During the brief time I was speaking last evening I commented on the high level of the debate on this stage of the Bill. As I have said on a previous occasion here, if we are to tackle seriously the problem of poverty, we must first acknowledge openly that poverty exists in our society on a fairly wide scale and that it is not something imposed by God on the Irish people.
Poverty is created by the activities of people in our society. Consequently, its solution lies in the hands of society. Someone said here yesterday that we must not accept the concept of the poor being with us always. I have never believed that that phrase referred to those who are poor in the material sense but that, rather, it referred to those who are poor spiritually. Into this category I would put people who might be described as the get-rich-quick poor, those who become rich regardless of the cost to their fellow Irish men and women. Not all the exploiters in this country are imported. Unfortunately, many of them were born and bred among us. These are the people who, ultimately, are the poor because they lack something which is essential for any kind of enrichment of one's life, that is, a reasonable concern for the rights of their fellow human beings.
Deputy Andrews said that this Bill only provided money and did not go any way to meeting the requirements that were necessary for reforming the Home Assistance Act. Nothing in my opinion could be further from the truth. Anybody who even glances at the Act and has a quick run through the Bill before the House will see that there is in this Bill a remedy for all the major criticisms of the whole operation of the Home Assistance Act over the years. Undoubtedly that was degrading. No one has stood up in this House to try to defend the Home Assistance Act. To say that the Bill only provides monetary relief is to distort what the Bill is designed to do. Undoubtedly it gives additional money. A recent survey showed that under the Home Assistance Act a single person received on average £4.91 per week. That was not of right but purely on a discretionary basis. If was on the discretion of a particular health board or local authority. Under the terms of this Bill a single person can claim as of right £7.35. An adult with an adult dependant on average got £9.11 under the old scheme. Under the terms of this Bill he will of right get £12.80. Some of the major objections that have been voiced over the years are removed or repealed under this Bill. The Home Assistance Act is being replaced.
We talked about there being no right to assistance. That provision is gone under the provisions of this Bill. In the event of one being refused assistance there was no redress for the person involved. That has been rectified now. If a man or woman applies for social welfare supplementary allowances and is refused he or she has the right to appeal, just as recipients of other social welfare benefits have. The payment level also remains flexible over and above the basic that is provided for in the Bill. This is an essential part of the operation of such a scheme.
The Bill provides for a scheme with a set of basic rules and rates. It replaces a situation where anyone, from one authority to another and even within one local authority, could find that a particular person has been awarded a different rate from his or indeed has been refused assistance without any redress whatever open to him. Under the Bill there is a single means test. It provides an effective link with the community services which are operated by the health boards.
Deputy Andrews said that all that was provided under this Bill was more money, and not great sums of that. I accept that the basic sums under this Bill are not all that I would like to see but they are a considerable improvement on what was there before. They take into consideration the dignity of the people applying under the scheme. The assistance is theirs by right. When introducing the Second Stage of this Bill I said:
The problems of those who will need to avail of these allowances will, in most cases, be of a nature calling for more than a mere cash response. Social services, social work support and genuine community care are also needed which can help the recipients to cope with the situations in which they find themselves and to find a place of dignity and full integration in our society.
The realisation that money alone would not cater for the needs of these people did not come only from Deputy Andrews.
Deputy Andrews did us a considerable service when he concentrated most of his remarks on the subject of poverty. There are different definitions of poverty. The Deputy spoke of a particular situation where an American billionaire came down to breakfast feeling very depressed because conditions on the Stock Exchange were not good. He told his wife he felt lousy and that he felt like a million dollars. I suppose, relatively speaking, that could be defined as poverty by some people, although not by me. The poverty which we are concerned with and which is under discussion in the House at the moment is the type of poverty which was discussed in very understanding terms by some Deputies on the other side of the House. They showed a general knowledge of the plight of some of their constituents and concern to see that some form of social justice should be applied in this area of hard core poverty, not a man just feeling like a million but a man wondering where the next meal will come from, a man wondering how he will provide sufficient food, clothing and shelter for his wife and children. That is the form of poverty that we in Ireland are faced with. Figures have been given, which nobody has contradicted, so one must accept them as being authentic, that that situation applies to from 20 to 24 per cent of the people of this nation. I look forward to the day when we will be able to speak about relative poverty. I sincerely hope we will have a full discussion here on some private person who has to put up with black and white television because he has not got coloured television. That would be a nice situation to be in. There are Scandinavian societies where that type of discussion is going on, but it is a little early for it here. That is not the type of poverty, unfortunately, we are faced with.
There have been a number of definitions of poverty. I have one, which came out of discussions in the EEC as a result of the implementation of pilot schemes to combat poverty, which I am glad to say was passed by the Council of Ministers on Tuesday last week and which will come into operation not only in this country but in other member countries of the EEC. Their definition is that a person is in poverty if his command over his resources, including money, social services and community services, is so far below the normal standard of the community that he is in effect excluded from normal integration in that community. I do not think there are many who could put up an argument in our circumstances against that definition. There are many people amongst us who quite clearly fall into that category.
Deputy Andrews made quite a thing about a number of inequities in our social service system. He was particularly concerned about what he described as discrimination against women in some of our social services. As a matter of fact, looking at him from this side of the House, it seemed to be the only thing in the Bill which he could bring himself to get very excited or concerned about. I would accept anyone being concerned about inequities and discrimination against any group or individual, but I got the impression that he had gone through the Bill rather hastily and picked out this particular point because it was a political point, because you could throw the rest of the Bill aside and here was a bit of a stick with which you could beat the Government in political terms.
This is women's year and there is a lot of discussion and comment on the media and elsewhere about the rights of women. We are all genuinely concerned about any form of discrimination, but this Government in two years and three months have done more to eliminate discrimination and inequities in social welfare than the previous Government, of which Deputy Andrews was an office holder, did in all their years in office. They not only did that but a large number of difficulties in this particular area are a direct result of legislation which was introduced and supported by the previous administration.
In the report of the Status of Women Commission there were a number of points in which it was stated in the field of social welfare that discrimination occurred. Since that report was published the majority of those unjust aspects have been removed by this Government. It is not possible in two years and three months to rectify the accumulated neglect of 16 consecutive years in any area and particularly in the area of social welfare, but we have managed to remove most of them. Dr. Beere, who was the chair person of the particular committee, publicly acknowledged that very considerable progress had been made in the field of social welfare.
I can assure Deputy Andrews that we will continue to make progress as rapidly as possible in this particular area, not because he will use it as a stick to beat the Government but because we believe it is the right thing to do. We will not do it piecemeal to meet the political pressures of any particular day or hour or to run in front of a political campaign some people think they can mount. We will do it properly and we will do it when it is possible to do it. I feel confident that we have done enough to have the confidence of the people who are genuinely concerned in this area to know that progress will be made as rapidly as it can be made to eliminate all forms of discrimination or injustice.
Deputy Ryan, Deputy Bermingham and others were concerned about the transfer of the scheme to the health boards. They felt it would be administered through the county councils. They were concerned lest, under the health boards, the operation of this scheme and our approach to its implimentation would be lost. I can assure Deputy Ryan, Deputy Bermingham and others that this has been considered. One can realise that men concerned about this area would have doubts about its being transferred from the immediate control of the county councils. But we are endeavouring under this scheme not merely to provide money but to provide that which is essential if the cycle of poverty is to be broken, that is, a comprehensive, back-up service capable of dealing with the total needs of an individual, family or group of people who find themselves in this category. That can best be done by a link up between the officers who administer the scheme and the community care programmes operated by the health boards. Under the terms of this Bill there is a direct link between them and it will be possible for them to call on expert advice and assistance in many disciplines, to help in the rehabilitation of a person or family back into the mainstream of society. That is an essential component of our approach to this problem. Therefore, the transfer to the health boards is both necessary and desirable. I can assure Deputies who voiced concern that the overall administration of this scheme or responsibility therefor is being retained by the Minister. Indeed, on many occasions, he has expressed his concern with the building up of community care programmes. When they fall to be operated and administered by the health boards I can assure Deputies they will not be lost sight of.
It was rather sad to hear Deputy Faulkner say in this House yesterday evening that the only reason this Bill was not before us was that it had to be put through the House before Thursday's budget. I was saddened by that remark because Deputy Faulkner had been the Opposition spokesman on social welfare prior to Deputy Andrews and I had always found him to be constructive and genuinely concerned in this area. I find myself wondering in what circumstances he came in here to make that remark.
The intention to introduce this Bill was announced some time ago. Deputy Faulkner mentioned our having a budget on Thursday next and I should like to say this: it is no secret that our economy is in difficulties; it is no secret that, for any Government, these are fairly rough times; the amount of money available is scarce and the pressures on a Government in times such as these from various Departments and external agencies are very heavy indeed. Therefore, it is with very considerable pride that I am here now putting this Bill through the House; pride in the Coalition Government; pride in the fact that the men in the Cabinet, in times such as these, can still adhere to the priorities they set for themselves in 1973 and provide the money necessary for the introduction of this Bill. It is not so much a question of availability of money. No matter what Government may be in office the money does not dramatically become available or dry up. Rather it is a sense of priorities and, God knows, the difference between the priority given to social welfare and the poor under this Government, as compared with the previous Administration, is so obvious as not to warrant any comment from me.
Deputy Brennan and others spoke about the financial aspect of the Bill. Apparently they were very concerned that 40 per cent will be sought from local authorities. The fact is that, up to now, the local authorities have borne the full cost of the operation of the home assistance scheme. This Bill provides for a grant from the Exchequer of 60 per cent of the additional cost, and that taking 1975 as a base. Apart altogether from the financial considerations involved in that operation, many speakers in the course of yesterday's discussions, and indeed many from the Fianna Fáil benches said that without local involvement and awareness this type of scheme could not be successful. I agree. It is essential, if we are to be successful in this fight, that local people be aware and involved.
I do not believe ratepayers would voice an objection to paying 40 per cent—indeed, it is only a proportion based on 1975 expenditure in this area—towards feeling involved and making a positive effort to eliminate this problem and to restore to these people what is rightfully theirs, their sense of dignity, their sense of belonging and their sense of belonging by right. I do not take seriously the objections which have been raised on that aspect of the Bill by Fianna Fáil speakers. It is like their sudden concern after 16 years in office for the rights of women. It seems a possible political approach to the Bill, something which is perfectly legitimate, but I do not give it much hope of getting off the ground as a major political debate here or anywhere else.
Some Members raised good points in the course of their contributions and showed an awareness of how the previous home assistance scheme worked. They were in a position to indicate how it humiliated and degraded people who had to resort to it. These Members obviously gave a considerable amount of thought to the operation of a home assistance scheme and how it could be improved. One of the best contributions I heard on this subject in this House was made by Deputy Esmonde. His insight into the problem was very good. He showed a great awareness of the problem and a fine sense of concern and compassion for the people who have to resort to the scheme.
Deputy Bermingham spoke about some of the practical difficulties experienced by people seeking assistance under the scheme. He pointed out that a person in receipt of a social welfare benefit was not notified in advance if his eligibility under stamps was running out. The first warning bell such a person gets is when his cheque fails to arrive on the appointed day. He spoke of a woman in such a predicament having to go to a home assistance officer on a Friday evening. Because of the approach of the weekend that officer was not in a position to ascertain whether or not the person involved was giving a factual account of the position. The officer had no way of providing immediate assistance to that person. Deputy Bermingham suggested that we should introduce a system so that when a person was approaching the end of his or her eligibility for a particular benefit he or she would be notified at least two or three weeks in advance. That is a sound suggestion and it could go a long way towards avoiding hardships. I can assure the Deputy, and the House, that the suggestion will be examined sympathetically to see if it can be implemented.
The question of people having to queue for home assistance was referred to by a number of Members. It was pointed out that the fact that people had to queue was the cause of many of those in rural areas not seeking home assistance, not wanting to be identified with anything to do with the scheme. Members felt that if the assistance could be paid by cheque it would remove a lot of the difficulty in this regard. This is a good suggestion. As Deputies are aware the administration of the new supplementary allowance is being transferred to the health boards. Discussions will take place with the health boards for the handing over of staff and property associated with the old scheme and we will go into this aspect with the boards to see if it will be possible to pay recipients by cheque.
I made some inquiries late last night into this matter and I was informed that it would be possible to do this in the vast majority of cases. If it is possible it will be done because I accept that it would help considerably towards encouraging people to avail of what, with the passage of this Bill, will be their right. The home assistance officers were referred to by many Deputies. At the outset I paid tribute to these officers who had to administer a defective and objectionable scheme. In my opinion these officers did a tremendous service to our society. They are recruited without any particular knowledge or expertise required in this area. There is no training provided for them to deal with this delicate and sensitive area. However, they managed to perform their duties within the confines of the law as it stood with compassion and concern. In fact, these officers were to the fore in seeking the reform now before the House.
Deputy Andrews and others referred to a seminar on poverty held in Kilkenny and I wish to quote two passages from a contribution to that seminar by Mr. Dick Doyle, Superintendent Assistance Officer in Waterford, which was published in Social Studies, August, 1972. He said:
Poverty is a way of life. In the home assistance service we meet with poverty many times each day. We talk to those directly affected by it and are conscious of the tensions and strains under which they live. We visit their homes and meet their families. We see their needs and are aware of how terribly inadequate our service is in treating the long-term disease that poverty can be. Poverty is a many-sided thing. It is relative to the accepted living standards and to the area and time in which people live.
He went on:
The service in which I work, the public assistance service, must be given a new character. It is a scandal that to this day no training has ever been given to assistance officers or those who supervise them. In my view, social care at the poverty level requires a strong specialist organisation parallel with the medical aspects of community care provided for in the structure of the regional health boards. Social care in this generation, properly planned and developed to meet the special needs of this country, is an essential if ever-greater problems are to be avoided in the years to come. A way must be found to lead this community at all levels to its Christian duty to involvement and so make our country an example of Christianity in action that other countries might envy.
That is the calibre of person whom we have been extremely fortunate to get to work in our home assistance schemes. I say "fortunate" because, God knows, it was more by luck than by design that we got people of the calibre of the author of that contribution into our services. The only people, over quite a considerable time, who were concerned in this area, who were vocal about the need for reform, were a few nuns and priests, a few social workers and home assistance officers and other people who were grouped together in many people's minds and described as, at best, dogooders and, at worst, fringe head cases. Their concern and their persistence has led to what we had yesterday, a debate in our Parliament on poverty. That is very considerable progress. It has now brought us to what I consider to be the starting point of doing something positive about eliminating poverty. These people deserve the thanks and appreciation of all of us for their dedication and persistence in making us as a society, as a nation, open our eyes and acknowledge that this problem exists and that it will not go away of its own accord.
In regard to the transfer, discussions are taking place between the Department of Health and the trade unions catering for home assistance officers, and a training programme will be drawn up for the officers who will implement this new scheme During those discussions I hope a proper career structure can be drawn up for these officers. Their method of recruitment left very much to be desired, some of it not particularly on merit, I am sure, because of the set up of the whole scheme. I wonder if the reason why we have so many of these officers dedicated to their work is that, irrespective of what your view might have been beforehand, once you find yourself in the front line, once you find yourself doing what this man, the Superintendent Assis tance Officer, does "meeting with poverty many times each day", no matter how cynical you might be commencing that operation, within a very short space of time you become committed and aware of the misery involved for men, women and children; you come to realise that it is man-made and that it lies within the power of man to cure it.
Deputy Brennan—I just mention this and I do not wish to be controversial about it—talked about the considerable number of men and women who are registered as unem ployed but are, in fact, unemployable. There is a lot of truth in what Deputy Brennan said. He suggested it might be well, in the interests of these people, to consider removing them from drawing unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance to put them on some other form of benefit and try to cater for their overall needs. What is not fully realised by many people is that if a man is forced to be unemployed for a considerable period of time, something can happen to that man, not physically, not something one can readily perceive, but something can happen so that after a prolonged period of enforced unemployment a man can become unemployable. It is something psychological. I cannot explain it but I have seen it happen. It might be a good idea to go a little closer into the suggestion made by Deputy Brennan to see if something can be done.
Deputy Brennan mentioned that factor. I do not know whether it is geographical or not but Deputy White, who is also a Donegal Deputy, also mentioned it. I am sure it applies to many other places.
Various definitions of poverty were given in the course of the debate. One of the best definitions of poverty is one that I quoted before in this House. It is the definition given by the New Zealand Government in a publication some two years ago. They defined poverty as follows:
Every citizen should have a level of income which enables him to belong and to participate so that no one is to be so poor that he cannot eat the sort of food that citizens usually eat, wear the same sort of clothes, take a moderate part in those activities which the ordinary citizen takes part in as a matter of course. The goal is to enable any citizen to meet and mix with other citizens as one of them, as a full member of the community, in brief, to belong.
That is the best definition of poverty that I have heard. I do not think there is any doubt that there are a very considerable number of people in Ireland today who cannot participate, who cannot feel that they belong. The responsibility lies with us to ensure that they can belong and that they can belong as of right.
