and I would support this view — with this particular measure on the grounds that we are not tackling properly the problem of the low wage. In my opinion this section will almost guarantee low wages. I do not know what the trade union movement will say about it. I do not know if they have made any comment about it. I am certainly prepared to wager that where employers are paying low wages those firms are almost certainly not unionised. It will deserve a comment from the trade union movement and I will look with interest at their statement. As the Bill says, and assuming that it becomes a reality, the maximum amount is £8 benefit in the case where there is one child and £15 where there are five children and arguably that is too low. To qualify for the £8 benefit the man's income will have to be less than £63 a week and he will have to be in full-time employment. Nobody in this House or elsewhere would say in this day and age and in that kind of situation that £63 a week is a fair wage.

Some recognition should be given to the self-employed person. We all know that in the case of self-employed people, small shopkeepers or people like that, their incomes have continued to dwindle over the years. With Government taxes, rates at local government level and new charges for refuse and water and so on they find that their profits have dwindled. There are many of these people with small businesses earning less than £63 a week. It is something perhaps the Minister might consider and do something positive about it. In my opinion it is the wrong way to approach the question of providing a basic adequate income for all families. What is required is a statutory minimum wage. I realise the Minister for Labour, Deputy Quinn, made reference to this recently and said there would be some problems in this particular area but what we are now doing is simply making sure of a continuation of low wages. It will be seen as a deliberate attempt to subsidise employers who pay low wages.

I wish the measure every success. I sincerely hope that it will be far more successful than the famous or infamous £9.60 per week that we all know about of some years back.

Sections 18 to 30 dealing with local pension committees seem to have given rise to diverse views. My view certainly is that many county councillors have played a magnificent role in this area. I am sure you would be the first to accept that. They have given up their time freely and voluntarily in that area and were glad to do so. There are mixed feelings about this. We rightly have to congratulate many local pension committees all over the country and they have in their wisdom carried out excellent work in the past. The fact that they are being abolished now is being greeted by the councillors with a degree of sadness. Against that, many people who would be applicants for pensions tell me they would not apply or they have not applied because they did not like their business being talked about in the presence of five, six or eight elected members: that is their right; I can understand their feelings. Certainly, the element of confidentiality should be present in all of these situations. Indeed, one could argue that it was not so in the case of a local pension committee. Nonetheless, the committee as we had it, did guarantee a full inquiry into the means of the person seeking the pension. It meant that the social welfare officer examined the position very carefully and at the end of the day the committee decided on the amount of the pension based on the report of the social welfare officer.

We are now told that a deciding officer will be the person responsible for this. I ask who will the deciding officers be? Will they be some of the superiors down the country? Will it be a new section based in Dublin? Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he is replying. The question of the clerks has been referred to by the Minister and I would like to pay a compliment to the various clerks of these committees down through the years and I hope for a re-examination of the compensation envisaged in this particular area.

The criticism in the past weeks of social welfare officers, in my opinion, is regrettable. I am not saying that this is the first time it happened. Those social welfare officers should be above political interference in this way. The criticism has come about largely because of last year's Social Welfare Act which created real, practical problems for small farmers, particularly those affected by the payment of social welfare assistance under the notional system. It must be remembered that social welfare officers are working in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Department of Social Welfare, who in turn receive the guidelines from the Oireachtas. If there is flak to be thrown, it should be thrown at the Minister for Social Welfare of the day. It should not be thrown at the unfortunate people who are asked to operate within the guidelines set up by the Government of the day. Indeed, if we wanted to change the guidelines this is the place to change them, or in the Dáil, or at the parliamentary party meetings of the various parties.

I have to say that these men and women throughout the country are carrying out their work with great understanding and in a compassionate way. They have a very difficult role. It is a role which, I think, has increased dramatically over the past few years. It is understandable that in a time of recession that role should further increase. It is true to say that their work is very varied and demanding. It is expanding and, as I have said, they have carried it out with great responsibility, understanding and compassion.

One could argue that there is a need for some extra training for these people. As I understand it, they receive some initial training. It would be no harm — perhaps the Minister would note this — that because of the changing demands of the social welfare system they should be brought back every two years or thereabouts for refresher courses to deal with the problems that exist and how they should be handled. For example, it should be suggested that in so far as the farming community are concerned qualified people from ACOT would occasionally meet them and come to the refresher courses that I referred to.

I know that many of them are ordinary people, many coming from urban areas who would not be all too happy discussing farming problems and trying to assess farming income and so on, and they might not be the most competent people in the world to come to a conclusion as far as depreciation of a farm tractor or rotavator or machinery generally is concerned. It is not their fault that this criticism has been levelled. They are working within the guidelines set by the Minister. This area of social welfare officers is one that should be examined because they are chasing the wrong areas in my opinion: they are involved in dealing with perhaps 120 claims per month and find when they have cleared their desks of the 120 that 150 claims are in for the following month. The pressure is building up on them all the time. Despite embargoes or whatever, there is need for a big increase in social welfare officers. What about the area of PRSI and incomes not being properly stated to the Revenue Commissioners? I know that social welfare officers do not collect income but they can play a role and it might be a very worth while financial long-term consideration for the State if they were allowed to get on and do this type of work allied to the other work that we now know they do. From time to time we see advertisements in the paper, asking people if they have returned their P35. Again, how many prosecutions have we had in that regard?

Extra social welfare officers would more than pay their way and certainly could help to bring in additional income to the State. The abuses of the system are obvious and have been obvious. We all know they take place. I am not talking about the man on the dole who might dig a garden for half a day and get a few pounds for it. I am talking about the planned, organised abuse of the system that is taking place. It is the abuse of the system whereby people sign not just in one town but maybe in four, five, or six different towns or cities for unemployment benefit or assistance and in a city like Dublin I believe there are people signing on at three or four different venues. That kind of abuse has to be stopped. I think that is the worst form of abuse and again if we had more staff we could tackle that problem to the benefit of the State.

The Minister referred to the whole social welfare system and where we might go. It is right that we should spell out precisely where our social welfare system is going. It is generally accepted that there is need for a new approach to the whole question of the system and for that reason I would welcome the establishment of the social welfare commission that has been mentioned by the Minister but, having said that, I would ask if the work could not be done more expeditiously? Why do we have to wait two full years for the results of that report? One of the basic objectives of our system must be to compliment those of our financial or economic policy and to help to tackle the causes of poverty and hardship in our society. I do not think that our present system makes any real attempt to see how this poverty can be eliminated. In the short term, in dealing with the matter that was discussed last week regarding the reform of local government, we might consider an allocation of some of the resources of the Department of Social Welfare to the various local authorities for the employment of currently unemployed persons who are in receipt of these funds in the form of social welfare payments.

To conclude, despite promises, statements and so on, on the formation of the present Coalition Government that social welfare beneficiaries should not be the victims of the recession I find very little in this Bill to support this argument. Really nothing worthwhile is in the Bill to tackle the problems of poverty and hardship and there is nothing in it to ease the burden on the unemployed and the less well-off sections of our community.

I would like to join with Senator Fallon in extending a welcome to the Minister. I wish him every success. I know the Minister is a public representative of long standing and that his contact with the people and his knowledge of their hopes, problems and aspirations will contribute to making him an effective and caring Minister. I wish him well.

I welcome the Bill and I think the Minister for his comprehensive statement to the House which presents the Bill in all its wide-ranging aspects. He points out the efforts being made by the Government to help the less well-off sections of the community, the genuine attempts made by increases to help to meet inflation and a general caring approach towards catering for those at the lowest income level. It is good that the facts should be presented in such a way that we understand the huge amount that has to be paid out under this heading of social welfare, not just to inform people who complain that too much is being paid out, but to inform everybody in regard to what exactly is being done. I believe that when all the figures are taken into account, whether you take it on the figure of £6 million a day or one-seventh of our GNP, it has to be conceded by those who might have been hoping for more that a genuine effort is being made to meet the problems confronting the less well-off sections of the community. It is only fair that that should be done because there are two views prevailing and for that reason it is good to have a balanced presentation of the case.

Two views prevail. There are the people who begrudge contributions of this magnitude to the unemployed, the old and infirm and there are those who think it is not enough. Both sides could make cases which would detain you for a very long time if you chose to listen to them. But it is the function of the Government and the Minister with direct responsibility to present a balanced view, taking into account the views of the people on both sides of the divide, and for the Minister to do what he believes the country can afford and where possible to be sympathetic in his approach. In all the circumstances that confront the people at present it cannot be denied that a caring approach was adopted by the Government and Ministers with regard to this section of the community and I welcome that heartily.

Apart from the part of the Minister's statement that presents the background to the whole set-up — if I may use the expression — and the need there is for helping certain sections of the community and the difficulties that confront us in not being able to help to the degree we might like, there are some innovations which I will come to deal with later on and which I welcome enthusiastically. These innovations — one in particular — bear testimony to what I have said in regard to the caring approach adopted by the Government and by the Minister.

Increasing unemployment adds to the difficulty and one of the complaints most frequently heard with regard to unemployment — I am going to refer to it only briefly today — is that there is a growing belief that some of the funds channelled into relieving unemployment could be channelled into providing more work by being transferred from the social services section to the Department of the Environment to provide a greater workforce for road making, drainage and work of that kind which needs a lot of attention. There are difficulties in that area but it is an aspect of society that will have to be examined in great detail in time to come because the growing figures of unemployment are generally attributed to the worldwide recession from which we could not hope to escape. It is also true that increased unemployment is in some significant degree due to technological advance and the greater the technological advance unfortunately, it would appear, the less the need for manpower. If one only takes a casual look at the development of robots in car plants and so on it is brought home forcibly that the question of unemployment is going to be a major problem for a long time to come and even with the improvement in the economy of which we see signs and which we anticipate, unemployment will still remain a problem. It will then fall on people in authority to devise means of assisting able-bodied people to do gainful work by supplementing their incomes in some way with money from the social services. I believe that day will come and the sooner we provide for it the better. I am not naive enough to think it is a simple matter, but it is a problem that will confront us in the years not so far ahead.

The Minister has, quite rightly, drawn attention to the problem of unemployment and has stated clearly that it is a problem of major concern to the country and the Government. Frank statements of this kind are good. The less favourable side of the picture should be presented to the public as well as the more optimistic side.

The Minister spoke about an incentive to people to set up industries; I hope that is the beginning of something that will develop. Everything possible that can be done to encourage initiative and help people to make practical use of the skills that so many of our young people are acquiring in our school system should be done. Everything a Government can undertake to generate initiative of that kind by reliefs and benefits in every shape and form would have a beneficial effect in the long run. We must take into account the vast increase in the allocation to the social welfare services in the last couple of years to recognise that it has been a growing problem and to record our appreciation of the way it was tackled. I do that; it is a huge problem. If it was not handled efficiently and with expedition it could lead to great poverty, distress and frustration. The approach as outlined in the Minister's speech is an indication that the Government by prompt action do not intend to let frustration develop or get out of control.

I welcome most heartily the enterprise allowance scheme. It is an indication of right thinking and I hope that that sort of thinking will be developed to its fullest potential. I believe that the results that would accrue from a concentrated effort developed on those lines will be beneficial to the State, to the economy in general and to the morale of the people.

I would like to pay a sincere tribute to the Minister for the introduction of the family income supplement scheme. The Minister dealt with it in detail, so it would not serve any useful purpose for me to go over it again, except to say that I welcome it. It is a clear, unmistakable indication of the caring attitude adopted by the Government, the Minister and the Department.

On the abolition of the old age pension committees, I must say at this stage I am not sure that it is the correct decision for a number of reasons. One reason is that applicants for pensions, whether old age or whatever, are not always articulate people. They may not always be capable of presenting their case properly. Very often they are intimidated by the very presence of an official from the Department. I must say with some regret that this intimidation is not wholly to be wondered at because of the approach that some of these officers have had — not all of them. There are some very humane, considerate people who go around the country investigating pension claims. They are doing a good service to the State and to the people with whom they deal, but there are other officials whose approach is that the person who is applying is 100 per cent mendicant, that he or she has one purpose only, to get as much money as possible from the State by telling lies and so on. That may happen today to a lesser degree than some years ago, but it is still happening. I know of one or two instances of it happening in the last six months.

A good purpose was served by the old age pension committee. I was never a member of one but I know people who were: people of different political views from my own as well as some who shared my own views. I know them all to be people who were in a position to put to the pension officer the case of the applicant because they lived near him, knew him, knew his family background. Those people were much more capable of presenting the cases rather than the applicants themselves. The case presented by those people was a more accurate picture of the person's conditions than anything that some of these officers are able to get from the applicants by interviewing them, because of their approach, because of the timidity of some of the people in this regard and because they are not sufficiently articulate. I would hope that this transition period that will occur when the old age pension committee is gone will be handled with care. I am sure everybody in this House, and every public representative, knows people who would not have got the pension but for the case put forward by the local old age pension committee who knew all the facts. That is true and I am sure other Members here will agree with me.

It is also stated that the existence of such committees often held up payments. That may be true in some isolated cases. I know of pensions or allowances being held up for very long periods in cases where there was no local committee operating. The delay was caused by the tardiness of the officials concerned in making the examinations or tendering reports, or acting on them when they reached the Department. A local committee cannot be held accountable for those delays.

I welcome the Bill and I welcome also the comprehensive statement that was made presenting the case to us in all its aspects. I welcome the effort made to relieve the growing hardships imposed on people by inflation and I am glad to note the Minister's statement that it is expected that within a relatively short time inflation will be brought down to perhaps a figure as low as 5 per cent. Apart altogether from the effects it has on payments to social welfare classes, that will have a good effect on the economy of the country. I agree with the Minister's concluding paragraph where he outlines three forms of action — first, the measures contained in the Bill which I believe are good; secondly, the Commission on Social Welfare's examination and, thirdly, the renewed combat poverty programme. I believe that with these three ideas in mind the Minister will do a good job and that the people can see we are making an honest effort, maybe not as great an effort as we would like, because of economic circumstances, to help those in need. At the same time we are doing what we can under the provisions of this scheme to promote initiative. We have an appreciation of what the outlook of the Government is on this matter and I wish the Minister and the Government well and I hope the combat poverty programme will be effective. I may say on a somewhat personal note that I was more than delighted to see that the Minister of Health had called Sister Stanislaus — a person with enormous experience in this area — back into the field to avail of her advice and help in combating poverty.

First, I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He and I are members of the same local authority. I wish him well in his new role. As has been said by other speakers he has been a member of various authorities, be they local or national, for more than 21 years now. Because of that I am sure he has a better knowledge of the needs of people than have some Ministers who have come in here without serving their apprenticeship, as it were, and who have attempted to address themselves to measures such as Social Welfare Bills.

The Bill we are dealing with today is a Bill which merely enables the Government to increase in a marginal way the benefits which are available to people who are in social need, whether it be for unemployment purposes, disability, sickness or whatever. Nevertheless, it is a very weak piece of legislation in the sense that it does not address itself at all to the causes of deprivation in this country.

The Minister tells us that the setting up again of the Commission on Social Welfare will make a difference and that the establishment of an interim board to combat poverty will make changes. Nevertheless, when one looks at the background to this Bill one wonders about the Government's will to alleviate the problems. I must say that if one looks at the problems and the way they are being alleviated it would seem as if a monetary compensation is the only compensation that is available. I do not think we should be so limited in our view of compensation for loss of earnings or loss of the ability to work. Monetary compensation is only one element.

There is absolutely no mention of a re-education process in this Bill. The social welfare beneficiary is supposed, by being granted a monetary sum each week, to retain his morale within the community and not to consider himself deprived. The monetary compensation involved in this Bill will do nothing to raise the morale of the people who are in the unfortunate position of having to depend on social welfare. It is about time that Ministers for Social Welfare got down to looking at the problems that are created by unemployment or disability and to look at them in terms of re-educating these people to be able to take a place within society which is not the place they had before but nevertheless a useful place. There are voluntary groups which are helped by the State. These groups are doing an immense amount of good. The Rehabilitation Institute and other such bodies are helping the underprivileged and the disabled to return, not exactly to the mainstream of society, but to an area of work which helps them to maintain their dignity at all times. This is the question to which future Social Welfare Bills will have to be addressed, rather than just giving percentage increases to people who are already in a difficult position.

It has been said that the amount of money being spent this year is £2,156 million or £6 million a day, or whatever. It does not make any difference what the sum is. It is a large amount of money and I do not think that the people who are getting this money are getting very good value. The Minister of State would have to agree with me that in many places throughout the country the conditions under which benefits of any kind are given out leave a lot to be desired. We have a situation in Kilkenny where it is an indignity for anybody who is involved in the system to have to queue outside the office in adverse weather conditions. The building is totally inadequate and was never meant to serve the purpose for which it is now used. With the increasing number of people who are looking for State benefits to which they are entitled, and for which they have paid, it is about time we addressed ourselves to providing proper facilities for these people where they can go in dignity and discuss their problems with the social welfare officer. It is about time we addressed ourselves to providing proper facilities for these people so that in dignity they may discuss their problems and have themselves examined either medically or in terms of eligibility for benefit. There is no mention in the Bill of moneys being spent to provide proper facilities. There must come from the Department of Finance a commitment that proper facilities will be provided, facilities equal to if not better than those that people would find in hospitals, clinics or any other place they might have to go to in the normal course of their business. This year the benefits being provided are mainly benefits which are being allowed for only six months of this year and whether it be 7 per cent or 8 per cent the effective increase this year is not sufficient to give a real increase.

Mention was made in the Minister's speech of inflation rates, of the fact that inflation rates are now lower than they have been in the past and that therefore there is a real benefit to social welfare beneficiaries because of this. In the past three weeks we have had from the Government a statement that inflation this year has been running at a much higher level for the past three months than was the case in the same period last year. The underlying level of inflation, rather than being 5 per cent as stated in the Minister's speech, is more likely to end up at 11 to 12 per cent so that the 3½ per cent annualised, or the 4 per cent annualised, that is being given to beneficiaries this year will not at all allow them a real level of increase in benefit.

It is about time that the social welfare system was brought up to date. We have a computer in Dublin and it is blamed for every delay, for every piece of inaction and for every flaw in the system. It surely should not be outside the bounds of possibility that the Department of Social Welfare would regionalise their computer capacity. There is not a business of its magnitude dealing with the amount of money that is involved which would not have at least a terminal in every county. If it is not within the bounds of the money available, surely the Department should at least be able to have a computer terminal in every region, in every major city, so that the social welfare beneficiary could get on to the computer terminal in the city or town and find out exactly what is his situation rather than to have somebody else ringing Dublin, whether it be the social welfare officer, the officers in the Department of Labour, the local elected representatives or whoever. In this way they would not have to be shuffled around at the benefits section to find out what their situation is.

I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that in the very near future we will have a series of computer terminals around the country so that we could deal with the problems that arise much more rapidly than is the case at present. This would help not alone the beneficiaries but it would help the social welfare officers who, rather than having to write to Dublin, could immediately tap the RSI number into the computer terminal and get the required information. This would enable them to deal more speedily with the problems that are arising at present.

The delays being experienced are purely delays in communication. I do not think there is anybody in the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of Labour who is deliberately trying to hold up the payment of benefit but the system as it is currently being operated has militated against efficiency and speed. It is all right for us to stand here and talk about the problems the social welfare beneficiary has. We in this House will be paid our salaries at the end of every month. Even if we do not get them on the very last day of the month, or the first day of the next month, somebody will be able to carry us through until the next week, but a social welfare beneficiary who is not paid his cheque on the Thursday morning or the Friday morning on which it is due is in a totally different situation. He may have severe problems getting enough food to keep him going until his next cheque arrives. I do not think people should have to suffer the indignity of being without food or of having to go to anybody outside the system to get help when they are entitled to their payment on the due date. Again, for this reason I appeal to the Minister to ensure that there will be an updating in communications as between the beneficiary and the Department.

We must praise the community welfare officers right around the country. They are doing a tremendous job under very difficult circumstances. The community welfare officer is bearing the brunt of the problems because he is the one to whom every problem is sent. The social welfare officer can do nothing in terms of giving a supplementary benefit. All he can do is to try to proceed with the normal working of the Department. The community welfare officer is a man to whom everybody goes when stuck for payment. These officers are doing a tremendous amount of social work but they seem to be better equipped in terms of public relations and to be better educated in how to deal with people than are some of our social welfare officers who, in all fairness, were never trained to deal with the public. This is why, as Senator O'Brien has said, many problems arise when a social welfare officer goes out to try to assess the means of a person who is looking for benefit. The attitude sometimes can be misunderstood by the person who is looking for the benefit. This can result in a stress situation.

The social welfare officer might be doing exactly the job he is supposed to be doing. He may be dealing with the case as sympathetically as is possible but, nevertheless, one has to realise that when somebody if looking for benefit he is under a strain. People who are not trained in psychology or in public relations are often not able to get across that they are asking these questions for the benefit of the beneficiary rather than for the benefit of the Department and that they are not there to block payment to anybody who deserves it. If we could have the same type of sympathetic approach by the social welfare officers as we have by the community welfare officers the system would probably work better.

Mention was made of the proposal in the Bill to abolish the local pension committees. There are mixed views on this. I resigned from an old age pension committee because I did not consider that such committees were the right vehicle for dealing with this problem. I felt that although the people on the local health committees had an intimate knowledge of the people in the locality, sometimes over-enthusiastically, they might have granted an increase in pension or a new pension to a person only to find that subsequently their decision was subject to a review by the social welfare officer. There were people who would get in touch with an applicant and tell him he had been granted an old age pension increase but two months later, after further investigation, the amount of money that was granted by the committee was taken away because it never should have been granted. For that reason I considered it a little hypocritical to serve on one of those committees. Having said that, there are many good reasons for continuing this system. The local knowledge of people who have worked on these committees has helped to personalise the system. In many cases it has helped to break the barrier as between officialdom and the people of the locality. It has helped the person who is looking for an old age pension, or for an increase in an old age pension, to get a personal hearing. That personal hearing and the knowledge the members of the old age pension committees have had have probably broken down the bureaucracy that has tended to dominate this area for too long. Although, on a personal basis, I would not agree with the old age pension committees, on balance they serve a genuine social purpose.

Section 8 of the Bill deals with the enterprise allowance scheme. It states:

"(1A) Notwithstanding section 72, the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make regulations providing that, for the purposes of a scheme administered by the Department of Labour and known as the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, a person accepted into that Scheme who, if he had continued to be unemployed, would be entitled to continue to receive pay-related benefit, shall be entitled, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations, to receive such benefit in the form of a lump sum equivalent to the amount which he would otherwise have received in respect of the unexpired portion (subject to a maximum of 26 weeks) of the relevant period of interruption of employment."

That makes very good sense but what does not make very good sense to me is the case of a person who wishes to start off his own business, who has found the means of starting in business immediately on losing his job but who does not get any benefit from the enterprise allowance scheme. There should be a period of perhaps 26 weeks after a person loses his job, and he should get the benefit for that period even if he starts an enterprise within that time. The situation at present is that if a person is honest enough not to go on benefit, having lost a job, and starts off an enterprise on his own, he gets absolutely nothing by way of this section because he would have had to be unemployed for a certain period. By being unemployed he would have got benefit from the State but because of an anxiety to start off immediately people totally miss out on this enterprise allowance scheme although their problems in the initial 26 weeks would be enormous. I should like the Minister to consider the development of the enterprise allowance scheme for the person who has the ability or the opportunity to go into business within a short time. I do not mean someone going into a safe job, transferring from one Department to another, or from one job to another, but where a person is made redundant. He must be allowed some benefit if he starts off on his own within a very reasonable period after being laid off.

The situation in regard to pay-related benefit disturbs me now that the floor has been raised from £36 to £44. This means that quite a few people will suffer. The amount of money that will be saved by raising this ceiling is £2 million. This is not an enormous sum of money but it will create problems when people are being made redundant. In the Minister's statement we are referred back to 1973-74 when £7 was the floor and now it is being brought up to £44, and that consequently there is an increase. I do not think we should be referring back to any time. If we are going to refer back to 1973-74 in that manner we must equally refer back to 1973-74 and refer to the tax take from somebody's wages at that time. There is absolutely no doubt that at the lower levels of income the tax is much higher now than it was. So there is no point in referring back in monetary terms and saying the floor has been raised. The floor has not been raised because taxation bands have narrowed and levels of taxation have increased. That will create many difficulties when people are negotiating for pay-related benefit.

The main thrust of the Minister's statement is that the Social Welfare Bill is to provide a redistribution of resources, a redistribution of income, a redistribution of welfare and a redistribution of power. I feel, equally, that we must have a situation whereby those at work must be paid for the work they do. I am not suggesting that the people who will become involved in payments under the Social Welfare Bill should be equated in any way to people who work, but I think work must be given the place in society that it had in previous years and that those who work must at least be given some incentive to work.

Reference was made to the family income supplement. It was stated that 35,000 families will come under this family income supplement section of the Bill. The figure mentioned is 35,000 and it would appear that £63 per week is the level of income that is being set by the Department as the poverty line. Mention was made of a Combat Poverty Organisation. There are many people who would suggest that £63 per week for a married couple with one child is well below the poverty line that the combat poverty committee would suggest. If we are bringing in a family income supplement we must have it set at a reasonable level and not have it set as it is at £63 per week for one child or, in the example given: upper income level, £125 a week, weekly family income £85, a difference of £40, amount of supplement 25 per cent of £40, or £10 a week. We should, instead be taking the level of family income below which the maximum supplement would be payable for a one child family, which is £63, and that would give a supplement of £8.

It will be interesting to see how that particular part of the Bill will be implemented. It has been mentioned that once it is given it will be allowed for a full 12 months. It will be interesting to see then, if it is allowed for a full 12 months, if there is an increase in salary into that family in what way it will be treated for income tax purposes. There is no mention as to whether this family income supplement will be taxed. Judging by the wording of the Bill it appears that it will be granted for a 12-month period. If it is granted under the Social Welfare Bill I would like to know if it will be a taxable extra allowance, because it appears to me that if it is to be taxable that it is not a true increase. If it is a supplementary grant it should not be taxable. I would like to know what the intention of the Minister is on this because it will be important when we get to Committee Stage and we are addressing ourselves to that item that we know whether it will be a taxable or a non-taxable supplement.

I ask that in future years the Social Welfare Bill will address itself not only to monetary compensation for deprivation but that it will address itself to alleviating the problems other than monetary problems which are associated with unemployment or disability, that we will have a Social Welfare Bill that will take the dignity of the person totally into account rather than bringing in each year a compensatory Bill which increases in a small or large measure the amount of money that deprived people get.

Like the other speakers from both sides of the House I would like to concur with their expressions of welcome for the Minister of State, and, like the only speaker who has spoken from this side of the House so far, Senator Andy O'Brien, I would like to welcome the Bill. I concur with the sentiments expressed by the Minister of State in his opening address when presenting the Bill in which he again reaffirmed his stated determination to ensure that social welfare recipients, their dependants and their living standards will be protected. This Bill does this.

I agree with the sentiments expressed in the other House by the Minister rebutting the misguided criticism from some quarters in relation to the projected cost of the Social Welfare Bill for this year, which is £2,156 million as already referred to by Senator Fallon. At a time like this we must reaffirm very definitely our social and moral commitment to the principle that the thousands of genuine people who depend on social welfare must be protected at all times but particularly at times like this when they more than any other section are subjected to the harsh, recessionary buffeting of the wind. I believe that this Social Welfare Bill does this and that it makes a very genuine attempt to keep the standard of living of all sections who are depending on social welfare in line with the cost of living.

In that regard I welcome particularly the two innovations in the Bill, that is the family income supplement and the introduction of the concept of indexation of rates. I would also agree with the Minister's affirmation in the other House that virtually all social welfare payments made to recipients are spent on basic goods, basic items, basic services, in other words, the necessities of life. Therefore they play a significant role in maintaining consumer demands and thereby protecting jobs.

It is reasonable to assume that all Members of this House hold absolutely no brief whatever for the minority of people who abuse various forms of social welfare. Indeed, it is fair to assume that we unanimously laud all attempts to root out and to eliminate such abuses not alone because they taint the deserving majority but also because they syphon off money that rightfully belongs to others.

The single greatest area of controversy in the present social welfare system is the concept of unemployment assistance, commonly referred to as small farmers' dole. I am quite prepared to acknowledge that the old notional system, which was abolished in July 1982, was a very convenient form of assessment. It was convenient for the recipients, for the social welfare officers and for the politicians who had their workload considerably diminished by virtue of the facility this particular form afforded to them.

I want to make it perfectly clear that despite the reservations of other people I fundamentally have no quibble whatever with the alternative system which has been introduced to replace the notional system, that is the introduction of factual assessment. In fairness, the Minister has been very fair, specific, and precise. He has specified quite clearly what exactly he means by factual assessment.

There is nothing very difficult about it. You calculate a farmer's gross income, you calculate the expenses necessarily incurred by him in the running of his farm during the previous 12 months, you subtract the latter from the former and you arrive at his net income; in layman's terms, what his clear profit is. The new form of social welfare is supposed to be based on this clear profit or this net income but this, unfortunately, is not happening.

It has been common practice when the officers carry out the assessment that they make a very detailed, very factual assessment of gross income which will essentially be based on any one of the five following categories: milk returns, stock sales, headage payments, suckler grants or capital. What is not happening and what I object to, what has caused a lot of the furore in relation to this particular form of assessment is that the specific instructions of the Minister vis-à-vis the assessment of the actual cost involved in the running of the farm the previous 12 months have not been adhered to.

The scenario very often is, but not always — I give credit to some social welfare officers — that the social welfare officer arrives unannounced. He simply asks the farmer what his costs were for the previous 12 months. How in the name of heaven can any farmer, no matter how small he is, be expected to say off the top of his head all the costs involved in the running of his farm for the previous 12 months? How can he possibly, at absolutely no notice whatsoever, give details for the previous 12 months of his replacement stock, his tractor diesel, his tractor tax, his tractor insurance, tractor servicing, the driving licence involved and his car tax. In the west many holdings are fragmented, which means that the farmer has to use his car to travel twice, maybe three times, daily to inspect stock on outlying land.

The costs involved for any farmer are his car insurance, his car servicing, petrol, fertiliser, lime, lime-spreading, feeding, veterinary calls, dosing, AI, sprays, weedkillers, drainage maintenance — again in the west of Ireland this is an integral part of the running and the maintenance of any farm — his group water scheme, again a basic cost, particularly on dairy farms where most of the water consumed is for the purpose of maintaining the dairy. There is as well his farm clothing, again a genuine cost, farm utensils, farm phone calls, haymaking, silage making, fencing, ESB, liners and detergents, the bales he very often has to purchase because of inadequate fodder on the land, the hire of labour, haulage, sheep-dipping, building repairs, bank, ACC or some other building agency interest, machinery purchased, sheep-shearing etc. There are up to 38 items of expenditure there and it is simply not on to expect any farmer, even farmers who keep their accounts meticulously, to be able to give these costs off the top of their heads. As a result what has been happening is that time and time again totally exaggerated and inflated net income figures have been set down against small farmers, thereby depriving them of their just entitlements.

I want to reiterate that I hold absolutely no brief whatever for anybody who abuses the social welfare system. The facts are that over £1 million has been taken out of circulation in the west of Ireland as a result of this particular system. Hundreds, indeed thousands, of people have had their dole totally withdrawn or substantially reduced. In many cases this is because social welfare officers either did not know or did not want to know the meaning of true factual assessment. I know that the Minister on more than one occasion has come to the defence of social welfare officers. I know that he did so particularly in the introduction of this Bill in the other House. I know that not once has he accepted that the criticisms of the application of the system, which we are objecting to, are valid. Does the Minister really believe that the individual voices that have come time and time again from the 12 western counties are not justified?

Does he believe that the collective voices that have come from the west of Ireland time and time again over the past 12 months are not justified? Does he not accept that the criticisms that have come in cohort and in concert with these from the IFA, the ICMSA and from a television programme in relation to this particular form again are all unjustified? How can the Minister explain the fortunes of, in my particular area, QC 56, 178, 52, 118, 52, 523, 55, 443, 70, 026 or 61, 713 in a concentrated small area of County Mayo, all of whom under the notional system were receiving between £18 and £45 per week, all of whom as a result of alleged factual assessment had their entitlement totally withdrawn, all of whom as a result of a long tedious appeal process had their entitlements restored? Surely there is something wrong when somebody goes from £35 to zero to £35. What is wrong is that the initial assessment was not a factual assessment, or was not carried out in accordance with the precise criteria laid down by the Minister.

I know that the Minister may make the argument that these people in fact receive arrears of payment if they find their claims and their appeals are justified. Will the Minister and the Minister of State say what these people are supposed to live on in the meantime? Would they not concur with the legal principle that justice delayed it justice denied?

I agree that there are staff problems. I concur entirely with Senator Fallon when he says that there should be additional staff. I have spoken to individual social welfare officers who tell me that the time apportionment for the carrying out of assessment is simply, in the case of the workload, too great, and the time too little. I call the House's attention to the remark made by Mr. Tom McKevitt of the Civil Service Union some weeks ago on a "Day by Day" programme when he admitted that because of time structures the questioning that was carried out by social welfare officers had to be carried out on a rapid basis. The system is an archaic outmoded system.

I would like to refer to remarks, and comments made by Mr. Bill Kelleher, senior inspector of the Department of Social Welfare, also on a "Day by Day" programme, when he admitted that it was permissible for social welfare officers to go to an applicant's neighbour in order to extract the truth, in other words, to determine if the applicant was telling the truth or if he had some other source of income.

This is a despicable form of assessment if it condones this particular modus operandi. Any system which is based, as this system is based to an extent, on rumour, innuendo, anonymous letters and anonymous telephone calls, no matter how authoritative the voice may be at the other end of the line, should in fact, be streamlined and be brought into the realm of the second half of the twentieth century.

I appeal to the Minister and the Minister of State in the Department of Social Welfare to introduce some basic reforms in this area for their own sakes, the sake of the social welfare officers and most important, for the sake of the applicants. Will the Department notify people in advance that it is the intention of the social welfare officer to call within a specific period of time? I am not asking them to give the precise day or time. Of course, this would afford the person who is on, what we call "the nixer" the chance to be at home on that particular day. Surely a person is entitled to 21 or 28 days basic notice of the intention of the Department to reassess him? I ask also that a complete list of the expenses that go into the formation of income be furnished in advance to these people so that, coolly and calculatedly they may come up with what the true figure of net income is.

I ask the Department to speed up appeals process by (a) the provision of additional staff and (b) the adoption of the two previous points which I have made. I maintain that if the system was streamlined and if people knew in advance what the precise entitlements were it would considerably reduce the number of appeals. I also ask that some basic threshold figure is introduced. As far as I know, it is the only form of social welfare that does not have a basic exemption levy.

I ask the Minister to please change the title of this form of assistance. Will he change it from small farmers' dole and from its more respectable appendage, unemployment assistance. These people are not unemployed. Indeed, they are fully employed, but the problem is that they are fully employed in substandard holdings which, because of the poor quality of the land, means that they have to work all the harder in order to eke out a slender living. I conclude, with a remark that I have made twice during my contribution. I hold absolutely no brief whatever with anybody who abuses the social welfare code. I merely ask for fair play.

Like the other speakers I want to say that there are many demands on the time of the Minister of State and he does not get credit for a lot of the work he does. I am sure he will be perfectly satisfied if he can improve the lot of the weaker sections of our community. The improvements announced in this Bill were already announced in the budget so people will be aware of what increases they are getting. The unfortunate thing is that those increases are so far away. Some of them are postponed until next August. It is regrettable that those benefits could not be paid much earlier. I am sure it would be possible to pay those increases much earlier, but the Government are saving some millions of pounds by postponing them until July or August.

When one considers the present rate of inflation, which is running at approximately 10 per cent — part of this inflation rate is the direct result of Government policy and taxes imposed in the budget last January — the increase of 7 per cent and 8 per cent granted to social welfare recipients is not sufficient to keep in line with the cost of living. Many of those people who are on the poverty line cannot provide themselves with the necessities of life from the benefits they are receiving. The growth in social welfare spending in recent years has highlighted the number of people depending on social welfare. Many new schemes have been introduced over the years such as free travel, free electricity, free television and radio licences for the old people, pay-related benefit, wet time pay, holiday pay and so on. All of those schemes have helped to ease the lot of the less well off sections of our community.

Unemployment, which is the cancer of our society at present, is a severe drain on the resources of the Department of Social Welfare. The money spent in 1984 on unemployment support will amount to £580 million, over a quarter of all social welfare expenditure. This should be a matter of serious concern to the Government. Every effort should be made to provide employment and so reduce the huge number who are at present depending on social welfare. It is indeed sad to see the numbers of able bodied men and women signing on for assistance each week. Those people would prefer to have jobs and be at work. The money being paid to them could be paid to improve the benefits for all the other people who are in severe need of social benefits such as the old, disabled and those who are no longer able to work.

Senator J. Higgins made a very strong case for the small farmers in the west of Ireland. I concur with everything he had to say on that matter. Those of us who have been representing the west of Ireland in recent years have had to put up with a lot of criticism from people who have lost their assistance, their small farmer's dole. I believe they are being dealt with in a particularly harsh manner under this new review that has taken place in recent times.

I hope the Minister of State, who is a reasonable person, will take note of what the western representatives have to say about this matter. We know that the western small farmer does not have the advantages that his counterparts in the other parts of the country have. He has the problem of having fragmented holdings and cannot produce crops or cattle in the same way as the people in the midlands or the south of Ireland can. Therefore, he is handicapped from the word go.

The small farmer's assistance has been part of his income over a number of years. As Seantor J. Higgins said, he is not unemployed. This assistance was granted in the first instance to supplement his income for a small holding. In many cases where this has been taken away from him it has imposed terrible hardship on that particular family. I know cases in my own area where married farmers with families have lost up to £70 or £80 per week in assistance. There is nothing to replace it and there is no chance of a job. One of the main reasons why they have lost that assistance is that, according to the social welfare officer's assessment, the income from that small farm has exceeded the prescribed figure.

As far as I can see, most of the people affected are those who have been sending milk to the creameries, and I do not know what system the officer applies in estimating their income from that. I suppose it is easy enough to estimate their income, because all they have to do is to get the receipts of the cheques that were paid out to them, but I wonder if they give the farmer the full advantage of the amount that he paid for meals and other expenses in trying to produce that milk. In some cases I know of he certainly has not done that.

There should be a different system applied in assessing income from those kind of people, because at present the Department of Social Welfare officers are doing more in their efforts to reduce the milk lake than the summit in Brussels. They are driving those farmers away from the only system of farming that is suitable for them, where they have a regular income every week, every month or whenever the cheque comes out, supplemented by the few pounds social assistance they were getting. They are very worried at present because they can see no future on those farms for themselves or for their families unless they are given assistance. Not alone did the farmers benefit from this assistance because they were able to support their families and to plough some of the money back into developing the farms by fertilising, liming and in many cases draining them, but also the small business people in the west benefited from this assistance. Indeed many business in towns in the west would have closed years ago if it were not for the support they were getting from people who were in receipt of the unemployment assistance every week and who came into town to spend those few pounds to buy groceries and other provisions for their families, which kept the whole thing going.

I hope that representatives of the Fine Gael and Labour parties will highlight those problems at their party meetings, because we could all see this coming after the introduction of the Social Welfare Bill last year which caused ripples within the Labour Party and which saw the departure of Deputy Bell. He knew the problems that this Bill was going to create, and his fears are now realised.

There is no point in blaming the social welfare officers. They are carrying out the wishes of the Minister and the Government, and that is why it is up to Fine Gael and Labour now to make sure that that system is changed. It was a bad day for the west when the rateable valuation system was abolished. The present system in operation is particularly suitable for the big farmer, and that is why those big farmers were anxious to get rid of the rateable valuation system. Unfortunately, many of the small farmers in the west, by their contributions at the marts, co-ops and so on paid some of the court costs to get rid of that system. They now can see the disadvantages which are highlighted every day. I ask the Minister to be more lenient in his approach to those people. As I said at the outset, they have not the advantages that farmers in the better off areas have. They rely to a great extent on the social assistance that has been paid to them down through the years and it is frightening for any family to lose £40 to £60 per week, with nothing to replace it, with markets and problems in the area of milk production as they are today. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration in dealing with those problems.

We certainly welcome the improvements that have taken place which are being initiated in this Bill, and hope that in the next year or so we will see a definite reduction in the number of people who are depending on social benefits, particularly young able bodied people who have some contribution to make to this country, but who, unfortunately, are not able to get the jobs that they so wish for. I hope that the world economy will improve and that the economy of this country will follow suit in due course. It is my wish that when we come back to review a new Bill in 1985 we will see some improvements in the number of people who are unemployed at present.

I join with my colleagues in welcoming Deputy Pattison, the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare. I worked with him for ten years on a health board and I know his commitment in the area of health and social welfare. He has plenty of expertise to offer this Department. I wish him well in it and in his first visit to the House.

We have before us legislation which is urgent because of the date on which some of the requirements of the Bill come into operation. There are a few comments I want to make on various sections of the Bill arising out of the Minister's Second Stage speech. Of course we on this side of the House will never be really satisfied with the amount of money we can offer to people under this heading. The rates of unemployment assistance, long term unemployment assistance or disability benefit can never be as high as we would like them to be, but we must have due regard to the finances of the Exchequer and the amount of money available to us.

I would not like it to go out from this House and from this debate that the people who are beneficiaries under this are getting something from the State to which they are not entitled. People contribute to the social welfare fund while they are working or able to work, and it is designed as an insurance scheme to buffer them against unemployment or ill health which occurs through no fault of theirs. There have been condemnations of people who are idle for long periods, that they have lost their incentive to work. As a public representative, I have never come across that attitude. Fundamentally, people are happier if they have a job and if the level of income from it is enough to sustain themselves and their family — basically that is the philosophy of most people. We must not be unmindful of the people who will never be able to work through mental or physical disability or through ill health. A Government must have regard for people in that category, so when we make comments on the Bill about levels of payment or whether people are getting too much or too little we must have regard to the fact that they are drawing this income from a fund into which they have contributed.

My colleague, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, the Minister for Labour, has spoken about the possibility of ensuring that public works should be carried out and contemplated by people who are unemployed and available for work. This will take quite a lot of discussion at different levels between the trade union movement and those of us who have an interest in this area. The philosophy is excellent, but when putting it into practice we must be mindful of the fact that no Government Department can plunder a social welfare fund which has been contributed to by people at work and by their employers. Once we establish that criterion we can make progress. I am happy with the rates of increase, taking into consideration last year's increases and the overall increase in inflation between last year and this year. Beneficiaries under this Bill will just about hold their own. For that reason, some of the other sections in the Bill have been welcomed by speakers from both sides of the House.

I have reservations about the area dealing with the raising of the floor in the pay-related benefit section. If we accept the fundamental principles behind the pay-related scheme when it was initiated, people paid a contribution into the fund based on their earnings at the time and their level of compensation must be comparable to the earnings that they had when they are unemployed or ill. These are the fundamental principles behind pay-related contributions. If you start precluding people at the top end from benefiting or if you raise the floor at the bottom end before the benefit, the whole concept of pay-related is certainly open to question. There could be a strong argument made that contributions into the pay-related scheme should begin only at the level of pay from which he would benefit; if there is a tapering off at the top end, possibly there should be a tapering off of the contributions there also. Once we start making movements at either end of the scale the scheme will be open to criticism by employers, who contribute quite a lot to it, and by employees who also contribute and who now have reservations about the benefits of the pay-related scheme, principally because they are taxed on the pay-related element before the actual pay-related or income tax is taken from their wages. This is double taxation. The farming community have used the same argument regarding the health contribution on the basis that allowances are not made for capital investment. It is a levy on an income. If you talk about pay-related as being a levy on an income, we must apply the same principle under that heading as well.

Last year we made changes in this regard to remove the anomaly of people benefiting more by being out of work than by working and contributing to the system. Something needed to be done to ensure that there was no disincentive for people to go to work. This is why I am so pleased that within this Bill we have new sections which open up a whole new spectrum within the social welfare code of incentives to people to do something to help themselves. One of these is the enterprise allowance scheme which does not penalise somebody for being a small entrepreneur or somebody who is unemployed and has an idea that he could possibly use it to better himself, to make a living and possibly to start a small industry. I know people who have done this succesfully under the guidance of the county council and with the help of the Youth Employment Agency, AnCO and other agencies. I am delighted that people can now do it under this scheme and that the Government has extended it. It has been such a success that it deserves all the support that the Government and indeed all parties within the Oireachtas can give to it.

Pay-related benefit payments as a result of redundancies or otherwise can be used as a lump sum to invest. I hope that the Minister for Finance will treat this kind of input in the same favourable way as we are now treating risk capital in the Finance Bill coming before the Houses of the Oireachtas in the near future. If people invest money which will create employment they are treated favourably, thus ensuring that there is an incentive to invest money. This incentive, I hope, will also be available to unemployed people who have lump sums available to them under redundancy payments and the pay-related scheme.

The family income supplement has been talked about for some time. I am glad that we thought of the idea. Unfortunately, a general election intervened between our first intention to initiate the scheme and the bringing to fruition and I know the parliamentary draftsman had some problems in this area. Senator Fallon, in making a very reasoned contribution to the debate, expressed reservations that perhaps this might be abused by employers and that the real way to tackle this problem was to have a minimum wage paid to people which he felt would solve the problem.

The trade union movement and our party as a political unit have looked at this question of a minimum wage. On the deepest examination of the problem there is no doubt whatsoever that the moment you have a minimum statutory wage it becomes the maximum norm. People who feel that they would benefit from a minimum wage would soon realise that it is the maximum wage. This is why this scheme is called the family income supplement. People at work with one child could be earning the same wages as a person with ten children. Surely there is inequality here? The employer does not necessarily have any responsibility for a man working for him in the number of children that he has to support, or his ability to support them.

This is why the family income supplement is so important in that it starts for the first time on the lower end of the scale for people who are employed at an income of £96 per week with one child and increasing upwards with the number of children for which that person has responsibilities to maintain. Because of this I hope that no employer will abuse this family income supplement. I hope that a parent who has a large number of children and getting a family income supplement from the State will not mean that he would get a lesser amount of pay; this would not be acceptable. The trade union movement will not accept it and it is certainly not what the Government intended for this particular family income supplement scheme. It is intended to help people at the lower income level with larger families to try to overcome the problem which has arisen in the past when it paid people with large families to be unemployed. When tax consessions and the benefits from reduced differential rents of local authority houses and all other concessions are taken into consideration, there were times when people with large families were better off on unemployment benefit and pay-related than if they were at work. This supplement is paid to people only if they are at work. It must be seen by everybody who studied this problem of small incomes and large families that people must have an incentive to work. I look on it as only the first step and we can only see how beneficial it will be when it is in operation for some time. I suggest that after 12 months or two years of operation the Minister and his Department look at how it has worked to see if it has met the problem applicable at present in that category of income earner.

I should like to refer to the section that deals with the movement into land leasing or getting away from the conacre system which has been the scourge of all land lettings for so long. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State responsible is doing something constructive, and I hope that a Bill will be initiated in this House soon to stimulate an interest in the whole concept of land leasing. When we applied the means test under the Social Welfare Act at present to people who have let their land under conacre, there was a disincentive to do so simply because the capital value of the land was taken as a means of assessment for social welfare purposes when the correct means of assessment would have been the income which that land could have earned if it was leased to somebody on a long-term basis. It is a most welcome section, and I hope that the person who owns the land and leases it will benefit and will not be penalised by the social welfare code; that the people using the land will have a genuine means of income that will also be subjected, if they so wish, to the social welfare code if they feel that the income from the land they have let is not sufficient to maintain them in a reasonable degree of comfort.

I am glad that the Minister for Health, Deputy Desmond, has made a public announcement to this effect. We did not initiate the review of the PLV system that was outside our control, but we must accept the fact that the courts found it unconstitutional and other means of determining people's income had to be decided. How can somebody's income be decided based on the valuation if that basis is found to be unconstitutional? This House and the other House were left with no alternative but to implement a scheme of assessing people's means and their profits or otherwise from small holdings.

We got an assurance from the Minister for Health that in the implementation of the review of people who, for the first time, were in a low valuation basis the people at the top of the bracket would be the first to be assessed. Unfortunately, I am told that when inspectors from the Department were in the area they subjected smallholders with £5, £6 and £7 valuation to a means test when they should have known that very few people in that valuation bracket would have an income that could sustain a wife and family anywhere in the western counties. The Minister will have to tidy up the means of assessment for people under the various headings of health boards and social welfare. Otherwise there will be anomalies which any system will throw up and people will then be unhappy about being assessed in a different manner from that used by a different section of the same Department.

I should like to comment on the role of so called employment exchanges; they are generally termed to be unemployment exchanges, because that is where unfortunate people have to queue in the rain, under a system which is degrading, to sign their names. That is unacceptable, and we have not made any effort to ensure that proper facilities are available to people who have to degrade themselves when signing on at unemployment exchanges. I always felt that the role of an unemployment exchange was to ensure that an effort would be made to place people in employment if it was available in the area. I gather that that role has now been taken on by Manpower, who register people in different categories of unemployment as being available for work and the two agencies should work closely together.

The payment of employment officers should not be dependent on the number of people registered for unemployment. In other words, the number of people unemployed at a particular exchange determines the level of remuneration of the person in the employment office. The reverse should be the case. An incentive should be given to each employment officer in the exchanges who manages to procure a job for a person who is signing as being eligible and available for work on a particular day. That should be their role. If we move towards that we might make some impact on the black economy as it is commonly and unpopularly known.

Senator Fallon made the suggestion that people abuse the system to the extent that they can sign at five or six exchanges in the one city on the one day and draw allowances from each of them. If that happens — it is possibly an exaggeration — the Department should look into it. There have been complaints that people who are working are signing on. That is an abuse of the system. However, I do not blame the recipient of the social welfare system, I blame the employer who allows that system to go on simply because he has a vested interest in either not reporting the situation because he benefits; he has cheap labour available to him, he has no responsibilities about paying PRSI contributions, deducting PAYE or registering his enterprise and so on when he knows that the person he has working for him is already signing on at the employment exchange. Even if it was reported by the employment exchange, by a member of the Garda or by an officer in the Department of Social Welfare and even if the person is found to be working no action can be taken legally to stop the abuse of the system unless the employer is prepared to state that he was employing the person. That is putting a tremendous onus on the employer, and unless they are prepared to accept that onus the system will be abused.

I am making these comments so that the Minister will be aware of my views on it. I will fight to ensure that a proper level is paid to people who genuinely are unable to work, who cannot get work or who have been made redundant. I hold no brief for those who play the system for their own benefit whether they are employers or employees. I cannot be fairer than that, I am speaking from experience and I hope the Minister will take my comments in the spirit in which they have been given.

I should like to comment on the abolition of old age pension committees. I have been a member of a committee for many years and they have been working on a voluntary basis. I have always had the gravest reservations about our functions. Firstly, applicants should not be expected to appear before us and disclose their private lives, private incomes and assets, no matter how small, where they were and the amount of money available, information that was already available by law to the investigating officer. I always thought it was degrading to expect people to give this information to elected politicians who always proposed that a higher rate of pension would be payable. Of course they would say that because it was their constituent who was before them. They always ask the appeals officer to review the case and propose that a higher rate of pension be payable. Recognising that that odious system of means goes on anyway in the case of non-contributory pensions, it is sufficient to have to disclose that information in confidence to a deciding officer.

I hope the system will ensure that people will be given a fair crack of the whip. If further information becomes available to public representatives or anybody else involved in the community or social services provided by health boards or voluntary agencies, I hope the Department will be open to receive representations on behalf of people who have been allocated a lower pension than the amount to which they would be entitled.

If that safety factor is there I am satisfied that the old age pension committees will serve no further useful purpose. I often wondered what useful purpose they served apart from giving help to the people coming to them who thought they had friends there to intervene between them and bureaucracy. They looked on the Department as an element of bureaucracy which tried to preclude them from getting what they were entitled to. From my knowledge working with the Department and Ministers the attitude always has been that they do everything possible to ensure that a person gets his entitlement. I hope that this facility will be still available to us. I hope there will not be any controversy about this. The old system served some useful purpose in the old days when the poor law was there, when people literally were on the breadline and needed someone to speak for them. They were working under a different jurisdiction with a hand-out system, but nobody holds a brief for that kind of system nowadays. I hope we have advanced far from that era and that people now get benefit based on their entitlement.

There are many elements in the Bill which will be of benefit to people. I hope that payments accuring to them will be of benefit to them particularly in view of the fact that the cost of living has decreased dramatically. I hope that decrease will continue. People must have confidence that whatever they get will have some purchasing value for them, particularly those on lower income limits.

We must remember that there is a duty on every government to provide for the needs of the aged, the sick, the infirm and the under-privileged. I agree that governments during the years have used a very humane approach. In good times we made some tremendous progress with regard to our responsibilities in this area. Recently we have heard a lot of talk about the state of the economy and of measures that need to be taken to try to rectify the position. At the same time I should like to impress on the Minister that we can never allow a situation to arise whereby the aged, the sick, the infirm or the under-privileged are sacrificed for the sake of monetarist policies or fiscal rectitude.

The increases of 7 per cent and 8 per cent are taking effect from July while, at the same time, all the revenue demands incorporated in the budget have long since taken effect. When we consider this we realise the social welfare recipients have little to enthuse about. I am not going to dwell on the many aspects of the Social Welfare Bill and I am not going to criticise for the sake of being critical. Many services have deteriorated, especially in the community care area. Great hardship is being experienced.

I welcome the establishment of a commission on social welfare. I wish them well and I hope that they will do their work thoroughly and as expeditiously as possible. I hope we will not have to wait for years for a report from them. Many changes are needed in the system which is archaic and very complicated. Our major problem is unemployment. At the rate we are going we will end up with one-third of the population working to keep two-thirds of the population idle.

Unemployment is the basic root of other problems in the country. When speaking of unemployment I would like to contradict many of the statements I have heard recently that there are too many people sponging on taxpayers' money. As a public representative for a long number of years and especially since I became a Member of the Oireachtas, I meet many young people willing and able to work. These people are not spongers. People are willing to work, they want work and it is the duty of the Government at least to try to provide employment for these people. At the same time, I unequivocally condemn the people who are abusing the system and there are many instances of abuses. I am sure the Minister knows what I am referring to, namely, people who are working and living off the system at the same time. I add my voice to condemnation of them. Social welfare officers would be much better employed in tackling many of the abuses that exist in this area than spending so much time, in many cases needlessly, investigating old age pensioners with a view to cutbacks even though they have gone through the system and have been granted pensions.

On the abolition of the pension committees, I am amazed that this particular section went through Dáil Éireann almost without question. I am not sure what was the idea behind it. Perhaps the Minister thinks that it is an archaic system. Perhaps he fears there may be breaches of confidentiality. I have been a member of an old age pension committee for nearly 18 years and I see the need it has fulfilled. It creates a link at local level between the old age pensioner, the social welfare officer and the Department. I believe this combination has successfully played a very important role in the administration of the scheme since its inception. The pensioners involved knew there were local people whom they could approach who would guide them, assist them and be a source of moral courage to them when they were fighting their case. I firmly believe that the social welfare officer learned a lot from these old age pension committees because the local councillor and the local people who were on these committees knew exactly what was involved.

I know there are many old age pensioners in this country who are illiterate or semi-literate and who do not know what are their rights. The local councillor, especially on a pension committee, is the guiding spirit behind many of these people. I know many people who, on the advice of the local pension committee and the social welfare officer, at long last realised the fact that they could sign over their farm and put in an application to give them that bit of protection that they felt was so necessary. Because of this many young people got an earlier opportunity of running the family farm or the family business and they could progress and get married.

There are questions I should like the Minister to answer concerning the abolition of the old age pension committees. What will be the cost of this exercise? The members of old age pension committees were not even paid travelling expenses. To my knowledge, they were never even offered a cup of tea. They gave of their services free. As I said earlier, to my knowledge confidentiality was never broken and that is very important. How many extra staff will be recruited to process the claims? Somebody will have to fill the gap that the abolition of old age pension committees will create. Where will staff be recruited? I think we can answer that one off the cuff — in Dublin. What changes are being introduced into the appeals system? What type of protection will be offered to the old age pensioner whose claim may be reviewed? To whom are these people to go now? I am very sceptical about that. I wish to state as strongly as possible that in my opinion this is a retrograde step. Again, this is part of the centralisation type of thinking — change the system, bring everything up to head office in Dublin. In many areas right across the board this country is suffering as a result of decisions like this. Membership of old age pension committees is very time-consuming. The members of the committees never received a halfpenny even in travelling expenses or never even looked for it. It was a community type of effort, whereby people could be helped out with advice and guidance as to their rights. Old age pensioners looked to these committees for that bit of vital support and in many instances they got the moral courage to fight their case.

I want to pay a special tribute to the old age pension committees who did their job very thoroughly, very effectively and very conscientiously. In my time on the committee — I was a member of Kells old age pension committee — we never took rash or misleading decisions. Our judgment and our views were very well respected in Dublin. What will happen now when a case goes to appeal, when a pensioner receives clearly-worded documentation which says that a certain amount has been granted but it is on appeal? It will be left in abeyance with the appeals officer for three or four months. There will be no link then between the pensioner and the appeals section in Dublin. This creating a gap which the Minister will regret.

Finally, I ask if anything can be done with regard to the death grant scheme? This scheme was introduced in 1970, and recently I came across what I thought were anomalies in the scheme. It does not apply to people who were born prior to March 1901 unless in rare cases where a spouse is or was eligible under the Insurance Act. What happens in a case like that — and we have many hardship cases — is that it goes to the community care section and the supplementary welfare benefit section. God knows, the community care section is harassed enough and is under severe pressure without doing what we feel should be the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare. There are not very many people left in that category. Perhaps the Minister in his reply would be kind enough to deal with this matter.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It is his first visit to us wearing the cap of Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare. With the other Senators, I wish him well.

I welcome the Bill. I am particularly impressed with the section dealing with family income supplement, which is something that is long overdue. As the Minister said in his opening speech, there are many families in this country who because of the low income from the main income earner of the family — the only income earner very often — get caught in a poverty trap and because of our social welfare system there was no scheme of assistance for such people until now. The Minister is to be thoroughly congratulated for introducing this particular form of assistance. It is a very enlightening measure and is long overdue.

At a general level, in this country we are fortunate in that we spend a very high proportion of our national income on social welfare. We pay out as much as most advanced or developed countries in relation to the net national income. That, of course, is a reflection of our caring and our enlightenment in this area.

However, on the details, I regret a number of matters were not updated at this time. To qualify for an old age pension an applicant who has a means of £7 per week from another source is disqualified from some of the old age pension. For instance, if an old age pensioner has £8 per week of outside income on reaching the age of old age pension — and that is not very much money nowadays — he loses £1 per week of the entitlements. If it is £9 he loses £2 and if it is £10 he loses £3 and so on until such time as he slips out of the system completely. That system of having £7 as the weekly floor was introduced in 1973 and surely it is high time that it was updated.

A figure of at least £20 or £25 per week of an outside income should be allowed to any old age pensioner to qualify for full pension and I ask the Minister to consider that matter. I do not suppose there is a lot that can be done about it this year because the Bill has been drafted and has been passed by the other House and it is on the point of being passed in this House but it is something that should be remembered for next year.

Like Senator Higgins I am very concerned about the problem of the unemployment assistance for small farmers — it is called the small farmer's assistance or the small farmer's dole. A major problem has arisen because of the changeover from the old notional system based on the poor law valuation to the new actual or factual system. The problem is an administrative one. I agree totally that people should be assessed factually for any social assistance of this kind. At the administrative level, for whatever reason, whether it is a problem of the training of the people who administer the scheme or a problem of staff numbers or of time I do not know, there is something wrong when a social welfare officer calls to a farmer to interview him for this new factual system and the interview may last no longer than ten minutes. In that ten minutes the farmer is expected to give a full inventory of all his income and expenses for the previous year.

In fairness, no farmer, especially a small farmer who has no knowledge of bookkeeping by tradition, can be expected to give a full account of all his true expenses and his true income for the previous year. What very often happens is that because the interview is such a cursory affair in the first instance, because there is possibly a certain amount of fear on the part of the applicant being approached in this rather rapid manner and because possibly at times the approach of the social welfare officer is not everything that is desired, the result is that a very unfair conclusion is arrived at as far as the recipient is concerned. There will be no doubt at all about the assessment of his gross income, but the putting together of his gross expenses is another matter.

Most farmers are ignorant of the fact that they can claim for every possible income they dispense on the necessary running of their farm. This information has not been made known to the farmers. The result is they get no assistance from the social welfare officer who has only ten minutes to spend with them. With the information he has in hand, he goes back and he processes it and he attributes to that applicant an income which is far above the actual income which arises from that particular holding. The applicant is notified in due course that his allowance has been greatly reduced or in many cases it has been taken away altogether, very unfairly. The appeals process starts and that process is very slow. It now takes at least 15 or 16 weeks for a decision from the time the appeal is lodged until a decision is made.

I query also the machinery of the appeals system. I know of many instances of farmers who lodged their appeal, who gave new details of their income and expenses and yet they were never revisited by an official of the Department. They were written to after 15 or 16 weeks and told that a deciding officer or an appeals officer in the Department of Social Welfare had upheld the original decision. Surely that is not fair. The Minister may say that is not happening but I know for a fact it is happening. It is not at all a satisfactory system of appeal.

What must be done immediately is that all farmers who are to be assessed for the factual assessment should be given at least 21 days notice that an assessor is to come to them in order to give them a chance to prepare the full inventory of their expenses and their income. That is only fair. Most small farmers are not on "nixers" or doing work on the side. They are working on their farms eking out a very meagre living, and there is nothing wrong with giving them notice of at least three weeks. Each recipient should be circularised with a full and comprehensive list of all the expenses for which he can claim. Let them show vouchers and receipts for their expenses, but at least they must be made fully aware of everything they can claim for, because in these unsatisfactory interviews which they face in this initial examination a farmer is likely to lose his benefit. He has to go through the appeals process and wait for three months to have his payments restored. As the previous speaker said, it is all right saying he will get back the benefits in arrears, but justice delayed is justice not done. I urge in the strongest possible terms upon the Minister that these two main points which I make are taken into account: that all farmers who are to be assessed, must get due notice and that they are to get a full and comprehensive list of all the expenses for which they may claim. Furthermore, whether it is to be solved by increased staff or whatever, when a social welfare officer calls he must be prepared to spend a longer period with an applicant. Very often he should be in the role of an adviser. It should never be the aim of the Department to deprive somebody of money to which they are entitled. Very often the impression that is given is that the sole purpose of an officer's visit.is to take away money, not to advise and to establish entitlement, which is what should be their real role.

Also bear in mind that the small farmer's assistance has a very beneficial economic side-effect in that really it is an income supplement. Most farmers, 99 per cent of them, use their unemployment assistance beneficially in that not alone do they supplement their own family income from it but they use portion of it to reinvest into their farm. We hear a lot of talk about the people who abuse the system, but they are a minuscule minority. The majority use the system properly. Take this assistance away from them and you beggar them on two fronts. You take away from them a source of investment in their farm which, in turn, helps to generate an income from their farm. By taking away the assistance you are taking away a vital part of the family income. To repeat, you beggar them on two fronts, and you do the country no economic good either. I ask the Minister to bear all of these things in mind, especially those points which I have made on smallholders' assistance.

There are many things I would have liked to say but they have been said by other speakers and it is unnecessary for me to repeat them. Again, may I say I welcome totally the Bill. We have given 7 and 8 per cent increases across the board and this will be well in line with inflation because I hope by this time next year we will be going into a period of 5 per cent or less inflation per annum. I feel that the percentage increases this year will be more than adequate to meet the rate of inflation or to maintain living standards for all social assistance recipients.

I wish to join with other Senators in welcoming the Minister of State to the House on his first official visit. This whole area of social welfare is a complex and difficult one and I am not an expert as regards all the regulations and details. Most people would agree with the Minister that it is opportune to review the whole welfare system.

I would like to ask a few questions and to make a few comments regarding the Bill. May I first of all ask the Minister if he can advise me of the position of a person working on a week-on-week-off basis, a situation which has become reasonably widespread since the changes in social welfare payments came about for people working a three day week? I understand that in order to get a social insurance credit a person must sign on for the six days of the social welfare week. This social insurance contribution week, I believe, begins on the day of the week coinciding with 6 April of that contribution year. Persons on a-week-on-week-off situation work from Monday to Friday; therefore they are unable to sign on for the full six days of either social welfare week, that is the week ending on the Tuesday and beginning on the Wednesday at present, or ending on Thursday and beginning on Friday after 6 April. Do such people get a social insurance credit or have their employers been instructed to mark their social insurance record card with two contributions paid? I have been informed that an employer cannot record 52 contributions paid for 26 weeks' work. Does the social welfare system credit these people with the other 26 weeks?

In an Adjournment Debate in the other House when the Minister dealt with raising the floor from £36, to £43, section 7 of the Bill, I believe he also stated that the pay-related element of maternity benefit would be reduced from 80 per cent to 70 per cent. What is the position now in this regard?

I believe also that the situation is such that if somebody who is signing for social welfare signs off for one day they will lose their credit for the whole week. The situation seems to be to discourage the unemployed from trying to find even one day's work.

Criticism has been made of the queues signing on at social welfare offices. I join in those criticisms, because I feel that a long line of people waiting, exposed to the elements, is undignified. I would like to see some progress being made in this regard.

Section 9 deals with the leasing of land. I welcome this, along with the other Senators. But I would like to ask what the Land Commission are doing at the present time with regard to the transfer of land. They seem to have reached a static situation. I feel some progress would have to be made in this area also.

The Minister referred to increases of 7 per cent and 8 per cent in benefits. He also stated that there would be an inflation rate of 5 per cent in 1985. I am wondering if this is too optimistic. I would also like to point out that the 7 per cent and 8 per cent will not apply for all of the year since it only comes into operation sometime in July and August. I welcome the family income supplement scheme but I note that the supplement will be calculated in each case as one quarter of the difference between the family's actual income and the appropriate upper level of income for the family size in question. The ideal situation would be where the full difference would be made up, and we will all be happy only when this is possible.

With regard to the abolition of old age pension committees, I would like to put on record my appreciation of the hard work they have done down through the years. It was voluntary work. I accept what has been said, possibly it was somewhat insensitive to have claimants going before the committee and making full and general confessions. At the same time, all those members were very dedicated. They worked hard without payment of any kind. I am somewhat saddened to see them go, because they fulfilled a difficult task. With the situation as it obtained with people being called before the old age pension committee and meeting people they knew, it was certainly difficult to expose all of the details. I would like to pay tribute to the work they have done down through the years.

Would the Minister consider allowing a set off to the extent of perhaps £30 per week for a home help for invalid persons over 70 years of age in the reckoning of means for a non-contributory pension? These people at the end of their days deserve not only our sympathy but above all our help. It is only right and just to make an allowance for a cost which cannot be avoided.

The fringe benefits of free electricity allowance, black and white television licence and free telephone rental are linked to the social welfare pension. Those who do not qualify for a pension from the Department of Social Welfare do not qualify for the fringe benefits. At present a person can have a means of up to £42 — £44 from July — and qualify for some amount of non-contributory pension, thereby qualifying for these fringe benefits. It is unfair that a person who is £1 or £2 over the limit is deprived of all of these benefits. In situations like that — where their means are above that limit — would it not be possible to allow these fringe benefits with an appropriate deduction for the amount by which they would be above the limit in order to qualify?

With regard to telephone rental allowances for invalids and old age pensioners where there is another person staying with them and looking after them, often through necessity rather than have them committed to a hospital or institution, they should have a free telephone rental allowance. They should not be penalised for having a good friend in this period of need, particularly as, in the words of the poet, "The poor make no new friends."

Every individual is entitled to an income which ensures a reasonable standard of human dignity. They are entitled to this as of right. With the other Senators, I feel there is nothing to be ashamed of for those who have to depend on social welfare, but in so far as there is failure in this regard, society itself should be ashamed.

I conclude by welcoming the Bill in so far as it is an improvement. I hope the comprehensive review the Minister has in hand will bring us fully along this road.

May I first of all extend the usual words of welcome to Minister Pattison. I hope he will be there for a long time to come.

The present sum total of social legislation is a tribute to all parties, not just to one or two or three; it is the sum total of the desire of everybody to do what is possible for people in need, and nobody can claim any special concern in looking after those people.

The provisions of this Bill probably touch every house in the country in some form or other. I firmly believe that because peple who are unemployed are neither sick nor, in the terms that we understand it, in need of welfare this whole area of unemployment is a matter proper to the Department of Labour. The very fact that people are paid through the Departments of Health and Social Welfare would suggest that there is something wrong with them other than the fact that they simply have not got a job. In other words they are answerable, with all due respects to the Minister, Deputy Desmond, and the Minister of State, to the wrong Department: they should be answerable to the Department of Labour.

I have raised the matter of employment exchanges before in this House. It seems to me that while the Departments of Health and Social Welfare over the years displayed tremendous sensitivity in dealing with people, such as prisoners' wives, deserted wives, unmarried mothers, to ensure that the benefits payable to them are not easily recognisable by shopkeepers and banks and so forth and ensuring that these cheques, All of like, are anonymous cheques. All of these developments are very welcome because they maintain the dignity of people. The prisoner's wife or the unmarried mother retained their own dignity and sense of worth. But we fail to do it with the unemployed, and we keep on failing to do it with the unemployed. I still do not understand the reason for this and why we simply will not face up to this problem.

The previous speaker referred to queues of people outside not alone employment exchanges but sort of shops and houses in every village and town in Ireland. In my own constituency in Cork one would think that there was a major accident on a Thursday when you have hundreds of people queueing up to get their assistance. What lies behind the demand of the State that these people produce their bodies once or twice a week? There is no work available at the moment, so you are demanding that people show themselves for something which is not there — work. I fail to see why these payments cannot be made like other social welfare payments are made. In money terms we probably pay far more public moneys through the post than we do over the counter. But you have this absolutely idiotic and degrading system where people have to queue right around blocks in some cases in hail, rain or snow to get what is essentially their own money. It is absolutely degrading. Some Government at some time will have to face up to it, because there is no longer any logical reason why it would be so.

Some people say that there is a percentage of people drawing social welfare benefits who do not want to work. In the present context you could probably give them a medal for social service because they will not grab a job that so many other people want. Therefore, even the spongers, in so far as people who do not want to work are so described and who are a tiny minority, are giving a sort of service. It sickens me when I hear people talking about some man or woman ripping the State off for £10 or £20 and then you see stockbrokers, doctors and lawyers ripping the State off for hundreds of thousands of £s and they are received in the most respectable of places by prelates and Government dignitaries and so on. They are the real spongers in society, not a guy who decides to do a trick in Gardiner Street and do it somewhere else. I do not condone this but it should not bring down the wrath of officialdom for such a pittance. I suppose if this particular double act displayed a little more ingenuity it would probably earn more money somewhere else.

The question of people queueing up for their own cash in this age of technology will have to be looked at. I suggested previously to another Minister, and I am suggesting to Deputy Pattison, that the time to bring the employment exchanges into the 20th century should begin, because we have done it with everything else. The employment exchange is now misnamed. It is not an employment placement agency; it is where you simply get money because you are out of work, and therefore you should get that money through the post. Why should one have to queue? From my own personal experience I can say that traumatic as losing your job is, the idea of facing this signing twice a week is almost worse, and people fear that sometimes more than they actually fear the loss of money. Yet we do nothing about it and the same old system goes on. The only difference today is that we have many more people queueing up.

The black economy has been mentioned. Successive Governments have driven people into the black economy in many ways. If you consider a situation where a man, wife and a number of children who has a £95 tax free allowance is picking up from the exchange on a certain level of benefit about £70, and he is offered a job for x number of hours a week, possibly doing a night's work for which he gets £20, he still has not reached a level in terms of income at which he would be subject to taxation. Yet, he cannot do this. You have inspectors going around pubs looking for men doing nixers in bars. They are probably not earning any more — they are probably earning less — than they would be entitled to in a full-time job, given their tax free allowance situation. They are actively prevented from improving their situation, even marginally. To people on social welfare there is an extra £20 that they get which they cannot declare, so we are driving people into the black economy for marginally improving their circumstances. Again this is something that ought to be looked at, because the black economy is not a lot of men fixing cars for beer money in some back street; it is a guy who is on a minimum amount of social welfare who sometimes is able to get a few hours' work a week. Why should he not be able to declare it? Why should he not be able to come within the legal system? Why should we make a criminal of him simply because he wants to improve his own family situation? If that particular extra income still does not bring him into the tax bracket what is the problem? When we talk about the black economy we talk about people like that.

I welcome the abolition of the pension committees. They are relics of another era, the era of the Big House. We have often spoken about the fact that if Members of the Oireachtas spent a little more time on legislation and less time in trying to persuade people that they are getting them benefits they are already entitled to, we probably would have a better country. I welcome the fact that these committees are disbanded and the citizen can, as is their right, deal directly with the State. The only problems about dealing with the State is that they produce so much literature and booklets and so on which are so full of gobbledygook that it is very hard for ordinary people, and especially old people, to understand. Certainly the Minister would do a great service if he simplified some of the documents that emanate from the Departments of Health and Social Welfare. I understand in Britain there is a huge hidden surplus of people who do not claim —millions of £s. I have not seen anything mentioned in any speech so far that there are unclaimed millions left in the Irish Exchequer simply because people do not know what their entitlements are. In effect what we do in this country is to set up all sorts of agencies for people to actually fall through the trap door. Sometimes they fell through the trap door because nobody gave them the map of the minefield and explained that there were entitlements they could get. So I would appeal to the Minister that not only in his Department but in every Department in the State we should produce documents and leaflets etc. which the ordinary person can understand, down to the lowest common denominator.

Finally, I would like to comment briefly on mental hospitals around the country, the cinderella of the service. I think that while we have the flagships, the regional hospitals which are beautifully laid out and done up and where you get menus for every meal and so on and so forth, we have cheek by jowl with that sort of system, hell-holes which still exist. I know that the mental hospital in Cork is such a place. The improvements in it over the years have not been great. I pay tribute to the staff who work there because they work there under Victorian conditions. For anybody going through the Cork Mental Hospital, especially the old male part which is still in use, would think they were living in another age. I would sincerely hope that under this administration the question of the mental hospitals in particular would be looked at even at the expense perhaps of our general services. I just thought I would try and slip it across you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before I call on the next Senator would the Acting Leader of the House indicate if he intends to have a tea break?

I propose that we adjourn for tea at 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. It is obvious that we will not complete this business by 6.30 p.m. I propose that we adjourn and continue the Bill after tea.

It is hard to know where to begin when you talk about a Social Welfare Bill because there is so much referred to in it. There are so many dimensions to a problem being addressed by it. There are so many attempts to deal with so many extraordinary things and for reasons that I still believe are more historical and more to do with the lack of the concentration of a Ministerial mind for a long time on it, the social welfare legislation and the whole social welfare system seem to me to be one of the most extraordinarily complex ways of transferring funds from those in our society who have more into the hands of those who have less. It seems to me that it is extraordinary that there is such complexity about the basics of subsidies we give to the poor through incomes by comparison with the relative simplicity of the subsidies we give to the middle and wealthier classes.

Senator Magner in his own extremely eloquent way talked about the treatment of the unemployed, but you can contrast the treatment of the unemployed or the treatment of other people through social welfare and through the complicated assessments of means, and particularly — and I have to go back to what Senator Magner said about the unemployed — the procedures that are used therewith. The way in which I get a subsidy to pay for my own house, for instance, or the way I was subsidised generously and heavily by the State throughout my third level education. It is done simply, by the transfer of funds, and in the case of universities a large amount of money is handed over once a year. It is more or less accepted that they will not defraud the State. But the poor individual at the bottom of the heap who is not getting any extra assistance to enable him to do better but who is getting the minimum that will keep him alive, is subjected to the most extraordinary rigorous assessment.

I thought in fact that this only applied to the unemployed, but a near relative of my own recently had to apply for the old age pension. I think she nearly stopped and pulled out of the whole thing and almost chose to live in poverty because of the number of extraordinary, not deliberate but necessary and consequential humiliations that she had to go through, in terms of assessment of means, assessment of property, assessment of various other things and the questions that are asked. You have to remember that you are talking about old people. Very often old people have very little left except the sense of their own dignity and the remembrance of what life used to be and the remembrance of the fact that they used to be people with a contribution to make, and when at the end of their days they are subjected to such an ordeal they do not understand it. This, I emphasise, is not a criticism of individuals: it is a criticism of the fact that we as a society have not got around to reorganising it. There is also the extraordinary emphasis within the whole social welfare system on the prevention of fraud. One would really believe that the first and fundamental training given to everybody dealing with social welfare and with the administration of social welfare and with the payment of social welfare is how to avoid fraud under every possible circumstance and how to defy the ingenuity of an imagined horde of marauding social welfare recipients seeking to devour vast quantities of the community's money if they are not caught at every possible opportunity and tripped up at every second step of the way.

That is probably epitomised by a practice I know exists in some labour exchanges, if not in all, which is that when somebody is being given his unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit, you first sign the receipt and then you get the money. That is the ultimate precaution and the ultimate indication of the actual values that are still running through the entire social welfare system, that somebody should be asked to sign a receipt for money before the money is actually in his hands. That is just a practice which has developed. This sort of practice runs through the whole thing. The insensitivity, for instance, that is running through the system, the lack of emphasis on need to be sensitive, on the need to care and respond is epitomised by a little happening in Cork.

There is a new and very well-appointed women's labour exchange in Cork with beautiful doors leading out on to Washington Street and a handwritten note on that door says: "Entrance at rere". As it happens if you go past that labour exchange before it opens, you will see a long queue of women outside, but they are not consigned safely to the rere. I am sure this was not a deliberate attempt by somebody to humiliate: I am absolutely certain of that. What I am equally sure of is that we have a philosophy of welfare in this country and I suspect in many other countries, a philosophy of welfare which is so orientated towards treating recipients as potential frauds that the system never thinks of them for what they really are and which should not have to be said in a place like this, that they are people who are down at the bottom and have very little left. That is really where an enormous amount of reforming zeal could be exercised even if one accepts — and I do not — that there is no more money available, but even if one accepts that we cannot expand the income supports and the income levels and the income assistances that are available through social welfare, there is a vast amount that could be done with relatively small sums of money. After all, 1 per cent of social welfare expenditure is of the order of £10 or £15 million now — an expenditure of that order.

Even with that much expenditure, even that much invested on training, invested in research into the needs and perceptions of people, research into how do recipients perceive the service that has been delivered to them, what do they find wrong with it? What do they want from it? How do they want to be treated? How do they feel they should be treated as distinct from how we think they should be treated or how things should be done for them as distinct from how we think things should be done for them; asking them what do they need. A simple questionnaire, given out to every single unemployed person could be produced — what do you think of the labour exchange? I suspect it would be mostly an unprintable four or six-letter word from what I have heard of people's attitudes and considerations for labour exchanges.

There is so much that could be done with a small amount of money, so much that could be done to humanise the whole thing. Why in the area, as Senator Magner has said, of the unemployed, one of the major burdens on the social welfare system — and there I am falling into the same old trap that everybody else falls into, talking about the unemployed as a burden: they are not a burden; they are a responsibility and they are a necessary part of our social responsibility and a dreadful shame and reproach to us all — why is it that we persist with a system like that? I would like to speculate that we as a society have been intimidated and hypnotised by the most extraordinary campaign of insult to the unemployed that could ever take place in our allegedly compassionate and Christian country. There are a number of strategies involved here all of which relate to the need to keep the unemployed (a) at a restricted level of income, and (b) at a restricted level of self-respect. I think unfortunately the first campaign has been enormously successful and the level of income of the unemployed is extremely low. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. Inside the long ranks of the unemployed are the great mass of unemployed young people who get nothing, 25 per cent of our young people in Finglas who are unemployed and who got no assistance from the State, some of them because they were living at home with parents who had a job and, as the Minister knows, there is a means test involved in that case. Incidentally, the document of clarification which I got from the Minister's predecessor — I emphasise that this was meant to clarify matters; it was not the original document — was so complicated that although I am numerate and have a university degree to suggest that I am extremely numerate, I spent half an hour re-reading this document of clarification to determine how you assess means for somebody under social welfare and I still do not understand that document. It had a complex of subclauses, "whereases" and referrals that absolutely flummoxed me. If the Minister could do no more in his period in office than rewrite the document which clarifies the assessment of income for people getting what is usually taken as a "benefit in kind" for people living at home, if that could be rewritten in a way that Members of this House — not to mention the unfortunate unemployed and in particular the unskilled and barely literate, could understand — it would be a major contribution to social justice. We would at least then begin to see if people were getting their entitlements or not. Otherwise, one begins to suspect a conspiracy to confuse which is necessary in order perhaps to prevent people from getting to know their rights. I do not know whether it is true or not. That attitude to social welfare, is represented by that sort of approaches and values — for example, the locking of doors and the transferring of people around to the back, the unpainted labour exchanges and the massive sign dominating most labour exchanges which does not tell you where to go for what you want but says: "No Loitering." That philosophy is a part of our philosophy of why people are poor and about poverty in a society. I do not think things exist by accident in a complex society nor do they persist by accident, and I do not think we can say that it is because we forgot. It is because we have priorities, values and needs.

Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

I was talking, in the context of the Bill and of social welfare generally, about the extraordinary ambivalences or confused thinking whereas on the one hand we have the best of aspirations and motivations and on the other hand we have all the manifestations of a poor law mentality in the way the services are delivered.

The Minister referred in quite clear language to the problems of poverty and particularly of marginal groups. It is only right that when we are talking about social welfare, poverty ought to be referred to in a ministerial speech. I am glad that this Government, in however minuscule a fashion, have recognised at last — this was never too popular and is still not too popular — that unemployment is a form of poverty because it is very fashionable in Irish political circles, whoever is in Opposition, to regret the fact that social welfare increases were not X per cent higher than what was given. However, when you ask someone to be specific they go on almost inevitably to talk about old age pensioners, leaving the unemployed to one side, as it were. When people talk about social welfare recipients you hear them talking about children's allowances or old age pensioners or widows but there seems to be still some deep-seated reservation in Irish political life about identifying the unemployed as a group within Irish society who are poor by any definition. It is partly an unwillingness to face up to what I do not accept to be inevitable but which many people do, that is, the permanent nature of unemployment, or perhaps it is an unwillingness to face up to the fact that the difference between the unemployed and many other marginal or poorer groups in society is that unemployment spreads across all ages and all sections of society to some extent and because it affects young people in particular. The poverty of the unemployed is a potentially destabilising poverty. It is true but tragic that one could ignore the poverty of old people forever and society's stability would not be affected in the slightest. It is a good measure of our compassion and concern that in spite of that fact we do have some care and a reasonable degree of concern for our old people. There are, of course, glaring exceptions, in particular the housing conditions of many old people living on their own, but at least we do have a considerable concern for them. However, there seems to be a considerable fear in our society about facing up to the problem of unemployment as being fundamentally a problem of people who because they are not employed, because we cannot give them jobs, are now very poor.

To complement what Senator Magner said about the peculiar ambivalent attitudes, about the scrounger stories, about people living it up on the dole and so on, stories much beloved of certain newspapers, let us recall what the Minister said recently in the Dáil. He said that the average payment to a person who is unemployed — that is by way of dividing the total payments among the entire number of unemployed people — is £47.70 per week. How dare anybody in a well-paid job, and I am particularly talking about journalists who are paid nearly as much as the Members of the Dáil, whatever about Members of this House, talk about people living it up on £47.70.

Poverty seems to be the underlying issue when talking about social welfare. I have talked enough about the scale of unemployment, but it needs to be repeated that poverty will not be remedied by income maintenance alone, because if one were to deliver social welfare benefits that were even twice the present rates and maintain the present quality of delivery, quality of service, appeal system and other procedures, one would still end up with a sub-group of people who were less equal than the rest of us in their perceptions of themselves and in society's perception of them, because poverty is as much about powerlessness as it is about lack of resources. It is about a sense of not having control over one's own life, of not having any security in regard to one's own life and to being at the beck and call and, to some extent the disposal, of other people as to how one gets one's income, how much one gets and what one does when not under the scrutiny directly of those people.

Effectively the whole availability-for-work clause which people are required to meet to quality for unemployment assistance is an attempt to regulate not just what people do for two hours of the week, but for the entire week and the entire year. I am glad that Senator Magner emphasised this extraordinary requirement that people must be available for work. In a society where work is patently not available, it is ridiculous to keep on insisting that people must be available for work. I know he was joking, but there is something to be said for the fact that people who decide not to be available for work because they want to do something else, whether it be of a working nature or a leisure nature, should not be penalised but should be seen to be what they are, creative people making the best of a difficult situation in which society cannot give them work and to whom the State can only give a minimum level of income support. Instead of harassing them we should assist and commend them.

I have proposed before that, for young unemployed people particularly, if after six months we cannot give them jobs, we should send their unemployment assistance to them once a week through the post, forget all about this signing on and means testing and say to them, "We are sorry but that is all society can do for you. That is your £30 a week. Go and do whatever you like with it and do whatever you like with the rest of your week." Let us get away from this situation of humiliating our young people by a whole procedure of signing on and all sorts of other qualifications. Tell them to find themselves part-time jobs, or to attend adult education classes. There are a whole lot of areas of work and a whole lot of things that need to be done. That is a complete reversal of the existing philosophy but it is a necessary reversal if we are to do anything about the problem of unemployment.

All of these questions go back, as I have said, to the question of power, the control of power and the fact that the quality of delivery of service represents society's preception of how powerless the people are who are in receipt of social welfare. It is because of this powerlessness that I think the word "poverty" should be abolished from our language and the word "oppression" substituted. Poverty is not an accident. It is a consequence of the way our society is organised and the fact that social welfare cannot deal with poverty is a consequence of the way our society is organised. The fact that people's incomes must be so much less from social welfare than if they were working is a consequence of the way our society is organised, as is the fact that people must be treated the way they are when they are unemployed. All of this is a direct consequence of the way we have chosen to organise our society. People who are poor because of the way society is organised are oppressed. They are the victims of our own success.

In terms of what is being done in this Bill, certain points should be put on the record. Regarding rates of social welfare assistance, if we take the payment for each qualified child in excess of five we find that what we give an unemployed person to support his sixth child is £5.80 per week. That is about the amount I paid for my meal this evening in the Oireachtas Restaurant. It is the amount we as a society believe is sufficient for an unemployed person to support a dependant child for one week. I do not say this to score a cheap point — I apply it as much to myself as to anybody else — but it represents a most extraordinary set of priorities and a most extraordinary confusion of values. It may well be that this is all we can afford, but I wish the Minister would stop talking about how a 7 per cent increase represents £1.60p or £1.90p per week. The truth is that if what all of us in this House and in the Dáil would regard as a generous increase in social welfare were to fall out of our pockets, we would hardly bother to bend down to pick it up. We should recognise the fact that the very best we are doing with social welfare is maintaining the poor at a minimum level of poverty rather than at a level of dreadful and destructive poverty. Therefore, we must get away from quoting figures about increases in social welfare in cash terms which are nothing more than buttons to those of us who have jobs and who are relatively well off in society.

May I, in the context of the Social Welfare Bill, appeal to the Minister to look to all the other dimensions of social welfare, to the remoteness of the decision-making process? It is, whether people have realised it or not, no longer necessary to send documentation by hand post to Dublin in order to deal with a centralised system. There are things such as centralised computers which the banks have used to enable those of us who have money in banks to extract it by remote control 24 hours per day. It should not be beyond the wit of the Department of Social Welfare to develop a similar system of visual display units in every social welfare office in the country so that decisions would not have to await manual transmission to Dublin, centralised decision-making and manual transmission back down the country. Questions of decentralisation do not arise. It is simply a question of using the available technology and the question of whether it is centralised should not matter any more.

It is with extraordinary rigidity that we administer our social welfare codes. It may well have been a necessary consequence and position when we had small unemployment and when our resources were very limited. The sort of rigidity that applies to the unemployed now makes a mockery of the facts of unemployment in our society.

The appeals system in social welfare deserves and needs detailed examination by the Government. The appeals system is not one which would strike any appelant as being fair and just. It is impossible to convince somebody who is having his appeal heard by an officer from the Department of Social Welfare that he is getting a fair hearing. It is impossible to convince somebody who cannot be confronted by the person who has the information on which a decision is being taken. It is impossible to convince somebody who does not know why in precise detail he or she is being refused benefit. He or she would be told that it is because they are not available for work but the precise reason why that is adjudicated will not be communicated to them. They will not know it is because, if one is a woman and has children or because one was seen working. Nothing as precise as that will be communicated. One gets a form on which a list of options will be available. Most of these options will be struck out and one will be indicated but one will not know the evidence against one. It astonishes me, but apparently it is true, that the courts have accepted this system as being constitutional and legal.

Finally, on the issue of reforms, a small pet issue of mine, but one that produces enormous human suffering, is the insistence of the social welfare system that persons applying for benefit must supply an address before they can qualify for benefit. I know a pregnant girl living in a car in this city who has been refused supplementary welfare allowance simply because she has no address. There are no mitigating circumstances. There is a decent, well-intentioned community welfare officer in Dublin who knows the girl's circumstances, who knows she needs support but who does not believe he is entitled to give that girl supplementary welfare because she has no address. It is as simple as that. Friends of mine in the Simon Community have offered to sign a form saying that she stays at their place but the supplementary welfare officer, unfortunately, knows that she does not live there. Because the girl has no address, she has no income. That is not satisfactory. Last year, the Minister explained here that there was no policy of refusing people but that it was administratively necessary that people should have an address. I do not think that administrative necessity should come between anybody and the basic income that supplementary welfare or social welfare can give them. May I ask, again, that that whole area be re-examined? As poverty bites deeper, and it has bitten deeper quite dramatically, as the population of the night shelters indicates, there will be more people who are marginalised and left without benefit. The Minister, in his introductory remarks, referred in particular to people who are marginalised. Who could be more marginalised than the people who no longer live in any sort of fixed address or accommodation? They need to be supported and assisted.

There is one other area that needs to be commented on but I do not wish to be misunderstood on it. I am impressed by the numbers of rural Senators and Deputies who have discovered the inequities of the social welfare system since it began to bear unfairly and quite unjustly on members of the farming community. These Deputies have discovered how unfair the means test is and how humiliating the procedures for investigating people's means are. I would hope that this new discovery of the reality of what it is like to be on the dole — something that has been experienced by people in urban areas since the inception of unemployment assistance — would be communicated to those organisations outside this House, in particular farming organisations who have had many rude, offensive and hurtful things to say about the unemployed. All that has happened is that the rigours of an unfair, unjust and humiliating system which people in the farming community escaped from have now descended on them as well. I agree with every single proposal that has been made to alleviate that hardship and humiliation on them but I am saying simply that the humiliation they are experiencing is no different from the humiliation that many others experience. It should end for everybody.

I must say in passing that if we had not increased defence expenditure by 13 per cent in 1984, we could have increased social welfare aid by 11 per cent in 1984. I have no doubt as to where my priorities would have arisen. The system is so in need of overhaul in terms of training, premises, style of delivery, in terms of introduction of modern technology and in recognition of realities, that there is a vast amount to be done by a reforming junior Minister or senior Minister or by the Government. With relatively little money, £10 million or £15 million or one per cent of social welfare expenditure, put into training and quality of service delivery could transform the style and the manner in which people receive particularly unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance.

It would leave behind forever the idea that somehow or other the unemployed are at fault for what has been done to them. They are not at fault. One has to suspect that if somebody does not do something soon about that appalling system of successive and apparently planned humiliation we have to believe that the reason for not doing it must have something to do with preventing the unemployed from standing up for themselves, and that will not succeed. Finally, may I yet again appeal for a fundamental reform of the style and quality of delivery of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance?

First, I welcome the Minister on his first visit to this House. He is a long-standing colleague of mine in the Labour movement. I wish him well in his work.

The social welfare concept, like many of the concepts that have come out of the European situation since the Second World War, is a concept of redistribution of wealth. The second element in the social welfare concept is, of course, the humane treatment of people who cannot look after themselves — the poor, the under-privileged, the sick and the unemployed for whom we cannot produce jobs and who therefore have no income. The redistribution element is not fully satisfied by the levels of benefits that are paid. Having said that, I am not disappointed, because the Minister and the Department did what they could within the resources available. Nevertheless, it must be said that in terms of keeping pace with inflation Social Welfare recipients are not better off. They will be relieved and they will thank the Minister and the people who care about them will thank him also. However, the Minister is to be complimented to that degree only.

The test of a civilised community is how it treats its poor and under-privileged people, the sick, families with young children and so on. On that criteria the Republic passes the test fairly well. We need not hang our heads. I was very sad at one experience I had in America in 1962. The late John F. Kennedy was introducing a system called Medicare, and all that that meant was that old people would receive the finance to look after their pharmacy bills and their medicinal needs but, the greatest antagonist in America at that time was the American Medical Association. In other words, they did not pass the test of a civilised community. The situation has changed somewhat.

I should like to join with Senators Ryan and Magner in what they have to say about the appalling things we see, the buildings that should be demolished, buildings with broken windows, with a lack of any proper facilities but outside which we see queueing, the unfortunate people who are unemployed. That is degrading. It is not right. On that test the Minister gets a zero marking from me. Something will have to be done about it. I should not say that vaguely. I say demolish these buildings or paint them and put them in proper order so that those who must use them are treated as human beings. These people are our brothers and sisters and we will have to treat them better than the way I see them being treated in Dublin. There should be waiting rooms provided for them in the first instance.

I was chairman for a long time of what was then the National Assistance in Northern Ireland. Arising from the rural Senators' stories about means tests, farms and so on, I should like to tell a humorous story. A farmer who had a bull calf told his wife he was going to the fair and that the bull calf had to be tied up because when the national assistance man came he must not see the bull calf. He would count the eggs, hens and so on in relation to a means test but the bull calf should not be seen by him. However, the animal broke the rope and was seen by the officer. About a week later when the farmer received his national assistance payment he noticed that there was an increase and he said to the postman, "Johnny, there is a big rise in this payment." The postman replied, "That is for the bull calf".

I welcome the opportunity of speaking, and there are a few matters I should like to refer to. We are discussing this Bill against the background of very serious unemployment and deprivation in many urban centres. We have the highest number ever unemployed and the highest number of people depending on social welfare assistance. The social welfare bill has been increasing yearly. The Minister said this morning that it is the task of the social welfare system to identify groups of people with a high risk of poverty and to provide direct income support related to their need. I am sure we all agree with these sentiments and would support any measure taken to help the needy and eliminate poverty if that is possible. Moneys for such purposes are got through systems of taxation and also from contributions which are levied on workers through the PRSI system. Both employees and the self-employed are levied on the basis of income.

Section 9 of the Bill changes the method of assessment of income from leasing the land. This is a welcome change. We would all share the Government's concern that it encourages the greater use of medium-term land leasing as part of its policy in relation to farming. I note that the section provides that where land has been leased with approval of the Land Commission the lessee's means for social assistance purposes will be calculated by reference to the profits from the money he receives from the lease per year rather than by reference to the capital value of the holding. Many farmers are concerned about the fairness of these assessments and they are concerned also about how their income is assessed for entitlement to unemployment assistance, that is, the farmers' dole. Farmers living in a ten- or 12-acre holding and even on up to 30 acres of poor land need social welfare assistance to provide them with a decent living.

The farmers are also concerned at how farmers' incomes are assessed, especially by the Departments of the Environment and Education. The Department of Health, too, use two definitions to respond to farming incomes. For example, when assessing small farmers' entitlement to medical cards, the only expenses taken into consideration are in relation to feeds and fertilisers. The health boards do not treat as deductible outlets such as capital expenditure on machinery or the depreciation of such machinery or bank interest on development loans. Yet when the Department of Health calculate farm income for the purpose of liability under the various income levies such as health contributions, employment levies and others they allow interest rates for farming purposes such as capital expenses and they exclude all forms of depreciation including capital allowances for machinery, fences, roadways and buildings. Reform in this area is necessary to ensure that farmers are just asked to pay what they are capable of paying. In this instance I am sure all farmers, especially farmers who would be assessed reasonably in accordance with their income would be willing to pay the levies imposed on them.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not mention the need for a complete restructuring of the social welfare services. There are some changes introduced in social welfare services in every budget. We now have a patchwork of legislation vulnerable to all kinds of abuses and fast becoming of little benefit to those for whom it was intended. It is obvious that for many years there have been defects in social welfare. Whilst one must sympathise with the Minister and his officers because of the many anomalies that exist in social welfare, the time has come for the Minister to take drastic action to alleviate the abuses, even if it means restructuring the whole system.

Abuses have been mentioned today. I listened to Senator Magner earlier speaking about abuses and who the real culpits are. I will refer to experiences in my own area. When an unemployed person drawing social welfare assistance or dole calls to his local area, which is degrading, he signs for the dole and then presents his document at the post office and receives his payment. That worker after receiving payment will continue working for the remainder of the week. Whilst he is not to blame, I feel the person employing him is the real culpit. Not alone has that employer cheap labour, because he is employing a man who is drawing the dole and who is employed illegally, he is also evading the payment of PRSI and PAYE.

We are discussing a case locally where a man had embarked on a distributing business. He could afford to sell his product cheaply. We calculated that he would have approximately £400 or £500 per week. We thought this was very little considering that he had the upkeep of a lorry to distribute the goods. Somebody said: "Well he had not to pay the lorry driver much because he is drawing the dole". This is something that will have to be tackled to ensure that these abuses are eliminated. It is not encouraging people to work when they can get away with that. It is also not encouraging employers to employ people, pay them a decent wage and pay their PRSI and PAYE.

I welcome the various increases in social welfare allowances, also the increase in the children's allowance scheme. I also welcome the provisions that when a father is away the mother is entitled to draw the allowance. The mother is the person who should receive this allowance because she is the provider in the home. In section 3 I welcome the increases for old age pensioners, widows and other social welfare beneficiaries, but some widows who are living alone and may not be in the best of health are not entitled to free telephone or free electricity. I would like the Minister to examine this matter and make some provision at a future stage to grant those widows such facilities.

Part IV, sections 18 to 30, provides for the abolition of the old age pension committees and the assignment of their adjudication functions to deciding officers appointed by the Minister. Whilst Senator Magner welcomed this I am opposed to it. This is another example of bureaucracy taking over from democracy. It is not the first time the Government have demonstrated that bureaucracy is taking over democracy and therefore undermining democracy, which is bad for the country.

With regard to the dole system mention was made that the processing of claims was delayed. I am not sure if the new system will expedite the finalising of such claims and will the claimants get the fair adjudication they got heretofore under the old age pension committee system. Their work was completely voluntary. I am sure they did it fairly. The Minister admitted that when he complimented them on fulfilling their duties down the years. The abolition of the old age pension committees puts undue expense on the State as there will have to be extra adjudication officers appointed. Will there be extra expense incurred in paying extra adjudication officers who will replace the old age pension committees?

Section 19 provides for the abolition of the post of clerks to the old age pension committees and for the provision of appropriate compensation for the clerks in line with civil service practice. This will result in the whole operation involving greater expense which will lead to false economy. The Minister might clarify in what way he will provide compensation to the clerks. I would also ask the Minister what he intends to do to eliminate the abuses to which I referred earlier. Whilst I welcome the increases the Minister did not go far enough to ensure that the less well off were provided for adequately and also to ensure that action is taken to eliminate abuses completely.

My main purpose in rising to contribute on this measure is to elicit from the Minister the information as to when he will bring before the two Houses the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1984. Like a number of other Senators I appreciate the circumstances in which the Bill is drafted to implement certain budgetary decisions, but like my colleagues I feel there is an urgent need for much more radical and significant changes in the substantive code which we call our social welfare code and also, as has been said so eloquently here this evening, in the whole manner and approach to those who are the recipients of social welfare in our society.

The case for much more substantial change has been made and repeated with increasing frequency over the last few years. Now in the first quarter of 1984 it was never more urgently needed. We have to do some of that work because of our EEC commitments. We are required by December 1984 to remove the discriminations against women which are still part of our social welfare code. It is a pity that we seem to be going to wait until the last moment to implement our obligations under the Treaty of Rome. I would have preferred if we could have given some indication that we were going to implement these changes because they are necessary and desirable changes in a modern Irish society and that we would do it ahead of the EEC deadline of December 1984, after which we risk having proceedings brought against us by the EEC Commission before the court in Luxembourg.

Those changes will be significant in a certain area. We will be required to remove the overt existing discriminations against married women in the social welfare code. The first of these is the whole concept of dependency. That concept runs through the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 1981 which consolidated the earlier law. It is not always appreciated, even by elected representatives, that the legal concept of dependency is different for a married man and a married woman and that it is part of the status of being a married woman. I have said that before in this House. As a married woman I am legally dependent on my husband, and so is every other married woman in the country. This has consequences then which carry through in our relationships with our husbands, our children and any financial consequences which may flow from that. That is the first basic change which would have to be made. The other legal discriminations would also need to be removed.

There are other unacceptable discriminations in our social welfare code. There are discriminations which affect men in our social welfare code. The Minister, in introducing this Bill this afternoon, referred to the general background in his speech and referred to the kinds of developments which took place over the years and that certain categories were recognised. The categories of, for example, the unmarried mother, the deserted wife and the single woman. It is now evident that there is a very serious discrimination against men who have responsibility for young children, widowers, deserted husbands, men who find themselves in a situation of having primary responsibility for young children if they do not have the possibility of being in full-time employment. This is something which must be of very serious concern to us.

There is also, even within the categories that have been recognised, as for example, the category of the unmarried mother, a discrimination in the fact that we have never provided for a benefit as well as an assistance allowance, given that that is the normal structure of, for example, a deserted wife or for a widow. There is only the allowance for the unmarried mother. There is no possibility for the unmarried mother having access to the category of a benefit even if the particular mother was in insured employment for many years before she had a child. This again is an unjustifiable discrimination, a sort of carry over from previous attitudes, and one which should be changed.

There are existing discriminations. They are more than anomalies. They are unjustifiable discriminations in our social welfare code, some of which, as I said, we are required to remove by the end of this year under our obligations as a member of the EEC. In any case they are matters which should be addressed and which should be part of a Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill. The sooner we get a Bill of that kind before us the better.

I have already referred to the urgent representations which were made by a number of Senators, even this afternoon, about the whole approach and the context in which people apply for and receive allowances or benefits under our social welfare code. I endorse everything that has been said and it is not necessary to repeat it. I will go further in some instances and say that the whole appeal system needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency. To begin with, there does not appear to be any proper appeal structure from a decision refusing somebody supplementary welfare. There is no proper system of appealing from that that could be in any way described as an appeal system. This must be looked at as a matter of urgency. Even the appeal system which exists is very secretive, very internal, very much gives the impression of a system having an internal appeal against itself and no evidence of what lawyers would call the rules of natural and constitutional justice prevailing so that the person knows the ground on which he or she is being refused, has an opportunity of making representations, has an adequate hearing on it and knows the reason then for the ultimate refusal.

We should look again at even the composition of the appeal system, whether one person is the appropriate way of doing it or whether we should have a panel of more than one person in order that there would be confidence that it is objectively constituted and at least partially independent from the deciding officer, and that the person would have adequate opportunity to make the particular case. It is the very wide experience of social workers and of those involved in a voluntary capacity with the sectors in our society who are particularly dependent on social welfare that there is a qualitative difference between the position of a person on his or her own going into whatever office it may be or queuing up behind whatever window it may be, and the person who is assisted by the social worker or some other skilled or semiskilled person who can argue the case or indeed a politician to advocate the case for that person.

This is a reflection on the system, that it is only if a person has somebody to argue the case the person is likely to get what he or she is legally entitled to and entitled to also for important social reasons. We cannot be happy at the moment at the way in which the whole system operates and, as has already been said, there is far too much pain, humiliation and undermining of the confidence and even of the sense of the personal worth and significance of so many of the people who are dependent on and affected by the manner in which people receive their entitlements under the social welfare code.

We need a reforming Minister and Minister of State. I believe we have a reforming Minister and Minister of State and that they will get a very warm welcome from this House and from the other House when radical proposals are brought forward. Some of these require legislation. Quite significant steps could be taken without the necessity for legislation, either by changing the detailed regulations and the approach in those regulations, and even by setting out markers of what the approach is to be and what the emphasis will be.

There are indications that we will be changing very dramatically our approach in this area, and this is referred to in part by the Minister in his speech in the commitment to the commission for the reform of social welfare and also to the interim board to advise on the approach to combating poverty in our society. If we are genuinely committed to change in this area we are not just talking about trying to ensure if we can that there are percentage increases which either totally protect recipients on social welfare or at least lessen the economic burden on them at a time of high inflation.

We are not talking about that kind of jigging of percentages. We are talking about a new approach to poverty in our society and a commitment to changing the balance which, at the moment, is resulting in a polarisation. It is resulting in a worsening of the situation for those who are dependent on social welfare income and those who are employed and have the benefit of an increasing distance being placed between them in real terms and those in receipt of social welfare.

All of us who are involved in any representative capacity know that we are witnessing in Ireland in 1984 a greater, harsh, grinding poverty than was the case a decade or half decade ago. We know that there are more families driven to the brink, of the family being either broken up or very seriously affected by the situation, women who have a very high dependency on valium and other drugs, who have a decreasing ability to cope, who are frantic and do not know how to get their voice across as to the situation in which they find themselves. We all know of areas which were thought to be areas where you would not have this kind of incidence of real poverty and deprivation and panic on the part of a very large number of people because they cannot cope with the mortgage repayments and with the cost of living, they cannot pay the electricity bills and they cannot get from the system itself an adequate understanding of or response to their problems. We have a deteriorating situation for a large number of these families and we have an urgent need for substantive reform and for a change of approach in our social welfare code. I urge the Minister of State who has listened to the debate in this House this afternoon to bring before the House proposals which will really affect so many people in our society who are the most urgently in need of signals of change. They need to see and know that we are going to change direction, that we are serious about doing it and that we regard it as possibly the greatest social priority.

I wish to make a few comments with regard to the contents of this Bill, which I welcome. I welcome the increases in allowances and benefits payable under the 1981 Act. I welcome the introduction of the new family income supplement and I also welcome the abolition of the old age pension committee system. This system was introduced at the beginning of this century in an age which was socially and politically totally different from that in which we now live. The system has outlived its usefulness. Having said that, tribute must, of course, be paid to all of those who participated in that system over the years. Nevertheless, its functions are now outmoded, and I am glad that the Minister has decided to bring about its early abolition.

I would like to join with other Senators in expressing the view that the social welfare system as we now have it is becoming increasingly complex. It is, to my mind, unfortunate that that system for those who are least able to cope mentally or materially, should be so complex. I urge the Minister, his Minister of State and his advisers to take steps to simplify this system, to make the system more meaningful for those who have to approach it and to make the system one which those in need can approach understanding what they are approaching. There is a complete blank wall between the operation of the system and the people who benefit under that system. None but the most intrepid explorers can find their way around the existing consolidated social welfare code. It is incumbent on the Government, who are committed to reform and committed to help the less well off, to see, over the next three-and-a-half years of office, that steps are taken to ensure that the system as it exists is meaningful for those who have to avail of it.

I might also mention that in 1981 we had a consolidating Act which consolidated the social welfare law as it then existed. Some system should be introduced whereby every year a composite Bill is introduced so that all the extant law dealing with this can be found in one volume. Such operates as far as the Income Tax Acts are concerned. Additional printed pages are made available every year so that you can find your entire statutory code in one volume. I cannot see why that is not also done in relation to the social welfare legislation. The Bill before the House today is, by and large, a Bill which amends the 1981 Act and subsequent legislation. That is a step which could be benefically taken. It would be of tremendous help to those who have to administer this system.

I want to refer to something else which is a matter of concern in the constituency I come from, that is the question of the administration of unemployment assistance so far as it affects small farmers. I am referring to what is frequently referred to as the small farmers' dole. The first thing that should be said is that that title should be removed, consigned to oblivion and should not be used any further. So long as we use that title we will have the difficulty we experience. That particular system and that particular allowance should be seen rather as a grant in aid of agriculture in the most depressed part of the country.

My experience dealing with people who have had problems with the assistance payable to them leads me to believe that this assistance, by and large, is used for the development of agriculture in the most depressed part of the country. The sooner it is seen as such the better. The sooner the people who get this allowance are given some credit for the work they are doing the better. It seems to me an appalling situation that somebody who develops from nothing, who becomes productive on a small depressed agricultural holding, and who does so with the aid of this allowance, should then be penalised by the system. That is something which I, as a supporter of the Government, do not approve of and I call upon the Minister to see that it is radically changed. So far as this system operates in the western counties it must operate as an incentive and not otherwise. That is precisely what is happening at the moment.

It is appropriate that I avail of this opportunity to dispel the untruths that are being perpetrated in the west of Ireland by members of the Opposition who are traversing the country and who are saying the Government have taken steps to ensure that the small farmers lose their dole. That is what is being said. I am very surprised at some of the sources who have uttered this untruth. That lie should be nailed. The point should be clearly made that the reason why we have a changed system is as a result of a High Court action brought by the Irish Farmers Association at the behest of County Wexford farmers. The High Court decision was that the system was unconstitutional so far as it operated under the Social Welfare Act. The point should be made quite clearly that the change from notional to factual assessment was not a change brought in by the Government but was rather a change which was necessitated because of a decision of the High Court.

I wish the people perpetrating that untruth would cease to do so. Having said that, my crib is that the factual system is administered in a most appalling manner. This is where the big difficulty arises. In recent months we have had many people bringing to light the difficulties in the administration of the system. I know that many representations have been made to the Minister, the Minister of State and his fellow Minister of State. I hope that those representations will prove successful and ensuring that this system is administered differently in the near future. At the moment it is administered somewhat like the nineteenth century poor law was administered, and it is not administered in any way that represents the kind of thinking that we would like to have in the latter years of the twentieth century.

It is totally unacceptable that somebody should be faced with a social welfare officer calling to his house unannounced without an appointment who should then demand the most precise and detailed information from that person. There is in this country what I would term the very good nest egg system. I know, operating as a lawyer and politician in the west, that there is nobody in the west of Ireland who does not have something under the mattress for the rainy day. When approached by the social welfare officer the immediate reaction is what is under the mattress, which may be very small, but which is there for ultimate protection. As a result of the confusion that is created, due to the unexpected call, frequently made by an inexperienced person with the minimum of courtesy, the person visited is forced into giving, not purposely but perhaps by omission, incorrect information.

In so far as this system is operated the initial call by the social welfare officer should be announced. This is one vital change that is necessary. I will go further and say that the person expecting the call should be advised of the allowances and the expenditure that will be taken into account in the assessment and should be given some indication of the basis upon which the ultimate allowance will be assessed. At the moment total confusion exists in this area. There appear to be differences in regard to the basis of assessment as between one deciding officer to another and a confusion that is totally unacceptable. I ask the Minister to take immediate steps to try to solve this problem.

I also share the view expressed by Senator Robinson in relation to the appeals structure which exists in so far as the small farmer's allowance is concerned. It is a little bit like going to law with the devil and the court being in hell because the general feeling is that you will get nowhere anyway. Furthermore, people get no positive indication of how their appeal is determined. They simply get a slip of paper indicating the sum which they are deemed to be earning for the purpose of the Social Welfare Act. When a determination is made — either at first instance or on the basis of an appeal under these Acts — in relation to an application for allowance the applicant should be told precisely how the sum which he is deemed to be earning is assessed. That is the barest minimum which should be provided to allow the administration of this area of our social welfare code in a way that will have the confidence of the people who most frequently have recourse to it.

I want to refer briefly to another matter. I should like to compliment the Minister on certain changes which were introduced recently in the disabled person's maintenance allowance.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There is a vote in the other House. You have the option of continuing.

I will continue. I should like to compliment the Minister and his assistant Ministers on the changes which were introduced in the disabled person's maintenance allowance recently which ensured that payment of unemployment assistance will not have the effect of debarring somebody from receiving this allowance. I do not think many people were affected by this situation but certainly the Minister responded to the cases which were brought to his notice. This change has been effected and the health boards are now able to make the payments which were necessary.

I should like also to refer to another matter which I feel reasonably strongly about. It is not strictly covered by the Bill but I trust the Chair will allow me to raise it; it is the administration of the old age pension system. It seems appalling — in the kind of democracy we are lucky enough to experience in the mid-eighties — that when people reach the age of 66 years they should have to go through a rigid inspection by social welfare officers for the purpose of determining whether they are entitled to an old age pension. I would like to ascertain from the Minister the cost to the Exchequer of allowing everybody on reaching the age of 66 years to receive an old age pension automatically. If the cost is not unduly excessive it should be provided. When senior citizens reach that age — irrespective of means — they should be assured of a pension and should not be subjected to social welfare officers going through their means checking out what they have. Furthermore, the system as it operates at the moment creates another difficulty, a difficulty which I experience frequently in the west, when people tell me that they are making what I can only regard as improvident transactions, transferring farms of land to their sons or daughters or sons-in-law or daughters-in-law just for the purpose of ensuring that they get an old age pension. We also know of situations where people transfer money and savings to ensure that they may become entitled to this payment on reaching the age of 66 years. Some people are afraid to allow money to come into accounts which can be detected for the purpose of receiving this benefit and they resort to means which may be illegal. Money is frequently spirited across the Border to avoid or evade detection. It is not something that we condone but it happens and is detrimental to our economy. If the old age pension system could be administered along the lines I mentioned that would be avoided.

The social welfare system must guarantee welfare to those in need in an efficient way. It must allow the system to operate so that those approaching it can do so with dignity. Those administering it must treat people at all times with courtesy and understanding as those who approach them are frequently not able to defend themselves. In relation to completing forms and making applications, the simplest procedures possible should be introduced. I agree with the point made by Senator McGonagle, that very frequently people have to make application in buildings which are not fit for occupation or for entry by humans. In so far as the system operates in an outward sense it should operate in a more pleasant way.

I welcome the Bill and the increases which it introduces. I hope that the Minister will take steps to ensure that the system will operate in a more humane and meaningful way in the future.

I propose a sos for 15 minutes to allow the Minister to vote in the other House and then reply to the debate.

Do we go on to Committee Stage then?

Sitting suspended at 8.45 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.

I should like to begin by expressing my thanks to the Senators for their kind words of congratulations to me and best wishes on my first visit to this House. I assure them I will do what I can and co-operate fully with them, particularly in the area of social welfare. The debate this evening on this Bill has been a very helpful and valuable one. It has certainly shown there is a vast reservoir of informed knowledge and expertise in the whole area of social welfare legislation, administration and practice.

I have said already that I realise much work has to be done to bring our social welfare system up-to-date. As I said in my opening speech, the Commission on Social Welfare has been set up and one of its principal tasks will be to do that job. Some speakers in the debate referred to the fact that I had said it would take about two years for that body to issue its findings. I do not think that is unreasonable having regard to the vast area which has to be covered and all the intricacies of the system. Senators will appreciate that from their contributions here today. Although there were many valuable contributions, nevertheless one could say also that we only scratched the surface of the problems today. Every effort will be made to ensure that the commission will have all the matters examined and its findings issued within the two year target and if it does that it will be doing a very good job.

It will be impossible for me to deal with all the specific items that were raised during the debate. The debate was on the Social Welfare Bill and I will deal with a few general points. The main consensus was that the level of increases provided for in the Bill were not regarded by many Members as adequate and many of us would not disagree with that. Having regard to the resources available in a time of severe recession and the fact that the increases are intended to maintain the value of the existing levels, the provisions for increases are not really that bad. When people see the queues lined up outside exchanges — this was referred to today, and I shall come back to it — they ask where does this country get all the money to pay all these people? At times, I suppose that is somewhat of a mystery to us.

With rising unemployment there is a decreasing number of contributors to social welfare, through either the contributory PRSI system or the taxation system. As people leave work they cease to be contributors to the system and cease to be taxpayers and most of them become beneficiaries of the scheme. There is a net loss of input into the funds while, at the same time, people benefit from the scheme.

The question was asked why the increases were not given from an earlier date. At times we can be misled about the effect of dates of operation of various increases. As a former trade union official, I had this difficulty at times in negotiations because I found that workers who were members of the union were sometimes over-influenced by the date of application of an increase rather than the amount of the increase. I used to make the point that an increase at a future date is preferable to two or three months back money because what you get in the increase you hold for ever. It is far better to try to build up the increase as much as possible rather than to reduce it slightly in order to spread the money from an earlier date. When Senators look into that they will see the validity of what I said.

Senator Fallon asked how long can we afford the expenditure on social welfare? As I pointed out, the total cost of increases provided for in this Bill amounted to about £68 million this year. These increases will be given effect to without any increase whatsoever in PRSI contributions and without any change in food subsidies even though it was generally expected by some people, particularly in the Opposition, that food subsidies would be reduced this year. The fact that they were not is a built-in safeguard particularly for social welfare recipients. It would be very easy to have given a ten per cent increase in social welfare payments by partially dismantling the food subsidies. It might have looked better for this Bill to have provided for increases of 10 and 12 per cent but that would be merely window-dressing. If it was done at the expense of, say, saving money on food subsidies, the social welfare recipients would be worse off. It is our aim to ensure that the value of the increases is maintained. With a diminishing number of people in a position to pay taxes and to make contributions it is not that easy to redistribute, which is the essence of the social welfare system.

I want to deal briefly, with the remarks made by Senator Fallon and other Senators about the family income supplement. It is a scheme the administration of which we hope to keep very simple. Neither do we want a complicated system of investigation. However, there will have to be some checks on the system and the detailed administrative arrangements will be provided for in regulations which will be published later this year. However, it is the intention definitely to keep it in simple, administrative terms and not to have a scheme that cannot be understood.

Coupled with the comments on the family income supplement were arguments that it should be extended to self-employed people, to small shopkeepers and others like that. The scheme has to be confined to employees in the active labour force and self-employed persons are not in the scheme. The main objective of the scheme is to maintain the incentive to work, particularly in the case of low-paid workers and those with a number of children and, at the same time, to give them a decent income. Obviously when the wage they are earning does not give them a decent income and livelihood for themselves and their family, it is necessary to bring into play the family income supplement.

The inclusion of the self-employed would pose major problems in establishing their eligibility including, of course, quantifying their means. It would bring us back into the whole area that came under some criticism today, the area of means-testing, and the verification of their means would be extremely difficult. It would involve much additional staffing and the more money that has to be spent on administrative matters, such as extra staffing and so on, the less there will be available for distribution. It is hoped to keep the scheme as simple as possible.

The question of a national minimum wage as an alternative system was referred to by Senator Fallon and other Senators. Again, this is a difficult area and I do not intend to go into it. In the past the old Agricultural Wages Board was established to set down the minimum wage of farm workers. In arriving at the minimum wage the Agricultural Wages Board had to take into account the ability of the medium-sized and even the poorer farmer to pay the minimum wage. They set a wage having regard to the ability of the poor farmer to pay. In practice, it turned out that the minimum wage became the maximum wage and the biggest farmers in the land paid the legal minimum wage. I had a lot of experience with that because in those years I was a trade union official and I found it was very difficult to do anything about the situation when you saw a big farmer who was employing many farm workers and who was paying them the legal minimum wage. He was not breaking the law so one could do nothing about it really. It tended in those years to depress wages that in some cases, but not all, should have been higher.

I want to deal briefly with the matter which has been referred to as the small farmers' dole. There is a new arrangement — it has been recently introduced — whereby each applicant now receives an advance notification. I am referring to applicants for unemployment assistance or the small farmers' dole or the people who are due for review arising from the High Court and Supreme Court decision. They are now notified in advance that the welfare officer will call and they are told exactly what they should have prepared for the social welfare officer. For example, they are told what gross income consists of and what expenditure is taken into consideration. This expenditure consists generally of sums expended on the following: stock replacement, animal feeding stuff, A1 and veterinary services, animal medicines, feeds, fertilisers, machinery and plant maintenance and depreciation, farm building and fencing repairs, electricity, petrol, diesel, transport and haulage, interest payment and bank borrowings for farm purposes, hired labour or machinery rent, levies and other such charges and any other item as may be appropriate. They are told in advance what week the social welfare officer will call and are told to have all this information ready as well as details of their income. In the main this would consist of things like sale of stock, crops, sale of milk, wool and other produce together with receipts in the form of agricultural grants, subsidies and receipts for the letting of land, hiring out of machinery or from any other source. That new arrangement should meet some of the problems that have been experienced in this area. As Senator Ryan has said, the system has now been extended, arising from the court decision, to applications from smallholders for unemployment assistance. That system operated in respect of every other applicant for unemployment assistance down through the years. It is new to the people it now affects, but it is not a new system.

It was interesting to hear Senator Higgins and Senator Durcan make the point about the change of name of the scheme from the small farmers' dole. They maintained we should not call it that or unemployment assistance because, as Senator Higgins said, these people are fully employed.

Senator Durcan said that the money was a form of assistance towards agriculture. It poses the question in the long term as to whether the Department of Social Welfare should operate a scheme of this kind. Should it not be the Department of Agriculture? There may be some point in looking at it from that angle, because as Senator Higgins said these fare deal with assistance for people who are unemployed. The original purpose was to assist small farmers in the west of Ireland and now people want the name changed. They want official recognition that it is not really unemployment assistance, that it is a form of agricultural support. That is what it always was, but the Department of Social Welfare because of their facilities and structure were probably the best Department to operate such a scheme. If it could be looked at in the context of some kind of new scheme operated by the Department of Agriculture it would resolve many of the problems that surround it at present. Obviously there are misunderstandings about the operation of the scheme.

Reference was made to the facilities at employment exchanges and other facilities for claimants. I agree that many of the employment exchanges throughout the country require to be brought up-to-date, renovated in some cases and new premises to be provided in other cases. There are a number of plans to build new government offices which would incorporate employment exchanges but some of those have been subject to delay because of the recession. I want to assure the House that I will do everything possible to ensure that adequate facilities are available in the premises used by applicants for benefit or assistance.

I should like to say a word of appreciation to the Department of Social Welfare staff in some of the employment exchanges who work under enormously difficult conditions, in totally inadequate and unsuitable buildings. With such a volume of claims to be dealt with they do a marvellous job. They are sometimes criticised, but one must consider the large number of people who go through the offices every week and the amount of money that has to be paid out. Generally the system runs fairly smoothly. In the light of the kind of conditions staff have to work in, we all own them a debt of gratitude for their work. There are other groups of workers in other areas who would not put up with the working conditions in some of our employment exchanges. I am concerned to get better facilities for claimants but I am equally concerned about the people who have to work long hours in those buildings. I hope we will get improvements in that area as quickly as possible.

Reference was made to the proposal to abolish the old age pension committees. I covered that question fairly adequately in my opening statement. Questions were raised about compensation for the old age pension committee clerks. Section 12 of the Bill provides for compensation for the clerks on the lines which apply to part-time, non-pensionable officers in the Civil Service, that is, one week's remuneration for each year of service up to 15 years and two weeks for each year in excess of 15 years up to a maximum of 78 weeks remuneration. The total cost in this area will be £55,000.

A question was also raised about the cost of the abolition of the old age pension committees. It is estimated that the cost of the old age pension committee system at present is £190,000 per year. Staff will be needed at headquarters to take over the deciding function of the committees and the cost of that staff is estimated at £74,000, giving a net saving on the proposal of £116,00. The saving in the first year will, of course, be somewhat offset by the necessary compensation to the clerks of the committees.

I am aware I have not replied to some specific questions raised in the course of the debate and I hope I will be in a position to answer those questions on Committee Stage. I want to assure the House that if any Member wishes to obtain information or clarification on any matter, he or she should feel free to contact me or any official of the Department, who will give every help and cooperation.

Will the Minister state in relation to recipients of unemployment assistance who have been assessed prior to the new arrangement coming into operation——

I do not think the Senator is in order. It can be taken on Committee Stage. Is Second Stage agreed?

We are opposing Second Stage.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 18.

  • Belton, Luke.
  • Browne, John.
  • Bulbulia, Katharine.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Connor, John.
  • Conway, Timmy.
  • Daly, Jack.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Durcan, Patrick.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.
  • Fleming, Brian.
  • Harte, John.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hourigan, Richard V.
  • Howard, Michael.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kelleher, Peter.
  • Kennedy, Patrick.
  • Lennon, Joseph.
  • Loughrey, Joachim.
  • McAuliffe-Ennis, Helena.
  • McGonagle, Stephen.
  • McGuinness, Catherine I.B.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Magner, Pat.
  • O'Brien, Andy.
  • O'Leary, Seán
  • Quealy, Michael A.
  • Robinson, Mary.

Níl

  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • de Brún, Séamus.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fallon, Seán.
  • Fitzsimons, Jack.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lanigan, Mick.
  • Lynch, Michael.
  • Mullooly, Brian.
  • Hanafin, Des.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Honan, Tras.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Ross, Shane P.N.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Smith, Michael.
Tellers: Tá: Senators Belton and Harte; Níl: Senators W. Ryan and de Brún.
Question declared carried.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share