Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1985

Vol. 356 No. 11

Social Welfare Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Before moving the adjournment of the Debate last evening I had made the point that the Government had indulged in a rather sophisticated form of conjuring in the budget. I had been saying that the arithmetic of the budget seems to be extraordinary, especially in respect of the figure arrived at for the average number in receipt of unemployment benefit and assistance — 217,000. I had made the point that this seems incredible. Unless the Government have some magic wand by which they can bring about that sort of situation, it is not credible but the budget offers no solution to the problem. If the Government have a massive remedy to the greatest social evil of our time why are they keeping that remedy a secret?

The Government pride themselves on their credibility, honesty and consistency but their arithmetic does not add up. In the absence of an enormous increase in employment creation, the scenario presented by this Bill is not realistic. I do not believe that the Government have one worthwhile idea to even attempt to bring about such a change. Therefore, one must conclude that they used false figures deliberately to mislead the House. Instead of catering for an average of 217,000 unemployed, the Bill should be catering for upwards of 240,000. In the prevailing circumstances, the higher figure would be much more realistic, honest and effective.

Recently Deputy O'Kennedy asked the Minister for Health and Social Welfare what would be the additional cost to the Exchequer if the number in receipt of social welfare payments were to increase to 230,000. The Minister replied that an extra £31 million would be required in that event. Deputy O'Kennedy then asked what the increased demand would be if the number increased to 235,000 and he was told that an extra £43.5 million would be required and that in the event of the number increasing to 240,000, which is the most likely average for the year, the additional amount required would be £56 million. Given that situation, the Minister and the Government are deliberately concealing an additional £40 million to £50 million expense and burden that will have to be carried by the taxpayer as a direct consequence of Government policies. The conjuring trick is to pretend that matters are much better than they really are. In that way the Government are holding back some of the bitter pills until later. The attitude is, "give them the medicine in doses so that it may be sugar coated". The Minister knows that the figures underpinning this Bill are false, unrealistic and designed deliberately to mislead the House. They render the Bill irrelevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that the figures are false, that the Minister knows that and that the make up of the Bill is designed deliberately to mislead the House. Both of those statements are unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I withdraw the wording but it is intriguing and amazing that the figures being used and which have been confirmed by the Taoiseach have not been withdrawn by the Government. Any reasonable person must agree that the conclusions reached in the budget are extraordinary in the extreme and that eventually they will be seen to make the Bill irrelevant. It is obvious that substantial supplementary estimates will be necessary later in the year, in other words, a mini budget.

If the figures are erroneous as a result of the drawing unwittingly of certain conclusions, the Government must review the arithmetic and decide whether there is a more realistic approach to the overall state of affairs. One very disturbing aspect of this Bill relates to the rates of increases. While speaking on the budget on 6 February last, the Minister for Health and Social Welfare said, as reported at columns 1833 and 1834 of the Official Report:

When this Government came into office they gave a firm commitment, despite the gravity of the recession and its impact on social welfare expenditure, to endeavour to maintain the living standards of all people who depend on social welfare for their needs.

The word "endeavour" should be deleted because everyone knows that the Government gave an unequivocal and unqualified commitment that that situation would obtain. The Minister went on to say:

Thus, this budget has ensured that the living standards of social welfare recipients will not only continue to be protected until mid-1986 but it has also protected the real improvement in their living standards which has been brought about by this Government in office.

When we consider the rates of increase to both short term and long term recipients as provided for in this Bill, we must ask whether the provisions reflect accurately the euphoria expressed by the Minister on 6 February last. I say they do not reflect anything of that sort and should be withdrawn. They can be regarded only as inaccurate and misleading statements.

The increases respectively of 6 and 6½ per cent represent, when annualised for the tax year 1985-86, about 4½ and 4¾ per cent. This is an insult to the most vulnerable and voiceless in the community. The Minister has gone out of his way to juggle the figures and to bring forward compound increases. Both he and the Tánaiste, speaking on the budget, used the term, "compound increases". One can draw a number of conclusions following an exercise with statistics but the conclusions drawn might not correspond directly to the real situation. The Minister says his Party gave a firm commitment to maintain the living standards of our people. I would remind him that that was an unqualified commitment. However, the Minister omitted to say that his party have reneged on that commitment in the past two and a half years. They have broken their word and have let down the underprivileged. They have been unwilling to deal with the indifference of their Coalition partners in this area.

Any reasonable person will admit that a sum of £69.65 unemployment assistance for a husband, wife and two children is totally inadequate to meet their needs. Four people have to be clothed and fed. The children must have money for school expenses and must have bus fares to get to and from school. Two bags of coal will cost £16 per week. Rent to Dublin Corporation under the differential rent scheme will cost between £6 and £7 a week for an income of that kind. ESB bills will cost an average of £10 per week and after all these costs there is very little left to feed and clothe the four people involved. It is quite certain that a family in such circumstances will face the prospect of having the electricity supply disconnected on a number of occasions throughout the year. The percentage increase the Minister is proposing will do nothing meaningful to make up for the shortfall in the means of such a family.

In 1980, 1981 and 1982 social welfare recipients received an increase of 25 per cent per annum from the Fianna Fáil Government. It was a clear recognition that the base in respect of these rates was most inadequate and that it needed to be increased significantly. In the three years in question Fianna Fáil gave a total increase of 75 per cent and it was a reasonable effort to come to grips with the serious problem of poverty. I emphasise again that we are talking about the base and the important point is whether the base is adequate to meet the needs of people. If the base is adequate a small percentage increase will be sufficient to cover increases in the cost of living but when the base is so low and when it has been allowed to diminish even further in the past two and a half years the percentage increase needs to be much greater.

It is an inescapable fact that the increases on offer here are miserly and insulting. They do not take account of the increases in the cost of living in the past year, never mind the severe increases imposed in the budget. Last year was an extremely harsh year for those on social welfare. The miserly increases annualised at about 4½ per cent or 5 per cent and left people in a most unenviable plight. In addition, they had to swallow the bitter pill of the halving of the food subsidies, the increase in electricity prices and the radical diminution in the form and extent of assistance under the supplementary benefit scheme. Yet, members of the Minister's party went around the Dublin constituencies telling people they were the party who could best look after them. Consistently they kept trying to convince themselves and delude others into accepting that the Labour Party were not in any way responsible for the plight of the poor. I have spoken to some of my colleagues in the House and it appears that this was common practice throughout the greater urban area of Dublin. I always understood the Minister was a member of the Labour Party but the party followers who are active in the constituencies do not seem to be too convinced of that fact. On the other hand, perhaps they do not want to be aware of it. Perhaps they are embarrassed at the abysmal performance of their party in Government and are ashamed of and feel let down by the disgusting and insulting increases in social welfare provided for in this Bill and which were also provided for in two previous Bills from the same Minister. Perhaps their only option is to fudge the issue and to try to convince people they are very concerned.

In the past two years this Government have abolished the gains that our party had made in respect of the help we gave to those on unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit, disability pension or old age pension. It is a sorry plight for those who sadly were duped by the very hollow promises of the parties in Government during the election campaign. They were told they would get doses of honesty but these doses may be fatal. On 6 February last the Minister stated in this House in relation to social welfare payments that what they had done there was "an achievement of which I am proud". Has he asked the people on the receiving end of his medicine if they are proud of what he has given them? I am not sure they would agree with his sentiments in that regard.

It was always the practice of previous Governments that social welfare increases were paid out about 1 April each year. However, in 1983 the Government broke from that practice and left all social welfare recipients without the much-needed increase until the beginning of July. The new practice was carried through into 1984 and it will obtain again this year. A delay in payment in these cases is very harsh and cruel and is a stubborn refusal to help the people who are already in poverty to enable them to cope with the additional increases in the cost of living that come directly as a result of any budget. We must not forget that such increases come into effect well in advance of social welfare increases.

We have 10 per cent VAT on footwear for the first time. The 1981 attempt to do this brought down the then Coalition Government and that was certainly right and proper. VAT on clothing has been increased from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. Coal, gas and electricity will be dearer for everyone because of the VAT increase from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. All these additional burdens have to be endured for at least four or five months by people who are already on the poverty line before an extra penny is given to them.

When speaking in this House on 31 January last the only solace the Tánaiste had to offer was the following:

What we have done is to ensure that all such benefits at least match inflation over the period they are intended to cover...

My view is that the Tánaiste was wrong in that statement. It was not accurate or correct. Secondly, he made absolutely no attempt to justify the continued delay in payment of social welfare benefits in successive budgets from this Government and in his speech yesterday the Minister made no attempt to justify it either. Such an attitude can only be regarded as irresponsible from the leader of the Labour Party and the Minister and it is most insensitive to the needs of the poor. The Labour Party always spoke about the most needy in our community but they appear to have betrayed the legitimate aspirations of the voiceless and the defenceless among us. They are anxious to cling to power at the expense of those people.

The net result is that thousands of people will be driven deeper into poverty and debt. It is very easy to push a man further into debt when he is already in debt. It is very easy to push a man further into the muck when he is already in the gutter. The attitude seems to be that if he does not like it down there he can jump aboard the emigrant ship. However, the problem is that many of the poor do not even have that choice. I have spoken to many people in the past 12 months who have informed me of their increasing debt problems, problems that in many instances arose because of grossly inadequate finance to meet the day-to-day running of their homes and to provide for their families. I accept that in cases there is very bad management in the home and that very definitely contributed to it. However, day after day and week after week throughout 1984 stories abounded relating to the curtailment of the supplementary benefit scheme — for example, the alterations in the guidelines for eligibility to assistance for school uniforms, the almost total abolition of assistance to the poor, the unemployed, the widowed and the sick with the payment of ESB bills — yet at the same time the price of fuel was rising substantially. This Government seemed totally incapable or unwilling to do anything about it.

The Minister must be aware of the scenes that obtained in the health centres around Dublin last year. Because of all the difficulties and curtailments and because so many people who were formerly eligible lost eligibility to assistance with school uniforms, renewal of medical cards and so on, there were considerable protests. I do not agree with those protests; I think they were wrong. Anybody who occupies a health centre is not helping the situation. Nevertheless, this showed the extent of hostility and opposition to Government decisions. In many cases while there might have been ringleaders who were not entitled but who were there to cause trouble, this demonstrated to me that there was a very real and serious level of poverty that was not being met.

That is the kind of scenario the Minister must have witnessed because I know a number of deputations went to him from the people in health centres in Dublin North-East, Dublin North-Central and Dublin Central, seeking assurances that some of the directives that had emanated from his Department to the superintendents in the health boards would be withdrawn so that the rigidity being applied to entitlements would be eased. There was very little evidence towards the end of the year that any action had been taken. That is the kind of nightmare the people in poverty and in need had to face and anyone who tries to deny it is flying in the face of reality because the facts are there. All these things appear to have happened primarily because this Minister and his Government introduced massive cutbacks in the funding of social welfare services through the local health boards.

The situation was repeatedly compounded by the constant passing of the buck. There was categorical denial after denial from the Department that there was any responsibility. If it was not emanating from the Department, then the health board officials were very confused. They were being asked to administer this scheme but they were attempting to administer it and meet the guidelines which, under their calculations, appeared to be totally inadequate. Despite all the attempts the Minister has made over the last six to nine months to explain that situation away, he certainly has not succeeded and he should try again because there is a great deal of confusion about this.

If the Minister and his party in Government were seriously concerned about the plight of the poor and the extent of poverty so obvious to anybody prepared to look at the situation fairly, honestly and openly, then they would throw out the miserly, cruel and unfair increases proposed in this Bill. It is quite obvious that the Labour Party no longer have any feelings or care for those most dependent on caring Governments. It seems they have no longer any stomach to take on the right wing policies of Fine Gael and bring a semblance of decency and concern to what has been a two year nightmare of Government and is likely to be even harsher and more insensitive in the days ahead in 1985.

To me there is no justification for the postponement or delay in the payment of increases to social welfare recipients. The Minister will have an opportunity at 6.40 p.m. today to address this matter comprehensively. I will be very anxious to listen to what he has to say and then judge for myself whether he is genuinely attempting to justify something for which there does not appear to be any justification. He is the person who made the decision, so perhaps he will have something more to say about it.

If a budget brings in provisions that cause increases in the cost of living, directly or indirectly, and if some of these increases are brought on board immediately, then the necessary measures should be taken to cater for those people who are unemployed, sick, or aged and those on low incomes who cannot benefit from the other provisions in the budget. I am referring now to a statement made by the Taoiseach when speaking on the budget. He was telling us how different categories could make up for increases in deductions in their wages. He pointed out that there were various mechanisms in the budget which would enable people to offset one thing against another. When I asked him what mechanisms were there for the social welfare recipients to enable them to offset these increases immediately or within a reasonable period, he had no response to make.

In my view it is most unjust and very harsh to leave these people six months suffering the hardships of budgetary decisions before the Social Welfare Bill makes provision to give them a miserly increase. There is no defence for such a policy and the fact that it is being put into operation for the third successive year is a terrible indictment of any Government. I call on them to change this provision. I appeal to the Minister to pay these increases on 1 April, as happened in the past. This is only fair to social welfare recipients because budgets are usually brought into the House at the end of January or the beginning of February and it is not unreasonable to suggest that consideration should be given to paying the increases to social welfare recipients almost immediately after the budget. As I said earlier, there are always provisions in the budget which cause a reaction outside and which cause an immediate, although sometimes only slight, increase in the cost of goods and services. To enable the poor to meet these increases it is only common decency that we, as legislators, provide for them as soon as possible.

The more one examines the record of this Government the more one is intrigued by their attitude to social policy concerning children and the family. In the Social Welfare Bill, 1983, absolutely no increase was given in children's allowances. Later that year both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste floated views regarding the means testing or taxing of these allowances. Such statements left many people aghast at the time, but some concluded that rash statements of this kind did not necessarily reflect intent or policy for the future. Although 1984 saw a 7 per cent increase in children's allowances, it was deferred until August and therefore took effect for only eight months of the year. It amounted therefore to 14p per child per week over the full year. That is miserly, derisory and insulting.

The 1985 Social Welfare Bill makes no reference to children's allowances. Again our children are forgotten. This Government never fail to amaze me. They talk long into the night about the need for the stay at home wife to have an income — they were going to champion that cause — yet they show a total lack of sensitivity to the fact that the children's allowance is the only income many women get directly into their own hands and over which they have control. Anybody proposing to diminish this income potential for the housewife certainly has not equity in mind, indeed certainly has not fairness to the housewife in mind. It is obvious to most people that this Government propose to abolish the system of children's allowances at the earliest possible opportunity. They would have done it this year if they thought they would get away with it, but they realised the backlash would be too severe. This form of income for the stay at home housewife has been chopped drastically over the past couple of years, having been reduced by nearly 30 per cent in real terms since the time of the last Fianna Fáil Government.

In the previous couple of years Fianna Fáil had significantly increased the allowance to bring it more into line with Europe. They recognised that substantial increases were necessary, but all advances made in this area have been abolished by this Government. In 1982 the rate was £11.25 per child per month. The present Minister, who was then an Opposition Deputy, said that the rate should be £11.25 per week and not £11.25 per month. The Minister's actions in this Bill show an extraordinary inconsistency. It says a lot for conviction, honesty and credibility. It defies reasoning that the Minister, having issued such a definitive statement in 1982, should now as a result of Government policy refuse to grant the slightest increase. It does not make sense. I am convinced that this Government are anti-family. They must realise how important the children's allowance is to the housewife. The Government's pronouncements about care for the housewife and the family are shown to be just posturings. Indeed, where is the voice of the Minister for Women's Affairs? She should be here championing this cause.

A few weeks ago on the Finance Bill I said that this Government will never be believed again. Coming up to the election of November 1982 they made promise after promise and said that we were inconsistent, lacked credibility and care and concern for people. All they have offered to the public over the past two and a half years in Government is derision, cynicism and insult. They are offering total indifference to the most underprivileged and the most needy in our community. If the Government were serious about keeping family provisions in line with inflation the children's allowance would be in excess of £15.50 and not at the rate of £12.05. That is an enormous difference for people who are trying to eke out a meagre existence. It must be clear to the public that his type of problem falls on deaf ears as far as the Government are concerned.

Unemployment is a very serious problem and the trauma for people affected is very great as is the trauma arising from sickness and inability to work. People who lose their jobs take it as a life shattering blow. They find it extremely difficult to cope with it. People who are sick for long periods become depressed. Despite the fact that most people like a holiday, 90 to 95 per cent of these people are anxious to work although they are often derided as people who do not want to work. These people find idleness boring, depressing and demoralising. Their problems are compounded by the Department of Social Welfare. The assessment of means and the processing of claims for unemployment assistance generally takes anything from two to four months. I have come across cases where the process took more than six months. When a person comes off the unemployment benefit scheme he has to apply for supplementary welfare assistance to the health board. It is great that that scheme is there to cater for the interim period but the period of waiting for a decision and the issuing of payments has been increasing noticably in recent months. This is very inconvenient and embarrassing for the applicant. Such long delays should not be tolerated and the Minister should take steps to ensure that all cases are processed within a matter of weeks and not months and that assessment for supplementary welfare assistance takes place well in advance of the termination of unemployment benefit so that the transition can be smooth and efficient. This is the very least that people can expect. Many of these people have contributed social welfare payments for up to 20 or 30 years and when they find themselves unemployed — in many instances for the first time — they are treated as if they did not matter. People attending my clinics have complained about being left in a limbo for months. Not alone are there delays in the payment of unemployment benefit but it takes up to six months to decide on appeals whether they relate to termination of sickness benefit or the imposition of penalties on recipients. I do not disagree with the imposition of penalties on recipients who abuse the system. I am heartened by the Minister's statement that he will undertake to curb the abuses and I am glad that he has taken up the comprehensive provisions introduced by Deputy Woods in dealing with abuses when he was Minister. Nonetheless the delays of up to six months in the payment of increases under the social welfare code are not acceptable. I appeal again to the Minister to look at the rate of increases being offered and I would ask him to look at the delays in payments. They are unjust and cruel. Neither I nor my party could stand over these delays. The Minister should bring the payments forward to 1 April or earlier. Perhaps these alternations are not possible for administrative reasons but a decision could be made and people could get the payments retrospectively.

Mr. Yates

I welcome this Bill, which is the budget for the needy. I welcome the general increases of 6 per cent and 6½ per cent respectively for short and long term benefits.

At present we have a social welfare commission. The role of Deputies in outlining difficulties in the social welfare code is totally underrated and underutilised. We do not need a commission when Deputies have a first hand knowledge of the social welfare code.

The difference between the long term and the short term rates of payment must be discussed. Unemployment assistance, supplementary welfare assistance, DPMA and all the means tested allowances need to be looked at. A half a percentage differential between the two rates is not correct. Hardship is arising where the assistance rates are applied and in future years I would like to see as much as a 2 per cent differential between the assistance increases and the benefit increases.

In relation to administration in the Department of Social Welfare, I have often been criticised as being a Deputy who tables a huge number of written questions. I will withdraw all of those questions if I get a similar service, accountable within a given period from the Department. That service is not there. The administration in the Department needs severe monitoring. Invariably constituents who come to me have written and telephoned the Department without response. In terms of consumer satisfaction, the Department does not rank highly with the other State Departments. While there has been an improvement, the nature of the work the Department do is extremely urgent and officials in the Department often do not realise that. The Minister should set up some monitoring committee in relation to the operation of the Department.

To get unemployment assistance one must satisfy three criteria. One must be capable of work, available for work and one must be means tested. Somewhere something has gone radically wrong. Self-employed people such as fisherman, painters, and gardeners get seasonal work in the summer, but when it comes to the winter they are assessed for what they earned in the summer even though the money is spent. I had a case recently of a married man with seven children being granted £17 a week and on appeal there was no change. There will be such cases because of the 12 month assessment, which is unfair. Small farmers do not have to be available for work. They have their land set. There is a set figure submitted. Factually, everything is in order but their figures are not accepted in the means test. There is something radically wrong. There is a lack of uniformity and there are severe delays between the social welfare officer's report and the chief appeals officer in the Department. There should be a standardisation of the means testing for unemployment assistance cases. Similarly with young people in terms of the assessment of board and lodging in relation to unemployment assistance, it seems to be arbitrary and discriminatory with total lack of uniformity, and the Minister should look at it so that real hardship cases can be met.

There are three long term measures I should like to see initiated. First is the retirement age for pensions. At the moment it is 65 years, 66 years for non-contributory cases. I think a study should be carried out in an effort to reduce the age to 60 years. On a labour market study I understand that on a once off basis this would create 10,000 jobs. I should like to know what the cost would be. If it would not be cost effective on the pensions side, would it be possible to treat retirement pensions for recipients between the ages of 60 and 65 years in such a way as to increase their net total pension so that it would be more attractive for them to retire early?

Another reform I should like to see is in relation to PRSI. Employers at present pay 12.1 per cent. The average cost of employers' PRSI contributions could be 10 per cent of the operating surplus of most companies, that is, their profits. However, in labour intensive industries such as construction and tourism employers' PRSI can be as high as 40 per cent of their operating surplus. This means that the more people employed the more PRSI the employer pays. In straightforward terms this is a tax on employment because the more you employ the more you pay. It is not consistent with all the incentives and inducements for the creation of employment. I should like to see a radical reform of the PRSI system. It should be combined with PAYE but without confining the total cost of PRSI to employees. I should like to see the implementation of the recommendation of the Commission on Taxation of a 5 per cent social security tax across the board. PRSI should not be operated in its present form, which is a tax on employment.

Casual work is in need of immediate attention through the employment exchanges. To all intents and purposes they are unemployment exchanges. There is no co-operation with the National Manpower Service, the Youth Employment Agency or AnCO so that the exchanges would be enabled to give employment. The exchanges are purely dole offices. As well as the nixers, there is the problem of employers like farmers and small businesses who want to give temporary work over two or three weeks. They cannot do it because if they take on somebody who is on unemployment assistance they stamp his card, they pay him his money and when the work has been finished and the person goes to reclaim unemployment assistance he is sent for a means test and it will be five or six weeks before money will become available again. This is not consistent with the inducements to create employment in our system. Such people refuse such work but they do it as a nixer. An employer should be able to go along to an exchange and ask to be given a person to do a temporary job.

The exchange could even pay the person's wages and recoup them later. There must be some such way to deal with casual work because the red tape attached to casual employment is so difficult that it sends people to do nixers. No increases in penalties and fines will solve the problem. The State agencies must operate such a system through the employment exchanges.

There are many anomolies in the social welfare code which I should like to refer to. It is totally unfair that widows of under 66 years should be treated differently from those who are more than 66 years. Widows with young families are more in need than those older than 66, yet all the fringe benefits, free electricity, free travel, free telephone rental and so on are given to widows who are older than 66 years. Another glaring anomaly is deserted wifes' allowances and benefits. One of the conditions is that the wife be deserted — if she deserts, if she is battered and beaten and has to leave, she will be refused an allowance. She must sit and suffer and wait. The only circumstances in which she will get an allowance is if the husband leaves her. I ask the Minister to ensure that there would be a one word change in the clause so that both deserted and deserting wives would be allowed such payments. I have come across some appalling cases of women who have had to leave their husbands because of drink related problems and gone into caravans with three or four children. They are in need of rehousing because the husbands will not give up the houses.

Another anomaly is the free telephone rental. I know a person who is in a wheelchair, permanently incapacitated, but he has been refused a telephone allowance because his wife lives with him — he is expected to manage on his own. Everybody in the house must either be sick or be younger than 18 years. How farcical could a scheme be? A small minor amendment would change this anomalous position.

UK retirement pensioners get the free telephone rental but UK invalidity pensioners do not. Here invalidity pensioners get it. I should like to see invalidity pensioners from Britain enjoying the same benefits if they live here. Another glaring unfairness is the way the code treats children who have left school or who are about to. Take a person who leaves school between the ages of 15 and 18 years. Those children cannot get unemployment assistance until they are more than 18 years. If those people cannot get work there is no benefit for them. People who are slow learners or persons who do the leaving certificate after the age of 18 years have the dependant's allowance or the children's allowance cut off at the age of 18 years. Families whose only source of income is social welfare have to put these children out to school or go begging to the health board for a few pounds. Therefore, we have two anomalies under the social welfare code in those who leave school too early and those who leave it too late. I ask the Minister to address himself to this area which was referred to the Costello report on youth affairs. Young people in these circumstances should get a £15 per week allowance.

I want to refer to the unfair position regarding free fuel. A married couple over 66 years of age with an income of £63.05 a week non-contributory old age pension, or £84.25 per week contributory old age pension qualify for free fuel but a similar couple who are under 66 years of age on unemployment assistance whose income is at least £10 less at £54.70 a week do not qualify for free fuel. There is no justice in such a system. I tell the Minister that for future years I welcome the increase in the free fuel allowance from £3 to £4 and I ask that unemployment assistance cases would qualify for free fuel. They are the recipients of a very low social welfare income and if they are depending on the discretion of superintendent community welfare officers they will not get much satisfaction. Will a court case some months ago whereby someone on unemployment assistance got free fuel have an effect on next year's operation of the scheme?

There is no reciprocal arrangement between Northern Ireland and the Republic for free travel. It is farcical that people travelling on a Dublin-Belfast train with a free travel pass must stop at Dundalk and then pay for the rest of the journey, and vice versa. Surely we could come to some arrangement with our neighbours rather than retain this partitionist mentality.

Another area of difficulty in the social welfare code is that of the self-employed. Only after 156 weeks compulsory employee-type PRSI employment can a person who becomes self-employed make voluntary PRSI contributions. Any self-employed person — a taxi driver is a good example — can be involved in a car accident or become ill, and then how are his family to manage? He has no recourse to social welfare because he is self-employed. The self-employed have families to keep and we are trying to encourage people to set up small businesses and become self-employed through the enterprise allowance scheme. Surely it is only reasonable that this Minister would introduce some form of voluntary PRSI for the self-employed. At present all they are entitled to under social welfare are pensions, widows and orphans pension, deserted wife's allowance and death benefit if they have paid the maximum PRSI. Disability benefit should be covered for them. These people are prepared to pay the full employer and employee rates.

In the present climate of redundancies there is a great advent of worker cooperatives and people setting up on their own. When Clover Meats in County Wexford went to the wall six men in middle management set up Drover Meats, a new enterprise. They signed for six weeks. They were not entitled to a penny from the State because the enterprise allowance scheme operates on the basis of 13 weeks on the live register and they could not claim two days a week social welfare. They will make no money until the business has been in operation for 18 months. People trying to set up small businesses should be entitled to claim on a two-day week basis officially and not at the goodwill of some social welfare officer, and the enterprise allowance scheme criterion should be changed from 13 to six weeks.

I turn now to the area of geriatric care and the operation of the prescribed relative's allowance clause. At the moment the prescribed relative's allowance payment stands at £23.10 and nobody else under the social welfare code receives such a low payment. Here we are talking about daughters or nieces, very often single, who gave up their jobs in order to look after elderly people. What is the alternative? State geriatric care can cost anything from £200 to £400 a week, and the State gives £23.10 to the woman who undertakes to mind her grandmother or her mother or her aunt. If these women did anything else they would get at least £31 a week. Surely the State has it both ways here. I would like to see a radical review of the prescribed relative's allowance system. The clause relating to who lives with the incapacitated pensioner should be revised. At the moment the only person who can live with the incapacitated pensioner to be eligible for the prescribed relative's allowance is the prescribed relative, unless the relative has children under 18 years of age. Also I would like to see the rate increased. The State benefits by major saving here when people are kept out of geriatric hospitals and tended in their homes and in the community on a family basis.

I turn to a number of areas of operational difficulty in the Department where there is a pervading atmosphere of meanness and lack of sympathy and attention to certain urgent cases. Take the availability for work clause for unemployment benefit for married women. I refer especially to the young married woman who was working before she married and now has one child. She goes back to work and then finds herself unemployed. The Department of Social Welfare consider that such women are not available for work because they are minding their young children. The women claim for benefit, are refused and appeal and sometimes their appeal is refused. They are not advised that they can go to the National Manpower Service to be registered, get their mother-in-law to write in saying that she will look after the child, go to three employers who can certify that this person has sought work which is not available, and if they do all that they will qualify for the allowance. A sympathetic person operating an employment exchange might well give a married mother such advice, whereas in another area such women would not receive that advice and the benefit would be refused to them. With every such refusal a circular should issue to women who are refused on the ground of availability for work advising them of their right to supply proof and evidence of their availability for work to the Department.

The second area of operational difficulty is disability benefit and the capability for work clause. Some people who have been on disability benefit for five or six years on monthly certificates are being referred to medical referees. They have appointments with them but barely get a word in edgeways. The medical referees tend to be slightly abrupt. The people are notified that they have been cut off although the state of their health has not changed. What are the implications? First of all, the Department are saying that the person's GP is a liar and has stated that the person is sick when he is not, which is unreasonable. Secondly, the Department are saying that although the referee met a person on 1 February they will not be notified until 9 February and in between times the person can sing for his money. The medical referee does not have the guts to tell the person on the day he meets them that they will be cut off from that day. There are major operational difficulties in relation to this and gross miscarriages of justice. Some GPs would be prepared to verify, on oath if necessary, that their patients are unable to work. When it comes to rectifying the position what happens? The Department say that before a person can go to an appeals officer he must go to a second medical referee. In every case I have had any dealing with, the second medical referee backs up the decision of the first medical referee because they are both Department doctors. People then have to obtain supplementary welfare assistance. Their certificates go backwards and forwards.

I should like the Minister to call in the medical referees and tell them that although there may be people who are abusing the system there are others, particularly those over 55 years, who will never work again. The Minister should ensure that in all future cases where a medical referee meets a recipient of disability benefit he should be informed that day whether he will continue to be given payment.

The vast majority of community welfare officers and superintendent community welfare officers are fine, decent, reasonable people who are to be complimented because they do a very difficult job. However, the amount of money involved means that these people are very powerful. They have almost a total discretionary say over who is entitled to supplementary welfare assistance and, in relation to appeal cases, for the free fuel scheme. They have a very big say in relation to medical card entitlement and rent assistance in the form of supplementary welfare. In every district there are community welfare officers who have money to give out or not give out according to their opinion. I have come across cases where there is a puzzling lack of standardisation between one community welfare officer and another. In some cases there are very reasonable and generous community welfare officers and in other cases one would not get anything from them. These people are making arbitrary decisions on what are subjective matters. There are injustices. Will applicants have any comeback through the Ombudsman in this regard?

The Minister should appoint one officer from his Department per health board so that if a person had a grievance they could have an oral right of appeal. The reasons why a community welfare officer refused an applicant should be furnished to that applicant. It is merely stated now that a person's means has been assessed as being over the limit. No reason is given such as "you are doing a bit of hairdressing on the side" or "you have money coming from your son-in-law". It would be a great help to applicants if the reasons were stated.

There are differences between community welfare officers in the same county and between different counties in the same health board area. There are also major differences between the health boards. This is not fair and needs to be checked. The Minister should step in and regulate this.

I welcome the reforms made by the Minister including the family income supplement, the enterprise allowance scheme, the social employment scheme and the optical and dental benefit payment to pregnant women through their spouses' insurance. I look forward to the child benefit scheme and the report of the social welfare commission. If the officers in the Department took up some of the points made in this debate which is, in effect, a budget for the needy and addressed themselves to introducing cost-effective minor measures that would remove inequities and anomalies, regardless of the overall rate of increase in social welfare benefits the image of the social welfare system would be greatly improved. The greatest irritant among people is not necessarily that they are refused benefit but the fact that Mrs. Murphy down the road, who is much better off, received it. We must address ourselves to rectifying that.

I support the Bill and draw the Minister's attention to those kinds of reforms.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would remind the House that, in accordance with an order of the House made this morning, the Chair must call on the Minister to conclude the Second Stage debate on this Bill at 6.40 p.m. this evening. As Deputies know, there is a sos of one hour and after that there is Question Time. The Chair has now been informed of the names of 21 Deputies who are anxious to speak. The Chair has no power or authority to curtail speeches but would ask Deputies to bear in mind what he has said so that there would be a reasonable opportunity afforded to those who want to speak.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I compliment Deputy Yates on a very constructive contribution to this debate. The Minister told us yesterday that the purpose of the Bill was to give effect to the increases which had previously been announced and to stamp out abuses. There is an obligation on the Government to ensure that social welfare recipients receive sufficient money to obtain an adequate standard of living. The Government have failed miserably in this. The social services are particularly vulnerable at a time of cutback and recession. This year, the Government failed completely to live up to the promises they made before and since they came to office. When introducing the Social Welfare Bill in 1983 the Minister told us he recognised the difficulties social welfare recipients had and, as reported at column 2091 of the Official Report of 9 March, 1983 he said:

However, I can assure Members of the House that as soon as circumstances permit, hopefully by next year's budget, it is my firm intention to secure further real improvements in social welfare payments.

At that time the Minister was giving increases of between 10 and 12 per cent to long term and short term social welfare recipients. Last year there was no improvement in the real income of social welfare recipients when the Government granted an increase of only 7 per cent. This year we are down to 6 and 6½ per cent for short term and long term recipients. That will not compensate such people for the increase in the cost of living, the removal of food subsidies, which hit them hard, and increases in VAT. Indeed, a 6 per cent increase over nine months represents an annual increase of 4½ per cent. Those payments will not become effective until July. The Government two years ago changed the date of payment of increases from the beginning of April to the beginning of July and this year it will be a fortnight later, 11 July.

The Minister told us that there was an increase for short term recipients of 25 per cent over the last three years since the Coalition took office. That must be compared with an increase of 25 per cent each year in the last three years when Fianna Fáil were in office. That is an indication of the difference in attitude to the less well off in our society, the elderly, the disabled and those unemployed, between the Coalition and Fianna Fáil. Yesterday the Minister said:

This real improvement in the purchasing power of social welfare recipients has been achieved by the Government in the face of the most severe budgetary constraints facing any Government during the life-time of the Members of the House.

If one examines that statement critically one will see that it does not stand up because an increase of 4½ per cent does not represent any real improvement over nine months. That increase will not improve the lot of anybody depending on social welfare payments. In the term of the Coalition Government from 1973 to 1977 when Deputy Cluskey was Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Department of Social Welfare a claim like that was not made. I suggest that the Minister confer with Deputy Cluskey and ask him if he believes the Government are living up to their responsibility in catering for the needs of those who depend on social welfare payments.

We must remember that there are 234,000 people unemployed at present, an increase of 18,000 on last year's figure and 48,000 more than when the Government took office. We must remember that 70,000 of those people are under 25 years of age and that we have the highest percentage of unemployed in any EC country. The Government's discredited document Building on Reality stated that the average number unemployed would be 217,000 over the next three years. However, within a couple of months of the document being produced we were up to 234,000. The allocation in the Estimates for Social Welfare this year only allowed for 217,000 unemployed but we must cater for a figure that is 17,000 higher than that. There are just less than 100,000 people who are long term unemployed, more than 15 months in receipt of unemployment assistance.

A couple living in rural Ireland with two children will receive an increase of £4.10p per week giving them a total of £72.25p. When one takes into consideration the increases in VAT, the removal of the food subsidy and the other increases one is prompted to ask how the Minister expects such people to survive on that amount. We must also consider the increase in the cost of fuel. For the first time since the national fuel scheme was introduced the Government have inserted a new paragraph in the circular sent to health boards to exclude those on unemployment assistance and disability benefit from that scheme. Formerly community welfare officers and health boards had a discretion in the matter but the Government have decided that persons on long term unemployment assistance cannot under any circumstances receive free fuel vouchers and the discretion has been taken from health boards.

In my constituency I discussed the matter with a person on long term unemployment assistance. He told me that they have mince meat twice a week and can afford only one bag of coal per week. That lasted them three days during the winter and for the remainder of the week they did not have a fire. That man has to support a wife and four children. Their bad circumstances are a direct result of Government policies. Their shortage of fuel is as a result of the Government excluding certain categories from the national fuel scheme.

We were told the family income supplement would be introduced in November last. It was backdated to September because of pressure as a result of the removal of food subsidies. However, that supplement does not do anything for the unemployed, the self-employed or any social welfare recipients, irrespective of their income. They did not benefit from the decision to backdate the supplement to September 1984. We have been told that a lot of new schemes will be introduced to alleviate unemployment, for instance, the social employment scheme which will cost almost £30 million. I tabled a question to the Minister for Labour on Tuesday, 12 March last, No. 707, asking if a person who is unemployed and was not allowed unemployment assistance would qualify for the social employment scheme. I wanted to know if a person living at home on a farm or in a shop and excluded from unemployment assistance would benefit from the new scheme if they were unemployed for 12 or 18 months. I was told that they would not be permitted to participate in that scheme. Another interesting fact emerged in the reply to my question. The Minister stated:

In deciding the conditions for eligibility, the Government were also influenced by the consideration that almost two-thirds of the gross cost of the scheme will come back to the Exchequer through savings in unemployment payments and additional tax revenue.

We were not given that information when we were told that the Government would be spending £30 million on this scheme. If the name of the scheme, a social employment scheme, means anything surely it should be available to all who are unemployed. If there is a condition that a person must be unemployed for 12 months then so be it, but the scheme should apply to everybody who is unemployed. It is wrong that a person who is not signing on the register or in receipt of unemployment assistance cannot benefit from that scheme. The position of a person who decided not to go to the labour exchange or to put a drain on the Exchequer is that they are excluded from participation in the scheme. If the word "social" is to be used in the name of any scheme there should be a social element in it and it should apply to everybody who is unemployed.

Deputy Yates referred to the assessment of married woman for unemployment assistance. While I do not object to a social welfare officer asking anybody, man or woman, who will mind the children while they are at work, I believe he should accept the answer given if it is reasonable. That applies in particular to married women. If a married woman tells a social welfare officer that her mother, or mother-in-law, or neighbour will mind the children, the officer should accept that and the person should not be turned down, having provided evidence that somebody is available to look after the children.

There has been no increase in children's allowances for the current year, which is not surprising. One of the features of the Government's social policy is discrimination against children. This is their third budget and only last year there was an increase of 7 per cent. There is nothing this year, no double allowance for child dependants at autumn or Christmas, as the former Government had given. The VAT increases will be particularly hard on parents buying clothes for their children. There is also removal of food subsidies and the imposition of charges for schools buses. In the application of the family income supplement there has been no increase for families with more than five children and it is the larger families which are the poorest in our society.

Section 6 of the Bill increases the ceiling for payment of PRSI from £13,000 to £13,800. There is an increase in the rate of payment by employers. That also happened last year. All these are an increase in tax for both employer and worker. While the Minister can boast at not having increased the rate of payment for the employee, nevertheless he has increased the rate of contribution that the employee will have to make. It does not matter to the worker whether it is an increase in the rate of payment or in the ceiling for payment. The whole thrust of Government policy should be to ensure that the employer will not have to pay more by way of taxation now than formerly, because of the number of employers going out of business, many because of the Government's taxation policies.

Section 5 increases by £6 the amount of earnings disregarded in calculating pay related benefits. Since this Government came into office the figure has gone up from £32 to £49 this year, an increase of £17. If you take account of the fact that the waiting time for payment of pay-related benefits was increased from two to three weeks two years ago, and the rate reduced from 40 per cent to 25 per cent, that creates much hardship for persons particularly those fathers of large families who suddenly become ill. These people find themselves in hospital at a time when they are most vulnerable. Their incomes are cut down to a level which makes them incapable of meeting their commitments.

The Minister announced that he was giving £650,000 to voluntary organisations, an increase from the £500,000 in previous years and we welcome that increase. However, that figure is not sufficiently high. We have the Department of Social Welfare running a system and the health boards running their system and voluntary organisations being called upon more and more to provide essential services that the Government are failing to provide for those in need. The Minister acknowledged that, when he listed the various services which voluntary organisations provide, particularly for the elderly in day care centres, meals on wheels, services for the handicapped, youth club facilities, day care centres for the homeless and help for unmarried mothers. These are some of the services provided by the voluntary organisations.

Voluntary organisations are being called on more and more to come to the rescue of families in difficulties, particularly those depending on social welfare payments. As a result of the curtailment and reduction of the rate of social welfare payments, their real standard of living has dropped for these people and they are dependent on the voluntary organisations. One has only to ask any local authority about the number of defaulters on repayments, people who have suddenly become unemployed through no fault of their own and are unable to meet their commitments. In my county there are now 500 defaulters in repayment of loans to Monaghan County Council. The Eastern Health Board paid £20 million in supplementary allowances last year and paid the ESB £1 million. That is a further indication of the failure of the Government to provide adequate and proper social welfare benefits and assistance for those in need.

On the administration of the services, it appears that those dependent on social welfare are more vulnerable in times of recession and cutbacks. Has any instruction gone out to the various agencies telling them to curtail the services? I should like an explanation of why the national free fuel scheme in various areas can vary. Cavan-Monaghan has a community care area with above 17,000 recipients of free fuel and Kerry, with a similar community, has 6,500 recipients. In Monaghan, the number in receipt of free fuel vouchers dropped by over 100 in the last two years. That is extraordinary in a time of recession and there must be some explanation.

The number of recipients of social welfare allowances in County Cavan has dropped from 94 two years ago to 55 in 1983, the last year for which figures were available. This is well the lowest number of any county. There must be some reason for this. The Government must examine the whole administration of these services. People should not have to go to the Ombudsman to find out the reason for being turned down for what they believe to be their right.

What particularly concerns me is that a quarter of the Minister's statement yesterday was devoted to abuse of the social welfare services. While I would very strongly condemn abuse and think that the people responsible should be severely dealt with, I am more concerned at present with service rather than control. The Minister, in effect, has told us that he is building more controls into the system. I welcome section 12 which will increase the fines for abuse but it is not control that we need now it is service. Why does it take 17 weeks to process a claim for unemployment assistance, 21 weeks on average to process ones for the deserted wife's allowance and 18 weeks for a widow's pension? These are the questions to which we should be addressing ourselves. We should ensure that people have their applications and claims dealt with expeditiously. When that is looked after, then one can build in a mechanism of control to ensure that there will be no abuse. I am all for the high fines and the other elements in the Social Welfare Bill to deal with abuses. I am afraid that building in controls at this time will make it take longer to process applications and unfortunate people will be left with no income and nothing to survive on.

It is interesting that the Minister told us yesterday that an amount of £2.3 million was involved in fraudulent claims last year. One must compare that with the scare figure given by the Taoiseach in Tullamore in November 1982, just before the last general election. He gave approximately £70 million as the figure for abuse. The Minister's figure is much more realistic.

In view of the increase in the number of applications for social welfare assistance as a result of the recession, has there been an increase in staff in the Department to administer the various schemes, or have all the increases been in the area of combating fraud? The Minister said:

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...

It is all right to improve the computerisation programme, but if we still have these long delays in processing claims something is very seriously wrong. Does the embargo on appointments to the Public Service apply to the Department of Social Welfare? The family income supplement was announced with a great fanfare of trumpets and eventually it came into operation last September. We were told on a number of occasions by the Minister and the Minister for Finance that 35,000 people would benefit from that scheme. Only about 10,000 applied for it; 3,000 people benefited from it; 3,000 people were refused; and almost 4,000 applications are still waiting to be processed.

The scheme does not apply to the worst off sections of the community: the unemployed, long term recipients of social welfare, the self-employed in business, and small farmers, irrespective of their income. Handicapped persons in receipt of a disabled person's maintenance allowance receive a free travel pass but they are not allowed to bring an adult with them. A mentally handicapped person who may not be able to travel alone has a free travel pass. A mother with a widow's pension cannot afford to pay for travelling and she is not allowed to travel free with her handicapped child, so the free travel pass is not of much use. I ask the Minister to see if something can be done about that.

At the moment elderly people living alone in remote areas are being terrorised. We should pay tribute to the Leader of our party for his enlightened approach to social welfare when he was Minister. I refer in particular to the introduction of the free telephone rental system. That has been of tremendous value and benefit to elderly people living alone who are fortunate enough to have a telephone. It is a great source of comfort to them. If they are attacked or abused in any way they can use the telephone and get help immediately. I ask the Minister to look at this scheme particularly in view of the problems elderly people living alone are facing in rural Ireland and to see if the scheme can be extended to enable us to do justice to those people and to look after their needs.

Fianna Fáil were responsible for the most enlightened social legislation in this State, such as the free television licence. It is interesting that the BBC are suggesting to the British Government that they should follow the Irish example and give free television licences to those in receipt of social welfare assistance or benefit. All these schemes, such as the free electricity supply, were enlightened innovations. It is disappointing that after three years in office we have not had any enlightened social welfare legislation from this Government.

The Bill to set up a combat poverty organisation was circulated recently. I do not see the need for the Bill. If the Government ask the people they will soon learn what the needs are. Any Member of this House who holds clinics can tell them. I agree with Deputy Yates that Members of this House are in a position to inform the Minister and the Government what the real problems are. Unfortunately the pleas of Deputies are largely ignored. When will we see the equality legislation? It was supposed to be implemented by 19 December but it still has not been debated in this House.

The financing of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is causing serious problems. This issue was raised here time and again. I raised it year after year. I do not understand why there cannot be a direct transfer of funding from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Social Welfare to take account of the obligations of local authorities. The Western Health Board have started to sue the local authorities for money. All this is a waste of resources, involving the high cost of litigation. Something should be done to help the local authorities who have not got the money to meet their obligations in this context.

I welcome the extension of dental and optical treatment to the wives of insured workers in so far as it goes. I am very disappointed that it does not go all the way and give wives of all insured workers these benefits. One cannot accept statistics from the Government having regard to what they said about the family income supplement.

Very few women will avail of the dental service. The woman has to be pregnant and presumbly that has to be proved. That will take time. Dental treatment is recommended for three months only in the nine month period of pregnancy. I cannot see that this scheme will be of any great benefit to women. If it takes anything like the length of time it takes to process other applications, the pregnancy will be long since over by the time the application is approved. In introducing the scheme the Minister should have allowed all women to participate.

I agree with Deputy Yates about the difficulty in processing claims for a deserted wife's allowance. A more flexible approach should be adopted. Recently a woman received a letter from a firm of solicitors in Australia saying that her husband was going to court for a divorce and asking her to reply. That letter went to the Department of Social Welfare but it was not accepted as evidence that she was a deserted wife. She was turned down, on what basis I do not know. This is an indication of inflexibility in the system.

The Minister said that section 10 provides for the extension of social insurance coverage to doctors and dentists in the Defence Forces. He said:

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.

Perhaps the Minister would explain what doctors and dentists he is referring to — presumably the doctors and dentists in the Defence Forces. Presumably also that has already been agreed by the Government or it would not appear in this Bill. But I should very much like to know what doctors and dentists he now intends including in social insurance.

The first thing this Government need to do is to decide what way the country and the economy are going. I accepted what the Minister told us yesterday in the course of his remarks from which I might quote:

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 but eliminated the increment of resources from which increased social welfare expenditure could be financed without cutting into living standards.

Then I read an article in yesterday's The Irish Times by their political correspondent, Dick Walsh, under the heading “Putting nation back on tracks — Taoiseach”, when we were told and I quote:

The Taoiseach was in a buoyant mood. He had already spoken, at a function in Dublin, of a quickening in the pulse of economic activity, forecasting an expansion in business, an increase in investment and a pick up in employment this year.

Then there were schemes listed he thought would be of benefit, such as the enterprise allowance, the family income supplement and the social employment schemes. It appears that the Taoiseach and the Minister are at variance on what is the situation in our economy. Anybody who is out and about, any economist, or indeed any Member of this House would have to agree that the Minister was right and the Taoiseach wrong, that the low growth generally in our economy is as a result of the Government's policy. Everybody might not agree with that but everybody would agree that our economy is not beginning to pick up and that we do encounter these difficulties. This is relevant to social policy because it is when the economy is going well that there is not the same need, particularly for social assistance schemes. It must be remembered that we have a very high population encompassing a high number of dependants which places an enormous strain on any social welfare system. We also have the highest percentage of unemployment in Europe. The Minister admitted yesterday that the most effective approach to unemployment is through the provision of jobs and that the Government's policies and resources were being mobilised to that end. We do not see any sign of that and perhaps the Minister would elaborate somewhat in that regard when replying.

If we are to deal with the problems confronting us the first thing we must ensure is that we have a sound economy and we must create employment. I believe this Government went in the wrong direction altogether since assuming office, believing that if they got their books and figures right everything else would fall into line. Even the Taoiseach himself admitted that the policies he was pursuing were diametrically opposed to those necessary for the creation of employment. The tragedy is that after two and a half years the books are still not right. The Government are now borrowing more than was ever done in the history of the State and they have allowed for a deficit of £200 million more this year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A passing reference only is in order.

Dr. O'Hanlon

It is very relevant because it would not be constructive for us to come in here, be critical of the Minister's Bill and of the Government's social policy if we did not examine how the situation might be corrected and how we would deal with it were we in Government. I should say that the first thing we would do is create jobs. When we were in office and there was much criticism from the other side of the House about our borrowing — when we were not borrowing as much as the Government are now doing — there were jobs available. It is important to make that point.

Another interesting statistic is this, that the decision of the Government to borrow in dollars, to leave our partners in the EMS when they wanted to borrow, has cost the country £1,000 million.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not relevant to this debate. Perhaps the Deputy would return to the Bill before the House. He is now dwelling on budgetary matters.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I accept that to go into a detailed debate on that matter would not be relevant. The point I want to make is that the Minister did tell us in his opening remarks yesterday that the Government were providing £1.3 billion towards the cost of the social welfare services, the rest emanating from the Social Insurance Fund built up by all those who contribute to it. Out of those £1.3 billion — had the Government not borrowed in dollars — £1 million could have been found.

In 1983 one Member on the Government side of the House found it necessary to vote against the Social Welfare Bill. I agree with him that it was necessary. It is even more necessary now when one sees that there were increases of 10 per cent and 12 per cent two years ago whereas the present increase is 6 per cent only. On this occasion perhaps more Members might feel obliged, in the interests of the less well-off, to vote with the Opposition against this Bill.

The real tragedy is that the social policy of this Government has done nothing for the nation or for those dependent on social welfare for their existence. Rather has it brought massive unemployment, social deprivation and been a major contributor to the unprecedented level of crime and lawlessness now obtaining.

Mr. Durkan

In response to Deputy O'Hanlon's calls to Members on this side of the House to vote against this Bill I should say we shall have to disappoint him thereby ensuring, in the interests of all our people, that nobody on this side of the House votes against this Bill in order to safeguard the standard of living. We should thereby guarantee that the less well-off receive the kind of compassion and consideration to which they have become accustomed under this Government.

I listened at length to Deputy McCarthy's contribution last evening. I must say that he must not have been around when his party were in office because many of the things he attributed to the present, as he contended, uncaring and unfeeling Government were very much in evidence during the term of office of the previous Government. Indeed many of the hardships to which he referred where attributable directly to decisions taken by that Government, many without any regard to their effect on people at that time.

I welcome this Bill in that, as was the case with last year's Bill, it attempts to provide some semblance of a reasonable standard of living for the less well-off at a very difficult time. It is very easy, when people call for cuts in public expenditure, to select areas where there are people dependent on forces outside their control to provide for themselves and their families. It would be very easy at such times for Governments to refuse to respond to the needs of such people, allowing their positions to be eroded with consequent hardship. That has not been the case during the term of office of this Government. In times of great financial stringency this Government have succeeded in ensuring that the less well-off, generally those dependent on social welfare, receive a reasonable crack of the whip, are allowed some semblance of dignity and the ability to provide for themselves and their families' basic requirements.

Many people do not readily recognise the extent of expenditure in this area. It is worth mentioning, as did the Minister in the course of his remarks, that total expenditure this year will be in the region of £2¼ billion, £1.3 billion of which is provided by the State. As always needs to be mentioned, the State does not have a crock of gold somewhere with which to provide such benefits. The State has to get the money from the taxpayer or by borrowing. It is well known that, in the past, borrowing took place to provide for these services. In a society which has become highly impersonal, it is important that the rights of people who are dependent on social welfare are upheld and that they receive the benefits necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of living. The same figure relates to an expenditure of £6 million for each day of the year, 25 per cent of total gross current expenditure or 15 per cent of GNP at present compared with approximately 10 per cent of GNP 10 years ago. Those figures are not snatched out of the air, they were presented by the Minister yesterday and such massive expenditure is an indication of the Government's awareness of the trauma of those who are unemployed, perhaps with a large family of dependants, and those on disability benefit or other forms of social welfare.

From July this year there will be increases to the extent of 6½ per cent in the weekly rates of long term payments and 6 per cent in the weekly rates of short term payments. Taking into account present rates of inflation, this is an indication that the Government are keenly aware of the need to maintain the standard of living of people in those categories.

The Minister devoted a considerable length of his speech to the area of abuses of the social welfare system to which I have referred on numerous occasions in the past. There are many types of abuse and the Minister categorised the number of cases for 1983. He said:

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
Old age non contributory pension	0.3	270
Social assistance allowance for unmarried mothers	0.6	500

Some cases are fairly easy to investigate. For instance, a social welfare officer can pick out cases of disability, disablement or sick benefits and have the person assessed as being fit for work in the opinion of a lay person. However, it does not always follow that the lay person's opinion is correct and indeed in many cases it can be incorrect. Great hardship can ensure when benefits or assistance are cut off for several weeks although I know such persons can apply for a supplementary allowance.

Cases not easy to investigate are those where the person is on unemployment benefit and assistance and also working on a full time basis. I have reservations as to the full extent of the abuses of unemployment assistance outlined in the Minister's speech. I believe that the figure of 1,000 cases does not reflect the true picture of abuse in that area. These are not my views, they are those of many people who visit me at my weekly clinics. They can tell me of people who are known to be working while drawing unemployment assistance.

The danger of allowing such a situation to continue is that other people will also be encouraged into the black economy. People ask me why should they operate within the system and pay all the penalties involved while others can operate quite well outside the system but are able to draw unemployment assistance. They have the best of both worlds as they do not pay tax in either system. From the number of representations I have had from constituents in that regard, I am convinced that the abuse is of a much larger scale than has been determined. I do not advocate a witchhunt but it would be to the benefit of the Exchequer and to the morale of people who work and pay their taxes if a little more could be done to curtail that type of abuse. While there are abuses, there are also a great number of genuine cases in which benefits have been withdrawn and much hardship caused. It is easy to categorise these cases as they can be reviewed from time to time. This does not happen in the case of a person who is working; they must be caught working and there is a much bigger problem than people realise.

The Minister also said that claimants for disability benefit are visited in their own homes by the Department's sickness visitor who expresses a lay person's opinion on the claimant's inability to work. He also said that doubtful cases are referred to a panel of medical referees and that a large number of claimants are absent from home when the sickness visitor calls. If a visitor called on some of the other cases I mentioned there would also be a fair degree of absenteeism from home. The lay person's opinion may be a little vague and, although I do not doubt the sincerity of the lay person concerned, the effect of their decisions at times can be traumatic.

There are terrible delays in the processing of cases which have been referred to medical referees and they can often go on for as long as six months. Time is wasted, families are subjected to hardship and further efforts should be made to streamline the system.

A problem that has been brought to my attention repeatedly by constituents in the past couple of years relates to supplementary welfare payments and it arises from the fact that in this area we are dealing constantly with a new type of applicant, people who ordinarily would not consider it right for them in conscience to seek social welfare assistance and who only resort to supplementary benefit as a last resort. In many cases a considerable amount of hardship occurs and there is a great deal of anguish before the people have sufficient courage to approach social welfare officers in an effort to obtain assistance. One would not need to be a mathematician to assess a person's needs. There are always people to abuse the system, who make it their business to do so, but in the case of the average person an officer should be able within a short time of his investigation, to determine an applicant's means and outgoings and to reach a decision on that basis. The need for greater recourse to supplementary benefit arises from the recession. Many people who up to a few years ago enjoyed a reasonably high standard of living then found themselves in the poverty trap because of the changed economic circumstances which resulted in their experiencing difficulty meeting their mortgage commitments and so on while they were almost on fixed incomes. Those are the people who have had the greatest difficulty in the changed situation and we should be very compassionate in dealing with them. We are not talking about isolated cases but about cases that are increasing in number. We can only hope that the recession will ease within a short time because that is the only way in which the burden can be lifted from those people.

In the meantime I urge that supplementary benefit investigating officers and community care teams show as much compassion as possible in dealing with these types of cases. They should bear in mind the necessity for allowing the individual to preserve some semblance of personal dignity. That is a very important factor in so far as these applicants are concerned. In many cases they have little but their pride to cling to. Everything possible should be done to ensure that these cases are examined favourably and compassionately rather than by way of a cold and callous assessment which is sometimes the case. It may be that in some cases officers are over-worked and that this can affect their attitude towards applicants but we must ensure that this will not happen in the future.

The Bill attempts to provide some service to the less well off and the Government are proposing to provide this service with the minimum of borrowing and with the least possible increases in taxation generally. That is a great achievement.

Proinsias De Rossa

The problem about having to wait for more than two hours to speak is that one's contribution tends then to be longer than was intended originally.

First, it must be said, not merely about this Bill but about the whole matter of Government policy, that there is a long overdue need for a major review of our social policy and social services. Therefore, I welcomed the establishment of the commission on the social welfare system. The Minister has not indicated when he expects the commission to report but I trust they will report fairly soon.

The system has developed in a very haphazard and piecemeal fashion. There is no evidence of any coherent strategy or of any kind of underlying progressive philosophy in the present system. There is no serious attempt at integrated economic and social planning in the State and there has not been any planned development of our social services. Bits and pieces have been added at various times. The Fianna Fáil spokesman reminded us that in the past Deputy Haughey introduced fairly useful improvements in the social welfare area. By and large that is true but there has been no attempt to reexamine our whole approach to social welfare, to examine who should be entitled to social welfare payments and so on.

The Minister spent a considerable time talking about abuses of the existing system. We deplore such abuses but I find it difficult to condemn some individuals who are forced to abuse the system as a result of the poverty trap in which they find themselves. There is a marked difference between the urgency with which the Government are tackling abuses in the social welfare system and the virtual lack of progress they are making in tackling the matter of tax evasion and in assessing those who should be paying tax. Almost two years ago, 90,000 additional farmers were brought into the tax net but so far as I am aware none of those has been assessed for tax at this stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A passing reference to tax is in order.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am merely referring to tax by way of indicating the difference in priority that the Government would appear to apply in relation to their correct insistence that abuses of the social welfare system should be reduced while failing at the same time to pursue tax evaders in any effective way. There are about 120 posts of tax inspectors unfilled in the Revenue Commissioners.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a long passing reference.

Proinsias De Rossa

Despite this there is an increase in the number of inspectors investigating social welfare abuses. I am not saying that the number of inspectors in that regard should not be increased but it does not make sense to talk of the need to raise money by way of taxation and by borrowing to provide social services while leaving virtually untouched the area of tax evasion, with the exception of the few cosmetic steps that have been taken. As a result of the recession the system has become strained and is at breakdown point in some areas. The recession has aggravated the weaknesses that exist in the social welfare system. It appears that every time a hole in the scheme is patched up another hole appears. It is long past time that we got a report from the commission on the social welfare system. I hope that in his response to the debate today the Minister will indicate when we can expect the report from the commission and I hope he will tell us when he expects to start implementing any of the recommendations they may make.

In general it is accepted that the purpose of social welfare is to provide income and other forms of support for people at a time of need, particularly for those who cannot support themselves adequately. That can be because they are too young, too old, are sick or are involved in education and, therefore, are not in a position to take up paid employment or, as is the case of the vast majority of social welfare dependents, are unable to get paid employment because of the nature of the economic system we have on this island. Our system provides some relief in cases of extreme poverty but it appears to be fairly inefficient in that it does not always reach those who need help. I have a number of specific cases I shall come to later. What the system does not do — and in reality I suppose we could not expect it to do — is to tackle the causes of poverty. That is why I mentioned earlier there is a desperate need to co-ordinate our approaches in developing the economy, in the creation of jobs and our approach to social welfare.

It is strange that the system even in its present form comes under most strain at times of economic recession when most people need to avail of it. It is also strange that at such times we hear the loudest cries for cutbacks in the area of spending. It indicates a view that only those who are totally incapable of work or of earning a living because of physical disability are entitled to assistance. That comes through to some extent in the Minister's speech where he indicated that when an inspector calls to a home to see a person on disability benefit and where that person is found not to be at home the matter is then referred to a medical officer. The assumption is that in order to be eligible for disability benefit a person must be so sick that he must be confined to home. Clearly that is not the case in the vast majority of applicants for disability benefit because a person's disability or sickness refers to his inability to carry out the functions of his job and they could be anything. For instance, a person with influenza or who develops a fear of heights obviously could not carry out his job if it meant he had to climb a 40 foot tower. That does not mean he has to be confined to the house to qualify for benefit and I am somewhat concerned at the implications of what the Minister said in relation to that aspect of disability benefit.

The Bill deals mainly with the increase in social welfare benefits of 6 per cent and 6½ per cent. It is argued this will keep people in line with inflation. I do not know if that will be the case. It could be that by the end of this year inflation may be more than 6½ per cent but apart from that point there is also the underlying assumption that all we need to do in relation to social welfare recipients is to keep them in line with inflation, that the levels of income they have are quite sufficient to maintain them in a reasonable style of living and give them a reasonable form of existence. I know, and I am sure many Deputies know, that there are literally tens of thousands of people in receipt of social welfare benefits who are leading lives of quiet desperation — perhaps some not so quiet, but most of them are leading lives of quiet desperation. They do not know from one day to the next how they will feed themselves and pay their bills and, if they have a family, how they will find food, clothing and school books for their children.

In his contribution Deputy Mac Giolla mentioned a particular case and I am sure this could be multiplied by thousands. He told us of a 36 year old man, the eldest of his family, single, living with his parents and who was getting £12 per week. It is astonishing that one hears people calling for cuts in social welfare and claiming that people are getting more on social welfare than they would earn if working when there are cases such as this, where a man is stripped of dignity and pride. He is a quiet, decent man, 36 years of age and living at home and he is getting £12 per week because he is living at home. If he were living in a flat he would get the full amount of unemployment assistance which is approximately £32 or £33 and even that level of income for a single man having to pay rent in the Dublin area would be grossly inadequate. To expect a man of 36 years, 46 years or 56 years to live on £12 a week is a crime against his dignity. It is a crime against the thousands who are in that position because they are living at home or getting a pittance from social welfare. Then we wonder why they attempt to abuse the system, go wild or get involved in vandalism. It does not make sense for us to ignore this kind of real poverty. Poverty is not just a question of having enough money to buy food or pay the rent; it means having a sufficient income to lead a decent life that could give you the opportunity to savour the leisure facilities that are available. That is a point I would like the Minister to address himself to. The annual increases of 6 per cent, 7 per cent or 10 per cent, are not tackling that kind of basic injustice in the present system.

There was a call by the Minister, Deputy J. Bruton, in the middle of last year for further cutbacks in Government spending. At that time I asked him through a public statement if he would be willing to move to Ballymun and live there on £80 a week rearing two or four children. I wanted him to see that it is impossible to live on the money available. Of course the Minister did not respond but as a result of that call The Irish Press sent a reporter to Ballymun to interview a husband, wife and four children who were getting the princely sum of £80 per week — under this Bill that will be increased to £85 per week. I could not live on that money with any dignity nor could anybody else in this House. The article which appeared in The Irish Press on 7 September 1984 was the result of that interview.

I would like to quote a couple of exerpts from that interview under the headline "How to rear a family on £80 a week". Of the 30 families in her immediate area the lady interviewed said that only five had anybody working. Her family did not have anybody working although two of them had left school and, extraordinary to relate, one was attending university. It is an indication of the tenacity and strength of character of people who have to survive on this kind of money that, in the odd case, they can get one of their children into university. She said her husband was laid off four years ago and the family slid down the scale from pay-related benefit to the flat rate unemployment benefit and then on to unemployment assistance.

During the same period her children had grown up and one by one they left the eligibility bracket for children's allowances. Only one of her four children is eligible for children's allowance, £12 a month plus £80 a week unemployment assistance. The article goes on to say that the family are not a troubled family, they are not a despairing family but have a lot going for them and through their own initiative and at great odds their eldest son was studying science at UCD. At that time he was away in London working in a pizza parlour trying to earn money for next year's books. As the lady said, she could not expect him to contribute because he needed what he earned to buy his books and things. His mother could think of no other university student from Ballymun, although there may be others but she was not aware of any in that area. She said that most of the young people left school early but her eldest son was determined to go further.

The article goes on to say that the prospects were not so cheery for the next two in the Callaghan family, one 17 year old and one 16 year old waiting for places on AnCO courses. One of them did the intermediate certificate and a pre-employment course but the problem is there is no employment around. The weekly income of £80 for two adults, three teenagers and one nine year old takes more than the average amount of stretching to make ends meet. "It's a subsistence budget," according to the article, "with no room for manoeuvre. No flexibility for clothes, furniture, visits to the family on the other side of town, toys, books, a night out on the town, a holiday, a Christmas feast." They have a diet of eggs, chips, beans, mince, stew, burgers or sausages. They used to get a joint on Sunday but now they get a chicken or chicken pieces and Mrs. Callaghan makes a casserole. That is an example of the kind of stretching which hundreds and thousands of families across the country have to do week in and week out, day in and day out. In this Bill we are offering them an increase of 6 per cent to 6½ per cent on top of what is already way below a reasonable level of income for even a half decent existence.

We have this fiction of these increases being announced on budget day, around the end of January, yet in this case they do not come in until the second week of July. Last year it was the first week in July, the year before it was some time in June and presumably next year it will be the end of July or even early August. This is a clever bit of book juggling but it does not help the people in this situation to make ends meet.

We have an announced 5 per cent increase in the family income supplement. When this was first introduced it was to be an incentive for people in low income jobs to stay in work and when it was decided in the middle of last year to do away with half of the food subsidies, we were told the family income supplement would assist those in need to overcome the loss of those subsidies. The Minister's figures indicate that, excluding those in receipt of children's allowances and no other social welfare benefit, there are at least one million people dependent as their major income on social welfare.

The family income supplement was never intended to cater for more than 35,000 people who were already in work, not people on social welfare benefit. A tiny proportion of those who were expected to apply have not done so for a variety of reasons, part of which is the very poor level of benefit being offered. Most people who might be entitled to it are unaware of their entitlement and in many cases people are unaware of the scheme. This 5 per cent increase in the family income supplement is not a substitute for a proper level of income and for ensuring that there is a statutory minimum wage for workers. When the scheme was introduced I suggested to the Minister that application forms should be sent to people in certain income categories. The kind of information the Minister would require to do that is available from the Revenue Commissioners. This scheme is for people at work. They all have tax-free allowance certificates and the Revenue Commissioners know the income of every PAYE worker. There is no reason why the Minister could not use the computerised files available to the Revenue Commissioners to send application forms to people on low incomes. In that way the Minister would ensure that people entitled to this family income supplement would at least have the opportunity to apply for it. This is what was done when the property tax forms were being issued in order to ensure that the people entitled to pay it would be notified, although there has not been great success in collecting that tax.

The Minister spent a lot of time talking about fraud and abuse. I oppose abuses of the social welfare system but the Minister's efforts here are in stark contrast to the efforts being made to collect unpaid taxes. At the end of May last the Minister for Finance supplied a figure of £677 million remaining on the commissioners' books in unpaid taxes. It has been argued that all of this may not be due to be paid because of over assessments, appeals and so on but there are still tens of millions of pounds due in unpaid taxes and there is no evidence that the Government are seriously trying to collect that money. About 90,000 farmers were taken into the tax net but have not been assessed for taxes. Many of them may not be due to pay tax but the Revenue Commissioners should be enabled to ensure that everyone in the tax net is properly assessed, and to ensure that tax owed is collected. The sum involved in social welfare frauds for 1983 was £2.3 million. It is a tiny sum compared to the outstanding taxes. There are other areas of abuse to which the Minister neglected to refer. I refer to the abuse of people, who through no fault of their own, must apply for social welfare benefits. There appears to be a marked reluctance on the part of the officials in the Department at various levels to advise people of their entitlements. Many Deputies encounter people who have been refused unemployment assistance but who are not told they are entitled to appeal, are not told how to appeal or advised as to what is required for a successful appeal. Deputy Yates has referred to this in his contribution.

There are other cases where errors are made by the Department in the calculation of benefits. I know of two recent cases where presumably because I put down a Dáil question about it, errors were found and rectified. In one case the error amounted to over £800 due to the person from August last. If the person had not appealed it and just accepted the Department's decision he would have been at the loss of that money. This person pursued the case and when he could not get anywhere with the officials, he came to me and I put a question down and subsequently it was found that an error had been made. There must be many like cases. It would be interesting if the Minister could give an estimate of the amount of money which is not taken up by people entitled to it. That is also an area of abuse in the system. It is not a deliberate abuse but an abuse which arises from the failure of the Department to provide adequate information and advice to people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not wish to restrict Deputy De Rossa's contribution but I would remind him that 18 other Members are offering to speak and the debate is to conclude at 6.40 p.m.

Proinsias De Rossa

I put down some questions to the Minister recently to get a breakdown of the number of women who were being refused unemployment assistance, the number who were appealing refusals, and the number who were successful in their appeals. I was told that the Department do not have those statistics and that it was not possible to provide them. From the number of cases I get there appears to be a policy of refusing unemployment assistance to women, particularly if they have children, on the grounds that they are not available for work. These women are not being advised as to how they can appeal that refusal. I had a case of a young woman who went to the labour exchange to get her unemployment assistance but because she had her daughter's child with her, her unemployment assistance was discontinued and she had to go through the process of appealing, waiting months and going on to supplementary welfare allowance in order to re-establish her right to unemployment assistance. There must be a bit of honesty in the Department in relation to this matter. If the Minister does not have the statistics in relation to how women are being treated under the social welfare system it is time the Department set about providing the statistics. I understand that most of the Department's work is done by computer, so it should be easy enough to provide the statistics necessary to ensure that certain sectors of the population are not being discriminated against on the basis of sex, age or otherwise. It is a technical thing to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. I do not think it is very widespread but it may become a growing problem.

A woman with two children, married, came to Ireland and established here a new relationship, but after some time her common law husband here died leaving her with four children. She was unable to get a widow's pension—her first husband is still alive in Britain; she cannot get a deserted wife's allowance or an unmarried mother's allowance for the two children by the common law husband because she was married. She has been unable to get orphans' allowance because she is still looking after the children. Her entire social welfare income is £55 per week. There may be only a few hundred such people, or there may be some thousands, but it would not be a great number and there is an urgent need to look at the social welfare code to ensure that such people will not be left in extreme poverty.

The posting of cheques for disability and long term unemployment payments needs to be dealt with. In Dublin 11, postal workers were attacked by young thugs who stole the social welfare cheques, and the postal workers have refused to deliver such cheques until the Department ensure that the cheques cannot be cashed except by those to whom they are made payable. I hope the Minister will explain what the position is later.

The way young disabled persons are treated needs to be looked at and the Minister some time ago promised to review the position. A young person living at home up to the age of 16 will be given an allowance but once he turns 16 and is at school the allowance is stopped. This is particularly bad because most such young disabled persons need their independence and their pride. An effort should be made to ensure that disabled young people can continue their education and still get assistance from either the Department of Health or the Department of Social Welfare.

Deputy Tunney referred several times in recent weeks to a young married couple. They got married last year and because the wife is working the DPMA has been withdrawn. This is a disgrace and the Minister should look at it with urgency with a view to finding a way around it.

Reference has been made to the double weeks benefit at Christmas. Last year certain categories were paid a double week but those on unemployment benefit or assistance or those on supplementary welfare allowances were not included. They are the people in most need, at least as badly off as pensioners.

The Minister is part of a Coalition who have not been doing anything far-reaching in regard to the structure of the economy. For that reason, presumably, there will not be any more money for those on social welfare. I urge the Government to deal urgently with tax evasion. In that way they might get some additional funds. It must be remembered that for every person who abuses the social welfare code, particularly in relation to unemployment assistance or disability allowances, there must be an employer somewhere who is agreeing with or forcing that situation on that person because that employer refuses to pay the full rate of wages. I should like the Minister to indicate the steps the Department are taking to ensure that employers who are collaborating in the abuse of the system will be stopped and brought to justice.

Mr. Carey

The Minister for Social Welfare deserves the support of the entire House for his efforts to help the needy, the handicapped, the unemployed, who make up the 35 per cent dependency rate in this State. We are living in a time of scarce resources but the Minister has made £2,500 million available for social welfare in the coming year. That is an enormous amount showing that the Government have tackled the problem in an admirable way.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.