I begin my contribution by acknowledging the deep debt of gratitude we owe to so many people who have been instrumental in providing us with this report. I would like to thank Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, Chairperson, and the Deputy Chairperson, Deputy Barnes. Also, Mr. John Cullen, Clerk to the Joint Committee, and Miss Flanagan, for their help in preparing the report. In addition, we should not forget the many people who gave evidence and help in various other ways.
I was glad to be a member of this committee but I am afraid I owe an apology for my non-attendances. I mentioned before that it is not easy to attend these committees and also to take part in the business of this House. The meetings were mostly held on Wednesdays which made it difficult for me to attend. I am sure there would be many other people in that position also. I hope in the course of my contribution to refer to some of the matters dealt with in the report. I should also like to refer to some matters which are not contained in the report but which I feel should be. I welcome the recent development in the golfing organisation where apparently the discrimination against women has been eliminated. I gather from reports that everybody is not totally happy with the situation but it is a memorable achievement, particularly when we consider that the golfing organisation is an élitest one. It is extraordinary to think that so late in the day this development took place. I would have expected that in such a situation this would have been done a very long time ago.
This report is divided into many sections. These sections by and large were determined by the people who made submissions to the committee. If we are to determine by the number of pages the importance of the different areas maternity services with four pages would seem to be the most important and next the deserted wife's allowance which takes up three and a half pages. I am not too sure if that would be a proper way of coming to a conclusion about this. The members of the committee would agree that there were three areas that took most of the time. These were women in the home, children's allowances and deserted wives. This is not an in-depth study. The report on page 48 states:
In conclusion the Joint Committee wishes to state that its examination of the existing social welfare code was not an in-depth study, focussing on every conceivable aspect of what is a vast and complex system; rather was it an exercise in identifying those areas that were the cause of concern and worry to people who took time and effort to make submissions. These were in the main social welfare recipients and concerned groups and organisations working on their behalf. Having identified the problem areas, the members hope that the Government and particularly the Minister for Social Welfare will apply their energies to eradicating them, and in the process improving the overall image and efficiency of the social welfare system. The members of the Joint Committee submit that by adopting the recommendations and suggestions in this report the Minister for Social Welfare will go a long way in achieving these desirable aims.
It is most important to keep that in mind. I feel there are many people who would not be happy that it goes far enough but at least it will go some of the way and an important part of the way.
Many organisation and groups did not make submissions. A total of 132 submissions were received. This I understand was in response to advertisements in the newspapers. The question must be asked if this is sufficient, as some important organisations did not make submissions. Perhaps consideration should be given to contacting directly all those groups which the committee feel would or should make submissions. In the newspapers in recent weeks we have read of the amount of money that is paid to unmarried mothers. A figure of £31 million for 12 months was mentioned. There was a criticism implied or suggested in the reporting which I, would take exception to. In that respect it is unfortunate that we did not get submissions from the organisations who were concerned with the unmarried mother. Two of these organisations are the Federation of Services for Unmarried Parents and their Children and Cherish — two organisations who have done so much in this area and whom I should like to compliment. With regard to asking groups to make submissions these two should be the first that the committee would ask. However, submissions were not received.
I should like to deal briefly with the problem in this area and to give my views on the recent reports in the media. There is no doubt that we have a growing problem. Nobody would question that. Perhaps I could quote the statistics over the last ten years from 1973 for illegitimate births: in 1973 the number was 2,167; 1974, 2,309; 1975, 2,515; 1976, 2,545; 1977, 2,879; 1978, 3,003; 1979, 3,337; 1980, 3,723; 1981, 3,914; 1982, 4,358; 1983, 4,517 (provisional); and 1984, 5,030 (provisional).
We see from the above table that these figures are rising all the time. The total is 40,297. During that period the adoption orders amounted to 14,578. If we take the adoption orders from the total number of illegitimate births we arrive at a figure of 25,719. The total number of unmarried mothers who are in receipt of benefit for that period was 10,309. It is interesting to note that of the 25,719 mothers who apparently kept their children over the past ten years only 10,309 of them are now getting the allowance, that is 40 per cent. Therefore, 60 per cent of the unmarried mothers are not drawing social welfare — for what reason I do not know. Presumably many of the fathers are responsible and are living up to their commitments. It is important to keep that in focus.
With regard to the unmarried mother I believe that is a transient state. There is no statistical information available to show the number of unmarried mothers who get married. Generally it would be regarded as a transient state. Those people who are making comments in the media are not making them on statistical information because this is not available in detail. Some numbers are available. Comments are being made on snippets of information and the focus seems to be very much on social welfare. We must remember there are others drawing social welfare, and properly drawing social welfare, like deserted wives. I fail to see why the concentration should be on the area of the unmarried parent. I certainly feel that you do not address this problem by mudslinging or in a way that could bring pain to so many people.
It has been stated a number of times in this House that there are young people and teenagers who see the state of the unmarried mother as the only way of getting an identity. This has been stated categorically before. The information and statistics that we have show that this is an area which gives some cause for concern. I agree with that. This is a way that gives the individual an identity. It is the system that must be attacked and must be changed, not the individuals. A young person under 18 years of age does not qualify for any State allowance and, in the case of an unmarried mother, until the baby is born there is no entitlement. There are many anomalies in the social welfare system which need to be cleared up before we reach the stage where we can identify people for criticism. There are many people who would get married but they are better off in that situation. There is no question about that. There are many unmarried mothers who would get married but they realise that by getting married they would be in a worse situation and particularly if they were the wives of unemployed husbands.
In the area of housing some progress has been made for the unmarried parent. Allocations of low demand housing, houses that might not be readily accepted by others have been made. No group in society should be put in a ghetto situation. All the different people should be spread throughout our society. We have a problem which was referred to yesterday evening in this House by the Minister for Justice that, with regard to our planning and development, much remains to be done and there is a lot to be desired in this area. Until recently houses built by local authorities had three or four bedrooms. These are not suitable for small families. They are not needed by small families and they are unsuitable in particular for the unmarried mother. Smaller houses would be adequate and proper. In this area much remains to be done.
Even though the figures are growing and even though some people regard them in a serious light, I feel that the situation does not threaten the traditional family, the nuclear family as it is called. If society feels that the nuclear family is the proper unit, society will not be threatened in this situation. I firmly believe that oldfashioned love will continue to have a place in married life where two people are committed to one another, to helping one another and to living together for the rest of their lives. I have referred before to the stigma of the unmarried mother and I say now, as I said on many occasions, that I believe by and large this stigma is disappearing. I am glad it is disappearing.
I have always felt that the stigma was imposed by society because it was felt that the proper way to bring up children was in the family situation, where a father and mother would look after their children as best they could. Therefore, society ostracized or stigmatised those people who did not comply in this regard. There was also the property aspect to it where property and inheritance meant so much and this probably had some part to play in it as well. In any event, while some people rightly deplore the fact that the stigma has not left us altogether, nevertheless great strides have been made and greater strides will be made. By and large we have come to the stage where people are regarded as human beings with their own free will and free choice who will do their best in their own situation. This stigma is, in my estimation, a thing of the past. Whatever remains of it is going rapidly.
Great strides have been made in the area of eliminating discrimination against women. Twenty years ago I was drawing up plans for a public house and there was a consultation as to whether snugs should be included in the plans. Everybody from the rural areas will remember the snugs attached to the public houses. They were mostly for women so that they could enjoy a drink furtively. Even now it would seem that they belong to past ages. It was only 20 years ago that I was involved in a situation where a serious decision had to be made as to whether to retain this outdated method of allowing women to take a drink. Women had to look around them before they entered a public house to see would anybody notice them going in and then go furtively into the snug, close the door and get their drinks through a little hatch. Progress has been made and I welcome that. Reference was made to affirmative action in the report on education of the joint committee. I think more could be done in this regard. I cannot see any evidence that notice is being taken with regard to affirmative action. Affirmative action means that areas where it is possible to legislate positively in favour of women should be looked at in all the legislation that goes through.
Regarding legislation passing through this House, there is no evidence that the advice of the committee with regard to affirmative action has been taken seriously. I understand that these things take a long time and move rather slowly. Affirmative action is an area where great progress could be made — to look at all the Acts, to look at regulations, to look at all the legislation going through and to see where we could legislate positively in favour of women. I pay tribute to the many voluntary organisations who do such magnificent work, without them it is hard to visualise how many people would make ends meet. I am aware that in recent years many people who would be considered middle class, and who might be considered to be people of means, have gone — and are going — to those organisations for help. These are organisations like the St. Vincent de Paul society, the Simon Community, the Salvation Army and so on. There are so many people who give their time generously and freely and do such marvellous work without thanks or appreciation.
I believe that mothers and women have had the most difficult role. Woman is destined for a very difficult role. It was the mother who had to stay at home to look after the children, to meet the rent collector when the money was not there to pay the rent and the grocer. It was the mother who had to endure these hardships. It is appropriate that we should be dealing with those matters that affect mothers, and women generally, in this report. I was working in Dublin in the late fifties, at that time the ESB were advertising about all the ways and gadgets they had for reducing work in the home and making it easy and simple in order to help women. I remember passing by ESB showrooms and seeing women on their hands and knees washing the floors and it did not make sense to me. I hope that progress has been made in that regard.
I was also touched on a number of occasions by women who approached me about having enough means for a decent burial. I thought it rather sad. Most of them had spent useful, hardworking lives and here they were at the end of their days concerned about having enough money for a decent burial. I suppose their own dignity was at stake. They were concerned about not placing a burden on their families. I know many women, including my mother, who paid a small insurance premium in order to have enough money for a decent burial. It is pathetic that after a long life, all of these people would have no means whatever and were worried that there might not be enough money to bury them. Looking at it objectively and unsympathetically I do not know of anybody who was left unburied because they did not have enough money. However you cannot comfort an elderly person in that way. Perhaps this is an area where some help could be given.
The report on education of the joint committee referred to the concern and interest being shown by many groups and individuals regarding the role and status of women in society today. One area which has been increasingly impinging on the lives of women is social welfare. Many women, through force of circumstances feel dominated by this system and totally dependent on it to meet their day-to-day needs. The report identifies, like so many other reports, that the most serious problem facing the country is unemployment. The opportunities for women to earn money are diminishing all the time especially in the better paid jobs. Many employers exacerbate an already bleak situation by using the recession as an excuse for not employing women who are qualified and able to work.
I defend the right of the married woman to work, it is only proper that no individual who has a talent and wants to use that talent should be denied the right, but it is difficult in a situation where we have so much unemployment. At present the figure is in the region of 240,000 and growing. Taking that figure in conjunction with the various schemes that are designed to provide employment, albeit on a temporary basis, the number of people who have emigrated gives us some indication of the problem in this area. The Government in the national plan Building on Reality set out a target of unemployment to be below 200,000 by the end of 1987. The report refers to this as unacceptably high, nevertheless it is getting higher all the time. There is no way that this can be brought down to the figure anticipated in the Government plan.
I made a case with regard to employment and the crisis of change, that some fundamental change would be made in relation to work from what is known as the Protestant work ethic. I believe this area is being investigated at present but not enough progress has been made. We will have to reduce the unemployment figures and have a different approach to employment and the future of work. We will have to regard community work, leisure and many other areas as coming within the terms of employment. Only in this way will we reduce the unemployment figure. Certainly where women are concerned it is most important that this be reduced. Otherwise, as the report points out, we will have a larger number of people dependent on social welfare and women will be well represented in that number. I think it would be true to say that women will out-number men in that situation.
The joint committee examined submissions made by various groups and there were many written submissions from individuals. The areas where people are experiencing difficulties as detailed to the committee are dealt with under various paragraphs in the report. The joint committee put all those problems on record. They are in condensed form and I made the case before that perhaps for those who are particularly interested in areas of any report that the full submissions should be available in some way as an appendage or separately. I will make this plea in passing that the full submissions would be available to interested people. The joint committee hope that they will evoke reasoned discussion among all those involved in the administration of the social welfare system, to ensure a more efficient and streamlined system geared to help and maintain the dignity and well-being of one of the least favoured sections of society, that is those dependent on social welfare. I understand that reference has already been made in the House to a more comprehensive report which will be available in the next few months in this area and I look forward to that. I also look forward to the opportunity to bring forward some of the matters raised in the report which hopefully will be taken into consideration before that report is debated here.
Women in the home was one area that came in for serious and long discussion by the committee. The position of the woman who has to remain at home, whether as a housewife and mother or a single person living alone or caring for an aged relative, was referred to in many of the submissions made to the joint committee. We all know that this is a most onerous and demanding role where great sacrifice is involved. In passing it would be no harm to refer to homes and in many cases these would leave much to be desired. There are homes in Ireland at present which do not have hot and cold water or bathrooms and in that respect I welcome the 1985 reconstruction grant scheme which I hope will do much to relieve that situation. We should remember that there are many women particularly who because of this, and also because they are living in cramped conditions, have been living under stress for most of their lives. That is something that should be realised. There are many women in this category who are in need of greater support from the social welfare system.
The report refers to Article 41 of the Constitution. It states that their treatment belies the status conferred on them under this article. Article 41 of the Constitution refers to the family and article 41.2º states as follows:
The State, shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
It seems to me that this is what might be regarded as a pious platitude because at present there are many young married couples, where the wife has to work to pay the mortgage. The wife works not by choice and they cannot start a family but they are in this situation where the husband and wife have to work to pay their mortgage. Article 41.2º must seem very hollow to them when it states: "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home." They have to do this. I feel that when a new Constitution is being drawn up meaningless sections such as this would be eliminated. Something is stated in the Constitution, and we rightly regard the Constitution as of great importance, but in fact the opposite is taking place. I know of many situations where the wife has to work and where there is no alternative. I would also feel that the stresses imposed on young married couples through having to work to pay high mortgage rates is sowing the seeds for family breakdown. I simply mention that in passing. The report refers specifically to Article 41 of the Constitution and I am making the case that for many young people in this State Article 41 is meaningless.
The joint committee would like to see the extension of dental and optical benefit to all women who choose or have to remain at home. The committee in the first report on education referred to this specific problem and we were very pleased to note that under the terms of the 1985 budget the benefits were to be extended to pregnant women on their husband's PRSI contributions. It was hoped that this would be the first step in the wider application to all women in the home. It must be remembered, with regard to unemployment, that there are many women whose husbands do not pay PRSI contributions and therefore many of them are outside the scope of this scheme. It does seem wrong. I realise the problems with regard to providing finance but nevertheless I believe optical benefit should be available to all women. Indeed, I would imagine in particular it should be available to all who remain at home and do such important work, as specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
With regard to the single woman, her allowance is payable between the ages of 58 and 66 years. The allowance which is payable in that time is inadequate. The committee described it as "totally inadequate". I would concur with that. I believe that as little as £1 is taken into consideration by the Department of Social Welfare in assessing the situation and many single women after a long lifetime of looking after a family or caring for a relative find themselves alone and with very little financial support. In the past, a woman who looked after the family, who had a commitment and made a choice in remaining single to look after the family, did heroic work. Nobody would deny that. It is particularly unfortunate that there should be discrimination against such women.
The report tells us that too many of them end their days in hardship and poverty. This is a poor reward for a life of loyal service to the family unit and, indeed, to society in general because society benefits. The joint committee recommend 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 of age. I believe that the committee are not asking for too much and this would not be a very great burden on the State.
Senator Michael Higgins dealt with the prescribed relative allowance, payable to an incapacitated pensioner who is receiving full time care and attention from a prescribed relative. Many groups made submissions to the committee that the conditions applying to the prescribed relative are in need of urgent change. The requirement that there should be no other adult in the household makes it difficult in many cases for the carer to take a well deserved holiday or break. A break of this kind and a holiday is very necessary for somebody who is carrying out such an onerous and difficult task.
The committee felt that there is no justification for retaining this requirement and they recommend that it be abolished. They also felt that the requirement that the prescribed relative must not be a married person should be re-examined by the Department of Social Welfare. In very many cases the most suitable person to act in this capacity would be married. The committee felt that in such cases the Department should adopt a more flexible position.
The members also felt that the spouse of an incapacitated pensioner should be regarded as a prescribed relative. This would result in a wider and a more humane interpretation fo the term "prescribed relative". It would also be a means of encouraging old people to be cared for in their home environment. Great play has been made about this in recent times and I certainly do not want to use the opportunity to refer to it in a party political sense. I feel that it is important that people would be cared for in their home environment. Here is one simple way, not an expensive way, in which this can be furthered. I hope that when the Minister is looking at the report and the recommendations, which are very neatly tabulated at the end of the report, this will be taken into consideration and the importance of the home environment realised. I personally know of many elderly people — I speak mainly of women — who were taken into an institution and seemingly, because of the change, because of the new faces, the conditions and the different environment and ambience, they appeared to become senile and started raving and day-dreaming. I know of such people being taken back into their own environment and becoming normal again. Even in my area of the non-expert, I see the importance of letting people end their days cared for and as happy and as contented as can be in their home environment. Otherwise the report points out that many of them would require institutional care which would cost the State far more.
The extension of the free telephone rental allowance to those who are caring for incapacitated relatives should be sympathetically considered by the Department of Social Welfare. This is again something that should be looked at with great sympathy. Elderly people who qualify for the free telephone rental allowance very often have a problem with the installation charge. When looking at this area perhaps the Minister might consider if some help could be given in the many cases of dire hardship and in particular where people might live in remote areas.
The deserted wife allowance has been referred to by many Senators and I am not going into it in any great detail. It is an area where great sympathy is required and great help. All of us in our functions as public representatives know of the great problems in this area. The report pin-points unemployment, inadequate housing, alcoholism and drug addiction as just some of the factors which contribute to marital discord. The inability of couples to cope with these problems results very often in desertion by either the husband or the wife. With increased stress and the growing problems in the world it does seem that this problem is going to escalate. It is acknowledged by sociologists that women are most vulnerable to poverty and deserted wives constitute one group to which the word "poverty"' can be unreservedly applied. That is a statement with which we would all agree.
The traumatic experience referred to by Senator M. Higgins is something that only the individual woman concerned can fully comprehend. I suppose I could also say in passing that to some extent this would be alleviated if divorce were available. But at that stage in the breakdown of a marriage relationship, it is something that does not immediately come to mind. As I stated before it is very easy to understand the problem when we walk into a home and meet a wife with a young family who has been deserted by her husband. We see the personal problem. The husband will never return and she is not legally entitled to marry again. Certainly, in such a situation we must have deep understanding and concern and realise that this case can be multiplied by I believe 70,000 people. Those who are opposed to divorce feel that if divorce were available, many more other problems would surface which would lead one to the conclusion that the problem is even greater than appears on the surface.
We must have great concern in this area. Under the existing regulations a wife must be deserted by a husband for at least three months and must not be receiving financial assistance from her husband, either for herself or her children, in order to qualify for the benefit. The report states that she must make what is described as "reasonable" efforts to trace her husband and to obtain support and maintenance from him for herself and her children. This reminds me very much of the conditions which applied in the old workhouse system prior and during the famine when many women and their children who tried to get into the workhouses were refused because they would not make a case against their husbands, whereby the husband could be brought to court. They refused to do that and for that reason they did not qualify and were not taken into the workhouses. The deserted wife must now wait three months before she receives the stipulated benefit.
This obligation to make efforts to trace the husband places an intolerable imposition on the deserted wife. Some husbands just vanish without trace and others may have been very violent. The report states — very understandably — that the wife might be reluctant to try to contact him. Indeed, reading between the lines, I would say the more religiously inclined of the women might be praying that the husbands would never return and it would be a Godsend if they did not return. The committee felt that the evidence of the social worker should be accepted by the Department of Social Welfare as proof of desertion. This is something that again nobody could take exception to. This would be very pertinent in the cases of the violent husband that I have referred to before and whose wife might be in physical danger if she tried to trace him, or if he did return.
The joint committee feel that the benefit should be backdated with effect from the date of desertion. Also, in the case of a deserted wife who is under 40 years and without a family, they believe that she should be paid the allowances for a limited period. This would enable her to get special training to cope with her new position and to cope with the traumatic experience of desertion, because it is a unique experience — this feeling which a woman must have when she is deserted by a husband. In effect, he is saying that be no longer needs her and she is left to fend for herself. It is a very callous thing for any man to do so and we must have the greatest sympathy with a woman faced with that intolerable situation.
Wives who succeed in getting maintenance payments from their husbands often find that the payments may become erratic or cease altogether. Many social workers have suggested that maintenance payments made on foot of court orders should be tied in with the social welfare payments. I understand that to mean that the money or the allowance should be collected by the State and paid with the social welfare benefits. This is a very good idea and the committee feel that it is worthy of serious consideration.
The majority of desertions are by husbands but the reverse can and does happen. The social welfare code makes no provision for payment of an allowance to a deserted husband. The joint committee felt that this is a discriminatory practice and it makes the recommendation that a deserted husband should be paid an allowance similar to that paid to a deserted wife.
Finally, with regard to the deserted wife, the joint committee agreed unanimously that the term "deserted wife" is derogatory and demeaning of woman and that it should be abolished. This has been referred to previously by Senator Andy O'Brien. I would agree with his view that it is difficult to see what improvement the term "abandoned spouse" is, except, I suppose, that it could cover the husband. But it still seems an unsatisfactory description except from the point of view it is not discriminatory. The practice of having the letters "DW" on the front of envelopes issuing from the Department of Social Welfare should cease. This is certainly considered to be an infringement of a woman's right to privacy. Indeed, it is a cause for some shame, I believe, in many situations.
I would agree with the abolition of the term "deserted wife". But again, like Senator O'Brien, I would not be totally happy with the term "abandoned spouse".
The EC equality legislation directive 97/9 has already been referred to. The committee recommended, of course, that payment will be made in retrospection. This is dealt with on page 37. It is unfortunate that this legislation has not yet been put into effect for the reason that the Department have not got sufficient staff. I acknowledge that there is a problem with regard to finances but it does seem a very lame excuse for reneging on a commitment in this respect. I know there will be anomalies when this matter is incorporated and these have been referred to. I do not want to go into it in any great detail but the committee expressed disappointment at the delay on the part of the State in introducing the legislation. They recommended strongly that retrospective payments be made to women who would have been entitled to benefit from the terms of the EC directive of 22 December 1984, the date on which the member states of the EC were directed to comply with the terms of the directive. There is no way in which effect will be given to this and that is unfortunate and wrong. It has been highlighted already but I think it is one of the areas to which the Minister should give priority in considering this report.
The report deals fairly comprehensively with older women. This is proper. They will have passed the time of their lives when they were useful. It is right and proper that we should remember their work and remember the contribution they made to the State and the society. Strong representations were made to the joint committee regarding the plight of women living alone and trying to exist on low pensions. Very many women retire early, some at 60 years of age and earlier. The interval between retirement and qualification for State pensions, normally six years later, can be a time of very severe hardship. Keeping in mind the cost of essential items, foodstuffs, clothing and in particular heating which is most important where elderly people are concerned, the committee state that it is not surprising that so many people have to depend on the voluntary and charitable organisations to supplement their income. I have already referred to the importance of the voluntary organisations. It is shameful and wrong that these people, most of whom have made a valuable contribution to the State, have to turn to voluntary organisations. All of us in public life realise the very many people of all classes who are dependent on voluntary organisations. It would not happen years ago but people now have to swallow their pride and try to live. The Government should feel indebted to all these voluntary organisations.
The Government have indicated in the national plan that they intend to publish the framework of a national pension plan which, among other things, will raise for consideration the standard of income which the community considers to be reasonable and acceptable for pensioners and the extent to which it is prepared to commit resources for that purpose. The committee point out that this is very long term. They would like to see the levels of existing old age contributory and non-contributory pensions raised and the qualifying age reduced to 60 years. The committee realise that there will be serious cost implications. They are of the opinion that a commitment to reduce the qualifying age should be made now to ensure a minimum level of comfort at least for single retired women who are living alone — possibly the most vulnerable section of our community. The joint committee hope that the commission's recommendations will lead to a big improvement in the situation of women in this category.
Representations were made on behalf of very many women who are in receipt of widow's pensions, contributory and non-contributory. The financial position of most of these women who have the sole responsibility for managing a household on a very limited budget is precarious. An ever increasing number have to try to supplement their meagre pensions by having recourse to charitable organisations. This is something I have referred to on a number of occasions. It seems to debase women. Women in this situation cannot cope with the added responsibility placed on them through widowhood. The joint committee would like to see their pensions raised to a realistic figure to ensure that they can provide some modicum of comfort for themselves and their families. Widows whose husbands died over 66 years of age, if they themselves are under that age, are deprived of some allowances such as free electricity. The committee members were unanimous in recommending that widows in this situation with no other income and looking after a family should be allowed free electricity for a minimum period of two years.
The position of some women over 66 years of age who remained at home and whose husbands have retired on pension, whether State-funded or otherwise, was referred to in the submissions made to the committee. Concern was expressed at the plight of these women who are totally dependent but not always adequately supported by their spouses. Members from their work as public representatives are familiar with this situation. Quite a sizeable number of women in the country are involved. The committee members agreed unanimously that after a lifetime of service in the home these women should be entitled to receive a non-contributory old age pension in their own right and not be regarded as dependents of their spouses.
The living alone allowance has been mentioned by a number of Members. It is paid to old age pensioners over 66 years of age. It amounts to only £3.20 per week. Some members of the joint committee were shocked when, in the course of their public duties, they learned that the allowance had been discontinued to some pensioners who had asked a relative or a friend to remain with them at night time only. Senator Michael Higgins referred to the present climate of fear and nervousness which was exaggerated by the media following the recent spate of attacks on old people before the issue of the report. These elderly people would feel more secure in their homes if they had the company of a relative or a friend at night time. Many elderly people did look to have the company of a grandchild, or a relative or a friend, particularly those who resided in remote rural areas.
The committee made the point to the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare when he attended one of his meetings that there seemed to be a too rigid interpretation of the term "living alone". The committee hope that these old people will no longer be penalised financially as a result of taking wise and proper precautions for their own protection particularly when the amount involved is only £3.20, a very small and inconsiderable sum. It was the unanimous view of the members of the joint committee that, in the present circumstances, relatives such as grandchildren should be encouraged to stay with old people living alone in isolated areas, particularly during the hours of darkness. In the situation we are talking of the winter months; we are talking of the cold period, a time when fires are needed. The extra finances are required to purchase fuel. This again should be taken into consideration for a very small outlay of £3.20 per week.
Earlier I paid a tribute to inspectors in many areas of the State services who turn a blind eye to some inconsequential item for the advantage of the individual. More discretion should be given in this regard. This also was referred to by Senator Michael Higgins. This is one area where greater discretion should be allowed to the officers of the Department in making a decision. We are dealing with human beings and while the cost to the State is minimal the benefit to the individual concerned is great. In many cases it might represent the difference between life and death. Certainly in many cases it would be the difference between that individual continuing to live on his own or going into institutional care which would cost the State far more.
With regard to accommodation, submissions made to the committee led us to realise that facilities provided in the majority of social welfare offices and employment exchanges located throughout the country were appalling and totally unacceptable today. Many of us know that this is so. When I am passing by the unemployment exchange in Navan I see many men and women lined up outside on the public street, open to the wind and rain. That is wrong. This matter was brought up many times before and it is unfortunate that better provisions are not made for those who are obtaining social welfare. It is wrong that people should have to queue up on the street. In reality there does not seem to be much sense in asking people to queue up to sign that they are available for work when we know that work is not and will not be available. I understood that people had to sign less often. That may be so, but from my experience passing by the social welfare office in Navan and seeing people queueing up it does not seem that any great improvement has been made. That is wrong.
Social welfare offices, in particular, are often located in very old buildings with the minimum of accommodation and present an appearance of neglect and dilapidation that can only have a depressing effect on those who have to use them. It must be very depressing to have to queue up for so long in the open to indicate by signing that one is available for work that many of them will never get. Many women find it necessary to bring their children with them when they have to attend these offices and this adds to their frustrations and difficulties at a time when they are likely to be in low spirits. The provision of facilities, such as a playroom for young children, is an urgent requirement in such offices and their absence is a further indication of the neglect on the part of officialdom of the particular needs of mothers. This is also a further reason why the provision of child care facilities should now be a priority with central and local government. It has a very low priority. Some suitable buildings have been erected in a few areas but the majority of them are old and unsuitable for the purpose. The Joint Committee would like to see an accelerated effort on the part of the Department of Social Welfare in establishing more modem accommodation which will provide a pleasant and congenial atmosphere in which people, and staff, can conduct their business. I wonder how far away this is.
It was important that the Joint Committee should highlight this but I feel that it will have a very low priority. It was felt by the members of the committee that branch managers could do a lot more about providing a better standard of accommodation and improving the appearances of employment exchanges throughout the country. I know that on one occasion there was resentment by a branch manager that I had criticised a certain office. I had not intended any criticism of the manager. I realise that in his capacity the manager was doing all he could. While the conditions may be deplorable, nevertheless, many branch managers do their best.
Children's allowances was another problem that took up a considerable amount of the time of the committee. It was pointed out that the level of payments in Ireland is the lowest among the countries of the EC. The monthly allowance in many cases constitutes the only money that a mother can regard as her own. There was general agreement among the members that it was time to increase the rates particularly with a view to helping the less well-off families in the community. It was correct that the committee should be concerned about this. The response to the family income supplement scheme has been, to put it mildly, very disappointing. I understand that up to February 1985 there were 10,000 applications, 3,500 of them were successful and 3,000 were refused, with the remainder being processed. Those figures were supplied by the Department of Social Welfare. It seems that this scheme will have very little impact on improving the financial position of the less well-off families. This reinforces the need to increase the existing children's allowance.
The new child benefit scheme referred to in the Government's Building on Reality was intended to unify a single payment State support towards the cost of rearing children. Details of this scheme were supposed to be published this year. I hope that this is true. Perhaps the Minister will refer to that in his reply. It has been disclosed that the new monthly benefit will be assessable for income tax purposes with the very good intention that the less well-off families be the main beneficiaries. The Joint Committee hope that the benefits to be payable under the new scheme will be sufficient to give parents who chose to remain at home a reasonable, independent income and that payments under the scheme will be made directly to the parent who rears the child. Members seriously questioned the equity of taxing these benefits. The view was expressed that parents in the higher income groups who are rearing children should also get some recognition. If the benefits under the scheme are not restored to the 1970 real value, then, in the opinion of the Joint Committee, they should not be taxed. I wonder if this will be taken into consideration by the Minister and the Government.
The main concern of the members regarding taxation was that the expectations of mothers in the home who would regard income deriving from the scheme as their own might not be realised and that the overall improvement in their finances would be neglible or non-existent. The members agreed that in the event of any delay in introducing the new scheme the Minister for Social Welfare should consider increasing the existing children's allowance which was not affected by the changes in some levels of payment in the social welfare code. I am happy to note that some movement was made in this regard in the recent budget.
Social welfare payments took up a considerable amount of the committee's time. There have been many complaints regarding the delay in processing claims for social welfare payments. Many people had to turn to charitable voluntary organisations to tide them over the problem period until they got their benefits. The report points out that in the first annual report of the Ombudsman, issued in March 1985, it was revealed that almost half the complaints against Government Departments and offices related to the Department of Social Welfare.
The report also referred to the hardships people suffered because of delays by the Department of Social Welfare in paying people their lawful entitlements. The joint committee were very concerned about this and put on record that long delays which add to the hardship of social welfare recipients were totally unacceptable. Undoubtedly, there has been a very steep increase in the number of claims in recent years and, presumably, the figure will increase more in the years ahead. This has put a lot of pressure on the staff of the Department at a time when Government restrictions on the recruitment of staff are in operation. The main sufferers in this situation are women, many of whom depend on social welfare payments to meet their day-to-day needs.
The joint committee, while they were conscious of the Government's desire to reduce numbers in the public service, made representations to the Minister for the Public Service to relax the embargo on recruitment in the Department of Social Welfare so as to ensure a more speedy and efficient service to social welfare recipients. I wonder what reaction there was to this. The Minister should give us some information on this.
The committee appreciated that the Department were aware of the need to implement a major programme of computerisation with a view to streamlining the whole system of adminsitration but it is likely to be a considerable time before this comes into operation. The joint committee urged the Minister to accelerate this computerisation programme. It is obvious that without the aid of this computerisation programme the administration system will become bogged down thus causing more frustration for the administrators and recipients.
Reference was made to the problems experienced by recipients who do not receive their payments. It was pointed out that it was a costly matter to phone the Department from outside Dublin. When a work-to-rule was in operation in the Department people were told that they could not be given the information they wanted with the result that the phone call was wasted. That was terribly cruel and callous. Everybody in public life would have been approached about this problem. People were short of money and in many cases had to borrow money to phone the Department only to be told that the information was not available because of a work-to-rule. That was totally unacceptable. There should be some provision whereby people in such a predicament could phone without having to pay, have a free phone service. This should be considered by the Minister. The free phone service operates in regard to many services and that is to be welcomed. Another area where the free phone service should operate is the hotline service to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. People who want to get advice on heating their houses can avail of this free information but they must pay for their telephone calls. The service is well worthwhile; it is an expert on-the-spot service. People can write for the information but in that specialised area it is not easy to write and give all the details. There are many areas where the free phone service could be extended, the social welfare area being a priority.
The committee decided that one way in which the system could be improved immediately, and at little or no additional expense, would be by extending decision making powers to local social welfare officers. This was highlighted by Senator Michael Higgins. The practice of having the majority of claims referred to Dublin for final decision is bound to lead to delays and there appears to be a very strong case for a system of local decision making. As Senator Michael Higgins said, this involves giving extra powers to local officers to reach a decision. There should be some attempt made to influence them where an error of judgment may occur. It is better to err on the humane side. This discretion should be extended to local officers. The Minister should seriously consider this.
The joint committee urged the Minister for Social Welfare to give immediate attention to the need for decentralising the work of processing claims even until such time as the computerisation of the entire system has been completed and put into operation. If this extra power is given to local officers there will be greater justice in their decisions. People will be treated as human beings rather than as numbers on a computer. I realise that computerisation is very important in this area; nevertheless, I urge the Minister to accede to this request to give more power to the local officers. While that will not eliminate the need for computerisation it will make it less important.
It is considered that the inclusion of an independent adjudicator would be seen to be in the interests of appellants where the appeals system is concerned. Again, this was considered a very important area. I know that quite a number of decisions have been reversed on appeal which in one sense indicates that these appeals are considered in great detail and with great sympathy. On the other hand, one wonders why a certain decision was taken. This might relate to the claimant or that certain information was not available and, perhaps, the Department are not at fault. In any event, great dissatisfaction with the appeals system under the social welfare code was expressed by different groups and individuals. This was chiefly because, under existing statutory regulations, an appeals officer is appointed by the Minister for Social Welfare from his own staff.
One of the great disadvantages in dealing with a report like this so long after it was published is that perhaps in the interim changes may have been made which leave recommendations more or less meaningless. If that is the situation I certainly welcome it but I am not aware of any changes that have been made in this area. I should like to make it quite clear that all the members on the committee accepted without question that appeals are adjudicated fairly. The feeling among appellants was that, not alone should justice be done, but it should be seen to be done and they are not convinced that this can be achieved under the present system. The system is giving rise to complaints. Many appellants feel indignant. They feel that they have been treated wrongly and unjustly and by its very nature this places them at a disadvantage in making an appeal against a decision by a deciding officer or an old age pension committee. I feel that the functions of the old age pension committees were of less importance since a Bill regarding this was passed some time ago.
The joint committee are of the opinion that the Minister for Social Welfare should consider the improvement of the existing system by the inclusion of an independent appeals officer, if only to allay the fears and worries of appellants. I am not sure if this could be done under existing legislation. I am not sure what changes would have to take place but, whatever changes are necessary, the Minister should seriously consider implementing them. From my experience in dealing with officers of the Department of Social Welfare and, indeed, in dealing with officers of any section of the Civil Service, I have no complaint to make. I would be totally happy, but we must remember that in this situation we are talking about people for whom the matter of a few pounds could mean the difference between life and death. The Minister should seriously consider this recommendation. Perhaps, it will be possible to bring in independant appeals officers without delay. In any event, the appeals system is in need of review. Of all the recommendations in the report the Minister should be able to implement this one with little problem and without any delay.
Means testing was considered by the committee and it is referred to briefly. Of course, this is very necessary, unfortunately and will always be necessary. Many of the submissions made to the committee referred to the way in which means are taken into account in deciding entitlement to social welfare payments. The suggestion was made — and I think it was a very reasonable one — that means testing should be carried out in a uniform manner. The intention is to carry it out in a uniform manner and there are problems in this respect but at present different criteria are laid down for different payments. This results in some confusion and members of the committee felt that the Department of Social Welfare should consider training a corps of people to become expert in means testing with a view to introducing uniformity in this area. Again, that is a matter with which there could be very little argument.
There are some areas I have not dealt with as they have been covered previously. We are told that expenditure on social welfare is now in the region of £2½ billion a year. This is a very considerable sum of money. It represents 25 per cent of current Government spending and 14 per cent of gross national product. There are over 30 social welfare schemes in operation and the variety and complexity of these schemes have given rise to anomalies and problems that take time to pinpoint and overcome. Also the Department of Social Welfare, aware that there is a perception that many claimants are not genuine, must in relation to accountability of public finances exercise strict control over expenditure. I agree with Senator M. Higgins in his criticism of scares with regard to social welfare payments because these are over-stated. The human element may unwittingly, be lost sight of in the maze of facts and figures which surrond the administration of the social welfare system.
