I move:
"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Bill has two main objectives. First, it provides for increases in the various rates of social welfare payments which were announced in the budget. This is in line with the Government's firm commitment to protect the living standards of those who through no fault of their own have no other source of income for their livelihood.
The second objective of the Bill is to give practical effect to the Government's equally firm resolve to stamp out abuses of the social welfare code which was clearly stated in the economic plan published a few months ago. Section 12 provides for substantial increases in the fines which the courts may impose on persons found guilty of this type of fraud and section 13 strengthens the powers of inspectors of my Department. Before coming to the details of the Bill I would like to outline the general policy considerations which are reflected in the main provisions of the Bill.
The Government's social welfare strategy is set out in very specific terms in the plan. A central objective of the strategy is to ensure that, even in the face of scarce resources, social welfare services will continue to be developed by:
—maintaining long term payments at least in line with inflation and short term unemployment and disability payments in line with take home pay;
—channelling income maintenance expenditure to those in need instead of using generalised measures which help both rich and poor alike,
—proper and rigorous enforcement of the social welfare code;
—increasing the efficiency and costeffectiveness of the administration of our social welfare services and
—the abandonment of structures and services which are no longer appropriate to current needs.
I should like to refer to the magnitude of social welfare expenditure. Any policy statement in the social welfare area must, if it is to be realistic, take account of two facts of life. The first is the enormous size of the existing social welfare budget. The second is that the demographic and economic pressures which have driven that budget up dramatically over the past five years will remain with us for the forseeable future. The total number of people and their dependents receiving social welfare payments of various kinds each week, including children's allowances, is now about 1.4 million or 35 per cent of the total population of the country. This year, taking account of the new rates of benefits set out in this Bill, total expenditure on social welfare will amount to over £2¼ billion of which the Exchequer will provide over £1.3 billion. The overall annual spending is equivalent to over £6 million for each day of the year. Expenditure on social welfare is the largest single bloc of all Government expenditures and is now running at some 25 per cent of total gross current expenditure. Social welfare expenditure is also taking an increasing share of the country's output — ten years ago about 10 per cent of GNP was devoted to social welfare but in 1985 it will approach 15 per cent.
I will now deal with constraints on social welfare progress. Even without any expansion of the range of social welfare services or any real improvement in levels of benefit the social welfare budget will continue to grow in real terms in the coming years. About 41 per cent of our total population is in the dependent age groups, that is either under 15 years or over 65 years. We have had also a very high rate of population increase — between 1961 and 1983 the total population increased by about 25 per cent. To the effects of a growing population we must add the high level of unemployment. Taking demographic and other factors together, between 1974 and 1984 the total number of beneficiaries increased by roughly 30 per cent. The overall number is expected to grow by a further 4 per cent over the next three years.
So the scope of the social welfare system has been and will continue to widen and the factors which have led to that widening have also led to a severe reduction in the rate at which additional resources can be made available to the system. Unemployment reduces the number who through the PRSI system help finance the social insurance scheme. Low growth generally in the economy and the need to increase both direct and indirect taxes in order to get the budget deficit under control have all be eliminated the increment of resources from which increased social welfare expenditure could be financed without cutting into living standards. This two-fold impact of the recession has in turn reduced the willingness of taxpayers generally to accept further tax increases in order to fund the social welfare system.
For those reasons Governments must nowadays seek a difficult balance in allocating additional resources to the social welfare system. They must maintain and, where possible, improve the living standards of those hundreds of thousands of households in real and pressing need while ensuring that misuse of the system is tackled effectively and unremittingly to the extent that manpower, technical and law enforcement resources permit. As I said at the beginning, those two elements of a balanced approach to social welfare provision are the main features of the Bill now before this House.
The Bill provides for increases of 6½ per cent in the weekly rates of long term and 6 per cent in the weekly rate of short term payments with effect from the second week of July next. The real value of pensions, benefits and allowances will be maintained until well into 1986 and overall expenditure on social welfare will rise by 9 per cent in 1985 compared to 1984. Since the Government came into office and including the increases in the Bill, short term payments have been increased by 25 per cent compound, long term payments by 28 per cent and the long term unemployed received the highest increase of all, 33 per cent.
In the period mid-1983 to mid-1986 the consumer Price Index is expected to increase by some 20 per cent compound while the increase in net take-home pay is expected to average about 23 per cent. This real improvement in the purchasing power of social welfare recipients has been achieved by the Government in the fact of the most severe budgetary constraints facing any Government during the life-time of the Members of this House.
I should like to refer to selective help for particular groups. The rise in the numbers of the long term unemployed is a cause of major concern. There are now 94,600, including 17,000 smallholders, drawing unemployment assistance and who have been out of work for over 15 months. In response to this, special permanent increases for the long term unemployed were provided in October 1983, an extra 5 per cent, and in July 1984, an extra 1 per cent. Again from July next the long term unemployed will receive a 6.5 per cent increase in their weekly payments compared to 6 per cent for persons who have become unemployed more recently and who may also be entitled to pay-related benefit.
I should mention here that unemployment related expenditure now accounts for 27 per cent of the total budget of the Department of Social Welfare and is the biggest element of overall social welfare expenditure. In 1985 provision has been made for expenditure of £579 million, an increase of 11.5 per cent over 1984 and this takes account of the increased rates of payment, the anticipated increase in numbers of claimants and also the likely impact of the social employment scheme and the alternance scheme.
I now turn to the second main element of the Bill. The Government are determined to ensure that social welfare funds are not misused by a minority at the expense of the vast majority who are in genuine need and of the working population who provide the benefits through PRSI contributions and general taxation. The social welfare system is all about redistribution to the less well off from the better off. If that redistribution is to be effective, leakage from the system to those who are not genuinely entitled to benefit from it must be minimised. There has been quite an amount of recent speculation about the extent of social welfare fraud and in order to inform and reassure the general public I would like to give the House some details of the problem and outline measures which have already been taken to combat abuse and my Department's plans to further tighten up the system.
I should like to deal with the extent of fraud. In 1983 the amount attributed to known fraud was £2.3 million — just over one-eighth of 1 per cent of total expenditure. The figure for 1984 is not yet available but the indications are that it will show an increase. The biggest components of the 1983 figure were—
£m |
Nos. of cases |
|
Unemployment benefit, disability benefit and pay-related benefit |
0.6 |
4,300 |
Unemployment assistance |
0.4 |
1,000 |
Social assistance allowance for unmarried mothers |
0.6 |
500 |
A large amount of potential misuse of the system was directly prevented by the control measures operated by my Department. For example, in 1984 it was estimated that some £6.4 million in unemployment payments was saved as a result of people "signing-off" the unemployed register following special interviewing of claimants by officers of my Department. However, in many cases there was no hard evidence of fraud at the time of the interview, so it is difficult to assess the precise amount which was being drawn unlawfully.
Misuse of the social welfare code is not confined to the recipients of benefits. Abuse also occurs where employers fail to pay or delay in paying social insurance contributions in respect of their employees. The practice of some employers of avoiding or holding off remittances of PRSI for as long as possible is simply not acceptable — arrears outstanding at the 31 May 1984 amounted to some £58 million which represented only actual underpayments established and does not include demands made on the basis of amounts estimated to be due.
Now I deal with types of fraud. On the unemployment side the greatest incidence of cases related to concurrent working and drawing benefit and there was also large numbers detected claiming while they were either unavailable for or incapable of work. Although the scale of fraud on disability benefit is lower, there is disturbing evidence of the involvement of organised criminals. For instance, in Dublin a number of persons using PRSI numbers which were known to them but without the knowledge of the insured person to whom the numbers belonged, submitted false information and medical certificates and disability benefit cheques amounting in total to a large five figure sum were issued to convenience addresses. Due to the combined efforts of staff of my Department and the Garda the fraud was uncovered. So far the Garda have charged nine individuals and their investigations are continuing. There is also evidence of fraudulent claiming in other schemes.
With regard to employers defaulting on PRSI contributions, cases have arisen where considerable arrears of PAYE-PRSI are revealed when a company goes into liquidation with perhaps large debts and very few assets. Fundamental trading difficulties and cash flow problems in the business cannot be solved by abuse of the social security system.
I now come to measures taken to combat abuse. Measures to curb misuse have been taken on two broad fronts. First, changes in the structure of the benefits payable to persons during sickness and unemployment were made in 1983 and last year which have achieved a more realistic relationship between the level of overall benefit and the person's normal take-home pay. A critical examination of the levels of benefit payable had indicated that the previous levels constituted a disincentive to work in a number of cases and in certain circumstances provided opportunities to exploit the social welfare system. The introduction of the family income supplement as a top-up to take-home pay further increased the incentive to work for low-paid workers with families. I am now satisfied that the levels of the short term benefits are not out of line with wages generally and there is little or no scope for further action on this front.
An extensive range of administrative measures have also been brought into force or improved over recent years. These include control measures at local offices to ensure that recipients of unemployment benefit and assistance continue to satisfy the statutory requirement of the schemes have been tightened up. The general cadre of the social welfare officers has been strengthened so as to increase their role in the anti-fraud campaign — there are now 248 officers based at 94 different locations throughout the State.
The size of my Department's special investigation unit has been doubled and there are now 30 officers at 18 centres engaged full-time in the investigation of abuses and irregularities. The main role of the unit is in relation to the abuse of working and "signing-on" and they carry out special investigations in areas where fraud is suspected.
There is the development of much closer liaison between the National Manpower Service and the local offices of my Department. The National Manpower Service are giving priority to the registered employed in filling vacancies. The closer liaison makes it possible to identify persons who are not interested in finding work or who may, in fact, already have a job.
Increased numbers of disability benefit claimants are being referred to my Department's panel of medical referees for a second opinion, to ensure that only those who are genuinely ill are, in fact, paid disability benefit. The recent experience is that in the region of 35 per cent of those called for medical examination do not attend and about 26 per cent of all claimants examined are found to be capable of work. The panel of Medical Referees has been increased by four to 18.
Improved selection procedures have been introduced in the type of cases referred for examination to ensure that the appropriate cases are submitted promptly for examination. Claimants for disability benefit are also visited in their own homes by the Department's sickness visitors who express a lay person's opinion on the claimants inability to work. Doubtful cases are referred to the panel of medical referees. A large number of claimants are absent from home when the sickness visitor calls and these are also normally referred for medical referee examination.
Regulations which require a claimant for disability benefit to notify the Department within seven days of the commencement of incapacity are strictly enforced. This curbs false claims for past periods which would otherwise not be amenable to checking by visits by sickness visitors or second opinions by medical referees.
Securing prosecutions against persons who fraudently claim social welfare payments is a very important feature in my Department's drive against abuses of the schemes. All fraudulent cases coming to light are considered for prosecution where sufficient evidence is available. The Department's powers to prosecute for offences were strengthened and clarified in 1983 following the advice of the Attorney General in relation to certain defects in the existing legislation.
These measures should leave nobody in doubt that effective and reasonable action is being taken by my Department to eliminate unwarranted resourse to social welfare benefits. As regards enforcement of the collection of PRSI contributions, which is now undertaken by the Revenue Commissioners with the PAYE collection, Deputies will be aware that the Minister for Finance has set up a working group to make recommendations to Government for substantial improvements in the enforcement process.
Regarding the role of the public, my Department's work in the control of abuse is, of course, greatly helped by reports of abuse received from members of the public and from various other sources, including employers, the Garda and officials in other Government agencies and in local authorities and health boards. Indeed, I would like to pay a special tribute to the Garda and the other agencies for their co-operation in this regard.
The most effective approach to unemployment is, of course, to provide jobs and the Government's policies and resources are being mobilised to that end. With regard to absenteeism, there is a widespread view, which I share, that the key to tackling absenteeism is through effective management action at the level of the individual firm. In this connection, I would also like to commend the Federated Union of Employers and the Irish Productivity Centre for their initiative in producing booklets for employers on absenteeism control. The Irish Management Institute run a number of courses for managers on the subject of absenteeism and have launched a comprehensive absenteeism control programme for member companies.
I want to refer now to increased efficiency through computerisation. I mentioned earlier on that it is necessary to balance the need for adequate controls with the objective of meeting genuine needs efficiently and effectively. The scale of the activities of the Department of Social Welfare makes that an enormous task. Each week it makes some 1.4 million payments and processes some 25,000 new claims. There has been a huge growth in the workload, due to the effects of the recession at a time when the Government's policy on civil service manning levels has been and continues to be extremely restrictive. However, I am glad to say that the Department's computerisation programme is resulting in significant administrative savings and substantially higher productivity. This was acknowledged in the 1983 Report of the Department of the Public Service which acknowledged that:
Due to computerisation, staff numbers engaged on social welfare system at the time of the report had been contained in the previous decade despite a 40 per cent increase in claim load and additional complexities in the system due to pay-related benefit; overtime was also reduced.
The computerisation of payments systems provides a very powerful capacity to monitor and check expenditure and to provide better and quicker management information. My Department are pressing ahead with further computerisation to the extent that manpower and financial resources permit. This will gradually make more staff available to improve the overall level of service to the public, which has tended to suffer in some respects due to the sheer volume of claims to be dealt with, and to maintain full and effective control procedures. It is also part of our strategy that the social welfare system in the coming years be made as simple as possible — the complexities in the present system do not facilitate efficient administration and often create problems of understanding for our clients. The new child benefit scheme will, I hope, be the first major step along the road to simplification.
The increased productivity which has been achieved in recent years in my Department is a tribute to the staff and management. The cost of administering the social welfare system has been falling in relative terms and this year it is £89 million or 4.07 per cent of total expenditure. Of this the cost of the Department's own staff is less than £37 million or 1.7 per cent of the total expenditure. This compares more than favourably with any private sector organisation doing similar high volume work and I might add that the administration costs of the UK Department of Health and Social Security are around 4.5 per cent of expenditure. By any standards the Department of Social Welfare are providing excellent value for money.
I have described the policy which has shaped the main objectives of this Bill and I will now deal briefly with the detailed provisions. I trust that Deputies will have found the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the Bill helpful in their consideration of this piece of legislation. Deputies will be aware, of course, that there is a Bill currently before the House to provide for equality of treatment as between men and women in matters of social security arising from the EC Directive on this matter. That Bill will be amended to incorporate the new rates of payments being provided in the Bill we are now discussing.
The overall cost of the social insurance and social assistance rate increases being provided in this Bill is £56.9 million. This will come to about £118.4 million in a full year. The extra social insurance expenditure, £33.5 million, falls to be met out of the Social Insurance Fund which will benefit from the yield from the PRSI ceiling increases — about £2 million — and from the £2 million savings arising from the increase in the pay-related benefit floor.
The increases in social insurance and occupational injuries benefits are provided in section 2 of the Bill. A contributory old age pensioner under 80 years of age will receive an additional £3.15 a week, bringing his rate of payment to £51.40 a week. If he is married with a wife under age 66 he will get a total increase of £5.15, bringing the pension to £84.20 a week. A married couple both over pensionable age will get £89.75 compared to £84.25 at present. Higher increases are paid for pensioners over 80 years. Additional payments are also made for persons living alone.
The personal rate of widow's contributory pension is being increased by £2.80 a week to £46-25. Widows over 66 years receive higher payments. A widow with, for example, three dependent children will receive £85.95 a week which is an increase of £5.25. The personal rate of invalidity pension goes up from £42.55 to £45.30 for a person under pensionable age and a married couple with two children will receive £96.65, and increase of £5.90. A person in receipt of disability or unemployment benefit will have a new personal rate of £39.50 a week, an increase of £2.25. Where the recipient is married the increase will be £3.70 a week. Maternity allowance is also being increased to £39.50.
The new rates of social assistance payments are provided in section 3 of the Bill. The maximum personal rate of non-contributory old age pension for a pensioner under 80 years of age goes from £41.30 a week at present to £44.00 a week. It will go up to £47.20 for persons aged 80 or over. The overall maximum payment for a pensioner under 80 with a dependent spouse under 66 will increase by £4.05 to £66.10. The allowance payable in respect of a prescribed relative giving full-time care and attention to an incapacitated pensioner is being raised to £24.60. Widows receiving non-contributory widow's pensions at the present rate of £40.50 will get an increase of £2.65 a week. A widow with two dependent children will get £66.75, an increase of £4.10 a week. Similar increases will apply to deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives.
Those receiving short-duration unemployment assistance in urban areas will get an increase of £1.85 a week in their maximum personal rate. In rural areas the increase will be £1.80 a week. There are also increases in respect of dependents. An applicant in an urban area who has a wife and two dependent children will get an increase of £4.20 a week in the present rate of £69.65. The special rates of unemployment assistance payable to smallholders in certain areas with land under £20 valuation whose means are still assessed by reference to land valuation are being maintained at their existing levels. Deputies will be aware that the system of assessment of means on the basis of land valuation is being phased out.
The rates of unemployment assistance for long-duration recipients of unemployment assistance are higher. For example, a man and wife with two children in an urban area will get £78.75 which is £4.90 more than the corresponding short-duration rate. The maximum rate of supplementary welfare allowance for a married couple goes from £51.70 to £54.80 with additional payments for children.
Section 4 of the Bill provides for adjustment in the income limits up to which family income supplement is payable and for increases in the maximum amounts payable under the scheme. These changes follow from improvements in personal income taxation announced in the Budget Statement and from the increases in the rates of short-term social insurance benefits provided for in the Bill.
The levels of weekly income up to which a supplement is payable will be increased from £95 to £100 for a family with one child and by a further £18 per week for each additional child, up to and including the fifth child. The income levels at which the maximum supplement is payable are also being adjusted, for example, from £63 to £68 per week for a one-child family.
These changes will take effect from 11 July 1985 and will apply to claims made on or after that date. Claims in payment prior to July will receive the benefit of the revised income limits when they reapply in the normal way at the end of 12 months.
Section 5 provides for an increase from £43 to £49 in the earnings disregard, or "floor" for pay-related benefit purposes. This change will affect new claims only from the beginning of April next where entitlement to pay-related benefit is involved.
Since the introduction of the pay-related benefit scheme in April 1974, a proportion of reckonable earnings has always been disregarded in calculating the amount of pay-related benefit payable in addition to disability, unemployment, maternity and injury benefit. In 1974, this disregard or floor was £14, over twice the prevailing rate of flat-rate benefit. The floor was not increased until 1981, even though the level of flat-rate benefit rose significantly in that time.
The latest increase in the floor continues the policy that has applied over the last three years of progressively raising its level. However, if the floor had been maintained at the same level in relation to the flat-rate benefit as it had in April 1974, it would now stand at £79 instead of £49 as is proposed in this Bill.
Section 6 provides that the earnings ceiling for PRSI contribution purposes be raised from £13,000 to £13,800 with effect from 6 April 1985. For the third successive year there is no increase in the actual rates of social insurance contributions. However, there will be a small extra contribution of 0.1 per cent levied on employers, following the establishment of the Redundancy and Employers Insolvency Fund in place of the previous Redundancy Fund. This fund is operated by the Department of Labour.
With regard to the extension of social insurance coverage to certain members of the Labour Court and the Defence Forces sections 7, 8 and 9 make provision for social insurance cover to be extended to members of the Labour Court. Members of the court, including the chairman and deputy chairman, are appointed by the Minister for Labour for a fixed duration of up to five years which may be renewed. Their employment, up to this has been held to be not insurable because it is not employment under a contract of service. Section 7 provides that the employment in question will be added to the existing list of insurable employments.
In general, employment which is not subject to a contract of service is not insurable for the full range of social insurance benefits. The effect of section 8 is to enable the provisions of the Act to be modified by regulations in respect of employment in the Labour Court.
Section 9 is a consequential amendment excluding members of the Labour Court from occupational injuries insurance because they are not employed under a contract of service.
Section 10 provides for the extension of social insurance coverage to commissioned officers employed as doctors and dentists in the Defence Forces. They will be insured on the same basis as their fellow non-medical commissioned officers at the modified Class C contribution rate which provides cover for widows and orphans pensions and deserted wife's benefit. They will not be covered for occupational injuries benefits because members of the Defence Forces in general are specifically excluded from such cover.
I consider that the continued general exclusion of doctors and dentists from social insurance can no longer be justified and this is a matter which I will be putting before the Government in the near future.
Sections 11 and 13 provide for changes in the unemployment assistance scheme. Section 11 of the Bill enables long term unemployed persons who have participated in either the social employment scheme, the enterprise allowance scheme, the alternance scheme or AnCO approved courses for up to one year to resume their entitlement to unemployment assistance at the long term rate of payment and without serving a three day waiting period. At present long term unemployment assistance claimants who resume signing-on after attending AnCO courses of over 20 weeks duration are obliged to serve a three day waiting period as if their claim was a new one. In addition such persons have to revert to the lower rate of assistance because the link with the previous "long-term" claim is technically broken where attendance at a training course lasted for 20 weeks. The effect of the proposed amendment is that periods of up to one year's participation in approved training schemes or social employment schemes will be disregarded in determining whether periods of unemployment can be linked for unemployment assistance purposes.
Section 13 of the Bill provides for the clarification and strengthening of the powers and duties of social welfare officers in relation to the unemployment assistance scheme in particular in the area of combatting abuse. It includes a specific provision governing the investigation of unemployment assistance claims by social welfare officers on similar lines to that which exists at present for social insurance purposes.
Section 12 provides for increased penalties for social welfare offences in line with commitment in paragraph 5.68 of the Government's plan Building on Reality 1985-1987. At present a maximum fine of £500 or 12 months imprisonment, or both, can be imposed on summary conviction of a person found guilty of a prescribed offence in respect of the various social insurance and assistance schemes. In exceptionally serious cases where conviction on indictment is obtained the maximum fine is £2,000 or two years imprisonment, or both. This section will increase the maximum fines to £1,000 and £3,000 respectively.
Section 14 provides that volunteer workers employed in a developing country will not have their occupational injuries benefit entitlement reduced by reference to their earnings from employment abroad. Under existing legislation the amount of occupational injuries benefits are limited by reference to the pre-accident earnings of the insured person. It is proposed that this limitation should not apply in the case of volunteer development workers, who might receive nominal amounts of benefit because of their low earnings from employment abroad.
It is part of Government policy in regard to development co-operation to encourage and facilitate as far as possible the participation of Irish individuals and organisations in the Third World. In this context the various issues involved in protecting the interests of development workers are kept under continuing review.
The lack of social insurance cover for returned workers has been identified as a source of concern to many such workers and the Government have therefore decided that continuity of social insurance cover will be provided for those development workers who are paid pocket money rather than a wage so that they can avail of the relevant social insurance benefits on their return.
Broadly speaking, the volunteer workers fall into two categories: those who have no history of employment before their departure and consequently no social insurance entitlements; those who have an employment history and social insurance entitlements prior to going abroad, but who at present lose those entitlements because they are not entitled to credited contributions while abroad.
Arrangements will be made to safeguard the position of each of those two groups, and consultations are taking place currently with the different bodies who have an interest in the problem. I will shortly be making regulations to deal with this particular issue.
This move has been welcomed as a practical demonstration of the Government's desire to encourage and facilitate as far as possible the participation of Irish individuals in volunteer development work in the Third World.
While on this topic I would also like to mention that a draft EC Recommendation on the Provision of Social Security for Volunteer Development Workers who operate in Third World Countries and are paid wages at a rate similar to local conditions is being urgently discussed. This recommendation proposed that various member states should recognise the achievement of social security cover for volunteer development workers as one of the objectives of their social policy. It sets down the broad principles which member states should aspire to and lays down various ways in which these principles might be implemented. The regulations which I will be making shortly will reflect the principles enshrined in the recommendation.
I would now like to refer to a number of social welfare improvements which do not require legislation, as such. This year's budget saw a number of innovative measures designed to improve the level of service being given on extending existing services to priority groups to the extent that the very limited resources permit. One of these is an important extension of the existing treatment benefit scheme from July next. This scheme at present provides optical, dental and medical and surgical benefits to qualified insured workers. These benefits will be extended from July next to the expectant wives of such workers. In practical terms this means for example, that all basic dental treatment such as examination, fillings, scaling and polishing, extractions and root treatment and, on the optical side, sight tests will be available free of charge.
This extension, will increase the potential catchment of the scheme by up to 30,000 married women per annum. It is a response, albeit a modest one, to the repeated demands which have been made over the years to have the benefits available under the scheme extended to all spouses of qualified insured workers. However, as I said on a number of occasions the cost of such an extension would be prohibitive being of the order of £6¾ million per annum and the Government have, therefore, decided that as pregnant wives can be regarded a priority group to extend the scheme to them initially. I was conscious of the review of the State funded dental services which is in progress at the moment and I was anxious that this review could proceed without major structural changes in the existing schemes.
I have already met the relevant professional bodies with a view to seeking the co-operation of their members in the implementation of the extended scheme. The details of the extension are being worked out at present and will shortly be brought into law by means of amending regulations. As soon as these have been made, appropriate publicity will be arranged.
Proposals for a second EC poverty programme have now been approved by the Council of Ministers and will come into effect in 1985. The programme will run for four years and under the programme Community financial assistance will be provided for action research projects in the poverty field.
Projects selected for the programme would receive financial assistance from Community Funds up to a maximum of 50 per cent of the overall costs (55 per cent in exceptional cases).
To qualify for funding under the programme projects will have to comply with certain criteria set down by the EC Commission relating mainly to evaluation, co-ordination between projects on similar themes and the dissemination of project results. The overall amount of Community funding available for this programme is 25 million ECU of which some 20 million ECU — £14 million approximately — would be available for action-research projects.
Interested organisations and groups have been invited through newspaper advertisements to suggest projects for inclusion in the programme. Applications were to be submitted to the Department before 28 February. Applications will be examined by the interim board of the combat poverty organisation which will advise on the projects to be forwarded to the Commission for inclusion in the programme.
Legislation to establish the new Combat Poverty Agency has now been circulated and will shortly be debated in the Oireachtas. The new agency will be set up as soon as possible after the legislation is passed. A sum of £1 million is provided in 1985 for the anti-poverty programme.
In 1983 and last year £0.5 million was provided for various voluntary organisations who do invaluable work in the social services area. The grants are mainly for once off projects and are payable in addition to any grants made by health boards. This year an increased sum of £650,000 is being made available.
An advertisement has been placed in the national press inviting interested organisations to complete an application form and submit it to the Department before 29 March 1985. The health boards will then be consulted and the grants will be paid to the approved bodies as soon as possible afterwards. Some 103 organisations benefited from grants under this heading in 1984. The following is a cross-section of the type of work which these agencies carry out: day care centres for the old; meals on wheels; services for the physically handicapped; youth club facilities; day care centres for the homeless; help for unmarried mothers.
The value of the fuel vouchers under the national and urban fuel schemes are being increased from next October from £4 to £5 a week. This will benefit some 168,000 people at a cost of £5.9 million in a full year.
Since this Government came into office, three important Social Welfare Bills were brought before this House. Today there are three more separate Social Welfare Bills going through the Houses of the Oireachtas. The proposed child benefit scheme is due to come into operation next year and a framework for a national pension scheme will be published later this year. The improvements and policy developments contained in these Bills and the further measures to come are an indication of the Government's commitment to the progressive improvement of our social security system.
I commend the Bill to the House for favourable consideration.