During my contribution I have been emphasising the overall cost of the Department of Social Welfare. The figure in that regard is in the region of £2.5 billion. As I said last evening, if the number of unemployed could be reduced there would be a consequent reduction in the cost to the Department. That is a basic conclusion. The cost to the Department of paying unemployment benefit or assistance to 1,000 persons is in the region of £2.7 million. Having regard to the numbers out of work we can readily understand why the overall cost in terms of social welfare payments, derisory though they may be in some cases, is so high. Last evening I was checked by the Chair for wandering from the Bill at a time when I was putting the emphasis on the unemployment figure.
Social Welfare Bill 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).
The Deputy was not checked for wandering. The Chair thought he had got lost.
I was not lost. The solution rests in the Government tackling the problem of the long term unemployed, a number which is much higher than the registered figure when one takes account of those following short term courses and also of the numbers who are emigrating. Some of these short term courses are very useful but they are not a substitute for sustainable jobs.
Another reason for the huge demand on the Department of Social Welfare is the cost of borrowing incurred by the Government for day to day spending. It is time they addressed themselves to these problems. They should forget about the commitments and the promises they made and which have not been put into effect. We are still borrowing more money than ever before. There is no deficit budgeting and the unemployment figure is in the region of 250,000. Despite this all we hear from the Government is talk of crusades. Statements on matters of Government are made outside the House.
We have learned of the meat exhibition from the papers. We have no representative at that exhibition though again we learn from the papers that we may have such a representative in two year's time. The Government are merely punching in time. There were many who thought they were filling in time merely to enable them to qualify for pensions. On that basis they should have given up in December last, but they have the audacity to continue in office and to shuffle unpopular and in some cases incapable Ministers. Other Ministers were kicked in the teeth merely for projecting Government policies. While all of this is in progress the economy is suffering for want of leadership. Because of the Government's failed economic policies huge numbers of people must depend on social welfare payments. Borrowing for day to day spending continues when every Department should be making the utmost effort to deal with the problem of unemployment.
When the family income supplement was introduced a couple of years ago we were told that it would be availed of by about 35,000 families but that has not been the case. When income is taken into account and when the difference is established between the income of the household and the amount the Government consider to be the amount needed to maintain a family above the poverty line, the shortfall is not provided for but is cut by 50 per cent. In other words, if a family are regarded as being £10 below the poverty line they will receive an income supplement of £5. Is it any wonder, then, that only 5,000 people availed of the scheme? I know of one case of a man who has a wife and four children and who was assessed in terms of family income supplement to warrant the payment of £1.50 per week. That was an insult. Yet the Government continue to try to give the impression that they are a caring Government.
I note that this Bill must be guillotined at 1.15 p.m. today. I am sure that is no fault of the Whips nor of the Minister, but I am aware that a number of Members on both sides are anxious to contribute to the debate. In future when this kind of Bill is before the House, especially in the context of the times we live in and when so many people depend on social welfare, a little more thought should be given to the time being allotted for the Debate. I cannot see the urgency for a guillotine on Second Stage. I am dissatisfied with the decision, whoever is responsible for making it.
The House was responsible for making it.
It does not matter to me who is responsible. That does not detract from the fact that it is regrettable that so little time has been made available. There were only a few contributors and many more would have wished to speak. A Bill on welfare deserves more time in the House. I shall conclude now to give others an opportunity to contribute.
May I take this opportunity, first, to congratulate the Minister on her appointment to the portfolio of Social Welfare and to wish her well in her new post. In the context of this Bill I make a special appeal to her to please examine the appalling complexity which has developed in the whole social welfare code. The position has become untenable. The code has become as complex as the income tax code — and that is saying something. We had an original consolidating Bill, amending legislation and innumerable regulations and it would take a master lawyer and very many hours of research to try to master the intricacies and complexities of that system.
It is just not good enough, in a scheme of assistance to people who are in difficulties and have to avail of the social welfare code, that they find it impossible to discover their rights. We are talking here about matters of rights, not of charity. People are entitled to a reasonably understandable system under which they can open a book, booklet or pamphlet to find out their entitlements and pursue them. I have no doubt that many people miss out on many of their entitlements under this code or some aspects of it through sheer inability to get to grips with the system. The degree of expertise required is not often available. Even as a public representative and a trained lawyer of many years' standing, I find it incredibly difficult and time-consuming to try to resolve many of the points of complexity which arise.
I am sure the Minister will find, as she reads her way into the portfolio, that the system is riddled with anomalies. It is remarkable that these have not been dealt with yet. I do not wish to take up time here by going into any great detail but want to highlight what I am talking about. Is it not ludicrous that there are 36 separate rates of child dependant allowances under the social welfare code, ranging from £13.80 a week for the second to the fifth child in the case of a widow's contributory pension down to £5.18 a week for the sixth and later children of people on supplementary welfare short term unemployment assistance? The child of the family on unemployment assistance costs no less to rear than the child of a family on a relatively more generous benefit. I am disappointed that this Bill has not tackled such anomalies which have built up and become a fixed part of the social welfare code.
I appreciate that the Minister is new to the job but I have no doubt that that type of anomaly will be tackled by her and quite soon. We operate a dual parallel system of social welfare, the benefits section and the assistance section. That is wrong; there should be one system of social benefit operating. The need of one family is no greater or less than another. The insurance aspect of the scheme must be re-examined. Appropriate rates should be fixed, irrespective of contributions. Whether people may not be liable for or have been unable to make contributions, those fixed rates should apply across the board and there should be a single system.
Another aspect on which I want to touch is the question of social welfare appeals. Many do not know that they are entitled to appeal. It may say so on the forms which the Department send out, but many are turned off by forms; they do not comprehend them because they are complex and in official language. Time limits are something that they do not understand. People are not made sufficiently aware of the rights they have. For people to appear before an appeals officer alone, unassisted and unaided, as most of them do, puts them at an enormous disadvantage. It requires an appreciable degree of articulation to put one's case across in such an appeal. It requires a good deal of knowledge of the system, which they do not have.
I suggest, to cope with this, that the Department make available a number of officials who would be familiar with the scene, and able to consult with members of the public regarding appeals and go into the appeal hearing with them. First, they could discuss the case in advance privately, find out the situation from the appellant and assist that person when he or she appears before the appeals officer. I will not say that many of the people whom I have met did not get a sympathetic hearing from the appeals officers, they did, but I do not think that the appellants succeeded in getting across the points which they could have and which might well have produced a different result.
Of all the difficulties in the social welfare code, the supplementary welfare situation is the most unsatisfactory. It arises primarily from the fact that, as I understand it, there are no clear written guidelines available, no rules or regulations under which money or other benefits are provided for an applicant for supplementary welfare. The supplementary welfare officers who dispense this benefit appear on the surface — even to me as a public representative, let alone to members of the public who are unfortunate enough to have to resort to them for assistance — as having a discretion whether they will dispense money on a particular occasion, or how much, or what benefit or assistance in the way of bedding, clothing and so on. That is the appearance that is given, because one cannot refer to any guideline setting out that in particular circumstances certain assistance should be provided. Even within broad parameters, that does not appear to be the position, which is very unsatisfactory.
I do not wish to cast aspersion on any of the supplementary welfare officers. I know they have a very difficult job to do and by and large they tackle it with a degree of professionalism. In the absence of written guidelines it appears that they are operating in a discretionary way. This leaves one with the feeling that the values and guidelines that one such officer may operate may be different from the guidelines operated by another. For example, the supplementary welfare officer with responsibility for Tallaght may have one set of values which may be harsher or more discriminating than those of his counterpart in the adjoining dispensary in Clondalkin. One gets the feeling that there may not be uniformity in the exercise of the dispensations made by the supplementary welfare officers. If justice is to be seen to be done on this issue there ought to be drawn up and made available to the public representatives and health centres some kind of outline guidelines for examining entitlements. In this way public representatives could assist people who look for help.
I wish to raise the question of the absence of a satisfactory appeals procedure which is a very serious matter. A person who is not entitled to social welfare benefit goes to a supplementary welfare officer for help. A decision is given which very often seems like an arbitrary decision which the person does not understand. As a public representative, I have had many bitter complaints from constituents about the treatment they received by supplementary welfare officers. Many mature women came to me in tears with the reception they received. I expect that all public representatives have had similar experiences. Many people do not know that they can appeal under the existing system, unsatisfactory as it is. It was not drawn to their attention. The right of appeal in the supplementary welfare code is the same as that in the health boards who employ the supplementary welfare officers. One is appealing from official 1 of the organisation to official 2 of the organisation. The senior official who will conduct the appeal will have the report of the decision from his colleague. It is fair to say that for that reason the appeals officer may be disinclined to interfere with it or to admit that his colleague has made an incorrect decision. He will be disinclined to over-rule it. The appeals procedure should be independent of the health board involved. A person from a Department or some organisation should be appointed to conduct the appeal and to give an objective decision. If the appeals officer then comes to the conclusion that it is appropriate to over-rule that decision then that should be done. I ask the Minister to examine the situation of having an independent appeals procedure in regard to social welfare and to ensure that people are made aware that that procedure exists.
The final point I wish to raise is in connection with the fuel schemes. The duality of the fuel schemes which produces such a ludicrous result has been going on for years. It is devoid of logic and sense. Maybe many years ago there was some logic to it but I do not know what it is. It is based on the theory that people in rural areas could get their fuel by cutting turf. If that ever was logic it is now high time that this social welfare benefit was rectified. In my constituency there are two adjoining estates, one a Dublin Corporation estate and the other a Dublin County Council estate. Both are occupied by people with similar economic backgrounds with no distinction in their incomes, their families or any other circumstances. Because of this dual system a tenant in the Dublin Corporation estate is entitled to fuel vouchers but a tenant living in the county council estate is not. How does one explain that this is the law of the land? We as legislators allowed this nonsense to carry on for two, five or even ten years. It is high time that some Minister realised that enough is enough and say, "I am going to rectify this nonsense and recognise the fact the people in unfortunate financial circumstances require assistance with their fuel provision". A sensible scheme should be brought into operation which would not take cognisance of whether the person happens to be a corporation or a county council tenant. It should be directed to the need of the family.
It is only when one examines the statistics that one realises the extent of the need to provide assistance to people. In 1975 8.9 per cent of the workforce, 103,000 people, were on the live register. The last official figure, at the end of 1984, showed that there were 214,000 people unemployed, 14.7 per cent of the workforce. This figure has now risen to 240,000. It makes us realise the real problems facing this country and that we must substantially reduce the numbers unemployed. When one considers that practically one-third of the population are in receipt of benefit, that about 60 per cent of widows are in receipt of benefit and that 80 per cent of people over 66 years of age are in receipt of benefit, it gives an indication of the bill that State has to meet.
The Minister referred to anomalies, irregularities and abuses in the social welfare system and outlined what was being done to eliminate abuses. It is urgent to get the system operating properly. Over the past few weeks we saw banner headlines and there was a lot of discussion about social welfare abuses in the north eastern region. While there might be a bigger proportion of abuses in large centres of populations such as Dundalk, there is a very small amount of abuse in exchanges in Monaghan and Cavan where smaller numbers of people are being dealt with. The managers in those exchanges have their finger on the button and know what is going on. Because of the larger population in Dundalk, for instance, it is harder to keep tabs on the people claiming unemployment benefit or assistance.
However, in Monaghan there are only 1,000 people on the live register and in the other three exchanges there is a total of about 2,600 people on the live register and those figures would be similar to what obtains in Cavan, so it is easier for the managers to make themselves aware of what is going on. The north eastern region has been portrayed as a fiddling region. Over the years there have been accusations especially in relation to itinerants who are a moving population. They are accused of collecting benefit on both sides of the Border and this problem has been discussed at health board and county council level. There has also been a problem about people residing in the North, working in the south, and drawing benefits in the North. That has been a fairly prevalent abuse.
However, in recent times the banner headlines have indicated that people are crossing the Border and signing on in Dundalk and that it is costing the State £25 million. The hardworking men paying their taxes are worried about these fraud allegations and they are asking public representatives to right the system if it is corrupt. I ask the Minister, with all haste and power at her disposal, to clarify the situation and let the people know whether the fraud rate is 1 per cent or 99 per cent of claimants. The Minister should ensure that the hard working people who are carrying this State are not defrauded and that any fraud which is being perpetrated is identified and attended to. Fraud is not a serious problem in my constituency but if there is fraud in other areas it should be identified and dealt with.
Another cause for concern is the method of assessing eligibility for unemployment assistance. Small farmers and self employed in receipt of a fairly substantial amount of benefit are having their benefits discontinued at the stroke of a pen. In some cases on appeal and reinvestigation benefit is restored to some extent. Prior to Christmas a case was referred to me and it annoyed me very much. A man with a wife and five schoolgoing children who was in receipt of unemployment assistance of £52 per week to supplement his income from a 30 acre farm was assessed on the basis of the money he received from the creamery to which he supplied the milk produce of ten cows. This man has fairly heavy borrowings and an overdraft of about £3,000 which he could not eliminate with the milk cheques as the money had to pay for feed and fertiliser. In the event he got very little income although he was assessed on the basis of the money he got in a previous year.
In December this man was receiving no money. Just prior to Christmas I contacted the community welfare officer to ensure that he got some money. After Christmas the case was investigated. I brought to the attention of the Department the factual position of this man. The result was that benefit of £30 a week was restored to him. This may seem a small amount but, as he said, it at least paid for groceries for the family. In such hardship cases discretion should be used. The circumstances of the person should be taken into account and we should not work on figures alone.
I agree with the point made by the previous speaker in relation to the operation of the supplementary welfare allowance system. I am glad that the Department have taken over that system and that the health boards do not have a problem operating it. This allowance has caused me a fair amount of concern over the years. I agree with practically every word the previous speaker said regarding the lack of uniformity in the examination of applicants for supplementary benefit.
The community welfare officer is working in an impossible position as he is expected to exercise discretion and make an on the spot examination of a person. Sometimes he is not satisfied with the amount of evidence he is receiving with the result that he may be unfair to an applicant in ensuring that that person does not get what he is not entitled to. It may be that that person suffers. Many times I wonder how the scheme operates in various areas. The four-county health board area which I represent is an area which shows a fair amount of change from fair wealth to, I would not say "poverty" as I do not like the word, to less well-off people in disadvantaged areas. As on 31 March 1984 the number there in receipt of social welfare and supplementary allowances the number of recipients was Louth, 606; Meath, 725; Cavan, 77 and Monaghan, 67. How can you have such a demand? Is it that in one area people are more craftier than in another area to avail of it? The final figures of the number of recipients, adult and child dependants, are as follows: Louth 617; Meath, 1,180; Cavan, 88; and Monaghan, 140. The number of beneficiaries, not the supplementary system, in those counties was as follows: Louth, 1,401; Meath, 2,222; Cavan, 188 and Monaghan, 237. They seem to be imbalanced. Apart from the actual figures, in 1986 we should be able to come up with a different system than the one we are operating at present as far as supplementary benefit is concerned.
A report of a few years ago outlined very clearly the losses and the amount of, I would not say "fraud", of money that they had failed to recoup. In the delay between the person applying for DB, UB or UA a social welfare officer provided the money on a weekly basis. In my experience the Department were very stringent. When they had a claim processed and ready for payment they checked with the local community welfare officer to find out if they had made payments to those recipients. They then withheld it and paid it to a health board. The report indicated millions of pounds of losses and stated very clearly that it was due to people who had received supplementary payments on the double. Seemingly the refund had not taken place. When I relate it to the area which I represent and to the cases with which I deal, it does not add up. I would be satisfied that my constituents are not getting it on the double for the simple reason that there was that check done. It should be done, and rightly so. Refunds were always made.
I would like to refer to the voluntary organisations. In the years to come there will have to be a greater recognition of their work and there will have to be more co-operation with them. An additional amount of funding should be provided. At a recent health board budgetary meeting we were faced with a situation of serious cutbacks. The restraints are there. We are operating with less money in our pockets. There is no doubt that in situations such as ours voluntary organisations will go to the wall. They will not receive as generous a funding as we would be inclined to give them if there was more money available. These organisations are doing valuable work. The future of the care for the aged and many of those services which the State are finding it practically impossible to fund and operate will be dependent on the voluntary organisations, who are doing terrific work. In every built-up and rural area they are doing very commendable work and a continuation of that is necessary. The State cannot fund, nor should they have to in all cases.
Another problem, more so now than at many times recently, is the question of delays in paying disability benefit and various other payments. I put down a Question on 26 February:
To ask the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for delays in disability benefit payments to persons who are submitting certificates on a continuous basis.
I have one case at present of a person who has three weeks pay for January which he has not received, but the Department claim that the cheques were issued. If one looks at the Order Paper they will see the number of Deputies who are continually tabling questions regarding delays of payment to individual applicants. It is a habit I do not like and only use it when I am put to the pin of my collar and getting no satisfaction. It is very rare that I put down a question such as that. But it is an indication of the problems that are besetting public representatives because of those delays affecting their constituents. The Minister's reply to that question was as follows:
The position generally in relation to disability benefit is that payments are being issued promptly when the claim is made correctly and the claimant is qualified on his or her insurance record. As the issue of payment depends on the receipt of medical evidence of incapacity, any delay or irregularity in the submission or delivery of medical certificates to my Department inevitably delays the issue of payment. These are matters over which my Department have no control.
I am very conscious of the need for the speedy processing of disability benefit claims. In this respect internal administrative practices are kept under continuous review to ensure that they are operating as efficiently as possible.
That reply states factually how it should be. It is not what actually happens. On many occasions when people send in certificates on a continual basis and without delay they find their benefits are not being paid to them in the same way as their medical certs are being sent in. This is something that should be attended to.
The Minister mentioned in her very long speech the number of people who are operating the scheme. It is now operated centrally from Dublin. I am of the opinion that it is now time that there was a decentralisation of the Department of Social Welfare, because more use could be made of the regional offices. The Minister mentioned in talking about delays that there were 251 officers in 94 different locations. Medical referees have been increased to 25. Delays in assessment are much too long and they cause hardship to many people who consequently have to go on supplementary benefit. The system must be simplified and the two types of benefit should be looked at together. In that way, payments would be expedited. Regional offices should be established because if everything goes to a central office in Dublin delays are inevitable. It is the officer who is established locally who will know the facts. I do not see why the decision making officer in Dublin should be the first to examine claims. A system like the one I have suggested would expedite matters. With not very much extra outlay the system could be streamlined, made more efficient and be more acceptable generally.
I was impressed by one speaker who referred to complications and multiplicity and said the social welfare code includes 36 different types of payment. I fail to see why the system should be so complicated. Anybody in public life for a number of years will understand the complexity of completing an ordinary social welfare form. If that is so, it must be nearly impossible for an ordinary claimant to understand what is required. People are continually appealing for greater simplicity.
There has been reference to appeals and the frustration they cause, particularly in rural Ireland. It should be possible, with little extra cost, to have an office in each county manned by a local officer capable of dealing with appeals. If somebody goes to a local representative with a query, the representative will be very lucky if he can get through to the Department on the same day. He will get a reply saying that the matter is being looked into. I fail to see why a public representative in, say, County Limerick could not go into an office in Newcastle West or Askeaton and be told by a local officer what the nature of the problem would be and how long the claimant would be waiting for his money. Sometimes, people with families have to wait five or six weeks and one can imagine the frustration of the family. If the cheque does not turn up on the Friday, within an hour the public representative will be approached. Inevitably the question put to him is: "How will we live over the weekend?" We cannot answer that. Therefore, I suggest there should be immediate access to a local officer.
In villages in rural areas on Tuesday mornings you will see a number of people going into the Garda barracks. It is degrading for anybody living in a village to be seen by everybody entering a Garda station to sign for the dole or for unemployment benefit. It is not good for a man's children that his father can be seen going into the Garda station because when somebody goes to a Garda station it is because he has a legal problem, has broken the law in some way. That system is wrong and should be changed. In my local village there is an area office to deal with home assistance matters. People in local communities should have a community officer to help them to solve their problems. Apparently, everything has to be done in Dublin.
I am not happy about the manner in which social welfare officers investigate cases. Those people, living in Dublin, are not tuned in to the needs of people in rural Ireland. For instance, in cases where farmers apply for dole, a man from Dublin will approach the claimant to assess him. He will go by guidelines, he will examine a man's creamery cheque, but he will use the same assessment for a man who is working a farm of good land in Killmallock, for instance, as for a man on bad land in Carrickerry or Athea in west Limerick.
When Alumina in my constituency opened, many local farmeres went to seek jobs. Those farmers when they were given jobs kept others who did not own farms out of work and earned up to £120 a week. In those cases a very small amount of assistance would have kept those farmers on the land and would have given work to those without land or jobs. That was a mistake on the part of the Department and of the social welfare system.
We hear a lot about doctors' certificates and reassessments by referees. Doctors certify people as being unfit for work and if a man is called before a referee the referee will find him fit for work. It puzzles me what would happen if a man so certified by the referee went back to work as a lorry driver or a car driver. If he has an accident, how would he fare out as regards insurance, considering that the first doctor certified him as being unfit for work?
There are other matters we should look at closely. I welcome the Bill but I am dissatisfied with certain provisions in it. For instance, the annual sum for social welfare amounts to £2,500 million. A question has been raised before as to why some of that money should not be used in the field of employment. We should be able to utilise some portion of the money spent on unemployment benefit and assistance to get people back to work on such projects as the county roads throughout the country. I have raised this point on several occasions and have received support from Limerick County Council and various other people, but there is no real will to do anything about this problem. This will continue to be the case as long as people are prepared to live on social welfare payments. The day will come in the years ahead when someone will take up this idea and say that we were very stupid people not to use that money to create employment. They will look back on us as legislators as being very simple people. Nobody has ever justified spending so much money on social welfare while we have so many people unemployed who could be doing useful work.
The figure of £2.5 billion is a very substantial demand on the Exchequer which has to cater for growing demands in other areas as well. A clear indication of the Government's commitment to this very vulnerable section of the community is that over the past three years substantial increases have been given in each budget which have exceeded the rise in the cost of living. Unemployment assistance for the long-term unemployed has been increased. All other weekly benefits go up by 4 per cent from July.
I am very happy about the child benefit scheme which is to come into effect in April. I always hoped that budget increases would be paid as soon as possible after the budget. Of course, the argument is that the previous year's budget extends into the following year. The Government have decided to introduce this non-taxable child benefit scheme under which £15.05 per month will be paid for each of the first five children. The amount for the sixth child will be increased to £21.75 per month. This is a clear indication that the Government are prepared to support the larger family and provide help to mothers. They look forward to having some money of their own, perhaps to augment the husband's salary or social welfare income, which is often very limited. The cost of the scheme is £218 million in a full year.
I congratulate the Government and I welcome the new Minister and wish her the best of luck.
I congratulate the Minister for Social Welfare on her recent appointment and I wish her well in her new office.
I am not at all satisfied with the operation of the social welfare code. Apart from the fact that there are people on social welfare who would much prefer to be working, there are various problems in relation to the operation of schemes within the Department. The Minister said during her speech that there is another attitude beginning to surface in recent times, that people on social welfare payments are doing well and many are only too glad to avail of the benefits of the system. I do not agree with those sentiments. The vast majority of people in receipt of unemployment benefit and assistance would much prefer to be working. It would be far better for their health and the welfare of their families, as well as the betterment of the country, if employment could be created instead of putting the emphasis on social welfare.
On the other hand, we all know how important social welfare is for the unemployed. I am disappointed that the increase is only 4 per cent. This applies to the recipient, but not to his wife and family. The increase takes effect from the third Monday in July rather than the first Monday in July, as used to be the case. I remember a time when all social welfare increases took effect from 1 April. The Government should apply the 4 per cent increase across the board to spouses and dependants of social welfare recipients.
Deputy O'Brien mentioned the proposed introduction of the child benefit scheme from 1 April. We should remember that the children's allowance scheme will be phased out from that date. Many families will be worse off under the child benefit scheme than under the children's allowance scheme because the benefit scheme will allow for taxation of benefits received and will not be taken into account in claims for tax free allowances. An increase in the existing children's allowance scheme would have been far more beneficial than the proposed child benefit scheme.
I am most unhappy with the appeals procedure in the Department of Social Welfare, particularly in relation to appeals against refusals of unemployment assistance or reductions in unemployment assistance. My experience leads me to believe that the appeals section in the Department is in utter chaos. Sometimes it takes ten or 14 weeks to get a decision on an application for unemployment assistance. If that decision does not suit the applicant it could take up to six months to decide an appeal. Were it not for certain Dáil Deputies, including myself, putting down Parliamentary Questions about delays on appeals, the applicants could be waiting up to 12 months for a decision on their appeals. During this time they are without money or else they are in receipt of a very low rate of supplementary welfare allowance from the local health board. This is not good enough.
The total staff in the social welfare section of the Department is 3,500, a colossal staff. The total social welfare payments come to £1.3 million per week and 37 per cent of the population depend on social welfare. This is a very sad reflection on the Government of the day. Were it not for the high, unacceptable rate of emigration today, particularly among our younger and better educated people, we could add another 8 per cent to 10 per cent to that figure.
I recommend that the appeals section of the Department of Social Welfare in Dublin be abolished completely and that the appeals system be decentralised to each county, if not to each town with an employment exchange. I cannot understand why it is necessary to send appeals for decision to Dublin. In many instances these appeals are being decided by persons who do not know what is happening on the ground, or how tough it is for people to live in remote rural areas relying solely on unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. While that appeal is awaiting a decision, that person is in receipt of meagre supplementary welfare allowance from the local health board. Each county should have appeals officers. If an appeal is lodged against the decision of the deciding officer, the appeal should be decided in the county within a reasonable time. I do not see why we should not introduce a time limit, by law, for deciding unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit appeals. We have such a time limit in relation to planning applications where a decision must be taken within two months, but when a bread and butter decision is needed there can be a delay of months. As I said, I strongly recommend that the appeals section of the Department be decentralised and that a number of appeals officers be appointed in each county to clear up the backlog and to keep the number of appeals under control. In my view it should not take longer than two or three weeks to decide an appeal.
Fewer people in receipt of unemployment assistance can get an oral hearing of their appeal. I know of hundreds of cases in south Kerry where unemployment assistance recipients who are not satisfied with the rate they are getting and who have appealed, have been denied oral hearings. This applies particularly to smallholders who cannot provide for their families during the winter months without unemployment assistance. In many cases the winter months have long gone before a decision on their appeal is made. An unusually high rate of oral hearings on these appeals is being denied. I ask the Minister to take into account the amount of money which will be saved by health boards if there were speedy decisions made on appeals on unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit, because some of these people must go on supplementary welfare. It has been costing Kerry County Council approximately £1 million a year to pay supplementary welfare.
There are some anomalies in the social welfare code. I am informed that two contributory old age pensioners living together are in receipt of a greater allowance than a married man with two children on unemployment assistance. I would like these anomalies rectified. There are also delays in deciding applications for the deserted wife's allowance and social assistance allowances. I cannot understand why it takes so long to investigate these applications. In my view this is due to the fact that there are not a sufficient number of social welfare officers working in certain areas. This may be one of the reasons why it takes so long to decide applications for widows' pensions, non-contributory old age pensions, the deserted wife's allowance, social assistance allowance and unemployment assistance. I am not happy about these delays and I ask the Minister to do something positive about them.
Deputy Willie O'Brien mentioned medical referees and the fact that there are delays in the Department in deciding appeals even following the refusal of an appeal by an appeals officer on the recommendation of the medical referee. I note from the Minister's statement that the number of medical referees in the Department is 35. I cannot understand why persons who are well known to me and who are genuinely ill are being turned down on appeal for disability benefit. I have a number of genuine cases which I would like to discuss with the Minister of State. These people are still attending the local regional hospital for continuous monitoring of their very serious illnesses and their applications are supported by very strong medical specialist reports.
I should like to know how seriously the Minister's Department take these strong medical reports from specialists in various fields. I know also that, while their cases are being reconsidered, some of these people have been advised to go on unemployment benefit. They apply for unemployment benefit, producing letters they receive from appeals officers refusing their application for continued payment of disability benefit, and receive unemployment benefit. I often wonder whether it is that the amount of money available in the Department for disability benefit runs out at a certain time of the year, so that it suits the Department better to transfer such people to unemployment benefit? That is a serious question that must be answered by the Minister or Ministers of State. I have come across a number of such cases recently and I ask the Minister to have them examined. This position cannot be denied. I have sufficient proof to back up these allegations and statements.
I should very much like to see the restoration of the old special scheme of unemployment assistance to smallholders. Its abolition by this Government in their February 1983 budget dealt a severe blow to smallholders in the west and south west. That scheme was introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government in the sixties — and improved in the seventies — to supplement the income of smallholders particularly in the winter months when those in dairy farming had no income whatsoever. Such money was put to good use by those smallholders. Apart from keeping bread on the table for their families in lean periods, some of that money was put into the development of those small holdings. The real proof that that scheme was a success is the fact that, not alone did it stem the tide of emigration in the west and south west, but it allowed the population to increase there at practically the same rate as the remainder of the country. This scheme has been substituted by a means-tested one. We have emigration again from these areas along the west and south west coasts. I firmly believe that this scheme should be re-introduced and I have no doubt that Fianna Fáil will do so if and when returned to office. There is no doubt in my mind that the phasing out of that scheme for smallholders was a disaster as far as family incomes are concerned.
I want to compliment especially a small, hard working section of the Department of Social Welfare, the section known as the TDs' inquiries section, those employed in the disability section who service inquiries from TDs. They work hard and are most helpful at all times. I have always found them most obliging. Their biggest problem — particularly those social welfare officers manning local labour exchanges — is that they are over worked. That is another reason I appeal to the Minister to decentralise the appeals section of her Department. I should like to pay particular tribute to the management and staff of the exchanges throughout the country, particularly those located in County Kerry, who are always most obliging and helpful and who do enormous work under very difficult conditions.
I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. I waited patiently here last evening and again this morning. I must repeat that the system of calling people in the House to speak leaves a lot to be desired. I will be taking this matter up with the Whips in the hope that it can be improved. Some people appear to be able to walk into the House and be called immediately while others must wait. Last evening and this morning I listened to Deputy Lyons complaint that this Bill was being guillotined at 1.30 p.m. today. He said that was a disgrace because people wanted to contribute to such an important debate. However, when I stood up here last evening there was no Fianna Fáil speaker in the House. He came rushing down the steps at the last moment, without a speech prepared, and then he berated everybody this morning for not having given the mater thought, time and careful consideration.
Indeed, he devoted most of his remarks to budgetary matters rather than concentrating on the Bill before the House. He referred several times to the sick failures of the Coalition Government — referring to their damaging the freedom of this country — no doubt in relation to the Anglo-Irish agreement. While Deputy Lyons berates the Coalition Government and looks forward to Fianna Fáil coming back into office to put the country back on its feet, I would say he may get his first taste of Coalition himself after the next election. After 16 years in office Fianna Fáil got a rare taste of Opposition and they have not made a very good fist of it. Therefore, they may not make such a good fist of Coalition, which requires much commitment and skill, when one takes into consideration the mix of the different parties that goes into making up a Coalition Government. What can most fairly he said about Coalitions is that almost invariably they put the country first. Bearing in mind the balance to be maintained between the parties, the interests of either party must always be challenged, and probably always are, by the other party in Government. The only alternative is to put the country first. That attitude has enabled us to make a phenomenal amount of progress in the last three or four years in the area of social welfare.
There are many good provisions in the Bill and a few sad things. We must sound warnings to the Minister about the direction social welfare has been taking in recent years. We realise that about 35 per cent of the population benefit under the social welfare system. To a large extent that indicates that 35 per cent are no-hopers. It appears that many people believe they will not have to depend on social welfare. There are a lot of anomalies in this system and one should ask oneself what approach to adopt when discussing a Bill like this, whether one should discuss the improvements in the benefits, ask for more for the areas that have not been improved, or whether one should consider it in the overall context of the problems facing the country. One cannot discuss the Bill exclusively from the point of view of more services and improvements and more of a drain on the national coffers. We must go in a direction which will tend to mitigate the high charges on the Department of Social Welfare because of their obligations.
There are many people existing barely above the poverty line and many are shocked at the extent of that problem. The extent of unemployment in large measure gives rise to the high expenditure by the Department of Social Welfare. There was a good deal of criticism by Deputy Lyons of the Coalition, the prospect for more jobs and emigration. One would think listening to him that the Government were the total cause of all problems that exist in the country. He gave the impression that he alone has the answer to our jobs crisis. I heard him shouting a lot about the problems but I did not hear him put forward any concrete suggestions as to how we could rectify the matter except that if the people put Fianna Fáil back into office all these things would be sorted out if the people had faith. I do not think people will rely on faith any more; they will look at the record of the different parties. The record of the Government in regard to this has not been bad. We are at a crossroads with most of the work completed and we are in a position to take off and improve employment prospects.
I realise that in the budget an extra £70 million was provided for additional expenditure on social welfare this year. There was an increase of 5 per cent in the amount of long duration unemployment assistance and a general increase of 4 per cent in the personal and adult dependant rates of welfare payments from next July. As a consequence of the 1985 budget increases, welfare payments in the first half of this year will be 6½ per cent higher than in the first half of 1985. We are expecting inflation in the coming year to be below 4 per cent and, therefore, we are able to satisfy the commitment made in the national plan to improve those rates in line with the rate of inflation.
There have been individual increases in benefits which are outlined in the Bill. I should like to comment on the weekly amounts of income which determine entitlements under the family income supplement scheme which is being increased in line with the increases in short term social welfare benefits. The rate of payment under the scheme is being increased by 25 per cent to 33? per cent. The child benefit scheme, a major new development under this heading, is based on the amalgamation of the existing child support schemes. The monthly payment of £15.05 for each child and £21.70 for the sixth and subsequent children is welcome, although I have heard comments to the effect that the figures should be reversed. I will not pass any comment about that suggestion but it leaves a lot of room for debate. I wonder why people make such comments.
The Minister, in the course of her speech, mentioned the complementary role of the State in community action in caring for the less well-off. Members must bear in mind the reason why we have to provide money for the less well off while at the same time we try to eliminate the causes of poverty. We are talking about eliminating poverty as far as possible and in this regard it is important to note that we have a Combat Poverty Agency Bill on the Order Paper. The element of poverty in the community could be separated and catered for financially by the social welfare benefits dealt with in the Bill. The social welfare budget costs £1.3 million per week, a sizeable sum.
The figures mentioned in the Bill are extraordinarily high for such a small country but I am concerned that the gap between social welfare payments and the average industrial wage is narrowing. That causes immense problems in a community that has been practically destroyed by the handout system. What worries me most is that the younger generation who up to recently have not been affected by the handout system could be totally destroyed in the same way that older generations have been. We will then have the begging bowl attitude. Deputy O'Leary mentioned the special unemployment assistance for smallholders. The attitude that one does not really have to work and can live on handouts should be discouraged. The only way to discourage the new generation from adopting that attitude is to provide jobs. The tendency is, as far as possible, not to work if the benefits come within a day's wages of what one would get for a full week's work. There is a total loss of dignity and pride. As a consequence we are left with numbers of what are referred to as "dossers" in the community and that is very bad for society. We are reaching the stage where people over 40 do not bother looking for jobs because they know they have little chance of being employed.
I suggest that the 4 per cent administrative charge in respect of the running of the Department be examined. We are talking about an overall budget for the Department of £2.5 billion to which the Exchequer will contribute £1.6 billion. The 4 per cent represents about £100 million, which seems an extraordinarily high figure. Therefore, between now and Committee Stage I should like to have a breakdown of that amount so that we may discuss it further then. I should like to hear, too, whether we are getting value for the money we are spending. I do not think we can regard the 4 per cent in the same way as we would regard an administrative charge in, say, business or even in a semi-State body such as the IDA. In terms of the huge amount of money involved this 4 per cent may or may not be good value for money. I appreciate that a good deal of pressure is applied by TDs and by the public generally who wish the various services to be continued.
It is depressing that inexorably we are liable to an increase in the cost of social welfare. The Minister calls for an adequate level of support from the rest of the community, but the community are entitled to an adequate number of jobs. If there is not an adequate number of jobs we will not be able to afford the system we are aiming for.
We must ask ourselves whether we wish the system to continue as it is. Poverty must be tackled and I am glad that this area is singled out specifically for attention. If we could eliminate poverty we could aim to make improvements in payments in those areas that are not within the poverty category.
I am glad that the matter of fraud in social welfare has been put into perspective in the Minister's speech. A lot of damage has been done by the attention this matter received in the media and elsewhere. To a large extent the problem was exaggerated. It is estimated that 4,000 people were involved in an element of fraud in respect of social welfare and that the total amount involved was in the region of £3 million. I should like to hear what was the actual number of cases involved, but the £3 million represents about 0.0001 per cent of the entire budget. That portion is so small as to be hardly worth arguing about. I should like to hear what the prevention methods in use in the Department to eliminate the possibility of fraud are costing. However, the public can be reassured that the problem has been tackled. We must not forget that people who are on these levels of subsistence are not very well off. They cannot be said to be living in any sort of luxury.
The measures taken to combat the abuses are extensive, as the Minister has indicated. These measures are far more superior than the methods that have been used in areas of overcharging and of fraudulent practices which affect people who depend on social welfare payments. I am thinking, for example, of the huge amounts of money that have been taken fraudulently from these people to line the pockets of the operators in the gaming industry. These people have made millions of pounds in this way. We may take it that tens of millions of pounds of the money paid by the State to social welfare recipients has been taken from them fraudulently by people who are breaking the gaming laws. There is little comparison between the public outcry and the steps the Department have taken in regard to fraud in the social welfare area and the outcry there have been about those in the gaming industry who operate illegally.
Legislation that was brought forward recently can only have the result of huge amounts of money being continued to be taken from social welfare recipients. We should admit that we made a mistake and bring in emergency legislation to ban gaming machines. From speaking to people who depend on social welfare payments but who were spending a lot of their benefits in these gaming establishments, I am aware that they are much better off now that some of these places in the city and elsewhere have been closed. Proof of this is the fact that they are spending their money wisely now. The matter of fraud in the Department has been dealt with so I think the media should refrain from highlighting that issue further.
There are a few problems which the Minister might pay attention to in the matter of a follow-up to the action that has been taken in the area of fraudulent practices. The practice of working but also of signing at the employment exchange seems to be the biggest area of abuse. The rents of tenants of local authority houses are increased if there is evidence of involvement in this type of fraud. If these people are taken into court they are not allowed to take the oath while officials are allowed do so. If rents have been refused from local authority tenants they are found automatically to be guilty and are therefore at a disadvantage. Justice should be done in those cases, because in many instances the people concerned are not very literate. In many cases social welfare recipients are not very well educated and do not understand the system. I am not implying that people should be allowed draw social welfare payments while working, but we should operate a fair system in every respect.
There is a problem in respect of the employment incentives schemes. This is because the payment is low — £70 for a few days — by comparison with the amount of social welfare payments. Because of this people are not inclined to participate in the scheme. I should also like to mention disability benefit and medical referees where a second opinion is required. Other Members have mentioned this and the unsatisfactory way in which the system works. Perhaps that is the way it has to operate but I should like to ask if it is a gravy train for the medical referees, as I note that their number has been increased by 25. Many people are fed up at being brought back time and time again for medical checks. I know medical referees have succeeded in weeding out many people who did not deserve to receive benefits but medical referees should be paid as retainers and given a lump sum so that it is not in their interests to bring back patients in order to get extra payments.
Dental benefits should also be examined because the system is totally mismanaged. Dental benefits are paid in respect of fillings, extractions and scaling and that means that it is in the interest of every dentist who treats people on social welfare payments to extract, fill or scale. This means that people are subjected to many fillings or may end up with no teeth, whereas in modern dental practice the idea is, as far as possible, not to extract teeth: Indeed many top dentists regard extractions as failure. They even recommend not filling teeth. I do not know the reason for scaling and I notice that dentists never emphasise proper dental care. The Department and dentists do not stress that people should use floss on their teeth once a day to get rid of plaque. If a person has a proper job done on his or her teeth, they should not need any more fillings for a very long time.
I know examples of people who have gone to good dentists and who do not need treatment for many years after that. I also know dentists who very rarely extract teeth and I will give a personal example in that regard. I went to the same dentist for 15 years and every six months during that time I had some form of filling although I did not have any extractions. Then I went to a dentist who knew what he was doing and I had a complete job done on my mouth. That was eight or nine years ago and I have not had a filling since. That practice is not highlighted and I should like to bring it to the attention of the Department because there are serious problems in Ireland and Britain, although Scotland is the worst where one-third of the population have no teeth. There should be a simple procedure whereby people are informed that they should use floss on their teeth daily and that they should not eat too many sweets. Dentists should not be paid for extractions or fillings, they should be paid on a retainer basis and there would then be no need to extract or to fill teeth in order to make more money. The same applies to optical benefits, although dental treatment is more important. Abuses in all areas of social welfare benefits should be wiped out.
I should like to mention labour exchanges and the indignity which people suffer because they have to queue in a smoke-filled atmosphere in a room with a butt-laden floor. They then have to plead their case to get a small amount of money. If we had computers the system could be streamlined which would make things easier for everybody. There should be telephones in offices in outlying districts. We claim that a sum of £800 million has been spent on our telephone system and it is supposed to be second to none, so I do not see why we could not have a very efficient system. In other countries social welfare cheques are sent out by post. From the facts produced it is obvious that hysteria has been generated in relation to fraud because the amount of fraudulent claims is so small you could almost ignore them. I lived in other countries and I saw unemployed imigrants receiving benefit without having to queue in a police barracks. It is very hard to get across Dublin city, especially for mothers with small children. They cannot physically drag themselves around the city at the whim of an officer who requires letters to prove their claims.
I am pleased that the supplementary social welfare benefit has been taken out of the budget and that the Exchequer is now paying for it because it is an area requiring attention. We can now statistically gauge the number of people seeking or availing of benefits and, by examining the figures, make the system more responsive to the immediate needs of those unfortunate people and make payments more readily available by having local offices. That needs attention, in the same way as the appeals need attention. They seem to be very slow but then there are many people appealing who know that they have not much chance.
The increases in the social welfare allowances are welcome. Regarding the child benefit scheme, I do not know what to say about the idea that people get £15.05 for the first five children and after that they get £21.75 per child per month. The family income supplement is another improvement but we have to ask what we want out of this system. There is a case for streamlining all the documentation because the level of literacy required to pick one's way through the system is very high. The present system imposes a lot of stress and strain on people trying to get their entitlements. Frayed nerves and tempers result in rows when neighbours say one person is getting something to which others also feel they are entitled. Although tax has not increased to the employee the PRSI ceiling keeps rising, which amounts to an increase. There is also an increase in the labour redundancy and insolvency fund and many of us who spoke on that Bill pointed out that this could happen. It is starting to go that way.
I am glad that the income levy is gone because the money was wasted in terms of the schemes it was spent upon. The occupational injury benefit changes are also welcome, especially because the scheme now encompasses people going to and from work.
While the benefits and awards under the Bill are welcome and absolutely essential, we must bear in mind that the reason so much money has to be spent in this way is because of the overall situation in the country, mainly in regard to employment. We need to create tens of thousands of jobs and to get away from the hand-out. I am cautioning the House that if we allow our young generation, who make up about 50 per cent of the population, to become dependent on social welfare payments, easy options and hand-outs, if we allow them to become lazy and stay at home because if they worked they would earn only £10 or £20 more than they would receive in social welfare benefit, then the whole fabric of society will be destroyed. We need a whole generation to work for Ireland and we have to put them to work. The efforts made already by various agencies, including the IDA, by the Government and by the private sector have not come up with the answers. I believe the answers are there. I would know how to put tens of thousands of people back to work. If we do not do so we will fail totally and the figure of £2.5 billion will increase inexorably until we are unable to afford to increase payments. We will have a totally discontented population which will probably become militant and we will lose the cream of our population through emigration. That is the saddest thing of all. It is something which has been happening since the Famine but we have no one to blame but ourselves. This is the supreme challenge to this House, the Government and the people.
While I welcome the setting up of the Cabinet task force to tackle employment creation, I would appeal to them not to rely entirely on themselves, on economists or theoreticians to come up with all the answers. We will not find too many Ph.Ds working as developers or successful builders or business people. Let the rest of us, both inside and outside the House, make an input to job creation. If we want to restore the dignity of the unemployed and those who have to depend on the system, we should first of all streamline it and bring it into the 20th century by using technology while at the same time put to positive use the skills, education and experience of our young people. There is no use putting them on training courses for jobs which are not there. There are lots of people living here who have invested their whole lives in this country and who have not emigrated. They are probably in their forties and in many cases are professionals. They are seeking leadership. We would get the young generation to come with us if, for example, we were to say we were going to make Dublin city into a shopping, entertainment, tourist mecca for the islands of Britain and Ireland by making it the most attractive place and using the market of 60 million people who are there. We would tie it into the tourist industry with the hotels' federation and bring tens of thousands of people to this island, creating up to 50,000 service jobs in this sector. This would rejuvenate the island.
We have more talent, proportionally, than any other country in Europe. I am talking about even such things as entertainment talent among young people. The only sectors of our culture that we did not lose were our music and our art. We lost practically everything else. We have an amazing talent and we have an advantage over all the surrounding countries in attracting people here to be entertained and to be in the company of vibrant, fresh, good-looking young people. That is what we have to do in order to reduce the amount of money paid on social welfare.
I would ask the Minister to take into account some of the recommendations made in the first report of the House of Commons Social Services Committee in the session 1985-86 regarding the reform of social security, especially items 5, 7 and 11 in the list of recommendations and conclusions of that committee.
I was completely dissatisfied and disappointed with the increases given to social welfare recipients especially in view of the fact that the cost of living rose so much in the past 12 months. Those people in receipt of social welfare payments are in very poor circumstances. As a TD in a rural area, I have heard many complaints in the past 12 months of how those people cannot exist on the social welfare payments which they receive. No week passes in which I do not receive a big number of applications from people on social welfare payments applying for supplementary welfare payment.
People in receipt of contributory old age pension got an increase of £2.05 this year. The non-contributory old age pensioners got an increase of £1.70. Those increases do not come into effect until the middle of July when half the year is gone. I would like to ask the Minister why those increases are not paid from 1 April as they were in the past when we had a different Government in power. People on disability benefit received an increase of £1.60 this year. This is a very small increase, about the price of a packet of cigarettes. It is completely inadequate for present day needs. The Oireachtas should look more sympathetically at our unemployed and what they have to put up with.
The last time we had a Fianna Fáil Government the increase given in the last budget to social welfare recipients was 25 per cent which was paid from 1 April. We gave an increase of 25 per cent in the second last budget also. That is an increase of 50 per cent in two years. Old age pensioners, both contributory and non-contributory, deserved that increase. If they had not got those substantial increases at that time their plight would be much worse today. The increase should be much more substantial. Deputy Skelly spoke about the record of particular Governments. When Fianna Fáil were in power they were very sympathetic towards the poorer sections of the community and always gave them substantial increases. I would say to Deputy Skelly that, since they came into power three years ago, the present Coalition Government have not been so generous with people on unemployment assistance and with old age pensioners.
Again I would like to emphasise the fact that I am disappointed that payment will not be made until the middle of July. All old age pensioners look forward to any increase in their pensions, as do people on unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. It is a long time to wait until the middle of July to enjoy that small increase. I think this is the first Bill the Minister put through the House since she became Minister for Social Welfare but I may be wrong in that. I would like to wish her well in her new position as Minister. I hope that next year when she increases social welfare benefits she will consider paying them from 1 April rather than 1 July.
The change in the payment of social welfare to small farmers, better known in the south of Ireland as the small farmers' dole, was very undesirable. Not much thought was put into it. If a married couple running a small farm with more than 12 cows receive more than £45 profit a week they do not get small farmers' unemployment assistance. It was interesting to listen to Deputy Skelly talking about the unemployment assistance paid to small farmers. He said some of them should get up off their tails and do a little bit more work. One must accept that from a Dublin orientated TD who does not understand how the small farmers live in the south west of Ireland. I would like to tell Deputy Skelly that it is very difficult for a small farmer with a wife and one or two children living on the income from 12 cows to eke out a living on a small farm any place in the west of Ireland. Some Dublin TDs would not understand that those cows milk for only eight or nine months of the year and do not give 1,000 or 1,200 gallons of milk.
I appeal to the new Minister for Social Welfare to review the means test for the small farmers' unemployment assistance. Last year many small farmers who do not make silage were unable to save hay because of the bad weather and they had great difficulty in trying to make ends meet from 1 November until 1 March when they again started enjoying an income. The small farmers have very little on which to live. Many of them have come to me during the winter seeking supplementary welfare payments because they could not get small farmers' unemployment assistance. They told me that they were hungry due to the fact that last year was so bad that the cows had to come in early and the milk yield was not as good due to wet conditions and the state of the land. Special consideration should be given to these farmers and the means test should be changed.
I accept that the amount paid in social welfare generally is considerable. In the past 12 months there has been 240,000 people unemployed. I sympathise with the Government who have to pay the unemployment benefit and assistance. However, the Government are lucky that we have the emigration outlet. I would estimate that in the past two years about 100,000 people, some of them school leavers, have gone to America and the same number have gone to England. If the present Government had to meet an unemployment benefit payment bill for another 200,000 people they would have a real headache.
The Deputy says that 100,000 have gone to Great Britain?
If the Deputy comes down to my county I will prove the emigration figures to him. I am sure his neighbour will tell him about the people who have left County Clare. Perhaps the Government are disappointed or resentful at having to pay so much unemployment assistance. The way to solve the problem is to provide jobs. That will be a difficult task. The Government should make a better effort to provide jobs. In the past three years the numbers of jobs provided have been minimal. If the Government provided jobs they would have to pay out less in social welfare benefit.
I am concerned that social welfare officers when investigating cases with a view to granting unemployment assistance are very harsh and difficult. In my constituency recently, a man who was cutting timber to provide household fuel for himself was disallowed unemployment assistance on the grounds that he was cutting timber for commercial purposes. The man did not have a car or even a pony and cart or a tractor to transport the wood, so I do not see how he could have been cutting it for commercial purposes, and he should not have been disallowed assistance for trying to provide fuel for himself and his family from a forest where he had received permission to cut the timber.
People who receive unemployment assistance at a very low rate often find that an appeal to get the rate increased takes from four to six months to process. Some small farmers in receipt of a very reduced rate of unemployment assistance are in dire straits because their circumstances have changed considerably and it is unfair for them to have to wait four to six months for appeals to be heard. Their only resort is to apply for supplementary welfare allowances which in many cases they get.
I am delighted to see in the Bill that in future local authorities will not be responsible for the payment of supplementary welfare benefit. That is a good step as this money should come from the Central Fund. The Bill also refers to the child benefit scheme which is to replace children's allowances. When a new scheme is introduced there is always something distasteful in it. As a result of this new scheme an employed person will lose his £100 personal allowance which up to now he got for each child. Employed people were much better off with the children's allowances. This killed the scheme completely.
As I said at the beginning, I am very dissatisfied with the amount of the increases. It is hardly worth while paying them to old age pensioners who had looked forward to a few more pounds to enjoy in the last few years of their lives. They are a special category and they should be treated as such: they should have been given more substantial increases than anybody else drawing social welfare benefit. We have people on unemployment assistance with four or five children who have great difficulty in providing for their children with costs going up every day.
We have been told that another £10 million will be taken off food subsidies, but we do not know because we have not seen the Finance Bill. That will make food even dearer and the lot of the unemployed far worse. In these circumstances what good will these increases be to them? This year, in particular, the increases should have been more substantial and I am sorely disappointed that they have not been given from 1 April.
I congratulate the Minister for Social Welfare who, if her record means anything from her time in the Seanad, will do a great job. She has gone through the rigours of political life and I was glad to hear Deputies express appreciation of her excellence. In her opening speech she dealt at length with the various problems the Department have to contend with. Deputy McEllistrim spoke about the huge number relying on social welfare benefits and I wish the Minister well in her difficult task.
The Minister will be considering some reforms in the social welfare code and I should like to make a suggestion in regard to what is known as the farmers' dole. This should not be the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare. Farmers' incomes could be better monitored by those dealing with that industry and consequently I suggest that the funds provided for farmers' dole should be controlled by the Department of Agriculture. I therefore ask the Minister for Social Welfare seriously to consider changing the scheme from its present form. The recent system of farmer assessment which came about because of a Supreme Court judgement in relation to rateable valuation should alter the system of control in this regard. This code of social assistance for farmers was being worked in a compassionate way by the Department of Social Welfare but I am afraid that Department are not geared to appreciate the role our farmers play and the methods by which they control their incomes and budgets. For equity's sake, therefore, I hope the Minister will persuade the Department of Social Welfare to hand this fund over to the Department of Agriculture.
Because of modern technology new systems are now available which could be used to the benefit of the Department of Social Welfare who could then devise better ways of availing themselves of information in regard to claimants and beneficiaries.
I thank all Deputies who spoke on the Bill and I wish to express appreciation of their good wishes to me in my new portfolio. I will respond to specific points made by Deputies as far as possible in the short time remaining.
Deputies McCarthy and McEllistrim complained about what they considered to be low levels of increases. It is all very well to complain about rates of increases and to compare them with higher percentage increases in other years. Obviously, what we must look at is the level of increases as compared with the cost of living. That is the only logical yardstick to use. When one talks about increases of 20 per cent and inflation at the same rate of 20 per cent, one can put the increases into their proper perspective. One of the successful features of the Government's strategy has been a reduction in inflation from the runaway high level of previous years. The rate of inflation this year is expected to be about 4 per cent and this year's social welfare increases will have to be reckoned against that measure. We could talk about the absolute level of social welfare payments, and I am quite sure there will be a long debate on it when the report of the Commission on Social Welfare is brought before us.
The Government have more than met their commitments to maintain the value of social welfare payments and this year we have provided real increases. When we compare the rates introduced in 1983 with those that will obtain from July next and then compare increases in social welfare rates with inflation to mid-1987 we get a real increase of about 5.5 per cent in disability and unemployment benefits, 8 per cent in old age pensions, 13.5 per cent in long term unemployment assistance. Given the state of the public finances these are no small achievements by the Government.
Of course the state of the public finances has had its impact on social welfare payments. We would prefer to bring in those increases at an earlier date but we have to trim our cloth to the situation we find ourselves in. This year the cost of the increases is £35 million. To have paid them from April would have cost an additional £22 million. To have done so in 1985 would have cost £32 million, in 1984 it would have cost £34 million extra and in 1983 it would have cost £39 million extra. The Government applied their resources in the most equitable way possible. So when Opposition speakers deplore the fact that the increases will not be paid earlier they are definitely talking about £100 million extra in public spending in those few years.
Deputy McCarthy will, I hope, forgive me when I say that one of the problems of the Opposition is that they never took very much account of the cost of anything. It is necessary that control be exercised.
I was very interested in some of the figures that Deputy McCarthy used. He said that 4 per cent equalled 2.7 per cent, that 5 per cent equalled 3.4 per cent and we had much playing around with figures. The only figures that matter are the real levels of increase which are got by comparing the social welfare payments in 1983 with those now being provided. What people are interested in is the amount of money that they get each week and what that money will buy. They know that the rates of payments have been maintained by this Government and that their position has been protected and in many cases improved.
At the same time, Deputy McCarthy complained about the burden on the taxpayer and the low return which he is getting for what he pays. That does not make much sense because he cannot have it both ways. The only way to reduce taxation is to reduce expenditure. The logic of the Deputy's argument is that we must reduce expenditure in order to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. A Government must strike a reasonable balance between the real needs of social welfare recipients and the real needs of taxpayers who must bear the burden of the cost. In this year's budget and in this Bill such a balance has been achieved. The reason for there being no increase in the child dependant rate is, quite simply, that there will be a 25 per cent increase in the rates of allowances payable for each of the first five children in all families. Those are the simple facts.
The child benefit scheme will represent a major improvement and development of the social welfare system. Child tax allowances, on the other hand, provide the greatest level of benefit to the higher paid and the least benefit to the lower paid. Direct payment to families is the best form of child support for all families in need, including those on social welfare payments, those who are working and those not lucky enough to be in any tax bracket. It is an essential factor of the full child benefit scheme that the benefit itself would be taxable. This is the main way in which the redistributed impact of the scheme will be achieved. We would all want to make sure that the worst off will benefit most in the bringing up of their children.
We have decided in the medium term to introduce the scheme by abolishing tax allowance, freezing the child dependant allowance increases in social welfare payments and making available a significant increase in children's allowances rates. We have put aside for the child benefit scheme this year the resources made available by the abolition of child tax allowance, £18 million, resources which would have been used for increasing social welfare child dependency rates, £4.2 million, and an additional £11.1 million from the Exchequer. The Government are seriously tackling the problem of child support. What I am giving to the House are solid facts.
Deputy McCarthy referred to the family income supplement scheme. There is no doubt that the level of take-up has been disappointing and the Bill contains a provision to improve the level of payment and the level of take-up. We are budgeting for around 6,500 people receiving family income supplement by the end of this year. In the longer term obviously, the future of the family income supplement scheme will fall to be reviewed in the context of the introduction of a full child benefit scheme.
There is one other very important area which I want to make sure to mention. This is the question of the EC directive on equality of treatment for men and women in the social security system. As I said in my opening remarks, the reason for the delay was the fact that one of the staff unions in my Department took the view that the implementation of these provisions could not go ahead until certain staffing issues had been resolved. I want to refute any allegations of unwillingness on the part of the Government to bring these provisions into operation. We have had to deal with a very difficult situation in trying to control the size of the public sector, which is something generally demanded. This, obviously, has had a serious impact on Departments, particularly those like Social Welfare which has a high staffing complement and which at the same time is facing an increased level of demand on the services it provides.
For implementing equal treatment and particularly those elements which involve changes in dependency arrangements, an additional amount of work for the staff of our Department is involved. I must bring these provisions into operation in the most efficient and cost effective manner. Discussions are very actively under way and I hope to be in a position to announce the full implementation of the equal treatment package at an early date. I am glad that I have been able to include in the present Bill provision for the implementation of the parts of equal treatment which do not involve additional staff, that is, the increases in the rates and duration of certain payments for married women.
I would like briefly to touch on the question of retrospection, which was also raised by Deputy McCarthy. This general question has been the subject of a High Court case and has been referred to the European Court of Justice. To that extent, it is sub judice. However, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that when people propose retrospection they should remember that as well as those elements of the equal treatment package which involve increased payments there are other elements which involve a drop in present entitlements. At present, the married woman is almost always regarded as her husband's dependant and accordingly he qualifies for increase in benefit in respect of her, regardless of her employment status. The new definition is based on the principle that one spouse will be regarded as dependent on the other spouse only if he or she is being wholly or mainly maintained by that spouse. It is a fairer definition, but means that certain people who would be regarded as dependants at present will no longer be so regarded. I do not suppose the Deputy is suggesting that people who got social welfare payments since December 1984 under the present arrangements should have these revoked or that they should be demanded back. That is what would be involved if the equal treatment provisions were made retrospective. I do not know if Deputy McCarthy is looking for the best of both worlds and that we have retrospection only in respect of those parts of the package which involve increased entitlements. That would undoubtedly be a very popular course of action but realistically we must see equal treatment as a whole. Retrospection on particular parts of the package and not on others would not be justified.
Regarding comments on the payrelated benefit floor, I said earlier that we are continuing a policy of progressively raising the level. I should mention that if the floor had been maintained at the same level in relation to the flat rate benefit as it was in April 1974 when first introduced, it would now be around £84 instead of the £58 which is proposed in the Bill.
Deputy McGinley was concerned about the disqualification period extension for disability benefit. I want to assure him that under the existing arrangements those who have genuine reasons for not attending are not penalised in any way. That arrangement will continue in the future. I can assure the Deputy that people who have genuine reasons will not be penalised.
Deputy Taylor referred to the complexity of the social welfare code and I fully agree with him. One of the provisions in the Bill is specifically designed to facilitate the process of consolidating the very many social welfare regulations which now exist. We had the Social Welfare Consolidation Bill of 1981 and much legislation since. We need to consolidate them and this work is very well under way. Section 22 of the Bill is a technical measure designed to facilitate the consolidation task. On Committee Stage, after consultation with the parliamentary draftsman, I shall be bringing in an amendment designed to simplify and clarify the provision in section 22. It is purely a technical amendment which arises from reconsideration by the parliamentary draftsman of his early draft.
Deputy Taylor also referred to the need for improvements in the appeal system, both the appeal system for social welfare matters generally and the separation system which applies in the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. I would emphasise for the Deputy's benefit that the system is designed to be independent and to give the ability of arriving at decisions quickly. Appeals officers are senior officers of the Department and their independence is guaranteed by the legislation. It is generally accepted that they operate independently. It is very important that the system should be as compassionate as possible and that matters should be dealt with as quickly as possible. I am anxious that we would not introduce any new measure which would add to delays caused by the volume of appeals — there are 12,500 appeals dealt with by 40 appeals officers. We would not like to increase that delay.
Deputy Taylor was also concerned about the procedures being off-putting for very many people. He felt that it could be a frightening experience. I certainly hope that this is not the case for most people. It is up to the appeals officer to decide whether there should be an oral hearing in any case. In practice, however, no reasonable request for an oral hearing is refused. The oral hearing gives the person an opportunity to put his own case personally to the appeals officer.
It is now 1.30 p.m. I would ask the Minister to conclude, please.
I am sorry that I have not been able to reply fully to all the points raised by Deputies.
There should have been three days put aside for this legislation.
I have done as much as I can in that respect and I commend the Bill to the House.
The Bill should not be agreed to, but we have not much choice. We wanted two days for debate.