The measures contained in this Bill represent a further major advance by the Government in tackling poverty. We have concentrated the available resources in a number of vital areas and brought about significant real improvements in the position of those in greatest need.
The ESRI report on poverty and the social welfare system identified a number of categories of people who are at risk. The measures in this Bill represent a further major step in improving this situation and, taken with the measures we introduced in 1988, substantial progress has been made since the surveys on which the ESRI report's findings were based.
The Government's social welfare policy is well directed and has led to major improvements in the system in the two years since we took office. We have maintained the basic structure of the schemes and by bringing the self-employed into the social insurance system we have filled a major gap in coverage. Furthermore, through better management and control we have been able to ensure that resources are directed to those who need them. Over the past two years the Government have provided about £256 million extra to those on low incomes. Last year in addition to the general increase in social welfare payments and the extension of social insurance we provided for increases of over 11 per cent in the personal rates of the lowest social welfare payments and a major streamlining of child dependant allowance with extra amounts at the lowest levels. In addition, by rationalising the free fuel schemes and extending entitlement to the long-term unemployed with families we gave a further significant increase in income to the families concerned.
This year we are continuing with, and building on, the significant improvements we made last year and we are directing substantial extra resources to those identified in the ESRI report as needing special assistance, including in particular large families and families where the head of household is unemployed or employed on low earnings.
The main improvements in payments provided in this Bill are:
(1) a general increase of 3 per cent in widow's and old age pensions, unemployment and disability benefit and other weekly payments;
(2) a 12 per cent increase in the personal rates of long-term unemployment assistance and 8 per cent increase for short-term unemployed and those on supplementary welfare allowance;
(3) abolition of the lower rural rate of unemployment assistance by increasing this rate, and consequently the rates of supplementary welfare allowance, to the higher, urban, rate;
(4) a streamlining of the rates of adult dependant allowance for unemployment payments to two rates — a long term rate and a short term rate — instead of five as at present. The number or rates from 17 to six within a two year span;
(5) an increase to a minimum of £10 per week in child dependant allowances payable with weekly social welfare payments and a further streamlining of rates of increases for children, reducing the number of such increases to 12 from 36 two years ago;
(6) payment of the higher rate of monthly child benefit of £21.75 in respect of the fifth and subsequent children.
From July next a family with three children in receipt of unemployment benefit will receive an increase of £3.50 per week giving them a new rate of £105.80 per week. Pay-related benefit of up to £18.10 per week may also be payable, bringing the total to £123.90. A couple on retirement or old age contributory pension will receive an increase of £3.00 per week, giving them a new rate of £102.20 per week. A widow with four children in receipt of a contributory pension will get an increase of £3.10 per week, giving her a new rate of £110.90 per week.
Apart from these specific measures, we have also taken a number of other important initiatives to extend and improve the social welfare system. We are providing for a new social assistance scheme for widowers and deserted husbands. We are extending occupational injuries cover to members of the Garda Síochána. We are imposing a liability on a deserting husband (or wife) to maintain the deserted wife (or husband) and children. Having extended PRSI to the self-employed last April, the Government have now decided in principle to extend PRSI cover to public servants, following consultation with the public sector unions. We are exempting fostering allowances for means assessment purposes. We are changing the arrangements which operate in separate payment cases. We are providing for a greater degree of flexibility in relation to activities which unemployed people may engage in while remaining entitled to unemployment payments. We are taking powers to pay prescribed relative allowance direct to the relative who provides care. We are taking further measures to strengthen the provisions relating to the control of fraud and abuse of the system. Other changes are being introduced without recourse to legislation. These include an option to use natural gas in the free schemes, allowing pensioners carryover unused units of electricity from one billing period to the next, and significant improvements in the free fuel scheme. Other possible developments will be examined during the year and implemented as appropriate.
I want a service for social welfare clients that is equal to the best that the public or private sector can provide and this Bill will further that development.
One of the most striking features of the rates increases given in the past two years is the narrowing of the gap between the various schemes in the levels of payment provided to families with an equal number of children. For example, prior to July 1988, the payments being made to a five child family ranged from £75.00 to £117.20, a gap of £42.20 per week. Taking account of the measures included in this Bill, the payments being made range from £115.30 to £127.00, a gap of only £11.20 per week, as compared with £42.20 previously.
With regard to special increases for the long term unemployed, this year the Government again approved a further special package aimed at the least welloff. In recognition of the special difficulties faced by the long term unemployed, I have increased the long term personal rate of unemployment assistance by a further £5 a week. I am aware that the assistance rate will now be higher than the basic benefit rate, but I am satisfied that this is necessary to help people to cope with the extra needs where unemployment is of long duration.
The personal long term rate of unemployment assistance will now be £47 per week. The personal rate for short term unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance will be £42 per week. A married couple bringing up three children on long term unemployment assistance will get £8.20 extra per week, bringing their total to £107. A similar family with five children will get an extra £11.40 per week, bringing them to £127 per week. They will also get an increase in child benefit. Taken together with the increases given last year, these payments have risen by almost 25 per cent since last July. They represent a very considerable improvement for those dependent on these social welfare payments.
In relation to improvements of particular benefit to families, adult and child dependant rates, in future there will only be two rates of adult dependant allowance for the unemployed, one long-term and the other short-term. In reducing the number of rates from five to two, I am also giving special increases.
I am continuing to streamline the child dependant allowance rates as I did last year. A minimum rate of £10 a week for dependent children is being introduced. This represents a considerable increase for larger families and as a result, the number of rates of child dependant allowance is being reduced to 12, as against 36 different rates up to last July.
With regard to the extension of child dependency, section 7 of the Bill provides that the child dependant allowance for long-term recipients will be paid up to 19 years where the child continues in full-time education. The Government regard this as a first step towards eventually extending the period of payment of the child dependant allowances, where the child is in full-time education, to 21 years.
Section 5 of the Bill provides that the higher rate of monthly child benefit of £21.75, which is currently payable in respect of the sixth and subsequent children, will, from next October, be payable in respect of the fifth and subsequent children.
The Government are firmly committed to improving the position of families. We do this directly through the social welfare payments and through the family income supplement scheme for those at work on low incomes. Child benefit or children's allowances, as most people still know it, on the other hand, applies to all children and is paid directly to the mother. It applies equally to the children of those at work and those on social welfare and, therefore, does not create a disincentive to employment. However, the one disadvantage of child benefit is that it is not possible at present to allocate extra resources to those who need them most. We can go some way in this direction by giving extra increases to larger families, as we did this year, and also through the tax system by means of the child-related tax exemption scheme also introduced this year.
If in future we wish to use the child benefit scheme, not only for general across the board increases, but also as a means of directing more resources to particular groups of children, then we will have to find a way to do this. The extent to which we can do it will depend on our success in matching tax records with child benefit records so that we can identify the income level of recipients. To date, we have matched approximately 70 per cent of our records and we are working on the balance. This matching exercise is very important for the future. It will open up the means for us to use the child benefit system, not only to make payments to every mother as heretofore, but also to direct additional resources to lower and middle income families.
The family income supplement is a further element in the resources allocated to families. In keeping with the Programme for National Recovery, I arranged for a detailed study of the family income supplement scheme. The report addresses the main policy issues in relation to the scheme, including the question of the rate of take up.
A main conclusion of the report is that the original estimates of take up on the scheme were too high. A reassessment of the potential claimant pool revealed a maximum of 20,000 families who would be eligible. Allowing for take up rates experienced internationally on such schemes, the report estimated that the maximum achievable number of clients is unlikely to be more than 12,000 families.
I am at present finalising my proposals for improvements in the scheme, which I will be announcing shortly. The improvements will come into effect with the increases in rates of payment generally from July next. As already announced in the budget, there is an allocation of £1 million extra for the family income supplement scheme to cover these improvements. This 20 per cent increase will bring the total expenditure to over £6 million for 1989.
There is a new deal for widowers and deserted husbands. For some time, I have been very concerned at the difficulties faced by men on low incomes who are bringing up children on their own. Unlike women in this predicament, widowers and deserted husbands with children, who are unable to take up paid employment due to their domestic responsibilities, find that the only social welfare payment available to them is supplementary welfare allowance — one of the lowest social welfare payments.
In this Bill I am providing a new social assistance scheme for widowers and deserted husbands. Section 6 provides for payments to widowers and deserted husbands with dependent children on the same lines as the non-contributory widow's pension and deserted wife's allowance schemes.
Let me give some examples of how a widower will benefit under this new scheme. A widower with two children who is in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance currently gets £56.80 per week. Under the new scheme he will get £74.80, an increase of £18. Those with large families will gain even more. A man with five children would get £80.80 under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. This will be increased to £115.30 under the new arrangements — a very substantial increase of £34.50 per week. This is in addition to the increase in child benefit for large families, which would increase the weekly gain to £36.05. I estimate that 5,500 men will benefit from the new schemes.
I also consider that there is scope for rationalisation in this whole area. The introduction of these new schemes mean that there will now be six separate social assistance schemes providing income support to lone parents. Accordingly, my Department are examining the possibility of replacing these schemes by one lone parent allowance scheme which would apply to parents, male or female, who are bringing up children on their own. Complex legislative changes will be involved but I hope to be in a position to bring forward proposals in the matter later in the year.
Section 8 provides for the increase in the ceiling for employees and employers and section 9 provides for the increase in respect of the self-employed. As a result of these increases from 6 April 1989 employees and the self-employed will pay PRSI contributions in respect of earnings up to £16,700 instead of £16,200 at present. This is the lowest percentage increase in the ceiling for employee contributions for some years. Employers will continue to pay contributions up to a ceiling of £18,000 in respect of employees who have these higher earnings. The extra cost to employers in 1989 will be £4 million. At the same time employers will save an estimated £7.5 million in 1989 as a result of the reduction in their contribution to the redundancy fund.
Section 10 of the Bill provides for an increase from £66 to £69 in the amount of weekly earnings disregarded in calculating the rate of pay-related benefit. The purpose of the weekly earnings disregard is to ensure that the amount of personal flat rate benefit is taken into account in determining the amount of the pay-related element. The change will affect new claims from 3 April.
Section 11 of the Bill provides that the rural rate of unemployment assistance will be raised to the higher rate applying in urban areas, at a cost of £7.25 million in a full year. The differential in rates dates back to 1934 and is now clearly outmoded. People in rural Ireland face the same cost of living as urban dwellers and, furthermore, the present situation has led to serious anomalies in that many areas now accepted as urban are outside the urban classification.
The supplementary welfare rate of payment which was the same as the short term rural rate, irrespective of where the claimant lived, will also be increased to the short term urban rate. The effect of this measure will be to give a total weekly increase of £5.70 to a couple on supplementary welfare allowance.
When I took up office there were 17 rates of payment in unemployment assistance alone. In just two years I have cut these down to six rates — a personal rate and an adult dependant rate for short term and for long term unemployment assistance, and two child dependant rates. This is a substantial reform of the social welfare code by any measure.
The break up of marriage through desertion is an increasing problem in our society today. In 1978 there were 5,237 women in receipt of deserted wife's benefit or allowance. This grew to 13,617 by 1988. This represents an increase of 8,380 (160 per cent) in a ten year period. Expenditure has shown a corresponding increase rising from £5.6 million in 1978 to £52 million in 1988. The State has always shown concern for deserted wives and will continue to do so. They are paid at the same rate as widows.
Except in the case of supplementary welfare, no provision has been made up to now to require a deserting spouse to contribute towards the payments being made under the social welfare code for the maintenance of his or her family. In the case of social welfare payments to the deserted spouse, responsibility for seeking income support from their spouse has been left to the claimant. Entitlement to the payments is conditional on the claimant making and continuing to make reasonable efforts to obtain such support. The only sanction my Department had, in cases where it was not satisfied with those efforts, was to reject the claim or to withdraw payment in cases where it was already in payment.
However, it is clear that too many spouses are just walking away from their responsibilities towards their families and leaving it to the taxpayer — through the State — to pick up the burden. This is not good enough. What we are setting out to do through this Bill is to impose a liability on a husband to maintain his wife and family and, likewise, to impose the same liability on a wife to maintain her husband and family.
This Bill provides that the competent authority — either the Minister for Social Welfare or a health board — can seek a maintenance order against a person who fails to maintain their family, and the District Court shall order that person to pay the maintenance to the competent authority.
Where the persons concerned or their employers fail or refuse to supply social welfare officers, or the health boards as the case may be, with any information or documents required for the purposes of any investigation related to the award of benefits or allowances under these schemes, they shall be guilty of an offence and subject on conviction to substantial fines.
In this way, the State can recoup some of the cost of supporting the deserted family. Where the maintenance is paid to a deserted spouse, that person, if receiving an allowance from my Department or from the health board by way of supplementary welfare allowance, shall be liable to transfer the maintenance to the competent authority.
A practice has grown up in the courts, when dealing with maintenance orders, to limit maintenance to a topping up of the payments received from social welfare. The effect of this is to cause the State to bear the responsibility of supporting the family, rather than placing that responsibility firmly and fairly on the shoulders of the deserting spouse. Section 13 of the Bill provides for amendments to the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1976, to exclude social welfare payments from the benefits that a court can take into account in determining maintenance orders.
Special provision has been made to protect the income position of claimants who are currently receiving payments under the social welfare code as deserted wives. Those claimants will not be required to transfer any payments they are, or will be, receiving on foot of maintenance orders obtained prior to the coming into force of these provisions. Where those claimants obtain maintenance orders after the date of commencement of these provisions, only the amount of payments in excess of amounts awarded under the original orders will be transferable by them.
This new section on liability to maintain contains a clear, comprehensive and coherent set of provisions. They will enable my Department or the appropriate health board to obtain contributions from deserting spouses. The contributions obtained will help to ease the burden on PRSI contributions and taxpayers generally of financing these payments. The purpose here is to maintain the payments totally to the deserted spouse. Indeed we are expanding that by bringing in deserted husbands as well, maintaining that payment but, at the same time, allowing the State to be in a position to pursue a recoupment of all or part of the payment from the deserting spouse.
At present a person who has exhausted entitlement to unemployment benefit can requalify for benefit after having worked and paid contributions for 13 weeks. This proved to be a significant incentive for people to take up insurable employment of short duration. While entitled to or in receipt of unemployment benefit a person was not entitled to receive unemployment assistance. This does not pose any problem where the rate of benefit exceeds the rate of assistance. However, following the improvements I have already announced, the rate of unemployment assistance is now higher than the rate of unemployment benefit, and so there could be a disincentive to an unemployed person to take up employment of short duration. Section 14 of the Bill provides power to enable me, by regulation, subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance, to allow an unemployed person the option of claiming either unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance, whichever is the more favourable.
Senators will be aware that in recent years I have promoted a number of initiatives to increase flexibility in the unemployment payments system, and facilitate the unemployed in their efforts to find a foothold in the jobs market. These initiatives cover facilities to pursue educational courses, to take up part time work, and to engage in voluntary work of benefit to the community.
The need for greater flexibility in the unemployment payment schemes was raised by a number of Deputies on Second Stage debate on this Bill in the Dáil. Many Deputies expressed concern that the existing statutory condition regarding availability for work is so restrictive as to preclude claimants from engaging in activities which would enhance their prospects of obtaining employment again. Section 28 of the Bill provides me with powers to make regulations to deem persons to be available for work for unemployment assistance purposes and to exempt persons from having to be available for work in order to qualify for either unemployment benefit or assistance. The power to deem persons to be available for employment already exists for unemployment benefit purposes. It is envisaged that the new powers would be directed primarily at the long term unemployed and would be used, for example, to allow persons to attend courses of education, subject to certain conditions, without affecting their entitlement to unemployment payments. The provision might also be used to enable the long term unemployed, in restricted circumstances and for limited periods, to engage in certain community enterprise projects. This measure will greatly add to the flexibility of the unemployment payments system and enhance the potential for development of initiatives, such as the part time education and voluntary work schemes.
Section 15 of the Bill provides for the exemption of fostering allowances from the assessment of means for unemployment assistance, old age and widow's pensions and supplementary welfare allowance schemes. The health boards have experienced considerable difficulties in recruiting foster parents in recent years. As Senators are aware, there has been a move away from residential care and efforts are being made to place more children in foster homes where they can enjoy the benefits of normal family life. The health boards regard the fostering allowance, currently £34.50 per week, as a payment for the maintenance of the child. The fact that it is payable irrespective of the foster parents' circumstances allows the financial circumstances of potential foster parents to be disregarded when their suitability as foster parents is being considered. By excluding the assessment of fostering allowances from the social welfare means test, this section removes what could be seen as a disincentive to potential foster parents.
Under the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, regulations have been made which allow the payment of the allowances for adult and child dependants to be made directly to the spouse of a claimant, in cases where the claimant does not provide the spouse with sufficient money for ordinary household expenditure. The claimant, usually the husband, continues to receive the personal rate. This arises where there are problems such as gambling, alcoholism or drug addiction.
Section 16 of the Bill provides that regulations may allow such amount of the social welfare payment, as is reasonable in the circumstances, to be paid direct to the spouse. The claimant will be paid at least the value of the adult dependant allowance. I am sure that this new provision will be welcomed by those who are currently surviving on separate payments.
Senators will be familiar with the prescribed relative allowance which is payable to pensioners who are so incapacitated as to require full time care and attention from a relative. In line with recommendations that have been made in this area, section 30 of the Bill provides for enabling powers to allow me to pay the prescribed relative allowance directly to the carer subject to such conditions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed. The allowance which is currently £27.20 will be increased to £28 with effect from July. It is envisaged that the new arrangements will apply only to new cases and that existing pensioners will have the option of either continuing to receive the allowance or having it paid direct to the relative who provides the care.
Section 17 of the Bill is designed to confirm the current insurability of sub-postmasters as employees, by specifically including such employment in the list of insurable employments contained in Part I of the First Schedule to the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. Arising from a recent High Court judgment, it was considered that there was a possibility that sub-postmasters might be regarded as being under a contract for service as distinct from a contract of service. In that case they would no longer be insurable as employees. This provision is intended to safeguard their current position under the Social Welfare Acts.
I am providing in this Bill for the extension of occupational injuries benefits to members of An Garda Síochána. Section 18 of the Bill provides the means for including gardaí in the occupational injuries scheme. At present gardaí have no entitlements under this scheme. In the case of malicious injuries or death, a garda or his representatives may apply for compensation under the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Acts. However, other injuries received or diseases contracted accidentally in the course of duty are not covered by this legislation. It is now proposed to fill this gap in their coverage by bringing gardaí within the scope of the occupational injuries scheme. Gardaí will be covered on the same basis as other civil servants. They will be entitled to half rate disablement benefit starting 26 weeks after the occupational accident occurs or disease is contracted. They will also have full cover for survivors' benefits, including widow's pension, dependent widower's pension or gratuity, orphan's pension, dependent parents' pension and funeral grant. A reduced rate of occupational injuries contribution will be paid on behalf of the gardaí in line with the limited benefits for which they will be covered.
The section also provides that any benefits payable to gardaí or their survivors under the scheme will be taken into account in the assessment of damages under the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Acts. This is in line with similar arrangements in assessing damages for the purposes of the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act, 1964.
The details of coverage and the contributions payable will be set out in regulations following this legislation. Coverage under the occupational injuries scheme will represent a considerable improvement in the employment conditions for gardaí. I am sure that Senators will support me in acknowledging the good work done by An Garda Síochána and I am sure that this measure will have the support of the Seanad.
Over the last two years I have placed great emphasis on the effective management of the resources devoted to social welfare. As a result, I have put in place a range of measures to eliminate fraud and control abuse of our schemes. I intend to continue to pursue these measures vigorously and to improve them as the need arises. There are a number of measures in this Bill aimed at improving the effectiveness of the various measures I have brought in.
From the start of this year, employers in the construction, contract cleaning, forestry and security industries are required to notify my Department when they take on new employees. So far 528 employees were notified to my Department for January and 1,145 were notified for February. This gives a clear indication of the value of this control measure.
I am aware from discussions with the trade unions and from other sources that there has been an increasing recourse to the employment of subcontractors in these industries. It is also clear from investigations carried out by my Department that many subcontractors are not fulfilling their responsibilities in terms of tax and PRSI. Accordingly, I am amending the legislation to provide for the notification to me by any employer, in the designated industries, of the employment by them of any subcontractor will also addition, each subcontractor will also have to notify me of any person engaged by him or working with him. This will greatly assist in the control of those "cowboy" operators who set out to cheat the taxpayer and their competitors. Section 20 provides that, in any proceedings for an offence under the Social Welfare Acts, a certificate, signed by an officer and certifying facts recorded on computer or on microfilm, will, in the absence of the original document, be prima facie evidence of the facts so certified. This provision is required because of the increasing extent to which records of the Department are held on computer and microfilm instead of on paper. The provision also extends to organisations with which the Department conduct their business, for example, An Post propose to microfilm cashed social welfare pension orders.
Section 21 provides that records relating to earnings and periods of employment maintained by an employer shall be regarded as prima facie evidence of these matters. This is intended to simplify the current arrangements whereby, in cases involving large companies, a number of company staff would be required to give evidence to prove that a person was in fact employed in a particular period and that wages were paid to him in respect of such employment.
Section 22 provides that, where an employer who colludes with an employee in fradulently obtaining any social welfare payment is convicted of certain offences, that employer will be liable for the repayment on demand, as a civil debt, of the amount irregularly received by the employee as a result of that collusion, while in his employment.
Under the legislation enacted last year relating to self-employed contributors, a self-employed person was required to have discharged his full liability before he could be regarded as having paid his PRSI contribution. Because of the way the tax system works, this requirement for full discharge is giving rise to serious problems as tax assessments are reviewed and revised. The provisions allow contributions which have not been paid to be treated as having been paid, in certain circumstances.
The Bill provides for substantial improvements for the proposed pre-retirement allowance scheme which is intended to provide more flexible arrangements for unemployed people in the over 60 age group. The legislative basis for this scheme was contained in last year's Social Welfare Act and regulations are required to implement it. Following the amendments in this Bill, I propose to make regulations providing for the new improved scheme as soon as the administrative arrangements are in place.
The main effect of the amendments included in this Bill is to remove the requirement contained in the 1988 legislation that an applicant be otherwise entitled to unemployment assistance. This will enable the allowance to continue be paid to retired persons who, for example, fall ill and would, therefore, not fulfil the conditions for unemployment assistance. The Bill also provides for the includion of the pre-retirement allowance as a separate allowance in the list of social assistance payments contained in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill. This will give greater flexibility in regard to determining reduced rates of allowance as the rates will no longer be tied to the rates of unemployment assistance.
Section 30 of the Social Welfare Act, 1988, provided powers to make regulations giving entitlement to pensions to certain persons who came back into insurance on the abolition of the earnings limit for liability for social insurance contributions in April 1974. The provision was intended to cater for those who, having paid contributions covering them for old age contributory pension, failed to qualify for a pension because of gaps in their insurance record prior to 1974.
Many Senators will be familiar with this problem. It was always considered to be inequitable that employees, who became compulsorily insured for the first time in April 1974, were able to build up an entitlement to a minimum old age contributory pension after a relatively short number of years, whereas those, with a similar record of insurance after 1974, failed to get a pension because of the effect that the pre-1974 "gaps" had on their yearly average of contributions.
It has since emerged that the enabling legislation and regulations made under it in 1988 gave entitlement to pro rata pensions to categories of insured persons other than those for whom they were intended. The wording of the legislation also gave entitlement to persons who came back into insurance in 1974 but at a modified rate which did not include cover for old age contributory pension. Persons in this situation are part of what is known as the “mixed insurance” category and there are particular problems associated with their situation. The problems of “mixed insurance” and its effects on pension entitlements are being examined at present by the National Pensions Board as part of their review of State, semi-State and private occupational arrangements.
Section 25 is intended to remedy the defect in the primary legislation by confirming that entitlement to pensions will be confined to those affected by the insurable limit as originally intended, namely, persons who again became compulsorily insured at the full rate of contribution in April 1974 following the abolition of the insurable limit.
Sections 26 and 27 are designed to remedy potential defects identified in existing legislation and ensure that the provisions covered endure and are correct.
The last four sections in the Bill, namely sections 28, 29, 30 and 31, are new sections which were inserted in the course of the debate on the Bill in Dáil Éireann. Section 28 is the section which enables me by regulations to expand the criteria under which a person can be regarded as available for work for unemployment purposes, which I referred to earlier in my speech. Section 29 provides that such regulations will be subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. Section 30 provides for another matter to which I have already referred, namely, the payment of the prescribed relative allowance in certain circumstances direct to the prescribed relative. Finally, section 31 reduces from six to three months the period for which a person who is convicted of an offence in connection with the fraudulent receipt of a social welfare benefit is disqualified from receiving benefit.
In conclusion I believe that the measures included in this Bill represent a very significant and worth-while package for people dependent on social welfare, and especially for those on the lowest payments. Since the Government took office two years ago, we have introduced some of the most far-reaching improvements in the social welfare system for many years and we will continue to improve and develop the system as resources allow. At the same time, I will continue to concentrate resources on ensuring that the system is managed effectively and that fraud and abuse are controlled. In this way we will have a social welfare system which is comprehensive, efficient and effective in meeting the needs of its clients.
I commend this Bill to the Seanad.
