When the debate was adjourned last evening I was making the point that it was very difficult to know what Fianna Fáil wanted with regard to social welfare. I might add that it was extremely difficult to know what they wanted with regard to most things in the last few years, but I find it baffling to know what precisely they want in the matter of social welfare in particular. The contradictions in their attitude towards this area justify anyone being confused.
During the course of this debate a number of Fianna Fáil speakers said that the increase of 10 per cent is inadequate and that it should be much more. On the other hand we must consider their obstructive opposition in the last three years to the introduction into our taxation code of measures with regard to wealth tax, capital acquisitions tax and other forms of taxation. We must also bear in mind their attitude towards the adjustment in the agreement with the mining companies. Their leading spokesmen have called for cutbacks in expenditure on social welfare; on some occasions the amount involved is £20 million and on other occasions it is as high as £30 million. Yet, they come to this House and claim that the 10 per cent increase provided under the terms of this Bill is not sufficient.
Fianna Fáil claim that monetary payments in the area of social welfare are inadequate. According to some Fianna Fáil Deputies, people in receipt of social welfare are less well off now than they were when Fianna Fáil were in Government.
One can understand any Opposition trying to make a case or pointing out various good things they were responsible for while in government. One can also understand them pointing out any weaknesses in the performance of the Government of the day. That is legitimate and acceptable but total distortion and total resistance to face up to the realities of the situation is not helpful. I do not mean that it is not helpful to the Government; it is not helpful to the Opposition because the public are not fools. Obviously, Fianna Fáil think the people are fools when they make statements to the effect that monetarily speaking people were better off under Fianna Fáil than they are under this Government as far as social welfare payments are concerned.
I have given the facts on many occasions but they do not appear to have penetrated to some of the Fianna Fáil Members. Since 1973 the cost of living has gone up approximately 52 per cent and the payments in social welfare have gone up, on the lowest percentage scale, by 96 per cent and on the upper scale by 120 per cent. Children's allowances have been increased by 360 per cent since this Government took office. They are the facts but a more significant fact and one which shows a true picture is in regard to the shift in emphasis from Fianna Fáil policy in relation to the percentage of our GNP that is now being spent in the area of social welfore. When Fianna Fáil left office the proportion of GNP spent on social welfare by them was 6¼ per cent. The percentage of GNP being spent on social welfare now is 11. That is the true reflection; it is the true yardstick and criterion by which one can judge and compare the commitment in this area of Fianna Fáil and that of this Government. That is redistribution in real terms.
Some Deputies were interested in this matter and showed a knowledge of, and concern for social welfare. I refer to Deputies Callanan, Faulkner and Andrews but, unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the other contributions that came from the Fianna Fáil benches. Deputy Faulkner, in a serious way, thought there was a failure to understand the exact nature of the work of the poverty committee. I do not know why there should be a failure to understand the work these people are engaged in because a booklet issued by them setting out precisely their aims and the progress they hope to achieve was given to every Member. I do not know how successful this committee will be in their work but I have confidence in them. They are engaged in four projects. A lot of preparatory work has gone into these projects at home and through the EEC. Due to Irish initiative in this field 25 projects are being undertaken in the nine member states under the auspices of the EEC.
I can assure Deputies that as far as the director and commitee are concerned they would welcome any interest shown by Members or any approach for information by Members. Like most Deputies, my reaction to poverty is a gut one. I see what it leads to. I see the end result but I am no expert in this field. I have no training in any of the disciplines necessary to evolve proper policies or implement procedures which will help in the eradication of this social evil from our society. However, the members of the poverty committee have great experience in this field. Over the years they stood out as individuals who were concerned and active in the campaign against poverty. They are now supported in their work by a properly trained staff who assist them in undertaking various projects. I have great hope for the work in which they are engaged and I can assure everybody that the committee would welcome any queries and engage in any discussion about this problem.
Deputy Callanan and other Deputies raised the question of the farmer's dole and the assessment of the farmer's dole. I personally think that this step to curtail the payment made under that scheme is one that was long overdue. It was done under the terms of this Bill in a way that will ensure that persons in the farming community who need this kind of financial support will continue to get that support and that persons who are not entitled to that support, by any stretch of the imagination, are debarred under the new method of assessment from getting it.
Deputy Callanan and, indeed, Deputy Martin Finn, who are both rural Deputies from the west of Ireland, said that under the scheme the method of assessment could lead to persons who are not entitled to it getting it in some cases and to persons who would be entitled to it not getting it. That is quite possible. This is the first time since 1966, since the introduction of the scheme, that any adjustment of the method of assessment has been made and it is quite possible that there may be flaws in its administration. This method of assessment, like any other scheme operated by the Department, will be kept under review. What we are determined to do is to ensure that persons who need this kind of help and who by virtue of their needs are entitled to it continue to get it. We are also concerned to ensure that persons who do not need it do not get it.
If there are persons who are affected by the change, if there are small farmers from whom something has been taken because of their valuations under the operation of the scheme there is nothing to debar them from making application for assessment, as happens in the case of any other recipient, and there is provision which will allow the Minister for Social Welfare in conjunction with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to exercise powers which exist under the 1965 Act to enable a factual assessment to be made in these cases. So, there is no danger of any small farmer who feels that he has been unjustly affected by the introduction of this new assessment being left without a remedy.
The number that has been affected is very small—5,000—but 18,000 small farmers are still being paid and not only are they being paid but they will enjoy the increases provided for under the terms of this Bill. In addition to those 18,000, there is a number in the region of 7,000 who qualify under a factual assessment.
A number of Deputies raised the question of the stamping of cards by employers and also the question of general abuses under the social welfare code. I said before and I maintain that the number of abuses, whether it is by employers failing to stamp cards or by persons claiming benefits to which they are not legally entitled, is relatively small and if you take the expenditure of £430 million this year on social welfare the amount of money that goes astray in this way is also relatively small. That does not make abuses any less serious or any more acceptable. I cannot think of any graver form of anti-social behaviour than that engaged in either by employers who refuse to live up to their obligation to stamp cards, in respect of which, incidentally, they have collected the money from the employee, or by persons claiming and getting benefits to which they are not legally entitled. The seriousness of it is more in the resistance that this type of behaviour builds up among the general public to proper progress being made in the field of social welfare and we have a long way to go in this area as yet.
Although the number of persons who engage in this type of activity is relatively small, when an abuse is discovered the media build it up as big as they can. It makes good reading. It is spoken about and built up out of all proportion and a type of resentment and resistance among the general public can be and to some extent has been built up by the highlighting of these isolated cases. That is where I see the dangers of the anti-social behaviour that these persons engage in and within a very short period of time a Bill will be introduced for consideration by the House that will increase very substantially the penalties for persons who engage in this kind of activity and are found by the courts to have engaged in this kind of activity.
