First of all, I want to thank the House for its co-operation in having this Bill, to implement the budget changes in the social welfare services, debated at short notice. As the House will know, a number of the provisions in the Bill are due to come into effect from the beginning of April and this explains the urgency which is attached to the Bill.
The principal purpose of this Bill, as I have said, is to give effect to the various budgetary changes in social welfare payments which were announced last January. In addition to the increases in weekly social welfare payments the Bill contains provisions for the introduction of the child benefit scheme and for improvements in the family income supplement scheme. A number of other changes in social welfare schemes are also proposed. I will be dealing with some of the details of the Bill later but, first, I would like to deal with some important general points of interest arising in the social welfare area.
These are: the extent of the state social welfare system; consensus on social welfare; the Commission on Social Welfare; misuse of the social welfare system and organisational changes in the Department of Social Welfare.
The size of the social welfare budget is enormous. The total number of people and their dependants who receive each week social welfare payments of one kind or another, is about 1.3 million or 37 per cent of our total population. Overall spending this year, taking account of the new rates of payments in the Bill, will amount to almost £2.5 billion of which the Exchequer will contribute £1.6 billion. This overall level of spending is equivalent to expenditure of about £7 million per day for each day of the year. It represents the largest single bloc of current Government expenditure. Over the last ten years an increasing share of the country's output has been devoted to social welfare services and these services now represent almost 15 per cent of gross national product. Social welfare spending has increased to its present level due to a combination of factors, including increased numbers of claimants generally, high unemployment and the various improvements made in the schemes over the years. The overall expenditure may be broken down into five main programmes as follows: 28 per cent for the unemployed; 27 per cent for the old; 23 per cent for family income support; 14 per cent for the sick and 4 per cent for miscellaneous services and benefits. About 4 per cent of expenditure goes on administration. These facts clearly illustrate the extent and importance of the services provided to our community by the Department of Social Welfare.
Of course, this is not the full extent of the social welfare system. When considering the totality of the social welfare system in society one must also take into account the activities of community organisations which are voluntary and also the various occupational pension and sick pay schemes. This country has a fairly well developed system of occupational social security which provides protection to workers in the form of company sick pay and pension schemes. In recognition of the importance of occupational pensions the Government set up the National Pensions Board who will be starting their work shortly. The board have been given the task of advising on how best to regulate pension schemes operated by employers. They will concentrate on such matters as funding and financial security, transferability of pension rights, disclosure of information and the monitoring of company schemes' performance.
In this country a high degree of social consensus has emerged over the years that certain human needs — health care, income maintenance, education and housing — are so important that the State must ensure that they are satisfied for each citizen. This has led to a continuing claim on resources from generation to generation to provide pensions, to help the sick and unemployed, to support and educate our children and to assist single parent families. This inter-generational ‘contract' continues irrespective of how numbers grow. Indeed, as Senators are aware, the Government, despite the rise in numbers, have continued to provide resources to assist those who are unable to obtain employment. Special attention has been paid and additional resources have been made available, again despite the constraints on public finances, to alleviate, as far as possible, the plight of those who are unemployed for protracted periods. Notwithstanding this, I think it is true to say that there tends to be a certain ambivalence towards those who are in need of State assistance not only in this country but also in others. On the one hand, there is a greater awareness of the needs of the poorer or less well off sections of the community and the necessity to support those who are not able to maintain their income for whatever reason. However, there is also the contrary attitude which views persons in receipt of State assistance with suspicion; that people on social welfare payments are doing well and that many are in fact only too glad to be on the system and to avail of the benefits it provides. Thankfully, in this country we have a caring community which is prepared to devote resources to assist those who are unable to support themselves and as a nation we can be proud of our achievements over the years in that regard. On the face of it, the huge amount of money raised by PRSI contributions and from general taxation would indicate that our society is committed to protecting the weaker sections of our community. Community attitudes to the social welfare system are very important and community involvement in social welfare provision has always been an essential feature of the system.
Before the social welfare system as we know it today came into being, the traditional bulwark against poverty was the support of the family with each generation accepting responsibility for the elderly and others in need. This pattern of support through the extended family weakened with the growth in industrialisation and urbanisation but there is no reason why the underlying principle of mutual support could not be revitalised in these often more demanding times. The State can provide the basic infrastructure of income maintenance services but it is also vital that local communities take a responsibility for people in need and give them the continuing assurance that they are full members of the community.
As I have said, there are many voluntary organisations and local groups doing invaluable work in communities and my Department in the administration of the provision for once-off grants to voluntary organisations since 1983 and more recently in the preparation for the EC poverty programme have had considerable experience of the valuable contribution made by such groups.
I think that over the coming years there will be a need for continuing involvement and development of this aspect of social provision and for closer links between the activities of such groups and the statutory social welfare services in order to ensure that there are adequate mechanisms for identifying areas of need and tackling them in an effective way. Since 1983, £1.68 million has been provided for these various voluntary organisations. The grants are mainly for once-off projects and are payable in addition to any grants made by health boards. This year, I am glad to say, an increased sum of £750,000 is being made available.
Because of demographic factors and our high level of unemployment, expenditure on social welfare will continue to increase inexorably in real terms over the coming years, although its rate of growth will fall as inflation and unemployment are contained and reduced. The difficulties in the public finances and the necessity for economies over the whole area of public expenditure will be severe constraints on efforts to provide additional resources for these services. Basic social welfare commitments will continue to be met but there are important questions that need to be resolved. It is relevant to consider whether the amalgam of programmes that has evolved down through the years in response to specific needs is still appropriate in present circumstances.
Two basic mechanisms have been used for years to transfer resources from producers to dependent groups. These are the means test system and the compulsory social insurance system. These systems have evolved incrementally over the years — the means test system was first introduced for low income elderly persons, later extended to low income unemployed and widows; in more recent years it has been extended to other groups such as deserted wives and unmarried mothers. The social insurance system originally catered for certain groups of people under an income ceiling for sickness and unemployment. The income limit was raised on numerous occasions and eventually abolished. The range of contingencies covered was also extended over the years so that people in insurable employment are now covered for loss of income in most instances that arise.
The existing system has served the country well over the years but nobody would claim that it is perfect. There is no doubt that we need to have a fundamental look at not only what is required for society today but also for the Ireland of the future. Society is changing, attitudes and values are different today than they were when many of the schemes were first introduced. Allied to this is the need to review all expenditure programmes and concentrate resources where they are most needed so as to achieve the optimum allocation. It was in recognition of this that the Government decided to establish a Commission on Social Welfare to carry out a fundamental review of and make recommendations on the social welfare code and related social welfare services. The commission is due to report shortly and I expect that its report will provide a valuable positive contribution to the debate on this complex area of national importance.
I would now like to turn to a topic that has been the subject of much media coverage and speculation in recent times and that is the question of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system. I have already referred to this when I spoke to Senators recently on the debate on the report of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights, so I do not intend to dwell to any great extent on the subject again. It is important when discussing this topic that the matter be put into proper perspective. We must guard against contributing to an anti-welfare mentality which effectively stigmatises genuine individuals who are entitled, as of right, to social welfare benefits or assistance.
I have already given some indication of the size and scale of our social welfare services. The amount of money spent each day is huge and the number of people who benefit is enormous. There are over 3,500 staff in my Department responsible for the administration of the various schemes and for the delivery of service to the needy. As I said before when I spoke to you various figures have been bandied about in relation to the extent of fraud and those are pure speculation. I would like to assure Senators that both myself and my Department are very conscious of the need to combat fraud and abuse in the social welfare system. Of that there can be no doubt. This is all the more important because of the pressures on the public finances; any leakage from the system no matter how small is a lost opportunity in terms of providing a better service for the disadvantaged in our society.
There is of course a dilemma here. On the one hand procedures need to be such as to prevent fraud, while on the other we must make sure that these are not such as to cause undue delay in making payment to genuine cases. As in many other activities of human life a balance must be reached between these two aspects. All too often we hear about delays in social welfare cases and we as public representatives are frequently, too frequently perhaps, asked to intervene on behalf of a particular individual. There is a tendency to generalise on the basis of specific cases. Certainly, mistakes occur and delays do arise as a result but the volume of work that is processed through my Department each week is colossal and there is consequently every prospect that certain cases will get delayed.
Saying this does not mean that we are not tackling the problem. This is something that my Department are very much alive to and it is monitored constantly and carefully and remedial action taken whenever necessary. While we highlight the delayed cases we tend to forget the many thousands of claims that are processed speedily and accurately each week through the Department. To give an example, about 25,000 new claims for benefit and assistance are received in my Department each week. All of these have to be examined in detail to establish whether the person has statutory entitlement and this can vary depending on the type of claim and the circumstances of the case. Therefore when one talks about fraud and efforts to counteract fraud one must bear in mind the context in which it arises and the scale of activity in which it is occurring.
By its very nature it would be impossible to estimate the level of fraud at any time and any attempt to do so must be based on conjecture. Many social welfare schemes are open to manipulation and every effort must be made to detect and eradicate fraud where it exists. This should not, however, lead us to abandon basic elements of the system or to make the system a less caring one for people in genuine need. I would like to say that persons who have genuine claims to social welfare benefits or assistance need not be in any way concerned or worried. However, I can assure Senators that my Department will continue to seek out persons who defraud or attempt to defraud or abuse the system and that the full rigour of the law will be applied.
As I have said, we must not abandon basic elements of the system or make the system a less caring one for people in genuine need. No matter what action we take we must ensure that we do not cause any undue delay or hardship to the genuine cases. This is of paramount importance. We must at all times ensure that proper regard is had to the needs and dignity of the individual claimant and not make the innocent suffer for the sins of the few.
Towards the end of last year my Department was reorganised by the setting up of the Social Welfare Services Office. By having the office solely concerned with the operations of the various social welfare schemes and separating it from the Department it will enable those who are responsible for the delivery of services to concentrate more fully on effective management and the provision of a speedy and efficient delivery of services. This was one of the areas identified in the Government's White Paper "Serving the Country Better" that had sufficient volume of executive work to make it feasible to set up separate organisations for its performance.
Further progress has been made in my Department on the extension of computerisation. Most areas of the Department now have computerised facilities to assist with the payment of benefits and allowances. The fundamental aim is to have an integrated telecommunications and computer network embracing all the Department's administrative systems. Much progress has already been made in this regard but because of the size and scale of the operations of the Department there is still a lot of work to be done. As a first priority computing facilities have been provided for all administrative systems to assist them with payments and also to replace obsolete systems.
Developments now under way are designed to ensure that these systems are capable of being integrated so that the benefits of information technology can be fully realised. To give an idea of the extent of the work done so far, there are at present about 600 visual display units installed in the various offices of the Department in Dublin and throughout the country. Twenty offices outside Dublin have visual display units where local information officers of the Department can obtain access to computer details of a person's claim to certain social welfare benefits, pensions or allowances. This enables them to answer routine inquiries from members of the public without having to contact the head office of the Department in Dublin. This is a major benefit and improvement in service to the public and it will be extended and expanded on a progressive basis in the coming years.
In addition to exploiting information technology for the processing of claims and for the payment of benefits, pensions and allowances my Department now has extensive office automation facilities including word processing and electronic mail. These facilities are constantly being developed and expanded and have proved to be of immense benefit. In the past computers were the preserve of the computer professionals. However, as we know, today computers are everywhere. In most activities nowadays computers have a role to play. For example in our schools our young people are being taught the value and power of computers. It is vitally important that they become literate not only in the normal sense of the word but also in terms of information technology.
It is incumbent on us therefore to exploit the technology to the maximum extent possible. With the increasing volume of work arising in the social welfare area and with the limited scope for recruitment in the public sector it is all the more important that we use technology to assist us with the more routine aspects of the work. There are of course certain dangers here and due regard must be had to such issues as the right to privacy and security. Increased awareness of computer power has made these issues more visible than ever. These and other issues in the vast area of information technology are all taken into account in the process of modernising the procedures and processes of my Department.
I would now like to turn to some of the details in the Bill. I hope that Senators will have found the explanatory memorandum, circulated with the Bill, helpful in their consideration of the text.
Senators will be aware that there has been an unavoidable delay in the introduction of the provisions for equal treatment for men and women in social security matters as provided under the EEC Directive. I am glad to be able to say that agreement has been reached with the staff union in question to implement, on a phased basis from mid-May next, those measures which are not dependent on additional staffing.
Section 2 of the Bill provides for the abolition of reduced rates of benefit at present payable to married women. Married women will also become entitled to unemployment benefit for the full 390 days under regulations which I will be making separately. I am proposing to abolish the reduced rates of benefit that are payable to persons under 18 years of age. Hitherto, the reduced rates applied to married women and also to persons aged under 18.
The question of implementing the remaining equal treatment measures, which were provided for in the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1985, is dependent on additional staff being allocated, the devising of new work procedures and the training of staff in those procedures. I am making every effort to resolve these problems so that a date can be fixed for implementing the remaining phases.
General increases in social insurance and occupational injuries benefits are also provided for in section 2 of the Bill. This Government have shown a genuine concern over the last four years to improve the living standards of people on social welfare. An increase of 4 per cent in the weekly personal and adult dependent rates of social insurance from the third week in July next is provided for. These increases and the increases in social assistance provided for in section 3 reflect the continuing commitment of this Government, as outlined in the National Plan Building on Reality 1985-87, to ensure that long term payments are at least maintained in line with inflation and short term unemployment and disability payments in line with take home pay. But we have gone a step further. The real value of pensions, benefits and allowances have been increased and this will be maintained into 1987. Since the Government came into office and including the increases in the Bill, short term payments have been increased by 30 per cent compound, long term payments by 33 per cent and the long term unemployed received the highest increase of all, 40 per cent. In the period mid 1983-87 the increase in the consumer price index is expected to be of the order of some 23 per cent. Indeed, latest information on the annual level of inflation indicates that it is now down to its lowest level in nearly twenty years and that this downward trend will continue for some time yet. Economists and commentators are now predicting that the year to year rate of inflation could be between zero and one per cent by the end of the year. It is evident, therefore, that the purchasing power of social welfare recipients has been more than maintained by this Government despite the severe constraints on the public finances generally.
A contributory old age pensioner under 80 years of age will receive an additional £2.05 a week from 18 July bringing his rate of payment to £53.45 a week. If he is married with a wife under age 66 he will get a total increase of £3.35 bringing the pension to £87.55 a week. A married couple both over pensionable age will get £93.35 compared to £89.75 at present. Higher increases are paid for pensioners over 80. An additional payment of £3.55 per week is also made to persons living alone.
The personal rate of widow's contributory pension is being increased by £1.85 a week to £48.10. Widows over 66 and over 80 receive higher payments.
The personal rate of invalidity pension goes up from £45.30 to £47.10 for a person under pensionable age and a married couple will receive £77.70, an increase of £3.00.
A person in receipt of disability or unemployment benefit will have a new personal rate of £41.10 a week, an increase of £1.60. Senators will be aware that this new rate was shown incorrectly in the first version of the explanatory memorandum on the Bill. Where the recipient is married the increase will be £2.60 a week. Maternity allowance is also being increased to £41.10. In all some 390,000 recipients will benefit from these increases at an additional cost of £20 million this year.
The new rates of social assistance payments are provided for in section 3 of the Bill. The maximum personal rate of non-contributory old age pension for a pensioner under 80 years of age goes from £44.00 a week at present to £45.75 a week. It will go up from £47.20 to £49.10 for persons aged 80 or over. The overall maximum payment for a pensioner under 80 with a dependent spouse under 66 will increase by £2.65 to £68.75. The allowance payable in respect of a prescribed relative giving full-time care and attention to an incapacitated pensioner is being raised to £25.60 per week.
Widows receiving non-contributory widow's pensions at the present rate of £43.15 will get an increase of £1.75 a week. Similar increases will apply to deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives.
Those receiving short-duration unemployment assistance in urban areas will get an increase of £1.30 a week in their maximum personal rate. In rural areas the increase will be £1.25 a week. A married applicant in an urban area will get an increase of £2.25 a week in the present rate of £56.40.
The rates of unemployment assistance for long-duration recipients of unemployment assistance are being increased by 5 per cent that is 1 per cent more than the standard 4 per cent increase in payments generally. This is further evidence of the Government's concern for the plight of the long term unemployed. Long term rates of unemployment assistance are higher than short term rates. For example, a married man in an urban area will get £63.15 which is £4.50 more than the corresponding short duration rate. The maximum rate of supplementary welfare allowance for a married couple goes from £54.80 to £56.95.
Section 17 provides for the introduction of the new monthly child benefit scheme from April 1986. The purpose of the scheme will be to provide as much cash support to mothers as possible in one single payment. The new scheme will ultimately unify State support towards the cost of rearing children. However, it will not be possible for administrative and technical reasons to introduce, as originally intended, a fully taxable scheme in 1986. As a first step, therefore, the Government have decided to introduced a non-taxable scheme of child benefit with effect from April 1986. Under this scheme a child benefit of £15.05 per month will be paid for each of the first five children. This rate will be increased to £21.75 per month for each subsequent child. These payments will not be taxable. This represents an increase of £3 per month per child over the existing rates of payment under the children's allowances scheme.
The new scheme replaces the present children's allowance scheme and also involves the abolition of the child tax allowance of £100 per child under the income tax code. Furthermore, child dependant increases for social welfare recipients will remain at their present levels. The new scheme, therefore, involves a redirection of child support. Families paying tax at the higher rates will suffer some net loss arising from the abolition of child tax allowances but the intention of the scheme is to achieve a redistribution of resources in the direction of families most in need. Three-quarters of all families in the State will be at least as well off under the new arrangement as under the existing schemes and many thousands, including families depending on social welfare payments will, in fact, be better off.
Section 4 provides for improvements in the family income supplement scheme. The rate of the supplement is being increased from 25 per cent to one-third of the difference between gross family income and a prescribed upper limit. The income limits up to which family income supplement is payable and the maximum amounts of supplement payable are also being increased. The levels of weekly income up to which a supplement is payable will be scaled up from £100 for a family with one child by £20 per week for each additional child, up to and including the fifth child. The income levels at which the maximum supplement is payable are also being adjusted, for example, from £68 to £70 per week for a one child family. The maximum weekly amount of supplement payable to families with one child will be increased by £2, from £8 to £10. For larger families the maximum amount of supplement payable for each additional child up to and including the fifth child is being increased from £2.50 to £4 per week. These changes will take effect from 10 April 1986.
Section 5 provides for an increase from £49 to £58 in the earnings disregard, or "floor", for pay-related benefit purposes. This change will affect new claims only from the beginning of April next where entitlement to pay-related benefit is involved. This latest increase in the floor continues the policy that has been adopted in recent years of progressively raising its level. I might add here that if the floor had been maintained at the same level in relation to the flat rate benefit as it was in April 1974, it would now be about £84 instead of the £58 proposed in this Bill.
Section 6 of the Bill provides that the earnings ceiling for PRSI contribution purposes be raised from £13,800 to £14,700 with effect from 6 April 1986. For the fourth successive year there is no increase in the actual rates of social insurance contributions. Section 7 provides that the rate of contribution to the occupational injuries fund payable for employers be increased from 0.4 per cent to 0.43 per cent. There will also be an increase of 0.1 per cent in employers contributions to the Department of Labour's Redundancy and Employers' Insolvency Fund. As a result of both of these changes, the standard rate of employers' PRSI contributions goes up from 12.20 per cent to 12.33 per cent.
There is, as I have said, no increase in the employee's social insurance contribution. However, there will be a reduction of 1 per cent in the total PRSI contribution payable by employees as a result of the abolition of the income levy, as announced in the Budget Statement. Section 8 makes provision for the PRSI exemption scheme for employers announced by the Taoiseach last October. Under this scheme employers in the private sector who take on additional employees on a full time basis between 23 October 1985 and 31 March 1986, resulting in a net increase in their workforce, will be exempt from their portion of the PRSI contribution for those employees for each week in the income tax year 1986-87 in which the increase in the workforce is maintained. Employers participating in the scheme will also be exempt from the redundancy contribution and, where applicable, the health contribution and the youth employment levy and this is provided for in section 8.
To give further encouragement to employers to participate in the scheme the Government decided to relax some of the conditions of the scheme as originally announced. Employers who have received assistance by way of State grants in the past 12 months are now eligible. Also the length of time an employee should be on the live register has been reduced from six months to 13 weeks. An employer participating under the scheme will benefit to the extent of about £962 for the year for each additional employee taken on, assuming the employee is earning £150 a week.
Sections 9 and 10 provide for changes in the disability benefit scheme. Section 9 increases the period of disqualification for disability benefit and injury benefit from six weeks to nine weeks where a person fails to turn up for a medical examination by one of the Department's medical referees or where the person has become incapable of work through his own misconduct. In 1985, over 75,000 disability benefit claimants were called for medical examination. Six thousand people did not attend for examination and were disqualified for the six week period allowed under present legislation. Because of the extent of non-attendance the Government considered that the penalty for such non-attendance should be increased.
Section 10 provides that disability benefit will not be paid while a claimant is on paid holiday leave from his employment. There is some evidence that certain persons claim disability benefit as a matter of course while on paid holiday leave and this amounts, of course, to misuse of the disability benefit scheme. This measure is designed to end this potential misuse.
I have already indicated that I am abolishing the reduced rates of disability, unemployment and injury benefit payable to persons under 18 years of age. Section 21 abolishes the reduced rate of disablement benefit for persons who are under 18 years. In future person under 18 years of age will receive the same rate of benefit as all other persons.
Section 23 removes the restriction on a claimant appealing against a provisional assessment of disablement within two years of the initial assessment. It also repeals the provision whereby a person who is receiving disablement benefit is assessed as being 100 per cent disabled while he is in hospital. At present a person who is assessed at less than 100 per cent disability and is hospitalised receives an increase to give him the full rate of benefit. I consider that this arrangement can no longer be justified and propose that the person continue to receive the same rate as prior to hospitalisation.
The provision whereby payments of injury benefit or disablement benefit, including any increases, are limited to the amount of the beneficiary's earning at the time of the accident is also being repealed. It is considered that this limit is no longer necessary given the fact that payments of injury benefit are subjected to a pay-related benefit "wage stop" in any event.
Section 11 rationalises the method of calculating entitlements under the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment. The section provides that entitlement will be calculated as 70 per cent of a woman's earnings in the relevant tax year or 70 per cent of a specified weekly amount, instead of a combination of flat rate, pay-related and additional pay-related benefit as at present. This is a technical measure and there will be no change in the amount of benefit payable.
Sections 12, 13, 14, 21 and 23 provide for changes to the occupational injuries benefit scheme. Section 12 extends entitlement to benefit to persons travelling to and from work subject to such circumstances as may be prescribed by regulations. Sections 13 and 14 provide that injury benefit will be paid from the first day of incapacity for work where the incapacity lasts for more than three days. I consider this to be more equitable than the present arrangement where the incapacity must last for 12 days before payment can be made from the first day. Section 13 also provides that injury benefit will not be paid while a person is on paid holiday leave from his employment — this is in line with the amendment to the disability benefit scheme in section 10.
Section 15 increases the fines for offences involving the obstruction of an inspector of the Department in the exercise of his duties prescribed in section 114 (4) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. At present a maximum fine of £500 or 12 months imprisonment or both can be imposed on summary conviction and a maximum fine of £2,000 or up to two years imprisonment on conviction on indictment under this section. This section increases the maximum fines to £1,000 and £3,000 respectively and brings them into line with other penalties under the Social Welfare Acts which were increased last year.
Section 18 provides that the full cost of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, including administration, will be borne by the Exchequer by way of the Social Welfare Vote as and from 1 January 1986. The present arrangements for financing the supplementary welfare allowance scheme involve a sharing of the cost between the Exchequer and the local authorities. This system has not worked satisfactorily and the Government have decided that in future the full cost will be borne by the Exchequer. This represents a major improvement in the situation for the health boards who administer the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.
Section 16 extends the authority of social welfare officers to inspect the premises of self-employed persons on the same basis as for employers for the purposes of combating abuse. The section extends the powers given in last year's Act to inspect premises where a social welfare officer has reasonable grounds for believing that persons are employed or that there are documents relating to employment being kept.
Section 19 provides that where unemployed persons, who have participated in certain employment-training schemes sponsored by the Department of Labour for up to one year's duration, resume claiming unemployment benefit the two periods of unemployment will be regarded as one for the purpose of subsequent entitlement to benefit. At present attendance at a training course of over 13 weeks breaks the link with the pre-course claim for benefit.
Section 19 also provides that to be eligible to receive unemployment benefit a person must not only be available for employment but also be genuinely seeking employment. This will bring the condition for receipt of unemployment benefit into line with the corresponding condition for the receipt of unemployment assistance.
Section 20 is designed to overcome some difficulties in relation to the authorisation of legal proceedings. It provides for the acceptance in court, of a certificate of authorisation of legal proceedings in relation to social welfare offences, without proof of the person purporting to sign the certificate, unless this is challenged.
Section 22 provides for a technical amendment to section 3 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 to facilitate work on the consolidation of the Social Welfare Regulations which is at present in progress. This section was amended on Committee Stage in the Dáil. The amendment was necessary following further consideration by the parliamentary draftsman of his earlier draft.
Social Welfare is a vast and complex area and its impact on the daily lives of the community may well have been underestimated in the past. I certainly do not underestimate my job of re-shaping social welfare policy to meet the country's needs as we approach the end of the twentieth century.
In the context of this Bill I have tried to give an indication of some of the more important issues in this area. The review of the social welfare system being carried out by the commission is likely to lead to a call for a fundamental restructuring of the various services. Some services will, undoubtedly, need to be improved and extended and these will be welcomed by all.
What about proposals to abolish or curtail other services? These will not be as acceptable or as popular. But I think it is important for us to remember that no public expenditure programme has an absolute or unconditional claim on public resources. Equally no public expenditure programme should be immune from change as economic and social conditions may and do create the need for change.
What sort of reaction, therefore, can we expect to the report of the Commission on Social Welfare? The policy choices to be made for social welfare are important choices for society. To make these choices is to decide on the distribution of scarce resources. I believe the priority must be to secure a greater degree of equity in the distribution of the resources at our disposal.
This Bill is further tangible evidence of this Government's commitment in this regard.
I commend the Bill to the House.
