We are all aware that many old people consider it important to put their money aside to ensure that they can have a proper and respectable funeral. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. Many people save because they do not wish to be an encumbrance on their families. These old people are afraid of investing their money because of a fear that they may lose special welfare benefits. Instead they keep their money at home thereby, I suppose, creating an incentive for criminals to attack and rob them or, as happened a short time ago, burn down their houses. The Minister and the Government must take steps to deal with this. If old people are under a misapprehension about the means test——
Social Welfare Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I wonder could we have silence please? There is a Senator speaking. Senator Cassidy to continue.
If old people are under a misapprehension about the means test that should be cleared up. Old people should be told whether they can invest money in banking institutions happy in the knowledge that they will not be depriving themselves of their social welfare benefits and that it is not necessary for them to keep their money at home.
We must sympathise with the problems of single people who are living at home with their parents. When they live at home with their parents they are considered to be receiving an equivalent of £28.85 per week because they are housed and fed by the family. Yet the family cannot claim any allowance on behalf of the single person. Since the single unemployed man is now entitled to £29.40 per week in unemployment assistance he receives just 55p from the State. This is hardly enough, as we all know, to buy a bottle of minerals nowadays, if he feels himself entitled to such a luxury. Surely a case must be made here for examining the assessments of means in these cases.
Increasing emphasis is now being placed on another element which is becoming a matter of grave concern to our society. This is the poverty trap position of an unemployed person who will be no better off by becoming employed because the level of unemployment payments is close to the net income for working. Some people, and I emphasise "some", assess the unemployment trap here as being largely due to the fact that, unlike income from work, unemployment payments are linked to the number of children a claimant has. As a consequence, the earnings from unemployment payments may be on a par with earnings of a low paid ordinary worker. The family income supplement was designed to boost the income of such low paid workers to remedy this anomaly. It has failed miserably to achieve this. Despite some people's assessment of how the unemployment trap is created I have no doubt its real base in our society is the cruel, insensitive and savage system of taxation being imposed on the PAYE workers. Until this is remedied the so-called unemployment trap will continue.
The "poverty trap" situation in which persons at work could find themselves unable to increase their final income after tax, even if the gross earnings before tax increased, is primarily due to the imposition of taxes and the withdrawal of benefits as the income increases. Families can lose many benefits even though the wage earner is obtaining an apparent increase in wages because of the increased taxation and the withdrawal of certain entitlements under their previous earnings, such as category one general medical card eligibility. Local authority rents are based on the differential rents system and when people's earnings increased the rents rose accordingly. Their effective PRSI payments increased as a result of their increased earnings. This family have now got themselves into the so-called poverty trap. This anomaly exists because the issuing of medical cards and taxation are dealt with by different administrations within Government Departments. It appears that very little attention has been paid to the subject of the poverty trap. This is mainly because the means testing schemes are spread through many different Government Departments.
I hope the Minister and the Government will bear in mind some of the comments I have made on the ever-growing problems which are arising day after day.
I want to take this opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill. Much of what I have to say has to do with the contents of the Bill but also with aspects that are inter-related with the Bill's passing. I suppose every Member of these Houses, and of this House in particular, in contributing or listening to the debate on this Bill has been struck by the extent to which the State is now involved in the social welfare area, the fact that about 1.4 million — or 35 per cent of the population — are in receipt of social welfare assistance or benefit at present, and that in the past decade there has been an increase of 30 per cent of recipients benefiting under the Department of Social Welfare. It is no surprise to anybody in this House or outside that the volume of claims for unemployment benefit has increased by almost 70 per cent since mid-1981. This all reflects the country in which we are living, a country which, not unlike many of our European neighbours, is suffering from a high level of unemployment in business and enterprise — although enterprise is being assisted in so many ways, not least by the Department of Social Welfare.
There is, at the same time, a great difficulty for people who find themselves redundant, particularly those who are not young, in returning to viable employment in present economic conditions. I do not say that this is any reflection on the present administration. I do not think that any party or any Government at the moment have up their sleeve the recipe for getting the 200,000 or more back to work by a wave of a magic wand. We live in conditions which may, over a period, prove to solve this matter. There have been some solutions suggested, some proposals put on the table, such as the social employment scheme and the enterprise scheme. Five thousand people have been employed in the enterprise scheme. This is providing worthwhile work in the community. It is giving people the opportunity to start small industries and small service type activities that would not have been supported by the State up to now. In themselves those are a great benefit to the economy and certainly I support them.
I have been a member of a health board for some considerable time. I do not know whether the Minister of State, Deputy Donnellan, has been a member of a health board but I think he has. Certainly he has acquired a great knowledge of the Department in which he has been for a short time. I thought it might have been due to his being a member of the Western Health Board.
What I would like to mention first of all in this House are the difficulties the health boards have at present in receiving from the Department of Social Welfare moneys they have handed out in the form of supplementary welfare assistance through health clinics throughout the country. The length of time which the health boards have to wait varies from health board to health board but it certainly can extend to a period of six months. The response from the Department of Social Welfare takes that long. This puts health boards, who have other activities besides providing money to people, who have to run the health system of the country as well, under added strain in the present climate. I hope the Minister of State, and the Minister for Social Welfare, who ultimately is responsible for the Department, will try to give some attention to the way in which the Department over a long period has been starving the health boards unnecessarily of money that could be there to provide other services which they are required to provide.
Also in this context I would like to mention the inappropriateness, to a large extent, of the Eastern Health Board or the other health boards throughout the country being involved in supplementary welfare assistance at all. I do not understand why, when a claim is being made to the Department of Social Welfare for a widow's pension, or for one of the very many benefits given by the Department of Social Welfare, it has to be the health board who deal with the temporary supply of money into the home in a period of unemployment, widowhood or a wide range of other necessitous situations which develop in the home. I do not understand why the health board are involved as an agency of the Department of Social Welfare in this area. It is the Department of Social Welfare who are ultimately responsible and who in the end cough up unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit or deliver a non-contributory or contributory widow's pension. I do not understand why, for a period that often lasts for as long as two months, the health boards are involved in this area. I do not think they should be starved of funds which could be available for other purposes.
This is compounded by the delay in processing claims in the Department of Social Welfare, although the health boards are used as agencies to deliver the money. I accept that inquiry officers or people who are processing these claims in the Department of Social Welfare are under great strain at the moment, given the increased extent to which social welfare is supporting the community. Equally I think that the Department of Social Welfare may not be sufficiently aware of how great a strain is on the community welfare officer system in the health boards to administer this area, the personnel situation and the degree of queuing that is going on. The level of difficulty faced by those involved in administering this service in the health clinics throughout the country is a cause of some concern.
The main matter I want to raise today is one I have raised elsewhere and I do not see why I should not raise it here. It is something that I believe is appropriate to a Second Stage speech on this Bill and it is in relation to the way in which the Department of Social Welfare look after widows in present day Ireland. It does seem to be behind the time. When a woman finds herself without her husband, when the husband dies suddenly, is involved in a car crash or in some other unfortunate happening which takes him away from her, and where, as in so many instances, the husband is the breadwinner for the family — although increasingly women are at work and providing for their homes and children — in a few instances recently I have come across the following situation. Alongside a claim by a widow to the Department of Social Welfare for contributory or non-contributory widow's pension, we find the same widow who has recently suffered the death of her husband, either suddenly or after a tragic illness, is also caught in the position of having to claim supplementary assistance through the health board, or making an application for a funeral grant, or an application for a medical card, with the possibility of an application under the fuel scheme. It strikes me that a way could be found to deal with such a situation and it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Department of Social Welfare to find it, given that all these benefits are within the area of health and social welfare. One form could be used for a succession of applications of the kind I have mentioned. One form could be designed and used in future to encompass all these areas. That form may have to be a longer one than people have been used to but it could have sections taken out and sent to the appropriate places for processing. It is not right that the widow in modern Ireland, following the death of her husband, and all the tragedy and problems that then arise, maintaining the children, the homestead, coping with new responsibilities, should also have to spend her time wondering, for instance, what the position is in relation to her husband's claim for contributory pension, whether he was or was not eligible for that. She also has to handle four or five other claims that are all within the ambit of the Department of Health and Social Welfare or the agencies of the Departments of Health and Social Welfare.
As I said, that is not right. I make that statement in the hope that we can have an all-embracing attempt by the Department of Social Welfare to design a suitable form which would help that widow in an encouraging and compassionate way. That form could be used by the various agencies who have to process claims on behalf of widows. This would at least bring some sensitivity to the situation of the widow. I make that plea strongly and I hope the Minister, either today or in the foreseeable future, can bring a measure of interest to this area. It can happen to our wives. It can happen to all our families at an unknown time in the future. A step of this kind would be a sign to the people that we are interested in making the social welfare system more humane, and a system which provides sensibly and compassionately for sudden death or death after a long illness.
I would like to thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for the opportunity of making that point.
I welcome the opportunity to make a few brief comments on the Social Welfare Bill, 1985. We are told that this Bill has two main objectives. Firstly, to provide for the increases in the various rates of social welfare payments which were announced in the budget; secondly, to increase the penalities which the courts may impose on persons connected with or convicted of social welfare offences. In addition, section 13 of the Bill gives increased powers to social welfare officers. We have been given to understand that there is some urgency about having this Bill completed this week. Why that should be the case I do not know, since the increases for which the Bill provides do not come into effect until July.
As far as the least well off and most deserving recipients of social welfare are concerned, the increases do not take effect until the middle of July. I am referring in particular to those in receipt of contributory and non-contributory old age, widows' and blind pensions. Other categories of social welfare recipients will get their miserly increases a few days earlier, in the first week of July. There is no doubt that the old, the poor, the sick, the unemployed and the handicapped are being treated in a most callous fashion by this uncaring Government.
The increases, meagre though they are, were announced with a great flourish in the budget but the unfortunate recipients have to wait six months before they are paid. Last year the increases came into effect in the first week of July. This year they are being delayed until the second week of the month. It could be the third or fourth week of July next year before whatever miserly increases are granted will take effect. That is, of course, if the Coalition are still in office in 1986. In the meantime all those who have to rely on social welfare payments will be hit by the increases in VAT on fuel, clothing and footwear. The Government have made no attempt to cushion social welfare recipients against the effects of these increases which have seriously eroded the value of their social welfare payments. Increases of 6 per cent and 6½ per cent in the weekly rates fall far short of what would be required to maintain the value of social welfare payments. Therefore, the sad fact is that persons who are depending on such payments will suffer a drop in their standard of living over the remainder of the year. The effects of the recently announced increases in oil costs have yet to be felt and seen. Increased production and transport costs which will result from the increase in oil prices will lead to further increases in the cost of living over the remainder of the year and the hardest hit by these increases will be the social welfare recipients. The tables which are printed in the explanatory memorandum which was circulated with this Bill show the increases in the various rates of benefit and assistance. Anyone who compares these increases with the increases in social welfare which were granted by Fianna Fáil in 1980, 1981 and 1982 will have to concede that "miserable" and "miserly" are the only words which describe them adequately.
In each of the three years I have mentioned the rate of increase to social welfare recipients was 25 per cent. The effect of these generous increases was that social welfare payments almost doubled in those three years with a consequent substantial improvement in the standard of living of the most disadvantaged in our community. One would have expected that a Labour Minister for Social Welfare would at least attempt to protect the standard of living of these people instead of allowing it to be eroded and eroded substantially as has happened since he took office.
The fact that the Government decided once again not to increase children's allowances is further evidence of the anti-family attitude of this Minister and this Government. For many of the poorer families in this country, children's allowances are a vital support and income supplement. Yet the Minister could not see his way to grant an increase in children's allowances even to the poorest and most deprived families in the country.
I want to refer briefly to the living alone allowance. It is being increased by a few pence to £3.40 from next July. That is the very small amount which is paid to those social welfare recipients who have attained pensionable age and are living alone. The first thing I want to say is that this allowance should be far higher than it is at the moment. There is no doubt that the most deprived and disadvantaged of our social welfare recipients are those who are living alone. The second point I want to make is that the living alone condition is being interpreted far too strictly at the moment by some, and probably all, social welfare officers.
I know of the case of a pensioner who is almost 80 years of age who lives alone but whose grandson, aged 11 or 12, used to go to his house and spend the night there. Apart from sleeping at night in his grandfather's house this child lived, had his meals, did his lessons and watched television in his own home, which is a short distance away. Yet, the social welfare officer somehow became aware that the boy was sleeping at night in his grand-father's house and the pensioner's living alone allowance was withdrawn.
I also believe that in the case of other social welfare schemes, such as the free telephone rental scheme and the free electricity allowance scheme, the conditions of eligibility which require that the recipient be living alone, or with very restricted categories of persons, should be changed.
We are all very conscious of the number of violent and vicious attacks which have been made on elderly persons over the past couple of months. The majority of these attacks were on elderly persons living in remote rural areas. They are the people who are mainly at risk as far as such attacks are concerned. There is a reluctance on the part of such elderly persons to get a relative or a neighbour to stay in the house with them at night lest they might lose some allowance to which they are entitled and which is governed by the living alone condition. I would ask the Minister to relax this condition in relation to the relevant schemes. I believe that if the living alone condition was relaxed, or even interpreted less strictly or in a more flexible way by the social welfare officers, many elderly pensioners would be more willing to avail of the company of a neighbour or relative who would stay with them at night. As it is, they cannot risk losing allowances such as those to which I have referred, or the free fuel allowance since eligibility for it is also determined to a large extent by whether or not an applicant is living alone.
There is just one other point relevant to social welfare that I want to make in relation to attacks on the elderly which have been reported in recent weeks. Many of the people who are at risk live in remote rural areas. One of their difficulties is that they have no way of summoning help if they suspect that they are in danger. I ask the Minister to use his good offices with Telecom Éireann to ensure that such people get priority in the installation of telephones.
Section 4 of the Bill deals with the family income supplement. It is obvious that this scheme, like the £9.60 scheme a couple of years ago for women in the home, has been a complete and total failure. When the family allowance scheme was introduced we were told that up to 35,000 families would benefit under it. I understand that to date only approximately 10,000 applications have been received by the Department. One-third of these applications have been refused and one-third of them are still being processed so that only approximately one-third of the applications received to date have been granted. This is a scheme which was supposed to cushion the least well-off sections of the community against the hardship caused by the 50 per cent reduction in the food subsidies last August.
The introduction of the family income supplement scheme may have helped the Labour Party in their hour of need but it certainly has done very little, and will do very little for the thousands of families who are on, or below the poverty line today.
Coming from a rural constituency in the west, I feel I must refer to the scheme of unemployment assistance to small farmers, or the small farmer's dole as it is commonly known. This scheme was introduced as an income supplement for small farmers in the most disadvantaged part of the country. Means were assessed on a notional basis, having regard to the poor law valuation of the holdings of the farmer concerned. This meant that these farmers could increase production on their small holdings without fear of interference from the social welfare officers, or without fear of losing the social welfare payments without which they could not manage. This scheme, of unemployment assistance enabled the small farmers to remain on the land and to eke out a living for themselves and their families. For many of them it was the only thing that stood between them and the emigrant ship.
Many such smallholders tried to improve their lot. They availed of various schemes to improve their farms. They carried out drainage and reclamation work. They applied lime and fertiliser to their land and many of them participated in the small farm incentive scheme. Some, on the advice of their agricultural adviser, became involved in milk production, often with fewer than ten to 12 cows since their holdings could not carry any more. Then this Government came into office and under a Labour Minister for Social Welfare, the notional method of assessment of means for small farmers' dole was abolished. The social welfare officers were sent out into the highways and byways of the west to carry out what is referred to as a factual assessment of means. Thousands of smallholders lost their unemployment assistance or had it reduced to a pittance. The "dosser", namely the fellow who stays in bed all day, or spends the day in the pub, has come into his own again and the unfortunate small farmer who is prepared to expend blood, sweat and tears in an effort to improve his own lot and that of his family and to give a reasonable standard of living to his family, is once again back on his knees. These unfortunate people have in many cases lost in the region of £40 or £50 a week. They cannot manage without this supplementary income. For many of them the emigrant ship would once more be a harsh reality if they had anywhere to emigrate to.
All of us, as public representatives, are conscious of various anomalies in the social welfare system. I am not going to go into all the anomalies in the system but I want to refer to one category of social welfare recipients who in my view are very badly treated and this is the category referred to by Senator FitzGerald, namely widows. Senator FitzGerald referred to some of the problems with which widows have to cope in the early weeks or months of widowhood. I want to endorse the suggestion which he made in relation to how the social welfare system could be streamlined in order to facilitate such people. I want to refer in particular to widows under 66 years of age whose late husbands had been in receipt of old age pension and who were eligible for the free electricity allowance. After the death of the husband the widow, because she is under 66 years of age, loses the free electricity allowance and with it her entitlement to the free television licence. I feel that this is very unfair and I ask the Minister to look at this situation and see if an exception could be made in the case of widows under 66 whose husbands were entitled to these allowances. These women in many cases have to survive on the widow's small pension after their husbands have died and the loss of these allowances can be a very big blow to them.
Finally, the Bill provides for increased penalties for persons convicted for social welfare offences and it also strengthens the powers of social welfare officers. I agree that as far as possible abuses of the social welfare system must be eliminated but social welfare recipients, like all other human beings, have their dignity. The vast majority of them are honest, God-fearing people. Very many of them are victims of a recession which they do not understand and have not come to terms with. All of them are under extreme pressure. Therefore the Minister should ensure that in any campaign to stamp out abuses of the social welfare system, the ordinary rank and file recipients of social welfare will not be subjected to harassment by social welfare officers or treated as if they were all rogues and thieves.
I will conclude by saying that this Bill certainly does nothing for the Government's reputation in the area of social welfare. This Government are callously uncaring and insensitive as far as the most deprived and disadvantaged sections of the community are concerned. I certainly could not support the Bill which does not provide increases which are at least sufficient to maintain the standard of living of people in receipt of social welfare payments.
First, I would say that this Bill goes as far as possible to alleviate the problems that are confronting the very needy at this time. I would agree with Senator Mullooly that in fact it does not extend far enough or go far enough in giving benefits and concessions but let us realise there are very definite restrictions and limitations on the availability of money at this time. I believe that all social welfare recipients will be getting an increase in their payments from the State — and this is as it ought to be — to keep them in line as much as possible with increased costs of living.
The whole purpose and philosophy behind any Social Welfare Bill — and this Bill is no exception — is to ensure that the living standards of those who have no other income, through no fault of their own, are protected. This Bill does that; it helps to keep up the living standards of the needy, those who are unfortunate enough to be relying on social welfare as their sole income. It gives those persons sufficient, and I would underline the word "sufficient", to live on. I do not think one can say that social welfare recipients are too highly paid. Of course, one very quickly sees a situation where efforts are made by some people — limited and all as they may be — to beat the system. Some people endeavour, one way or another, to get money by certain fraudulent and devious methods while not entitled to it. In 1983, approximately £2.3 million was received by persons in a fraudulent manner. That would represent approximately one-eighth of the total social welfare commitment at that time. This is something that all will agree is undesirable and that nobody would support.
Ireland is no exception these days and in Europe we have a great reliance now on social welfare payments as a means of livelihood. This is a very serious situation. Hopefully, it can be remedied not alone in Ireland but throughout the entire European scene and further afield, throughout the rest of the world. It is a fact of life that the social welfare system as we now have it is very much the lifeline of people and we have to accept it as that.
The recession, which unfortunately is with us for a far longer period than anybody would have liked or indeed expected, has been a major contributory factor to this very heavy reliance by people on social welfare payments as a means of existing. This is something that we cannot forget.
We have an increase on a very steady basis in those persons relying on social welfare and this is something that indeed is very unfortunate. We are in a situation that must be examined very, very carefully. It is in regard to the margin of benefit for those in receipt of social welfare compared with those who are working in certain jobs or who are self-employed. Whatever advantage some persons may have by working over persons in receipt of social welfare it is so small that it does tend to lead to a danger of persons opting for social welfare when in fact that might not be totally essential; there would be other options. I am not saying that is commonplace but the Government and the Minister must monitor it very carefully. There must be an incentive for persons to work if and when — I emphasise this — work is available, because work unfortunately is a scarce commodity and one has to acknowledge that as a fact.
It is very regrettable that we have 1.4 million persons, approximately 35 per cent of our population, in receipt of social welfare in one form or another. That is an alarming percentage relying on social welfare for their livelihood. We have seen that between the years 1974 and 1984 the total number in receipt of social welfare increased by 30 per cent. That again is a very startling kind of a situation and very telling. If one takes 1981 as a further base we find that the volume of claims for unemployment benefit has increased by 70 per cent.
More and more persons are becoming absolutely and totally dependent on social welfare for their livelihoods. It is true to say, in the same context, that while we have this massive unemployment figure the Government have created a great number of jobs in the last 12 months or 18 months — take any period that one likes — but, unfortunately, many redundancies have taken place over the same period. The end result means that we have a growing number of persons unemployed which leads to a growing number of persons relying on social welfare.
We also have this category of people to which reference has been made, the small farmers and those in receipt of what is known as the small farmer's dole. There is no doubt that, whether the person resides in Clare, Galway, Limerick, Tipperary or anywhere else, if he has a holding that is not capable of producing an income adequate for his basic needs to live, his family must be looked after. It is clearly apparent that in many parts of the country, whether in the west or outside the west, farmers cannot eke out an existence from farming as such and this is something that must be very strongly borne in mind. At present, practically right across the spectrum everybody is going through fairly difficult times. We have a greater percentage of society now relying on social welfare than ever before. It is an ever-increasing responsibility for the Government and an ever-increasing problem for the Government to make sure that these are looked after.
The Government must be commended for this Bill in general because it does in fact improve the position of people generally. There are certain matters in the Bill which it would be more appropriate to raise on Committee Stage but I would like to make one point in regard to the contributory widow's and orphan's pension scheme for health board doctors and dentists. Widows of doctors and dentists in health boards are not provided for in the same way as Army doctors are provided for. This will arise on Committee Stage but I hope it will be attended to.
I share the concern expressed regarding old people, their vulnerability to attack in their own homes and their practice of keeping money in their own homes. Every effort must be made by whichever Department can help in this regard. The Government at various levels, in the Department of Justice and so on, are doing what they can to ensure that old people are secure and safe. There is an accepted belief that old people, particularly in the western areas, tend to keep money at home. I am not sure that the money is kept in people's houses because of social welfare considerations because there is a certain tradition there and a certain category of persons wish to keep their money in cash form in their own houses. This has gone on for generations, in certain parts of the country especially. Perhaps it is not as closely linked with social welfare payments and assessments and so on as some in this House would suggest. Many people — and I do not agree with the practice — keep money in their houses for different reasons. Further, I believe that while people ought not do this, it is a serious state of affairs if one is denied the privilege — if one can call it a privilege — of having a few pounds in the house. With rare exceptions, by and large one is talking about relatively small sums of money.
We, as Members of Seanad Éireann and as public representatives generally, have a responsibility to ensure that there is a clear understanding by all concerned that we are not dealing with a bottomless well here in the context of the payment of money in the form of social welfare. It would be erroneous for anybody to believe that the Government were intentionally not paying what they could pay because, quite frankly, the Government have done a great deal to alleviate the problems of the people in need. But the Government are conscious and must be conscious of their responsibility to make certain that they pay what they can afford to pay. Indeed, when people criticise the level of payment etc., they might remember that more than £2.25 billion is paid on an annual basis in various social welfare allowances. I would remind the House that that represents one-quarter of all current expenditure. That is a very sizeable proportion and it is something the Government must weigh up very carefully. It would be very nice for the Government if they were in the position dramatically to increase the various payments to the various people in our society.
The Minister and the Minister of State responsible in the social welfare area are conscious of the needs of people but at the same time they have to act responsibly and the Government must act responsibly. People too often forget that the Government can only pay out as much money — or perhaps a little bit more — as they take in the form of taxation. A point that is very often overlooked is that a good Government, such as our present administration, living as far as possible within their means, must manage the affairs of the nation and can only pay out a certain limited amount in social welfare benfits, educational grants, money for law and order and so on, in areas that are not in themselves producing areas.
In the context of the Social Welfare Bill there are good signs emerging now from our three-year plan and our most recent budget that our economy will begin to move forward in the right direction. Once that happens and once light emerges at the end of a very dark tunnel — because we have been going through a very dark tunnel in the economic and social senses in the last couple of years— we will see some positive improvements. The development of our agriculture has enormous potential. The application of added value in agriculture and indeed the substitution of a good deal of our agriculture imports, foodstuffs generally, whether for human consumption or animal feeds — we can reduce by approximately £300 million per year the £800 million spent on food imports — will do something to boost our economy. This is all very relevant to social welfare matters.
Coupled with that, I believe our tourist industry has fantastic potential. The development of many of our industries would benefit the country's economy quite well. It would enable the Government to do the sort of things in a social welfare context and, indeed, in other contexts, in the way of services to the people of the nation which they are inhibited from doing at present.
Finally, I want to commend the Government for this Bill and to emphasise again that it is a Bill which may fall short of what we would all like in certain areas in regard to adjustments of payments or allowances. However, let me remind all concerned that it is limited only by the sort of restrictions and positive financial limitations that surround our Government's entire scenario. I am confident that with the development of our economy in the next 12 months we will, I hope, have fewer people relying on social welfare and, indeed, that we will be in a position to give more to those who are relying on it.
We must at all times be very conscious of the needs of the old, the young, the disabled and those people who are not fortunate in having a means of livelihood. We must all be very conscious of them. I believe that we are. I am satisfied that the Minister and the Government are doing whatever is within their power to alleviate the difficulties and hardships that many of those people presently have.
I will not detain the House very long with my contribution on this Second Stage. I also welcome this Bill as far as it goes. We, on this side of the House feel — and it has been expressed already by some of our Members — that the Bill does not go far enough, or nearly far enough. Many problems have been discussed. I do not intend to repeat any of them.
The Minister in his introductory speech stated — and I quote a sentence about the Government's concern;
The first is a determination to protect the living standards of those, who, through no fault of their own, have no other source of income for their livelihood.
With respect to the Minister, I do not agree entirely with what he states there although I can agree with the implication. There is no doubt that people should not be denied benefit, even if they are in a situation which was caused by themselves, through some fault of their own. The Minister's implication is that poverty is not simply an individual condition. It is not a failure on the part of an individual. It is not an expression of somebody who is a misfit. In fact it is a social problem and it is a phenomenon of the working classes. I agree with that. I am also of the opinion that to correct the situation requires a massive re-distribution of resources away from the wealthier classes.
I would like to ask the Minister at this stage, in case I might overlook it, whether he would consider on Committee Stage extending section 10 to include registered medical practitioners and registered dentists. I should like to ask him why he did not extend the Bill to cater for those classes seeing that he did include registered medical practitioners and dentists in the Defence Forces. This is something I would like to bring up again on Committee Stage.
I also want to refer to the statement by the Minister where he reminded the House that there is a Bill before the Dáil at present to provide for equality of treatment between men and women in matters of social security arising from the EC directive on this matter. With regard to this, many families will be worse off because of this legislation. What provision is made for this situation? At present an unemployed man, if his wife goes out to work through necessity to supplement the income, can claim in respect of his wife and his dependent children for 15 months. He qualifies for this benefit automatically. The wife cannot do so unless her husband is an invalid and she is restricted to 12 month's benefit at a reduced rate. Under this new legislation the wife will be able to claim for herself and half the dependent children for 15 months. We all agree with the removal of the discrimination and that it is most desirable. I believe that this should have been done before the end of 1984 through an extension of time by the EC. There is no provision for an increase in the Estimates. Many people believe that this will result in a saving to the State.
In general, I approve of this change because nobody would feel that a retired bank manager should be able to claim for his wife, or indeed anyone with a high pension should be able to claim for a wife who might have another income or indeed might have a good job. But the situation with regard to a wife who is out working at present and where the husband would then look for benefit would mean that there would be a decrease in the family income. I would ask the Minister to state whether this situation has been taken care of and what expenditure is involved.
I also want to refer to the extension of treatment benefits to expectant wives. It has been pointed out that the scheme at present provides optical, dental, medical and surgical benefits to qualified insured workers. These benefits will be extended from July next to the expectant wives of such workers. The Minister explained that in practical terms this means that all basic dental treatment will be available to women who qualify. I have mentioned before in the House that this must be the only country in Europe where a married woman would have to become pregnant to qualify for dental benefit. This is an unsatisfactory situation.
The Minister stated that to extend the service to all married women would amount to £6.75 million per annum. The State could not afford this expense. It is my belief that this is most important. Personally I have always felt that oral hygiene is very important from many aspects in other areas of health and that, in fact, the State cannot afford not to provide dental benefit for all these people. By not doing so the State will have to pay out more money as a result of the health problems which may follow from this neglect.
The Minister also told us with regard to grants to voluntary organisations that there was an increase of £150,000. While in percentage terms this amounts to quite a sizeable figure — 30 per cent — yet with the added pressure on these voluntary organisations the total figure of £650,000 is quite inadequate. The Minister listed some of the areas which were being helped, such as the day care centres for the old, meals on wheels, services for the physically handicapped, youth club facilities, day care centres for the homeless and help for unmarried mothers. Everybody would agree that these are all very deserving. With regard to the 6½ per cent increase in the weekly rates for long term recipients and 6 per cent for short term payments, the Minister's claim that there is an increase in the purchasing power for all social welfare recipients is starting off from an improper datum line because we are dealing with relative deprivation. This is a changing situation.
I do not think any surveys have been done of the poverty problem. This is something that we will have more time to go into when discussing the Combat Poverty Bill. We need proper evaluation by the experts. For example, what is included in determining the datum line? Do we include such things as colour television sets and central heating? Of course some heating is necessary but all these things, I feel, have to be taken into consideration. My own view is that recipients should get sufficient help to be able to develop their full potential throughout all stages of their lives. At present nobody is content to be a second class citizen. This is different from the position many years ago when people were prepared to be second class and third class citizens. That has changed and I am glad that it has changed.
Members have spoken about the problem at exchanges where many people are queuing up outside in inclement weather. I would be very critical of this. I have spoken about that on previous occasions. Also, I am critical of this clause about being available for work where no work is available. I think that this situation is promoting idleness. I have recounted before that two years ago I met a young county councillor whose wife was a nurse and was unable to get employment so she decided to do a secretarial course while she was drawing unemployment benefit and when it was discovered that she was doing a course she lost her benefit. This is wrong because in the long term the State would be benefiting. This young lady would get a job as a secretary. The situation should be that all these people should be encouraged to work. They should be encouraged to organise schemes. This is a possibility. I mentioned this before and I feel it should be explored. Nobody wants to get money for nothing. People want work and dignity and they want work satisfaction. Work satisfaction is a measure of the gap between expectation and achievement. For many people their expectations are not great. I believe there is alienation because of this problem and I quote a very short paragraph from The Irish Times of 18 March of this year:
The income tax take is reduced. While the young men deprived of the dignity of work roam the streets crimes of all kinds increase. More and more people are becoming alienated from a system in which they find no work, no respect, no home. It is easy to talk of alienation in other jurisdictions. What action is being taken to stem the mounting alienation, frustration and anger of the unemployed in the Republic?
I think that is a very important question. People who are unemployed could be organised to work in the area of the provision of housing, roads, the provision of fuel from bogs and, indeed, to establish new industries. In addition to their benefit they should be paid a percentage to represent whatever profits accrue from their work.
We can take a simple situation to illustrate what I want to say. If, say, £100,000 is put aside for ten people and that is put into a draw and the money is paid out every week it will run out in a certain time. But if that money is put to some kind of productive use naturally it will last longer. This is what I am advocating. I mentioned before the situation of walking into houses and seeing young men who are unemployed and they have not got the interest to shave themselves. Young girls are disillusioned. There is the drink problem which comes as a consequence, as well as drugs and crime. I ask the Minister to look at that situation to see — and I have mentioned this before — if something could be done to solve the two problems of housing and unemployment at one stroke. Something will have to suffer in the conventional manner.
The Minister told us that fundamental questions are being asked urgently about the overall effectiveness and relevance of the social welfare system all over Europe. The Minister went on to say that a radical re-shaping and reduction of the welfare state is a necessary condition for reducing unemployment and relaunching economic growth. Something on the lines of what I stated would explore that possibility. The Minister went on to state that the welfare state is as much a producer of pressure groups as the product of pressure groups. I feel that in the area of social welfare there are many groups who could not be regarded as strong pressure groups. Perhaps the elderly, the ill and the unemployed, because of their sheer numbers, may be taking on the mantle of a strong pressure group. It is necessary for those who represent these people to exert pressure to try to get their rights for these people. It is a sad reflection on the situation that we have 1.4 million people or 35 per cent of the total population of the country depending on social welfare.
Rent allowances are important. As regards the family income supplement, I do not think this has done as much as was claimed for it. I would have the same reservations about it as Senator Mullooly. As the Minister pointed out, the administrative costs are very small. It is unfortunate that it has not been possible to prevent a deterioration in the quality of service which is showing up in longer average times taken to process claims and answer queries and representations. I feel that in this delicate area where a question has to be asked, the benefit of the doubt should in all cases be given to the people who are claiming. The appeals system has come in for criticism. Some people, and even Members on the other side of the House, have agreed that this is right. In some instances the delays have been unacceptable. I would hope to see greater progress in this area. I agree with previous speakers that the elderly people are in a very special category and everything possible should be done for them.
As regards the handicapped, I believe there is a reduction in the funds from the EC for these people. This is unfortunate at this time because great progress is being made in sheltered workshops around the country. I would like to ask the Minister if something could be done to replace the funds which were available from the Social Fund for this purpose.
Finally, I would like to say that two books which I found very helpful in this area are the Directory of the National Voluntary Organisations by the National Social Services Board, which costs only £1, and the recently published Directory and Guide to Social Welfare, Health, Housing, Legal Services and other Social Services in Dublin, which costs only £2. I would recommend those two books to anybody interested in this area.
I would like to thank Senators for their contributions to the debate on this Bill. The debate gave us all an opportunity to reflect on the performance of the social welfare system. I can assure Members of the House that my Department will give full consideration to the constructive suggestions and valid criticisms which have been made. The number of staff available is, of course, a very serious constraint. The Department of Social Welfare are aware that there are problems in processing claims. The workload has increased enormously. In the employment payment area alone, the volume of claims has increased by over two-thirds since mid-1981. Significant increases in workloads have also occurred in claims for disability benefit, widow's pensions and allied payments and in various free schemes and other areas. The embargo under which only two in every three vacancies in the Civil Service are filled applies to the Department of Social Welfare as well as to other Departments. The Government recognise the particular problems faced by my Department and some staff have been redeployed from other Departments to the Department of Social Welfare. As a result the overall number of staff in the Department is some 4 per cent higher than the mid-1981 level. This is not to say that the present staffing provision is satisfactory from the Department's point of view.
While the number of staff available is a very serious constraint on the Department's ability to cope with the huge increases in the workload, the Department have made very considerable progress in their computerisation programme. This is resulting in significant administrative savings and higher productivity. It is worth repeating that administrative costs as a proportion of the total expenditure of social welfare only amounts to 4p out of every £1 spent. Staffing costs represent less than half of this. The Department of Social Welfare are pressing ahead with further computerisation to the extent that manpower and financial resources permit. They will gradually make more staff available to improve the overall quality of service and provide the human touch which a social service of this nature requires. We are also aware — and I am sure Senators who deal with inquiries about social welfare will know this — that the present system is fairly complex and it is difficult for our clients to understand it. Neither do the complexities in the system make for efficient administration. Accordingly, it is part of our strategy that the social welfare system should be made as simple as possible over the coming years. A substantial increase in the number of claims is the main cause of delays.
I would like to mention a number of other specific reasons which are not often appreciated by the public at large and, indeed, by Members of the Oireachtas. Let us take employment benefit, for example. Delays arise where an applicant is unable to furnish the correct PRSI number, and again where an employee's record is incomplete and inquiries have to be made to establish contribution records. There are delays where an employer has failed to make the necessary payment of contributions, where an employee fails to furnish sufficient details to enable his entitlement to unemployment benefit to be determined vis-a-vis availability for work, his efforts to find employment etc. A particular problem affecting payment of unemployment assistance is that claimants who were advised to apply for a qualification certificate before their payment benefit runs out do not do so in some cases. Means testing by its very nature cannot be done overnight. The people who delay in applying for unemployment assistance must resort to supplementary welfare allowances while awaiting the decision under unemployment assistance claims. The involvement of supplementary welfare allowances adds another layer of work to my Department.
Great improvements have been made in the application forms and explanatory literature covering the various schemes and it would be in everybody's interests if applicants for benefit could do their best, first of all by applying in advance where possible and, secondly, by giving full replies to the various particulars sought in the claim forms.
I have mentioned the reasons for delays in processing claims and I would now like to mention a few measures which have been taken by the Department to expedite payments. Many people have the impression that the Department spend much of their time sending files from office to office down the country and then eventually to head office in Dublin. This is no longer the case. Many decisions previously referred to headquarters are now taken at local level, including the determination of means for unemployment assistance purposes. This policy is being extended to an increasing number of employment exchanges. A number of local offices now have direct links with the central computer in Dublin and this allows very quick access to the claimant's insurance record. I might mention that the Department have taken a very flexible approach about signing-on arrangements where factories close down and large numbers of workers are involved.
Substantial progress has also been made in eliminating delays in paying disability benefit and in providing greater access to information to members of the public. Disability benefit claims are divided for payment purposes into two classes, long term and short term. Long term claimants, comprising approximately 55 per cent of the total beneficiaries, are paid regularly on the same day of each week, Monday, and no delay of payment occurs. Medical certification is required only at monthly intervals from such claimants. Short term claimants are paid as soon as the Department receive medical evidence of incapacity, correct identifying of particulars, PRSI number etc., and, provided the claimant is qualified on his or her insurance record for the receipt of benefit, the payment cheques issue shortly after the Department receive the second and subsequent medical certificates. No payment is due on the first certificate as this certificate merely indicates the date incapacity began. Any delay or irregularity in the submission or delivery of medical certificates to the Department inevitably delays the issue of payment. These are matters over which the Department have no control. Similarly, delay in the completion and return of claims for dependants will result in the delay of payment of increases of benefit for them. Delay in the issue of payment can also occur when a claimant is not qualified on his insurance for payment due to non-payment of contributions. In such circumstances time-consuming inquiries have to be undertaken to establish the extent of the person's insurable employment so that contributions may be credited to him for benefit purposes pending their collection. Delays of this nature which apply to a greater or lesser degree to claims under all of the Department's schemes are unavoidable. Nonetheless, the Department issue disability benefit cheques within a day of receipt of adequate medical certification in the vast majority of cases.
The Department have begun to provide an approved local inquiry service for disability, injury and maternity benefit claims by extending computer facilities to various local information centres. Because of staffing and other resource constraints it will be some time before this service can be extended to all offices. The object is that the computer communications network when fully developed will enable persons calling at any of the Department's information offices to receive an immediate response to their inquiries. The staff in these offices will, by means of the computer link-up, be able to see the up to date position in regard to claims. The possibility of providing further facilities at local offices will be considered in the light of experience of the inquiry service.
The major complaint from disability benefit claimants has been inability to inquire about their claim because of the difficulty in contacting the disability benefit section in Aras Mhic Dhiarmada. This situation has been improved considerably in the last year by installing additional telephones. A new private automatic branch exchange to be installed this year will further improve the servicing of public inquiries.
Senator Smith referred to the assessment for unemployment assistance purposes of single persons living at home. The requirement to take account of the value of board and lodging has always been a feature of the unemployment assistance. Its purpose is to achieve a degree of equity between applicants whose parents are in comfortable circumstances and those whose parents are in poor circumstances. Otherwise persons living in affluent circumstances would become entitled to the same level of assistance as those whose circumstances are poor.
The legislation does not specify the method by which this item of means should be calculated. Each case is decided on its merits having regard to the standard of living of the household and the circumstances of the applicant. Administrative arrangements were devised for setting standards for dealing with this matter with a view to ensuring that the standard of living enjoyed by the applicant would not be affected in the formula used. In the case of wage earning families the method of calculation is to deduct from net parental income, that is gross income less tax and PRSI contributions, the amount to cover rent or mortgage repayments and also a set parental allowance. The remainder is then divided among the non-earning members of the household including the applicant and the sum arrived at is taken as the value of the applicant's board and lodging subject to a maximum limit of 12½ per cent of the net income. Where the applicant's parent is a farmer the procedure is to estimate the yearly income from the farm and divide the amount between the parents and all dependent members of the household on a weighted basis.
In 1980 the question of benefit and privilege assessment was examined by a Department of Finance analyst who calculated that the abolition of the assessment would increase the live register by 18,000 at an annual cost of £21.5 million. The numbers and cost now could be expected to be much higher. The whole question of benefit and privilege assessment is one of the matters which the Commission on Social Welfare will include in their examination of the social welfare system.
The availability for work conditions for employment payments was also mentioned in the debate. In determining claims for unemployment benefit or assistance deciding officers to satisfy themselves that the claimant concerned is available for work must try to ascertain all the facts in the case. If there is any element of doubt in the matter the deciding officers are obliged to query the position by asking the claimant any questions which they feel may be relevant to the case. Information may, therefore, be sought about what efforts the claimant has made to obtain employment since becoming unemployed, whether he or she is registered for work with the National Manpower Service, what type of work the claimant is seeking, whether there are any factors which would prevent the claimant from taking up work if it were offered etc.
Senator Smith suggested that the rules might be relaxed and that the Department are too rigid in their approach. The application of the availablity for work conditions is not easy from the client's point of view or for the officials who are obliged by law to satisfy themselves that the person concerned is genuinely available for work. To understand the need for such conditions we must look at the fundamental principles underlying the entitlements to unemployment payment. The first principle is that the person must be unemployed and payment is not made for any day on which the claimant is following an occupation from which he derives remuneration. The second fundamental condition is that unemployment should be involuntary and the person concerned must remain available for work. Furthermore, it is not sufficient to be available in a purely passive sense and the claimant is required under the Act to be making positive efforts to find employment.
What would happen if the Department watered down these fundamental conditions for unemployment payment? I suggest that we would see an increase in the numbers of people working and signing, because the objective of the schemes in question would become blurred in the eyes of the public. If people were to be allowed to engage in work on the side while drawing unemployment benefit these benefits would in effect change their nature from an income maintenance to that of subsidising employment and topping up wages. It is vital to control abuse of the unemployment schemes so that people are in no doubt that they cannot work while claiming. The integrity of the unemployment schemes must be preserved. For this reason people going on the enterprise allowance scheme are taken off the live register and paid under independent arrangements. The same conditions apply in that participants in the new social employment scheme cannot draw unemployment benefit or assistance in respect of any week in which they are working under the scheme.
To conclude on this point, I would like to mention that people in receipt of unemployment benefit are not necessarily required to be totally idle. For example, measures have been taken to encourage unemployed persons to become involved in voluntary work with local voluntary organisations and community groups without raising questions regarding their entitlement to benefit. The essential feature of arrangements of this kind, however, is that the person concerned must continue to fulfil the availability condition and must be ready to take up any offer of suitable employment. Persons who propose to do voluntary work must, however, give notice of their intentions to the local office.
Senator Fallon, Senator Ferris and Senator Hourigan referred to the social insurance position of doctors and dentists. At present social insurance applies to virtually all employees. Employed doctors and dentists are one of the exceptions. This exclusion goes back to the original Social Welfare Act, 1952 and was re-enacted in the 1981 Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act as a first step towards bringing all employed doctors and dentists into insurance on the same basis as all other employees. Section 10 of the Bill brings in commissioned Army officers who happen to be medical personnel. It is intended that the remaining doctors and dentists in both the public and private sectors who have employee status will also be covered for insurance purposes. This matter will be put before the Government as soon as consultations with the representative bodies concerned have been concluded. Self-employed medical or dental personnel will not be affected by this proposal, at least until such time as social insurance is extended to the self-employed in general. It is only fair to say that Senator Fitzsimons mentioned that point.
There was a certain amount of criticism of the limited scope of the new dental and optical benefit to pregnant wives of insured workers, but it is, I hope, only a first step in providing full eligibility for these. To the people who are being critical of it, it is only fair to say to them that other people in Government had the opportunity to do exactly what we are doing now on the basis that we have been doing it and did not avail of the opportunity to do so.
Senator FitzGerald made a suggestion about the claim form which a widow fills up and asked whether the form could be changed to include other services which a widow might also be seeking. At present one form covers both the contributory pension and the non-contributory pension and is already fairly long. For that reason I acknowledge the merit of Senator FitzGerald's suggestion. We will examine it in the Department to see if we can satisfy him in what he wants us to do. He also indicated that there seems to be undue delay in the Department reimbursing the health boards for the supplementary welfare paid by the health boards. There is no undue delay in this.
A number of Senators were critical about the increases. When a 20 per cent increase was given inflation was running at over 20 per cent at the time. Inflation today is less than 6 per cent and the increases being given more than cover that. If it was necessary to give 20 per cent increases that was done by a party who were responsible for that rate of inflation.
Senator Cassidy referred to old people, particularly those along the western seaboard and the holding of savings etc. The Department through An Post sent leaflets to all non-contributory pensioners recently informing them about the amount of savings they can have and still qualify for pensions of one description or another. I have said many times over the past couple of weeks, and for the information of the House I repeat that, for instance, a non-contributory single old age pensioner can have savings of £2,987.50 and still qualify for the full non-contributory old age pension. A married couple can have £5,975 and qualify similarly. A widow receiving the non-contributory widow's pension can get the full pension with £5,400 in savings. A single person could have £22,747.50 and still qualify for the minimum old age pension. A married couple could have £45,495 and qualify for the minimum old age pension. In a widow's non-contributory, the minimum would again be paid if the savings were in the region of £44,920. That is a substantial amount of money. In most of the cases of hooligans robbing old people and creating terror and generally frightening the life out of them, the amount of money that the old people had in the houses was very small. We could send a message forth from here, if people would pay attention to it, that they could put the few pounds that they have into savings of one description or another. Public representatives who seem to be more in touch with the public in general than any other people in the country could go on an exercise next Sunday or the following Sunday——
Up to 20 June.
A Senator
Wait for the local elections.
They could start their local election campaign now by going to a couple of church gates next Sunday and expressing their opinion as clearly as possible and explaining to old age pensioners what I have said here now. They need not say it was my expression of opinion. Senator Fallon could say it is his own.
Senator Killilea will reply to that in Galway for us.
I have no doubt that he will. There was a certain amount of criticism about the way unemployment assistance for smallholders is assessed. Senator Mullooly from Roscommon complained about it. He complained about the manner in which smallholders are being assessed. It is a factual assessment system no different from that being used in the rest of the country. The PLV system was abolished effectively as a result of a High Court decision in July 1982. Incidentally, I point out that we were not in Government at the time lest it be inferred that we interfered with the courts. As a result of that decision the Department of Social Welfare took legal advice. That legal advice was sought by the Department when the party opposite were still in Government. They did not last too long in it.
Do not be so sure of yourself.
The advice received by the Department at the time was that it was necessary factually to assess the smallholders living in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan, Longford, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Clare, parts of Limerick, all of Kerry and parts of Cork on the same basis as applied in the rest of the country. Therefore, the people in these areas are being treated no differently from people in the rest of the country. Some of them have got increases and some of them decreases, based on a factual assessment, related to income and expenditure. We made a number of changes and we supplied a new list so that it was clear what they could claim.
The Minister of State has a certain responsibility.
We also notified them of the week the social welfare officer would call on them. That was also a change. In the past they could be jumped on at any time. They get advance warning so they can be there to meet the social welfare officer and provide the required data. After all that, people who had received payments under the PLV system were no longer entitled to payments under that system and generally objected to the factual assessment. The Taoiseach promised in Tralee in 1983 that he would arrange for appeals officers for oral hearings. A decision has been made within the Department that eight appeals officers be made available along the western seaboard so that people who are dissatisfied with the decision of the deciding officer in the first instance and later with the decision of the appeals officer can apply again and have an oral hearing. At that oral hearing if they think they cannot represent the case as fully as they would like they can bring any amount of help along with them to help them to represent their case adequately.
Senator Ferris referred to decisions by deciding officers on claims for disability benefit. Claims for social welfare payments are decided by deciding officers who are appointed for that purpose under the social welfare legislation. Any person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the deciding officer has the right of appeal to an appeals officer. Appeals officers are also appointed by the Minister for Social Welfare and they are senior officers with a great deal of experience of social welfare matters. An appeals officer is free of any direction or influence in making his decision. He can decide any case and he is not confined to the grounds on which the original application was made. In the case of disability benefit the initial medical evidence is supplied by the claimant's own doctor and a certain proportion of such evidence is sent to the Department's medical personnel for a second opinion. If a person is not happy about this second opinion he can appeal and a second examination is arranged without delay. In arriving at his decision the appeals officer will take into account any further medical evidence provided by the claimant's doctors. Naturally, there will be cases where the medical evidence will conflict. This can be resolved only through the judgment of the appeals officer having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
In 1983 the amount attributed to known fraud was something over £2.3 million, just over one-eighth of 1 per cent of total expenditure. The figure for 1984 is not yet available but the indications are that it will show an increase. Quite a number of people make fraudulent claims to the Department of Social Welfare. For instance, 4,300 people made fraudulent claims for unemployment benefit, disability benefit and pay related benefit. We had at least 1,000 fraudulent claims for unemployment assistance, 270 for contributory old age pension, 500 for social assistance allowance for unmarried mothers. One could be forever critical of the Department of Social Welfare and it is the easiest thing in the world when in Opposition to say one should pay more here or there or in every other direction. The amount of money paid out by the Department of Social Welfare is £6 million for every day of every week of the year. It is a colossal amount of money. Whereas the percentage rate of increase this year may have been modest it would be fair to say that in comparison——
Or modestly.
——with the rate of inflation, which is the real money that you are talking about, the increases are quite substantial and more than cover any cost of living increases that have taken place.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Ní, 14.
Tá
|
Belton, Luke.Bulbulia, Katharine.Burke, Ulick.Connor, John.Conway, Timmy.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Daly, Jack.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dooge, James C.I.Durcan, Patrick.FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.Fleming, Brian.Harte, John.Higgins, Jim. |
Higgins, Michael D.Hourigan, Richard V.Howard, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.Kelleher, Peter.Kennedy, Patrick.Lennon, Joseph.McGonagle, Stephen.Magner, Pat.O'Brien, Andy.O'Leary, Seán.O'Mahony, Flor.Ross, Shane P.N. |
Níl
|
Cassidy, Donie.de Brún, Séamus.Ellis, John.Fallon, Seán.Fitzsimons, Jack.Hanafin, Des.Hillery, Brian. |
Hussey, Thomas.Lynch, Michael.Mullooly, Brian.O'Toole, Martin J.Ryan, Eoin.Ryan, William.Smith, Michael. |
Tellers: Tá: Senators Belton and Harte; Níl: Senators W. Ryan and Séamus de Brún.
Question declared carried.