Vol. 111 No. 6
I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights Second Interim Report: Social Welfare.
At the outset I should like to pay tribute to the work done by the Joint Committee on Women's Rights. They went to a great deal of trouble in examining grievances and making recommendations as to how the lot of women could be improved.
On a point of order, is the Minister in limbo or could we possibly have somebody from the Government side for this matter?
The Leader of the House is looking after that matter right now.
I am looking at the empty seat.
There might be confusion this morning.
He did mention to me that there is some difficulty.
Unknown routes to unknown destinations.
There are a total of 23 recommendations made in the report, all of which would be acceptable to the Members of this House. Some of the recommendations would not entail much extra expenditure. Those that might necessitate extra expenditure might have to wait until the financial position of the country improves. That is not to say that they would not be very welcome at a time when we can afford them. While everybody has it at heart that we should be generous on the social welfare side, especially to the classes of people whose cases are examined here, in the last analysis what we can do must depend on what we can afford. While we have big commitments with regard to discharging our obligations on the national debt and at the same time no desire whatever to increase taxation or to impose further borrowing, what we can set about doing immediately must, unfortunately, be on a limited scale. Nevertheless, the recommendations made by the committee are worthy of examination. It is to be hoped that with the improvement in our financial condition and with greater productivity we would be able to implement recommendations made in the report.
At the outset the report deals with the question of women in the home. This matter is under a great deal of consideration at present. People are of the opinion that the woman in the home is entitled to some assistance as a recognition of her invaluable work. The committee state on page 8, paragraph 2 (1):
The position of the woman who has to remain at home, whether it be as a housewife and mother or as a single person living alone or caring for an aged relative, was referred to in many of the submissions made to the Joint Committee. It is clear that many women in this category are in need of greater support from the social welfare system and their treatment belies the status conferred on them under Article 41 of the Constitution. The Joint Committee would like to see the extension of dental and optical benefit to all women who choose to remain at home. The members are pleased to note that under the terms of the 1985 Budget these benefits will be extended to pregnant women on their husbands PRSI contributions and they trust that this is just the first step in their wider application to all women in the home.
That hope, expressed by the committee, is one that would meet with general acceptance by the members of this House.
The next important point made by the Joint Committee is on the question of the single woman's allowance, which is payable between the ages of 55 and 66 years. That is, of course, until the woman reaches the age for the old age pension. The committee recommend that this allowance should be paid at the age of 55 and that the examination of means of the applicant should not be so stringent. I would have no doubt but that Senators would agree in toto with that recommendation.
Another matter which causes a great deal of concern in the community is the question of the prescribed relative's allowance. There are great difficulties involved in that, as Senators are well aware. If there is an invalid in the house and more than one other member of the family residing there, no allowance is paid. If one takes, for example, the case of a farm household where an old man or woman is confined to bed. If there is a son working on the farm and a daughter living in the house it is impossible to get the prescribed relative's allowance. That condition should be removed immediately. In that case the son must spend most of his time looking after the farm or out at work. In most cases I come across the son is engaged practically fulltime on farm work but another member of the household, either a sister or another brother, will not be paid the prescribed relative's allowance. That is something that should be cleared up immediately.
The committee put a lot of thought into the question of the deserted wife's allowance. I was very surprised to see that a wife must be deserted for a period of three months before she becomes eligible for financial assistance. That is an undue hardship. The committee notes, also, that the deserted wife must make what are described as "reasonable efforts" to trace her husband and to obtain support and maintenance from him. Very often what happens is that the husband simply disappears. The wife has no way whatever of being able to trace his whereabouts. For example, in the case where the husband deserts his wife and goes to England, he could be located in London but then he could move on to Birmingham, Wolverhampton or some other city. In practice it is impossible for the wife to be in contact with him. Her hopes of getting any money from him are nil.
The regulations insist that this three months' period must pass before she gets assistance from the State. That is a ridiculous situation and should be scrapped immediately. Unfortunately, these cases of desertion are becoming much more common than they were some years ago. One can easily imagine the great trauma that the deserted wife goes through. Her condition is aggravated to a very great degree by the fact that she is supposed to be making reasonable efforts to trace her husband and to obtain support and maintenance from him for herself and her children. She is faced with an absolutely impossible task. It is unreasonable to think that those who are deserted should be put in that position.
Another paragraph to which the committee draws attention is paragraph 3.5. It states:
Wives who succeed in obtaining maintenance from their husbands often find that after a time the payments can become erratic or cease altogether.
Even when the wife has succeeded in obtaining payments for this period, if payment subsequently stops a further long period goes by before she is able to establish that she is getting no assistance. That is something that should be cleared up without delay.
To show that their consideration was all-embracing, the committee devote some attention to the plight of deserted husbands. It suggests that the phrase "deserted wife" or "deserted husband" is not the most acceptable term. It suggests a change in the title from "deserted wife" or "deserted husband" to some more acceptable term such as "an abandoned spouse". In my opinion there is very little difference between the term "deserted" and "abandoned". I am of the opinion that "abandoned" might be even a harsher term then "deserted". That is something that could be looked into at a later stage.
The children's allowance is another matter that has come up for examination and recommendation by the committee. There has been an improvement in the recent budget under that heading.
Another point in the report is a suggestion that I do not find myself agreeing with — the question of introducing paternity allowances. I can understand liberal maternity allowances; but when it goes so far as to offer paternity allowances, I think that is something that could very well be left to one side and that matters of greater urgency should get attention beforehand. One can very well visualise this paternity allowance being greatly abused and adding considerably to our already dismal record with regard to absenteeism from work. The husbands would think up all sorts of excuses for why they should not be at work. We might eventually find ourselves at a time when the husband would be thinking of anti-natal or post-natal attention for himself and for the psychological trauma that he thinks he is going through.
The report also recommends the setting up of creches in all hospitals. It is something I am sure all Senators would agree with.
The plight of older women comes in for a good deal of attention in the report. I find myself in total agreement with what the joint committee recommend. They say in the report on page 21:
Strong recommendations were made to the Joint Committee regarding the plight of women living alone and trying to exist on meagre pensions. Many women retire early, some at 60 years of age and earlier, and the interval between retirement and qualification for State pensons, normally 66 years of age, can be a time of severe hardship.
That is something of which we all have a good deal of knowledge. The report continues:
...it is not surprising that so many people have to depend on the voluntary and charitable organisations to supplement their incomes.
This refers to the period between retirement and reaching qualification age for the old age pension. That is an area that demands attention and an area about which we would like to see something practical being done.
Another area where I would agree entirely with the recommendations of the committee is dealt with on page 24 of the report, where it refers to the living alone allowance. It states:
This allowance is paid to old age pensioners over 66 years of of age, and it amounts to £3.20 per week. Some members of the Joint Committee were appalled when, in the course of their public duties, they learned that the allowance had been discontinued on some pensioners who had asked a relative or a friend to remain with them at night time only.
In the circumstances in which we live, where we have old people's homes being attacked and old people themselves being beaten up for the sake of a few pounds because these marauders think there might be money in their possession, it is highly desirable that old people should be encouraged in every way to invite members of their family or neighbours to stay with them at night. It was never intended when the regulations were drawn up that a person who would be in a state of fear should lose an allowance because he took the precaution of having somebody to stay with him.
In the changing circumstances in which old people and others live, especially in remote parts of the country, people are subject to these attacks at night. They live in constant fear of being attacked and beaten up. Only last week we had a pair of criminals sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for the savage way in which they treated a pair of old men down in County Kerry. Any regulation that debars or discourages old people living alone from having the comfort of a person coming in to stay with them during the night should be scrapped immediately. That was never intended. These people should continue to get the allowance even if they take the trouble of getting some relative to spend the night with them. I am sure that as soon as that point is brought to the Minister's attention he will take effective steps to end that.
There are other long sections on pages 30 and 31 dealing with delay in social welfare payments and the committee express understanding of these delays but I make an appeal for everything possible to be done to cut out these long delays.
On page 37 the committee refer to the fact that six years after the adoption of the directive by the EC the Government in 1984 indicated that legislation would be introduced to provide equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. The Bill to give effect to the proposed changes was circulated in December 1984, but the legislation has not yet been enacted by the Oireachtas. The committee also express the hope that legislation will soon be enacted and with that, I want to say, I wholeheartedly agree.
I should like to again compliment the committee on the report presented to the House and to express the hope that our improving financial conditions in the years immediately ahead will enable the Government of the day to implement as many as possible of these recommendations on a progressive basis.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate and, indeed, it was gratifying to hear the favourable comments of Senator O'Brien on the report because the members of the joint committee did put a lot of diligent work into its preparation. The Joint Committee's first report dealt with education and the Joint Committee selected the area of social welfare for its second report because so many people in this country today are dependent on social welfare. The vast majority of the people who are dependent on social welfare are women.
Today there is a very high number of people registered as unemployed and drawing unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. In addition to those two social welfare schemes, there are approximately 30 other different schemes of payment. It was the view of the Joint Committee that, during the next number of years even if there is a reduction in the unemployment figures, a very large number of people will still be dependent on social welfare and that a large percentage of the people who will be dependent on social welfare will continue to be women. When the Joint Committee was examining the social welfare code, they heard evidence from representatives of various groups and they also received quite a number of written submissions both from groups and individuals throughout the country. Many of the submissions received by the Joint Committee dealt with areas of the social welfare system where people experienced difficulties or, indeed, with areas where improvements are needed.
Before I move on to deal with the various sections of the report, I want to refer to an article which appeared in the Irish Independent of Friday, February 7 1986. This article was concerned with “The welfare fraud”. In this article it was suggested that more than £150 million a year is being lost through direct fraud of the social welfare system. It was also alleged in the article that women were the prime offenders. Examples were given of areas of the social welfare system where this fraud is alleged to be taking place. I quote from the report:
Duplicated children's allowance books and dishonesty in claiming unmarried mothers', deserted wives' or disability allowances and benefits as well as third level students signing on for the dole are amongst the most simple methods of swindling for women.
It was also suggested in the report that there is an over-representation of married women among disability benefit claimants. It was alleged, too, that some couples go to the extreme of a wife taking out a court barring order against her husband so that she will qualify for a deserted wife's allowance, even though the couple continue to cohabitate.
I want to say at this stage that the Joint Committee did not in their examination of the social welfare system receive any evidence or find any evidence that the situation as outlined in that report exists. It was agreed that there is a perception that there is some fraud in relation to the social welfare system. This report, even though it makes those serious allegations of fraud and particularly the very serious allegations against women, does not substantiate any of those allegations. I believe that before allegations of that nature would be made in a newspaper article there should be hard evidence to substantiate the allegations; otherwise they should not be made. The Department of Social Welfare employ a number of special investigation officers. The function of these investigation officers is to be vigilant in relation to abuses of the system and I believe that these investigation officers are as successful as it is possible for them to be in relation to the stamping out of abuses of social welfare and I do not accept that fraud to the extent alleged in this article exists in the social welfare system. Neither do I accept that there is any widespread fraud as far as women recipients of social welfare are concerned.
Everybody recognises that expenditure on social welfare has been increasing very rapidly in recent years. The total expenditure on social welfare is now approximately £2½ billion a year. This represents about 25 per cent of current Government spending. In other words, £1 in every £4 spent by the State is spent on social welfare. This is the equivalent of approximately 14 per cent of the gross national product. It is in everybody's interest that this vast amount of money is well spent and that it goes to the people who rightfully need it. There is a perception that some claimants of social welfare are not genuine and in order to deal with that perception and so that it will be seen by the general public that there is not widespread abuse of the social welfare system and so that it will be seen that the money is going to the people who are properly eligible for it, the Joint Committee agree that strict accountability and control are necessary but the Joint Committee would not like to see too great an emphasis placed on control to the detriment of the service provided to the general public.
As a result of the recession and the increase in unemployment in recent years, many families find great difficulty in meeting their commitments and many families who, a few years ago, knew nothing about social welfare or about the social welfare system, are now very much part of the system and they have to depend totally on social welfare for their most basic requirements. The only money going into many households is provided by social welfare and, of course, this puts an extra burden on married women who have to try to make ends meet in a situation where they have no income other than what they receive through social welfare.
Social welfare also involves stress for recipients. Already they have the stress brought about by unemployment or by the difficult situation in which they find themselves, but there is the further stress of having to deal with social welfare officials some of whom — a minority I would say — can be insensitive at times to the situation in which those social welfare applicants find themselves. There is also the difficulty of understanding and coping with official forms and official communications. Very often those official forms and official communications are very complicated and it is beyond the capacity of ordinary individuals to deal with those forms, and the Joint Committee feel that all communications and correspondence to the general public in relation to social welfare should be written in a language that is simple and easy to understand.
There is also the problem that many people do not know what their entitlements are under the social welfare code. The joint committee agreed that there should be a booklet written in simple language, which the committee described in the report as a social welfare passport, which would outline particulars of the various schemes available and the conditions of eligibility for those schemes.
There is an increasing number of people who have to rely on charitable and voluntary organisations to supplement the payments they receive from social welfare because the general level of social welfare payments is inadequate. In the case of most payments, the level of payment is hardly sufficient to meet the basic needs of the individual or the family, and because of this fact unemployed women and mothers who are depending on social welfare are finding it increasingly difficult to cope.
There is also the problem that unemployed women are finding it increasingly difficult, too, to re-enter the workforce because there is a tendency on the part of many employers to give a preference to men when jobs become available and this leads to a situation where, in the case of women, they must exist in many cases for longer periods on social welfare payments than men.
There is another area with which the Joint Committee dealt and an area which causes quite a number of problems. That is the area of means testing. Many of the social welfare payments are means tested payments. The Joint Committee agreed that means testing today is not carried out in a uniform manner. Different criteria are laid down for different payments and the means testing is carried out by different officers. Neither is there any uniformity between the means testing and the method used by the health boards in assessing eligibility for medical cards or for the different schemes which are operated by the health boards and the means tests which are carried out by the Department of Social Welfare. The members of the Joint Committee felt that there should be a uniform system of means testing for all the various schemes so that when a person's means have been assessed for a particular scheme that he or she should be furnished with particulars of their means as assessed and that this should be sufficient for the various schemes irrespective of whether the individual is applying for a payment operated by the Department of Health or by the health boards or a payment operated by the Department of Social Welfare.
Another area which the Joint Committee examined in detail was that of living alone allowances. Senator O'Brien has already referred to the section of the report which deals with this. As Senators know, certain categories of social welfare recipients qualify for a living alone allowances and, if they are eligible for these allowances, they also qualify for other benefits, such as the free telephone rental allowance. It was the view of the committee that at the moment there is too rigid an interpretation of the term "living alone" or of the living alone condition. The committee agreed that somebody such as a relative, who does not reside permanently with the social welfare recipient but who might stay with that social welfare recipient at night, should not debar that social welfare recipient from receiving the living alone allowance and for qualifying for the other benefits which depend on a social welfare recipient being alone. We had evidence of cases where social welfare recipients lost their living alone allowance because of the fact that somebody such as a very young person — a grandchild, in one particular case — went to stay with that social welfare recipient at night. The person involved was an old age pensioner and that old age pensioner's living alone allowance was withdrawn as were the other benefits which that pensioner had been receiving up to then. The committee feels — and there was unanimity on this — that there should be a more flexible interpretation of the living alone condition.
As Senator O'Brien said, the committee went into considerable detail in the section which deals with women in the home. There are many women who have spent all their lives in the home either as housewives and mothers or as single persons caring for aged relatives. These people were referred to in many of the submissions received by the Joint Committee. It was the view of the committee that women in this category need greater support from the social welfare system than they are getting at present. It was also the unanimous view of the committee that dental and optical benefit should be extended to all such women.
The committee also felt that the single women's allowance, which is paid to single women between the ages of 58 and 66, is totally inadequate. There is also a very severe means test applied to applicants for this allowance with the result that many such women do not qualify for the maximum allowance. In fact it is only a minority of women who qualify for the maximum allowance. The committee felt that the single woman's allowance should be at least the same as the non-contributory pension for a widow without child dependants and that it should be paid at 55 years.
The prescribed relative allowance was also looked at. The condition which lays down that there should be no other adult in the household makes it very difficult for many pensioners to qualify for this allowance, because it is also laid down in the conditions that the prescribed relative must not be a married person. I would agree with everything Senator O'Brien said in relation to the prescribed relative allowance.
There is the situation where an incapacitated pensioner is being looked after and cared for by a daughter-in-law who has no blood relationship with the pensioner and yet that daughter-in-law is excluded from the prescribed relative allowance scheme and the pensioner cannot qualify for a prescribed relative allowance in respect of that daughter-in-law. The committee felt that this condition in relation to the prescribed relative allowance should be re-examined and relaxed because, were it not for the care and attention which is being given by persons who are described as prescribed relatives and were it not for the care and attention that elderly and incapacitated pensioners are receiving from such persons, then many of those elderly pensioners would require institutional care. This would be much more costly on the State.
We also dealt with the situation of older women. There was much evidence before the committee that many women, particularly women between the ages 60 to 66, the age at which women normally qualify for old age contributory or non-contributory pensions, have to depend on voluntary and charitable organisations to supplement their incomes. The Joint Committee would like to see the low levels of existing old age contributory and non-contributory pensions raised. They would like to see the qualifying age reduced progressively to 60 years.
Widows find difficulty in coping, particularly in the early years of widowhood. We gave particular consideration to those widows whose late husbands, because they were over 66 years and in receipt of old age pension, were also in receipt of allowance such as the free electricity allowance. Then on the death of the husbands their wives were not of pension age and consequently those allowances were taken from them. The members of the committee were unanimous in recommending that widows in this situation, under 66 years whose late husbands had been in receipt of free electricity allowance, should be allowed to continue to receive the free electricity allowance for a minimum period of at least two years. The members also agreed that women who had spent their lives in the home and who had given a lifetime of service in the home should be entitled to receive a non-contributory pension in their own right and should not be regarded as dependants of their spouses. At the moment they are regarded as dependants of their spouses. When their eligibility for old age pension is being assessed whatever income or pension their spouses might have is taken into account and such women in many cases do not qualify for old age pension in their own right. It was the view of the committee that such women should be entitled to receive an old age non-contributory pension and should not have the means of their spouses taken into account when being assessed.
Senator O'Brien also referred to the section of the report which deals with social welfare payments and the delay in processing claims for social welfare payment. The committee noted that the first annual report of the Ombudsman referred to the fact that almost half the complaints against Government Departments related to social welfare. The report also referred to the hardships which people suffered because of delays by the Department of Social Welfare in paying people. The committee were very unhappy about these long delays. While we understood that because of Government restrictions on the recruitment of staff certain sections in the Department are shortstaffed at present and that this is contributing to delays in processing of claims, we felt that the Government should make every effort to improve the overall staffing position in the Department either by relaxing the embargo on recruitment in the Department itself or by transferring officials from other Departments to the Department of Social Welfare. Only when this happens will there be a more speedy and efficient service available to social welfare recipients.
It would also help if decision-making powers were extended to local social welfare officers. At present the situation is that the majority of claims have to be referred to Dublin for a final decision. This leads to long delays. If decision-making powers were given to local social welfare officers the processing and payment could be speeded up considerably.
The committee also considered the inadequacy of the facilities available at many social welfare offices. Many social welfare offices are located in old buildings with no facilities for women who wish to bring their children with them when they have to attend these offices. The committee feel that the provision of such facilities in these offices is urgently required. They urge that priority be given to the provision of such facilities. The committee feel that there should be a better standard of accommodation in all employment exchanges.
On page 39 of the report the recommendations of the committee are set out. A total of 23 recommendations were put forward. I agree with Senator O'Brien that some of the recommendations have cost implications which in some cases are quite significant. However, the Joint Committee felt that they would not be dealing adequately with their brief were they not to make these recommendations. Other recommendations made by the committee have no cost implications and could, in the view of the committee, be dealt with fairly easily. If many of these recommendations were implemented they would give the social welfare system a more humane face particularly as far as women are concerned.
The committee spent many hours considering the various oral and written submissions which were received. They worked very hard on the preparation of this report and I was pleased to hear Senator O'Brien's favourable comments on it.
I should like to thank the committee members from this House — Senators Mullooly, Dooge, Fitzsimons, Higgins, Loughrey and Queally — together with their colleagues from the other House who have devoted so many hours to the problem of women's rights with particular regard to the social welfare code. All of us with active political constituencies where we meet many people every week agree that 25 per cent to 30 per cent of all problems brought to us at that level are related to how women are affected by the social welfare code. This is an indication of how discriminatory the code has been towards women, their entitlements under its various headings and the difficulties they have experienced in establishing their various rights under different headings. We welcome the fact that some changes have been made in this regard recently by way of legislation which will give women the same rights as men with regard to unemployment, the term in which they can be unemployed without being discriminated against and the level of payment made to them in their own right as adults and not just dependants of their spouses.
I am glad that this legislation has been brought through both Houses of the Oireachtas and I look forward to early action by the Minister for Social Welfare in bringing the necessary order before the House which will put the legislation into operation. I understand that there have been difficulties in getting agreement from various interests but we all accept that the overall interest of the beneficiary — in this instance the woman — should be our prime concern. I look forward to an early resolution of the problem which has precluded the Minister from signing the order bringing this legislation into effect.
Many headings in the social welfare code dealing with women have been addressed by this Oireachtas Joint Committee. They vary from the supplementary welfare code, the single women's allowance, widow's pensions, unmarried mothers' allowance, unemployment assistance, children's allowance, wives of pensioners, maternity services and all other areas of the social welfare code involving women. One of the problems pinpointed by the committee is that of means testing. Those of us who represent people who are subjected to the odium of means testing realise that a rationalisation of this system is necessary. A national contribution system of pensions for everybody, whether men or women, farmers or property owners, would be a way in which this problem could be overcome. The area of means testing women can be discriminatory. At present, whether or not they have access to their husband's assets or incomes, the law determines that they have 50 per cent of them. Some may be fortunate to have that amount or even more, but some may be unfortunate enough not to have any as a result of the male partner reneging on his responsibilities. Because of the system of means testing it is presumed that wives have access to 50 per cent of their husbands' income and are thereby discriminated against with regard to the Department of Social Welfare assistance schemes. This problem must be addressed. It can only be addressed if the Minister, who has given a commitment of intent to do so, brings in a national pay-related contributory pension scheme for everybody. This would eliminate all means testing because everybody would be a contributory pensioner. It would also do away with the anomaly of people divesting themselves of all their assets at a certain stage in their lives thereby qualifying for full non-contributory pensions and their families benefiting from the transfer of property. That is the way we have been implementing the scheme to date and that is what creates the problems then when it comes to means testing.
The single women's allowance, which was innovative when it was brought in, was introduced for the specific reason that in this country many girls stayed at home and were unable to go to work simply because they were required at home to mind the house, to look after the rest of the family or to look after elderly parents or sick mothers or otherwise. They had always been discriminated against until that scheme was brought in. I honestly feel that, on present trends and on the statistics available to us, that allowance should be paid at a much younger age than presently and should be paid at a level that would be equivalent to a pension or payment for unmarried mothers or widows or any other such category.
That particular category of women have given tremendous service in the home to their families and have been precluded from the normal facilities of being able to go to work and make their own contributions and qualify for their retirement pensions and so on. They have been forced through economic and humanitarian circumstances to remain in the home and have been penalised up to then. I hope that, on the recommendation of the committee, the Department and the Minister will address themselves to that category of person and how they are means tested. The single woman's allowance is paid to somebody who stands in the middle of the street without a roof over her head, with no income and no visible means of support. Anything from a pound upwards is counted in a means-testing situation. The Department have an extraordinary system of determining what is the benefit of living under a roof. It depends on who owns the roof at times, but certainly the interpretation of the value of being able to live in a house, whether it is yours or somebody else's, is extraordinary, to say the least of it.
It is a tragedy, too, that nowadays we are confronted with the problem of so many broken marriages and so many deserted wives who have difficulty in establishing their rights. There is much talk currently in the other House of the Oireachtas and in political groupings and in the country by way of opinion polls about how the Legislature should address this problem of marital breakdown. We dealt with that at length in the report from that committee. There is no doubt in my mind that the stresses and strains created on marriages by the State at times is sufficient to contribute to this problem. I have no doubt that the State has not addressed itself to its constitutional requirement to sustain the family unit where possible and to give it every help and assistance, guidance and succour.
Because of our inability as a State to do that, demands have been made on marriages which have created problems and stresses which have lead to marital breakdown and deserted wives. I am concerned about the trauma that these unfortunate women go through and I am more concerned about women who have been deserted than men who have been deserted. The larger percentage are deserted wives and they are usually left with the responsibility of the children and sometimes the responsibilities of the home by the deserting husband. The length of time it takes to convince the Department that a wife is deserted is, in my opinion extraordinarily long. She has to prove that she has made reasonable efforts to find him. She would not be claiming a deserted wife's allowance if she did not have difficulty in finding him. When she finds him, even if he is in another country, the Department will insist that she makes an effort to take out court orders and barring orders and orders for maintenance, involving all these traumatic procedures that many an Irishwoman does not want to resort to. She does not want to have the odium of going through a court procedure to get a declaration of responsibility of the husband. Even if she achieves this legally, nine times out of ten the husbands disregard the court findings and allow the women to be penniless.
She then has to turn to the supplementary welfare officer, who keeps on pressurising her every week that she goes to him and asks him for money to buy food for herself and her children and to do something about her claim. She is told "You will have to do something about it. We cannot continually be giving you money." I would like to remind the supplementary welfare officers that their code is specific; it is their job to look after people in difficulty, and women in this category are in difficulty. I know a lot of women at the moment who have problems in this area. I want to pay tribute to the Law Centre in Waterford which has been tremendously helpful to them in trying to advise them of their rights and how they should move to get their entitlements established. They are having tremendous difficulty and they are almost subject to abuse in the week when they have to come and get money to feed their children. That is an unfair system. It is very difficult. It is difficult enough for the woman as it is without having to go through all this bureaucracy that attaches to that allowance.
The deserted wive's benefit is much simpler possibly because the woman has already made contributions while she was in employment. She can claim from that and it makes the system that much easier. Where the woman has had no contribution the deserted wifes' allowance is quite difficult. The period of waiting for establishment of a claim is too long. Certainly, in this area I would ask the Department, having regard to the rules and regulations that they follow, to keep their hearts on the right side in this instance. Even if an allowance is granted in circumstances that afterwards cannot be justified, that would be a small price to pay to counter the hardship that women have to go through during this period.
The recent children's allowance increase — if you could call it that — in the budget is a movement towards a child benefit scheme. I welcome that and I am disappointed that the scheme which was announced in the programme Building on Reality has not come to fruition, because the sooner that payments are made from the Department directly to the mother in the home for her children and the sooner they are paid at a level that is commensurate with the responsibilities of looking after children in a home, the better I would like it. I hope that the Government will move forward in that area now that they have assessed the child benefit scheme in its own right and will ensure that the normal child allowance would not necessarily be benefiting the rich, as it is today, but that it would be channelled towards the poorer families, the families more in need and the larger families which have such a tremendous draw on their resources.
I would also commend the innovation of paying an allowance to the wives of prisoners, because before that came in they were literally deserted and had no income and were depending totally on supplementary welfare. Now they are treated, in the period in which the husband is away, the same as any unmarried mother or any widow.
The unmarried mother's allowance nowadays is being subject to critical analysis by people who are quite conservative in their outlook. There was a time when women who went through this trauma of being unmarried mothers were locked away in institutions. They were not psychiatric institutions; they were locked away in geriatric institutions and were expected to give a lifetime of service in that institution because they were unfortunate enough to have a child out of wedlock. The child was usually then adopted by the institution, but the person concerned lived out her life in that institution. Thankfully, that has changed over the past decade or so. I welcome it, because all of us were aware of these unfortunate people to whom this happened. The fact that the State recognised that they were one parent families was some help to them in that situation and allowed them the opportunity to keep their children. In spite of all that has been said about it, I am unaware of any great exploitation or abuses of the scheme or that women have further children so as to benefit from the income. Statistics might prove me wrong.
I would hope that in the whole area of women's affairs we have been moving towards equality for women. Women who wish to remain in the home should be supported; people who want to go to work should be allowed to do so. EC legislation ensures that there is equality for women in the workplace as well as in the home. Equality is coming into the level of payments women get at work. That is another department and is not dealt with in this report. We have been slow to move forward but there is no doubt that we have been making attempts to progress. I agree that reports such as this gives us a vehicle to say to the Department through the committee and the House that there are areas we want them to look at in particular.
Could I ask the Department particularly to look at the area of the appeals system in regard to women's unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and disability benefit? Unemployment benefit for a woman has been difficult to obtain up to now. She had to almost go down on her knees to prove her eligibility. When it came to unemployment assistance it was practically impossible. If you were a married woman it was almost assumed by the investigating officer that you were not available for work and they even had the audacity at times to say: "You are not making genuine efforts to get work." I could produce reams of letters from unemployed married women who are trying to get work and need to get work from employers who have no work available. Still the Department can suggest they are not making a genuine effort to seek employment. If they have children they almost have to get a sworn affidavit from the grandparents to say that they will mind the children or that other baby sitting facilities are available. A married woman who is unemployed has to go through much more red tape to prove her eligibility for unemployment assistance.
In the whole area of disability appeals I am dissatisfied with the autonomy of the medical referees in the Department of Social Welfare. I am dissatisfied that according to the regulations a medical referee or officer can give his opinion and because that medical officer was obliged to give an opinion under the regulations no matter how incorrect it may be on medical grounds and no matter how discriminatory that decision may be, it is almost impossible to change it. I have had to go to the most extraordinary lengths to prove that the medical evidence produced by the applicant was of such a substantial nature that anybody looking at the case could not but agree that the person was unfit for work. I had to produce X-Rays and medical evidence from all sorts of consultants.
I ask the Minister, in any future changes in the area of the social welfare appeals system where medical evidence is to be taken into account, that before a considered opinion is given by a medical referee or officer, that officer should have facilities to check the opinion he is giving, because X-Rays are involved and hospital reports are involved and the facilities available to the investigating referee are inadequate, just a room in some supplementary welfare officer's old brokendown courthouse with no facilities or equipment except what he may bring in a bag. Decisions were made which I have proved were medically incorrect. One I had to prove to the Ombudsman's office, after two years of pleading. I do not support cases that are not genuine. I know some people play the system. When you have a genuine case involving medical evidence which can be substantiated by independent medical referees and independent hospital facilities, consultants and X-Rays then the Department's officers should take those into account and not just their own opinions. I am putting that seriously to the Minister. It is an area we should address ourselves to. I am speaking from experience. The only way one can be critical of anything is from one's experience of how it works on the ground.
The total expenditure for the Department of Social Welfare is running at about £2½ billion a year. That represents 25 per cent of Government spending or 14 per cent of the gross national product, a lot of money. It is our job to ensure that it goes to the people most in need. One way to ensure that it is given fairly is to have a contributory scheme for people who will then have allowances and pensions in their own right. But while there is a differentiation involved in the system of analysing people's means, then there will be problems on the ground.
I commend the report to the House. I commend the members of the committee who have addressed themselves to the various problems. I hope sincerely that the Minister and the Department will take account of what our representatives on that committee found regarding anomalies in the implementation of the system of social welfare, particularly in relation to women.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the report of the Committee on Women's Rights because of the importance of social welfare to women. There are many anomalies and problems in the social welfare code but I want to begin my contribution by focusing on two areas and on those I wish to express the sharpest criticism of the Government that I can express from my position here. These are areas of flagrant, unlawful discrimination against married women. One is a discrimination that the Government are continuing despite their legal obligation to remove it. The other is a new discrimination against married women which the Government introduced. It is important when we are discussing a report of this kind to highlight these areas.
I will begin with the inexcusable failure of the Government to carry out their legal obligation under the EC to implement the third directive on equal treatment in social welfare. The third directive, as the House knows, was passed in 1978 by the Council of Ministers of the EC and member states got six years time lag to introduce that legislation. It was recognised that it was a complex area. That six years ran out on the 22 December 1984. The Government have still not fulfilled their obligations under that directive. The Bill was passed last July but it has not yet been brought into operation. The latest word given by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare in the course of the budget debate was that he hoped it might be done by June. What does that mean? It means that we have been flagrantly and unlawfully discriminating against married women for well over 12 months. We have been discriminating against married women to the tune of approximately £5 a week for those who are on unemployment benefit or disability. We have been discriminating in the length of time for which they can obtain unemployment benefit or disability because the period for married women, as the house knows, runs out after 312 days and for married men, single men and single women it is 390 days. That is a matter of £700 or £800 for a woman. She is being denied it.
Married women are still being discriminated against in not being able to avail of unemployment assistance. The conditions under which a married woman can avail of unemployment assistance are so restrictive that virtually no married women can avail of unemployment assistance. They are also discriminated against in relation to allowances. I would like to pose a question to the House. If it was some other group that was discriminated against in this way what would be the reaction? Let us begin with farmers. If farmers knew that under the EC regulations they were entitled to £5 more a week since December 1984, do you think they would not be gathered in their thousands outside picketing this House?
They do not get all they are promised either.
This is not a promise. This is a legal entitlement. It is different. Promises are promises. Legal obligations are legal obligations, and this is a legal obligation. It is very significant that, although various bodies such as the Employment Equality Agency — and, indeed, this report — refer to the lack of implementation of the directive, it is done in polite language. After all, these are only married women; it is not really serious. We are depriving them of what they are legally and properly entitled to, but there are administrative difficulties. It is a bloody disgrace.
I will now turn to the next matter, and that is the new discrimination which has been introduced by the Government. Under the provisions of the EC we are prohibited from discriminating on the grounds of sex, either in relation to pay or conditions of employment or social welfare. Yet the Government introduced a measure which is a very commendable measure in itself — the social employment scheme — a scheme to reduce the number of unemployed who are on the live register. The eligibility conditions for that scheme are directly discriminatory against married women. They cannot qualify for them because the eligibility conditions for participation in the social employment scheme are as follows; you must have been drawing either benefit or assistance for one year. You must, at the time you applied for social employment be drawing unemployment assistance. For two reasons married women cannot qualify for that. They cannot draw unemployment assistance, so they cannot be eligible under that condition. They cannot be on benefit for one year because they are cut off after 312 days maximum. Married women, unless they are in circumstances where they are separated from their husbands or in the very rare situation where the husband is incapable of work and financially dependent on them, cannot in any shape qualify for unemployment assistance, even if they satisfy the means test.
Therefore, we have a Government scheme introduced which is flagrantly discriminatory on the basis of sex and marital status against married women. Once again the matter has been raised. The Employment Equality Agency have drawn attention to it. Other bodies have drawn attention to it. It does not seem to matter because we are only dealing with married women. I noted that the Joint Committee on Women's Rights did refer to the fact that women do not have a real sense of equal entitlement in the area of social welfare. Why should they? What would induce them to feel that they had an equal entitlement when they are treated in this manner? I feel angry, and I am expressing myself in angry terms because I think the two areas that I have pointed out are quite unacceptable.
I would like to turn to other matters, some of them dealt with by the Joint Committee, but first some matters that were not expressly dealt with but which I think are important in looking at the way in which the social welfare code affects women. That is what we are looking at in debating this report. One issue which is not dealt with in the report is the operation of the so-called cohabitation rule. Very serious problems have arisen in the way in which the cohabitation rule is applied. This rule, as Members of the House will know, applies in relation to a wide number of benefits, almost all of them, all except the survivor's benefit, are benefits which relate to women. The effect of the rule is that the benefit or allowance is terminated if the woman is living with a man, if they are living together as man and wife. That is governed by the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act and by various regulations under that Act. It affects the deserted wife, the widow, the unmarried mother, the prisoner's wife. If the woman in question is living with a man then her allowance or benefit is terminated on that ground.
I would like to examine the basis of that. The only reasonable basis for termination of payment of the allowance would be because the man with whom the woman is living is supporting her. That is the logical basis, the only reasonable and rational basis, unless we provide to the State a role in punishing us for our moral conduct. Is it the case that the allowance or benefit is to be terminated because the woman is living with somebody to whom she is not married? That would be an absurd proposition. People may not approve of the conduct of living with a man to whom the woman is not married, but we have not got to the stage of imposing a financial penalty on that ground alone. We do not purport to do that, but that is what we are doing at the moment. Allowances or benefits are being terminated under this so-called cohabitation rule where there is no proof of any support or dependency payment or receipt of financial benefit by the woman in the particular circumstances. I know of a number of cases where the allowance or benefit has been cut off even though the man is himself in receipt of a single person's unemployment benefit so how could he be supporting someone else. Yet the fact that they are living together as man and wife is the factor that is taken into account in terminating the benefit.
I would ask the Minister to ensure that this matter is examined and that it is made clear that the only basis on which the cohabitation rule can be applied is proof of financial dependency, proof that the man in question is in fact supporting. The importance of this is that in almost all the cases where the woman is in receipt of the kind of allowance or benefit that we are talking about, there are children involved. You have this cruel circumstance where the mother and her children have their allowance or benefit terminated because she is having an affair with someone. This is in circumstances where there is no financial support from that person, yet that woman and her children are immediately placed at financial risk. What happens is that you have a whole covert operation by a woman who contorts herself in her sexual relationships in order not to pay the ultimate price of having her whole source of income cut off because of that relationship. That is something that warrants some serious attention and in a way I am surprised that it has not been dealt with in the committee's report.
There is a form of discrimination against unmarried mothers in relation to the payment of the unmarried mother's allowance. This was referred to by Senator Ferris in his contribution as being an important allowance. It was first introduced in 1973. It is an important allowance for single mothers and their children but, unlike the whole range of comparable allowances, there is no provision for a benefit. There is no unmarried mother's or single mother's benefit. Cherish and other organisations concerned with single parents have been making representations for more than a decade seeking to ensure that where a mother has been contributing and has been in insured employment so that she has accumulated the employment record to entitle her to a benefit she should be in a position to draw benefit if she was a deserted wife or a widow in comparable circumstances but for some strange reason for which there has never been a rational explanation there has been a consistent refusal by the Department to extend that to the unmarried mother.
I want to turn now to some of the areas that have been dealt with by the committee and in very large measure I agree with their comments. I want to turn first to the system of appeals, which is dealt with in chapter 13 of their report. They look at the appeal system and note that there is general dissatisfaction with it. They are right in their comments on it and in their call for a more independent element in the appeal system. I am surprised that they did not go further in a way in their examination and note that there is no appeal system established under the supplementary welfare system although the 1975 Act which established the supplementary welfare allowances provides for regulations establishing an appeal system. That has never been done. Why has this not been done? Why is there not a proper appeal system at all for supplementary welfare? They are the people in the greatest need. Certainly in so far as I have come in contact, and I have done so probably with increasing frequency, with people who have problems in the area of supplementary welfare, the way in which their so-called appeals are handled is appalling. They do not have any way of knowing how it is being dealt with. They have no way of knowing how long it will take and ultimately when they get a letter saying that their appeal has been refused they have absolutely no idea what the basis of that was. The rules or principles of natural justice do not impinge at all in this area. Yet these are people in the greatest need. These are people who because they are in the greatest need have applied for and in some manner or other been refused supplementary welfare allowance. I would hope that this is something that will be examined by the Commission on Social Welfare but I would add to the views expressed by the Joint Committee in relation to the needs for reform of the appeals system.
Another area I would like to highlight is the number of recommendations made by the committee in relation to the payment of deserted wife's benefit and indeed the whole approach to the payment of this benefit or allowance. I agree with the recommendations by the committee. The present requirement or rule that a women must establish that she has been deserted for a period of three months, that she has made efforts to locate or seek support from her husband, are an incredible hardship at a time when a woman is already coping with multiple problems — the problem of desertion itself, the problem of coping alone with children and the problem of coping with financial bills on her own. To put on top of that the very severe hardship of the three months rule and the burden of seeking the initial support from her husband have caused enormous hardship and I think it is something that should be dealt with. I would agree with the approach recommended by the committee. I think the burden of looking for support from the husband must be borne either by the Department or by a body established for that purpose as has happened in other countries and works much better and creates a much better possibility of obtaining more contributions from deserting husbands.
At the same time, the Joint Committee note, and it is correct in doing so, that it is not in all cases the husband who deserts, that there are cases where it is the wife who has deserted, leaving the husband with the care of children and that here we have no provision for a deserted husband's allowance. That matter, as Members may know, was tested in the courts but came up against the particular provision in Article 41 of the Constitution which recognises the special position of the woman in the home. That was sufficient not to allow a constitutional challenge to that discrimination to be mounted but that does not say it is something that should not be looked at and examined on its merits because if either spouse is deserted and left with the care of young children, then there is no rational or reasonable basis for distinguishing between them in relation to their needy circumstances for an allowance or indeed a benefit and the entitlement should be there regardless of sex. It should be part of and I hope will be part of the equal treatment which I have been talking about.
As I emphasised, I think this report brings home the reality of the significant importance of social welfare for women and indeed it ties it in to a considerable extent with the problem both of poverty in a real sense, the number of families in Ireland who live at or below the poverty line, but also the problems for families where there has been a sudden drop in income. Again under the general family relationships and cultural approach it is by and large the woman who is coping at the front line of trying to make ends meet, of trying to live on a very minimal income under our social welfare code. Yet, as I think has been evident from the report and indeed from the additional areas that I have raised, there is still not only evidence of anomalies and hardships under that code but also blatant and unacceptable discrimination. When a system so unfairly discriminates against a particular category it creates its own judgment on the kind of people against whom it is discriminating. It undermines their sense of their own worth and of their own standing in the community and of their own participation as a group. It is a matter of the utmost urgency that the blatant discriminations be removed forthwith and that the recommendations in the report be implemented.
I would like the Minister in his contribution, if he would, to give the House an indication of when the Report of the Commission on Social Welfare will be published. This commission was established in 1983. It certainly has been sitting for quite a period now. The area that it is dealing with is very complex and very detailed and it is understandable that it would take a considerable time for the committee to come up with recommendations, but the truth is now that we are running out of time. If the Commission on Social Welfare do not report very rapidly there will not be time to implement whatever recommendations they may make, particularly the priority recommendations which they may make.
The time lags for any kind of legislation are appalling. Take the time lag on illegitimacy. Even though there was a White Paper on it published last May we still have not seen a Bill. Take the time lag on the Child Care Bill which is at the moment in the other House. It was introduced last April. It has only just finished its Second Stage and we do not know when the Committee Stage will be ordered. If the Commission on Social Welfare come forward and I hope they will, with very radical proposals requiring reforming legislation, the time lags are going to be quite substantial and unless the commission report very rapidly they are not going to be within the lifetime of this Government. I would be deeply concerned that, where a Government take an important step and initiative of establishing a commission of that kind, they ensure the commission bring in their report in time for their recommendations to be put into practice. That is the point of establishing the commission. I would hope that that would be the effect of it.
With those words, I very much welcome the report and commend the Joint Committee for having highlighted this area in their second report. It has had a proper sense of priorities in doing that and I hope they will bring in many further reports to be debated in this House.
I welcome the second report of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights. The whole area of social welfare is a quagmire for most people. There are two differing attitudes towards social welfare recipients. There is the attitude of the people who are in receipt of benefits and the attitude of the people who are paying the taxes which provide the benefits. There is a huge conflict as between the attitudes of these two groups of people. We have a very high level of dependency on social welfare. We have a huge number of young people who are depending on benefits of one kind or another from the State and we have an increasing number of elderly people who are in receipt of benefits. There is a smaller number of people providing the benefits. Unemployment is growing and people who are at work are in some instances very critical of some of the benefits which are being given to people. They have the feeling that benefits are too high in many cases. They have the feeling that benefits are going to people who should not get them. They have the idea that there is wholesale fraud and that there is not enough monitoring of the social welfare system. But, of course, as between the two attitudes, there is the reality that so many people are in need of benefit and it is essential that we look after these people, that we maximise their benefits and that we give them as much information as is possible about the range of benefits to which they are entitled.
There is no doubt but there is a huge number of people who are entitled to benefits but for one reason or another, because of lack of communication or lack of education, they are not getting the benefits to which they are entitled. In many instances the blame for this can be laid squarely on the back of the Department of Social Welfare because communications from the Department of Social Welfare are not sent directly to the recipients in a manner in which the recipient would be capable of interpreting. Too often an increase or a change of benefit scheme is announced in such a manner that it would take a civil servant to read it and analyse where the increases or changes in benefit will take place.
Too often people who are in receipt of social welfare benefits have to put up with conditions which would not be put up with by anybody else in the State. These people find that sometimes they are treated as if they are not deserving of the benefits and that they should not be getting them, especially by civil servants. At times they are treated like cattle in cattle pens. In future I would hope that we would have proper training of civil servants who are going to deal with social welfare recipients, particularly social welfare applicants who go along for the first time to query their entitlement to benefits or indeed who go to sign for benefits of a particular nature. There are civil servants dealing with the public, with people who are very stressful at the time, and the civil servants have had no training in dealing with people of this kind. They have no training in the management of people who are under stress or in dealing with the problems associated with first time applicants for social welfare benefits. There is absolutely no doubt but that, unless there is a more humane attitude on the part of civil servants who are dealing with these people, we are going to have huge problems. It is easy to criticise the people who are dealing with the applicants but unfortunately because of their lack of training their attitude does not seem to be as sympathetic as it should be.
Some of the buildings throughout the country to which people have a go for benefits are deplorable,. We see people queueing in the open for hours, day after day, in all kinds of weather conditions. These are conditions which would not be put up with except by a vulnerable section of society who are totally dependent on social welfare benefits.
There is a need for very careful monitoring of the social welfare system to ensure that those who are in need get the maximum from the system and that only those who are entitled to benefit will get it. There are huge flaws in the administration of the social welfare system. It is a system which is archaic in its administration. It is the most archaic of Departments in the sense that it is unable to cope with the number of people who are becoming involved in the network. There is a need for decentralisation of the social welfare system and local social welfare officers should be able to monitor and to adjudicate on all of the benefits which are being applied for. In this highly technological age there is a long overdue need for a computer terminal in every city and town in the country. The cost would not be enormous but the benefits to the recipients would be enormous. There is nothing more frustrating for somebody who is entitled to social welfare benefit than ringing 786444 and asking for the benefits section number and being told to hold on and that that number is engaged. They may be ringing up to look for a cheque which is overdue. They have probably borrowed the money for the phone call and suddenly they are left hanging on this one single phone line which seems to have to deal with every benefit number in the UA and UB section. It is totally and utterly irresponsible for the Department of Social Welfare to have so few people manning these lines. I do not know how many lines are attached to 786444 but obviously there are too few. There is no doubt in my mind but that the telephone system within the Department of Social Welfare in all sections is totally inadequate. It is not cost effective either because there are too many people trying to get through at the one time. I do not think a proper job is being done when an emergency arises and this is when the person down the country rings up trying to find out where their cheque is. They probably have run out of credit in their local shop, they have no money in their pockets, they have not enough money to get their lunch, they have not enough money for their tea and they have nothing for the children in the house. It is all right for the civil servant in Dublin to say that the computer is down today or the cheques were delayed but that will not do the person down the country who has not a single penny in his pocket.
Since this report deals with women's rights there are a number of areas where women's rights have not been addressed in the social welfare system. One could go on all day addressing oneself to various aspects. I am glad the report says there is a stigma attached to the appellation "deserted wife" and that there should be some other way of describing people who, in 99 per cent of cases, through no fault of their own have lost their husbands through desertion.
The system of adjudication on deserted wifes' benefits is atrocious. Women are put through enormous trauma because they are queried about irrelevancies by social welfare officers who go along to check whether they are entitled or not entitled to benefit. It takes three months before anybody is entitled to deserted wife's allowance even though the social welfare officer at local level knows very well that the husband has gone, that there is no hope of his coming back and of the deserted wife getting anything from him. The burden is thrown immediately on to the community welfare officer to provide the means to help out that family in their hour of need. There is a long delay. The attitude of certain social welfare officers towards these deserted wives is one of suspicion and this suspicion creates more stress.
