Deputy Dowling was in possession. He has 23 minutes left.
Vote 48: Social Welfare (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £38,700,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants.—(The Taoiseach).
On the last day I was dealing with some aspects of the Parliamentary Secretary's opening speech. I indicated that what was required was not increased social welfare benefits but jobs. Jobs are allimportant. At the moment a small section of the community are paying fairly substantial contributions and we all hope the day is not far distant when we will have a substantial work force all paying contributions. Unemployment is running over the 100,000 mark. Daily there are more closures or notices of pending closures. The outlook is bleak for those who are still lucky enough to be employed. This is where real confidence is required, confidence to ensure the protection of industry and the development of industry so that people will be removed from the dole queues.
Social welfare evolves over years. Pressures demand the updating of legislation to meet present day requirements and problems in order to meet developing situations. We are living in a different type of society, a society in which demands and pressures are both greater. There is a demand for an extension of existing services and the introduction of new services. Improvements are due not to any benevolence but rather to the declining value of money. Many sections receiving social welfare at the moment are not getting anything like what they should be getting to meet the increased cost of living. We are told there has been a .08 or a .8 per cent reduction in the cost of living. A few months ago we were told the subsidies would mean a substantial reduction in the cost of living. During the election campaign the Government clearly indicated certain things would be done so that we would have full employment and a reduction in the cost of living. That has not been the experience. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is making every effort, and rightly so, to keep abreast of this difficult situation. That is his job. That is his duty. That is his responsibility. Over the years many enlightened schemes have been introduced which give relief to people in distress, to the weaker sections of the community. These people are entitled to consideration when money is available. We must find more money to assist the weaker sections of the community.
The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out on one occasion that there were 25,000 people living on or below the poverty line. That figure must have reached more serious proportions by now. This situation must be tackled. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that he was tackling it with vigour. I have no doubt that he is making the necessary effort to tackle it. People are entitled to more money to cope with the tragic circumstances in which they find themselves. On the other hand, people are abusing the system. This was mentioned by many speakers. The Parliamentary Secretary and indeed the Minister must by now be well aware that there are substantial abuses in various sectors of this system. People who require more help should get it and people who are abusing the system should be brought to book. There is no need for me to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that. He and the Government are well aware of it and must be courageous enough to take action to ensure these abuses are eliminated.
There is a need to tell me. Generalisations are not good enough. If the Deputy would be more specific about the abuses I would be very glad to listen. Unsubstantiated generalities are damaging and irresponsible.
The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of many of the abuses and was well aware of them before he became Parliamentary Secretary. Almost every speaker in this debate has acknowledged that there are grave abuses of the system. The Parliamentary Secretary does not want me to do his job.
If the Deputy is aware of them he should have the courage and integrity to spell them out instead of making these charges against unfortunate people in such a generally irresponsible way.
I understand the situation.
Spell them out or keep quiet.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not got the courage to eliminate these abuses.
Spell them out.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is personally aware of many abuses.
For a man to talk about courage and then say what the Deputy is saying——
The Parliamentary Secretary was aware of these abuses before he took office.
The Deputy has a responsibility to the House, to his constituents and to the nation to spell them out if he is aware of them. If he has not got the courage to do so he should not be so irresponsible.
If I were Parliamentary Secretary I would do the job. I would eliminate them. I would have the courage to do it.
The Deputy has not got the courage.
The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that they have been taking place in the city.
Spell them out.
He should get the people in the Department to do their job. If he has not got enough inspectors, he should get them. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated in his speech that there were suggestions of abuses. He should carry out a special investigation into this aspect so that the people in dire need will get further assistance without any extra drain on the Exchequer. I would not go into the Division Lobbies to deprive anyone of what I believe they are justly entitled to. As I said on the last occasion, we have in this city——
The Deputy is repeating himself.
I am talking about social welfare.
The Deputy keeps repeating the same material.
Dublin Corporation have rent arrears of £1½ million. This means either that people have not got the capacity to pay their rent, or there are abuses in the system.
That is repetitive.
If they have not got the capacity to pay their rent, they need more assistance. They are deprived people who cannot meet their commitments.
This is repetition.
I am making a plea for people who are unable to meet their commitments. I mentioned on a previous occasion that there were people in this city who owe £1,600 rent, while social welfare recipients and old age pensioners are called upon to make their contribution and to pay the rents of people who can well afford to pay them.
As time goes on I hope a system will be evolved which will do justice to those who are in need and who pay their way. If there is need for an addition to the already high contribution, that is a matter which has to be faced. I hope that in the meantime the Parliamentary Secretary will examine the abuses which have been mentioned here by so many speakers. I am not the only speaker who has mentioned them. I listened to a number of speakers and they said the same thing.
I did not hear them. Deputy Moore said charges of abuses in the system were highly exaggerated. The Deputy is the only Deputy who has acted in a grossly irresponsible manner in this respect.
The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of abuses taking place within the system and it is up to him to see they are rectified, not me. I hope he will give an assurance that known abuses will be rectified. I know this is a difficult job. It is a very involved situation and in many ways he has made a substantial contribution. There are weaknesses and defects in the system and we do not like to see them pointed out, particularly where they require action which may take some of the gloss from the individual who tries to erase them.
I hope we will have many more advances particularly for the aged, the sick and those unable to meet their commitments. It is all too tragic that we have so many people at present who could be working and not relying on social welfare benefits but for the incompetence of the Government. There are no plans or hopes for these people. Indeed, there are large numbers of people unaccounted for in the statistics issued from time to time by the Central Statistics Office showing the number of people unemployed and who will in the future be seeking social welfare benefits of one kind or another. The tragic situation facing this nation at present, with the loss of employment, the lack of opportunities for young people leaving school——
We are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate which is relevant to the benefits being paid to people.
(Dublin Central): If the Parliamentary Secretary were to create jobs he would not have this problem.
What is before the House at present is the Social Welfare Supplementary Estimate.
Social welfare benefits are paid either to people who are unemployed——
The Chair has already given a direction on this matter earlier this evening—that what is in order for discussion are the subheads of the Estimate and not any other extraneous matter.
(Dublin Central): Surely one can discuss the reason why such a large amount of social welfare has to be paid?
The Chair is ruling that what is in order for discussion is what is in the Estimate, the various subheads. That is what is in order for discussion.
But the bulk of the social welfare benefits are paid in unemployment benefit or assistance to people who are unfortunate enough to be on the ever-lengthening dole queues. Apart from the Parliamentary Secretary, who is relieving the situation in a temporary way, I am asking that some other Ministers——
That is not in order for discussion.
——ensure that relief is brought about by way of more employment. I hope a change will take place in the near future which would entail changes of Ministers, of Government and that the nation could put back into power a Government that would——
The Deputy is now moving away from the estimate. If he will not stay with the Estimate, the Chair will be continuously asking him to adhere to it.
Had we another Government which would meet its responsibilities by bringing people back to work then an Estimate of this nature might not be necessary. What is required here is to take people off the dole queues, get them back to work and give assistance to the people who most require it.
The Deputy is not obeying the Chair in regard to the direction he has been given in relation to what is in order.
It is difficult now to know what to speak about on a Social Welfare Estimate.
The Deputy may speak on the various subheads of the Supplementary Estimate which are in order for discussion.
The Minister's brief was a very substantial one in which he covered every aspect of social welfare. Surely I should be allowed cover some of the basic causes of some of the demands. I am in favour of additional schemes to meet additional pressures from time to time. The Minister dealt in depth with every aspect of the social welfare code. The basic cause of the requirement is the one about which I am not allowed speak.
I hope the day is not far distant when we can have confidence restored, when we can get the wheels of industry moving once again and when we shall not be requiring substantial additions of social welfare because people will be working and living in an atmosphere of full employment.
I wish the Parliamentary Secretary well in the future and assure him that where problems do exist in regard to social welfare, where money has to be found, I will not be absent when we are called into the lobbies. I know the Parliamentary Secretary has a difficult task——
(Dublin Central): He is creating it for himself.
Social welfare benefits do not constitute an answer to problems of this nature. Rather it should be an endeavour to get people back to work, take them off the dole queues and ensure that people in genuine need receive the assistance they deserve. Some of those people are not receiving it at present while others abuse the system.
(Dublin Central): There is not a Deputy in this House who has not been called upon from time to time by his constituents to get in touch with the Department of Social Welfare with regard to delayed benefits, applications which were not being processed in time and so on. This Department deals with people who, by and large, have very little means at their disposal. It is a Department also that must be efficient in its day-to-day operations because people seeking benefit cannot wait until the week after which the benefit became due. If the benefit does not arrive on, say, the Thursday or Friday, it places people dependent on it in a most unfortunate position over that week-end because many such people live from hand to mouth—old age pensioners, widows, orphans and unemployed people with large families.
I am not for one moment saying that the officials of the Department are not efficient in any way. I sympathise with them in their difficult task because they must accept and process applications at very short notice. I would consider they are doing quite a good job. However, from time to time public representatives receive complaints from people saying that certain payments have been delayed for some reason, perhaps through postal difficulties, misfiling or some other mistake having been made. I know such things can happen. Being in business myself, I know it is possible to misplace documents and so on and we must make certain allowances from time to time. But I would be inclined to allow more latitude to any other Department. The reason I say so is that the majority of these people are dependent on their benefit on the day on which it becomes due. They are waiting to take it home to their wives to buy foodstuffs and other items for the family.
The Minister promised this Supplementary Estimate in an earlier budget and he said it was bound to follow as a result of increased benefits. But this Supplementary Estimate has been brought about by lack of Government policy. I hope I do not stray beyond the bounds of discussion on this measure but it would not be necessary for the Parliamentary Secretary to come into this House and look for this large amount of money for social welfare benefits had other Departments done their jobs effectively. The Parliamentary Secretary might claim that this is a substantial increase in benefits. This is not true. You would have to ask the housewife as to what inflation had done with her contribution or the benefits which she received over the past 12 months. These have been eroded by very large increases in food prices over the past 12 months and it is not true for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House that the benefits are substantial. We would not be budgeting for an estimate of this scale if it were not for the number who are in receipt of unemployment benefit today. I have always held, and I still hold, that social welfare benefits are designed primarily for old age pensioners, widows and orphans, recipients of long-term disability benefit and so on, and I think it is the duty of every citizen to subscribe to that ideal. I do not believe that it is the right policy—at least it is not the policy of our party in regard to unemployment benefit—to sit back, pay unemployment benefit, and think we have done a good job. That is a bad policy. It is the duty of everyone in this country, as I have already mentioned, to support the weaker sections of our community, and I have never during my time in this House, criticised the amount of money which we in this party voted year after year when we were in Government. There was never a budget passed through this House when Fianna Fáil were in Government which did not have provision for substantial increases for every social welfare category, and there is no good in the Parliamentary Secretary claiming that this section of the community was not catered for until such time as the inter-Party Government came into power. Our social welfare policy down through the years covered all these categories. The conditions under which people are living today have been made far more difficult by the neglect of the Coalition Government who have failed to curb the rising cost of living. That is why we are discussing such a large Estimate.
The Deputy is going outside the realm of the Supplementary Estimate.
(Dublin Central): I agree, but the Supplementary Estimate may not be necessary. The Parliamentary Secretary must justify bringing it into the House. You do not bring in a Supplementary Estimate for nothing, and the Parliamentary Secretary had to bring it in at this time.
The Chair is merely enforcing the rules of the House which lay down that a Supplementary Estimate is confined to the subheads of that Estimate.
(Dublin Central): Social welfare schemes have to be operated from time to time and the various categories of beneficiaries have to be looked at to see who should benefit and who should not benefit. Deputy Dowling mentioned abuses which have taken place over a number of years. I do not know what the figures are, and I am not going to follow that course. Such figures are more readily available to the Parliamentary Secretary than they are to me. Whether there is a firm foundation for reports of these abuses I do not know, but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, in reviewing the various categories of people getting unemployment benefit, will take this into consideration.
I am wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary is considering any change as regards the people who will be receiving benefit. Is it his intention to revise any schemes? Has he any plans in mind in regard to small farmers' schemes or small farmers' dole? Maybe he has in mind to make it more difficult for people in rural areas to avail of the dole as they are doing today. It might be interesting if he revealed this information before the Mayo by-election. I would like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary now that he has under active consideration the question of putting several people in the west of Ireland outside the dole limit. If this is the idea he has in mind we should know about it now; I do not want to see it coming in in five or six months' time. If he has any such plans in mind in regard to other categories of unemployment benefit recipients, we should know about that now also.
There is a lot of talk about the Minister extending the pay-related scheme. It was when Fianna Fáil were in power that this scheme was first thought about. All the Minister for Social Welfare had to do was to implement our idea. At present the contribution accruing to the Department of Social Welfare is 2 per cent from employers and 1 per cent from employees. I am sorry to say that the Department of Social Welfare did not establish a proper fund for this scheme. This scheme was designed for pay-related benefit only and the funds accruing to it should be kept specifically for that purpose. The Minister for Social Welfare and the Parliamentary Secretary have refused on several occasions to reveal exactly the state of the pay-related fund.
The statement the Deputy has just made is incorrect.
(Dublin Central): Last week Deputy Haughey asked the Parliamentary Secretary what state the funds were in. All the Parliamentary Secretary would say was that they were in a healthy condition. That is not a very positive answer to any Deputy.
I am sure the Deputy would like to give the House and the public the full information.
(Dublin Central): I will give it very shortly.
Deputy Haughey asked that in a supplementary to an original question not about pay-related matters. I, quite correctly, refused to give a figure out of my head and I invited Deputy Haughey or any other Deputy to put down a question and he would get the answer.
(Dublin Central): As I understand it the pay-related scheme was brought into being as a result of negotiations with employers and employees through the Department of Social Welfare. That fund should be separated from other schemes in the Department of Social Welfare. When this scheme was first brought into being the employers were consulted and there were negotiations regarding what percentage contribution should be made. The employers stated they considered 2 per cent too high. The Department undertook to review the scheme from time to time and if they considered it was excessive they would take the matter into consideration. During the nine-month financial year of last year the pay-related scheme had a surplus of £7 million. This year there is every possibility that the scheme will have a surplus of £10 million.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell the workers of this city that 1 per cent of their salaries is being deducted while the fund has an excess in the region of £17 million? Will he tell the employers when they are negotiating the next national wage agreement what is happening the 2 per cent which they are subscribing to this fund? I defy the Parliamentary Secretary to contradict me when I say that this surplus which will amount to £17 million at the end of this year, is being used in other sections of the Department of Social Welfare to shore up other schemes. I would also like the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to contradict me when I say that he has proposals for small farmers in which he intends to make it far more difficult for them to qualify. The huge surplus which is accumulating in the pay related scheme will have to be looked at very seriously. If I were a trade unionist I would have no hesitation in approaching the Minister for Social Welfare and the Parliamentary Secretary to seek a reduction in the contribution.
There is no means test in relation to this 1 per cent which is deducted from the ordinary workers in this city. It does not make any difference whether that man has one child, two children or more. The same amount is deducted from everybody. I would not criticise deducting this sum of money if it was necessary. I am not criticising the pay related scheme because people have to get this money to survive today. I am however criticising the excessive surplus which the Minister is getting and cloaking up the fact that the money is being used for other schemes administered by the Department of Social Welfare.
When the scheme was first introduced the Confederation of Irish Industry got an undertaking from the Minister for Social Welfare at that time that if the contribution was regarded as excessive after 12 months it would be renewed. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have very conveniently overlooked that factor. I have not seen the Parliamentary Secretary or any of his Labour Party colleagues approach the Confederation of Irish Industry and say to them: "You are paying too much. We made a mistake in striking the figure of 3 per cent of the total wages". During the next few months, when wage agreements are being negotiated, the first gesture by the Minister for Social Welfare or the Parliamentary Secretary should be to reduce that contribution. Does the Parliamentary Secretary expect that up to 140,000 people will be unemployed within the next seven months and that this huge surplus will be required? I hope he is not reserving the surplus for that.
A parliamentary question put down about a year ago gave us the figure of £7 million surplus in the fund. That was for a nine-month period so it is now obvious that over a 12-month period there will be a very large excess in the fund. A deduction of 3 per cent out of the wage packet of workers in this city is an astronomical sum to go into the Department of Social Welfare. I believe this contributes to the number of people unemployed today, that it has a bearing on costs and on production and is also one of the reasons we lost our exports. It was a badly thought out plan which resulted in completely overestimating the amount which should be paid into the pay related scheme. This money has been deducted from wage packets over the last 18 months. Never during that period did the Minister or the Department of Social Welfare indicate to the employees or the employers that they considered the contribution too high and that especially during these difficult economic times they would reduce the contribution. Yet they talk about benefits they gave in other sectors of social welfare. This supplementary estimate would probably be much larger if the accountancy system in the Department of Social Welfare were the sort of system I should like to see there with this fund separated from other contributions going into the Department.
I think the Deputy is wandering into a general debate on the Department of Social Welfare and the Chair would draw his attention to standing Order 124 of the revised Rules of the House which says that in the discussion of a Supplementary Estimate the debate shall be confined to the items constituting the same and no discussion may be raised on the original Estimate save and so far as it may be necessary to explain or to illustrate the particular item under discussion.
(Dublin Central): I shall not go into the original Estimate and if I seemed to do so I am sorry but I am dealing with the Supplementary Estimate here.
I have mentioned this matter because it might seem that the Chair was interfering unduly. The Chair is dealing with the debate according to the rules of the House.
(Dublin Central): I am trying to point out that this Supplementary Estimate would not be sufficient to cover the charges made on the Department of Social Welfare if the pay-related benefits I have been speaking about were kept where they should be kept—in a separate account in the Department. I am not going into the whole mechanism of the system but it has a bearing on this particular Supplementary Estimate.
It would be appropriate to a discussion on the Estimate.
(Dublin Central): Before moving away from pay-related benefit I should like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the people who are paying it. Will he say that the fund is only sufficient to cover the pay-related scheme or will he be honest and say that too much has been contributed over the past one-and-a-half or two years and that he intends to review the scheme? If so, it would be a genuine gesture but if he is going to continue to evade the real issue he should refer to the records when this scheme was being initiated and an undertaking that was given at that time that it would be reviewed in respect of contributions. He will find this in his files. This has been brought to my attention by employers who are quite concerned about the contribution and by employees who can ill afford this deduction. I know some of it is necessary. The pay-related scheme is an excellent idea because it bridges the gap between the time a man becomes unemployed and the time he resumes work again. Unfortunately, we are now in a situation when there seems to be very little future for those becoming unemployed. How long can the Parliamentary Secretary continue the pay-related scheme? As the fund stands, I agree that if he wishes he can certainly extend it every three months for a considerable time but we must consider something more positive than giving pay-related benefit to people who are unemployed.
I have met several of these people in the past five or six months, young married men and single men and women. They have told me that the pay-related scheme does not compensate for the loss of a good job. There is no doubt that no matter what you give a man he would prefer to be employed. Nothing is so soul-destroying or demoralising for any man as to get up in the morning and think that during the whole day he has nothing to do but pass the time usually around the house, getting in the way of his wife and family. If the Parliamentary Secretary is under the impression that he has satisfied the wishes of the people who are unemployed in this city and throughout the country, I should like to advise him that he is very far off the mark. If it is an interim arrangement to tide people over difficult time, it is acceptable.
There is no doubt that something more positive will have to be done by the Government generally if we are to get over this very serious situation. These pay-related schemes were initiated and drawn up under the Fianna Fáil Government and they had to be implemented by the present Coalition Government. I think the Government of the day over-estimated the percentage that should be paid. If the Parliamentary Secretary were honest and would agree that the fund has been over-subscribed but that due to economic circumstances they had to allocate it to other sections in the Department, we might excuse him. I doubt very much if he is prepared to say that here. I hope that he will give some indication as to whether the figures I have given as regards the surplus in the pay-related fund are accurate or not. I should like to hear his figures. If they are not in excess of £9 million for the nine months of last year—that figure was given in the House—and if at the end of this year they will not be in excess of £10 million, I would like to be contradicted but I doubt if the Pariamentary Secretary is in a position to contradict me when I suggest that he now has in his Department a sum in the region of £17 million fiddled into other sections of the Department of Social Welfare.
That is something we should consider seriously. We would then see how honest the Parliamentary Secretary is with the people. I have no doubt there is a surplus there. A lot of people were wondering how long pay-related benefit would keep coming but when one looks at the amount of money accruing, 3 per cent, the thing is obvious.
Debate adjourned.