I would reiterate what I have already said and ask the Minister to explain the points I raised in relation to the different payment dates. What would be the total cost of bringing forward the payments to, for instance, 9 July, so that we can have some uniformity? Could we have an indication from the Minister as to whether, even at this late stage, he proposes to make an additional increase to people in the over 80 category, where we have a derisory increase of 15p? It is an insult to offer that kind of increase to people over 80 years of age. What cost would be involved in having one rate of assistance for urban and rural areas to do away with the discrepancy which is causing annoyance and difficulties in many areas? I deplore the miserly increases given in this section of the Social Welfare Bill. In all my years in this House I have never seen anything so niggardly. This is a disgraceful performance by the Government.
Social Welfare Bill, 1986: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
I understand that where an adult is living with a family a system is worked out by the Department of Social Welfare made out in the form of units. We are talking in terms of assets rather than money. There may not be any money in that family and still the income is limited. This is a disgrace. This is a defect in the system in relation to an adult residing with his parents. The fact that he is living with his parents is taken into consideration and a deduction will be made of anything up to £20. This means he has £1.50 or £2 in his pocket. That is unreasonable. It means the parents do not get even one penny because of this decision by the social welfare officer.
The fact that this young man walks away with £1.50 in his pocket is, to my mind, an incentive to get involved in crime. It is not possible for an adult to go around without any money in his pocket. I often wonder if there is enough cooperation and co-ordination between the Department of Justice and the Department of Social Welfare when such decisions are being made because many crimes are committed by people who do not have very much money. This is something which will have to be reviewed by the Minister.
Another point which will have to be considered is the rural and urban differential. It is a joke that a man in an urban area gets more than a man in a rural area. I never learned why this was so but I can give good reasons why the position should be reversed. I live seven or eight miles from the city and a number of social welfare recipients, under privileged people, and people with plenty of money, living outside the city, travel by bus or car to the city to shop in the supermarkets because they get better bargains there than in the country. Yet, the man living in the rural area has a lower income. That may have been all right 25 or 30 years ago when people had gardens and grew vegetables for their own use, but that does not apply any longer. The Minister should look at this position because it is unreal.
As regards the urban and rural rates, I accept that the present position gives rise to anomalies and is very difficult to justify. It would cost about £7 million to eliminate that differential, but all I can say is that it is under active consideration.
Deputies mentioned unemployment assistance and the application of the means test to young people living with their parents. This is difficult to justify. Nonetheless, a rough estimate of the cost of abolishing the means test in those circumstances shows that it would involve an extra expenditure in excess of £30 million. If one had £30 million available, one would then have to look at one's list of priorities. Many Deputies made a strong case for back dating the increases to April, and this could cost £30 million. Should this £30 million, if we had it, be spent in this area?
The means test has been in existence as long as the unemployment assistance scheme has been in existence. The scheme of means testing was consolidated in the Consolidation Act 1981, by Fianna Fáil who were then in Government. It would have been much easier to abolish the means test in 1981 when the cost factor was less than half what it is today, because there were not as many people claiming unemployment assistance and the rates were much lower. The appropriate time to abolish this scheme was in 1981. Why was that not done then, if Deputies opposite felt so strongly about it? This is an area which will continue to receive consideration. This is one of the many aspects of social welfare which the Commission on Social Welfare are looking at and their report is due out very soon. Some Deputies gave the impression that the means test for people living alone was new. I want to put it on the record that it is not. It is as old as the unemployment assistance scheme and, as I said, Fianna Fáil had an opportunity in 1981 to do something about it when the cost factor would have been comparatively insignificant, but nothing was done then.
Deputies mentioned the differing dates of application. Section 3 provides for increases in the rates of social assistance payments by inserting a new schedule of rates, Schedule C, for the Fourth Schedule to the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. Social assistance payments are being increased by 4 per cent as follows: from 9 July for unemployment assistance, from 14 July for social welfare supplementary welfare allowances, from 17 July for deserted wives, prisoners' wives, social assistance and single women's pay allowances, and 18 July for old age pensions, blind pensions, widows and orphans and non-contributory pensions. The reason for the differing days and dates of implementation is that each scheme has its own weekly period — some being the week on Wednesday, others Thursday and others Friday. Consequently the date of application cannot be synchronised.
I should like to explain some basic concepts which underpin the system of unemployment payments. The various conditions governing these schemes are laid down in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. One of these conditions is that a claimant must be available for employment and, in order to determine whether a particular claimant is available for employment, the deciding officer must ascertain the facts of the case as far as possible and apply his judgment to the evidence. He must decide whether an applicant is genuinely on the labour market and available to take up a job if offered one, what is his or her work rate, what are the hours of study required.
I am taking this question, in the context in which Deputy Wyse posed it, of people who are availing of certain educational courses while at the same time claiming unemployment benefit or assistance. That deciding officer must take into account what are the hours of study required, would the student be likely to give up his or her studies and take a job if one were offered. The answers to these questions will determine the position but it is obvious that each case must be decided on its merits.
Full time attendance by day on a course of education generally speaking is not regarded as being consistent with the notion of being available for work during the academic year. However, full time students can qualify for unemployment payments during the summer vacation if they are available for work and satisfy the other conditions of entitlement. A student engaged in a programme of studies during the summer vacation as, for instance, in the case of a student sitting an examination in the autumn might not be entitled to payment. There are no hard and fast rules in this matter. It is almost a cliché at this stage to say so, but each case has to be considered on its merits.
The question to be determined is whether the degree of commitment to his or her studies by a person following a course is such as to render him or her unavailable for employment. Neither are there are any hard or fast rules for dealing with the situation of an adult claimant who has become unemployed and who decides to pursue his or her educational studies pending re-employment. Within the limits of the present legislation there is considerable scope for unemployed people to engage in educational courses without affecting their entitlements. Generally, persons engaged in part time courses, who are trying to improve their prospects of employment, would fulfil the availability for work condition.
While retaining the right of deciding officers to decide cases on their merits, my Department are always prepared to discuss with educational agencies and providers of educational courses whether given programmes would present difficulties from this point of view. This, combined with greater flexibility on the part of course organisers — which is becoming an increasing feature of education provision — has considerable advantages in terms of giving the unemployed a greater range of options. Generally that is the position in relation to people who are participating in certain educational courses and who, at the same time, want to claim unemployment assistance.
Deputy De Rossa raised the matter of the original estimate for supplementary welfare allowances in 1985 not having been spent. The reason for the saving was that the original figure was an overestimation. The scheme is administered by the health boards. Up to the end of 1985 it was financed jointly by local authorities and the Exchequer. The figure in our Estimate is the Exchequer contribution. It is estimated at the beginning of the year based on estimated expenditure as supplied by the health boards and estimated contributions by local authorities. The local authority contributions are fixed later by regulations. In that situation it was not easy to estimate accurately at the beginning of the year what would be the Exchequer contribution, unlike the scheme administered directly by the Department which makes more accurate estimation possible.
The original estimate for 1985 was an over-estimate. That did not mean any cutback in entitlement. In fact, the Exchequer contribution to the scheme in 1984 was £22.6 million as against an estimated £28.3 million in 1985. It will be seen, therefore, that there was no cutback effected in that area and no new guidelines issued as to how it should be administered. It is interesting to note that the total estimated expenditure on supplementary welfare allowances rose from £37.3 million in 1984 to £42.4 million in 1985 to an estimated £48.7 million in 1986. The method of financing the supplementary welfare allowance has been changed under the provisions of section 18 which we shall be discussing later.
The Minister of State has conveniently ignored some of the points raised. I might revert to the question of the dates of payment. The Minister will be aware that the first two mentioned in the section involve a difference of over a week, that is between 9 and 17 July. Subsection (2) (b) relates to deserted wife's allowance, prisoner's wife allowance, social assistance allowance and single women's allowance and constitutes a blatant discrimination against women. We have seen already in the social welfare code a number of discriminations against women in the matter of payments and benefits. Here is another blatant one. I should like to know if the Minister has consulted the Minister of State with responsibility for women's affairs about this. Surely she, in turn, has some responsibility in ensuring that this type of discrimination is ended. Could we be given some indication of whether the Minister proposes to bring forward the date of payment to 10 July? The excuse he has advanced about different dates of payment does not wash here because there is over a week in the difference.
(Dublin North-West): I should like to raise with the Minister the abolition of the means test. He said it would cost £30 million, relative to young people who apply for social welfare assistance. The present position is not acceptable. I know many young people in my constituency who apply for social welfare assistance who, when means tested, are deemed to be ineligible. I know that many of those young people have left home and gone into hostels. Indeed I am aware that many young girls have become pregnant. It should be remembered that, when their baby is born, the local authority are obliged by law to house them. Also, once their baby is born, the State must pay them the unmarried mother's allowance which has been increased but was £54 a week. Then the relevant health board must provide furniture and bed clothing. Additionally they must pay them social welfare assistance toward the cost of paying bills. I do not agree with the moral implications of the law in this respect.
There are two points I wanted to make, one in relation to the supplementary welfare allowance and the other, unemployment assistance. Replying to my point concerning the saving of £3.4 million in the Supplementary Estimate of May last year the Minister said this arose because of an overestimation of the money required to fund the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.
I have been here for a number of years now and I do not recall any similar over-estimation by the Department or by the Minister in relation to this scheme. It seems that, while the Minister argues that no guidelines were issued which would restrict payments under this scheme, the changes in the fuel allowance legislation, or regulations which the Minister brought in here last year have had an effect on the payments made by the health boards under this scheme. It seems also regarding the number of people in receipt of clothing grants, particularly for children returning to school in September, that the guidelines which were issued in the middle of 1984, if my recollection is correct, certainly had an effect on the money paid out by health boards under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. After a long number of months I managed to get some figures for the appeals lodged in relation to clothing grants and discovered that something like 700 appeals were lodged in the Eastern Health Board area in 1984 when the new guidelines issued.
I do not know how many of those appeals were successful, but these were people who prior to the new guidelines being issued were in receipt of clothing grants. I know from personal contact with the people that those who were refused last year did not bother to apply this year because they felt it would be pointless. Those who had applied last year were refused, appealed, waited six months for a reply and were still refused. It is fine for the Minister to say that there are no new guidelines or restrictions on this supplementary welfare allowance scheme when the practice on the ground is that it is very much restricted and the regulations are being applied much more strictly now than they were in the past.
The previous Minister — not the present one — described the scheme as a net to catch those who were worse off in our society, but the scheme which is intended to provide that safety net is being restricted and this results in a saving. It was not classified as an overestimation in the Minister's speech last December; it was classified as a saving of £3.4 million. A scheme being administered as a safety net that can show a saving of £3.4 million, when the poor in our society are poorer than ever, seems a failure of common sense. As another Deputy said here, if these schemes are administered in such a way that people are left with nothing in their pockets, then they have no option but to get the money somewhere. There is no other way out of it.
That applies also to the whole question of unemployment assistance. I tabled an amendment to insert a new section before section 4, but the argument applies equally to section 3. The kind of amendment that I was looking for to the Bill provided that in calculating the weekly rate for people living at home the element which would be ascribed to a person as being the value of his or her lodgings would not be taken into account. While I do not go the whole way with Deputy Michael Barrett in relation to what he seemed to be implying, that young women become pregnant simply to get the unmarried mother's allowance, let me say that many young people are being forced out of the home through economic necessity.
There must be some amendment which can be introduced to this scheme. I have made a number of suggestions in recent months by way of Parliamentary Question to the Minister in relation to it. There must be some way of amending this scheme whereby single people living at home — they are not all teenagers; some very mature people are living at home with their parents and have virtually no money in their pockets which they can call their own — can have an income in their own right while unemployed. I have suggested a minimum income and various ways of altering the assessment procedure and so on. I do not believe it is beyond the capacity or the wit of the Minister or his Department to devise a scheme whereby single people living at home could have a basic minimum income which they can call their own and where single men and women are not dependent on handouts from brothers, sisters or parents in order to get a bus into town even to look for a job.
It is no longer acceptable for the Minister simply to trot out a global figure that it will cost £30 million to abolish the means test. It may well cost so much if it is to be abolished, but I am not arguing here that we should go the whole hog this year. I am arguing that the Minister can come up with a scheme which eliminates a situation where people are walking the streets with nothing in their pockets. If large numbers of young people are walking the streets with no money in their pockets, then there is little point in our throwing our hands up in horror when they get into trouble. I make that point strongly to the Minister and I hope he will take it on board.
We have been told time and time again that the Commission on Social Welfare are due to report. I was told last year that they were due to report and, therefore, there was no point in doing anything in relation to this matter. The Minister says now that he understands it is to be published shortly. Even if the report of the commission is to be published tomorrow, how soon can we expect that legislation or regulations will be introduced to alter the situation to which I have referred at length? I intend at every opportunity I get in this House to return to this question because it is a disgrace.
I want to follow up my question regarding a young person returning to a course of education and at the same time being allowed to draw unemployment assistance. I was somewhat surprised when the Minister said there is no hard and fast rule. There is. As soon as a young person walks in to sign for unemployment assistance and informs the officer concerned that he is returning to school and taking up education and that he is available for work, he is automatically struck off the register. There is a hard and fast rule there. In what I am talking about there is no additional cost to the Exchequer. If a boy or girl did not take up a course he or she would still be in receipt of unemployment assistance. However, others abuse the social welfare system. After signing on they take up employment in the black economy but young boys or girls who tell the local officials that they intend pursuing a part time of full time education course while awaiting employment are victimised. They will not receive any financial benefit for returning to full time or part time education in an effort to improve themselves.
A young person who gives an undertaking to a local official that he or she is available for work, and until a job becomes available proposes to pursue an education course, should be paid an allowance. We should be encouraging that. At least such young people are not walking the streets aimlessly and getting involved in crime. Young people should be encouraged to return to education while awaiting employment. I am not asking the Exchequer to pay out any extra money but an injustice is being done to young people as far as unemployment assistance is concerned. The Minister should give serious consideration to this. Young people should be given an opportunity to improve their standard of education in the hope that they will pick up some type of employment.
For the last 12 months I have been appealing to the Government to give a fair break to young people, particularly those drawing unemployment assistance. Most of them are in the fortunate position that they are not told by their parents that they should stop going to school and sign for unemployment assistance because the income is needed. We are depriving young people of an opportunity of further education while at the same time thousands abuse the social welfare system and make a lot of money in the black economy. The Minister should give this matter serious consideration. What I am proposing will not mean an extra burden on the Exchequer because such people are entitled to unemployment benefit. They should be permitted to pursue full time or part time education courses.
I should like to make reference to the delays that occur in regard to unemployment assistance claims. It is not an unfair political comment to say that it takes an extraordinary amount of time to process claims. Unnecessary hardship results for those who are entitled to unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. I am concerned about the technical reasons being advanced by the Department for nonpayment of benefits. We are all aware that the standard reply sent to Members, and those claiming unemployment assistance, is to the effect that the Department are not satisfied that the individual is available for work. On that pretext the Department get off the hook and many genuine claimants have to depend on the generosity of local organisations.
At a time of high unemployment I wonder how a person can convince the Department that he or she is available for work. In many cases those who are refused benefit must obtain a note from potential employers that there is no work available. Those fortunate enough to be approved by the Department must wait between six and 12 weeks for a payment. I accuse the Department of concocting reasons for dragging out the process. The Minister should be concerned to streamline the operation and make it easier for those who are genuinely unemployed to receive their benefit.
I am sure the Minister is aware from working in his constituency that this is happening and that Members must make representations daily on behalf of applicants. We are not caring for the unemployed in the way we should. The Department appear anxious to drag out the process and inflict unnecessary hardship on the people who are unfortunate enough not to have a job. Three or four weeks after claims are submitted applicants receive letters from the Department to the effect that they are not satisfied the person is looking for work. Documentary evidence is requested but when that is submitted it takes the Department a long time to reach a decision.
I should like to refer to the unnecessary bureaucracy involved in the processing of claims. Why is it necessary for an application for benefit from a person in Laois to be submitted to the Castlecomer or Carlow office for further investigation only to be returned to Laois before being forwarded to Dublin for a final decision? We have heard a lot of talk by the Government about the need to streamline the operations of the House and of Departments but I do not think anybody has heard of a more unwieldy, cumbersome and expensive system of Government administration than that. In fairness to those who are genuinely unemployed, and in the interest of efficiency and saving public money, the Minister should have all applications dealt with at county level.
In this way the applications could be submitted to the local district officers where they would be investigated and processed and if necessary the Minister could continue with centralised payments from the Department. There is no justification, even in terms of economic considerations, for the present system being continued. I am appealing to the Minister to put in train immediately a system that would centralise the Department and transfer the responsibility to local offices in each county so that all claims could be processed in each county by officers of the Department. That is the commonsense way to deal with social welfare especially at a time when we hear so much about attempts to streamline the bureaucracy in which all of us, both in this House and outside it, have been bogged down for many years.
I wish to refer now to a matter that was brought to my notice only very recently and this relates to people wishing to offer their services in doing voluntary work for the community. In the town of Portlaoise a number of groups are involved actively in providing voluntarily very worthwhile community schemes. What concerns me is that I have heard that anyone who is in receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance but who is anxious to contribute in a voluntary capacity to work in the community, must first seek the approval of the Minister and of the Department.
Who could have thought up such a regulation? We are talking about people who are prepared voluntarily to make a valuable input into community work and who through no fault of their own are unemployed. Are such people expected now, before they embark on any such work, to notify the Department that they intend becoming involved in some small voluntary community project and to ask for the approval of the Department? That would be a disgraceful regulation on the part of the Department. It would destroy one of the most outstanding characteristics remaining among our people and which exists in very few other countries. I am referring to the great interest in community development and to the desire on the part of people to contribute to community development. Again because of bureaucracy are we to attempt to extinguish that great Irish instinct of commitment to overall national community development? If what I am saying is true, the Minister should take action immediately to redress the position so that instead of victimising people who are prepared to serve the community in a voluntary capacity, every encouragement would be given to them. Last evening I attended a meeting of a very important voluntary development group in my constituency at which I was asked to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister.
My final point relates to unemployment assistance for small farmers or the so-called small farmers' dole. Many smallholders are being deprived of unemployment assistance for some technical bureaucratic reason whereby there is some kind of fictitious means of calculating an applicant's income. I submit that some of those investigating claims for unemployment assistance are not qualified to assess accurately a farmer's income. Small farmers are struggling to make ends meet. The income from their holdings is very limited and in many cases they are being denied supplementary income. This prevents them from being able to continue to operate their small farms. The Minister should set up an effective system whereby the income of small farmers can be quantified credibly instead of having some kind of scale devised by civil servants which bears no relationship to real income and does not take account of the many expenses of small holders.
Anyone who read in the Press today the report of yesterday's debate between the EC Agricultural Minister and the representatives of the various political parties, including the Minister for Agriculture, will realise what farm income is likely to be in 1986. That is another reason for the Minister having a fresh look at the position of smallholders who have had to depend for a long time on State support to supplement their dwindling farm income. Unless the situation is redressed many smallholders will have to emigrate or to dispose of their holdings. They are being deprived of their entitlement.
These, then, are the anomalies as I perceive them in the operation of the social welfare code. I was pleased to hear a Deputy from the other side of the House refer to the plight of single people living at home in so far as social welfare assistance is concerned. I do not know whether it is by regulation or otherwise but the position is that whatever chance a young man living at home has of qualifying for some small amount of unemployment assistance, a girl has no chance of being given any such assistance. I am hearing of cases all the time of girls who are living at home being deprived of unemployment assistance because of the Department interpreting the support they receive at home as adequate income. This is a serious form of discrimination against female applicants for unemployment assistance though there is discrimination in this respect, too, so far as male applicants are concerned. I am appealing to the Minister to address himself to this problem. Having regard to the many pressures on the family and to the effort and sacrifice that goes into rearing and educating children, are we not victimising parents by not paying unemployment assistance to young people merely on the basis that they live with their parents? It is no fault of these young people that they cannot find work. What is involved in this regard is discrimination against the family unit.
I trust that the Minister will take note of the anomalies I have outlined especially as they affect people in rural Ireland.
One can appreciate the limitations of the Minister in terms of the level of increases that is possible. However, one would have hoped for greater increases especially in relation to unemployment assistance. The level of income at which a person may qualify for this assistance is extremely low. In many cases it is below subsistence level.
I am sure everyone in the House will be aware of the anomalies in the social welfare code. We are all aware of the extraordinary anomalies in relation to the application of unemployment assistance. Perhaps the Department would do well to investigate the manner in which application are investigated. It would seem that, depending on the personality and the attitude of the social welfare officers concerned, determination of eligibility varies from place to place. A decision in one area may be very different from a decision in another area even when the circumstances in both cases are similar. There is need for more agreement in investigating procedure.
Many of the points which I wished to raise have been dealt with already. Deputy Wyse has mentioned those who decide to take up part time education. They have no other employment and hope to improve their position but are unfairly disqualified from unemployment assistance. They then give up the part time education. This matter should be closely examined. In relation to rural unemployment assistance, a young married couple may be living with, for example, the wife's brother or the husband's father. The assessments in these cases are made not just against the applicant but also against the householder. If the wife's brother is a farmer, the local social welfare officer demands that his entire income be thoroughly investigated, which is most unfair. It is claimed that lodgings are being provided by that relative, but it is only accommodation which is being provided, and it has to be until the council provide them with accommodation. There should be tougher control over the activities of some social welfare officers.
Deputy Hyland has already raised the manner in which social welfare officers assess people for smallholder's assistance. Many of these assessors are incompetent, not being familiar enough with the agricultural scene to give a fair assessment. I know that within the past year or so there have been great strides to improve the situation and fairly good guidelines have been set down, but there are still many anomalies. There is need for closer examination in this regard. In many cases items which would be allowable with regard to smallholders are not taken into account initially by the investigating officers. Many of these items are accepted only on appeal, particularly on oral appeal. There has been talk about duplication and triplication of work, but if such matters were effectively dealt with initially there would be no need for a subsequent appeal.
Most people who sign for unemployment assistance do so out of dire need, although there is a certain amount of abuse. There can be an appalling delay between the date of signing and the date of actual payment. In the meantime the applicants must go to the local community welfare officer and, after a certain amount of hassle and investigation, get supplementary welfare allowance. This is soul destroying. They must go from place to place and suffer great embarrassment. I hope that there will be an improvement in the manner in which investigations are carried out and that there will be more conformity with regard to decisions.
I welcome the intervention of Deputy Hyland, not that I agree with everything he said. He has certainly emphasised a point which needs emphasis. That is that the payment of social welfare benefits is not just a matter of form. Certain newspapers have had a recent campaign giving the impression that payments of social welfare benefits of all kinds are made after the minimum of checking. What Deputy Hyland has said underscores the point that too much care and attention are sometimes paid to applications and that it is not easy to succeed with a claim for unemployment benefit or assistance. As the Deputy said, certain red tape and bureaucracy must be gone through. Practically all of this is necessary, however. I hope that those who criticise the Department and what they see as the ease with which people can get benefits will take note of contributions such as Deputy Hyland's.
His contribution contrasts sharply with that of Deputy Wyse, who said it was very difficult for young people to get unemployment assistance, the not so young can sign on, get their money and go off to work in the black economy. These contradictions demonstrate my problem in trying to reply to this debate. Deputy Hyland would be nearer to the actual position in saying that there are undue delays, too much bureaucracy and so on. Some delay is necessary to establish one's entitlements. The main problem at present is the volume of applications, which has increased substantially. Yet the standard of investigation to ensure that people are entitled to what they are claiming has not dropped. The process has been streamlined and will continue to be streamlined to ensure the minimum of delay between a claim being made and payment being issued. If Deputies know of any cases of undue delay, they should bring these to the notice of the Department or to me and we will look for the reason. There must be explanations in these cases.
The subject of the means test has been raised and I have dealt with this matter in detail during this debate. I would like to see the means test abolished. I mentioned a rough figure of £30 million and one must bear in mind that if the means test were abolished those who would benefit would not be the worst off. I would ask all Deputies who raised this point, if they had the opportunity to make a gift of £20 with a choice of two people — one the unemployed son of a person on maximum rate of unemployment assistance and the other the son of a successful businessman or big farmer with no unemployment assistance because of a means test — to which would they give their gift? I am sure that they would give it to the unemployed son of the man on maximum rate of unemployment assistance, rather than to the son or daughter of a big businessman or farmer. Similarly, on the question of abolishing the means test, you must remember that in the example I gave the son of the unemployed person has maximum rate unemployment assistance but the other "poor" person has nothing so he should get the money. Abolishing the means test will mean that those who are perhaps better off than others will benefit more than those who are worse off because if their parents are unemployed they are in receipt of the maximum rate of unemployment assistance. Therefore, providing an additional sum of £30 million to abolish the means test will not make any difference to those people.
I should like to give a rough example of the application of the board and lodgings regulation which has been in existence since unemployment schemes were brought into being and was also consolidated in the 1981 Act. To arrive at a sum for board and lodging we take the average earnings of £185 per week which, after tax, would be about £130 per week. The parental allowance of £90 is deducted giving a net sum of £40 per week. A son or daughter claiming unemployment assistance would be assessed with a maximum of 12½ per cent of £130 which is £16.20 per week. They would, therefore, receive unemployment assistance at the rate of £36.70 less £16.20, giving them £20.50 per week.
Deputy Wyse said that we should encourage young unemployed people to further their education but the problem is that the unemployment assistance scheme is not designed to cater for full time students. We receive many representations in this regard and each case is judged on its merits. Most young people at school, certainly at second and third level, could argue with some justification that they are only staying on at school because they do not have a job. It might not be true, but it would be very hard to distinguish between those who wanted to further their education and those who would prefer to be working——
I was referring to those who are entitled to unemployment assistance.
Yes, but entitlement arises from being available for work and actively seeking employment. Quite a number of students could make the point that they were actively seeking employment and that they were available for employment. However, as I said earlier, each case is judged on its merits and there is a degree of flexibility in this regard. If a young person can prove to the satisfaction of a deciding officer that he or she is more committed to seeking employment than to furthering his or her education, it would be a very different situation. There is no discrimination in the treatment of males or females or in the assessment of their means for unemployment assistance.
I thought I had answered Deputy Daly's point but he was not satisfied with my reply regarding different dates. All the payments are due to be paid in the same week but there are different days for the reasons I stated. In the case of 9 July, if the Deputy looks at his diary he will realise that it falls on a Wednesday. Unemployment assistance is paid on a Friday so that will be paid on 18 July. Some payments are made in arrears, others are up to date and some are paid a day or two in advance. All payment will date from 9 July although they may not be paid on that day. This is not new——
Paragraph (a) is new.
No, it is not.
Will the payments all apply from 9 July?
No, because there will be different dates. However, they will all be paid in the week ending 18 July.
They will not be increased from 9 July?
Payments will refer to the week starting on 9 July.
So they will be paid from 9 July.
In that week, but they will not all be paid on the same date because some are paid in advance and some in arrears.
But they will all get their increase from 9 July?
No; 9 July happens to be a Wednesday.
The Minister is discriminating against deserted wives, single women, prisoner's wives and orphans. It is a very poor performance from a Minister who claims to be so concerned about women's issues.
They will be paid in the same week. The week commences for different people on different days.
Will they all get their increase on 9 July?
They will all be paid in the same week. Payments in pension books are made out on a weekly basis.
The Minister is confused himself and is confusing all of us. Will these increases be paid from 9 July to these four categories?
They will be paid in the same week.
The Minister is trying to juggle the figures, discriminating against orphans and widows. It is a very poor performance.
The Deputy is really splitting hairs. If we were to try to do what he wants, it would mean that the weekly increase would have to be broken up into a daily increase.
How much additional money would it cost to pay the increase on 9 July?
They are all paid from the same week.
Could the Minister check that out?
The Deputy is splitting hairs.
The Minister is not paying an increase which is in force from 9 July.
Is the Deputy aware that there are different weeks for different benefits?
There is more than a week between 9 July and 18 July.
The people will be paid their increase on the 18th. Even if no increase were being granted, then on 18 July people would be collecting their benefit from 9 July for that week.
The Minister is confused about the issue. The increase is not being paid on 9 July.
I thank the Minister for his reply and the care he gave to a number of points I raised in my initial contribution. When we are talking about unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit payments we are talking about money which has been extracted from the taxpayers and PRSI contributors. Therefore there is an obligation on the Government to get the best possible return from the money so extracted. The Minister of State may be able to enlighten me on a question which has long puzzled me. We have a number of short term employment projects like Teamwork and some of the AnCO projects, not to talk about the shortfall in the availability of money to the Department of the Environment and the various county councils. On the other hand, we have the Department of Social Welfare who seem to have an almost bottomless resource as far as public money is concerned. Why have we not devised a situation whereby the Minister for Social Welfare would enter into a dialogue with her colleague, the Minister for the Environment, with a view to transferring funds from Social Welfare to the Department of Labour for the continuation of employment under, for example, the Teamwork project or to the Department of the Environment to keep roadworkers in employment.
You are moving away from section 3.
I have not gone completely off the rails.
You are in the process.
I will get back on the rails immediately by putting a question to the Minister of State. Surely it should be possible for the Minister's Department to channel funds and transfer them from his Department into the productive areas of the economy. I would regard the Teamwork project, the AnCO projects and the projects run by the Department of the Environment as being productive. They are all financed from public funding. All Government Departments are financed from public funding. Surely it should be a simple exercise in organisation within Government Departments to reach an understanding and agreement in relation to the transfer of scarce financial resources. How is it that the Department of Social Welfare happen to be the Department who have an endless financial resource available to them, which other more desirable, more essential and more deserving sectors of the economy are deprived of the level of finance they require?
You are off the rails now. You have drifted completely away from section 3. This Bill is to be concluded at 6 o'clock and we are still on section 3.
I mentioned the Department of Labour and Teamwork as a passing reference.
It was passed three times.
I ask the Minister of State to explain to the House if there is any cooperation between his Department and the more productive areas of the economy.
In reply to Deputy Hyland's point, it is not a simple matter of transferring funds from the Department of Social Welfare to the Department of the Environment. Intense study and research have been done on suggestions of that kind over many years but it would take much more money in the sense that an administrative and supervisory structure would have to be provided to employ people, not to mention materials and machinery. The latter take up a bigger slice of the budget than the wages paid to workers. The social employment scheme is part of the answer, but nobody has ever claimed it as the full answer. We would hope to encourage more people to avail of the social employment scheme over the next 12 months or so. That is the nearest one can get to the suggestion Deputy Hyland has made.
Deputy Hyland referred earlier to voluntary work. Every encouragement is given to unemployed people to take part in voluntary work. It is very hard to dodge the regulations governing the social welfare system. The Government are now providing substantial sums of money to voluntary organisations. For example, this year within the Department of Social Welfare we have £750,000 to allocate to voluntary organisations. In order to curb abuses it is necessary to keep some check on those engaged in voluntary work. If somebody is working and claiming benefit on the grounds that he is doing voluntary work, it would be impossible to keep track unless prior permission had been given. If that is done there would be no hassle afterwards.
Before the prior permission stipulation, people were caught working who were genuinely in voluntary work but they were disallowed benefit pending investigation and that caused problems. Therefore, before engaging in voluntary work people have to go through the necessary procedure and thereafter they have nothing to worry about — the officers know who have been cleared for voluntary work. This is another example to show that the Department are not lax, that every caution will be taken and every encouragement given to voluntary workers and others. The Government are well aware of and appreciate the work of such voluntary organisations.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 have been ruled out of order.
I regret that my amendments, providing that there should be a further increase in the rates of supplementary benefits from 33? per cent to 50 per cent, would have involved an extra charge on the Exchequer and were therefore disallowed. It is a pity the Government did not make a realistic attempt to make the family income supplement more attractive. If ever a scheme failed, this one has. From the beginning it was a major con job. When the Government introduced it in 1984 it was the anchor on which they would combat poverty among lower paid workers. It would alleviate hardship resulting from the removal of 50 per cent of the food subsidies, and families affected by that would benefit to the tune of £5 or £6 per week to compensate for the increased prices of food.
How much money was saved in 1985 on the original allocation for the FIS? In 1984 the Government, with the greatest degree of triumphalism and trumpeting, introduced the scheme, and the Minister for Social Welfare spoke in ecstasy about how well it would work. He assured us that more than 35,000 families would benefit. The Government were confident that that number would benefit by £7 or £8 per week each.
The stark reality is that it was a con job. I have here an application form containing so many pages, each one filled with various questions, that you would think you were applying for an international work visa, something of great benefit, instead of the miserly amount you would get as a result of being deemed eligible for this scheme. Since September 1984, when we were told that 35,000 would benefit, only 6,000 people have applied. That may be because the scheme was so badly planned and the benefits so poor. It has turned out to be a failure, although it was supposed to be a major instrument to be used by the Government to combat poverty among low paid workers.
If the Government truly were interested in combating poverty among those people they would have considered seriously that only unemployed people should be eligible. What did they do? They specifically excluded unemployed people from applying. That alone has proved that the policy of the Government is to kick the unemployed into the gutter. One would think that the Government regard the unemployed as inferior, as a mass of human beings not worth treating properly.
Not alone did the Government exclude the unemployed but they have made it nearly impossible for anyone to apply for this benefit. One would have to be pretty good with a pen and need plenty of intelligence to be able to complete this document properly. If one did not fill it in properly, it would be sent back, or it would get lost. It seems to be the trend that half of these forms do not arrive where they should.
Would the Minister say exactly how many people out of the 35,000 people who are supposed to be entitled to avail of the scheme are availing of it? How many people do the Department project will take up the scheme before the end of this year as a result of the increase? Does the Minister think that there will be a major run on the scheme as a result of the increased upper limit? I doubt it but I would be glad to hear the Minister's view.
Proinsias de Rossa
The family income supplement is a good idea as far as it goes. In the absence of a statutory minimum wage it is the least we can do for those on very low pay. This is really a subsidisation of bad employers who refuse to pay an adequate income. It is interesting that this scheme does not apply to people working fewer than 30 hours a week even though they may work for five days. It is also important to note that the number of people who it was expected would qualify under this scheme did not materialise. The figure mentioned when the scheme was announced was 35,000 people. Where did that figure come from? Do the Department still feel that 35,000 people are entitled to qualify under the scheme or is the figure greater or lesser? I would also like up-to-date figures as to the number who have applied not just since the scheme started, but in the last 12 months, and how many have qualified.
The point raised by Deputy McCarthy about the application form for the scheme is important. The advertising for the scheme is also important. When aiming a scheme at the poorest amongst us we must be careful about the avenues we choose through which we advertise. The effect of advertising on television is not always all that it is made out to be. The experience with the measles immunisation scheme is a classic example of where a flashy, costly advertising scheme had virtually no impact on those who most needed immunisation. It was only as a result of an appearance on the Late Late Show that the scheme actually took off. People watching this show suddenly realised the risk they were running by not having their children immunised and that the scheme was available free of charge. To what extent have the Department examined the impact of the advertising of this scheme on the people it is intended to reach? I suggested that a simple way of reaching the relevant people would be through the Revenue Commissioners. Everyone in paid employment is on the records of the Revenue Commissioners. Given computerisation and so on, it would be relatively easy to send out a notice to all people earning below a certain level, and a form with their tax free allowance form, encouraging them to apply for this scheme. That is a very direct method of informing people of their entitlements. The previous Minister gave me an undertaking last year that he would look into that possibility. Has the suggestion been followed up, and what if any problems are there in pursuing that line of informing people of their entitlements under this scheme?
Unfortunately we have a fairly high level of illiteracy which creates a problem in relation to the application form. Even if one has gone through the educational system, right up to leaving certificate level, it is not a guarantee that one will understand many of the social welfare forms. I am constantly surprised at the complexity of some social welfare forms. Indeed, the regulations and explanatory leaflets often leave one more in the dark than when one started.
This leads to another point which relates not only to the question of the family income supplement but to a whole range of other benefits, that is information for social welfare claimants. There was a social welfare claimants' rights week run recently when it was discovered that a considerable number of people were unaware of their rights under the social welfare code.
I came across a significant number of people who were told at labour exchanges that they were not entitled to sign on and these people assumed that was the end of it. I would not go so far as to say that the people in labour exchanges were deliberately misleading them, but perhaps they were ignorant of the regulations. An increased number of women are refused unemployment benefit and are then told that they no longer have the right to sign on. That is totally untrue. The result is that the women concerned do not maintain the continuity of contributions or credits. This area is not directly related to the section, but it is an example of the way in which social welfare claimants are unaware of their rights and are not particularly helped by the people in the various social welfare offices. That is not to be interpreted as saying that every employee in the Department of Social Welfare is unhelpful. My experience is that they are very helpful. Unfortunately, there are incidences where people are not given the help they need in the way which would make sense to them in order to pursue their rights.
There are two areas arising from the family income supplement—first, the nature of the application form and how it might be simplified, and, secondly, a better way of reaching the people who are entitled to this supplement and who, if the first estimates of those entitled to it are correct, are not aware of what is available to them or do not know where to go to make inquiries about it. The Minister and the Department have an obligation to ensure that everyone who is entitled to benefit under this scheme can avail of it.
I am disappointed that this scheme has not been more successful. When it was introduced it appeared to have great possibilities and it was sold by the Government as the answer to many problems. Many of us felt it would be of great help to a number of families but it is disappointing to hear that very few families have availed of it or that few applications were approved. Why are so few families availing of this scheme? Is it because of the complexity of the application forms? Is it because of the delays in having the application forms processed? Is it because it had become too difficult for people to answer the questions? Did people decide not to pursue their claims? As I said, it is most disappointing to hear that so few families have been approved for benefit under the scheme. Perhaps the Minister would answer my questions.
The number of people who have availed of this scheme has been disappointing and I do not believe there is any one answer to this problem. It was very difficult to assess the exact number of people who would qualify. It was estimated that 35,000 families could be involved and this was based on a number of factors, including information from the Revenue Commissioners which was at least 18 months out of date.
Prior to the introduction of the scheme there was a great deal of talk in this House to the effect that it did not pay people to work and that many of them would be better off unemployed. I never agreed with that point of view. The scheme was introduced to help people in low paid employment where their employers were not in a position to give them a better wage. We were told many thousands of people were forced to give up their low paid jobs and to go on unemployment benefit because, it was claimed, they would be better off. This scheme was introduced to try to remedy that situation. There was always the danger, as Deputy De Rossa stated, that this scheme would be abused by unscrupulous employers as a subsidy on wages, but this has not proved so because, if that had happened, many more people would have availed of the scheme.
During 1985, 5,600 supplementary payments were made costing £2.3 million. Every effort was made, and will continue to be made, to advertise the scheme. I agree that the people we are aiming at are the least accessible to advertising. They may not buy newspapers, have television to take notice of advertising because with no purchasing power they are not interested in what is advertised on posters and elsewhere. Ways and means must be devised to reach these people. We are all aware of the fact that there are people who should be getting these payments but are not.
The application form has been mentioned. This form was devised to practically eliminate the necessity for officials of the Department calling on people for further information. People should apply by sending in their application forms to be processed. They would then get back the allowance if they were entitled to it and there would not be any necessity for investigations. That is the problem about making the application form any simplier, or taking away some of the questions, because we should avoid as far as possible the necessity to have officials calling on these people.
This is a temporary scheme which will continue in existence until the new child benefit scheme is fully implemented, and then it will go by the board. In the meantime every effort will continue to be made to reach as many people as possible. The statistics available were not very reliable for a number of reasons but they were the best available at the time. I hope the adjustments provided in section 4 will increase the number of people availing of this scheme.
Section 4 provides for increases in the income limits up to which the family income supplement is payable. It provides for an increase in the percentage rate of the supplement and increases in the maximum amount of supplements payable under the scheme. One of the reasons underlying the introduction of the family income supplement scheme was to deal with the situation where people on low earnings might have a net income only marginally greater than what they would receive if they were in receipt of social welfare benefits. The family income supplement calculation is therefore related to the net income which people on low earnings receive as compared with the net income of social welfare recipients. The scheme is confined to families with children where one parent is or both parents are in the active labour force.
The level of income up to which a supplement is payable at present is £100 for a one child family, increasing by £18 a week for each additional child up to the fifth. The income level at which the maximum supplement is payable is £68 a week for a one child family, increasing by £8 for each additional child up to the fifth. The maximum weekly supplement is £8 for a child family increasing by £2.50 for each additional child up to the fifth. The changes in the upper income limits are necessary because of the 1986 budget improvements in personal income taxation and the new rate of short term benefits provided in section 2 of this Bill. The £100 limit for a one child family will remain unchanged but subsection (1) provides that the increase in the limit for each additional child will be raised from £18 to £20 by amendment of section 232B of the Principal Act.
Subsection (2) (a) provides for a more favourable calculation of the amount of supplement. The supplement was originally calculated at 25 per cent of the difference between gross family income and a prescribed upper income limit for the family size in question. This is being increased to one-third of the difference between family income and the prescribed upper income limited. Subsection (2) provides for an increase in the maximum amounts payable in respect of each family size. As stated earlier, the upper income limits for family income supplement are fixed in relation to the level of short term benefits payable to an unemployed person. At present the total amount of short term benefit, disability benefit, unemployment benefit and pay-related benefit are subject to certain limits by reference to the person's previous earnings. For unemployment benefit this is set at 85 per cent of a person's recent take-home pay. These limits do not apply where flat rate benefit only is payable. Therefore, for low income workers with families the flat rate benefit alone could exceed 85 per cent of a worker's normal take-home pay. The family income supplement upper limits were worked out to ensure that an employed person would not be left with a net income below what a person in receipt of unemployment benefit would receive.
Subsections (2) (a) and (b) provide for an increase in the maximum amount of family income supplement payable to each family size. The lower income limits on which these maximum amounts are based are set by reference to the levels of supplementary welfare allowance. These limits also require to be changed because of increases in the maximum rates of supplementary welfare allowance payable from July. The effect of the increase will mean that the maximum amount payable will increase by £2, from £8 to £10, for a one child family and by £4 instead of £2.50 for each additional child up to and including the fifth child in the family. Subsection (2) (d) provides for rounding up to the nearest £ when calculating the rates of supplement. At present, in calculating the rate of family income supplement, family income is rounded to the nearest £ which with the 25 per cent increase gave increased rates of supplement in 25p steps. The provision of subsection (2) (d) will reduce the number of rates and represents a major improvement in this regard. Subsection (3) provides that these changes will take effect from 10 April 1986.
Perhaps the Minister would respond to the query I raised with regard to using the Revenue Commissioners as a means of reaching those on low incomes who might be eligible under the provisions of the family income supplement scheme. The answer might well indicate some of the reasons that the provisions of this scheme are not being applied for. Could the Minister indicate whether income received under the provisions of this scheme is assessable for differential rents purposes and if the income is assessable also for medical card purposes? In relation to unemployment assistance, if the mother or father is working and is receiving this family income supplement, would the Minister say whether that supplement would be taken into account in assessing the means of a dependent son or daughter who might apply for unemployment assistance? What I am trying to ascertain is whether this supplement is taken into account in relation to differential rents, medical cards or unemployment assistance. Perhaps the Minister would also indicate what has been the lowest single supplement paid to anybody under this scheme.
What are the Minister's projected figures for increasing the takeup of this scheme by the end of this year in the light of the increase from 25 per cent to one-third? An approximate takeup of 6,000 people out of a projected 35,000 leaves their projections 29,000 wrong. That is an appallingly mistaken projected figure by any establishment. I do not care whether the Department or the Revenue Commissioners were to blame. To get their figures so twisted as to be only one-seventh correct is an appalling indictment of their vision. The Minister did concede that the scheme had been a disappointment. The Minister could concede that it has been a failure, a major con job, that what they have done in terms of fiddling between 25 per cent and one-third will not render this "pennies from heaven" scheme any more attractive.
The lowest amount of supplementary welfare paid is £1. The difficulty in basing estimates on information from the Revenue Commissioners is that one could well contend that the section of people in which the Revenue are least interested are those on very low incomes, people obviously outside the tax net. Therefore we cannot criticise the Revenue Commissioners for devoting their resources to keeping tighter records of people with larger earnings. The Revenue Commissioners would not constitute the best source of accurate information of people on low earnings because generally speaking those people would not come within the tax net. What is required is accurate up-to-date information. There is a difficulty in that whole area. Were we to insist that the Revenue Commissioners keep such records we would be diverting resources away from more important work in the sense that their task is to devote their resources to ascertaining the people with incomes and salaries subject to taxation, rather than people from whom they have no hope of getting a penny.
In reply to Deputy McCarthy, I might say that we are not unique in the shortfall of applications. Experience has been similar — though perhaps not to the same extent — in Great Britain, in that the take-up of their family income supplement scheme fell far short of what had been anticipated.
Deputy De Rossa raised a point with regard to means testing. Supplements would be taken into account in means testing. Let us take the example of two people, one with an income of £120 a week and another, with similar family size, with an earned income of £100 and a supplement element of, say, £20, would have to be treated in the same way. One could not discriminate against one applicant simply because his total income was derived from his job and another who had the same income made up of a family income supplement plus an income from his job. I imagine they would have to be treated in the same way for the various schemes that demand means testing.
I am not criticising the Revenue Commissioners at all for not dealing with this question of the family income supplement. I am criticising the Minister and his Department for not using a State agency who are there and are in contact with every single person who is in paid employment and who once registered as an employee and with a PRSI number is automatically on the records of the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissiones now at this very minute are churning out hundreds of thousands of tax free allowance certificates. I received one just last week. Every person in paid employment is or at least should be getting a tax free allowance certificate. I take it they are churned out by computer.
It would be a relatively simple matter to add a statement onto the tax free allowance certificate that the person may be entitled to family income supplement and should please contact the proper authority. Some simple message on the tax free allowance certificate could go to everybody if the job of separating those on a particularly low income from those on high incomes is too great or too costly. There is no reason why the same message should not go out on every tax free allowance certificate. As a result people who are not entitled to the supplement might apply for it, but at least a great many more who are entitled to it would be made aware of that fact.
That is the only point I am making in relation to the Revenue Commissioners. The mechanism is there for reaching everybody who we believe is entitled to this income supplement and it is a shame that it has not been used. I am not criticising the Revenue Commissioners. I am criticising the Department who do not appear to have taken on board a suggestion I made on at least three other occasions in this House and so far they have not come up with any valid reason for not having pursued that line. Having brought in this scheme, we have an obligation to make sure that those who are entitled to the allowance get it. Presumably, it would not have been brought in if it was felt that people did not need it, so we must make every effort to ensure that those who are entitled to it and need it get it.
In relation to income and means testing for rents, medical card and unemployment assistance, again I am not suggesting that people on the same income should be treated differently. I raise the point simply to highlight the fact that one reason why people may be reluctant to apply is a fear, perhaps unreasonable, that receipt of the supplement may render them ineligible for a medical card. A couple with two, three, four or five children may fear that the receipt of £1, £2 or £3 per week would not be worth the loss of a medical card which would entitle them to free medical care for them and their children. They may also fear that the supplement would result in an increase in their rent or deprive a son or daughter of unemployment assistance.
I am not suggesting that any of these things would be lost as a result of the receipt of the supplement. I am saying simply that the people who are entitled to it may fear that they will lose these things because their experience with various Departments in the past may have been that any possible way of depriving them of a benefit was used as a cost cutting exercise by the Government. Experience shows that people's fears in relation to this matter are well founded. I am making the point that people who are entitled to the supplement may be afraid to apply for it because they fear they may lose a medical card or that a son or daughter may lose either portion or all of his or her unemployment assistance or that their rent may be increased as a result.
Those are the points I am making in relation to it. More effort must be put into overcoming that kind of fear and making sure that every avenue available to us here — the Revenue Commissioners are an ideal avenue — must be used to reach those who are entitled to this supplement.
Let me assure the Deputy that any suggestion about improving the method by which we can get a greater number of people to avail of the family income supplement will be examined. Any suggestion he or any other Deputy makes will be taken up if it is found practicable and possible. That is the aim of the Department. There is a scheme there, the family income supplement, and we want to ensure that the people who want it get it. Any suggestions will be examined and if practicable and possible they will be taken on board.
In relation to the means testing, I doubt whether the granting of the family income supplement would disentitle someone to the medical card. I have not got the scale in front of me and I have not worked out the mathematics, but I doubt very much that the granting of the supplement would interfere with medical card entitlement. The Deputy is aware that the health boards have discretion and that guidelines, not hard and fast lines, are there. Bearing in mind that people must be on relatively low incomes in the first place to get a supplement and that, even with the supplement they are still not in receipt of what might be regarded as a very good income, they should still be safe enough within the guidelines. If there are particular circumstances in any household, the health boards take those into account in determining whether the medical card should be granted.
I wish to oppose the section because it will mean that those on unemployment benefit, disability benefit and maternity benefit will get reduced payments as a result of this decision again this year, which is a continuation of a policy established by now, that the floor which is disregarded in calculating pay-related benefit is increased every year. That means reduced payments and less money for those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed and sick and those eligible for maternity benefit.
As the House will note from my list of amendments, I am opposed to this section. It is grossly unfair for a man or woman who has been paying into pay-related social insurance to be deprived of it at the end of the day when he or she needs the pay-related benefit.
It is now six o'clock and I must put the following question: That the amendment set down by the Minister for Social Welfare and not disposed of is hereby made to the Bill; the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee and, as amended, is reported to the House, and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.
I regret that we did not get an opportunity, because of the shortage of time, to oppose section 5, 6 and 9.
It is terrible that there is not a debate on these important sections.