Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Dec 1987

Vol. 118 No. 2

Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1987: Committee and Final Stages.

Before we debate Committee Stage of this Bill, I should like to indicate to the House that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the name of Senator Ferris are ruled out of order on the grounds that they involve a potential charge to the public revenue.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Like every Member of the House, I am in favour of what is proposed in section 2 but for clarification, could the Minister explain what the present position is? At present people seem to have obligations under PRSI to make deductions and to make returns and must give some formal notification of commencement of employment. I find it difficult to believe that as of now there is no legal obligation on an employer to notify the Minister whether a person has been taken into his employment. I presume there must be rules under the taxation law whereby the Revenue must be notified where a person is being taken into employment. Are the penalties different? I find it a little bit astonishing that we are now for the first time talking about making it obligatory for an employer to notify the State that he has taken a person into his employment given the extensive obligations which an employer has.

There is a requirement to notify the Revenue Commissioners. The regulations which will be produced under this section which will relate to need rather than being bureaucratic regulations will create a requirement to notify the Department of Social Welfare. One may ask why the one will not do the two things but there are many reasons why it will not. It is not an effective system for our purposes and that is why we have to seek this arrangement at this time. In the longer term there may be different systems, approaches or co-ordinations but in the circumstances as they exist we need to know. We believe this will be effective and, consequently it is necessary.

The Minister has confirmed what I suspected. Is it not possible for the computer of the Revenue Commissioners to automatically generate a letter to the Department of Social Welfare saying that employer X has taken on employee Y with a PRSI number Z. It is not usual for me to be a champion of employers. Is it a fact that the computer system of the Revenue Commissioners and the computer system of the Department of Social Welfare cannot, to use a layman's phrase, talk to each other? Is there no possibility of doing that? It seems that the two areas are different sides of the same coin and it seems rather peculiar that parallel notifications have to be made by two groups who have the same interests. I do not want to give the Minister the option of not answering me, but what are the practical reasons why on notification the Revenue Commissioners do not in turn automatically notify the Department of Social Welfare, even if it would result in the Revenue Commissioners changing the format of the notification so that it meets the requirements of the Department of Social Welfare? There is a possibility that what we are doing here is the simplest way for the bureaucracy rather than the simplest way for the employer. That is hardly the way in which to organise a system efficiently, in other words, in terms of getting the desired return at the minimum cost to all concerned.

One of the important elements is the fact that information for that purpose is not computerised in the Revenue as yet. Tax returns are computerised. It is all very well talking about systems talking to each other but before you can do that you have to have the systems first and they have to be developed for that purpose. These are the things I was referring to. I would not like to enter the subject too much to tell the truth.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Again, what I find astonishing as a lay person is that these things were never there before. What precisely is the change involved? Is it the case that until now employers did not have to provide that information? I find it astonishing that until now the whole thing seems to have been weighed in one direction, which was in the direction of the employee. Is it true that until now there was no legal obligation on an employer to provide the sort of information referred to in this section?

That essentially is the position. The vast majority of employers co-operate with us and we do not have a problem in that respect. There are employers who will not co-operate or furnish the information. Let me give an example. Recently, in the collieries in the northern part of the country 177 cases came to light. They came to light following on initial inquiry by the Department. A person applied for disability benefit and an inquiry was sent out to the employer to find out whether this person was working. The employer responded in the normal way and co-operated with the Department and as a result we discovered that the individual was working while at the same time drawing benefit. In carrying out such inquiries around the country we find a reasonable number of people will not co-operate in that way and that makes the work of the Department and the inspectors more difficult.

That was a method we adopted this year. We then sent the unit to look into the area more generally and they came up with the 177 cases to which I referred. These powers are very simple ones and you would imagine that employers would co-operate. These powers are being sought by the Department of Social Welfare inspectors and officers so that they can do their job efficiently and will not be blocked in doing so. If an employer is in collusion with his employees in regard to any of these benefits he will not want to send in the returns.

I am 100 per cent in favour of these. In relation to the inquiries made by the Department can the Minister give us any idea of the proportion of employers who either decline or do not supply the information sought? Is the figure 5 per cent, 10 per cent or what? This is an important area and, as the Minister said, one would think that employers would co-operate. Is this a new phenomenon or is it something which the Department have experienced over a number of years? This is not a criticism of the Minister — there has been enough of that — but if it is not a new phenomenon the question arises as to why it took so long? I would like the Minister to tell us, and I presume the Minister has this information, what proportion of employers in his experience and that of his Department do not tend to rely on such inquiries? It may be an indicator of the scale of abuse.

By and large a substantial majority of employers co-operate. It is difficult to give the figures because we only started to carry out this kind of inquiry recently. They have been carried out in the past but not to the extent they have been carried out this year. When we widened the extent we found far more cases where we did not get co-operation but in general the large majority of employers do co-operate. The minority is still very sizeable and, for instance, there are particular sectors where we may have more difficulty in getting the answers we want. There are loopholes and if we want to do our job effectively and efficiently it would help to close them off.

The Minister spoke about a majority. A majority is 51 per cent. Therefore, I presume he is not talking about 49 per cent of employers. Admittedly, like a lot of other areas, the employers presumably make these inquiries where they suspect that something untoward is afoot. Are we talking about 10 per cent or 20 per cent? As I have said frequently in this House I am not opposed to dealing with abuse in social welfare but I believe that we should attempt to quantify the problem before we deal with it. If we knew the number of employers who refuse to answer queries from the Department of Social Welfare it would be an interesting indicator of the possible scale of abuse.

These inquiries are done at random, they are not the selected ones. Some of the other work is done, as the Senator says, by selecting particular areas. These would be random checks on disability benefit. We may find that percentage, even if it is only 5 per cent — it may not be that people do not wish to co-operate — do not bother to reply. They may not see it as being necessary although it is a very useful cross-check and we have found that in a number of cases it can be revealing.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Will the Minister explain why he proposes to extend the number of contributions? Is it to save money? Is it because it is believed that this will reduce abuse, are there anomalies or what is the precise reason? I believe it is simply to save money but other reasons are being used to justify that. I would like the Minister to explain why.

To some extent this refers back to the discussions we had earlier about disability benefit, invalidity benefit, disability allowance and the cost of maintaining those schemes. We maintain a scheme that would be much more costly than a similar scheme in most other countries in relation to disability. After one year other countries would go on to a disability allowance or an invalidity benefit. In other words, a person would get an invalidity benefit or would go on to an allowance. However, we could have people on the scheme for 40 years. Senator O'Shea mentioned seven years. We could have people on it for seven, ten, 15 or 20 years. A lady on one of the radio programmes recently said she had been to the medical referee and when the interviewer asked her how long she had been on the disability benefit she said she was 16 years on "the sick". Other countries do not have a system like that. They either have one that is means tested so that when people have a problem they get disability allowance or a decision is reached about invalidity. That decision is taken a bit sooner. A person may be regarded as invalidity, percentage invalidity, or something like that. Our scheme is a very expensive scheme to maintain and that is one of our problems. It is a very substantial benefit to people because they can have so many years on a disability benefit without ever being in the category which could be regarded as invalidity. We are being asked why for such a substantial benefit there should be a substantial accumulation of contributions, five years.

At the same time we have got to recognise that the fund from which these are paid will in 1987 be in deficit to the tune of £401 million. We have to look at what has to be preserved and maintained and at the most effective and efficient way to do that. I have managed to maintain every scheme and maintained the various rates of payment but we have to look hard at some of the practices and schemes. I accept that we will have to look at the relationship between a disability allowance and an invalidity allowance and how invalidity should be regarded but I cannot do that overnight. Any one of those requires a sizeable study. I am not talking about bringing people from outside to do that study. It is a question of management time and commitment and being sure we know what we are talking about in relation to what is happening within the scheme and what will happen if we change the scheme. They are the reasons for the changes proposed.

This may reveal a large deficit in my knowledge. I share the view expressed by the Minister in his reply on Second Stage that we should all use our heads as much as possible but in this case the information does not seem to be in my head. What happens to somebody who is sick and is not eligible under these provisions; where do they go? As far as I know we do not have a disability allowance. Senator O'Shea suggests the disabled persons maintenance allowance. Are we going to be transferring people from one area to another and still costing the State money or what will happen to people?

There are 1.2 million workers and the number of people affected will be approximately 2,000. It will mean that a person would not go on to long term benefit until he or she had the contributions. If that person is outside that and was really ill the DPMA is available. There is also the supplementary welfare allowance. Some of the people the Senator is referring to who might fall short at the moment, could be on a supplementary welfare allowance. That raises the question of whether they should be on supplementary welfare allowance or should they not be on a disability allowance which is looked at separately. I accept that it needs to be looked at.

According to the information I have disability benefit is £42.30 per week for a person who has 48 contributions or over. The supplementary welfare allowance is £34 a week. It appears that what the Minister is saying is that more people are going to have to live on less when they are sick. That may sound too succinct but it seems to me to be the essence of it. The 2,000 figure is a little bit disingenuous because that is the number of people who are currently affected by it, but it is going to affect all future contributors as well. Does this mean that if people get sick they will — I do not have the figure from the Department of Health or from health boards in relation to DPMA — be on supplementary welfare which appears to be £8 a week less for a single person? That is a substantial drop in income.

None of the current beneficiaries will be affected. That is the first thing. Secondly, it is for extended duration over 12 months. If you are in the public service, or in any employment, you get six months full pay and then six months reduced pay. That is the end of it and you have to make some other arrangements. We have a scheme which goes on for maybe 40 years to cover a person who is just sick, not invalided; therefore the benefit involved in that is costly. If we are to maintain that kind of benefit, then the contribution conditions are of that order.

People will not currently be affected. Only the new people coming on will be affected. The estimated figure of new people who could be looking for long-term disability benefit does not necessarily mean they will be in very bad health condition but would be short those contributions in the first year.

I am not going to rehash what I said on Second Stage. I will be opposing this section on the principle that it is reducing the ability of people to avail of disability benefit. One area I would like to highlight again is the position of some person who just comes into the workforce, has not been five years in the workforce and becomes the recipient of injury benefit through either an accident at work or an industrially induced disease. If that person is not old enough to have had the opportunity to put together the contributions it seems very harsh that after six months he will be excluded from disability benefit and subsequently from any possibility of invalidity benefit.

My experience is that DPMA would be difficult enough to get under the health board scheme and supplementary welfare allowance is usually what is paid to people who would qualify for disability benefit if they have the requisite contributions. Another point that must be taken on board here is that, for instance, DPMA and supplementary welfare allowance are not paid to someone in hospital. While I am opposed to the whole section, I ask the Minister especially to apply himself to what I believe is a very grave injustice there to younger people.

The Senator mentioned the question of an accident at work. First, the occupational injury benefit is not affected. If, after you finish that, you are still ill, then you would come under the unemployability supplement which is £42.30 and higher for an older age group.

I am sure it is not deliberate, we are all here far too late to be falling out with one another and it is nearly Christmas so we could not possibly fall out. I will try not to, anyway. However, it is a little disingenuous to talk about the public service. Those of us who have the privilege of being in that appallingly titled category of "officers" as distinct from those in the equally appallingly titled category of "servants" have access to early retirement on the grounds of ill-health and disability. One would assume that somebody who was ill for in excess of 12 months would begin to come into that category.

The provisions of that scheme are quite generous. They compare with the provisions of the Government's voluntary redundancy scheme. Therefore, anybody in the public service who has the title of officer would have a very generous cushion if he or she were to be ill for a period substantially in excess of the 12 months provided for in most benefits. Incidentally, there is not much evidence that that scheme was abused. When I had opportunity as a member of the board of the regional college in Cork to see the returns for staff absences there was no substantial evidence of any large scale absenteeism.

We seem to be getting to the nub of this, that essentially it is a money-saving device. The Minister has a point about disability benefit going on and on for years, but the truth is that everybody on disability benefit is getting a medical certificate every week from a registered medical practitioner saying that this person is unfit for work. The real problem is that either people are getting those certificates who are fit for work and should not be getting them, or there are people who are unfit for work and who are going to be simply told what whatever income they get will not be under disability benefit because the contribution period is five years.

There are interesting implications in this. If people are not eligible for disability benefit it is, presumably, less likely that they will take time off work for minor ailments. This would be very much approved of by the certain public house school of economics I have talked about two or three times already and who have had enough free advertising from me. The other part is that that will not necessarily contribute to industrial efficiency. A somewhat unwell industrial workforce will not necessarily be an efficient workforce. One advantage of disability benefit, and the introduction particularly of pay-related disability benefit, was that it allowed people to stay away from work when they were not well. That is not an unreasonable expectation. It is not just a social welfare benefit, it is also a benefit to industrial efficiency. Of course, it needs to be controlled and regulated. Other civilised countries recognise such provisions as civilised and necessary and capable of being controlled, and we should do so. Like Senator O'Shea, I think we are rolling back an area of humane provisions in the interests of financial cutbacks. I will be opposing the section.

The Senator mentioned other civilised countries. I said at the outset that basically they do not go longer than 12 months. That is what we are faced with at this stage. If we want to keep going longer than 12 months on disability the contribution conditions will have to be somewhat greater. That is what we are faced with in terms of choices.

I have accepted that there is a need to look at the whole question of the different systems we operate. That raises particularly the question of disability assistance and we will have to look at that for the future. This is not common elsewhere, in fact. It is a major benefit in terms of getting it; therefore, a cost goes with such a major benefit. We reckon the cost is represented by the contributions.

I appreciate all benefits have a cost going with them. I have not yet cleared up for myself where you are going to save. Is the Minister suggesting that because of this fewer people will become sick or claim benefit or people will claim a lower rate of benefit? If they are going to claim or if they are not going to claim a lower rate of benefit then no saving to the State will be involved. What precisely will the outcome of this be? Will it mean less expenditure on this area or on the area of people who are sick and cannot work? What will it ultimately mean? We are saying that it costs something. Let me say that most civilised countries have a guaranteed minimum income through their welfare system. By civilised countries, I do not identify very many. I recognise the countries of northern Europe and Holland and that would be it. I do not regard either the UK under its present régime or the US as civilised countries and I want to hear no more about them really. I am talking about countries which guarantee their citizens——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That would not come under section 8.

No, but we did talk about civilised countries, and lest the Minister and I would not understand each other clearly, I wanted to let him know what I meant. Part of the problem is that disability benefit has become a long term payment when, in fact, the philosophical assumption was that it was a short term payment, a guarantee for people who were ill for a short period that they would not suffer substantial hardship. It became something different. Because it became something different does not mean that we take it away and do not provide in its place. If the Minister was telling us he had provided an alternative framework to deal with this issue, and was now doing that, we could see some point to it. On its own, without the alternatives he so rightly identified as possibilities, it is simply a cutback at the expense of people who are sick.

There is an alternative, although the Senator does not consider it to be adequate. In relation to disability benefit a number of things could happen. The first is that the person might go back to work. We do not assume that everybody who is claiming constantly will not be capable of going back to work. That is an open question but some people could be in that position. Some people will not qualify because they will not have enough contributions. Those people would go on to a means tested arrangement instead.

Question put.

Vótáil.

The question is: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill." On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?

Senators O'Shea, Ross and B. Ryan stood.

As fewer than five Members have risen in their places I declare the question carried. The names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.

Question declared carried.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

My colleagues on my right are in a most agreeable mood tonight. I emphasise the word "right".

(Interruptions.)

I understood this section was agreed.

It was not agreed.

A division was challenged.

The division was on section 8.

We have moved to section 9. The reason I was somewhat sceptical about the Minister's explanations about the justification of section 8 was that I knew section 9 guarantees that people would not be entitled to invalidity pension, which is the sensible, logical alternative to long term payments of disability benefit and that they were being prevented from getting this as well. Will the Minister not agree that effectively these two sections guarantee that people who get sick and cannot work will be worse off? Will he accept that that is a considerable betrayal of the traditional philosophy of the Fianna Fáil Party, which was to defend the weak, the vulnerable and the sick and whom they have now sold out to the bankers? That is what they are voting for here tonight.

Senators

Shame.

Invalidity is an extension of long term disability benefit. It is also a very major long term benefit which can last for 20, 30 or 40 years and, consequently, it is on that similar basis that the contribution conditions of five years accumulated contributions will in future be required for that benefit. Most of the arguments we have had on the other section apply and there is not much point in going back over the same ground.

Perhaps we should have taken section 8 and 9 together but we do not have a procedure under Standing Orders to do so and therefore, I can only take them separately.

Do the Members opposite appreciate what they are voting for here? The truth is that somebody could now be permanently incapable of work in the judgment of his own GP, perhaps a medical consultant and most assuredly a medical referee of the Department of Social Welfare but unless he or she has five years PRSI contributions — five years is a long time, it is one eighth of the average working life — he or she will not be entitled to an invalidity pension. It is quite uncertain as to what they would be entitled to. It might be DPMA or supplementary welfare, they could be consigned to the squalor of supplementary welfare simply because they are sick and do not have this exorbitantly high number of contributions. It is a disgrace that people who are sick should be picked on as the victims of the cutbacks that the right wing ideology that Fianna Fáil have now taken on demands. Other areas are left untouched while the sick are penalised by Fianna Fáil. As I said earlier, and I will not make it a personal attack but a collective attack, they should be ashamed of themselves and they should be ashamed of what they used to come from and what they used to stand for.

The Senator seems to have missed the point that as far as invalidity is concerned, by definition one would in most circumstances be eligible for DPMA. There is a difference in that case from the disability benefit because in the case the Senator suggested, the person would qualify for invalidity and consequently would be very likely to qualify for DPMA.

Of course it is also true that DPMA is means tested so the disability benefit would be payable to somebody perhaps who had a spouse working. The same applies to invalidity pension but not to disabled person's maintenance allowance. However the Minister dresses it up, he and the Government are penalising the sick, who will be even worse off, in order to save money. As I said before, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

There is no penalty on anyone at this stage. Everyone who has the benefit keeps it. It is a question of eligibility for benefits in the future. As I said to the Senator earlier, most countries do not go beyond 12 months on disability benefit. To qualify for an invalidity pension, a person has to meet a fairly stringent criterion. I accept that a small number of people here will have to be means tested but they will almost certainly qualify on invalidity grounds.

Just to get this in perspective, have the Minister or his Department made an assessment of the estimated savings to the State from the provisions of sections 8 and 9 and if so, will he let us have it?

Taking sections 8 and 9 together — I cannot give them to you separately — the savings would be up to £4 million in a year.

So it is a money-saving exercise, no matter how it is dressed up in terms of comparative studies with other countries, and saving money within a social welfare service which the Commission on Social Welfare said was already appallingly inadequate. My point is made and I oppose the section.

There is not much more I can add to this. I have made it quite clear that it is a major benefit while not available as easily in other countries. There is a problem, obviously, in relation to resources here. I tried to convey to Senator Ryan earlier that the fund from which this money comes is already in deficit this year to an amount of £401 million. Therefore, one has to look at the benefits which come from that fund. This is a reasonable proposal. There is, for the exceptional case a provision under the DPMA but in any event it means that one will have to have more contributions to get long term benefit.

The Minister cannot get away with this without having his exaggerations underlined. The reason the fund is in deficit is that our employers, contrary to their permanent whingeing, have the lowest levels of social insurance contributions in Europe, substantially less than virtually every other country, with the exception of Portugal and Greece. Even Spain is somewhat in excess of ours. When you have the lowest employers' PRSI contributions, one of the lowest levels of corporate and capital taxation, virtually no taxation in agriculture and a number of extraordinarily generous exemptions from tax for both the corporate and the private sector, funds like this will be in deficit. They are in deficit because the parties opposite and in front of me have no will or guts for the taxation system that would enable these things to be funded. It may make it a political necessity for them but it does not make it justifiable in terms of the sufferings it will inflict. As regards the schemes of other countries, let it be said again that most of the civilised countries of Europe, those who provide decent welfare, provide a guaranteed income for people related to their take home pay. I do not care whether that is done under disability, social welfare or unemployment benefit, if people have a guaranteed income on the basis of their previous employment, then I am quite happy to support a fundamental root and branch reorganisation. As long as the levels of benefit are so appallingly low, no cutbacks are justified in social welfare because they impose hardship on those who can least afford them. That is why I oppose the section.

As an employer I do not want to get into total conflict with the Senator. Employers are not whingeing, they are barely able to keep their heads above water and in quite a number of cases have gone under. They are running legitimate businesses, trying to give employment and trying to support their families. They are trying to help this country and are not whingeing. They do the best they can under the circumstances. Just because we are not the best off country in the world does not mean that employers should have to bear a bigger burden than they bear at present.

The Minister and we in this party would love to give extra benefits to the people who deserve them but unless extra resources are provided from the employers and the workers this cannot be done. I make no bones about the fact that I am an employer who is struggling to keep his head over water and I have been doing so for a number of years. I am fed up listening to people in this House giving out about employers as though we were leeches. The people who employ workers in this country are trying to support employment and are not leeches. I do not agree with what Senator Ryan says here continually. If he wants to change society let him get the voters out and let him get rid of the poor people like us who are trying to employ people. If he did that he would have a society in which he would not want to live.

In 1987 employers contribute £640 million to the fund, employees contribute £310 million to the fund and the State picks up the deficit of £417 million.

Question put.

The question is: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill." On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?

Senators Ross, O'Shea and B. Ryan stood.

As fewer than five Members have risen in their places, I declare the question carried. The names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.

Question declared carried.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

It seems that this provision will penalise unemployed women in particular. Would the Minister explain what the position of unemployed women is going to be under this scheme? Even though the Department of Social Welfare's guide to the social welfare services has deficiencies it is excellently produced. In producing documents like this the Minister is really giving hostages to fortune because it makes life much easier for people like me. The document refers to the maternity allowance general scheme. One presumes that that refers to the old scheme. As that scheme stood a woman who qualified for that allowance would have to have 39 weeks PRSI paid during her entire employment history. Under this section that is being changed to 39 weeks PRSI contributed or credited, of which 13 weeks should be paid during the previous 12 months. That will exclude from maternity benefit any woman who is unemployed for any length of time but who had a previous work record. This is a non-means tested benefit and it is obviously a far more humane way of dealing with the income maintenance of a pregnant woman rather than insisting that she should sign on at a labour exchange virtually up to the moment her baby is born or else look for supplementary welfare. This will penalise unemployed women.

This is a scheme for women at work and it was introduced as such in 1911. In 1981 I as Minister for Social Welfare brought in a vastly improved scheme which provided for 14 weeks maternity benefit and 70 per cent of reckonable earnings and a basic rate of £76. This is an excellent scheme. At the time it was introduced we should have abolished the old scheme but we did not abolish it because we did not want people to fall between two stools. The area of contributions and benefits is very complicated. That is why we decided to continue with the old scheme for some time and it has been in operation since.

We are now saying that in order to benefit under this scheme a woman must have 13 paid contributions in the governing contribution year, which can be as far back as 21 months, from the April of the previous year. In other words taking the year 1987 the governing year is from April 1985 to April 1986. This scheme is being retained though the other one supersedes it. It is being modified somewhat. This is one of the changes and pay related benefit is another. We are merely requiring some relatively recent attachment to the workforce. That is basically the intention of the measure and that is why the 13 paid contributions are required in the governing contribution year.

What schemes are designed for when they are set up and what they actually become are not necessarily the same thing. Perhaps the Minister will explain how many people it is expected will lose eligibility for maternity allowance under the provisions of section 10. Perhaps he will explain what the average pay related benefit paid to people under this scheme was in the period for which he has figures. That will give us some idea of how much on average people are going to lose. Is it not true that this scheme applies not just to people in the workforce but also, as stated in his guide book, "if you are not working at present or if you do not intend to return to work after the end of your maternity leave." Effectively what the Minister is doing is penalising those women who, when they become pregnant and have a baby, chose not to go back to work. Given the rhetoric in this country about the family and constitutional commitments that nothing shall be done which will force a woman to work outside the home and so on, it seems a little peculiar that we are actually introducing a change in our social welfare code which will particularly penalise those women who, as stated in the Minister's guide book, do not intend to return to work after the end of their maternity leave. It is a most regressive and regrettable scheme and one that says nothing for any overlap between the values that we make rhetorical obeisance to and the ones we actually practice in reality.

The number claiming this benefit in any one year is about 15,000. This is because periods overlap from one year to another. The number estimated to be affected by this charge will be up to 3,300. The amount of money involved is estimated at up to £2.5 million. The Senator mentioned the matter of, by definition, not returning to work and then talks about being unemployed. In these circumstances the vast majority of women concerned have no intention of returning to work and are on the credit system for some years to keep the benefit alive, as it were. The condition of the 13 paid contributions in the governing contribution year maintains a reasonable attachment to the workforce. As I have said earlier, it can mean that even for 21 months after leaving work one still gets benefit, having left with no intention of returning to work.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is Section 10 agreed?

Question put.

Senators

Vótáil.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?

Senators B. Ryan, Ross and O'Shea rose.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

As fewer than five Senators have risen in their places I declare the question carried. The names of the Members dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.

Question declared carried.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

I know the Minister will not thank me for wasting his time but I want to congratulate him on introducing the section. One of the problems with this Bill is that it goes in about four different directions at once. However, this is a sensible provision and it deserves support, whatever I might have said about other sections. I welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Will the Minister explain to me what the person is supposed to do for the three days?

At present disability benefit is not payable in respect of any period of holiday leave. Section 16 (b) provides for the introduction of three waiting days from 4 April 1988 onwards for all claimants of disability benefit transferring from maternity allowance. This change is justifiable because over 50 per cent of those who receive maternity allowance claim disability benefit immediately afterwards. The normal procedure is that when one goes on to disability benefit one serves a three day waiting period. If one is seeking disability benefit, one will obviously, in the normal way, apply for it and the three waiting days will apply there also, as they do with anyone else who goes on to disability benefit.

Effectively they do without. It is not really an admirable way of sustaining women during the immediate period after having a baby. It does not conform to some of the values that many of the members opposite me touted around the country during a recent referendum. It does not say much for our attitudes. If there is an abuse of any of these benefits then the abuse should be dealt with.

The reason 50 per cent of women go on to disability benefit after their maternity leave is completed is because they are not able, and are not well enough, to go back to work. It is an unfashionable view now to think that people actually get sick and cannot work. Most people now seem to believe that people are not sick, and just do not want to work, and that they get all these benefits by fiddling. I believe that people who have been on maternity allowance go onto disability benefit simply because they are not physically capable of going back to work and because their local GP, who knows them best, believes that that is the case and signs a medical certificate to that effect. It is mean-minded penny pinching to leave a gap of three days for somebody on a relatively small income, simply to bring them into conformity with other schemes that have different objectives. It is totally unnecessary. Perhaps the Minister will explain, yet again, how much precisely, will be saved by this provision?

There is no waiting period for the maternity allowance. As far as that is concerned one gets 14 weeks maternity leave and allowance. If one is then applying for disability benefit, just like anyone else applying for disability benefit, one would serve the three waiting days. The Senator may know better than I why such a large proportion of women go straight on to disability benefit after maternity leave and indeed stay on disability benefit for quite some time subsequently. The savings in a year would be of the order of £500,000.

An Leas-Cathaoirleach

Is the section agreed?

This section is, unfortunately, rather complicated. I will have to consider an amendment on Report Stage. The section has two parts; one a positive and worthwhile provision about holidays and the other an offensive provision. I do not like this idea, that because something happens therefore we must suspect abuse. It is astonishing that the Minister for Social Welfare gives the impression that he has not endeavoured to find out why women who were on maternity allowance go on to disability benefit. I would have thought in a proper managerial system, if an anomaly was thrown up one would endeavour to find out the reason before one endeavoured to deal with it. I said this on a number of occasions about the whole area of welfare and welfare abuse. If there is abuse, then we should find out about it and if there is not abuse then we should not penalise people because we imagine there is abuse. If the percentage of women going on to disability benefit is particularly high, then we should find out the reason, and if it is because they are sick, then we should look at extending the period of maternity allowance because obviously people need a longer period to recover from the trauma.

In conclusion I am perfectly certain that if our Cabinet was made up of 15 women and one man, instead of 15 men and one woman, a number of the provisions in this Bill about maternity allowance would never have been introduced. Our legislation reflects the enormously dominant male view of all these issues. If we had a government of women, a lot of these provisions would not have even been considered because they attack women in particular.

The Senator is grasping at straws and going from the sublime to the ridiculous. First of all, it was a man in a male Cabinet who introduced the scheme. I introduced the very much improved maternity scheme in 1981 with the base of £76 a week, which was often above the income of women in more menial jobs. I do not accept the Senator's comments. We have introduced an excellent scheme. It is a scheme for women at work. What about the woman who comes back to work and is out again after two or three days or a week? She will have three waiting days, the same as everybody else, for disability benefit. Three waiting days apply to disability benefit in almost all circumstances. All that is happening here is that an anomaly in relation to the waiting days is being removed. The impact of that will be very small on a number of people concerned because they will have 70 per cent of their earnings or a minimum of £76 per week for that period of 14 weeks. If it transpires then that they go on disability benefit, they may be on benefit that lasts for a long time and we are back to the question of the resources of the fund. The Deputy is obviously not happy with that situation and I do not think I can do anything more for him at this stage. It is a similar provision to that which applies in every other circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19, inclusive; agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

One of the more regrettable parts of this Bill is that it contains the first provision to abolish pay-related benefit for one category of recipients. We have had reductions in pay-related benefit over a period of time. Given that this Bill represents the thrust of the campaign by the right wing economic cabal that dictates policy in this country at present and represents the first victory for them in their campaign which has gone on for five or six years against the whole concept of pay-related benefit, I do not believe we have reached the end of this. I forecast that we will have more Bills from this Government, or from the so-called alternative Government who agree with them in everything, which will lead us along the same line and we will go back to a poor law version of social welfare of which this Bill represents simply the tip of the iceberg. I still oppose this Bill.

In deference to my colleagues, I have been waiting patiently to make one small contribution. I welcome the areas where the Minister has improved the situation, particularly in relation to trade disputes.

I suggest to the Minister that he should give serious consideration to the position of athletes chosen to represent their country at international level who are in receipt of State benefit — specifically unemployment assistance. There have been a number of instances where such exceptional people have been denied State benefits due to their involvement in such——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

At this stage it is only appropriate to speak on matters contained in the Bill itself. You cannot advocate something new at this stage.

I accept your ruling. I just wanted to take this opportunity because the Olympic year is beginning on 1 January and I would hate to see some of our athletes denied participation due to a lack of State assistance.

I thank Senators for their wideranging contributions, particularly on Second Stage, and I have noted what has been said. We will certainly bear those comments in mind because we would expect to bring in another Bill early in the New Year in relation to a number of measures. We will bear those points in mind in our future considerations.

I should like to point out to Senator Ryan that this represents no victory for any economists. The pay-related benefit on the old scheme is being superseded by a far better scheme of maternity benefit. Consequently the Senator would be quite wrong to assume that there was any victory by any economists. We will certainly do our bit to protect those who are in need and direct the resources towards them. That would be my principal objective and I will resist any attempts to undermine the necessary benefits, although I obviously have to look at rationalisation and streamlining. I believe this Bill will help me to maintain the position of those who are in genuine need.

Question put and declared carried.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I call on the Leader of the House to indicate when it is proposed to meet again.

It is intended that we reconvene at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Top
Share