Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Mar 1993

Vol. 135 No. 10

Social Welfare Bill 1993: Second Stage.

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

This is a very important Bill which fulfils the commitment in the new Programme for a Partnership Government to protect and improve the position of those dependent on social welfare. This is the first major legislation to come before the Seanad to honour that commitment.

In this year's Bill we are more than maintaining the real value of social welfare payments. Interest rates are falling. The latest consumer price index is lower than expected and indicates that the rate of inflation will be below, if not well below, the 3.5 per cent increase in weekly payments we are providing. We are substantially improving payments for children. Child benefit is being increased to £20 a month for the first three children. This will benefit all families, whether on social welfare or in employment or self-employment. Extra support is going to families at work through improvements in the family income supplement. We are improving benefits by bringing in better maternity provision, including entitlement to maternity benefit for volunteer development workers when they return to this country; easier access to invalidity pension for people who are very ill; a free colour TV licence for certain pensioners which I am introducing from April; and the Government is restoring confidence in the social insurance fund for workers and employers.

Overall, we are providing an additional £180 million a year for social welfare. That extra money brings the overall expenditure this year to £3.7 billion, i.e., over £10 million a day for each day of the year. That huge daily expenditure touches the lives of almost every person or ever family in the country. We provide a weekly payment to almost 1.5 million people, 800,000 recipients and their 700,000 dependants, while child benefit reaches 480,000 families each month.

In the course of its passage through Dáil Éireann, three issues in particular in this Bill have given rise to much comment. At times this comment has been, to say the least, uninformed, if not downright misleading, in relation to what I am trying to achieve by way of equity and access for the hundreds of thousands of people who depend on the social welfare system. I would like to set the record straight on these matters before Senators begin their detailed examination of this Bill.

Section 14 of the Bill provides that students in full-time education will no longer be eligible to claim unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare allowance for their summer holidays, other than in circumstances which will be prescribed in regulations. This measure will not apply to mature students or those in "second chance" education schemes. Each year about 12,000 full-time students sign on for the dole during their summer holidays. This summer dole costs in the region of £8 million. In addition to receiving unemployment payments, many students also claim rent supplements while living away from home during the holiday period.

If every single one of our full-time third level students were to get the maximum unemployment assistance during the summer holidays, the cost would rise to at least £60 million a year. It would rise again to about £90 million if all of them also qualified for rent allowances by moving out of the family home and into a flat. Expenditure on unemployment assistance is funded in total by the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer's contribution to support unemployed people and their families who are in the market for a full-time job. The same taxpayer invests in excess of £10,000 in every third level student over the duration of his or her course. People engaged in full-time education cannot be regarded as being available for full-time employment during their summer holidays. Their commitment to their studies rules that out. They are only free to take up short term work for the holidays and, on that basis, they would not be entitled to receive unemployment payments. This new arrangement will bring our rules for full-time students into line with what happens in Northern Ireland, Britain and other EC countries.

This new arrangement could have an impact on students who have come to depend on the dole for financial support during the summers months, if they cannot get work. In particular, I am anxious to ensure that those from less well off families receive every encouragement and support of a practical nature. Despite considerable progress in recent years in opening up access to third level education across all sectors of Irish society — 350 unemployed people are now attending third level courses under a scheme I introduced three years ago — the facts are that participation in higher education is heavily weighted towards young people who come from higher and middle income households. Fewer than 10 per cent of our students come from families with lower incomes. Senators may have seen a recent study which shows that this percentage has again dropped.

This summer I am introducing a scheme of summer work for students which will give them a weekly payment instead of what they get on the dole. This new scheme will allow students to do community work, voluntary work or work provided by public sector bodies and receive a "wage" approximating to their unemployment payments. There are a few specific points which I would like Senators to note.

Every student who is eligible to receive an unemployment assistance payment will be eligible to participate in the scheme. In the case of students whose families are dependent on a social welfare payment, they would get either summer work under the scheme or the equivalent of their unemployment assistance provided they apply from their home address. The scheme will operate for a fixed period over the summer holidays with the students working a certain number of hours or days in return for the payment he or she receives.

Contrary to what student representatives are suggesting, there are many thousands of students who would be willing to put something back into the community through their talents and expertise. For many, particularly those who do not have opportunities otherwise, the scheme will provide practical and invaluable experience using their life skills. Equally, there are many voluntary organisations working in the community who would welcome the opportunity to avail of third level students for a number of weeks during the summer holiday period. Local authorities, health boards and other public sector bodies could avail of that expertise for work which needs to be done in their respective areas. Some voluntary organisations have already welcomed the initiative and the potential it has for enriching their communities by utilising the skills of people who are the cream of our education system. My Department is working on the details of the proposed new scheme and I will be consulting with organisations such as those in the voluntary sector, regional interests, the new partnership groups as well as local and public authorities. As I have said, I intend to bring this innovative scheme into operation this summer.

Section 14 of the Bill also provides that young people leaving second level will not be eligible for unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare allowance for a period of three months after completing their second level education. I have made arrangements to ensure that these young people can register for FÁS immediately and that their eligibility for courses will be continued. Parents on social welfare payments will continue to receive the child dependant allowance in respect of children aged 18 or over for the three months in question. Up to this, it was only families on long term payments who were entitled to child dependant allowances in respect of children over 18 in full-time education. This allowance will now be paid to those families in receipt of short term payments also.

Section 23 deals with the allocation of personal social services numbers. It provides that the personal social services number will be the relevant number for all social welfare purposes — registration, claiming benefit, paying PRSI contributions. The sole purpose of this provision is to give legal status to the allocation of these personal social services numbers to customers by my Department. The first point I would like to make is that my Department is not introducing a State identity card. It is not the intention that the social services card will be used as a means of identification. There will be no photograph on it. It will not be compulsory to carry it. It is solely intended to facilitate easier access to social services generally. If a person wants to use it for other purposes, that is their perogative.

Initially, it will serve as a registration card and will be used to facilitate speedy confirmation of a person's social welfare record in situations where a person visits a social welfare office, a community welfare officer, tax office or a post office which has modernised payment services in connection with payment of a social welfare benefit. The Department of Social Welfare will pay increasing amounts of payments through post offices using these cards. The card will contain the person's name and RSI number, his or her date of birth and sex, but only the name and RSI number will be visible on the card.

I stress to Senators, the card has no legal status outside of its use for social welfare and tax purposes. There are some hundreds of thousands of plastic cards in circulation in this country. We all accept that these cards bring us the benefits of new technology in dealing with our financial affairs. The lowest penetration of any particular group in this area of usage of new technology has to be those people who receive their payments from the State. Our customers whose need for efficiency and promptness in receiving their payments is just as great as those who are in a position to pay for the privilege of using plastic cards should have access to all the benefits new technology can offer in their dealings with the Department of Social Welfare.

The third point I want the House to note is that I have already reversed the controversial measures introduced last year. I made regulations last week which revoked a number of those measures and adjusted others to substantially improve the position of people adversely affected by them. I have a number of regulations in hand which I will bring into force as soon as this Bill is passed into law. I would like to make it clear that I have power to bring in some of those regulations by virtue of previous legislation. I was able to bring them in before this Bill and I did so last week. They are now available in the Library and if anybody doubts that they may go there and check them. I had difficulty in convincing some Deputies in the other House that these regulations had been made. Once they are made and signed they are laid in the Library and are there to be seen. There are further regulations necessary which require the legislation which is now being passed. They cannot be made until this legislation is passed; when that happens they will be made and brought into operation. I make that clear because some people in the other House, and on radio since, have been trying to suggest that the regulations have not been made yet. They have been made: I suggest that all doubting Thomases go to the Library where they can be shown copies of them. The regulations that will follow the passing of this legislation may also be checked.

The new regulations revoke the condition for disability benefit requiring at least 13 paid PRSI contributions in a recent contribution year for people on long term unemployment assistance and for those on pre-retirement allowance; they also revoke the condition for dental and optical benefits requiring at least 13 paid PRSI contributions in a recent contribution year for people on long term unemployment assistance and pre-retirement allowance. These measures will immediately benefit those of the 140,000 long term unemployed and 15,000 PRETA recipients who lost out as a result of the change last year and may, potentially, benefit all of the people in these two categories.

The new regulations also restore dental and optical benefits to any worker earning up to £30,000 per annum and £60,000 per annum for his or her dependent spouse. They restore dental and optical benefits to pensioners affected by the change in the contribution conditions requiring five years paid contributions; and they relax the condition for entitlement to unemployment benefit for part-time workers by reducing from two days to one day the loss of employment which a part-time worker must incur.

The regulations awaiting the passing of this Bill will increase substantially the amount of daily earnings which will be disregarded in assessing earnings from casual insurable employment for the purposes of entitlement to unemployment assistance. The current level of disregard amounts to the daily rate of unemployment assistance for each day worked plus an additional amount of £10. I propose to increase the total disregard to the daily rate of unemployment assistance plus an extra £15 for each day worked. This significant increase makes casual employment a real option for unemployed persons. For example, a married man with two children will now be allowed to earn up to £34.42 for each day which he works without affecting his rate of unemployment assistance for the days he does not work.

I have immediate plans to improve the situation for people who have recourse to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme for dealing with payments to meet exceptional needs. I want to approach this problem along the following lines. I am providing an additional £12.5 million this year to meet additional demands on the scheme; I want to ensure that the discretion which health boards have is exercised in a sensible way to ensure that people in genuine need are helped sympathetically and effectively; and I am drawing up a code of practice to deal with debts which involve providers such as the ESB and An Bord Gáis. I am consulting with the ESB, An Bord Gáis and the health boards in relation to the code of practice which, when developed, will replace the guidance originally offered by the circulars issued last year and the circulars will be withdrawn. I will also be publishing revised guidelines covering all aspects of the scheme following the review which is taking place at present.

It is important that we have a consistent approach in the way supplementary welfare is administered and the measures I am taking will achieve this objective.

This is a good Bill for people on social welfare. The main improvements being provided for are: an increase of 3.5 per cent from next July in the weekly rates of social insurance and social assistance payments; a special increase of 4.9 per cent from next July in all short term rates of payment to bring them nearer to the priority rate — 83 per cent of all people receiving social welfare assistance will now get more than the priority rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare and I look forward to closing that gap totally by next year; a substantial increase of 26.6 per cent from next September in child benefit to £20 for each of the first three children — the rate for the fourth and subsequent children is being rounded up to £23; a new grant of £200 for mothers on the birth of twins; increases in the income limits for family income supplement from next July — all families in receipt of FIS will be £12 a week better off; a special increase of 11.7 per cent in the carer's allowance to give a new rate of £59.20 a week which is in line with long term payments; increases in the minimum and maximum rates of maternity benefit; a special increase of 20.6 per cent in the orphan's non-contributory pension which will now be the same as the orphan's contributory allowance of £39 a week; and the alignment and consolidation of parts of social welfare legislation to facilitate the introduction later this year of a social welfare consolidation Bill.

Unemployment is the greatest challenge facing this Government. In real terms, that means creating enough jobs. To achieve that we need a realistic and pro-active approach. We need to expand our traditional role in social welfare which is to ensure that those who, through illness, unemployment or old age, are unable to provide for themselves are looked after financially.

I believe there are two key requirements for those who are seeking either their first job or a subsequent one. They are education and experience, preferably both. If we want to help job seekers who are unemployed, we need to provide more training, education and work experience for them. This applies in a special way to young people who are not receiving the State financial supports which go to those in third level education. It is right that we as a country invest heavily in third level education, but we should also invest in young people between 18 and 21 years of age who do not get this opportunity. They especially need training, skills, work experience and often second chance education.

It is essential that we encourage the younger unemployed people to avail of further education and training as soon as possible after leaving formal education. They must be diverted down that route rather than on to the unemployment cycle and dependency on social welfare.

Through initiatives which I introduced we now have a range of educational opportunities schemes which give unemployed people a second chance to complete or extend their education. They can even go further and take on third level courses. Over 2,000 unemployed people are currently taking second level courses and a further 350 are in full-time third level study. Young lone parents also need access to this type of second chance education. I intend to encourage lone parents to take up these opportunities which do not affect their weekly payments.

I have also provided opportunities for part-time work which include payment of a weekly allowance from my Department and opportunities to do voluntary work without interfering with the flow of unemployment payments.

In my view it is far better that unemployed people get work experience or training than be excluded from the work-place and left on the dole. I proposed to the Government in 1991 that it pay unemployment payments and extra benefits for a period of six to 12 months and allow people to work as employees, to be self-employed or to receive training. This proposal in relation to the self-employed was put into action in the 12Programme for Economic and Social Progress unemployment black spots. We now pay extra benefits to 2,200 people who are at work through these schemes and 240 self-employed people are receiving a payment while working. There are now 7,500 people at work in the work experience scheme — the employment subsidy scheme — and 610 in training — the job training scheme. These initiatives are the success stories of the past few years. I intend to build on that success and expand them further. In addition, I will pay particular attention to the needs of people with disabilities and groups such as lone parents.

The new PRSI exemption scheme, which is part of our job creation drive, applies to March 1993. The exemption means that employers will not have to pay their element of the PRSI contribution for each additional employee for the tax years commencing April 1993 and April 1994. Employers will also be exempt from payment of the employment and training levy and the health contribution where the new employee holds a medical card. To date, applications have been received from approximately 1,100 unemployed people. This Bill makes legislative provision for the scheme and extends the date for applications to 19 September 1993. This will give us an opportunity to assess the situation. At the average industrial wage of £260 per week, the PRSI exemption amounts to a direct subsidy to employers of £31 per week or £1,647 per annum for each new employee taken on. This is a very valuable incentive for employers and I would urge as many employers as possible to avail of it before the closing date next September.

I am considering at present a new programme of measures to support people in making the transition back into the workforce, either as employees or working for themselves. It will also embrace training opportunities, work experience and further second chance education. This programme of measures will build on the success of the area based companies set up under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, working closely with the new county enterprise partnership boards. The new initiatives will be directed to long term unemployed people and will offer a range of supports to get them back into the workforce in a manner and at a pace that suits their circumstances. They will also provide those working in the black economy with an opportunity to put their affairs on a proper footing. I plan to bring my proposals to Government shortly.

I will now briefly outline the other main provisions of the Bill. Sections 3 to 8 provide for increases in the rates of payment across the complete range of social welfare schemes. The weekly rates for all recipients will increase from July next. In addition to the general increase, I am further improving certain schemes. Section 4 provides for an increase in the weekly carer's allowance from £53 to £59.20, bringing it into line with other long term assistance payments. In section 10 I am providing for the extension of "after death payments" to enable a spouse in receipt of a carer's allowance to continue to receive both the personal rate and the adult dependant allowance portion for six weeks after death. I am examining the question of awarding credited contributions which will maintain the value of the PRSI record during the period of care to safeguard the PRSI record for carers.

Section 5 provides for an increase in child benefit from 1 September 1993. The new rates will be £20 per month for each of the first three children and £23 for each additional child. This section also provides for a new grant of £200 payable on the birth of twins, with effect from 1 July next. Section 6 provides for an increase in the amount of weekly earnings which can be disregarded when calculating entitlement to pay related benefit.

Section 7 improves the position of those on family income supplements by increasing the weekly income limits across the board by £20. All families on family income supplement will be up to £12 per week better off.

Section 8 provides for increases in the minimum and maximum amounts of maternity allowance payable. From July next, the minimum and maximum rates will be £65 and £159, respectively. This section also provides for the extension of maternity allowance cover to some persons who do not currently satisfy the statutory conditions. Volunteer development workers will now be immediately eligible to claim materntiy allowance on returning home to Ireland.

At present, a person cannot normally qualify for invalidity pension unless he or she has been incapable of work for a least one year. Section 9 of the Bill will provide regulatory powers to allow invalidity pension within that period where this is warranted by the nature and extent of the incapacity involved. This is a measure with which Senators are familiar. Present legislation does not allow a person with an incurable illness to claim invalidity pension until after one year, even though that person may not live longer than three or six months. This legislation allows cases of this type to be dealt with.

Section 11 deals with the definition of an adult dependant in the case of cohabiting couples. At present, an adult dependant's allowance is only payable where the person has care of children. The provision in the Bill will bring the situation of cohabiting couples into line with that of married couples for all social welfare payments.

Section 12 is a technical adjustment dealing with entitlement to disability benefit where there was a previous claim. At present, an incoming claim may be "linked" back with other claims within the previous three years for the purposes of determining entitlement to benefit. Section 12 limits the maximum period of linkage to 52 weeks. This means that the administrative staff do not have to check over previous years to see if there was a lack of linkage which resulted in the claim being disallowed. In that sense, it is a benefit to the claimant.

Section 15 extends the legal provisions regarding limitations on the total amounts payable to couples to include persons on pre-retirement allowance. This brings PRETA recipients into line with those on other types of social welfare payments. In addition to extending the amount of earned income which can be disregarded for unemployment assistance purposes, to which I referred earlier, this section also provides that long term payments received by a spouse or partner will no longer be assessed as means. This arrangement currently applies to short term payments only.

Sections 16 and 17 provide for an increase in the earnings ceiling for PRSI contributions. The ceiling for both employers and employees will be increased by £1,000, bringing the annual amount reckonable for PRSI contributions to £21,300 for employers and £20,000 for employees. These are the normal increases which take place each year and they ensure that the social insurance fund is reasonably healthy.

Section 18 provides that employers taking on new employees from the live register will be exempt from paying PRSI in certain circumstances. Section 19 provides regulatory powers to assign responsibility for the collection of PRSI contributions to persons other than the Revenue Commissioners. This provision empowers the making of regulations subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance, to assign part of that responsibility to other persons.

Section 20 provides that, subject to exceptions in certain circumstances as maybe determined by the Minister, old age contributory pension and widows contributory pension will not be payable to self-employed contributors unless all relevant PRSI contributions have been paid. Section 21 exempts recipients of pre-retirement allowance, who are also self-employed, from their PRSI contribution liability.

Section 22 provides that any person found to be fraudulently claiming a social welfare payment may be disqualified from receipt of any other social welfare payment for a period of nine weeks. This does not, of course, include child benefit. Any person disqualified in this manner will not be entitled to personally claim supplementary welfare allowance during her period of disqualification, but supplementary welfare allowances may be claimed in respect of any adult or child dependants.

Section 23 deals with the allocation of personal social services numbers which claimants may be required to furnish for the purposes of claiming social welfare payments. This number, formerly called the Revenue and social insurance number (RSI number) will become the relevant number for all social welfare purposes in the future.

Section 24 removes an ambiguity relating to the assessment of non-cash benefits as means in the case of the lone parent's allowance scheme. Section 25 removes any reference to the sex of a person when determining whether the person is able to obtain suitable employment. Section 26 provides that unemployed people participating in certain training courses will be insurable at PRSI Class J. This will cover a range of courses such as Euro-form, Horizon, and the NOW programmes as well as mainline FÁS training schemes.

I have taken the opportunity in this Bill to prepare the way for a new Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill later this year. Sections 27 to 41 seek to align and consolidate various provisions in the social welfare code, relating to the following: claims and payment arrangements; social welfare inspectors; offence and penalties for offences; overpayments and supension of payments; notification of increases in means; and consequential repeal of some existing provisions.

Social welfare legislation was last consolidated more than a decade ago when I introduced the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. That was, in fact, also the first consolidation since 1952, when the unified insurance system was first introduced.

A further consolidation at this stage will simplify the administration of the overall system. It will also enable me to provide a comprehensive but simple layman's guide to the social services which will ensure that those who need to avail of the services will have all the necessary information, guidance and advice readily available to them.

Sections 42 to 52 provide for a number of amendments to the Pensions Act, 1990, which provides protection for the members of occupational pension schemes. This was a first major step and it is now necessary to further enhance the level of protection by updating items such as new definitions, regulatory powers needed to deal with problems that arise in the calculation of preserved benefits and in relation to the winding up of pension schemes. As Senators will know the Pensions Board was established as a follow up process to the 1991 Act. In the meantime they have been implementing the various regulations the Minister has signed in a phased way over the years. Some of the amendments and adjustments which the Pensions Board regarded as necessary are included in these sections and are largely of a technical nature.

As I said at the outset, this is another substantial piece of social welfare legislation. The increases provided for in weekly payments will more than maintain and safeguard the position of those who depend on social welfare. In addition, the Bill provides for a number of other improvements. I hope to bring forward a new Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill before the summer recess which will promote greater access to and understanding of our legislation.

A very constructive debate took place on the Bill in the Dáil and I look forward to a similar response from Senators today. We will, of course, have the opportunity to tease out and discuss all aspects and sections in great detail on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him on his reappointment as Minister for Social Welfare. He has a great grasp of social welfare issues and has performed exceptionally well compared to the other Ministers, particularly during the years 1987-89 when former Deputy, Mr. MacSharry, was Minister for Finance.

A few years ago there were 32 different categories of child-related payments, that number has since been reduced to 16. In 1989 social welfare payments amounted to £7 million a day.

The number of categories has been reduced to six.

I congratulate the Minister on this reduction. I was correct to argue at the time that it was ridiculous to have 32 different categories. One category related to a 16 year old child whose father was over 80 and another to a child whose father was under 80. It should be remembered that when Michael Collins was born his father was over 80 years old.

At present social welfare payments amount to £10 million a day. This is an extremely high level of spending for a country with a population of less than four million. Other EC countries would consider this level of expenditure to be a serious problem. I, too, regard it as serious and I am despondent at the fact that the situation has not improved in the three years since I was last a Member of this House. However, this Bill does not provide any incentive to improve the situation.

The Minister spoke at length about a scheme of summer work for students which would give them a weekly payment equivalent to what they would get in unemployment benefit. There is no great argument about that provided that work cannot be done by an unemployed person. Why not give this work to the unemployed or are we saying that unlike students the unemployed would not be able to do this type of work?

The social employment scheme was introduced in 1985. I was one of the people who advocated its introduction. I argued that the long term unemployed should be given an incentive to work even if this meant paying them unemployment benefit at the same time. Fianna Fáil, who were then in Opposition, laughed at the suggestion. However, now we are saying it is now one of the main schemes which could create employment.

Since 1987, there has been a big increase in unemployment, despite agreements between the Government, trade unions and employers. In some cases it costs as much in unemployment benefit as it would to pay people to work. I do not see the logic of this. There is no emphasis in the Bill on the need to bring the unemployed back into the workforce. The Minister stated that the average industrial wage is £260 a week. I must be living in a different country because in my area the general operatives do not earn anything approximating that figure. Does the £260 include 20 hours overtime or is it the gross amount they are earning? In other words we are saying it cost £260 to employ these people at authority level while at the same time we eliminate their positions. For example, in my authority we reduced our workforce by approximately 550 in 1987 but the situation has not improved. The cost of running the authority has remained constant. I am making this point to emphasise what it means to keep somebody at work.

It is fine to speak of the gross amount, but that amount changes when PRSI, PAYE, union dues and so on are taken into consideration. In 1987 an average employee with two children was £12 a week better off at work than if he had been unemployed. I do not see the logic in asking for more money from central Government for job creation if there is no incentive for people to work. The Minister gives the impression that employers will be encouraged to employ more people. How will this be possible given the costs to employers of such extra recruitment? The Bill to be introduced next autumn will give the Minister power to provide incentives to encourage job creation. I do not believe the Minister will have the authority to do this because the Minister for Finance will take increasing amounts of money from people working to pay for what is increasingly becoming a welfare state.

When I listen to the public, as we should all do, I see opportunities being missed. For example, out of a gross weekly wage of £260, £80 or £90 goes to the State. Where is the incentive to employ people? When will the Minister tell the people who can create opportunities for employment that the Government will reduce their tax burden? At present if wages go above a certain level, the Government receives more than the employee. I do not see the logic in that.

I am disturbed that in my area in Cork, especially in the past few days, professional bodies are making inquiries about people's entitlements under EC regulations. It is a disgrace that we do not have a structure to inform people of their entitlements and that professional bodies are prepared to charge a minimum of 10 per cent of these entitlements to acquire for these people what is due to them. If people are entitled to certain benefits under EC regulations they should be informed. We should realise that only a specific number of women are entitled to this money from a date in the 1980s. This aggravates the situation for other women. We must have been informed through EC regulations that this money was due on a certain date and a great deal of money would have been saved if payments had been made on that date. Why were they not paid? Why do we have professional bodies advertising in the press to make representations on behalf of people who worked in the early 1980s and who are now unemployed? Many of these women are stay at home mothers and they should be looked after. It is sad that people may have to go to a solicitor to get what they are entitled to, and pay 10 per cent for the privilege.

They do not have to go to solicitors.

I appreciate that but why is that not explained in the local newspapers? A half page advertisement would cost a lot less than the £2 million these solicitors will be paid. It would be better if the £2 million was spent employing more people in the Department of Social Welfare to pay those who are entitled to this money. The Minister should make a statement to the effect that the Department of Social Welfare will ensure that all these benefits will be paid without people having to consult a solicitor. We should not say people are not entitled to something when they are. An extra £300 million had to be paid under EC regulations. When this issue arose in the early eighties the then Minister should have reached a more satisfactory agreement. Admittedly the State cannot afford these payments but why was this the money not paid in 1985, 1986 or 1987? I have received many phone calls recently about this appalling situation.

The phone calls were probably the result of a statement I made last week to clarify the position. People do not have to employ solicitors, but initially some did so to contest certain elements of the case. That is what gave rise to the present situation.

This issue was debated for an hour on national radio last Friday afternoon. Members of a particular political party encouraged people to go to a solicitor, even if they had to pay a 10 per cent charge. That is dreadful and it should not be allowed continue. The phone calls were not as a result of the Minister's statement but of advertisements in the local press setting out details of the work solicitors were prepared to do at 10 per cent charge. Would it not be great if they charged 10 per cent for everything?

There are new regulations revoking the so-called "dirty dozen". In theory the disability, dental and optical benefits are excellent but realistically dental benefits are non-existent as far as the long term unemployed are concerned. Anybody who says an unemployed person receives good dental benefits is mistaken. Every possible obstacle is put in their way. Questions are asked about their entitlement to this benefit. A person would be in big trouble if they had a bad toothache. We should not talk about something that we think is there when it is not. These services are not being provided and every obstacle is put in the way of people, particularly the unemployed.

Dental and optical services are provided if one can pay for them. I will not stand up in this House and say that these benefits will be freely available to the long term unemployed because we have argued this issue through the years and it has been proved that if you want proper services, you have to pay for them. It is not right for any Minister over the past ten years to give the impression that there were proper dental services available for the long term unemployed, that is, for people who could not pay for the service for themselves and, more importantly, for their children. At present a child under 16 years of age who needs dental treatment cannot receive it unless the teacher makes a recommendation to that effect. Then the provision of that service is the responsibility of the Minister for Education, but when the child reaches 16 years, the Minister for Social Welfare is responsible for providing these services.

The Minister said that some students would not be entitled to supplementary welfare allowances. This regulation is being implemented because fewer students can emigrate as there is less work abroad and it is going to cost the State more to have them at home for the summer. That is a sad reflection on us but it is a fact of life. This issue needs to be teased out on Committee Stage. I hope the majority of our school-leavers stay at home this year but if they do I would not expect them to be paid a benefit as well as a rent allowance.

Up to now, they had that entitlement.

I appreciate that, but I would consider it wrong if the student was returning home and did not get unemployment assistance, particularly, if he cannot get a job or if a voluntary group or local authority is not prepared to take him on. Society holds the view that voluntary groups must do more in this area.

I welcome the schemes being run during the summer but I do not want more third level students getting these jobs because there are many people doing nothing from one end of the year to the other and I resent these jobs being given to a certain group. The Minister is making a point of that but I believe students should be entitled to unemployment assistance particularly if they are living at home and I do not see any reason for means testing. The Minister is prepared to give them money to work and they will not be means tested, but——

They are means tested.

——but a person living at home whose family is not well off is still means tested. This should not happen if they are prepared to work but cannot get it. The Minister said this in his speech.

It would be nice if it could be done but that means everybody would be entitled and it would be very expensive.

If they live away from home they get paid the allowance——

They get the full rate.

That is the point I am making, but people are being brought home and it is costing the State in the form of benefits and supplmentary benefits paid by the health boards. A person, not a student, living at home is means tested and is not entitled to unemployment assistance because his father is earning £190 or £200 gross per week — and has a net income of £140 or £150 a week. That happened in my constituency. It is very expensive to keep an 18 year old at home and little effort is being made to rectify the situation.

Landlords are getting richer by leasing small bedsits. What are we doing to families? We are breaking them up because the Government is not prepared to pay people social welfare if they live at home. I am not saying they should get the full allowance but other options must be considered. I hope that the new Bill will allow such matters to be considered at local level.

I question whether social welfare should include health. Why is the Minister allocating money to a particular section? Is it Government policy that the health authority should be responsible for supplementary benefits? Why not let them be the responsibility of one Department, the Department of Social Welfare? There are new offices employing sincere people who have experience in this area. Many people have left the family home because they were not entitled to benefits because of their father's earnings or those of other family members. If a parent is not the main earner in a family it does not follow that other family members are contributing to the household. A son may be earning £300 per week but only giving £30 to his mother. Do not deny that this is happening. Making an assessment on the gross pay of a household is unfair on parents because their child may leave the home to qualify for social welfare benefit. This will cost the State because in addition to a supplement of £59 a week it must pay £30 or £40 a week for accommodation; hostels charge approximately £100 a week. Where is the logic in that?

On the social side, we are now talking about lone parents rather than unmarried mothers. I have no problem with this. However, we have created a situation where young women, in particular, are forced to leave the family home because they are not entitled to any benefits and we, the people and the Government, have failed to create jobs for them. The Government has created additional problems by providing benefits to those who are prepared to move out of the family home into inadequate accommodation. The Government pays these people £59 per week, and a £40 supplement. This amounts to more than £100 per week but it would cost only £30 or £40 for these people to remain at home. Why is this option not being considered?

We are creating more problems for the child of the lone parent when he or she reaches 18 or 19 years of age. That is despicable and deplorable. I see no reason that a certain amount of money cannot be given to an unemployed person over 18 years of age, irrespective of his or her parent's income. People are entitled to recognition if we cannot provide them with work.

I would like the Minister on Committee Stage to ensure that the relevant authorities and social welfare officers are given the opportunity to use their discretion when dealing with such matters. If a lone parent receives a payment from a health authority but has been refused benefits by the Department of Social Welfare, she could be in serious trouble. The lone parent receives no family support or protection.

I welcome the increase in the carer's allowance. Although we have come a long way, we could have gone further. Over the last five to seven years there has been an increase in the number of homes caring for the elderly. Health authorities provide for people who cannot be cared for in the home. I do not believe these people should be kept in hospitals. They should be given every opportunity to remain at home. We can learn a great deal from other countries. Italy and Greece are two countries in which one would never see a home for the elderly. In these countries an elderly person, unless in need of constant hospital care, would remain at home. The family receives greater Government recognition in these countries and incentives are given to keep the family together. Why do we not provide incentives to keep the elderly at home?

I do not deny that the carer's allowance is important, but is it enough? Carers work approximately 90 hours per week. I ask the Minister to ascertain exactly how much supplementary benefit is being spent providing accommodation for people outside the home? We should provide incentives so that elderly members of a family can remain at home. This is an area where employment could be created. The health authorities are spending money hand over fist supplementing people in accommodation outside the home. This should not happen in a caring society.

Volunteer development workers, who provide services will now be entitled to maternity benefit when they return home and this is quite right. However, the State is doing very little to help those who take care of their elderly relatives.

I understand that benefits are to be made available to employers who recruit new employees, particularly in unemployment blackspots. I welcome these measures. However, it is wrong to give the impression that people are working while they are on training schemes. That is not the case.

In 1987 the Department of Social Welfare spent approximately £6 million per day; the Department now spends £10 million per day and this figure continues to increase.

They were old pounds.

I appreciate that. If devaluation had taken place last September the Government could have saved £300 million. Unemployment figures have risen from 179,000 in 1987 to 302,000 today. This should not be taken lightly.

The social insurance funds help.

One should not depend on that £3 million because it will not last.

I will be moving amendments on Committee Stage on the taxing of contributions and pensions. All people are equal, and this is right. As a result of equality legislation, equal payments must be paid to men and women. Will all pensions be taxed? Many people who receive State pensions have additional incomes. However, others depend solely on their State pension.

Will such a policy be phased in rather than implemented from April? There is no reason it cannot be phased in over a two or three year period to give recipients an opportunity to plan for reduced payments. Perhaps during the debate on Thursday we could consider that question. Not all pensioners need help but some who depend on their pension will now pay tax on a surplus of £10 or £15 above the limit and that is unfair.

The Minister is, I believe, an exceptionally good Minister for Social Welfare as he has proven over the years. He now faces the dilemma of having to make cutbacks he does not want to make. There have been cutbacks in social welfare payments although the opposite impression is given. I urge the Minister to encourage people to be creative because the opposite is happening at present. Since the person who pays PRSI, the 1 per cent levy and health contributions no longer receives benefits if his earnings are over £21,000, he would be better off not paying. Everybody should be dealt with in the same manner. I appreciate that is not easy but in view of the amount of taxpayers' money involved we must ensure we get value for money.

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is no coincidence that I have been appointed one of the spokespersons on social welfare for this side of the House as many of my constituents are heavily dependent on social welfare.

The Programme for a Partnership Government states that we are committed to the establishment of a caring society that addresses the needs of those living in poverty and those who depend on income maintenance from the State. Our priorities are to maintain the real value of social welfare payments, to protect the income of pensioners and to continue implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare.

A commitment was given to increase child benefit this year and the increase is part of this Bill. We also intend to raise benefits further following integration of the tax and social welfare systems. The Government acknowledges the need to simplify the social welfare system and make it more compatible with human dignity by streamlining the system of payments.

Genuine efforts have been made to make the social welfare system user friendly. I welcome the freefone advice service on budget changes and the initiatives that have been taken so that social welfare recipients can find out what their entitlements are and avail of those entitlements. I look forward to seeing the proposed layman's guide to which the Minister referred. That would make life easier and there would be no need to set up groups to interpret the system.

Senator Cregan referred to advertisements in the national media regarding the EC directive on equal treatment. Mrs. Gemma Hussey, the Fine Gael Minister at the time did not implement the EC directive and unfortunately that has led to the court challenge. I know Senator Cregan is not playing politics with the issue but throughout the years this matter was not addressed by successive Governments and that has led to the mess we are in.

It is still no excuse.

I am not excusing it. It is inexcusable that solicitors should have to take on cases at a 10 per cent levy in pursuit of an entitlement which should have been implemented at the time.

Certain elements of the Social Welfare Bill, 1993, have been highlighted by the media but it would be unfortunate if the positive aspects of the Bill did not receive attention. The social welfare improvements announced in the budget will protect the income of those dependent on social welfare by maintaining the real value of social welfare payments. They will also improve payments for children and provide extra support for families at work but on low pay.

The cost of the improvements outlined in this Bill come to £180 million per annum. This brings overall expenditure on social welfare for 1993 to £3.7 billion with expenditure running at about £70 million per week. It is a huge amount of money but I would prefer the burden of those payments rather than see certain sections of society do without.

The two categories of social welfare recipients I wish to discuss are old age pensioners and those in receipt of child benefit. It is noteworthy that certain categories of pensioners, with adult dependants over 66 years of age, will now receive up to £123 per week with the increases proposed in this Bill. We have come a long way since the infamous shilling was taken from the old age pensioners. I welcome the approved increases for old age pensioners. It is also sensible that the Minister has changed the regulations in relation to TV licences so that those who are in receipt of the free fuel allowance will also receive a free colour TV licence.

Child benefit is paid to every mother in the country and it is recognised as the most effective means of directing resources to families. I welcome the increase in child benefit to £20 per child for each of the first three children, an increase in real terms of 26.6 per cent. There was some speculation, prior to the last general election, that child benefit would be abolished. I am pleased to put on the record of this House that not only has child benefit not been abolished but it has been increased substantially for the first time in a number of years, and I am sure that the 500,000 families who receive child benefit welcome this.

The Bill provides for an increase of £12 million for child dependant allowance and for an increase of £12 per week in family income supplement. That is a recognition of the need to ensure that people on low pay do not find themselves disadvantaged. As part of the commitment to maintain the real value of social welfare payments I welcome the general increase of 3.5 per cent in social insurance payments from July 1993 and the overall increase of 5 per cent in short term payments, including disability benefit, unemployment benefit and injury benefit.

Over the last number of years the Government has progressively increased the lowest social welfare payments. In July 1991 long term payments reached the priority rates set by the Commission on Social Welfare. That fact deserves to be recognised although we should not become complacent. Over the past two years all pensioners, widows, lone parents, deserted wives and the long term unemployed have been receiving, at least, the Commission on Social Welfare's priority rate. Progress has been made in recent years towards bridging the gap between this group and others with £7 million per annum being allocated for this purpose. I welcome the fact that we are implementing some of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare.

The carer's allowance has received much publicity and I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the need to extend it. When it was originally introduced in 1990 it was designed as an income maintenance payment to carers providing fulltime care to social welfare pensioners. The allowance has been improved each year and now extends to people receiving payments other than social welfare payments. The increase of this allowance to £59.20 per week is welcome.

The Minister told the Dáil on budget day that over 4,400 people receive the carer's allowance at present. I ask the Minister and the Minister of State who is here today to continue the improvements to this scheme and, if finance allows, it could be extended to cover a greater number of people who provide care in the home. Senator Cregan graphically made the point that the service provided by carers in the home is invaluable. If the State was to try to match this in terms of providing care in institutions it would cost a substantially greater amount of money. I ask the Minister of State and the Minister to try and ensure if any savings are made or if finance becomes available that this scheme would be extended.

The inequalities in the social welfare system have very often been pointed to a disincentive to work. Senator Cregan made the point again today. I welcome the fact that the family income supplement has been increased and that the income threshold has been increased at each point by £20. The net effect of this is an additional £12 per week for families on low income.

Part III of the Bill allows for an increase in the maternity allowance and the extension of this allowance to certain categories of women who do not meet the contribution conditions. There was some debate, if not in the Dáil, in the media on this. The example cited in the Minister's speech is that of women employed abroad as volunteer development workers. It is timely that we have a Minister of State who worked in that capacity abroad. I do not know if she qualified for maternity benefit on return, but it is my understanding that prior to this Bill women employed as development workers abroad did not qualify for materntiy benefit on returning home. They do now and that is particularly welcome. The Bill also allows for the minimum maternity benefit to be increased to £65 per week. This is in line with what a woman would receive if she were out of work.

The Minister mentioned that the first changes made in regard to regulations were made by him in 1982; prior to that changes were made in the fifties. Some of those regulations are outlined in Part III of the Bill and are to be welcomed. They reflect a sensible approach to the legislation, specifically in recognising that invalidity pension can be paid to people who are incapacitated for less than one year. The Minister highlighted cases where people who were terminally ill could not be recognised. This is a very sensible and sympathetic approach and instead of laying down hard and fast rules we are saying that the social welfare system is capable of being adapted and is flexible.

The after death payment to spouses in receipt of the carer's allowance is to be extended to include the adult dependant allowance. This is sensible and an improvement. The definition of an adult dependant is being extended to one of cohabiting couples and this is a sensible change which brings the requirements for the provision of the adult dependant allowance in the case of cohabiting couples in line with those applying to married couples for all social welfare payments. This is to be welcomed. It is not sensible to draw a distinction between cohabiting couples and married couples in legislation relating to social welfare because it leaves it open to challenge.

I welcome the adjustment of the social insurance scheme which allows for a substantial increase in daily earnings to be disregarded in assessing eligibility for unemployment assistance. This is the point Senator Cregan tried to make. People have come to me and said they were offered part-time jobs but if they were to take up the jobs, it would mean that their spouse would lose most of their unemployment assistance. As the Minister pointed out in his speech, this legislation will allow an individual to earn £34.42 per day without affecting their unemployment assistance. It is an abuse to continue to have huge numbers on the unemployment register when there are jobs, casual or part-time but which would debar someone from receiving their unemployment assistance. The change is welcome.

Part III of the legislation also contains revised conditions for students claiming unemployment assistance. It is one of the sections that has received the full glare of the media. The Minister has clarified that my understanding of the section is correct. Students in third level education, who are living at home and who qualify under a means test for receipt of dole will receive payment. It is very difficult for students from deprived backgrounds to participate in third level education. I am pleased to note that under the proposed scheme students whose parents' only income is social welfare will get either a community work scheme or the equivalent of their unemployment assistance entitlements during the summer months provided they apply from their home. This measure will ensure that students from deprived backgrounds will get every possible assistance to make it through third level education. There has always been a tradition of third level students seeking employment during the summer to help out with the cost of third level education. This is a good idea.

The Minister also made reference to the pilot scheme he hopes to introduce for students who cannot secure employment during the summer months. I understand that students will receive the same level of payment they would have received if they had been claiming unemployment assistance. I appreciate that Senator Cregan did not object to this scheme but many others have objected.

I cannot understand the assertion by the President of the Union of Students in Ireland that this aspect of the budget will cause hardship to the most needy in society. From my understanding it is precisely those who are most needy in society who do not participate in third level education. A document entitled Who Goes to College, a Second National Survey on Participation in Higher Education, produced by Dr. Patrick Clancy, highlights the imbalance in participation in third level education by various socio-economic groups. I quote from the summary:

The analysis of the socio-economic status of entrants reveals the con tinued instance of marked social inequality. More than 55 per cent of new entrants came from five social groups; higher professional, lower professional, employers and managers, salaried employees and intermediate manual, although these groups constituted only 30 per cent of the relevant population. In contrast five other groups, other non-manual, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manual and other agricultural were notably under-represented. 24 per cent of new entrants came from these five socio-economic groups although these groups constituted more than 55 per cent of the relevant age cohort.

These findings on the socio-economic group inequalities in participation at higher level education are consistent with all previous research on the topic. On the basis of Dr. Clancy's figures it is very difficult to argue that the most vulnerable section of our society is being "savaged by the drastic cut" in social welfare.

If there is a need to supplement the students' incomes, unemployment assistance is an inappropriate way to do that. Unemployment assistance is provided for people who are unavailable for work. No one could argue that third level students in full-time education are available for work. If there is a need to provide some type of supplementary income for full-time third level students, the pilot scheme the Minister announced is probably a more appropriate way to provide this supplement.

The most valuable work being done in the community is on a voluntary basis. The communities will benefit from the input of students and the the experience and education they can bring to the work. Students will also benefit from involvement in community and voluntary work schemes.

People who are unemployed regularly make themselves available and apply willingly for social employment schemes. I do not want to pre-empt what may be said in this debate in relation to this section of the legislation, but it is interesting to note that in previous debates specifically referring to this section, language has been extremely emotive. Terms such as "coolie labour", "enforced labour for students" and "students have to work for the dole" have been used. It is amazing when students are referred to that language becomes emotive and very often emotional. In my own constituency hundreds, and probably thousands, of people have willingly and voluntarily worked on social employment schemes and have approached me and asked if there was any chance of extension of these schemes or if any additional social employment schemes are being put in place. Surely it is not being suggested that certain sections of the population should be excluded from any kind of voluntary work or manual work while it is acceptable for other sections to participate in such work. I am sure that is not what is intended and was not intended by commentators in relation to this section.

Anyone who has spoken to me about social employment schemes has told me how much they enjoyed them and the sense of purpose they gave them. In a number of cases, although it will not apply to the section of the Bill dealing with students, people saw it as a way back into the workforce. They gained experience which they otherwise would not have gained and they were better equipped to seek employment. Instead of viewing this section negatively, perhaps students could view it as a positive item that they could include on their curriculum vitae.

I am interested to see how the debate unfolds but it would be unfortunate if all the positive aspects of the Social Welfare Bill and the improvements and increases in it are lost in a debate which centres on one aspect of the Bill. This Bill is not about education, it is about social welfare.

Another area I am interested in and on which my constituents regularly comment, is the supplementary welfare allowance. I welcome the code of practice and the withdrawal of the circulars which were issued last year. Where discretionary powers are necessary, they place an unreasonable burden on welfare officers and what is used as a discretionary power is often perceived by those who apply for welfare as an inconsistency. The welfare officers often fail to please anybody. Those who receive the supplementary welfare allowance feel they are entitled to it and those who do not feel aggrieved that they are regularly refused while a small number of people get it again and again.

I welcome the code of practice that has been drawn up and I am glad the Minister will be meeting with the ESB and An Bord Gáis. I believe there is the possibility of introducing a budget account system for people whose social welfare payments are made through post offices. It has to be put on the record of the House that far from cutting spending in this area the Minister is providing an additional £12.5 million this year. This scheme will be seen to work more efficiently and effectively when the code of practice is laid down and when proper guidelines are issued to welfare officers.

If the budget scheme is introduced it will help the welfare officers as well as those applying. What has tended to happen is that people wait until a bill reaches a certain level and then apply. There is no guarantee they will receive assistance, and if they are refused they suffer extreme hardship. I look forward to the supplementary welfare scheme being clarified and to the code of practice to which the Minister referred.

Senator Cregan also asked the Minister to ensure that there are incentives for people to come off the dole and to work. This is a budget for jobs, Senator Cregan made no reference to the PRSI exemption for employers who take employees off the live register. This is a positive move in that direction.

That was there before the budget.

What the Minister said was that this scheme was due to be terminated but in fact it is being extended. Anybody taking an employee off the live register will not have to pay the employer's PRSI for two years from April 1993. That is a definite extension of the scheme and was announced before the budget.

I have said that I view the work of voluntary organisations as being most valuable in our communities. I believe that £100,000 spent at community level can yield as much as maybe £1 million spent through central Government. Tremendous work is being done in our communities by voluntary groups. The Minister may not have referred to them today but I would like to put on the record that special grants to voluntary organisations are being made in the budget. The overall allocation of £1.37 million is being allocated to various projects and organisations. The Respite Care Trust Fund is receiving £0.5 million, £100,000 for a special fund for projects to mark the European Year of Older People, £40,000 for Senior Citizens Concern towards the provision of day care facilities at Ramsgrange, Fethard on Sea, £25,000 to Energy Action to enable them to continue their work of insulating the homes of needy elderly people and low income groups.

I agree with the point Senator Cregan made, there is a definite need to ensure the greatest amount of consultation, assistance and advice to lone parents. The Minister has included a figure of £100,000 for voluntary groups who bring forward initiatives to support lone parents trying to return to the workforce or to education. I spoke on different debates in this House about the position of lone parents and I feel that, although the stigma has been removed, single mothers often end up out of the home, and — if they are lucky — in a local authority house with their child or children. This is a positive approach towards helping lone parents, not just paying an allowance to single parents and considering our responsibility to end there. We have a greater responsibility and we acknowledge that. The Minister's £100,000 grant may not be a huge amount but it is a step in the right direction.

The Minister has allocated £50,000 to the National League of the Blind towards the cost of building a training and day care centre, £40,000 to the Rehabilitation Institute and £40,000 to the Irish Wheelchair Association. A grant of £25,000 is being made to the Capuchin Centre for Homeless Men in Church Street, an organisation I know well and which has provided a tremendous service over many years. With regard to social services the following grants are being made: £20,000 to the Carmichael Centre for Voluntary Groups, £20,000 to Barnados, £20,000 to Cherry Orchard Family Resource Centre, £20,000 to Droichead Nua Family Support Group, £20,000 to Newbury House Family Centre in Cork — I think that is in Senator Cregan's constituency.

I thought we had been forgotten.

No, we would not do that.

Only £20,000?

It is something anyway. A grant of £40,000 is being made for information and counselling services, specificially with the unemployed in mind; £40,000 will be paid to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to allow them to employ two training officers to develop their social welfare advice role for their unemployed centres. I have argued that the role of the trade unions was not simply to collect members' dues and to forget those who are unemployed. I know that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions accept a responsibility in relation to the unemployed, and the unemployed centres which they operate have a key role to play. The following grants are also being made: £20,000 to the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, £25,000 to the National Headquarters of the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and £25,000 to Marriage Counselling Services.

I believe that small amounts of money go a lot further in the voluntary sector than the billions of pounds referred to in relation to the social welfare budget. In terms of community enterprise, £50,000 is being given to Incare, Centre for Independent Living and £30,000 to the Fountain Resource Group. Women's projects continue to be grant aided and £50,000 each is being given to the Tallaght NOW group, AONTAS and the Lourdes Youth and Community Service NOW Programme. An amount of £1.25 million was provided for the Community Development Programme in the 1993 Estimates and an additional £250,000 is being added.

There is a section in the Bill dealing with moneylending and this is one of the most valuable initiatives the Department has taken. I know that Minister of State, Deputy Burton, is aware of the huge problems that moneylending is creating in the large local authority estates. When people fall into rent arrears for example, they borrow from moneylenders and the cumulative effect of trying to pay back rent arrears and money borrowed has led to horrific problems in the community.

I ask the Minister to ensure that when this scheme is being implemented as many areas as possible know about it. What often happens is that a scheme is announced but the details are not known in the community. I ask the Minister to ensure that this scheme is well advertised to every community group. I think the scheme was run by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul prior to this and I am not sure what the intention is for the future. I am not sure if all the money allocated in previous budgets was used. However, this valuable scheme needs to be highlighted and people need to be made aware of it. I certainly do not intend taking the 40 minutes I have been allocated; I can make my contribution in less time. If the business of this House is to be more efficient and effective, we will have to consider shortening debates. This is a good Bill for those depending upon social welfare and is also worthwhile in relation to voluntary groups. I commend it to the House.

I understand, Senator Quinn, you want to share your time.

Yes. I would like 15 minutes for myself, 15 minutes for Senator Henry and ten minutes for Senator Norris.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister to the House and I also welcome the general thrust of this Bill. Senator McGennis referred to it as an effort to encourage job creation and there are three aspects of job creation I would like to discuss. The raising of the PRSI thresholds for employers and employees has become a regular hardy annual. The Department of Finance seems to have become accustomed to using this measure to raise extra revenue. Raising PRSI thresholds may have the direct effect of increasing employer costs. Raising the tax on corporate profits is different, because there, one takes a slice of profits already made. Increasing PRSI deductions on the other hand makes it more difficult for companies to remain competitive and profitable. It becomes harder for them to sustain existing jobs and much more difficult to create new ones.

We should be careful about slipping into the lazy reflex of raising PRSI thresholds a little every year. Every time we do it, we raise the barriers against industry, and then fool ourselves that we are getting away with it because the thresholds have only been raised a little. Let those who claim that these increases have no effect in the real world look at what happened in Derry and Donegal last week. Magee's — the long established Donegal clothing firm — decided to move its operations across the Border into Derry. One of the reasons given was the difference in VAT and PRSI rates here and in the North. This is not the first time we have lost jobs in this way. Recently, the huge Fruit of the Loom operation in County Donegal decided to expand across the Border into Derry because as they made clear the cost structure was more favourable there. As in many other things if our PRSI rates are uncompetitive, we pay the price and I wish to sound a sober warning about that.

There is another reason — an idea that the Minister could take into account — to ask the Government to reconsider these automatic rises in PRSI thresholds year after year. Increased PRSI rates hinder rather than help create employment. We should be redistributing the burden of PRSI in order to make cheaper to create and sustain jobs. Our system at present starts with PRSI deductions on the first pound one earns cutting off at around £20,000 per annum. This approach puts up a serious barrier to employment, but if we turned the system around we could encourage employment. I propose a system under which a first slice of income would be exempt from PRSI, and then all income above that threshold would be liable.

The automatic annual raising of the PRSI thresholds blinds us to the possibilities that exist for a total rejigging of the system that could create jobs. I am aware that to exempt £1,000 at the bottom end one would have to raise the upper threshold by much more than £1,000. Removing the upper exemption limit however would create enough revenue for a worth while exemption at the bottom end of the scale. It would be worthwhile to cost this proposal to see whether it would work. I am not suggesting anything that will cost the State money. The aim would be to redistribute the burden, so that the yield would remain the same but the cost of taking on employees at the lower end of the scale would be greatly reduced. This proposal would be a form of positive discrimination for employment; at the moment we have the reverse.

The Bill contains provision for removing unemployment assistance from school leavers and third-level students. I agree with the general thrust, but I have two proposals to put to the Minister. First, as far as school leavers are concerned, the clause as drafted means that young people leaving school before or after completion of the Leaving Certificate will not be eligible for assistance until three months after they have left school. If that clause remains as it is, we will be creating an incentive for young people to leave school before completing their secondary course in order to receive unemployment assistance. We must not give any incentive to young people to drop out of school because there is strong evidence that those who leave school early have the least chance of getting a job and are most likely to number among the long term unemployed. We should amend this provision so that the incentive to drop out of school is removed.

My second suggestion applies to third level students. We should help them find work if they want to work during their holidays. One way to help would be to remove the employers' liability for PRSI and wages paid to third level students taking vacation jobs. This would make employers more willing to take on students and it might create vacation jobs where they currently do not exist. This would be a positive way of giving back to third level students some of what this Bill proposes to take from them.

The third aspect of this Bill which concerns me — and it is independent of the other two points — is the provision for amending the Pensions Act, 1990. Again, I am in agreement with the proposal. The Pensions Act was tremendously complex, and it is only right that we should continue to amend it. We could learn from our experience last year, when it was amended in the Social Welfare Act. That will probably need to be done again next year. It is good to have this annual amending mechanism through the Social Welfare Bill which makes the Pensions Act easier than it might be.

The matter I wish to raise is the appointment of member's trustees. Section 62 of the Act provides the Minister with the power to make regulations to impose members' trustees on every pension scheme. I understand the Minister for Social Welfare has asked for and received a report from the Pensions Board about the practicalities of putting that provision into effect. Action should be taken urgently on this matter. The idea of including, among the trustees, someone who represents the members' interests is a valuable safeguard, which is all the more appropriate following the Maxwell scandal in the United Kingdom.

Indeed, we do not have to go to the United Kingdom to find examples of pension moneys being diverted from their proper use. In my business the pensioners of H. Williams company's ended up without their pensions. That problem has only been partially solved. We should take steps against the danger and the threat of that happening in any other company. If you are going to exclude anybody from having a right to play with the pension fund it should be management and not the people who are going to benefit from the fund. It is important that our regulations reflect what is so often overlooked — that the money in pension funds belongs to the members and not the company. These regulations should be brought in at the earliest opportunity, and I urge that in the knowledge that the employer organisations have been lukewarm about this. I do not think we should let that stand in our way.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the fact that in this Bill there has been a consolidation of many allowances. Like Senator McGennis, I too have experience dealing with people in receipt of social welfare allowances, and the discrepancies of a pound here or there between them, as well as the bureaucratic confusion involved, have been appalling. It is most welcome that this has been removed. How we could have an orphans' noncontributory pension and an orphans' contributory pension I do not know, but when I heard about the increase in the allowance to fathers over 80 the situation seemed even worse.

I want to deal with three groups, starting with the young unemployed who should be encouraged to avail of further education and training. The Minister has laid great emphasis on this and it is essential to do so because the unemployment figures for those who leave school at an early age are much worse than those who leave school with qualifications. One constantly hears about graduate unemployment but it is nothing compared to the unemployment situation of those who have no educational qualifications at all. One group with whom I deal and who have serious problems in this area are lone parents. Senator McGennis read out a list of those who were going to get money and to my great disappointment, as the president of Cherish, the association for lone parents, I discovered that we did not feature. I agree with what she said, that for every pound put into a voluntary organisation the return is much greater. It is not just the money you put into the organisation that counts, but the recognition that the organisation is doing something. The more the Department of Social Welfare realises this the better. A serious situation has arisen because many of these young women left school at an early age.

As with unemployment, single motherhood is more common in those who have dropped out of school than in university graduates. These young women not only have to deal with their own future but they have to look to their child's future and those who work in Cherish spend a great deal of time encouraging them to enrol in training and education schemes but this is proving extremely difficult. Those 20,000 women are discriminated against when it comes to getting into training and education schemes because they are not included on the live register and, therefore, their attendance on these courses will not show up in the unemployment figures. It is vital that these women are given the same opportunities to avail of education and training as those on the live register.

A person does not have to be included on the live register to avail of the following schemes: FÁS training courses, community employment development programmes and CERT basic skills training courses. I am not sure what the present situation is as regards CERT courses because since September 1992; a person does not have to be registered as unemployed to be eligible for these courses but the brochure being circulated does not make this clear. Are the brochures more than six months out of date or are CERT going to insist on people being taken off the live register?

The following courses have a live register requirement: vocational training opportunities schemes, social employment schemes, employment incentive schemes, employment subsidy schemes and job training schemes. Some of these schemes, particularly the social employment scheme, could be most useful for these young women because the commitment is only 20 hours a week. A requirement to participate in these schemes is that a person must be over 25 years of age. I do not see why this should be because I am sure it would be better if the participants were 15 or 16 years of age. I am sure there is some very subtle reason for that which I have not yet worked out, which the departmental officials may be able to tell me.

While some of the training courses pay allowances to participants, they do not pay child minding expenses and the lone parent allowance does. That is one area which urgently needs to be straightened out but I do not think it is a major problem. The fact that these women will not get a child minding allowance is another disincentive to single parents to give up their lone parent allowance and get on the live register. All of us want to encourage these young women to have more education and training, so the faster these issues are resolved the better.

The second group I want to talk about are those in receipt of the carer's allowance. If the carers of Ireland decided that the State must provide care for those who need it we would be in an appalling situation. I think the increase they received is miserable as is the amount they are being paid. The report of the Commission on the Status of Women noted that one health board was paying home helps £1 an hour, and everyone considered this disgraceful. Even if these people were being paid for their waking hours only — and I can assure you they are working round the clock with the elderly and infirm people they are minding — they would be getting less than 30p an hour. The carers may be husbands, aged parents, brothers, sisters and in some cases even neighbours, and many of them may have had to give up their jobs to do this work which is saving the State an enormous amount of money. If the people being cared for had to go into a home we would probably have to pay £280 to £300 a week. We are talking not only about the compassion they show to those they are minding but the enormous amount of money they are saving the State. We must also consider their social isolation. The only group which seems to make any effort to do anything for these people are the soroptimists led by those in Ennis. I am glad that Judith Ironside and her colleagues, who started this respite for carers in Ennis, were awarded the 1991 European Women of the Year prize. They try to make life bearable — and bearable is the only description — for those people who are constantly caring for others.

The Minister said he is examining the question of awarding credited contributions to safeguard the PRSI record of carers. So far as I am concerned tomorrow is too late for the results of his examination. This matter is urgent because how will the carers, generally women in their forties, often single daughters who had to give up their jobs, find work having spent ten years at home caring for a relative? I urge the Minister to provide money for these people. Carers are helping us on the social as well as the financial front.

I would like to deal with people who are on disabled person's maintenance allowance. At the moment they come under the Department of Health. They are people who are considered to be permanently unemployable by reason of their disability. Several difficulties arise as a result of responsibility for this allowance being with the Department of Health. First, their problems are not to do with health; mainly they relate to the social welfare code. Many of their problems have to do with accessibility to public places, to unemployment, to transport and housing; in other words the same problems encountered by people who receive other disability benefits. The disabled person's maintenance allowance has a £30 per week earning limit for single and married people, while the social welfare allowances have a £30 per week earning limit for single people and a £50 per week limit for married people. These anomalies make it extremely difficult for people on disabled person's maintenance allowance.

When entering hospital a person on a disabled person's maintenance allowance is regarded as being under the care of the Department of Health. This also happens in residential institutions. That person's allowance is then paid directly to the institution. This is very unfair. It would be much better if it was paid, as in the case of other allowances, to the person themselves because, after all, the allowance is payable to the person.

Different health boards have different priorities, and cash payments for disabled person's maintenance allowances are not treated in the same manner by all health boards. These payments would be better dealt with by the Department of Social Welfare. The amount payable to people on disabled person's maintenance allowance is less than that payable to those receiving invalidity pension. It was mentioned earlier that people who take up casual employment do not lose their benefits and can more easily receive their old benefits if their casual employment ceases. It is extremly difficult for people who have been employed for a short time and who previously received disabled person's maintenance allowance to get back on to the disabled person's maintenance allowance when employment ceases. The social welfare system would be better able to take into account the special needs of people on disabled person's maintenance allowance regarding extra needs such as clothing, heat and special transport needs.

I am glad the voluntary agencies are receiving more money. I stress that there are many opportunities for people to do voluntary work. The President spoke recently about the social isolation of the unemployed. It is true that unemployed people suffer from social as well as financial isolation. I suggest that the voluntary agencies should be represented in the employment centres not as the St. Vincent de Paul Society, giving help with budgeting, or the Samaritans who give great help to unemployed people who are distressed, but in a recruiting capacity. Many unemployed people are extremely skilled and they have valuable life experience which would be of great benefit to voluntary organisations. We under-estimate considerably what unemployed people can do.

With regard to the loss of payment to students, it is not only those on social welfare who will be affected; those whose parents are on low incomes will be severely affected. Senator Quinn's suggestion regarding PRSI should be seriously considered because it seems to me to be an excellent suggestion.

How much time do I have?

Acting Chairman

You must conclude by 5.20 p.m. Due to the economy of words of the previous two speakers you have a little more time than you might have had.

Senator Henry mentioned the question of payments to students. This was addressed by the Minister, but I have to say in a somewhat patronising tone. He said that fewer than 10 per cent of our students come from families on lower incomes and he appears to regard that situation with satisfaction. It is a reproach to the entire educational system that 10 per cent of those enjoying third level education come from low income families. I wish something could be done about that. Perhaps the social welfare code will be one way of ensuring that this 10 per cent does not dwindle further because the briefings that I have received suggest to me that will happen. The Minister said:

Contrary to what student representatives are suggesting, there are many thousands of students who would be willing to put something back into the community through their talents and expertise.

That suggests the majority of students are being represented as if they were not prepared to put something back into the State through their expertise, talent and education. My experience is directly contrary to that. Yes, they are prepared, and in many cases very anxious to do so, but the changes in the social welfare code will not assist them.

I have received strong protests from people which indicate precisely how these anomalies operate against young people from low or middle income groups seeking support from the social welfare system. I urge the Minister to think again about this. I suggest there is simply no time to deal with all the anomalies in the social welfare system. I recognise it is an extremely cumbersome and difficult system to administer and that almost every solution to a problem appears to create further unanticipated problems. It would be a good idea if a small section of the Department of Social Welfare could concentrate on ironing out anomalies which frequently cause social damage and which can cause the State further expense.

I phoned somebody today on a completely different matter. The man who answered the phone told me that he is on social welfare. He used to get £70 a week. He went to England for four years and did not cost the Irish Exchequer anything. Now he has come back and because he is living with his parents he is entitled to only £43 a week. His option is to move out of his parents' home and get a flat which would entitle him to £65 a week plus an accommodation allowance which would cost the State far more. The State in a rather cheese-paring fashion is suggesting that £43, which is really only pocket money, can be used as a cushion because there is the assumption that parents, in addition to providing accommodation, will provide food, etc. That is one anomaly that came to light accidentally this afternoon.

There is considerable disquiet among groups such as the National Youth Council and various other representative bodies because of the arbitrary nature of the introduction of this summer work scheme for students. There are a number of real anomalies in this scheme. For example, the decision will ensure that young people will have to stay outside the qualification period for eligibility for a range of FÁS schemes. Currently, people must be unemployed for one year prior to becoming eligible to join an SES or Teamwork scheme. If the Minister's proposals are implemented young people will have to remain unemployed for at least 15 months. This flies in the face of the Culliton report which stresses that the longer a person is out of work the more difficult it is for them to find employment. The introduction of the Minister's proposals is forcing people into a situation where they are unemployed and cannot tke up FÁS schemes for a 15-month period. Young people who have waited for three months to sign on for unemployment assistance will often lose the first three days of their claim.

The Bill as framed is also unclear about calculation of the three month period after signing on in the case of a person who has dropped out of school prior to taking the leaving certificate examination and how their leaving certificate days will be evaluated. The National Youth Council of Ireland has expressed its concern to me that this measure will encourage people to drop out of second level education. There is a series of anomalies. I have a couple of pages of them here but I expect the Minister and her advisers have already heard views on these matters in submissions from groups such as the National Youth Council. It would be tedious to simply read many of these statements onto the record, but if by some accident or mishap the Minister and her advisers are not in possession of this information and documentation, I would be happy to pass on such material so that they can be further reviewed. These data highighted a series of problematic areas where there is a confict and where anomalies have arisen.

I have three or four specific targets. I brought up the first one because my distinguished colleague Senator Henry mentioned it at the end of her speech. I have another case which perhaps has not received much attention, namely, the position of widowers and separated fathers under the social welfare code. I take an interest in this from a rather oblique angle because my mother was left a widow and she felt unjustly treated. If my mother had died, my father could have received some kind of caretaker's or housekeeper's allowance. She thought it anomalous that when the breadwinner died; she, as a woman, did not receive an allowance. I agreed with her. I discussed this with the Association of Irish Widows and I believe this anomaly has been rectified but apparently, the men have been left behind. Simply on a basis of gender equality, it seems rather unfair that this should occur.

The lack of a widower's pension and deserted father's benefit is a real concern to groups such as the Irish Widowers and Separated Fathers Association. The degree of suffering involved has been highlighted in recent years by the broadcast media. For example, on "The Pat Kenny Show" and "The Gay Byrne Show" men have phoned in saying they are heartbroken and distressed because they are trying to keep their family together and have to do a certain amount of part-time work in order to provide education for their children.

Tomorrow we are dealing with education and I know the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, takes an interest in these issues and in the idea of spreading money via the Department of Education to the less advantaged areas. Widowers and deserted fathers may find, as many parents do, they are continually coming under pressure to provide funding for what are termed "extras." but to many people are essential elements in education. They find it impossible to do that on their income. When they try to supplement this by taking part-time employment, no consideration is taken of their status as widowers who, because they take employment, have to pay thousands of pounds in extra tax and also have to pay child-minders while they are at work. I have always deprecated that noxious element of the Constitution which saluted the special place of women in the home. It should refer to the special place of parents in the home, or whichever parent wishes or is placed in circumstances where he or she has to take responsibility for the family. I salute the Government for establishing a Department dealing with Equality. It should look at equality for widowers in these matters.

I make a special appeal to the Minister. The Irish Widowers and Separated Fathers Association applied to the Department of Social Welfare for a small grant to purchase a photocopier, a word processor and a printer. They were turned down. That is rather miserable. This request should be seriously considered because it would help them to organise more efficiently and to make their submissions more directly and urgently. They need a certain amount of attention to redress their situation. They made it clear to me, for example, that the "dirty dozen" cuts badly affected them. An additional £1.50 to £5 a week has to be contributed by claimants of mortgage interest or rental allowance. Fathers in receipt of a lone parent allowance are losing their right to free dental treatment. I believe that has been addressed. A great Fianna Fáil phrase is, "In all fairness, Minister". Well, in all fairness, I welcome the change that has been made. Is it no longer the case that the relieving officer is only able to give aid on one ESB bill or gas bill in any one year? I see from the Minister's reaction that this is the case.

There is a rather remarkable coincidence of opinion between two agencies I greatly respect, the Combat Poverty Agency and the Conference of Major Religious Superiors. It may seem odd that I, often seen as a scandal and reproach to the decent citizens of Ireland, should praise this latter body, but they always produce excellent, well-informed, detailed and logical material. I refer particularly to the response to the 1993 budget by the Conference of Major Religious Superiors and the January-March issue of Poverty Today, No. 20. I put those on the record because I may not have time to make all the points I wish to put forward. They welcome a number of elements in the budget relating to social welfare, in particular the increase in the carer's allowance, but they deprecate the fact that this is subject once more to stringent means testing. They welcome the overall increases to social welfare recipients although they regret they are low. They also welcome the child benefit but their welcome is qualified and they make this interesting point. Research shows it is more progressive to increase child benefit by 50 per cent and tax it, while freezing child dependency. The cost to the Exchequer would be similar to the measures taken in this budget but it would be of much greater benefit to poor families. Precisely the same point is echoed in Poverty Today. It states:

There is urgent need for a radical reform and improvement in the child income support system. The Agency agrees with the thrust of the Commission on Social Welfare's recommendations that child benefit should become the central plank of child income support policy and that it should be age graded. In this submission the Agency recommends that child benefit should be increased in this budget by 50 per cent in real terms and should be considered as taxable income. It also recommends additional child benefit increases for the fourth and subsequent children and for older children.

The coincidence of viewpoint of these three important agencies, the Commission on Social Welfare, the Combat Poverty Agency and the Conference of Major Religious Superiors should be taken on board by the Government. I hope the Minister will consider doing this.

Both the Combat Poverty Agency and the Conference of Major Religious Superiors say the overall priority for social welfare policy should be to raise all payments to the level recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. One says it is £64.70, and the other says £65 for single people and £104 for couples: we will not fight over 30p.

My last point is about the taxation of disability benefit. To many this will seem regrettable because people with a disability are exactly that, people with a disability. Even if one leaves that aside, it is estimated this measure alone will generate £10 million for the Exchequer. I would like to see this applied directly in the area of social welfare, perhaps in one of the areas I have suggested, such as the raising of the income support or the child welfare allowance. It often happens, particularly when the Department of Finance is involved, that if there is a saving in some measures if disappears into general taxation. The principle should be established that where there is a saving in a Department with urgent needs and priorities that money should go back into servicing the needs of the Department that has been efficient and careful to make that saving.

Acting Chairman

I would like to welcome my constituency colleague Senator Wall and to wish him well on his maiden address to the House. Am I to understand that you wish to share your time?

I would like to share my time with Senator Kelleher.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, to the House and I congratulate her on the Bill before us.

Although there are a number of points I disagree with they are far outweighed by the positive aspects of the Bill. The Labour party's input has helped to ensure that there is a human factor to a Bill that in recent years, unfortunately, has been forgotten. Social welfare is about helping people who, through no fault of their own, depend on Government assistance to survive.

We must ensure that recipients of social welfare and other payments are treated with dignity and respect at all times. I congratulate the Minister on the improvements at the Department's offices to allow transactions to be completed in the shortest possible time and, thus to alleviate the problem of people standing in the streets awaiting their entitlements. All of the Department's structures must be improved; I await improvements simplifying documentation and appeals procedures and a complaints procedure which will allow cases to be cleared in a minimum period of time. In this regard I am delighted that the Minister will be introducing a social welfare consolidation Bill so that people will not have to go through the trauma of filling forms which they find difficult to complete.

I am pleased the Minister will be drawing up a code of practice with regard to supplementary welfare allowance; everyone concerned should be consulted to ensure the smooth running of the scheme.

The Bill is aimed at protecting the low income group, social welfare recipients and the senior citizens and it succeeds in that to all intents and purposes. However, I cannot agree that denying students unemployment assistance is in line with that aim. Although the Minister has exempted mature students, second chance students and students whose parents receive social welfare, there is no provision for students from low income families. I cannot understand this and I ask the Minister to include in his exemption order students from families who receive family income supplement, and from families whose earnings are less than £10,000.

I also question the wisdom of forming another group to do community work to gain entitlement to unemployment assistance. Attendance at supervised study groups or at FÁS courses with practical themes, in order to get unemployment assistance, would be more beneficial to students. Students are entitled to a holiday break and I ask the Minister to meet with the students' unions to resolve this difficulty to allow students to continue their studies without worrying about the forthcoming summer break and their entitlement to unemployment assistance.

With regard to the reversal of changes made in 1992, I am disappointed a special case has not been made for part-time firemen who are receiving unemployment assistance. I welcome the increase of £15 in the amount one can earn in a day without losing unemployment assistance for other days but I believe that firemen who risk their lives for our protection deserve special payment under this heading.

I welcome the other changes proposed by the Minister. Dental and optical benefits and disability benefit are to be restored to the long term unemployed, to people on the pre-retirement allowance scheme and to pensioners who lost out under the 1992 changes. This relieves the anxiety suffered by those concerned and will be greatly appreciated. These changes will benefit some 140,000 long term unemployed and 15,000 PRETA members immediately.

I am pleased to see, as the Labour Party promised before the general election, child supplement increased by 26.6 per cent: the first increase for seven to eight years. Further increases each year in the lifetime of this Government are essential and I am delighted the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, announced that this would be the case in her speech to the Dáil. These payments are an essential weapon in combating poverty and will be of major benefit to all families, especially those in the lower income group.

The increase of 3.5 per cent in social insurance and social assistance payments maintains their real value to each recipient given an inflation rate of around 2 per cent. The increase in short term rates of payment of 4.9 per cent is of immense value to those who suddenly need disability benefit, unemployment benefit or short term unemployment assistance.

An increase in the carer's allowance together with grants to voluntary groups, such as lone parents, senior citizens, etc., and to disability groups, such as the National League of the Blind, the Rehabilitation Institute and the Irish Wheelchair Association, shows the caring nature of the Bill. I ask that the grant to the National League of the Blind towards the cost of building a training and day care centre at its premises in Gardiner Place be monitored to ensure that progress on this worthy facility is not delayed due to a shortage of investment.

The grant to the centre at Church Street for homeless also deserves constant monitoring to ensure that service does not suffer because of lack of investment. After the tragedies in our capital city last year I hope that grant is monitored to ensure that the service is a success.

Women must be allowed to develop their skills and participate in training programmes to enable them to join or rejoin the workforce and they must not be hindered because of lack of investment.

It is refreshing to see an extra allocation to the community development programme to ensure its continued growth. I ask that local authorities would make libraries, health care offices, social welfare offices and so on available to the community development programme, so that outlying areas such as small villages and rural townlands can benefit from the expertise of the staff of the local resource centres.

While the grant to the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed is welcome, it should be increased to give the organisation the full benefit of resource workers for the provision of advice and information to the unemployed. Community enterprise grants enable the Incare Centre for Independent Living and the Fountain Resource Group to continue their marvellous work of helping the deprived and people with severe physical disabilities.

I support the Minister's intention to eradicate loan sharks. We must also highlight the advantages of other bodies who supply loans to supplement family income, where that is necessary, including the Irish League of Credit Unions of which I am a lifelong member. I cannot speak too highly of that group's achievements in helping families. Pilot schemes are a start but I ask that literature be made available at all social welfare offices to highlight the danger of money lenders.

The granting of free television licences to those qualifying for free fuel allowance is a bonus to many people. I ask that all old age pensioners be granted this benefit.

Senator Quinn's suggestion about PRSI is good because it would benefit the lower income group who pay PRSI on all earnings. Some good suggestions have been put forward here today which I ask the Minister to consider as the Social Welfare Bill is relevant to the most vulnerable people in society. It would be regrettable to overlook any idea which might improve the Bill.

Lone parents would greatly benefit from a further increase in the £100,000 allocation referred to by Senator Henry. Lone parents who are trying to return to work or to education must be facilitated in every possible way so as to allow them to play their part in society to the best of their ability.

The £40,000 allocated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions will enable them to employ training officers to develop the social welfare advice role of the unemployment centres. The Government has allocated £20,000 to the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, £25,000 to the national headquarters of the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and £25,000 to the marriage counselling services. These grants to voluntary organisations are of major benefit and are a recognition of time and ability given freely on behalf of society. Projects supported by the Social Welfare Bill should not lose out for lack of funding and money should be made available to organisations towards the cost of running centres.

I thank the Minister of State for her input into the Social Welfare Bill which has given a human face to its proposals. It is important that people see that the Government recognises the problems of the underprivileged and of those suffering as a result of unemployment or disability and that help is being provided to make their lives as easy as possible.

We should continue to monitor the work of organisations which help the underprivileged. We must ensure that homeless people do not continue to suffer in the manner of those who died recently on waste ground in Dublin. Nothing must hinder those trying to relieve the plight of the homeless.

I commend this Bill to the House and I thank the Labour Party for its contribution to it. I congratulate the Minister of State for ensuring that Labour Party policy on social welfare was implemented in the Bill.

When Senator Norris referred to the "dirty dozen", I hope he was not referring to the 12 Fianna Fáil Cabinet members. I can assure the Senator their cleanliness is guaranteed.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, to the House. The Fianna Fáil Party has made the greatest contribution of any political party to the development of the Irish social welfare system. Fianna Fáil built and has sustained that system. This Bill represents a further evolution of a caring philosophy. The Labour Party has also been instrumental in the preparation of this Bill. Over the last number of years Fianna Fáil have been branded as tyrants who have no mercy for the underprivileged. This Social Welfare Bill proves that we are very concerned about social welfare recipients in our State.

Certain basic principles should govern our social welfare system. The most important of these is care for those who, through no fault of their own, require State support. Such approach is one of the hallmarks of civilised nations. We must nurture all citizens of the State and in order to do so we must use all available resources as effectively as possible. The latter point is another important governing principle of the social welfare system.

In this time of financial constraint we must use our resources prudently and prioritise accordingly. Nobody benefits, least of all the underprivileged, if resources are allocated unwisely or if we spend money which we do not have. That is the harsh reality. I compliment the Government and especially the Department of Social Welfare who have negotiated for social welfare recipients in times of economic constraint. It is always difficult to find money for those who need it most.

This Bill maintains the vital balance between care and financial prudence. It is a model of careful planning and highlights the Government's commitment in this area, as outlined in the Programme for a Partnership Government. It is a most encouraging beginning for this new coalition Government.

Our social welfare system is often criticised. However, a great deal of this criticism is well-intentioned and has the interests of social welfare recipients at heart. Over the years the Government has been lobbied by people working with social welfare recipients and with voluntary groups who are aware of the hardships and suffering of the unemployed, old age pensioners and of others who require State support.

This Bill revokes the conditions for disability benefit and for dental and optical benefits whereby at least 13 paid PRSI contributions in a recent contribution year were required by people on long term assistance and pre-retirement benefit. These changes will currently benefit approximately 130,000 long term unemployed and 14,000 on pre-retirement allowance. The Social Welfare Bill also restores dental and optical benefits to workers earning up to £30,000 per annum. This represents a commitment to workers in the PAYE sector, a group which carries a considerable tax burden and therefore merits these benefits. It is fair and necessary that those who have paid and continue to pay large sums in tax from their incomes receive benefit from this Bill.

Our old people are a national resource of wisdom and experience. They have devoted their lives to the benefit of the State and now deserve the best care. I am happy that dental and optical benefits have been restored to pensioners affected by the change in contribution conditions requiring five years paid contributions.

In Ireland and in Europe the composition of the workforce is changing due to the growth of part-time and temporary work, atypical work forms, as the jargon puts it. In future it will be vital to address the changing nature of work so as to accommodate an increasing number of part-time workers. I am happy that the Government has relaxed the condition for entitlement to unemployment benefit for part-time workers by reducing from two days to one day the loss of employment which a part-time worker must incur. The regulations I have mentioned come into force immediately. Therefore, no one can accuse this Government of not acting promptly in this regard.

Unemployment is a problem which preoccupies us all and, coming from a constituency where there is high unemployment I have been affected directly and indirectly. Nobody in this House knows that better than the people on this side of the House. There is a particular burden on the Department of Social Welfare given the enormity of the problem. However, the State must rise to the challenge. This includes all Departments, including the Department of Social Welfare. I welcome the Minister's statement that the Department will extend its traditional role and become more pro-active in its response to this problem.

The twin requirements for successfully finding a job are education and experience. In order to help unemployed job seekers it is necessary to provide training, education and work experience for them. This applies to young people who are not receiving the State financial support which is given to those in third level education. It is only right that we invest heavily in third level education but it is equally important that we should invest in young people between 18 and 21 years of age who do not get this opportunity. It is vital that these young people receive training skills, work experience and second chance education. We must prevent young people from being trapped on the aimless treadmill of unemployment. The most effective way of doing this is to help them avail of further education and training opportunities and work experience as soon as possible after leaving formal education. Considerable progress has been made in this regard through initiatives which make the regime of unemployment payments more flexible to the needs of recipients and more responsive to changing work patterns. Over 2,000 unemployed people are currently taking second level courses and a further 330 are in full time third level study. This process should also include lone parents. I am happy the Minister has indicated his intention to encourage lone parents to take up these educational opportunities. They are a constituency and must not be forgotten.

It is important that unemployed people be given work experience or training so that they will not be excluded from the workplace and left on the dole. At present extra benefits are paid to 2,200 people employed on schemes and 240 self-employed people who are working, 7,500 people are now at work under the employer subsidy scheme and 610 are on the job training programme. These schemes have been success stories but they should be part of an ongoing process of education and integration into the workplace. Action in this regard must continue. Integration into the workforce is also important. People must not let their skills and experience whittle away while unemployed, making reintegration all the more difficult. I welcome the Minister's statement that he is considering a new programme of measures to support these people, which will include training, work experience and second chance education.

The PRSI exemption scheme is also to be welcomed. The exemption means that employers will not have to pay their element of the PRSI contribution for each additional employee for the tax years commencing April 1993 and April 1994. I hope this will encourage employers to take on additional employees and that every employer will avail of it.

There has been discussion in recent days on the proposals in the Bill relating to the eligibility of students for unemployment assistance during the summer months. Each year about 12,000 full-time students sign on for the summer holidays, and this costs about £8 million. In addition, many students also claim rent supplement while living away from home during that period. If all students were to adopt this practice it would cost at least £60 million a year plus the amount paid in rent allowance. As a result of this Bill students in full time-education will not be eligible to claim unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare allowance for the summer months except in special circumstances which have been outlined by the Minister. This will not apply to mature students or those on second chance education schemes. There is nothing unusual about these changes. In fact, they bring us more into line with the UK and our other European partners.

While this measure may not be very popular it is necesary, given the financial constraints under which we must operate and which make it necessary for us to prioritise funding. Such resources are better allocated to other groups, such as the long term unemployed and marginalised groups in society. It is not as if students are being neglected. This Bill provides for a summer work scheme for students which will offer valuable work experience opportunities. This Bill gives students an opportunity to express themselves in a work environment. This scheme will be geared towards students who are dependent on summer work to supplement their grants and who cannot find summer employment. It will entail students doing community and voluntary work and work provided by public sector bodies and they will receive a wage approximate to their unemployment payments. If administered correctly, this will be a very valuable scheme.

The total amount invested by the taxpayer in a third level course is in excess of £10,000. In return for this investment, many students are anxious to use their skills, energy and enthusiasm, in the service of the community. The scheme also offers students an opportunity to gain valuable and insightful work experience. Voluntary organisations working within the community would welcome the opportunity to utilise their skills and expertise for a number of weeks during the summer. This scheme has much to offer students, organisations and the community as a whole. It has already been subject to a range of knee-jerk reactions which have been unfounded and short-sighted. These critics should look beyond their preconceived notions and allow this scheme to operate and develop. I believe it has tremendous potential. We should never shirk from but should welcome imaginative and innovative measures like this.

There is much more to commend in this Bill. There will be an increase of 3.5 per cent in the weekly rates of social insurance and social assistance payments and an increase of 4.9 per cent in all short term rates of payment. It is important that the State nurture all its children, irrespective of their material background. This principle is clearly reflected in the substantial increase of 26.6 per cent in child benefit and the innovative grant of £200 for mothers on the birth of twins. This also reflects an increase in the minimum and maximum rates of maternity benefit.

I wish to draw attention to the significant increase in the carer's allowance contained in the Bill. Carers who give up work or forego other social welfare payments should not have their long term payments adversely affected. It is important that we recognise the valuable work carried out by carers in our society.

In conclusion, I commend this Bill to the House. It more than maintains the real value of social welfare payments and substantially improves payment for children and provides extra support for families at work. It is a Bill tempered by compassion and positive action and marks a healthy beginning to the Government's commitment to social welfare. I wish the Government the best with this Bill and I compliment all concerned. I commend this Bill to the House.

I would describe the Social Welfare Bill as a totally inadequate response to the plight of those living in poverty. While the Bill introduces minor reforms, the overall thrust of the legislation is a continuation of the cutbacks and restrictions which have been a dominant feature of the policy of the last two Governments in the social welfare area. Despite the criticism by the Labour Party last year of the delays in implementing the new rates announced in the budget again, the meagre increases are being withheld until the latest possible dates in July. I appeal to the Minister to change the legislation to bring forward the dates. Why not bring them forward? Increases in the cost of living are creating greater poverty for those who are dependent on social welfare. Social welfare recipients have had to endure price increases on a range of items since last March. What criteria are used to compile the consumer price index? The person to ask about such increases is the housewife or the person who does the family shopping and who finds each week that disposable income is being eroded by price increases. The VAT increases have been imposed already. There is a serious anomaly in the social welfare code whereby VAT increases are imposed immediately while increases in social welfare payments are delayed until the last possible moment. The important benefits, like disability and unemployment benefit, unemployment allowance and supplementary welfare allowance remain, in real terms, below the priority rates set by the Commission on Social Welfare. The Minister should introduce a basic social welfare rate which would have to be about £65; this would eliminate to some extent the necessity to claim supplementary welfare allowance.

At this point I want to refer to the circulars issued in 1992 when many of us fought for clarification from community welfare officers and superintendent community welfare officers on payment restrictions that were being imposed. We did not know the reason and I understand they were directed not to inform public representatives, of the contents of the documents issued to them. The documents outlined restrictions on the payment of discretionary allowances to persons requiring money for ESB, clothes, etc. Discretionary payments are vital to people on low fixed disposable income who require additional money. The removal of these payments creates hardship and for that reason they should be restored to community welfare officers. I ask the Minister to confirm that they will be restored and I also ask him to confirm that the content of any documents on this issue will be made available to public representatives.

There has been no reversal of the "dirty dozen" cuts implemented last year by the former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy McCreevy, despite the contention to the contrary. This Bill allows the Minister to modify two of the cuts by regulations to be made later, but it also introduces new cuts. The decision to deny unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare payments to third level students during the summer period and to second level students for three months after finishing school is an unacceptable attack on young people. It is clearly designed to improve the appearance of the live register figures without actually putting any more people to work and it will further impoverish students, many of whom are already on the breadline due to a totally inadequate grant system. In many third level institutions the summer break can last for up to four months. Students who are available and willing to work during this period but who are unable to find employment either in Ireland or abroad should be entitled to unemployment assistance on the same basis as any other unemployed person. The decision will further penalise working families who are already struggling to keep their children in college at great sacrifice to themselves.

The present system of applying benefit and privilege board and lodging allowance to people, other than students, who are members of a family and who apply for unemployment assistance, should be abolished urgently. It is an archaic system introduced many years ago when fewer people were applying for unemployment assistance and can oblige an employed parent to produce a statement of wages if a daughter or son applies for unemployment assistance. Very often the parent is reluctant to do this, contending that it is not their responsibility when the person applying for assistance is over 18 years of age. The applicant is means tested and the income of the family is taken into account in assessing eligibility. In some instances the allowance awarded can be as low as £2 or £3 a week creating considerable friction. I ask the Minister to adjust this archaic system.

Widows in this country have been neglected. Over the years they have continually lobbied to be entitled to fringe benefits such as free electricity and so on. They are only entitled to the basic social welfare income for widows. It is regrettable that their case has been overlooked continuously resulting in silent suffering when people cannot afford the necessities of life.

There are now 40,000 widowers who have never been categorised. Under the tax system they have been denied the benefits that should accrue to a widower. Their circumstances are worse than those of other single parents.

For the past 20 years or so, there has been no increase in the death grant paid to people who make a contribution towards that grant in their social welfare deductions. It still remains at about £100, despite the fact that funeral bills may amount to £1,200 and many do not have insurance to cover that. It can be burden on people at the end of their lives and upon their families. I ask the Minister to rectify this situation.

The social problems I have outlined above confront people every day. I conclude by asking the Minister to bring forward the dates of payment for increases granted under the Social Welfare Bill.

Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.

I welcome the Minister and also the opportunity to discuss the Social Welfare Bill. The Bill contains many welcome measures particularly the payment increases and the reversal of some of the harsher cuts made by the previous Minister for Social Welfare. I am pleased that child benefit has been increased to £20 per month for the first three children. It is unfortunate however that it is not proportionately increased for the fourth and subsequent child because it is larger families who tend to encounter poverty. I would have welcomed such a measure.

I ask the Minister to consider paying a special increment for children over 12 or 13 years. It is widely accepted that teenage children are much more expensive to maintain than infants and young children. Several countries already make provision for the payment of a supplement to children over 13 years.

Part III of the Bill provides for changes in eligibility for maternity benefit. I welcome these provisions especially in relation to women who have worked in overseas development agencies. I regret that the cuts in 1992 which made some women ineligible for these benefits have not been reversed. In section 2 the Minister provides for an extension of the definition of adult dependant. I welcome this provision to an extent because it creates equality between cohabitating couples and married couples. A cohabitating couple can now receive a personal rate plus the adult dependant rate. However, the introduction of this provision raises many questions about the wisdom of the concept of adult dependency especially in the case of women. The Commission on the Status of Women — of which I was a member — examined women's economic dependency and concluded that dependency was not a desirable concept. We recommended the term be replaced by the term qualified partner. The commission examined ways of reducing the dependency of women particularly in the home. The State in making payments to women through the social welfare system should not extend the notion of dependency.

I welcome the increases in the family income supplement proposed in the Bill. I ask — as the Commission on the Status of Women asked — that where a family income supplement is being paid, it should be paid to the main care giver, who in most cases is a woman. I also welcome the increase in the carer's allowance. The Commission on the Status of Women looked at this area because the majority of carers are women. As Senator Henry said earlier, carers make a substantial contribution to the State as they reduce State costs by looking after elderly people in their homes. The Minister mentioned that 4,000 people are now being paid carer's allowances. I welcome this figure but stringent means testing has ensured a low number of recipients. The commission received a number of submissions regarding the carer's allowance. Its recommendation stated that if the carer's allowance had to be means tested it should be done on the means of the person being cared for rather than on the means of the carer. I ask the Minister to consider the commission's recommendation.

I welcome the Minister's statement that he is "examining the question of awarding credited contributions which will maintain the value of the PRSI record during the period of care to safeguard their PRSI record for carers". This is worthwhile and I ask the Minister to consider awarding credited contributions also to women working in the home; looking after children. Women may leave the workforce for certain periods to rear children and many are concerned that during that period they will lose out on social welfare entitlements and pension benefits.

Another area of concern is that of lone parents and young single mothers. The Minister in his speech said that lone parents need access to second chance education and he intends to encourage them to avail of opportunities which will not affect their weekly payments. Ireland has a large number of single parents and especially of young single mothers and I ask the Minister to ensure that these do not remain dependent on the State for the rest of their lives. I welcome the intentions outlined by the Minister in this important area.

The section of the Bill dealing with students has proved most controversial. The Minister today has possibly allayed some of the fears expressed when the Bill was first published. Many students are unable to find work and cannot support themselves during the summer months. Certain students, however, draw the dole illegally throughout the year and I do not believe these measures will succeed in eliminating that practice. I am concerned that this provision will affect students who struggle throughout the year to keep themselves at college, have difficulty finding work during the summer holidays and who, as a result of this provision, will not now be allowed to draw dole. Many students come from low income families.

The Minister in his speech said that participation in higher education is heavily weighted in favour of young people from higher and middle income households. Fewer than 10 per cent of our students come from families with lower incomes. This provision might impinge on students from lower income families, who find it difficult already to remain at college. Such students must be allowed to draw dole during the summer months to enable them to continue their studies. I am glad to hear that students of families on unemployment assistance will be entitled to benefits. These students, in particular, have difficulty raising funds to go abroad to find work during the summer.

I hope the Minister will ensure that persons in lower income families are not further prevented from availing of third level education. Students are subsidised to the extent of £10,000 by the taxpayer and I am anxious that the disadvantaged in society should be able to avail of that subsidy.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and congratulate her on her appointment. I wish the Minister, Deputy Woods well in his new office. The Minister has contributed greatly towards the rationalisation and modernisation of the Department of Social Welfare. I spent some time in that Department and I appreciate the high level of skill and competence of its personnel. The Minister will find that Department of Social Welfare officials understand the difficult choices that have to be made and are committed to making the best possible effort within the framework laid down by financial constraints. The Department of Social Welfare will spend £3.7 billion this year, an increase of £180 million on last year's figure. Almost £10 million per day is paid in social welfare benefits and the system now in operation is extremely complex. Regionalisation plans initiated by the Department of Social Welfare in recent years enable an important service to be delivered at local level. The example set by the Department, in relation to innovative changes, could be copied by other Departments.

A number of new developments has taken place in the social welfare area in recent years. Schemes involving payment of voluntary organisations, including voluntary women's groups, have been introduced. I encourage and support these measures and I am glad they are being continued this year. I have seen at first hand the valuable developments that have taken place because of small direct cash payments made to voluntary bodies. In the short time since these schemes commenced meaningful contributions have been made towards alleviating some of the problems identified by voluntary bodies.

I welcome the initiative that has been taken this year in relation to student's summer work. Schemes organised by FÁS for the tidying up of villages and similar work have been worthwhile and an enormous amount of work has been done through such schemes over the last few years. However, it is timely for the Department in framing the new scheme for students to look at new initiatives whereby the talents of higher level students, especially, may be utilised. I suggest the panels devising these schemes in the event that the work available through them is found undesirable, devise alternative schemes with job opportunities in clerical, environmental, marketing and research areas. Such schemes would enable young people to work during holidays instead of drawing dole.

Young people prefer to work rather than receive social welfare payments. I am satisfied that attractive schemes could be developed, in consultation with semi-State bodies, in areas such as tourism, research and management. Moneypoint, a huge generating station in my constituency, take on a number of young people each summer to work with skilled people in a highly sophisticated technical and computerised business. The summer work available there is invaluable for students and the numbers employed in this way could be doubled. In framing these schemes we should look to the semi-State sector. The numbers working in a development such as Moneypoint, could easily be doubled during the summer period.

The funding for these schemes which are currently being planned should be directed towards that type of summer work for students. I believe there are many such opportunities in other State bodies. For example, the Office of Public Works, which maintains national parks and monuments and provides seasonal work for guides and people in information offices and so on, could double, or treble their numbers if the finance was available. However, they are limited in the numbers they can employ because of financial constraints.

The Minister should seek advice from State bodies, such as the Office of Public Works and semi-State bodies, such as the ESB, and Bord Fáilte in devising summer schemes to employ young people. Many students are brilliant musicians and entertainers and Bord Fáilte could devise a scheme which would provide them with opportunities to use their talents. I am glad the Minister is developing a scheme to employ students rather than having them sign on for the dole and receive small amounts or no money, for the summer. He should look at the semi-State bodies and big co-operatives to provide employment. Some business magazines publish a list of 1,000 leading Irish companies every year. If each of those companies took on ten additional young people for the summer 10,000 people would be taken off the unemployment register. However, companies will not do this without encouragement. In this Bill PRSI payments and other contributions by employers have been reduced to encourage employment. In framing this policy, it would be opportune to see how the semi-State bodies or leading Irish companies could employ young people during the summer months.

I welcome the increases in social welfare payments. Hardly anybody in this House would not wish to see bigger increases. I sympathise with Senator Sherlock who said that payment dates for these increases should be brought forward; I am sure he understands that depends on whether the money is available but unless finances are available this cannot be done. Nevertheless, I think the payments are reasonable in the light of the current financial situation. I believe there are some areas where some improvements could be made. I am not completely satisfied with the supplementary welfare and the disability schemes operated by the health boards. Improved co-ordination would deliver a better and more effective service to more people. Over the years I have found that difficulties arise for many families at week-ends because there is no week-end service and people cannot get immediate assistance. A hardship fund should be available to cover these emergencies. There should be improved co-ordination between the health boards and the Department of Social Welfare and I believe this situation is being reviewed. This review is timely and should be speeded up because it was being undertaken when I was in the Department of Social Welfare. The review should be completed to improve co-ordination within the system. The difference between regions is unsatisfactory and leads to confusion.

I welcome the increase in the family income supplement but the scheme should be extended to more families. As far as I know, the farming community is not covered under this scheme. The small farmer is as entitled to a family income supplement as anybody else. It is probably a question of the costs involved. The family income supplement should be extended as soon as possible to the families of small farmers whose farms are threatened and incomes depleted because of changes in the Common Agricultural Policy.

The Minister mentioned investment in young people between the ages of 18 and 20 years. I support that but I question the desirability of means testing European Social Fund grant aid to students. This seems to run counter to what the Minister is attempting to do and what he said in his speech today. On the one hand he is encouraging more young people to stay in second and third level education while on the other another Department is introducing restrictions which limit the availability of grant aid from the European Social Fund for students whose parents are under severe financial pressure. The Minister for Social Welfare should discuss this with the Minister for Education so that in devising new schemes a formula is worked out to ensure that means testing for European Social Fund grant aid can be eliminated as far as possible. In my view this is a major cause of many young people opting out of school or college.

There is an urgent need to look after the handicapped people in our community. The Seanad recently debated this issue. This is a matter for the Minister for Health but the necessary co-ordination does not seem to exist between the Departments of Health, Social Welfare and Education; the new advisers might pay attention to such areas. I welcome the appointment of advisers but their services should be fully utilised. One area in which they could be utilised to major advantage is the co-ordination of schemes between the Departments of Education, Social Welfare, and Enterprise and Employment to ensure we get the best value for money and that assistance is directed where it is most needed.

I would like a report on the area-based companies performance and effectiveness and on whether the pilot scheme is to be extended. I would like the Minister to address these questions in his reply. Will the family income supplement be extended to small farmers? Can the services of the Departments of Education, Health and Social Welfare be coordinated and would it be possible to get some indication from the area-based companies as to how effective they are and whether they can be extended to make more inroads into the problems in the different areas?

I am not satisfied that the capital expenditure allocated for the handicapped is sufficient. We are concentrating on welfare payments to the handicapped and the disabled, but there is a necessity to have capital expenditure also. I urge the Minister, in consultation with the Minister for Health, to find ways in which capital expenditure towards dealing with the problems of the handicapped can be provided from the social welfare budget. If it is necessary to provide another subhead to deal with that aspect that should be done. Perhaps it might be better if that area was dealt with by the Department of Social Welfare rather than the Department of Health; however, that is not a matter for me to decide, it is a policy issue.

When the policies do not deal with the problems, it is time to reconsider the matter. In the mid-west region — the region I represent — the capital expenditure required for services for the handicapped is estimated to be in the region of £6.5 million; yet, they have a mere £250,000. While this Bill provides for the day-to-day financing, it is equally important that the Department of Social Welfare, which has responsibility for these payments and the delivery of services, should be involved in the provision of the capital development which is necessary to deal effectively with the problems experienced by handicapped people. Those problems will increase as handicapped people are, thankfully, living longer than heretofore. It is important that this be dealt with and I direct the Minister's attention to the matter.

I welcome the pilot schemes set up to examine the moneylending issue. I would like to see some results or response from these schemes. Pilot schemes have been in operation for nearly a year and while I know they have been dealt with by the Combat Poverty Agency and they report on a yearly basis, it would be useful if this House could get reports on a regular basis. Perhaps, it could be something on the lines of the Department's estimate, so that we could have some examination of the schemes and their effectiveness.

I have always welcomed the work done by carers. In my own area, County Clare, the Clare Soroptimists have been recognised internationally for their work in caring for the carers. It is an area to which more attention needs to be paid and I encourage the Minister of State to develop further the funding available to carer's organisations, to women's organisations and to voluntary organisations. There should be more co-ordination between these groups and I hope that we will get a report at some stage during the year as to how these groups are progressing and what lessons have been learned.

I wish to make a final point in relation to an agreement drawn up between our Government and the American authorities in relation to the status of American pensioners here. There are still some pensioners who are dissatisfied. They are retired American people who have come to live here and they are dissatisfied because they cannot get the free travel allowance and the electricity allowance our own pensioners receive. I understood that when the agreement was signed it would clear up any anomalies. I would like to know if that is now the case.

I welcome the legislation and the new imaginative ideas that have been put forward by the Department and I hope they will be successful. I would like to hear more about how the pilot schemes work when they are in operation.

I would first like to mention that a section of the Department of Social Welfare is in the process of locating in Longford. Building is already well advanced and this is a very welcome development for Longford. When I was a Member of the Dáil I spoke on many occasions of the importance for a county town like Longford to have sections of the Civil Service locate there. Longford county and town, small as they are, needed a boost in employment and investment by the State and I am glad that this project is now up and running and many of the staff have been already chosen. I would like to see that development going ahead. I want to assure all that the staff will be most welcome to come to Longford to enjoy the misty, rolling midlands.

I wish to speak for a moment about the carer's allowance. It reminds me of what somebody once said: "You can have the deer in the Phoenix Park, but you have to catch them yourself." The carer's allowance is great in theory, but it is a bad scheme. The Labour Party is now part of the Government and I am particularly disappointed the original scheme has not been changed. When I was a Member of the other House the Labour Party were vociferous in their attacks on the scheme, and rightly so. This scheme and allowance should be extended to those looking after elderly people in the home.

With the best will in the world, looking after elderly people can prove a difficult task for the carers as they need a lot of attention and time. In many cases, they are being cared for by women who are also looking after their own children. I have met many constituents who are extremely disappointed and disillusioned. It is not the case that this Government, or the previous one, really care about the elderly in the home. They should extend this allowance and give credit and money where it is due.

I am extremely disappointed that this scheme is to be means tested. In some cases it is difficult for people to get places in nursing homes and some of the health boards cannot provide the allowances for nursing homes, so elderly people are caught in a trap. This is something I have spoken about in the past. The Minister should bear in mind the urgent need for this scheme to be examined.

Reference was made to the mentally handicapped. In many cases these unfortunate people are being cared for in the home, sometimes by parents who are elderly and who are not able to look after then. As the last speaker said, the handicapped are caught between the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health. Because they were being looked after by their parents in their own homes, now some of them are looking for residential accommodation, but it is not available and there is no plan to provide it. I agree with Senator Daly that the Department of Social Welfare should accept more responsibility for the handicapped.

I would like to share my time with Senator Taylor-Quinn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is it agreed that Senator Belton will share his time with Senator Taylor-Quinn? Agreed.

I thank Senator Belton for sharing his time. I hoped there would have been dramatic and fundamental reform in the administration of social welfare in this Bill. While there has been a substantial increase in funding, one wonders if it will keep in line with the rate of inflation.

Senator Belton raised a number of issues which deserve serious consideration. I refer particularly to the administration of the carer's allowance. Over a year and a half ago, a great deal of publicity was given to its extension and how it would apply. High hopes were created and the result was that various representations were made to politicians on the assumption that the allowance was there for genuine carers. In many cases, young, middle-aged and elderly women are providing care for their disabled and elderly relatives and are getting no remuneration even though they are saving the taxpayer and the State millions of pounds each year. No serious recognition has been given to these people. Last week, I met an elderly woman who was taking care of her 74 year old brother — she was in her early sixties. She was trying to manage a small farm, and at the same time take care of her elderly brother who was in a wheelchair. She looked 80 years of age and was getting no assistance from the State; and there is no evidence that she will get such assistance either. That is unfair.

There is also another group of women who could be at work if they chose. They could put their invalided relatives into institutions. They are saving the State money but they are not being given recognition. I hoped this Government would have attacked this issue and extended the assessment and the number qualifying for the carer's allowance extensively, rather than restricting it to the existing narrow band. There is another group I want to mention, people in receipt of pensions from the United States, Great Britain or other countries. Because of the six-monthly assessment of the exchange rates in the Department of Social Welfare some of these people suffer financially. For up to five months after an assessment these people could be financially seriously disadvantaged. That matter should be addressed in this Bill.

In assessing people for smallholders' and small farmers assistance it is ludicrous that social welfare officers make a notional assessment of the value of animals at a given time. I have come across many cases where social welfare officers assessed the value of animals far in excess of what the farmer received when they were sold and, as a result of that assessment, their social welfare payments were reduced or stopped altogether. Applications for smallholders assistance should be assessed on the farmer's income in, say, the last quarter and not in the last year. This situation needs to be seriously addressed particularly as it affects farmers in the West.

I was disgusted and astounded at the development of assessments for third level students. What has happened to them is unprecedented and unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will amend this provision on Committee Stage. We all know that many students need social welfare payments during the summer because they cannot secure any part-time employment, usually they cannot afford to go abroad to seek employment, and even if they could, they know they will not secure employment abroad because of the economic situation in the United States and in many European countries. If these students are not given social welfare payments they might be forced to discontinue their third level education because most of their parents are financially unable to keep them over the summer holidays. This puts a great strain both on the parents and on the individuals concerned. These students are adults, they have reached the age of maturity, and should be treated as individuals in their own right.

Young people, many of them with specific qualifications, are unable to find work and are staying at home. Assessing their parents' income against them is ridiculous. Parents are supplementing these adults who, as adults, have rights and their rights should be separate from the statutory rights of their parents. It is time the State took this step. Those who have reached the age of majority should be treated as adults with certain rights. In my constituency, many young people have moved into flats in the local town. They get a rent supplement of £15 or £20 per week from the local health board. This means the State pays both the rent and the full unemployment assistance. If the Government gave them some assistance and let them live at home it would cost the State a lot less.

That type of nonsensical bureaucratic thinking does not relate to reality or save money for the Department. In many instances, it creates further problems by forcing these people into substandard accommodation and thus there are social difficulties. There is then an even greater demand on the State's agencies, whether it is the Department of Health or the various community care groups. There is a need to have a much closer look at that matter.

Thousands of people in this country are on disability benefit. They start off on weekly certificates, and move on to monthly and eventually six monthly certificates. They arrive at a stage where they have been so long on certificates that they should be getting an invalidity or disability pension. At that stage they are deemed to be suitable for work or, alternatively, a medical referee comes out from the Department of Social Welfare and, after a month or six weeks they re eventually put back on disability benefit. The Department of Social Welfare is deliberately orchestrating matters to ensure that these people do not qualify for a disability pension. We know there are abuses but there is a need for social welfare officers and the Department of Social Welfare to be able to distinguish between genuine and non-genuine cases. That should not require too much skill because local knowledge would give a clear indication of the situation if local people were consulted. It is wrong this group of applicants are being discriminated against.

Senator Belton referred to disabled people. I would like these people to be entitled to a disability pension and I hope the Minister will view that matter. We had a debate on that issue in this House last week with the Minister for Health. The Minister for Social Welfare could greatly assist in this area by providing a disability pension for people who are genuinely disabled. It would give them a certain dignity and make them less of a burden on their relatives. In many cases disabled adults are living at home, being cared for by elderly parents who are not in position to employ help that would make life easier for them. A disability pension would be a major relief to this category of person. At present elderly people are taking care of a growing, older population of disabled persons who, because of improved health services, are living longer. The need to take care of them for a greater number of years is a major concern, and consideration must be given to providing them with disability pensions.

The Programme for a Partnership Government promised to provide adoptive maternity leave. Unfortunately, there is no indication of that in the Social Welfare Bill. Serious consideration should be given to it. Even more so than natural parents, adoptive parents need an opportunity of bonding with their adopted child because they have not got the natural bondage that occurs between a natural mother and father and their child. I hope the Minister will be in a position to consider including adoptive maternity leave in next year's Bill. I also hope the Minister will be in a position to propose amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. I thank Senator Belton for sharing his time with me.

This Bill has more relevance to the day-to-day lives of a great number of people who, unfortunately, depend on social welfare, than many of the various measures we will be discussing in this House. There are very many people who are struggling to get the basic necessities of life and who will be affected by this Bill, and it is important that we remember that fact. Given the huge demands on Government expenditure I welcome the increase of £180 million over a full year. It is a sizeable amount of money to find in the context of the economic situation, but it is necessary. I welcome the Minister's indication that increases covering the various social welfare categories should stay ahead of inflation thus providing real increases for people. With the rate of inflation as it is now, it looks as if there will be an increase in real terms in people's incomes and spending power.

I welcome the increase in child benefit which will affect a substantial number of families. The increase to £20 for the first three children is substantial and will make a big difference to families. I also welcome the increase in the family income supplement, not just the rate of increase itself, but the increase in the income limit. This is more important because many families are not that much better off by being in employment. This is commonly known as the poverty trap. One of the ways we can counter this is by widening the limit for family income supplement.

I spoke to a couple of men yesterday who are employed by Limerick Corporation and they told me they were just above the family income supplement limit last year. They felt it was almost not worth their while being in employment. It is essential that people in this category are brought within the net of the family income supplement. It is important to promote the family income supplement and advertise it as widely as possible so that people who are entitled to it actually claim it. There is still a sizeable number of people entitled to family income supplement who do not claim it.

There is another aspect to the poverty trap which is addressed in this legislation, and which I hope will continue to be addressed in the years to come, namely, the move from unemployment to employment. This relates to people setting up their own business, those getting into part-time employment, people in workers' co-operatives and the various stages between being unemployed and in full-time work.

I particularly welcome one of the changes in the measures from 1992, referred to by the Minister in his speech, allowing people to work part-time and claim unemployment benefit for the time they are not working. The Minister gave us an example where, because of the reversal of last year's measure, a married man with two children can now earn £34.42 per day and still claim unemployment benefit for the days he is not working. This is important because there are many situations where people can get part-time employment but cannot get a full-time job. Our legislation should do whatever possible to ensure that these people can take up the option of part-time employment rather than being forced to remain unemployed.

There are other measures that work in this direction including the PRSI exemptions, referred to by Senator Quinn, and the return to work support which the Minister referred to in his speech. There is a reference to including people with disabilities and also lone parents in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress initiatives on getting people back into employment and training.

There is a major challenge facing us — it is addressed to some extent in this legislation and I hope will also be addressed in future — to remove the obstacles to people trying to get back into the work-force, particularly the long term unemployed. I welcome the aspects of this legislation that move in that direction, although I think there is a lot more to be done in that area. I welcome the reversal of the measures taken in 1992 and commonly known as the "dirty dozen". I acknowledge that the Minister explained to us this morning that he could not bring in all the amending measures necessary until such time as this legislation is enacted. I welcome those measures that have been brought in by the Minister and by Minister of State and I hope the others will follow as soon as possible.

Funding for supplementary welfare allowance has been increased by £12.5 million this year which I welcome. I agree with Senator Sherlock on the need for more discretion in this area. This legislation affords opportunities for increased discretion. The circulars issued by the Department of Social Welfare to Social Welfare officers telling them not to be flexible in certain areas have thankfully, been withdrawn.

It is important that we have a consistent approach to supplementary welfare benefits and a code of practice to implement it. Senators who are on local authorities or health boards know that there are different practices in different parts of the country in the interpretation of the supplementary welfare system. I would welcome a code of practice and a consistent approach in relation to the payment of ESB bills and other exceptional needs in which people find themselves from time to time.

The provision under which school leavers will still be considered as dependents instead of being entitled to sign on the dole for the first three months after leaving school is a positive development coming at a crucial time in young people's lives. If they begin to sign on after leaving school there is a danger that they will get into a life of unemployment. With training and advice they might instead find suitable employment. I would like to see schools involved in the co-ordination of this effort. I would not like any child to leave school without being guided in some direction besides that of the dole queue. There is room here for the development of plans with the Department of Education and other Departments.

In relation to the situation of third level students, regulations have yet to be announced to indicate which students will be entitled to receive benefit. I ask the Minister and Minister of State to examine the concerns raised by Members of all parties and to accommodate them where possible. There are genuine concerns that certain students may be struggling financially and that their third level education may be threatened if welfare payments are withdrawn during holiday time. Genuine cases of need should be accommodated in the regulations when they are announced.

The Minister spoke this afternoon about moving towards a social welfare consolidation Bill later in the year which would simplify the system. That would be heartily welcomed. I have been in public life since 1985 and I am still mystified by many aspects of the social welfare system. Individuals facing an entitlement problem can sometimes find it almost impossible to understand the system and I would welcome any administrative simplification.

The Departments of Social Welfare and of Enterprise and Employment should work in tandem as a result of this consolidation. As well as providing adequately for people who are dependent on social welfare the Government wishes to use social welfare legislation to achieve whatever is possible by co-ordination with other departments to get people who are available for work into worthwhile employment. I would welcome any moves in that direction through a social welfare consolidation Bill and through co-operation between Government departments.

A Leas-Chathaoirligh I join with previous speakers in welcoming the Minister to the House. I wish him happiness and success in his period of office. My colleagues might say I will make it unhappy at times with my criticism. Nevertheless I hope whatever criticism I make will be directed at his policies and will be fair.

I do not know if the Minister or his officials had the opportunity of reading an article in The Irish Times of 22 March written by Nuala Ó Faolain. The article referred to a married man named John with four children whose wife died of cancer. After the death of his wife problems arose for the widower similar to those encountered by widows. This man lived in the country and his job was in town. One of his children was at university, two at secondary school and another at primary school. If this man had died, his wife would have received the contributory pension but as the surviving partner he gets no pension.

John is on a salary of £19,000 and because he had tax allowances for four children he stayed within the 27 per cent band. After a bereavement there is a tax period during which the bereaved spouse is paid a cushioning allowance for three years. After that, John's salary will be taxed at 48 per cent. He will have received no widower's pension and his tax will be increased from 27 per cent to 48 per cent. That is what can happen to a bereaved family.

John has been trying to maintain the family unit. As outlined in the article, a good neighbour comes in on a voluntary basis and looks after the youngest child while John is at work. He does not qualify for any allowances for the care of the child. This is a human tragedy.

John feels there are other widowers throughout the country in a similar situation but because their number is small they are unable to exert influence. He is nervous that if he brings a case to court — and apparently there is a case pending in Cork on this issue — widows who have been receiving pensions under existing legislation may be deprived of their income if the court outcome leads to changes in the system. He will lose income under the present system but he would hate to see widows being deprived of their income and is anxious to avoid that prospect. The courts could not come to any decision in this case and it may go to the European Court. It is not an easy problem because no matter what door one opens further problems arise. There is a genuine feeling of hurt and anger among people caught in this situation.

In this instance, the widower concerned wrote to the Department of Finance. He got a reply from the Department about tax concessions which is available in the Irish Times of March 22 and I would like the Minister to read it. I have an idea of the enormous stresses and strains involved in this situation and I have more details if the Minister requires them.

There are a number of issues in the Social Welfare Bill I would like to deal with, although I will not go into great depth. The Minister should know there is a problem with the payment of unemployment assistance to people living at home, who are unable to obtain work. On applying for unemployment assistance, the family income is means tested. Depending on the income of the father and mother, an applicant may be entitled to unemployment assistance. Senator Taylor-Quinn also mentioned this problem.

If unemployment assistance is refused because an applicant is living at home, she or he may leave home and move into a flat or other accommodation. Senators come from different parts of the country but we all know how bad flats can be. Many young people pay high rent for these apartments. Rent allowance is available but many people who leave home do not wish to do so. Parents want them to remain at home also. When they move into flats young people tend to enter into relationships for which they may not be ready. This may lead to social problems later.

Crimes can also be committed when young people living in flats on unemployment assistance go on a binge with their pals. They are then short of money at the weekend and may enter into crime. I am not asking for the son of the Governor of the Bank of Ireland who happens to be living at home to be paid unemployment assistance. I see why it is necessary to have a means test. These schemes must be fair, reasonable and applied with common sense. If the flood gates are opened too wide there would be a distinct danger that affluent people who do not require allowances might receive them. We want to arrive at an equitable and fair test.

We need to look at income levels to see how young people might be paid unemployment assistance while residing at home. A number of people have found themselves in difficulties on this matter and I ask the Minister to see how this problem might be resolved. The Minister will know from his experience in public life that people who leave home are in danger of finding themselves in difficulties. The amount of State money saved here is not sizeable.

One area of relevance to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and to the Minister's Department is the proposed retirement scheme for farmers. An Cathaoirleach will recollect a similar initiative some years ago when the late Deputy Sean Flanagan introduced a retirement scheme for farmers when he was Minister for Lands about 1971. Farmers were paid a small lump sum and then were to receive annual fixed payments without indexation from the sale of their land. Farms were sold to the Department or the Land Commission as a gesture of goodwill, but those who availed of the scheme found that they were deprived of a pension of one form or another.

There is no documentation at the moment on the current proposed retirement scheme for farmers. It may be dealt with through the Department of Agriculture and may not come into the Minister's area. The scheme apparently proposes that the maximum pension will be paid to a farmer who transfers 60 acres or more. The maximum pension is about £9,500 index linked, for a ten-year period and it may then be reviewed. It is under negotiation at the moment. For this type of pension, the farmer will transfer the land to his son or daughter. The intention is to bring mobility to the transfer of lands and that should be of benefit to many.

There will be a saving here for the Department of Social Welfare. At present when a farmer transfers all of his lands to his son or daughter, he qualifies for the non-contributory old aged pension, a direct cost to the Department. With this new scheme, approximately 75 per cent of the farmers' pensions will be funded from Brussels so there will be a huge saving for our Exchequer. I am anxious that the Government prepare a package on this — the Department has statistics and data on it — to make sure that the maximum funding for the £9,500 payments be obtaianed.

The scheme commences at age 55. Again, there would be a saving to the Department if that age was raised to 70 or more. I ask the Minister to assist in this important and intricate matter.

Another Senator mentioned the "dirty dozen" cuts. It has turned into a baker's dozen now. I ask the Minister to look at the question of students' unemployment assistance and the change proposed in this Bill. This scheme has not been given enough thought; it needs to be examined. Approximately 6,000 students are paid student's dole each year.

Some 12,000 students sign on each year which costs about £8 million. Students will now have to go on FÁS schemes and work with voluntary organisations to obtain payment. I understand that students will apply to voluntary organisations — the Wheelchair Association, for example — in May or June to get on a scheme and will be employed during July and August for about eight weeks.

There are two problems with this proposal: supervision and insurance. Many voluntary organisations taking on staff find it difficult to get insurance because the work they do may lead to injuries. It would be costly to supervise and to insure student workers.

Can the Minister clarify whether voluntary organisations will have to pay the students and wait until September or October to be reimbursed. If so, this time lag will cause further financial problems for voluntary bodies.

In the past, Department of Social Welfare staff received numerous phone calls about students entitlement to dole. There will now be additional phone calls from people who do not get a place on schemes which will create extra work for the Department's staff during a peak holiday period when many staff take leave. There is a danger that such calls will clog up the system.

At present unemployment assistance is means tested and I understand these schemes will also have to be means tested by the staff of the Department of Social Welfare. FÁS follows the same procedures. There is a real danger that the proposal to replace students' dole will lead to a mountain of paperwork. I ask the Minister to have another look at the proposal.

Although it is a long time since I was a student, I know there are many students who will be hit by this measure and who will be unable to obtain any of the proposed jobs.

I want to make a number of points briefly following on from those of Senator Enright. The students' plight this summer will be harsh. How is the proposed scheme going to work? The idea of students working on FÁS and community schemes is fine, but in practice it will be almost unworkable. For example, at present FÁS schemes in some areas cannot go ahead because of union objections. If the student work scheme raises similar objections from any representative group which believes the work in question should be done by its members, it will fall on its face.

When summer comes students will not know where they stand and that is the most serious aspect of the introduction of this scheme. I thought it would go against Labour Party policy to make anyone who was entitled to unemployment assistance last year — in this case students — work for it this year.

The carer's allowance is another scheme which should be given more regard. A number of people have called for the means test to be lifted on the carer's allowance since the scheme was introduced. This would cost money but on the other hand would it not make economic sense to give an incentive to people to care for their elderly relatives at home? The amount of money spent in the health service on geriatric care is astronomical. Wonderful care and attention is provided but people who are willing to keep their elderly relatives at home should be given every assistance to do so. Some find it so difficult to get the carer's allowance that they try to put their relatives into hospitals at great cost to the State. The means test on the carer's allowance may be saving the Department of Social Welfare money — it is a high spending Department — but in terms of overall budgetary strategy — the Government would probably save money if this means test was lifted.

I want to make a point in regard graduated unemployment benefit. Previously a person who worked three days a week received two days unemployment assistance — I am open to correction on this. From what I can ascertain in the Bill this is to change so that a person working three days in a week will lose one day's unemployment assistance. Obviously, graduated unemployment benefit will not work as intended if this change is made. In the short term money may be saved, but in the long term the work ethic suffers because an incentive is provided to stay out of work.

The social welfare system should be there for people who are in hardship, but it should also provide an incentive to people to look for work. The change proposed in this legislation militates against those on unemployment assistance who obtain work for part of the week.

I wish to thank all the Senators for their good wishes to me in my office.

I wish to comment on some recurring points made during the debate. Senators Cregan, Sherlock, O'Sullivan and Enright suggested that the provisions under which the income of parents is taken into account in assessing the means of young people living at home should be abolished. Public representatives and members of political parties are concerned about the social implications of young people moving into unsuitable flats with the aid of a rent allowance. It would cost at least £50 million to dispense with the means test applied to persons living at home.

Senator Norris and Senator Enright brought up the pressing question of widowers, single fathers and deserted fathers. It would cost £50 million to introduce allowances for single fathers and widowers on the same basis as widows or single mothers. Improvements in allowances which are not as yet at the priority rates set by the Commission on Social Welfare would cost a further £30 million. The cost of these three improvements would total £130 million per year.

We must be aware of the financial implications when identifying and assessing the changes we want to make. There has been a substantial increase of £180 million in the social welfare budget this year. It is important to realise that the trend of cutting back in certain areas of social welfare, which was evident some years ago and perhaps even last year, has been completely reversed. Significant changes have taken place in a number of key areas and these have been acknowledged by many Senators.

The Government has increased the minimum rates by 3.5 per cent and child benefit by 26 per cent. Family income supplement and carer's allowance have also been increased. I know we would like a greater increase in the carer's allowance but I hope the substantial increase this year will be followed by a further increase in the next budget.

One point raised by Senator Cregan, which has been a subject for comment particularly in the Cork newspapers, relates to the payment of equal treatment arrears to women and to advertisements placed by solicitors in the Cork area. I want to make it clear that there is no need for any women to contact a solicitor to secure her entitlements or to pay 10 per cent of her total payment in solicitor fees as has apparently been mentioned in advertisements by a number of solicitors in the Cork area. This matter has already been clarified in the Dáil on a number of occasions but it is important to repeat here that full provision has been made in the budget for the payment of this year's instalment of the arrears and provision will be made for the payment of a further and final instalment next year.

I want to draw to the Senators' attention the measures which have already been taken to provide for the payment of the equal treatment arrears. The Department of Social Welfare launched one of the biggest campaigns ever conducted in the State when it issued approximately 110,000 claim forms to married women, of which 85,000 were returned and received by the Department. These claims are currently being processed and the arrears due to women are being paid on a phased basis over the period 1992-94 in accordance with the retrospective legislation. In addition to issuing claim forms the Department undertook an extensive advertising campaign in the newspapers and on radio and has made every effort to identify all potential claimants and beneficiaries. The 1992 amounts have already been paid and 1993 amounts are currently being paid. There is no need for women to engage the services of solicitors or to pay substantial fees in order to recover equal treatment arrears.

Another point raised by a number of Senators, in particular by Senator McGennis and Senator Wall, was the problem of money lending. Like Senator McGennis I represent a constituency where money lending is a serious problem in a number of its densely populated areas. I am pleased that this year's budget has increased the resources available to the Department of Social Welfare to combat money lending. The Department has been directly involved in combating this problem for some years now. Last year five pilot projects were established in Limerick, Waterford, Cork, parts of Dublin and in west Clare. This year the Government provided £500,000 for this activity. This will enable the Department to significantly expand the programme over the coming months. The key factors of the projects include a general money advice element targeted at families who are identified as having particular problems with money lenders, a role for both statutory and voluntary bodies and an emphasis on practical budget-based measures which would be successful over the long term in removing people from dependence on money lenders. The project's national steering committee is currently considering the publication of a general debt management leaflet and a handbook for debt management advisers.

Another scheme which the Department will be introducing on a pilot basis from 1 May and which we hope to extend throughout the country will, I hope, facilitate household budgeting. Under this scheme people may consent to deductions being made from their social welfare incomes which will then be used to pay ESB and gas company bills and local authority rents. An Post has been asked to develop the household deduction facility as part of their service to social welfare customers. In other words, people whose income comes from social welfare should be in the same position as those with bank accounts to pay ESB and gas bills on a regular monthly basis. It is important that the Department of Social Welfare extends this type of service because some families experience severe budgeting problems. I will comment in detail later on community welfare officers and the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. As a woman Minister and because of the kind of constituency I represent, I know that many women would welcome budgeting help, advice and support. I hope this scheme will make a substantial contribution towards the elimination of money lending.

Senator Quinn made a number of interesting proposals about the structure of the PRSI system. He suggested PRSI be abolished on lower levels of income and the upper PRSI ceilings abolished altogether and that one should fund the other. In other words, those on lower incomes would be exempt from paying PRSI contributions while those on higher incomes would be fully liable. Preliminary estimates by the Department of Social Welfare show that the cost of exempting the first £1,000 of income from PRSI would require the abolition of the earning ceiling entirely. Thus, one of the drawbacks of the scheme would be cost. I have specific responsibility for the integration of the tax and social welfare codes and I have devoted much attention to poverty traps throughout the tax and social welfare systems. It is not necessarily PRSI rates that create the problem in our system. Our rates of PRSI, both for employees and employers, are substantially below those of many European countries. However, there is a problem with the rates at which low income earners enter the tax net. In any integration of the tax and social welfare codes we must concentrate on the tax bands.

I would say to Senator Quinn that the Bill provides for the introduction of the PRSI exemption scheme under which employers who take on additional full-time workers between 19 October 1992 and 19 September 1993 will be exempt from paying the employer element of the PRSI contribution for the next two income tax years. As the Minister indicated on Second Stage the original closing date was 19 March but we have extended this to December to maximise the participation rate. I call on employers to avail of this opportunity between now and September to take on additional employees without incurring additional PRSI liabilities.

Senator Quinn also referred to the Pensions Act to ask when regulations would be made under section 62 of the Act. The Minister will be making an announcement on this issue tomorrow at the annual conference of the Irish Association of Pension Funds.

I listened with interest to Senator Henry's comments on lone parents. A number of Senators made the point that it is desirable to encourage lone parents to avail of second chance education, including personal development, and ultimately to enter the workforce. Our social welfare system should be supportive of lone parents making the transition to work or education. Senator Henry mentioned the VTOS scheme. At the moment lone parents have access to the scheme where there is spare capacity. Many Senators will be aware that under the CDP and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress lone parents can avail of schemes. Many lone parents have opted to take up such opportunities and I am interested in seeing this area extended.

Persons involved in community work know that lone parents are very interested in schemes which offer participation in community work, personal development or education. These schemes greatly benefit communities in terms of the work undertaken by lone parents and the interest and ambition for their children such schemes may foster. I favour supporting such schemes.

Senator Daly asked when the bilateral agreement with the US will come into force. This agreement was signed on 14 April 1992 on behalf of the Government. Under the Constitution the text of this agreement is subject to Dáil approval. The necessary motion to seek this approval will be moved shortly. We expect that the likely operative date will be 1 September 1993.

A number of Senators referred to the changes in unemployment assistance in respect of students. In ways this is connected to the comments made in relation to young people living at home who are assessed on their parents' means. Of the 78,000 students in third level education, about 12,000 claimed unemployment assistance in 1992 and 10,000 in 1991. I have no difficulty saying that a full-time third level student is not in the same situation as an unemployed person. I doubt the wisdom of bringing very young people into the unemployment assistance structure with the possible consequences to which Senator Enright and other Senators referred.

We are anxious to ensure that community and other work is available to students who need support during the summer or whose parents need support. Many student and parents have responded positively to this proposal. The President of the USI said she was incredulous at the idea that students should be asked to work. This is unfair to the vast majority of students of great talent who wish to contribute to their community. I have been approached in my constituency by students who say they are very interested in the scheme.

This scheme gives students an opportunity to work and to contribute to the community at the rate of pay for the job. In other words, if the rate of pay for the job is £3 per hour, the student might be expected to work for two days or longer if organisation and student are willing. This is a very good opportunity for student to get work experience and to contribute their skills and talents to the community.

I noted with interest in the Sunday Press of 28 March, that Professor Clancy, the acknowledged expert in this country on the rates of participation by working class students in third level education and whose comments have been quoted by Members on many occasions, spoke approvingly of the scheme and said that working class students did not need dole but access to work and income. Many working class students and students from poorer families do not have the social and business contacts to arrange summer employment.

I speak as one who came through third level education by means of scholarships and supports. In the areas which I represent there are students who live in corporation estates. In some cases, Senator McGennis will agree with me, it is difficult for students who live in such estates to get summer jobs because of their address. I believe that if we can develop a scheme which offers work and community experience, particularly to the regrettably small number of working class students in the system, we will have achieved a good deal by the end of the summer. I ask Senators to wait and judge the scheme on its merits. There will be specific provision made to ensure that if a workplace is not available this summer for students whose families are on social welfare or who are otherwise in need, such students will get the equivalent of what would have been their unemployment assistance. I have great hopes that this scheme will actually offer targeted help to the students in greatest need of assistance.

I listened with interest to the suggestion made by Senator Honan that FIS be made payable to the caring parent who in most cases, would be the mother. That is a very interesting suggestion, which I will have examined in the Department. In terms of my responsibilities for the integration of tax and social welfare codes we have to try over time, to eliminate poverty traps. FIS is one of the schemes helping to do that. I welcome the substantial increase in FIS this year.

Senator Daly also suggested that FIS be made payable to small family farmers. The Minister has already expressed his interest in doing that. There are other questions to be teased out on this issue for instance in relation to the self-employed. Having been in the Department I believe Senator Daly is aware of those questions. Nevertheless it is an area which should be examined.

I want to return to some general points in relation to the budget and the famous "dirty dozen". Some people have said that the "dirty dozen" measures have gone for a Burton——

How about the baker's dozen?

On a general point, anyone who examines the trend evident last year from the various cutbacks made and who examines this year's budget will see that that trend has been reversed. That is a product of the partnership agreement between the two parties in Government. Specifically, the Minister listed a series of areas in which cuts have been reversed or substantially changed. The most important of these are in relation to optical and dental benefit which affect some 140,000 people and changes in relation to disability benefit and people on UA. There have also been changes in relation to the income disregards for part-time workers. As Senator McGennis said, a person with two children can now earn £34 a day in part-time earnings, which is a substantial incentive to work.

In relation to exceptional needs payments and the supplementary welfare allowance system, the constituency which I represent affords me more familiarity with those schemes than I would like. The Combat Poverty Agency last year carried out a detailed study of the supplementary welfare allowance system which I recommend to Senators. In that study, the agency pointed out what many representatives on the ground know, namely that the provision for payment of discretionary payments is a good feature. This feature was introduced by my late colleague, Frank Cluskey, to replace the old relieving officer. People take it for granted that they get a benefit because they are entitled to it. However, when somebody tells a hard story to a community welfare officer and is still refused because their application is outside the scheme, that person often comes away feeling distressed and demeaned. This was a feature of the system both before and subsequent to the famous circulars. Any public representative dealing with such cases is well aware of that fact.

Since our appointments, both the Minister and I, have spent a great deal of time examining the system. In addition the officials of the Department have been holding a series of detailed meetings with various officers who work with the system in the health boards. We believe that substantial improvements are possible. I ask Senators to note that this year an extra £12.5 million has gone into the system representing a 14 per cent increase, one of the biggest percentage increases in the social welfare budget.

We want to improve the social welfare system. I believe we can retain in full the discretion of the community welfare officers and I am aware that many such officers work under enormous strains and pressures, particularly in large urban areas where they have a substantial workload. Nevertheless, we want the system improved from the point of view of the person seeking help. We are currently talking to the various utility companies such as the ESB and so on to formulate a code of practice. The Minister has given an undertaking that when this code of practice has been finalised and agreed, the famous circulars of last year will be totally redundant. In the meantime I draw the Senators' attention to the fact that both the Minister and I have reiterated here the discretion of the community welfare officers at this time. That discretion is an important feature of the system and will be retained. I am confident that the changes introduced and the code of practice will improve the system for those dependent on social welfare.

Thank you, Minister, for a very detailed concluding comment to this important social welfare debate.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 13.

  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Calnan, Michael.
  • Cashin, Bill.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Farrell, Willie.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Tom.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Mary.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Lanigan, Mick.
  • Lydon, Don.
  • McGennis, Marian.
  • Magner, Pat.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Mullooly, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Wright, G.V.

Níl

  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Cregan, Denis (Dino).
  • Dardis, John.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Neville, Daniel.
  • O'Toole, Joe.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Magner; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 1 April 1993.

When is it proposed to sit again?

It is proposed to sit at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 31 March.

Top
Share