Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1989

Vol. 122 No. 20

Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1989: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

The recent Supreme Court decision, which found that a section of the 1985 Equal Treatment Act was defective, has major implications for the social welfare system. It raises the whole issue as to whether social assistance can continue to be paid on the basis of household needs and also the question as to how a household is to be defined for this purpose.

To deal with the situation arising from the Supreme Court decision, the Government decided on two courses of action. First the Government have decided to undertake a fundamental review of the concept of the household for social welfare purposes and have set up a high-level review group for this purpose. The function of the review group, which will be chaired by Mr. John Curry, formerly Chairman of the Commission on Social Welfare, will be to examine the social Welfare code in so far as it affects households in relation to the payment of social assistance and to provide guidelines for the future direction of policy in this area.

Pending the outcome of this review, the Government decided to introduce this Bill to remedy the particular defect in the 1985 Act identified by the court, by providing for equality of treatment between married couples and unmarried couples who are cohabiting as man and wife.

The function of the review group will be to examine the present arrangements for payments to households and to identify problems in this area having regard to the requirements of equality of treatment and the need to have regard to the costs of maintaining different households.

This will necessitate a fundamental review of the payments structure as it applies to different household situations as a basis for the allocation of further resources. The present system is based largely on the family as a married couple with payments being made in respect of the claimant, a dependent spouse and any dependent children. The various provisions for the assessment of means for the social assistance schemes also reflect this approach.

The Supreme Court decision requires that the existence of other types of household must be taken into account within the code. This is particularly so in so far as the present arrangements, which are essentially based on giving particular recognition to the married household, may have disadvantages for married couples as against other couples.

In my view, this is the most complex issue which has had to be addressed in the social welfare area for decades. It is an aspect of the code which was not specifically addressed by the Commission on Social Welfare. The commission recommended that, in the context of a unified social assistance scheme, payments should reflect household situations and that the appropriate rate for a couple should be 1.6 times the personal rate. The commission did not, however, consider in detail the concept of what should constitute a household for this purpose and how different household situations should be recognised and provided for. I am particularly pleased that the group will be chaired by Mr. John Curry, who in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission on Social Welfare, is more familiar than most with the provisions of our social welfare code. In the light of the review group's analysis the Government will consider what changes are required and these will be brought forward in time for next year's budget.

The Oireachtas will then have an opportunity to consider the various issues involved in the context of the associated Social Welfare Bill. I am grateful to the members of the group for consenting to participate in the review and I look forward with great interest to the results of their work.

The equal treatment arrangements introduced by the previous Government in 1985 provided that where both of a married couple are entitled to a social insurance payment in their own right, each receives the full personal rate of payment. The fact that the limitation provided for in section 12 of the 1985 Act only applies where one or both of the couple are entitled to unemployment assistance reflects the underlying objective of this scheme which is to provide assistance which is related to the needs of the household. This means that households with similar needs should receive the same level of financial support. It would be inequitable to provide households with identical needs, with different levels of payment which is what would happen if the limitation were not applied. For example, married couples where both spouses are available for work would receive a substantially higher payment than the vast majority of other married couples where one spouse works in the home. This situation would be in total conflict with the needs based nature of the unemployment assistance scheme.

The provisions of the 1985 Act are based on the principle that the level of unemployment assistance payable should be related to the needs of the household. This principle is not unique to this country. The social security systems of many of our European partners provide for a lower rate of payment to persons who share the same household.

These systems are based on the principle that the needs of a couple living together are less than those of two persons living in separate households. This stands to reason as there is a sharing of basic resources such as accommodation, heating, lighting and other household goods.

Recent research in this area in the UK and the United States for example demonstrates that a payment rate of 1.6 times that of one personal rate is reasonable.

It is evident, however, that while the principles which underlie the present system are reasonable, the system is inconsistent in the way in which it treats families in different household situations. The review group will have to consider what changes are required to ensure that households with similar needs receive the same level of support. Clearly it will be necessary for the group to take account of the requirements of the equal treatment directive. In a sense, the requirements of equal treatment were responsible for our present difficulties inasmuch as the approach adopted was to discontinue the head of household concept.

While I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the review, I suspect that it may be necessary for us to follow the trends in other countries by returning in some shape or form to the head of household concept which existed prior to 1985 and applying the concept to all of the different household situations which can exist.

The basic principle embodied in the 1985 Act, that unemployment assistance to married couples should be paid on the basis of household needs, is a reasonable one and this Bill is designed to uphold this principle. To do so, however, it is necessary in the light of the Supreme Court judgment, to also apply the principle to the small number of households comprised of unmarried cohabiting couples who qualify for unemployment assistance. It has yet to be established how many, if any, such households are covered by this provision. It is clear, however, that the number involved will not be great.

During the passage of this Bill in the Dáil, many Deputies expressed concern at the absence of a definition of cohabitation in the Bill. There is of course nothing new about the concept of cohabitation in social welfare legislation and it already applies in a number of the schemes. The concept itself is relatively straightforward. In a recent High Court case the court stated that it had no difficulty in understanding cohabitation as meaning living together as through a married couple when not married.

The application of the condition in those schemes in which it currently applies does not give rise to major difficulties. Claimants are required to notify the Department of any circumstances or change in circumstances which may affect their claim and claimants generally do meet their statutory obligations in this regard. Problems can, of course, arise in situations where claimants attempt to conceal the fact that they are cohabiting. In order to prove that the claimant is cohabiting, it is necessary to establish that the couple actually live together and that there is a financial aspect to their relationship. This involves an examination of the circumstances and duration of their living together including such matters as who owns or rents the property, how it is shared and the allocation of duties within the household. It is also necessary to examine the couple's financial arrangements to determine if the financial responsibilities are shared in a way similar to those of a married couple. The social and sexual aspects of the couples relationship would obviously also be factors in establishing cohabitation. I would stress, however, that any investigation into these areas is carried out in a way which is not intrusive and in which there is full regard for rights of individual claimants.

The Bill addresses specifically the issue of couples who are cohabiting and applies to them the same rules as apply to married couples. Cohabitation is of course only one of a number of household situations which can arise. Other obvious examples are brother and sister households, parents and children both claiming or a number of people sharing a flat. These are the sort of situations which will need to be addressed by the review group so that a consistent and equitable approach can be adopted in the distribution of resources in the future.

The problem of households consisting of more than one person with an individual entitlement has arisen in the past in relation to the fuel allowance scheme. In that case, the issue was resolved by providing one allowance per household despite the fact that there may be several persons in the household with individual entitlements. This is the only realistic approach to adopt in this situation. It would be ludicrous to provide more than one allowance where there are several persons residing in the household who each have an individual entitlement to a fuel allowance. Obviously there is only one house to be heated. While one might say that the fuel allowance should be higher, there would be no sense in providing more than one fuel allowance in each house in a means tested assistance scheme.

What we are trying to do is to provide social assistance on an equitable basis to families. This is consistent with the Government's whole approach in the social welfare area which has been particularly focused on families. Since taking up office we have provided substantial additional assistance towards helping families who are dependent on social welfare payments and families where the breadwinner is employed and on low pay. During the past two years, the Government have allocated an additional £257 million specifically for improvements in the social welfare area. This year we have again concentrated significant additional resources on larger families and particularly those on low incomes.

It is generally accepted that families headed by an unemployed person, particularly large families, are most at risk from poverty. The Government have recognised the special needs of the unemployed and large families and since taking up office in 1987, we have introduced a number of measures which have significantly improved their position. For example, a special increase of 11 per cent was provided for the long-term unemployed last year, while a further special increase of 12 per cent was provided this year. That is in contrast to inflation rates of less than 2.5 per cent at the time. In practical terms this means that a family with five children and on long-term unemployment assistance have received an increase of £29.10 in weekly income over the past two years.

The position of many families who depend on social welfare has been further enhanced by the provision of special increases for adult dependants, usually a wife working in the home, and a minimum child dependant allowance of £10 a week. In addition we have simplified the system through the streamlining of the various rates payable in respect of dependants. The number of rates of child dependant allowance have been reduced from 36 to 12 and the number of rates payable in respect of adult dependants have been reduced from ten to six. This significant simplification of the system was carried out by levelling upwards and this has resulted in additional gains for many families.

Child dependant allowances payable to recipients of long-term social welfare payments have been extended up to age 19 where children continue 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.

The Government regard child benefit as a vital support for the family as it is payable to the mother regardless of whether the parents are employed, unemployed or on some other social welfare payment. The higher rate of child benefit is being extended to the fifth child from October next. This measure is aimed at the special difficulties faced by larger families.

The Government are also conscious of the difficulties faced by men who are bringing up children on their own. In many cases they are dependent on the lowest level of social welfare payment, supplementary welfare allowance. I was very pleased that the Government agreed to my proposal to introduce new social assistance schemes for widowers and deserted husbands with dependent children. The practical effect of this measure is that the payment to a widower on supplementary welfare allowance with five children will increase from £80.80 per week to £115.30 under the new arrangements. This represents 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. It is estimated that 5,500 men will benefit from the new schemes.

We are also very conscious of the position of families employed on low pay. We have taken a number of important and innovative steps in this area this year. The tax changes announced in the budget as part of the measures to tackle poverty have significantly improved the position of many families on low pay. There has been an increase from £5,500 to £6,000 in the tax exemption limit for married couples together with a new special tax exemption of £200 in respect of each child. This means that a married couple with five children can earn up to £7,000 without paying any tax.

Before April this year a couple earning £7,000 would have been liable to pay almost £635 a year in tax. This represents a net gain of £13 a week to such families. There are reducing gains for a family of this size with annual income of up to £9,000. This is a feature that has not been much remarked on by commentators but it is a particularly valuable development for families living on relatively low pay. The Government decided to direct extra resources to that scheme this year as a means of getting money directly to families on low incomes.

In addition to these special tax measures for low paid workers, the Government have provided an extra £1 million for improvements to the family income supplement scheme. This scheme is designed to lessen the disincentive to work caused by the narrow gap which can arise between low take-home pay and social welfare benefits.

As part of the Programme for National Recovery the Government undertook to carry out a detailed examination of the scheme. Following on this examination which has recently been completed, a number of major improvements in the scheme are being introduced with effect from July next. These improvements are designed to increase the numbers of families benefiting from FIS, especially larger families.

The main improvements being made include: — increases in the weekly income limits for receipt of payment ranging from £4 to £38 depending on the family size; increases in the maximum payments ranging from £2 to £21 a week; extra payments to families with six, seven and eight children; an increase in the rate of supplement from 50 to 60 per cent of the difference between family income and the relevant income limit, and a reduction from 24 to 20 in the minimum hours of work required each week to benefit under the scheme. In the case of a two-earner family, their hours worked may now be aggregated.

These improvements could more than double the number of recipients of family income supplement and will result in a substantial increase for those on low pay. For example, a family with five children who have an income of £120 a week will now receive a weekly payment of £50.

All of these improvements in the social welfare area have been made possible through the efficient allocation of resources in a fair and equitable manner. We have more than maintained the real value of social welfare payments and, in addition, we have provided substantial increases for those on the lowest levels of payment. For example, some families will be £40 a week better off as a result of this year's improvements. This clearly demonstrates the strength of this Government's commitment towards protecting the position of the family.

Let me now deal with the provisions of the Bill. Section 1 remedies the defect identified by the Supreme Court by extending the provisions of section 12 (4) of the 1985 Act to unmarried couples who are cohabiting as man and wife.

There are two subsections in section 12 which are being amended. Section 12 (1) provides that where both of a married couple are entitled to unemployment assistance, the overall amount of assistance payable to the couple would be limited to what they would receive if only one spouse claimed and received an increase in respect of the other as an adult dependant. The Act provided that each of the couple would receive half of the appropriate "married" rate of assistance.

Section 12 (4) of the Act provided that where one spouse is in receipt of a benefit or pension and the other is in receipt of unemployment assistance, the overall payment made to the couple would be limited to what they would receive if the spouse entitled to the higher benefit or pension payment claimed and received an increase in respect of an adult dependant. In this instance, the Act provided that the payment to the spouse entitled to assistance would be reduced in order to stay within this limitation.

The Supreme Court judgment concerned section 12 (4) only and in its judgment of 9 May 1989 the court found that this subsection was defective in that it treated married couples less favourably than cohabiting couples. While section 12 (1) was not at issue in these proceedings, this subsection, which limits the entitlements of married couples in exactly the same way, must also be regarded as defective.

Section 2 provides that any claims for unemployment assistance made on or after the date of the Supreme Court judgment will be payable in accordance with the provisions of the amended section 12. This section also provides that married couples to whom the provisions of section 12 applied, who have not submitted claims in writing or initiated court proceedings for an increased rate of unemployment assistance prior to the date of the judgment will not be entitled to retrospective payment.

By virtue of section 2, the provisions of the amended section 12 will apply to couples cohabiting as man and wife with effect from 9 May 1989. Section 3 provides that any such persons who may have benefited from the higher rate of payment will not be liable to repay any payments made under the present arrangements.

In conclusion, I consider the provisions of this Bill to be the only reasonable and responsible approach in the circumstances facing us in the light of the Supreme Court decision. We are dealing with the immediate problem arising from the decision by treating married and cohabiting couples equally in relation to the payment of unemployment assistance in a way that reflects the needs of the household. At the same time, we are dealing the wider implications of the court's decision by undertaking an urgent and comprehensive review of the provisions of the needs-based social assistance schemes. I believe this review will lead to a major reform of our payment structure so as to bring about greater equity and consistency in the treatment of households with similar needs through the various social assistance schemes.

I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Cregan

At the outset let me say I regret it was left to the Supreme Court to decide on the definition of "couple". The Minister stated that the Supreme Court judgment concerned section 12 (4) only, yet he has also decided that it is relevant to amend subsection (1). We must ask what legal advice did the Minister, and for that matter his predecessor, receive and would we be doing the right thing in setting up a review board to decide on what is the best thing to do? The Government of the day recognised that there was a need to establish a Commission on Social Welfare and this commission was set up by the previous Government. The person who chaired the commission is now to chair the review board. However, I must ask if there is a need to set up a review board and if we have looked enough at the report of the commission? The commission recognised, as does the Minister, that the individual in receipt of social welfare should be dealt with separately. We in this House have always recognised this as the courts do now.

It is sad we did not take a closer look at the report of the commission. This also goes for the previous Government and I will not deny it. What I would like to know is what are the review body going to investigate and what will they say to us that the court has not already said to us? The Minister has told us what he is doing for people, in particular for the family. I do not deny they are now in receipt of extra benefits. An increase of 11 per cent or 12 per cent over two years is excellent but it is long overdue. I also note that a person with five children in receipt of £140 per week will now pay no tax. Under no circumstances should anyone say to me that a person with five children in receipt of £140 per week should pay tax. However, I read that a person on supplementary benefit will get an extra £50 per week if in receipt of £120 per week or less. Therefore, the person in receipt of £140 per week will be worse off. This is an area we should take a look at.

In the Supreme Court a married couple stated they were not getting as much as a couple living together. The definition of "couple" is the nub of the issue. I am aware that this matter was debated at length in the other House but I have always asked how are we going to define "couple"? The Minister spends a lot of money on social welfare, somewhere in the region of £50 million per week but I ask are we spending it in the right way? In the course of the election campaign it will become obvious that people who are less well off simply cannot manage. The Supreme Court has ruled against the State in the recent case. This is unfortunate, but it is a fact.

We must ask the legal advisers, particularly in Government circles, what went wrong and what else is wrong in our legislation before somebody goes searching for loopholes. The Minister is coming into the House to change part of section 12 so that people will not be entitled to the benefits that were given over the last five years. If people seeking these benefits go to court, will they receive those entitlements? How much could it cost the State? It is said that the legislation should be changed, but is the taxpayer considered? Does what happened to the couple bringing a recent case before the Supreme Court follow for every married couple?

Do we really take an interest in the adjective "married"? Do we consider what it means? It is obvious that the courts do not. This institution of marriage is very important for us, for our children and their children. How do you compare a common law wife and husband with a married couple? I am not saying that such a couple should not be together — for far too long we have swept matters under the carpet. The second greatest problem in our society, after unemployment, is marital breakdown. The Supreme Court has told us that we did the wrong thing in not recognising a couple living together outside marriage as being on a par, with regard to social welfare benefits, with a married couple. A marriage both in a Church and in a Registry Office is recognised by the State.

Difficulties lie ahead for the review body being set up. There will be need for precise definitions. The Minister will find it difficult to say in this or the other House that the Government consider that the married couple should get priority. How can the legislators say that, when the courts say the opposite? How can one tell a married couple with five or six children that they are not given as much recognition as those living together? How do you define a couple? How do you define two brothers or two sisters living together, or two men living together? Are we saying that there are not cases of two men, living in appalling conditions, having to sleep in the one bed? Yet these two would not be considered as a couple. What was the motivation of the two people who took their case to the Supreme Court? Is there a resulting undermining of authority? Was advice being given in Government or other circles that such a case was necessary? If that couple had lost their case, what would the costs have been? One wonders where the financial support came from, or the advice. How much has been the cost to the State up to now? Is somebody who was advising the State at the time of the case not now working for the State? The Minister rightly talks about the benefits that he is giving families, particularly the less well off.

Is it wise that the person who chaired the commission should now chair the review board? Why not try a fresh approach? The commission may not have deeply looked into the question of payments to individuals. Why did the commission say that a single person should get something in the region of £50 per week? Why did they not say that each person would get such a payment? Up to now a married couple received 1.6 as against 2 for two people living together. I do not agree with this. Something similar is the case in Britain and the United States. A single person gets something in the region of £42 per week, or £45 if on disability benefit. Are we saying that a married couple should get £90? No, we are saying that they should get 1.6 of 2. The 1.6 should be divided equally. Why should the husband get all the money? The wife is at home looking after the family and should get recognition for that.

We ask a mother to ensure that her family is looked after properly, yet we do not recognise her as a person. We never did. The courts said that it was not fair to give the married couple merely 1.6 but if 1.6 is the statutory ratio, then each spouse should get 0.8. After all, an old age pensioner at 66 years of age gets the old age pension. Husband and wife is each entitled to their pension. Why does this not happen in the case of a claim for disability benefit, or unemployment assistance? The Minister is saying that under the tax system, or children's allowance benefit, or supplementary benefit that the mother must get the money for the children. That has been the case since 1974 and it is only proper. However, the Supreme Court say that we were wrong. In my simple view, if any couple go to court making the case that other people have been getting benefits for the last five years that they should be getting, the court will support that view. Are we out of the woods yet? Are we saying that a section that has been in our legislation since 1985 should not have been there? Are we saying that those coming under that section should have been entitled to more money? Will the State have to bear all that extra cost? Do we think everybody should get the same amount? Is it the case that the definition of a couple cannot be clarified until the review board have looked into the position for the next budget? Is it necessary to bring people in to look into this matter? Is it not enough for the people in the Department of Social Welfare to say that everybody should be getting the same? It is about time that everybody agreed on that point. It is right that somebody living alone gets an extra allowance but it is not fair to penalise a married couple. I know the Minister is also concerned in this regard and the Supreme Court made the judgment that they are not as well off as those who are cohabitating.

How do we define a couple? I am worried about the definition as there are so many couples living together. Two men — complete strangers — can be living together. How do we know what their relationship is? The same applies to women living together. Are we saying that people are not entitled to an individual benefit? Of course they are, unless there is a reason for refusing them benefit. The children of married couples suffer through lack of finance and, in many cases, those of unmarried couples are better off.

What about the common law husband or common law wife? Are we saying they should not get accommodation? We cannot because, as a result of the housing Act, we have to provide accommodation for them. People may not like that idea but it is a fact of life. We will be canvassing over the next few weeks and it will be hard to explain why people in the same situation are treated differently.

The Minister has decided to set up a review board although the Commission on Social Welfare were not very successful in defining a couple. The examined the plight of single people and others who should be getting more, which I welcome, but it is now obvious that the definition of a couple in the Social Welfare Acts is not right. The only way to correct the anomaly is to ensure that everyone on social welfare gets the same amount. Certainly a married couple should not be penalised. The Minister admitted that a person who is not that badly off is getting more. At present a person could live with another man or woman for two days a week and get more than a married couple living together for seven days a week trying to rear children in appalling conditions on pennies. I resent the fact that a so-called couple can get more as a result of the Supreme Court judgment.

What about the position in relation to children's benefits. We had arguments in this House about the fact that there were 36 different types of children's benefits and as a result, the Minister brought the number down to 12. However, there should be only one benefit as there should not be any difference between one child and another. We argued the case of a child of a father over 80 years of age getting more than the child of a father under that age. What is the difference? Both fathers were adults. I exempt the handicapped, they are entitled to a different benefit. However, in regard to the other benefits, what is the difference between a person on social welfare and one on unemployment assistance? None. The two people concerned are idle and, therefore, there is no difference. Why all this nonsense about unemployment assistance, child benefit, supplementary benefit and so on? An unemployed person receives £120 per week and if he has five children he gets an extra £50. If he is working for a salary of £140 he gets a tax free allowance and is worse off than he was on the dole. What kind of logic is that? The Minister admitted last year that a person on £140 per week was paying about £600 in tax. In that context it is ridiculous to argue about whether an unmarried couple should get more. The people involved could be living with another person's husband or wife or, indeed, they could be single.

I will give an instance of a story I heard in Cork. A young, unmarried lady with one child and expecting another, came to me looking for accommodation. She was receiving an unmarried mother's allowance, which was around £56 at that time. The father of her first baby was receiving unemployment assistance and she also had a disability benefit of £22 as she was suffering from dermatitis. His employment assistance amounted to about £32 which meant they were receiving about £110 per week between them. I asked the young lady if she was getting married but she said she did not know because, if she did, they would be classified as a married couple with two children and would receive about £87 per week. There is no incentive to get married if they would lose so much money. I do not want to be disrespectful to anyone, but that couple should not be treated differently from a married couple. Please do not get me wrong, I am not saying that she should not get the allowance, but it is wrong that she should get less if she got married. Marriages are breaking up because of the pressure in regard to social welfare payments.

Where is the logic in saying to couples that following the passing of this Bill they will receive £110 per week and more if they have a second child? I do not think we can blame married couples for contesting such issues in the Supreme Court. Married couples cannot be blamed for demanding in the last five years that they should be paid the same rate as couples who were cohabiting. When the issue was raised in the other House, and in this House, it was not recognised as a problem. The Minister will recall that one political party alleged that such people would lose their benefits if divorce was introduced. It is time we admitted that there are many problems in regard to the type of benefits paid by the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister should admit that we should be paying one benefit and not ten benefits. I accept that the Minister reduced the number of benefits from 36 to 12 and he will recall the many heated debates in this House, and in the Dáil, on that issue. There is a need to segregate the benefits paid in respect of handicapped children.

I challenge any Member to define "a couple". I do not think it is possible to do so but if it can be done I will admit my error. Two years ago there was a lot of publicity about the decision establishing the Commission on Social Welfare to review social welfare benefits but now the Minister has decided to establish a review board to investigate the same benefits. Is the Minister suggesting that the children of working parents should not receive any social welfare benefits? We do not have any right to say that an individual over 18 years of age should not receive a benefit. The father or mother of that person may not give him or her an allowance and it appears that we are expecting that person to cope without money. It is time we recognised that the fact that one is living at home does not mean one receives some benefit from the parents. In most cases the parents are not in a position to pay any allowance to their children.

The amount paid in supplementary welfare benefit is a laugh. There is no doubt that more than 6,000 people are in receipt of £120, or less, per week. It is embarrassing to ask the wife of a person who earns £120, or less, per week to go to the local employment exchange weekly to draw the supplementary welfare benefit. The person who is in receipt of £120, or less, per week should be given an additional amount equivalent to the employer's PRSI weekly contribution. It is embarrassing and degrading to ask any person to call to a local employment exchange, or a post office, to collect supplementary welfare, particularly those who are legally married. We should bear in mind that the person who is living with his common law wife does not have to collect that benefit. I hope the review board will investigate that aspect of the social welfare system. If we are spending £7 million or £8 million per day on social welfare benefits we should endeavour to treat everybody equally.

Mr. Farrell

I welcome the Bill which has been introduced as a result of the Supreme Court decision in the Hyland case. The Minister should be complimented on the speed with which he introduced the Bill. I welcome the Minister's decision to establish a review group, headed by the chairman of the commission, to look into all aspects of social welfare benefits. This is a complex matter and the benefits have not kept abreast with the times. The Minister is pursuing this matter with a view to introducing legislation that will cover all benefits. It amazes me, when I consider the number of cases that are taken to the Supreme Court, how they are financed.

Mr. B. Ryan

Subversives?

Mr. Farrell

I hope not. If the Department, or a local authority, were successful in such cases I wonder where they would go to to collect their expenses. I do not think there would be any point in taking an action against people on the dole or those with little means. We should consider where the finance is obtained to bring such cases to the Supreme Court. Are we to pay tribute to the legal profession for acting for those people free of charge? If that is the case I wonder why they charge the Department, or local authorities, expenses if they lose the action.

When the Bill was going through the other House tributes were paid to the St. Vincent de Paul Society for their work for the poor and I should like to join with those tributes. That great organisation have now embarked on a job creation scheme and, instead of giving people a loaf of bread, they are now showing them how to till the land and grow the wheat. Other charitable organisations should adopt a similar approach because too often we express the view that money will solve our problems. We should encourage our people to undergo a training programme and obtain a job.

When I was a rate collector I noticed that the houses and land of those who could not afford to pay their rates was untidy. However, once a member of the household obtained a job the morale of all members of the family changed. When those people returned from work in the evening they tidied up their houses and their land. The whole scene changed. The review committee should recommend that the Minister encourage people to get themselves into a better and healthier environment and not to wait until the Department paid them their benefits. To spend time around clubs or playing pool in halls is not good for a person's morale or health.

The Bill is concerned with the position of married couples and cohabiting couples. It stands to reason that where there is a sharing of basic resources such as accommodation, heating, lighting and household items it should be taken into account in respect of those who claim to be living separately. New initiatives should ensure that married couples are looked after. The Minister had no choice but to comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Hyland case and all Members accept that the Exchequer could not afford to pay out between £21 million and £31 million in this financial year. That was not provided for in the budget. The Government have to meet the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court and I believe they are doing this in a very fair, effective and efficient manner. I have no doubt that this will work to the benefit of all people concerned.

For years members of health boards and county councils proposed all kinds of resolutions because they felt it was wrong that a lad of 16 who left school and did not work could qualify for unemployment assistance while his brother who went to college and was available for work was not entitled to assistance. We believed it was very unfair that a young fellow who continued at school should be discriminated against. I am pleased that the child allowance payable to recipients of long-term social assistance has been extended to 19 years of age where children continue in full-time education. This provision is to be welcomed and the Minister is to be congratulated on introducing it. Eventually he intends to extend the age limit to 21 years if the children continue at school. This provision is also to be welcomed. At times we can be critical of how some students act, but I suppose it is better for them to sow their wild oats when they are young rather than when they are old. The more highly educated people there are in this technical age in which we live the better will be the morale, which is a good thing.

I am very pleased that the Government propose to introduce social assistance for widowers. In many cases when a wife had passed away her husband, who may have been left with a house full of children, did not qualify for a widower's pension. I am glad that this pension will be increased from £80.80 per week to £115.30 per week under the new arrangement. This provision is to be welcomed and represents a substantial increase of £34.50 a week. This is very good news for the some 5,500 men who will benefit under this scheme.

Mr. Cregan

They will still have to pay a lady to look after their houses.

Dr. Woods

They can get an allowance for that. They can work and get the allowance.

Mr. Farrell

This is very good news. I am very pleased for people I know who have big families and were earning £7,000 per year but were caught for tax. At last this is being done away with and they will receive an increase of £34.50 a week, which is a considerable sum to a family.

The Bill concentrates very much on the family, and when I speak of the family I am referring to a married couple in the traditional sense. I believe it is good for society for families to work together, live together and, play together and in the words of Fr. Peyton, pray together. This is very important for the welfare of our society as a whole. As I have often said, whether or not we believe in religion, the one great thing about it is that if everyone worked according to the laws of God we would have a great, honest and hard working society, even if there was nothing at the end of the road. It is a pity we do not keep more to those rules.

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister for introducing it and setting up a new working group. I know we can look forward in the future — le cunamh Dé, we will all be back here when the new Government are in office — to debating a new social welfare Bill which will be much more in keeping with the late eighties, the year 2000 and beyond. I am delighted with the Bill.

Mr. B. Ryan

There is no doubt but that the Minister is one of the most plausible members of the present Government. Over the past two years he has got away with the most extraordinary assault on social welfare recipients in a variety of areas, and having assaulted and battered certain groups out of the social welfare system, has used the savings to give some benefits, which have not impressed most of the groups working with the poor, to those people. He has actually robbed certain sectors of the poor to give illusory benefits to other sections of the poor, and in the process has managed——

Dr. Woods

Is this an election speech? It sounds like one at this stage.

Mr. B. Ryan

The Minister is going to deliver a large number of election speeches during the next two weeks and no one will attack him for doing that. This is a free society in which we are able to make speeches before, during and after elections or any time we want, and I know that even the Minister and Fianna Fáil, who have a slight tendency to abuse majority positions, would not stop me doing that. I will make my speech, regardless of what the Minister wishes to call it. Our election will not take place for three months and perhaps I am starting a little bit early on an election speech but it might come in useful.

The Minister has got away with doing extraordinary things. For instance, he carried out a mysterious survey on the Jobsearch programme, the details of which he cannot give me because it was an internal survey. He cannot give me the methodology used or the formulation and the setting under which people, particularly unemployed people, were asked questions about whether they approved of the Jobsearch programme, because it was an internal survey. However, he can tell the nation that the results of the survey show that people are happy with the Jobsearch programme. In contrast, I have asked people in the centres for the unemployed around the country what they think of the Jobsearch programme. They think it is an appalling waste of time and in some cases something close to a deliberate harassment and humiliation of unemployed people. We have totally different perceptions of this programme. I have no leverage with these people. I asked them what they thought of the Jobsearch programme and they all thought badly of it, saw very little benefit from it and many saw it as a campaign of harassment.

I have specific stories about the Jobsearch programme. I know of two people on Jobsearch interviews, one an engineer and the other a teacher, who had it indicated to them in gentle but real terms, that there were vacancies in both terms, areas in London. This suggests rather an unhappy agenda, not necessarily planned by the Minister, being carried out by people presumably carrying the "zeal to reform and catch all these people who were allegedly ripping off the social welfare system." I put that in inverted commas to make it clear that that sort of zeal has been carried to an extraordinary extent. I have heard disturbing reports from a town in the midlands about the descent upon the town of the outdoor branch — which I think they are called — of the investigation branch of the Department of Social Welfare. They left some women in tears when they were asked how they could have a fur coat when they were on the dole, how they would like to have their children visit them in prison, etc.

All these matters have been reported before and are of extreme concern. It is a great compliment to the Minister that he can do this while at the same time come across as somebody who has achieved wondrous things for the poor. The propaganda about the Jobsearch programme has convinced virtually everybody in the media that it has succeeded in catching people who were fiddling the dole.

We do not hear of the extraordinary situation of, say, a woman with three or four children who has been on unemployment benefit or assistance for a long time, receiving whatever benefit she is entitled to and available for work — that is, for work which pays a decent rate of pay, out of which she can afford to pay somebody to mind her children — but who is invited to go on an AnCO course which pays £30 or £40 per week, out of which she cannot afford to pay someone to look after her children. Then she is told she is not available for work. Of course, she is not available for under-funded, poorly paid AnCO training schemes, but she is available for work which pays a proper wage. She loses her eligibility to whatever benefits or assistance she was entitled because she is not available for work. All through the operation of the social welfare system the two phrases "availability for work" and "actively seeking employment" run over and over again. I concede that, in some specific circumstances, they have been amended by the Minister so that members of sports organisations competing abroad are not deemed to be unavailable for work. But it is worth putting on the record yet again the extraordinary humiliation contained in those two phrases for anybody who is unemployed in this unemployment wasteland; that one has to prove to the Department of Social Welfare that one is actively seeking work in a society in which every dog on the road knows there is no work available. What in heaven's name is the basis for requiring people in a country in which there is manifestly no work, from which, dependent on one's politics, between 20,000 and 45,000 people are emigrating annually because there is no work where the queues outside and inside labour exchanges are palpable evidence of the fact; having to prove they are actively seeking employment when there is no work available?

I can imagine only one conscious or unconscious reason, that is, to reinforce the fact that social welfare is as much a system of control as are of assistance. The control is to keep people on a tight leash by requiring this type of perpetual self-humiliation, to write letters to people one knows have no jobs to prove to somebody, who has a job, that one is actively seeking employment. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to break the spirit than this requirement to be actively seeking employment.

Then there is the requirement of availability for work. I concede that the Minister has introduced a number of pilot projects for certain categories in certain circumstances, but the truth is that, for many people, the fact of not having work is not an encouragement to try and find something creative to do with their time but rather a guarantee that, if one is not very careful about what one does, how one does it, or when and where one does it, one will be deemed to be not available for work. The chairman of one unemployment action group had the temerity to picket a labour exchange but, a week later, he lost his dole because he was deemed to be unavailable for work.

These types of incidents are occurring throughout the country. They may not be systematic. Whatever my opinions on the Minister's political activity in the area of social welfare I do not believe he is planning all these things. But if one subscribes to an ethos which perceives largescale fiddling of the social welfare system, then one guarantees and creates the conditions in which people will be harassed and persecuted all down the line.

I have enormous sympathy for the people who work at the coalface within the Department of Social Welfare. The hugely increased numbers handled at our labour exchanges must test the patience and humanity of the officers at the front line. At that level particularly the extraordinary fact is that the vast majority of those who work in labour exchanges display a considerable degree of humanity but they cannot escape the necessity to enforce that extraordinary rule I have mentioned about proving that one is actively seeking employment.

One needs to view anything that is dressed up as an improvement, reform or change in the context of that philosophical base to the entirety of our social welfare system. There are a number of other areas desperately in need of, crying out for improvements which have been promised for a long time. For example, there is the whole system of social welfare appeals. I understand there is the possibility of some change being effected there.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kelleher)

The Senator would appear to be straying from the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill before the House. Perhaps he would confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. B. Ryan

I will have to seek the Chair's guidance. I understood it was possible to speak on Second Stage of a Bill on not just what is included in the Bill but what should be included therein.

Acting Chairman

Not on a Social Welfare Bill. Perhaps the Senator would confine his remarks as closely as possible to its contents.

Mr. B. Ryan

My understanding is that the title is "An Act to amend and extend the Social Welfare Acts, 1981-1989". Since that is the title of the Bill my understanding is that anything that would require amendment or extension——

Acting Chairman

Within reason, but not to broaden the scope of the Bill too much.

Mr. B. Ryan

I will, of course, abide by the Chair's ruling but I cannot understand how the way people are treated under the social welfare code constitutes an excessive broadening of the Social Welfare Acts. Indeed the process of social welfare appeals is poorly provided for in legislation and needs amendment. I am, as always, guided by the ruling of the Chair.

I might mention a number of other peculiarities that might have been repealed, amended or improved. For example, the disqualification level of earned income which the Dublin Welfare Rights Group have quite rightly identified has remained at £6 per week for over ten years, which should be £30 per week and which has been omitted, is a clear penalisation of people who have any income to remove their entitlement to social welfare. That matter has not been dealt with. Neither has the appeals system been dealt with. Indeed, there is a long list of things that have not been dealt with. There is the extraordinary propoganda that has emanated from the Minister's Department about abuse of disability benefit, much of it contradicted by a survey conducted by an international firm of business consultants which concluded that the level of such abuse was less than 2 per cent or 3 per cent, well within the margins of what it is possible to envisage being controlled without putting draconian pressures on everybody else.

When replying the Minister might respond to these questions. For example, does he know how many people were sent to jail last year for social welfare offences? I should like to know because there may be an interesting contrast between that figure and the number of people who were sent to jail for taxation offences. I happen to know the number in the latter category was zero. It is an interesting reflection that we lock up social welfare defrauders but we do not lock up tax defrauders. The other question I asked one of the Minister's predecessors dealt with disability benefit: how many doctors have been reported to the Irish Medical Association for improperly signing medical certificates for people who have been ruled by the Department of Social Welfare as being fit for employment? The answer, at last check, was zero. Regularly there are people prosecuted for abusing disability benefit but those who sign the relevant certificates, those from the influential classes, with a powerful medical organisation behind them, who are allegedly signing certificates improperly, are never prosecuted, punished or penalised. As always, the system tends to catch the poor man at the bottom.

That takes me on to this quite extraordinary Bill, extraordinary because of the whiff of moral rectitude that runs through it, because of the whiff of refusal to recognise certain forms of behaviour as existing at all because it would cause such considerable discomfort for the entirety of the State apparatus and its Roman Catholic self-righteousness. It may well be true that, in countries with a generous and liberal social welfare code, there is a good argument to be advanced for a ratio between the benefits payable to a single person and those payable to a couple which constitutes less than equality for each person, but in a country like ours — where the basic personal rate is well below what the Commission on Social Welfare regard as a minimum income — to begin giving a dependent person, however one defines that dependent person, even less is not to produce equality but even greater injustice.

Of course, it is consistent with the Minister's philosophy of taking money from one poor group to give to another poor group that he should operate in this fashion. It was the one option nobody thought he would take. Of course, one reason nobody thought he would take that option was that some people believe that the party who normally sit in front of me here would oppose it. They talk a lot about poverty. The Fine Gael spokesman on Finance in this House treated us to a long lecture on poverty on the Finance Bill, on how the Minister for Finance had never mentioned poverty, but Fine Gael will not and did not oppose this decision to impose additional poverty on already impoverished couples in the interests of financial rectitude.

I should not like it to go out of this House that somehow my criticisms are directed over there exclusively. They are directed as much to those in front of me as to those on the Government side because there is an unholy conspiracy between the right wingers on the Government side and the right wingers in front of me to keep the poor in their place in our society. They have been doing it remarkably well for the last two years without a flicker of real opposition. We have the necessary rituals now but they will do the same again if they get back into office because that is their style and we know which side they are on.

Having said that, I am absolutely intrigued at the way the Minister delicately circumnavigates the concept of cohabitation in this Bill. In order to prove that a claimant is cohabiting it is necessary to establish that the couple actually live together. The Minister concedes that a couple living together could go well beyond a couple who are living together as husband and wife and that there is a financial aspect to the relationship: I am intrigued by that. If I actually share a flat with somebody else and I happen to have less financial needs than the other person and I hand over £5 per week, am I now cohabiting irrespective of anything else or what is the financial relationship? I am intrigued by what is meant by a financial relationship. I will come back later to deal with what the courts have said because they were very specific about it. This involves examination of the circumstances and the duration of their living together. Does that mean that if they live together for a month it is not cohabiting or will we get back to the British position where if somebody spent two nights a week in another person's home that was not regarded as cohabiting but if they spent three nights a week that went from being a casual affair to cohabiting?

We go on to deal with such matters as who owns or rents the property. If two people buy a house between them and divide it into two flats does that make them suspect? If one person rents the house does that make the other person all right or what? All these aspects make lovely patter and it pads out a speech but it still leaves the question of how do you prove that a couple are cohabiting. It was also necessary to examine the couple's financial arrangements to determine if the financial responsibilities are shared in a way similar to those of a married couple. Given the state of sharing of financial responsibilities in vast numbers of Irish marriages which vary from some people knowing nothing of their partner's earnings to other people knowing everything and having considerable concern over their partner's earnings, I am intrigued as to how the Minister is going to establish a standardised model of the sharing of financial responsibilities in Irish marriage which will to become the model for assessing whether couples share financial responsibilities. It is another meaningless phrase which sounds great but when it is actually tested against the hardest test of all — reality — it collapses in a shimmer of superficiality.

The social and sexual aspects of the couple's relationship would obviously also be factors in establishing cohabitation. I have a rather naive view of cohabitation. I see cohabitation as meaning a couple living together, sleeping together and having a sexual relationship. Maybe I am wrong and maybe that is not what the rest of the world says. It is interesting that in the previous page of his speech the Minister said that:

In a recent High Court case the Court stated that it had no difficulty in understanding cohabitation as meaning living together as though a married couple when not married.

The intriguing thing about Irish law is that a married couple are not married at all until they have sexual intercourse because a marriage is deemed to be null if the marriage is not consummated. Quite clearly, the courts had no problem about defining cohabitation as involving a sexual relationship between a couple. Apart altogether from the intriguing question whether a couple of the same sex who have a sexual relationship are deemed to be cohabiting or not, the delicate way this issue has been ignored and whether we will have that sort of investigation, it seems to me that no other index of all these lovely indices which the Minister has used are capable of a black or white interpretation. You cannot work out a financial aspect to a relationship which could prove anything other than that people are supporting each other for a variety of reasons.

If a couple share a flat or share two bedrooms in a flat — and it has been known to happen that people of different sexes share the same accommodation without any sexual relationship — is that regarded as cohabitation? This produces sniggers among older people but it is commonplace among younger people. There may well be a financial aspect to the relationship because certain people may be happy to pay a larger or lesser amount; people are actually quite generous with each other. The financial aspect, the rent of the property and the allocation of duties within the household — I missed the point — are all taken into account. There is a glorious mythological vision of Irish marriage here in which duties are shared in some sort of noble and generous way between the two sides of the partnership. Does it mean that a couple cohabiting where the male refuses to do any of the traditional female duties are not regarded as cohabiting, whereas the poor unfortunate man who is agreeable to sharing the responsibilities of bringing up children that are offsprings of the relationship is proven to be cohabiting? Will people have to take blood tests or will they have to get involved in genetic fingerprinting to check whether the offspring of the woman is related to the man who happened to be living with her at the time?

This concept of cohabiting may well exist already. I have heard elderly people — some of whom are related to me and who are in receipt of State pensions — talking about the fact that one of the conditions of their continuing to receive a State pension is that they must not either marry or cohabit. One can imagine the thoughts of an elderly lady who is told that if she cohabits she will lose her pension. The affront to her sense of her own propriety is sufficient but I do not think anybody has ever pursued it too much. We are obviously quite intent on proving something in this case because we have written legislation to catch up with people who are allegedly doing this thing, whatever it is. I do not understand what is behind this other than an attempt to make sure that no money will be paid out. The idea is to catch the married couples and to make sure that the large numbers who might have benefited will not receive the money. The basic intent of this Bill is not written in the legislation. The basic intent of this legislation is not to tackle the problem of cohabitation — because that seems to be, as the Minister said, a quite small problem — but to ensure what is not in this Bill, that couples who cohabit are not entitled to extra benefits and that married couples no longer have a case in a law to be answered by the Department of Social Welfare.

It is an intriguing concept of legislation that you legislate to prevent something happening while legislating for something entirely different. This is remarkably clever thinking and innovative in the sense that you do not mention the problem you are trying to solve; you actually define a new problem and solve it — by a consequence of that, not by anything written into the legislation but by tying up the people who would otherwise benefit. All of this is for £30 million. If the early stories in the newspapers and the early suggestions from the people who have been canvassing are anything to go by, this money will be spent in many ways over the next fortnight when this Government begin to realise that, perhaps, they have not fooled as many people as they thought they had fooled about the state of the country. I am amazed and intrigued by the obsession with £30 million. If we had a decent level of payment, if we had a comprehensive welfare code, if we had a method of organising and delivering and maintaining that code which was based on dignity, humanity and the concept of service of those who are in receipt of benefit, then we could talk about the concept of a household. I will never talk about the concept again of the head of a household. For the Minister to suggest that we would return to that most——

Dr. Woods

Several systems on the Continent are based on it and it is probably the way we will have to go.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am not in the least concerned about what people do on the Continent.

Dr. Woods

That is if you want equal treatment.

Acting Chairman

Do not interrupt.

Mr. B. Ryan

A Leas-Chathaoirleach, I did not interrupt the Minister at all, much as I was tempted to. People are very good at quoting what is happening on the Continent. I have said before that if any Minister in this House wants to take the entirety of the package of any of the progressive social democratic countries in Europe — the package of taxes, welfare jobs, housing etc. — I will take the entire package but I will not take selective quotation of bits and pieces of their social code. If people were to have the levels of welfare, worker's rights, the levels of unemployment, the quality of housing and the dignity they enjoy all over northern Europe, I will take the parts of it that I do not like but, we have the most humiliating procedures that I am aware of for dealing with the unemployed and the most crude campaign against people who are unemployed. In those circumstances I do not want to see specific little bits of examples thrown at me, examples that happen to suit a particular Minister's case. Let us have a comprehensive debate and I will stand over the records of those social democratic, socialist inspired countries of northern Europe who have demonstrated how to create a decent, compassionate, caring society of a kind that we in this country have not even imagined. If we are not to have a comprehensive debate, then let us not have these throw away asides.

I do not accept the concept of a head of a household and I hope the country will not accept it. Neither my wife nor I accept that there is such a thing as the head of a household in my home. The Central Statistics Office tells us that it does not matter who is called the head of the household in the census. I do not accept this concept. I am very disappointed to see us walking backwards to the old fashioned idea of a head of the household. There is no head in an ordinary relationship between a man and a woman. There is a relationship of equality, in which people work out together what they want to do with themselves, with their home and their family. The idea that there would be a head, in particular in the critical area of access to money, is a regressive step that will inevitably, as all traditional definitions have done, be oppressive of women. It will attack women's independence, dignity and rights. I do not believe that we have come far enough to the stage where most men would dream of accepting that the women in the relationship was the head of the household. Therefore the only step we can take is to vigorously assert equality. No type of abstracted legal definition in a crucial area like access to social welfare will get away from the fact that it is women who will suffer. That is why I disapprove of the re-introduction of the concept of head of a household. If other countries have such a definition, I disagree with them, because I do not agree that we need to go back to these old fashioned ideas. There are countries in Europe where womens rights are poorly protected still and where attitudes to women are vastly more oppressed in many ways then they are here.

Dr. Woods

The Senator is not aware of the facts.

Acting Chairman

The Senator to continue without interruption.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am aware of the experience of 250,000 people in our labour exchanges throughout the country. I have a funny feeling from what I have heard that I am more aware than the Minister of the problems because it seems to me that the Minister and I talk to the same people but hear entirely different things. The Minister may well be right that there are countries who use the concept of head of household——

Dr. Woods

As a basis for equal treatment. That is the point. It is what will be considered as part of finding a basis for equal treatment; that is all.

Mr. B. Ryan

As a basis for equal treatment we will now have the situation where one person is the head of the household and the other person is not. When this happens we can discuss it again. I am not sure that I hope the Minister will be in the same job after the next election but I hope to be here when whoever is the next Minister for Social Welfare has to grapple with this problem. I am not trying to wish the Minister any mishap, but I have a view of the type of government I would like to see and unfortunately the Minister would not be in that government. That will not necessarily affect his chances, in the least, as he is well aware.

Dr. Woods

It might enhance them.

Mr. B. Ryan

Indeed it might. I have to live in Cork and the Minister lives in Dublin so we will not collide with each other over the next few weeks.

I think this is a cheap and petty little Bill designed to avoid the fact that, in a reasonable and generous way, we might have to look after those of our citizens who are most in need. This is a cute way of avoiding dealing with the problems of married couples who are being underpaid by the Department of Social Welfare. I do not believe there will be much effort to pursue people who are cohabiting because that is not necessary. What is necessary is to have included a definition of cohabiting which guarantees that married couples cannot claim anything more, because people who are cohabiting are excluded from the equal treatment we are talking about. It is very clever. The cohabiting couple do not have to be pursued because they are in the minority but by having the term written into legislation, married couples are excluded from the benefits they thought they were otherwise entitled to. That is the objective of the Bill. I am opposed to the Bill. I will oppose it on Second Stage. I will oppose its operation both inside this House, and outside it.

Mr. Fitzsimons

My contribution will be very brief. Social Welfare is a very complex area and I am not very knowledgeable about it. It is rather difficult to speak after Senator Brendan Ryan because he is motivated by concern for the underprivileged and the less well off in our society. I, too, share his sentiments in this regard.

As I have said before, I feel that I have not much to learn about poverty because I was born into almost the lowest level of a rotten class structured society. I suppose things have improved since then but not to the extent we would all wish. Paddy Kavanagh said that poverty is in the mind but he did not say that it is only in the mind. If he meant that, I am sure that people would agree that he was very naive. Poverty destroys people. It is a festering wound that can never be healed.

I believe that Dr. Woods is a very caring Minister who is very concerned about people. On all occasions that I have made representations to him, I have had the utmost satisfaction. I welcome his statement that considerable improvements have been made in the social welfare area in recent years. I know that these are not to the extent we would wish but they are a move in the right direction.

It is to some degree unfortunate that we had to wait until the Supreme Court ruled on this issue because many people had pinpointed the anomaly. Individuals had referred to it so one must ask why something was not done sooner.

As Senator Ryan has said, the question of cohabitation is intriguing. If a man were to reside three days a week with one female and four days with another, is he cohabiting with two people? There are other aspects that I could discuss, but I do not think it would be helpful or would serve any useful purpose.

I want to make one simple point. Why are so many people cohabiting? Members of this House will know that I am in favour of divorce. The Minister told Senator Ryan that perhaps he was making an election speech, but if I were making an election speech I would not refer to divorce because this is one issue on which one does not get votes. Feeling as strongly as I do about this matter, I could not let the occasion pass without mentioning that it is wrong that in this society there is no redress for people whose marriages have broken down. That is unfortunate. It is precisely because I am so concerned about the family and family life that I feel we, as a community, should have divorce. When we look at all areas of society we see intelligent young people cohabiting, without getting married. It is foolish, for a young lady at least, to enter into a relationship without a contract of some sort because love does not always subsist when cohabiting as it does in a marriage.

Young intelligent people look around and see broken marriages. Perhaps they come from homes where there were major problems and they do not want to walk into a similar situation. Before they get married and commit themselves to a contract, they want to be satisfied they can live together for life. Looking around, we see many young people whose marriages have broken down. In each area of our society we see young boys and girls whose partners have left, never to return. The partner who remains is left in a limbo and cannot form another legal partnership. That is blatantly wrong. It is because I value family life so much that I feel we must have divorce. We must have an escape route for people who find themselves in that position. This is an area we could develop and I think I would not be out of order in saying that, but this is not the occasion to elaborate on it. I simply want to make the point that it is unfortunate that the Government would not be in a position to increase the allowances to bring them into line with the higher scale that applies at present. I accept the Minister's statement that this is not possible. As I have said, the Minister and the Government have a good record.

I welcome the Bill. The issue of cohabitation can only be resolved when we, as mature people, can draw up legislation which will provide an escape route for people who have got married and done their best but whose marriages have failed. Whether they are young or old, as a society, we must cater for them. Once again, I welcome what the Minister said, that the Government have increased the allowances to a very considerable degree and that that will be ongoing. As I have said, we have made considerable progress over the years. I know there are areas of poverty that we should be ashamed of, but with the commitment of the Minister and the Government I am hopeful that at an early stage we can reach a position where we will all be reasonably satisfied.

Mr. Norris

One of the disadvantages facing anybody who speaks, certainly from this side of the House, after Senator Brendan Ryan is that you find many of the points you thought you had teased out successfully have been very eloquently made by the Senator. Anybody who speaks after the previous Senator is placed in the difficulty that they have to take a slightly different line from the Fianna Fáil benches — I am speaking of course of Senator Jack Fitzsimons — although his speech addressing the subject of poverty was made in a very humane and moving way.

I hope I do not wander very far from the confines of the Bill — I am chastened by the fact that during the afternoon the Leas-Chathaoirleach has successfully drawn other errant Senators back within the confines of the Bill — but this may happen because I believe the Minister's speech wanders very far outside the direct confines of the Bill. I wish to comment upon certain aspects of his speech. I agree with Senator Ryan that the most important elements in the Bill are those that are not quite explicit. The intention, as enunciated, legally speaking, is not at all the political intention of the Bill. There is a certain irony in the use of words like "equality". I have had occasion once or twice before in dealing with legislation in this area, to refer to the late George Orwell who showed the dangers of altering the nuances of political language in order to produce a completely reversed effect.

With regard to equality, the introduction to the Explanatory Memorandum states: "This Bill provides for certain amendments to the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1985 which gave effect to EC Directive 79/7 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment between men and women in matters of social security". To the unwary that would give the impression that we are talking about equality but it depends on whether we are talking about equality in terms of a principle that would be understood by Seán Citizen, who is currently greatly favoured by the attention of politicians in this country, or whether we understand equality in terms of the political intention of this Bill. What kind of equality are we going to get here? It has been noticed that unmarried couples cohabiting appear to trigger a slightly advantageous financial position compared with conventionally married couples. The Constitution comes into play here with its provisions to support and vindicate the rights of the family and so on.

The decision in the recent Supreme Court case indicates that there is a legal and constitutional problem here which this Bill seeks to amend but the problem is, how is it going to be amended? It is going to be amended not by equalising people up, not by making people equal in a positive sense, but by equalising disadvantage. In other words, some people who are perceived to be a little more equal are now going to be made just as equal in their deprivation. That is regrettable on a human scale because people who have a certain income adjust to that income and learn to live within it. As various Senators have indicated, the amounts are actually pathetically small. They may be large in terms of the Government's intention to cut welfare expenditure wherever possible — at least they may have some significance in the Government's overall budgetary considerations; also in terms of the actual amount paid out to individuals they are quite small, but to those individuals and to those couples they are quite catastrophic, I would think. The Bill says: "Section 1 of the Bill provides for remedying a defect in section 12 of the 1985 Act by extending to unmarried couples cohabiting as man and wife certain provisions which apply at present to married couples". There is an implication in the quality of the language that suggests they are extending a benefit — you could almost imagine that the benefit was being extended — but it is perfectly clear that it is not a benefit that is being extended to people cohabiting, it is actually a penalty. Yet this is stated almost as a philosophical principle. I would like to tease it out a little bit.

If the Minister is suggesting that there should be equalisation between people who cohabit and people who are legally married either in Church or in a Registry Office in this State, then I wonder if this principle is capable of a wider application and if the practical and tangible legal benefits accruing to married couples in this State will now also be passed on to persons who are not married but who are cohabiting. That would certainly sustain an interpretation of the intention of this Bill as being to equalise rather than to penalise, and to rectify a problem that has belatedly come to the legislative attention of the Government.

I agree with quite a number of speakers and I think — although it would be very wrong for me to interpret another Senator — that the general trend of what Senator Fitzsimons was saying was that what should motivate us in these matters is a respect for the individual. That is very important. It does raise the issue of divorce, and I must say that my fundamental belief is that there should be a respect for the individual greater than the respect that is accorded to any icon even such as marriage, an abstract concept which can be very variable. Senator Brendan Ryan in an important interpretation of certain aspects of this legislation drew attention to the problems underlying certain of the Minister's own phrases about what one ordinarily understands about the relationships, for example, between man and wife in marriage in terms of the allocations of financial responsibility, of household duties and so on, and pointed out very convincingly that it is an absurd proposition for the Minister to attempt to establish a satisfactory working model, a prototype of Irish marriage against which other forms of relationship can be tested. Again, I notice the Minister early in his speech says pending the outcome of a review he intends setting up, "the Government decided to introduce this Bill to remedy the particular defect in the 1985 Act identified by the court, by providing for equality of treatment between married couples and unmarried couples who are cohabiting as man and wife". Again here we have this notion of equality being introduced, but it is a notion of which I have, as I have indicated, very considerable suspicions.

The question of divorce is an important one. It is something that has not been faced in this Bill. The absence of divorce in this State does have certain consequences both legally and in terms of the self-respect of persons who are unable, because of the moral cowardice of politicians, to secure freedom from a first relationship which was consecrated either by the Church or the State, unable to get a divorce, who are fortunate enough to discover a second relationship with another human being which is satisfactory, and are now by this legislation firmly placed in a situation where they are described as cohabiting and their rights are being lessened.

There is also an important social factor which has not, as far as I know, been addressed by any previous speaker. That is that those persons engaged in these kinds of relationships of cohabitation, apart from the issue of divorce altogether, may very frequently be at the lower end of the social and financial spectrum, so that they are already disadvantaged. It is underlined by the use of phrases such as "common law wife". When you use the phrase "common law wife" you are usually not speaking about the mistress of a stockbroker. You are speaking about somebody who is already at a level of disadvantage, in my opinion. I wonder if the Minister, because he has ranged so widely in his analysis of Irish family and marriage patterns, would be able to give us some kind of social breakdown. I know there are European categories for what is effectively class status. I wonder if there is any information as to the class status according to EC methods of graduation for these persons seen as cohabiting or, in language already used, common law wives. It is very important to understand that many of those couples who are not married are at this biting level of disadvantage, despite the fact that the Minister early in his speech says:

The Supreme Court decision requires that the existence of other types of household must be taken into account within the code. This is particularly so in so far as the present arrangements, which are essentially based on giving particular recognition to the married household, may have disadvantages for married couples as against other couples.

I would suggest to the Minister that it is highly likely that the great burden of disadvantage, whatever the technicalities of this ruling, rests firmly at the lower end of the social scale.

A number of persons, contributing both as Senators in this House and also earlier in the debates in the other House, drew attention to the very wide terms of reference employed in the debate and the terms of reference of this commission and in the Minister's speech. "The existence of other types of household" is an extremely broad phrase, and I was rather entertained to hear on an Oireachtas report on Radio Éireann the other evening Deputy O'Keeffe, I think it was, teasing this out a little bit and saying that this Bill presented by the Minister — or at least the situation it was to address — represented discrimination in favour of homosexual couples. I am not at all in favour of discrimination, but this is one form of discrimination which I would regard as compensatory and to be welcomed. That may appear a flippant point and it is partially intended as such, but it can be placed in a full context of seriousness when we read the Minister's speech where he makes some very important points. He says:

In order to prove that the claimant is cohabiting, it is necessary to establish that the couple actually live together and that there is a financial aspect to their relationship. This involves an examination of the circumstances and duration of their living together including such matters as who owns or rents the property, how it is shared and the allocation of duties within the household. It is also necessary to examine the couple's financial arrangements to determine if the financial responsibilities are shared in a way similar to those of a married couple. The social and sexual aspects of the couples relationship would obviously be factors in establishing cohabitation. I would stress, however, that any investigation of these areas should be carried out in a way which is not intrusive and in which there is full regard for the rights of individual claimants.

Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to explain to a simple person like myself how it is possible to carry out this kind of investigation without being intrusive. Because I am so simple, I will explain to the Minister that if anybody from the Department of Social Welfare sought to examine me with regard to how long I have been living with somebody, the duration, whether I owned the property, rented it myself or rented it to somebody else, how many people I was sharing with, my financial position, whether I shared the washing up with them and whether I was part of a married couple — which, in the light of circumstances, is exceedingly unlikely because I am an honourable person — how could all this be scrutinised and brought to the attention of officials without their being intrusive? On the basis of this, I regard this aspect of the Bill as providing nothing other than a highly dangerous snooper's charter.

I do not intend to be paranoid about it but I would remind the Minister I was not the person who introduced to this debate the notion of couples of the same sex. It was introduced this afternoon, perhaps innocently, by another Senator who spoke of two persons of the same sex sharing the same bed. He did not actually indicate that there might be a sexual relationship. I would remind the Minister that this kind of investigation could expose the existence of a relationship which, despite the ruling in a case I took in Strasbourg, would be subject to the criminal law. Does the Minister not find that intrusive? If the Minister was engaged in a relationship which, through no fault of his own was outside the conventional limits and inside the criminal law, and this was subjected to investigation by officers of the Department of Social Welfare and he was therefore exposed to the possibility of criminal penalty, would that not be intrusive? Again, perhaps we are two people separated by the employment of a common language.

I have asked the Minister a number of questions and I have a few more. I am interpreting body language, a Chathaoirligh. I understood you were about to say something to me.

An Cathaoirleach

My God, no.

Mr. Norris

It was merely a look of delighted interest. I am most grateful. The Cathaoirleach, as always, pays the greatest and most minute attention to the contributions even of junior Senators such as myself. I wish to facilitate the Minister as far as possible in providing for his reply. This is a very important Bill and I could not avoid noticing that from the time the Minister spoke there was not a quorum in the House. I am sure you will think it appropriate for me to ask if my mathematics are correct and there is a quorum. It is not that I wish to inflict my views on any inordinate number of Senators but I think it is a little unfortunate that such an important Bill should not have had a quorum throughout the entire afternoon.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mr. Norris

I will not be tedious and refer to the questions I have directed to the Minister. I am sure he will recall them and I very much hope he will address those quite specific questions. He has a record of so doing, as I have observed. I will pass on to a couple of other observations. They are principally to do with the question of the language in which both the Bill and the Minister's speech are framed. With regard to the employment of the idea of head of household. I am worried, as was my colleague, Senator Brendan Ryan. There is no question of doubt that "head of household" suggests a particularly patriarchal system and would almost universally be interpreted in this country as meaning the husband and the father of a family.

Dr. Woods

Not anymore, not in our legislation.

Mr. Norris

I think it is. I believe that the Minister's interpretation may be a good deal more refined than that which obtains in the rest of the country. When one speaks of the head of household throughout this island, almost universally in a marriage situation it would be the man. That is my observation of reality although I cannot speak for the Minister's interpretation. This again places firmly on the record that the Minister interprets language not only differently from myself but differently from a very large number of the citizens of this country.

It is also worth noting that the requirement in the census forms to define oneself as head of household is no longer mandatory. I also recall that the Minister has referred on a number of occasions to European models. I would like to add something else to this. He said that he did not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the review. I welcome the review if it is a real one, because it does seem to me that this whole legislation is an immediate reaction to what is perceived as a critical political and financial situation. I hope that this review is seriously intended and that it will operate in the manner the Minister outlined. He goes on to say:

While I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the review, I suspect that it may be necessary for us to follow the trends in other countries by returning in some shape or form to the head of the household concept which existed prior to 1985 and applying the concept to all of the different household situations which can exist.

He says that it is a trend in other countries, but he does not mention any of the countries. That phrase is so general it needs further clarification, particularly because it is drawing our attention to the existence of this kind of clause in other European jurisdictions. I have to remind the Minister that the European Community, for example — and it is only a part of Europe — has been so extended recently, and certainly the Council of Europe has been so extended, that they contain jurisdictions which are not directly analogous to the Irish situation and which many people in this country would resist being used as an analogous model.

I would like to turn briefly to another worrying consideration with regard to the definition of cohabitation. What does living together mean? What does it consist of? The Minister has listed certain aspects which he claims should be the proper subject of investigation. The question was raised by Senator Brendan Ryan about persons sharing a flat. I do not intend merely to repeat what Senator Brendan Ryan had to say on this, but I am in a position to refer to my own direct experience of this situation. It is an important point to bear in mind that persons now do quite frequently share accommodation and financial responsibilities, perhaps share some of the household duties, and do not engage in a sexual relationship or more than the most marginal social relationship. Without being too personalised about it, I know this because for a number of years I have rented accommodation in property that I own in which I also live. On a number of occasions I have rented a flat to two people, one of each sex, who share a floor of my house, divide the rent, equitably, and any heating charges or whatever else there is. They do not share a sexual relationship. I am aware of this because I know them socially.

Dr. Woods

Are you sure?

Mr. Norris

I am fairly sure.

Dr. Woods

The fact is we cannot be sure.

Mr. Norris

That is an absolutely excellent point. I am most grateful to the Minister for having made it. The reason I think it is an excellent point is that I am there all the time. I am friendly——

Dr. Woods

All of the time?

Mr. Norris

Virtually all of the time. If I was anywhere all the time I suppose I would be a fairly static feature of the Irish landscape so I could not really claim that. Not even I am so immovable. I know it because I know them socially and I know they have boyfriends and girlfriends outside their immediate circle. It is a serious point because the Minister asks how I know. So, there may be a presumption that simply because they are sharing the same floor of a house they are cohabiting, and in the Minister's list of categories this includes a sexual dimension. If I do not know — and I am there — how are the Department of Social Welfare to find out? What are the criteria? Are they going to ask them? Are they going to follow them? Are they going to eavesdrop electronically? Are they going to push the door in? If these were members of the same sex they could push the door in under the criminal legislation. If they were not members of the same sex they could not do this unless the Minister intends amending the criminal law to allow the invasion of private property to determine whether or not these people were fully cohabiting rather than merely cohabiting on the washing up and sharing the household budget. I think this is a much more dangerous area than the Minister's sometimes bland phraseology would suggest.

We really need to look very, very carefully at the definitions of certain terminology employed. On the question of couples, what does constitute a couple? Around the House we have heard people arguing about what constitutes a couple. Is it two brothers, two sisters, father and son, father and daughter, mother and daughter, mother and son? The vagueness employed in what the Minister has said might well lead one to suppose that they do. In addition, if it is the intention, as it appears to be, to penalise people simply on the basis that if they are occupying the same space and deriving some measures of comfort, social or sexual, from each other's presence, then they should not be entitled to the kind of advantage that was previously enjoyed by them.

There is then the question of the definition of "cohabiting" and the definition of family. The family is defined in the Constitution under fairly limited terms but I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that last week Denmark extended to couples of the same sex virtually all the benefits accruing to the more conventionally established family. I wonder if there is going to be a level of penalisation as I see it rather than equalisation. Are we ever going to get the kind of equalisation that I would regard as a positive development?

I would like to turn to the section of the Minister's speech where he talks about child dependant allowances. He says:

Child dependant allowances payable to recipients of long-term social welfare payments have been extended up to age 19 where children continue 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.

Now at last I have something in the Minister's speech to which I can award a wholehearted welcome, although I believe it is outside the scope of this legislation, but that will not inhibit me in welcoming it.

It is extremely important, particularly for the most economically disadvantaged in our community, that these allowances are extended, because there is a particular hardship for families in extending to their children the privileges of a full time education whether it is, as it sometimes is, merely resitting the leaving certificate or matriculation exam in order to enables them to enter third level education, or, third level education itself. I welcome the fact that the Minister has used this opportunity to indicate that it is the Government's intention to extend the period of payment where the child is in full time education up to 21 years of age. The Minister says that is a first step. I would like reassurance that this first step will be rapidly followed by other steps until the position of children in families in these circumstances is actually improved.

There is a certain sleight of hand in the manner of the presentation of this Bill. There are quite a number of pages in the Minister's script which deal with positive aspects of the Government's social welfare legislation, and there are lengthy lists of the good things the Government have done. There are about four pages of specified items showing that the Government have done well by the disadvantaged, that there have been increases in the income limits for receipt of payments and so on. Point after point was made in the script and then there was a lot of general waffle about how wonderful the Government are. If the Minister's speech is reported, which no doubt it will be, this will be seen as a positive presentation of the Government policies, but it is virtually all completely irrelevant to the consequences of the Bill, which are to further disadvantage those who are already disadvantaged. For that reason I would experience great difficulty in giving a welcome to it. I see it as sleight of hand. I gather it is to go through all Stages today and will presumably be passed into law. It will, therefore, be my great privilege and honour to vote against the Bill — which may not do me all that much good with my middle class voters, but it is important to stand on a point of principle.

With that not very positive remark I concluded because I can see that there are people from the Government side wishing to speak and I do not wish to curtail the possibility of their entering into this important debate.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

In relation to the Senator's last point about my mentioning the improvements the Government have provided for families, I mentioned them to show that this was not a question of not making money available. The Government are making a lot of money available. We must look to the future through this review group to see how best to approach the problems. There is every possibility that other aspects of social welfare legislation can now be challenged. We need to tackle the two most obvious elements now and we have already established a review group under Mr. John Currie, who has a very wide knowledge of the whole area, and will be assisted by a range of experts — Dr. Fionnuala Kennedy, an economist, Dr. Clair Carney, Department of Social Science, UCD, Mr. Tony McCashin, Social Policy Analyst, NESC, Mr. David Byrne, Senior Counsel, Mr. John Hynes, Assistant Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Mr. Michael Guilfoyle, Principal Officer, Department of Finance, who deals with the social welfare area in Finance. This group will urgently tackle what is a very important wide ranging problem. We have to look deeper than the commission looked. I was interested to hear various Senators, including Senator Cregan, mention that we have to recognise each individual. The Commission also said that we must recognise each individual but they also said that we have to pay a rate of 1.6 to a married couple, and studies in other countries also showed that the appropriate rate is 1.6——

Mr. Cregan

But you do not pay them as individuals.

Dr. Woods

No, the point is that everybody else is paid as individuals. This is another problem. What we are doing here is providing assistance. This does not relate to couples who are working or to couples who are on insurance schemes. Our insurance schemes are available to people as a right and the benefit is equal for everyone. The problem only arises in relation to assistance schemes when we are trying to figure out how and to what extent we need to assist households. The question is, what is a household? At the end of the day we could decide to appoint someone as head of the household and give him extra money to cover the rent and so on, or we could decide to give an equal amount to everybody and let them work out for themselves who will pay the rent and so on. To give an equal amount is not an easy solution either when one works with the problems we have to deal with day in and day out. People do not agree on the division of money, the problem is brought back to us and everybody wants more, then it goes back to the taxpayer because we are asking the taxpayer to pay more all the time. This is means tested assistance.

In a household there could be a father, the head of the household, on unemployment assistance and a number of sons also on unemployment assistance. When we are making a payment we want to give enough to the household. If the family are living in two houses there are different costs, but if they are all in the one house the costs are reduced, but how do we deal with that? That has never really been addressed. We deal with this problem in the supplementary welfare allowance scheme by introducing a supplement to cover heating and so on. There are extra needs in terms of household heating, maintenance and so on and somebody must pay for them. In Belgium, Germany and Britain they use the household idea. They do not mind who is nominated as head of the household, but they agree to pay one person the extra supplement in order to pay for the rent and so on. They do not pay an extra supplement for fuel and rent to each indivdual. That would not make sense in an assistance scheme. That is the kind of problem that needs to be dealt with. A problem became clear in the case of a cohabiting couple because in that case there were arrangements which were internationally recognised and economic studies were done on the cost of two people living together, sharing all expenses, and on how much the taxpayer pays out in unemployment assistance to couples living together. If we work on the basis that one is a dependent of the other it is said that the dependant should be paid approximately 0.6 of the rate paid to the other. Where there are difficulties in the household we arrange for the making of separate payments. In recent legislation I made provision for the separate payments to be divided equally. I am the one who introduced that legislation and the one making all the changes and improvements, yet I am also the one who takes all the abuse. It is as if I was doing nothing. If one takes a look at what I have done they will see that it is quite considerable.

There is a difficulty and it is not one we can solve by my saying to my officials "tell me what I should do." It is a many sided problem and Senators have referred to many aspects of the problem today. Why should we pay a husband and wife, being supported through an assistance scheme, more in cases where the wife says she is available for work than they would get where the wife works in the home minding between three and five children? This is a question which needs to be looked at, and I can assure the House that it is one which the review group will be examining.

I believe that the approach we have adopted is the right one. We are taking two steps, the first is that we will pay the same amount to both married couples and cohabiting couples pending the outcome of the review. It is the Government's intention that this will be a radical review. It is also the Government's intention that this question be examined as a matter of urgency. We see the review being completed prior to the forthcoming budget. It is the taxpayer who will have to pay. It is they who have to pay for everything. People are out on the street calling for a reduction in taxes but we cannot come along with a formula to increase taxes unless we are sure that this is necessary and fair and that there will be equal treatment for man and women within the system. We want this question examined as a matter of urgency so that in the next budget we can make the necessary provisions.

Senator Cregan referred to the different rates in respect of children. It was I who reduced the rates but I reduced them upwards, not downwards — I am sorry, I rationalised them and reduced the number of rates.

Mr. Norris

May I seek clarification? The Minister has again taken flight——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator may not interrupt the Minister.

Mr. Norris

I am a bit confused by reducing things upwards.

Dr. Woods

I am sorry, I have reduced the number of rates. The commission said we could reduce the number of rates by reducing the amounts downwards. I did not like to do that. Traditionally we have given more to widows with children than we have given to the unemployed. This goes back to the days when unemployment was considered to be short term. This year for the first time we introduced an across the board payment of £10. That has got rid of quite a few but there are still a number of people in receipt of £13.50 or £14.50 as the Senator is aware. We have gone a good distance.

Mr. Cregan

There is logic in that. It is a good idea.

Dr. Woods

I have indicated that any additional resources should be used in averaging upwards. This is a question which has to be looked at in the context of the forthcoming budget. We have to deal with this matter immediately but in looking at the broader question we will also have to look at the cost that would be involved and how we should allocate any additional resources to attain the position we may think it is appropriate to attain at that stage.

Senator Cregan asked from whom I received advice. The case was taken up by FLAC and then taken further by a senior counsel who is also a Senator and a solicitor who is also a Deputy. The cost was carried by the Attorney General. I do not have the exact figures. Therefore the Senator will have to address that question to him.

Much of the discussion centred on the difficulty of defining "couple". The Supreme Court recognises the cohabiting couple living together as man and wife. That is the couple about whom we speak. What I am saying is that we have to take a look at the different types of couples we make payments to and how we pay them. This is a question we want the review group to examine. It was in that context that I mentioned that the authorities in some countries say to a person "I do not mind who you are or what you are about, just nominate the head of the household and then we will know where we are in terms of payments". They then pay a slightly higher amount to that person. The review group have to examine this question and come back with their proposals.

Senator Cregan also referred to the unmarried mother's allowance. The unmarried mother's allowance was equivalent to the widow's rate.

Mr. Cregan

Which is wrong.

Dr. Woods

Unemployment assistance is being increased. A person with two children on unemployment assistance will receive £68, whereas an unmarried mother with two children will receive £74. If the person on unemployment assistance has a dependent wife he will receive £97. Those are the new rates. The Senator is right when he says that there is a need for standardisation. This will be looked at.

Mr. Cregan

Why should an unmarried mother receive payment at the same rate as a widow?

Dr. Woods

Largely because she has a child to mind.

Mr. Cregan

Why does a widower not receive payment at the same rate?

Dr. Woods

He will from now on.

Mr. Cregan

With all due respect, he was not receiving payment at the same rate.

Dr. Woods

No, he was not.

Mr. Cregan

He will only get a personal allowance——

An Cathaoirleach

We cannot have this cross-chat.

Dr. Woods

He will from now on.

Mr. Cregan

It is known as equality.

Dr. Woods

What we are trying to introduce is a lone parent allowance. This would meet the concerns of the Senator. We want to get to this point without having to reduce the payments to those at present in receipt of slightly more. Of course in the budget we also want to give them a little extra and this makes the job harder. We have given them an extra 3 per cent and have given the others an extra 12 per cent so as to enables them to catch up. You give a person 3 per cent extra on the standard rate and give somebody else 12 per cent to catch up, but if the 3 per cent were not given the other person would catch up faster.

Mr. Cregan

Let the Minister make sure he does not have to go to court.

Dr. Woods

The Senator understands the situation, in any case. Senator Farrell welcomed the widowers's scheme and indeed it is very welcome. I was quite amazed how quite young men picked up that point from the media and were aware of it. The Widowers' Association is a new one and they are very pleased with this measure. That is a step ahead. There is much more to be done, however, in that direction.

Senator Ryan mentioned many matters. He talked about the assault on the poor. That is an extraordinary statement. He comes in here making these statements and then vanishes. Any time I have been present in this House, over two and a quarter years, Senator Ryan has behaved like that. He does not even listen to what I say in response. He has never yet, to my knowledge, waited to hear an answer.

Mr. Norris

I do not wish to be considered obnoxious or difficult, but I understand that it is inappropriate in the absence of a Member of the House——

An Cathaoirleach

It is for Senator Ryan to defend himself.

Dr. Woods

This is very general, only in passing. I am trying to answer the questions put by Senator Ryan and he is not here at this stage.

Mr. Norris

Possibly the Senator reads the Official Report. However, I am sure that it was not intended as a derisory view.

Dr. Woods

I hope that he reads this Official Report. I would take too long to answer all the points raised by Senator Ryan, but would make this point, that in the last two years we have provided, from taxpayers' money, £257 million extra. That is far more than in any of the previous years. That was a great attempt on our part to improve the lot of the lowest paid people. The Senator might at least recognise that. With all that he had to say, he never once recognised that we were and are making such a major contribution. He referred to the money saved on fraud and it is true that that money went towards that same cause. There is, however, much more needed in addition. It has taken two years in very difficult circumstances to make this improvement. From Senator Ryan, one would assume that everybody had been cut back enormously and left without. We increased long term unemployment assistance form £61 to £76, which is an increase of £15 a week. Let us take the example of a family with three children — the amount there is £20 a week. With five children, it would be £24 a week and it goes up increasingly. This is because we brought in the minimum rate of £10. Notwithstanding all the difficulties, we have provided much extra money, far more in real terms than in any of the recent years. There should be recognition for that. I do not mind our disagreeing about particular aspects, but let us be honest with each other and with the public when something substantial has been done, when major steps have been taken along the road indicated by the Commission on Social Welfare. When it is recognised publicly that we have taken two important steps, matters will be put in perspective.

Senator Ryan also spoke at great length about Jobsearch, not for the first time. As he said, I provided him previously with information about that programme. I do not know if he read it. I have a suspicion that he did not because I pointed out in detail the surveys carried out, not alone the internal surveys within the Department by my staff. We have in our Department a research and planning section which does that work on the ongoing basis. It is just as good as the research and planning section in Trinity College or anywhere else. The section examine standard procedures. I am not selecting Trinity College, or UCD, or DCU, or anywhere else.

Dr. Norris

It has not yet been established.

Dr. Woods

It will be established very shortly.

Mr. Farrell

We are pleased to hear that.

Dr. Woods

In any event, it will serve the north side very well, as, indeed, does Trinity College. I studied there myself many years ago when it was part of the agricultural faculty.

Mr. Norris

An excellent institution.

Dr. Woods

Senator Ryan talks much about Jobsearch. I shall point out again that of those who participated in the courses on a number of surveys, 76 per cent found it helpful and useful and said it gave them new confidence. Of course, there was a percentage who were not very happy. I do not doubt that that will be the case. Jobsearch was intended to be positive and is being developed as positive.

It is very important to me, as Minister for Social Welfare, because it means that for the first time I had a right to certain benefits and those were social employment schemes for the long term unemployed, training courses specifically for people in that group and other courses available through FÁS. A large number of FÁS courses were made available to me — they are yours now and can be made available to the long term unemployed. That was not happening previously. Many people who comment on this do not realise that many thousands, 86,000 more people, benefited from those courses who would not otherwise have got that opportunity. The evidence is there. That is why this measure was so important.

I realise that time is running out. There were many points raised and I wanted to do justice to them. I could spend much time on Senator Ryan's contribution. He talked about savings, but the savings on fraud alone, without those on control measures, in 1988 were £53 million. That has been established under the fraud section. It is necessary to have that degree of control and the money saved was ploughed back into the system. The external control unit was also mentioned. That is a very successful and effective unit. It is working very well. I think that I have covered the main issues. I know that Senator Cregan had some very apposite points to make. I have mentioned a number of these and hope that I have given him a fairly clear idea why we took the line we did take.

Mr. Cassidy

Senator Cregan is happy.

Dr. Woods

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.