Vol. 368 No. 4
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £1,530,695,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1986, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants.
Under the order agreed to No.30 and the Supplementary Estimate shall be taken together for the purposes of debate.
The Social Welfare Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1986 which the House is being asked to approve today is for a net sum of £1,530,695,000. This represents an increase of just over £168 million approximately or 12 per cent on last year's outturn. It includes provision for the improvements announced in this year's budget together with the carry over costs of last year's rates increases. However, this expenditure, vast though it is, does not represent the total expenditure on the social welfare services. This is simply the State commitment to the services in 1986. Deputies will know that in addition employers and employees also contribute through the PRSI contribution system to the social insurance and occupational injuries funds. The combined contribution from that source is estimated to be of the order of £953 million this year. When account is taken of this and various other minor sources of income, the total social welfare bill comes to £2,497 million. In percentage terms just over 62 per cent is provided by the State, 26 per cent by employers and 12 per cent by employees.
Before dealing with a number of issues that are of immediate concern to me I would like to touch on some of the more significant aspects of the expenditure figures. The gross expenditure on the social welfare services this year will, as I stated, reach about £2.5 billion. This takes account of the improvements provided in the budget which were provided for and debated in the Houses in the Social Welfare Act. These improvements ensured that the incomes of those dependent on the system are maintained in real terms. Despite the considerable increase in the level of Expenditure, the rate of contribution of employers and employees has been largely untouched—amounting to no more than a modest increase in the PRSI contribution ceiling from £13,800 to £14,700 and a very slight increase of 0.03 per cent in the rate of occupational injuries contribution payable by employers.
Of the total expenditure, the overall costs of administration on social insurance and assistance services in 1986 will be around £100 million, or 4 per cent of the total. The efficient delivery of the social welfare services is of primary importance and in this context I should mention to Deputies the reorganisation of the Department along the general lines of the proposals set out in the Government White Paper, Serving the Country Better.
This reorganisation involves the structuring of the Department into two separate areas. One area headed by the Secretary is responsible for advising the Minister on policy matters. The other, known as the Social Welfare Services Office, deals with purely executive work and is responsible for the day-to-day running of the schemes and services of the Department. By having the Social Welfare Services Office concerned solely with the operation of the various social welfare schemes, it will enable the officials responsible for the delivery of services to concentrate more fully on effective management and the provision of an efficient and speedy delivery of services.
This reorganisation is a further step in the programme of modernisation of the Department's services which has been under way for some time and which has been largely based on the introduction of the latest computer technology into practically all areas of the Department's business. I am confident that this development will contribute in a significant way towards guaranteeing over time a better quality of service to the public in relation to the wide range of social welfare services.
It is clear from the few figures that I have given that the expenditure on social welfare is enormous. However, there are a number of issues that I would like to focus on; in particular I would like to consider the social welfare system itself, what it means to us all, how it is perceived, our general attitude and what can be done about changing this. We are fortunate to have a caring community in this country and the level of the provision is ample manifestation of this. Through the social insurance fund and through general taxation members of the community countribute their share of resources to help the less fortunate people in society and to redress some of the inequities in the distribution of society's resources.
The Department of Social Welfare are the main instrument society has for meeting the various needs. The services extend widely across the population spectrum, reaching some 37 per cent either directly or indirectly. The expenditure can be divided into four main groupings. These are services for the elderly which account for 27 per cent of the expenditure, services for the sick which account for 14 per cent, services for families 23 per cent and the largest is in respect of services for the unemployed which account for about 28 per cent of the total. The balance of the expenditure, 4 per cent goes on administration. The pressures affecting the social welfare services are many. Increasing unemployment, changing demographic structures and social trends all contribute to an ever increasing pressure on the Department's capacity to fulfill their task. But above all, the sustained attempt to meet needs is constrained by the finite nature of the resources available to meet them, and the necessity for economies in public expenditure severely fetters the achievement of further major improvements in social provision.
The prospects for an all-round improvement in the economy in 1986 are better than they have been for many years. Recent forecasts published by national and international agencies have confirmed this. Economic growth is likely to accelerate, domestic demand will be boosted by the improvement in consumer confidence, the rise in real incomes and the fall in interest rates. Inflation will continue to fall—although today we discovered it is not falling as fast as we would like — but the annual rate of inflation should be down to about 2 per cent in the second half of the year. Government policies have helped to bring about this lower level of inflation and also to reduce the balance of payments deficit. These developments have created a climate conducive to regular lower interest rates and it is the Government's intention to continue to do all they can to further improve the interest rate climate.
In this regard the recently announced reductions in Associated Banks interest rates is significant. This is the third major interest rate reduction announced by these banks since the recent EMS realignment. It is hoped that other lending institutions, particularly building societies, will follow this lead at an early date.
All of these factors augur well for people dependent on social welfare payments. In particular, the falling rate of inflation makes the increases that have been given this year all the more worthwhile. Increase of 4 per cent and 5 per cent are being granted from July this year and it is now expected that the inflation over the 12 month period from mid-1986 to mid-1987 will be only about 1 per cent.
While I, naturally, accept that all areas of social welfare need special consideration and attention there is no doubt that one of the major pressures on social welfare support comes from the high number of people, and their dependants, who rely on unemployment payments. It is, indeed, a most serious problem for our community and its ramifications are, of course, not confined to the social welfare area alone. The Government's primary objective had always been, and will continue to be to halt and reverse the upward trend in unemployment. Industrial policy has been modified to accord better with the needs of the economy and, in particular, to give a more dynamic indigenous sector. The emphasis has been shifted from grant aiding of fixed asset investment and instead encouraging technology acquisition, promoting the development of international services and small businesses, and encouraging research and development.
The Industrial Development Act, 1986, which became law last month, provides for two significant new measures, namely, technology acquisition grants and employment grants for small firms. In October of last year the Government introduced a series of measures which were specifically designed to stimulate employment within the framework of budgetary strategy and these measures have been very successful. Eighty thousand completed application forms for home improvement grants have been received to date and the PRSI exemption scheme for employers has had the effect of reducing the unemployment total by nearly 3,000. This year's budget and the Finance Bill contain a wide range of measures designed to improve incentives for enterprise and investment and so promote wealth creation and employment growth in Ireland. The unemployment figures give cause for some optimism for the future. The average year-on-year increase in the live register in the first five months of this year was only about a third of that in the comparable period last year and represented only one seventh of the peak year-on-year increase in unemployment of over 40,000 recorded in late 1982 and early 1983.
Nonetheless the unemployment figures still give grave cause for concern particularly when one bears in mind the effects of unemployment on the individual. We need to recognise that each individual unemployed person has certain skills and talents that in many cases are not only being wasted but also are not being protected in the present circumstances. There are many social consequences of protracted unemployment and the transition from employment to unemployment can require many cognitive, emotional and behavioural adjustments. Unemployed persons can feel a sense of isolation and there is a need for us to consider ways in which they can be made feel more a part of society with a more active and participative role.
There is no doubt that unemployment, particularly when it is protracted, can have an adverse psychological effect on people. There is considerable research evidence which links unemployment with low levels of psychological well-being. Some studies have shown that the experience of unemployment itself had precipitated the deterioration in levels of psychological well-being. Also it is generally felt that psychological well-being declines with increasing length of time unemployed and that the onset of financial hardship and the experience of repeated refusals of job applications can result in increased anxiety and depression. This can have the effect of diluting any optimism that may have existed initially. What needs to be done is to give opportunities to people to participate again in the community. It is obvious to all that the Government cannot provide jobs for everybody. They can only create or help to create the environment where employment opportunities are available.
We need, I think, to examine our attitude to our services for the unemployed. Are we doing enough in this area? Is it sufficient for us to just continue paying benefits as we are at present? We have an elaborate mechanism for ensuring that the financial welfare of these people is catered for within the available resources. Should we not be looking at other aspects of the persons' welfare to see what measures can be adapted to relieve them of some of the problems and tensions that I mentioned earlier? Do we effectively stigmatise people on social welfare payments by segregating them and preventing them from being active?
Does our system provide sufficient flexibility to cope with the changes that are occurring in work patterns? What about the negative attitude that is held by many people about those who have to resort to claiming social welfare payments when unemployed? These are very fundamental questions that I think need to be asked. I am not suggesting for one minute that the answers are easy, but I think that these are the type of issues that need to be debated and examined so that we can get a better view of what our attitude should be. In my view we need to recognise the realities of the current situation. The increase in unemployment is abating according to the latest figures available. It is generally recognised that it will take quite a number of years before there is any dramatic decrease in the level of unemployment internationally as well as nationally.
Certain changes in the pattern of employment are also likely to occur. It is interesting to note that part time working has become a significant feature in many countries in the last ten years with the growth in numbers on part time work far exceeding the growth in those with fulltime jobs. This does not just affect those who will get jobs in years to come but it will also affect those who already hold jobs. According to a recent survey carried out in the UK by the Institute of Manpower Studies "the composition, skills level, mobility and hours worked by those who have jobs will be forced into new moulds". Should this occur it will have fundamental implications for education and training programmes, for social provision and for employment policy. Consequently, I believe that more than money is needed to break the strangle-hold of long term unemployment.
There have been various measures introduced in an attempt to provide some way out for these people. The social employment scheme, the employment incentive scheme and the enterprise allowance scheme are such measures and I would like to see this kind of programme being actively developed and extended. We must remember that the problems we are experiencing are not unique to us alone and there is no reason to believe that the solutions that are being tried in other countries could not work here also.
I recently visited the USA where I had the opportunity to study attitudes and ideas in the welfare area there. There were many similarities between our system and theirs. Of particular interest was the emphasis on work experience and retaining as an integral part of the support structure for the unemployed which is similar to ours.
One scheme which impressed me particularly and which is used in various forms in other countries was that of "job search". The purpose of a scheme of this type is to provide unemployed persons with a short but very intensive period of job seeking which is carried out in a centre convenient to the job seeker. Facilities, which are provided free of charge, include the use of telephones, typewriters, photocopying and stationery and expert assistance on job hunting techniques and self-presentation at interviews.
This is similar to the job clubs that were introduced on a pilot basis in the UK but which have now been extended nationwide. Results from these various experiments and from similar exercises in other countries have been encouraging and I will be studying the implications of these ideas for the Irish situation. It seems to me that we must be much more active in helping our long term unemployed to find their feet in society. We must use our social welfare, employment and placement agencies in a much more unified way in order to maximise their potential to help those out of work. Above all else, we must get away from rigdities in both attitudes and systems which penalise activity and encourage people to do nothing, or which drive them to defraud the system.
As I have already said, unemployment is without doubt our most serious problem and carries with it both economic and social implications. As unemployment grows society has to renew its commitment to support more and more people through the income maintenance schemes provided by my Department. I can see that a more constrained economic environment can lead to disenchantment with the welfare state, and this surfaces at times like these in the form of a cynicism or scepticism about welfare and the alleged abuse of welfare. However, it is at times like these — when the pressure is greatest — that welfare is most needed, and society's whole-hearted commitment is most required.
The considerable speculation about fraud in the social welfare system in recent times is a manifestation of the cynicism I referred to. From the beginning of my term of office as Minister for Social Welfare I have made it quite clear that I am determined to deploy all the resources at my disposal to eliminate abuse of the social welfare schemes. I have also made it clear that I am not impressed by unsubstantiated and sensationalist allegations about abuse. Many people in this country have an ambivalent attitude to it. They are prepared to perpetuate myths about its extent, but at the same time they are curiously reluctant to come forward with relevant information that would help the authorities. When the authorities take some specific action directed at controlling abuse, they are the first to complain when they are affected even indirectly by it.
My Department have many built in checks in administrative procedures and every effort is being made to control and contain the level of abuse. The various controls are reviewed regularly. All officers dealing with claims are trained and encouraged to be vigilant where fraud is concerned. Recently I met and had very useful discussions with representatives from employer and employee organisations about the issues involved and I am glad to say that there is general support for whatever measures can be taken in this complex area. Another initiative in this area relates to the engagement of outside expert assistance for my Department to undertake a major review of fraud and security with special emphasis on unemployment and related payments. There has been much speculation over recent months about the level of fraud and the main focus of the assignment will be to make an assessment of the public perception of fraud, identify weaknesses and propose solutions to these. A number of firms have been asked to submit proposals for the project and I am hopeful that preliminary findings will be available to me within a few months.
Another area where we will be taking action is in relation to the work of the special investigation unit of my Department. As Deputies will be aware, the special investigation unit is responsible for investigating and preventing abuses of the unemployment payments system. Over the coming months my Department will be concentrating the resources of this unit on interviewing claimants in employment exchanges, branch offices and other signing centres, in order to detect cases of unjustified claiming of unemployment payments.
This is a necessary control measure. It is no reflection on the many legitimate claimants who will be interviewed, but I believe that it will uncover a certain proportion of claimants who are not entitled to support from the social welfare system. The work will be carried out by highly trained and experienced staff. The purpose of the exercise is to ensure that only those who are genuinely available for and seeking work are, in fact, receiving payments. I have said before, but it is no harm to repeat it again, that those persons who have genuine claims to social welfare services need have no concern about loss of entitlements. Measures being taken now are designed to identify persons who are abusing the system.
There are many different forms of abuse. At the individual level there are people who work and sign but we also have employers who, perhaps in collusion with others, connive to defraud the system either by not paying their contributions or who allow persons time off to collect their social welfare entitlements. I am determined that these type of practices will be stamped out and that the full rigours of the law will be used on anyone found abusing the system.
Another important area which straddles both the positive and negative aspects of what I have been talking about is the question of liaison between the National Manpower Service and employment exchanges. Such liaison makes it possible to identify persons who are not interested in finding work or who may already have a job. On the positive side there are a range of schemes available to the unemployed through the NMS designed to encourage them back into the work environment. The maintenance of good liaison between the NMS and my Department is essential in order to ensure that the various services provided for the unemployed are brought together.
Liaison arrangements are continually being improved; the involvement of the NMS in the implementation of the various Government employment creation schemes in recent years has increased the amount of contacts between the employment exchanges of my Department and the NMS. My Department are at present in the processs of computerising the work of the exchanges and, although this will take a number of years to complete, it will provide further opportunities to enable a more extensive and detailed exchange of information between the two services. We need to ensure that these links are developed so that we can provide a more integrated service to the unemployed persons who are dependent on these various State agencies and services.
I would like to say a few words regarding the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. The report is at present with the printers and I hope to have copies available for general circulation in the next few weeks. Because of the size of the report it has been possible to make only a limited number of copies available at this stage. I have been able to make a copy available to Deputy Seán McCarthy and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The suggestion has been made that the fact that the report has been made available in this way amounts to offhand treatment of the report. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only reason for making available to Deputies and Senators the limited number of copies which were available was to ensure that they would have an opportunity of seeing the report as soon as possible, particularly in view of the fact that comments on the report's contents had already been featured in the media over recent weeks.
There is nothing offhand about making copies available to the House in advance of general publication and I would hope that the House would see it in that light. A limited number of copies have also been made available to the press and the report has been subject to a considerable amount of comment over the past week.
As far as the report itself is concerned obviously a full analysis of the report and its implications will now be necessary. The report is the first major comprehensive review of the social welfare services. Bearing in mind the complexity of the system as it has developed over the years the report represents a massive achievement. I have already conveyed my thanks to the chairman and members of the commission and I am glad of the opportunity now to publicly express my appreciation of the tremendous work which has been done over the past two years.
The Government's statement on the report referred to the expenditure implications which the implementation of the report would have. This has been taken up by some people as an indication that the Government have dismissed the report even before its publication. This is simply not so. We must, however, be realistic and the Government could not ignore the reality that the full implementation of the commission's report would be impossible in our present economic and financial circumstances.
That being said, there is no question of the report being dismissed or ignored. There is absolutely no doubt that radical changes will be necessary over the next few years in the social welfare system. The system has developed in a piecemeal fashion with the result that we now have a multitude of schemes and payments with complex rules of entitlement and a system which, overall, is very difficult to understand. One of the guiding principles in the commission's report is that the system should be simple for claimants and for those administering it and many of the commission's recommendations are directed at achieving this. While we must be selective in bringing forward proposals for additional expenditure, there is considerable scope for reform of the system in line with the general approach which the commission have adopted.
It may well be that what will be required is a reallocation of the resources available for social welfare from areas of lesser need to areas where the need is greater in such a way as to ensure that those resources are directed in the most effective way to meet the needs of the most vulnerable groups in society. It is, of course, extremely difficult to introduce changes which would have the effect of reducing the entitlements of any particular group, but if we are to have a system which is effective for those who are in the greatest need, difficult choices may have to be made. We will also have to look much more closely at the link between social welfare provision and private provision particularly in the area of pensions and sick pay and to decide how best we can share the responsibility in these areas. This is a theme which I will be referring to again later in my speech.
The commission's approach was first of all to establish what they considered to be the guiding principles which should underlie the social welfare system. These are: adequacy of payments in relation to prevailing living standards; a degree of redistribution of income through the social welfare system in conjunction with the tax system; comprehensive coverage of all categories of need; consistency with policies in other areas and within the system itself; and simplicity for claimant and administrators.
In the commission's view the present system is deficient in a number of respects under each of the headings and the commision go on to consider what should be the appropriate strategy to reforming the system.
Essentially the commission's approach is to reject the notion of any major strategic change in the way the social welfare system operates. The commission have opted instead for a strategy for the development of social welfare in Ireland which involves retaining the present basic framework of social insurance and social assistance but expanding and significantly improving that system.
The commission adopted a pragmatic approach to the issue, an approach which they obviously considered should stand a better chance of being generally acceptable and, therefore, implemented. The commission have identified 65 main recommendations. There are also throughout the report many other recommendations and comments by the commission on particular aspects of the social welfare system. In many cases these comments and recommendations would, I feel, be capable of being implemented without great difficulty and in my examination of the report I will be paying particular attention to those aspects of the report which can be implemented quickly.
The commission identified four broad areas which they consider deserving of priority attention. These are: the basic level of payment; payments for families; broadening of the social insurance base; and the delivery of service.
In relation to the basic level of payment, a central recommendation of the commission is that all payments should be equalised with the insurance payments being equalised at a rate 10 per cent higher than the assistance payments. The levels proposed are based on an attempt to measure the minimum income needs of families based on a number of previous exercises. The ultimate levels proposed are for a single person £55 for social insurance and £50 for social assistance, in 1985 terms. As a priority, however, they recommend that immediate steps be taken to increase social welfare payments and have suggested interim levels — in 1985 terms — of £45 personal rate, £27 for adult dependent and £10 for each child. This would involve increases in present levels of all social assistance payments and also in the short term insurance payments, with reductions in certain of the long term social insurance payments.
The notion of standard rates of payment for recipients would simplify the present rates structure but it runs counter to what has, traditionally, been the approach of all Governments, namely, to recognise the special needs of particluar categories by providing higher basic rate of payment to them. This approach has enabled special recognition to be given, on a selective basis, to particular groups through additional payments e.g. for living alone etc. The commission's approach would involve ultimately the abolition of these additional payments.
It would also mean that, in the interim period, before payments were fully equalised, certain categories, widows and deserted wives, etc., would receive no budget increases — or perhaps smaller increases than others — in the levels of their payments. That said there is no doubt that the policy of across the board percentage budget increases which widens existing cash differentials between rates cannot be justified indefinitely. The recommendations also involve the abolition of pay-related benefit in the context of bringing basic rates of payment up to an adequate level.
The report envisages, in relation to social assistance, a single unified payment in place of the existing schemes and a single means test. This is, in principle, something which would have many advantages but would undoubtedly give rise to considerable objections and would have practical difficulties.
The commission went on to discuss child support and electricity and fuel allowance extensions. They have not recommended a totally unified system of child support. The Government have taken that approach also. The commission recommended that child dependent increases with social welfare payments should be retained and rationalised. This is in contrast with the Government's approach which is an attempt to channel all State child support resources into a unified simple system.
The commission did not accept the argument that child dependent allowances were inconsistent with labour market policies to prevent disincentives to employment among workers with families. On the other hand, the commission have said that in the long term there should be a modest relative shift towards children's allowances and away from child dependent increases. All in all, the commission's approach in this area — involving, for example, differentiation of child benefit rates by age and family size and the retention of child dependent allowances and family income supplement — is relatively complex and will need careful consideration.
The commission propose the inclusion of some groups at present excluded from the social insurance base. There are practical difficulties associated with the proposals and we will have to tease them out. For example, the self-employed raise particular problems — for instance in connection with the farming sector.
They refer specifically to some groups. In regard to the self-employed, they suggest a contribution rate of 5.5 per cent. Public servants are included at present only at a modified rate for a reduced range of benefits. The commission have recommended that they may be liable for full rate. Members of the Oireachtas have never been covered for social insurance and it is recommended that they now be included.
The commission go on to lay very heavy emphasis on the need for an effective delivery. The key recommendations here concern computerisation and standards of accommodation for staff and clients and adequate information services.
There is no doubt that the system we now have is extremely complex and this makes it very difficult to administer and difficult for claimants to understand. Furthermore, there is a great need to extend the benefits of computerisation, particularly to the employment exchanges. We must have the services delivered accurately, promptly, courteously, efficiently and securely. The establishment of the Social Welfare Services Offices has been a major step forward in terms of concentrating resources on the management of the system and improving service delivery.
I look forward to a wide-ranging public debate on the report when published and I will be examining the recommendations in detail to see what improvements to the system are possible within the overall financial constraints which exist.
I referred earlier to the need to look at the possibility of closer links between social welfare provisions and private provision in the area of pensions and sick pay. Another major development that I am glad to have been associated with recently is the establishment of the National Pensions Board. That should be a real milestone in improving financial security and quality of life in retirement of hundreds of thousands of employees. The growth of occupational pension schemes over the past decade has been mainly due to State encouragement through tax concessions and the growing appreciation by employers of the value of these schemes in fostering good industrial relations.
Occupational pension schemes play a vital role in providing for the welfare of workers in retirement. Because many such schemes are funded, they hold large amounts of capital which provide an important source of investment capital for the benefit of the economy generally.
The Pensions Board has many important tasks to undertake and it will be advising me immediately on standards of administration of schemes; funding and financial security of schemes; disclosure of information to scheme members; transferability of workers' pension rights on change of job; and the general monitoring of scheme's performance including the need for statutory regulation.
I have also asked the board to prepare further proposals on quality standards in other specific areas such as equal treatment for men and women in occupational pension schemes. I was pleased to be associated with the adoption of a further directive in this area which is to remove all forms of direct and indirect sex discrimination in occupational schemes. This directive will require the enactment of legislation and the board's recommendation on equality will be a valuable input in this regard.
Finally, the board will have the task of advising me on the question of providing earnings related pensions for all employees and in particular to assess the capacity and potential of occupational schemes to meet this challenge. The overall findings of the board on this matter and those of the Commission on Social Welfare will be fully taken into account by the Government in their proposed framework for a national pension plan.
Deputies will be aware that the Government have been considering proposals for the transfer of responsibility for disability benefit to employers for the initial weeks of sickness. The matter was considered by the NESC who identified a number of areas where difficulties might arise. The survey, carried out by the ESRI on behalf of my Department revealed that there was a substantial element of sick-pay cover provided by employers. It also found that almost three-quarters of small firms have no such scheme and are effectively dependent on the disability benefit scheme as it stands. Any transfer of responsibility to employers could, therefore, bear heavily on small employers and the proposal as it stands could lead to additional costs for such firms.
I am aware that small firms in this country play a significant role in the creation of employment and I am anxious to avoid creating a situation for these employers whereby their financial burdens would be increased unnecessarily. Nonetheless, I consider that there is merit in the notion of transferring responsibility for sick pay in the initial period to employers. It would place the factors relating to sickness control fully within the ambit of employers; it would mean that initial sickness payments would be subject to tax in the normal way. It is my intention to consult further with employers and trade unions in order to reach a satisfactory formula for the implementation of this idea.
In conclusion, the social welfare services affect the lives of many of our citizens on a regular basis; and, indeed, throughout any person's life it is inevitable that he will come into contact with the services in one way or another at some stage. Possibly because of this, most people have views on how the services should be administered; or they will feel that greater emphasis should be given to one scheme rather than another. More often than not there will be a great divergence of views as to how the system should operate. Through their clinics and their regular contacts with constituents Deputies will, I am sure, have experienced this. Where such diversity of opinion exists it will usually lead to vigorous and healthy debate and the annual Social Welfare Estimate is no exception to this. As a Minister who has only recently taken on this portfolio and who is taking this Social Welfare Estimate for the first time, I look forward to hearing the views of Deputies of all sides of the House on the various issues embraced by the Estimate. Many Members will no doubt want to contribute and, even if time does not permit me to comment in detail on all of the points raised at the end of the debate, Deputies can be assured that all of their views will be considered by me.
On this latter point I would add that I feel that we are entering a new and challenging phase in the history of social welfare in Ireland and one that will make the contributions of Deputies all the more valuable at this time. I have set out briefly my views on the recent report of the Commission on Social Welfare. The grassroots view, for want of a better word, which Deputies have from meeting constituents will be of immense help in considering the recommendations of the commission, as will the undoubted expertise and interest which many Deputies on both sides of the House have in the whole field of social welfare.
The Minister has been at considerable pains to explain how the economic climate is improving with prospects better than they have been for years. As I listened I wondered if we were living in the same country because I have seen no positive indications that the economic climate is improving. The overall impression of many people is that it has been getting worse. Unemployment and emigration are increasing again:
The Government have made various optimistic comments about their achievements in bringing down the inflation rate, but we learned last night that it is still 4½ per cent — higher than in the UK, France or the US. An inflation rate of 4½ per cent more than cancels out the 4 per cent increase given this year to many social welfare recipients. Last year the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Dukes, boasted that when the social welfare increases granted for 1983 and 1984 were added together, there was an aggregate increase in the long term rates of social welfare benefits of approximately 19 per cent. He stated that that had honoured, over two years, the Government's commitment to matching inflation. The then Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Barry Desmond, repeated that statement. The increases granted in each of those two years, however, related to nine months of each year and not the full 12 months. The miserly 6½ per cent and 6 per cent increases in 1985 were not payable until after the first week in July.
I pointed out this time last year that the present administration have a deplorable record in relation to social welfare payments, increases particularly, compared with the practical concern which had been exhibited by Fianna Fáil Governments. In 1985 the Coalition granted increases 6½ per cent and 6 per cent, respectively, implementable from 11 July 1985. In 1984 they gave increases of 8 per cent and 7 per cent, respectively, implementable from the first week in July. In 1983 they gave 12 per cent and 10 per cent increases, respectively, implementable from the end of June. These miserly increases were totally inadequate compensation for the reduction in food subsidies by 50 per cent and the increase in VAT on clothes, fuel and shoes.
In sharp contrast, Fianna Fáil's record stands up to any criticial analysis. In 1980 they granted a 25 per cent increase, implementable from April 1981. They granted a further 25 per cent increase, implementable from April 1982. They again granted a 25 per cent increase, also brought in from April. Even though the inflation rate may have been higher at that stage, the increases of 25 per cent, or of the order thereof, far exceeded the inflation rate at the time. The attitude of the present Government has been that increases should be granted when half the year has elapsed and that they just match inflation. That was never the attitude of Fianna Fáil. Increases were granted which exceeded inflation by quite a large amount each year.
The Minister went to considerable pains to explain to us what she and her Department, and the Government in general, broadly intended to do regarding unemployment. If they are going to do anything, it is about time. One of the main platforms on which they came to office in 1982 was the promise that they would sort out the unemployment problem. We all know that the unemployment figures have increased massively since they took office. The crazy economics practised by the Government are highlighted when one considers that, for every 1,000 persons forced to become unemployed because of failed Government policies, the cost to the State is £2.7 million. The Government have excelled themselves in an unparalleled fashion at all types of industrial closures. There have been more liquidations and receiverships during their reign than ever before in the history of the State.
Last December, the then Minister brought a Supplementary Estimate of £50 million for the Department of Social Welfare before the House. Of that sum, £40 million was needed to defray the cost of unemployment assistance, indicating that the Government had made a huge miscalculation in assessing the likely jobless figures at the end of the year. The December Supplementary Estimate underlined yet again the increased marginalisation of so many individuals and families. Poverty reduces the chances of members of such families having a normal, contented family life and contributes to the violence and unrest which are having such a destabilising effect on society. Unemployment and joblessness have reached epidemic proportions. There is no doubt that the real figure of those out of work is now in the region of over 300,000 people. There is an estimated figure of 30,000 young people who emigrated last year and young people are emigrating at an accelerating rate. All one needs to do is to note the huge queues of people outside the Passport Office every day. That in itself is an indictment of Government policy.
Many of our young people are working in the United States and Australia. Because many of them cannot obtain working visas in the United States, they are working there illegally, but they could not remain at home because of the hopelessness of their situation. They have been given no encouragement. They are educated and capable of work but the opportunities are not being given to them here. The real figure would be 300,000 persons if one were to include, along with those on the live register, those who had emigrated and the 50,000 on short term training schemes, which in many cases are a method devised by the Government purely to reduce in apparent terms the numbers on the live register. Some 75,000 extra people have become jobless over the past three years, rendering the Government's job targets programme completely irrelevant and putting an enormous strain on the Department of Social Welfare.
The Minister referred to the psychological impact of unemployment on those involved. I agree with her. I am glad the Government are in some way aware that, while causing monetary problems in the home, unemployment also has very serious psychological effects particularly on those on long term unemployment. In 1935 two researchers, Zawadski and Lazarfeld, analysed the autobiographies of 57 unemployed workers in Warsaw. Their analysis revealed six stages in the reaction of these people to unemployment as follows: the first stage showed fear and distress, followed in the second stage by numbness and apathy, in the third stage by some adaptation and efforts to find employment. In the fourth stage there was a weakening of hopes after their efforts to find employment proved futile. In the fifth stage there was a complete loss of hope and in the sixth stage there was apathy. That analysis is as true in the eighties as it was in 1935.
In Britain the economic cost of unemployment to the individual was found to be a halving of disposable income without any reduction in the peer and advertising pressure to consume on the individual. At present one can only formulate a hypothesis about the effect of unemployment on individuals. It cannot be denied that there is a severe breach between the conditioned expectation of the young and the social and economic reality to which they must adapt. Frustration leads predictably enough to aggression of some kind, whether directed outwards as socially disruptive behaviour or inwards in the form of maladjustment. While one would expect outwardly directed aggression of the young, the point was made in research in the thirties that mass unemployment then led to resignation in personal lives and social matters, and not to revolution.
What is the real psychological importance of work? As far back as 1930 Freud claimed that work is not only a person's closest tie to reality, but unemployment loosens his or her grip on reality. In that area Freud's follower, Hartmann, elaborated and named three ways in which we continually keep in touch with reality. He said that we infer from observable results of activities that external objects are as we think they should be or behave as we think they should. Secondly, we share with others a conventionalised or socialised knowledge of reality. Thirdly, we use our own perceptions of the world of immediate experience.
Unemployment is causing a serious strain on our economy. It is having a serious effect on the pyschology of our young people. When one considers that 50 per cent of the registered unemployed have dependants, this means that there has been an increase of monumental proportions in poverty, in want and in hopelessness over the past three or four years. This is manifesting itself most tragically in increased strain on marriages and the alienation of vast numbers of individuals. This Government clearly failed in what was the central priority of the now much discredited document Building on Reality, the provision of jobs.
In 1984 the Government noted that in the three years to 1987 the evolution of unemployment would depend on the generation of jobs, the retention of existing viable employment and the growth in the numbers of those seeking jobs. It was estimated in Building on Reality that unemployment would peak at about 220,000 by the end of 1984 and would then fall back to about 210,000. The Coalition Government forecast at the time that employment creation would have absorbed the whole of the labour force increase and that a start would be made in reducing unemployment. Paragraph 1.28 of Building on Reality expressed the hope that unemployment levels would drop below the 200,000 mark. In paragraph 5.50 of Building on Reality the Coalition Government noted that the biggest and fastest growing element in social welfare spending was the cost of unemployment payments. It concluded:
This highlights the need for the urgent and effective action in relation to the creation of self-sustaining jobs...
By their own criteria this Government have failed abysmally. The Government's attitude to the voluntary organisations, who in the past have achieved so much in caring for the underprivileged, leaves a large amount to be desired. These organisations help to alleviate deprivation and poverty in our society. They also help to focus attention on gaps in the social welfare system. It is, therefore, quite appalling that Government cut-backs are jeopardising the services which they provide to the most needy sections of society, particularly at a time when the numbers of underprivileged people are increasing.
I was particularly appalled at the continued closure of the Hope Hostel for young homeless people. In the provision of social services it has long been recognised that certain special groups in society such as the elderly, deprived children and the mentally and physically handicapped, have very special needs over and above those catered for by the provision of basic services. One of the basic tenets is that certain provisions are required in the case of residential care for deprived children. The Hope Hostel was the only emergency and short term accommodation available for young homeless people. At present young children, some as young as 11 and 12 years of age, are forced to sleep rough and to steal or beg in order to eat. Such children are the obvious prey for drug pushers and other evil doers. The Church justice group stated that it was morally indefensible to have children such as those wandering the streets homeless. These children must be the most vulnerable and helpless section of our society. The Government have failed appallingly to fulfil their constitutional obligation to afford them shelter. The financial demands to do this are not great. The financial outlay involved to keep the Hope Hostel open would be about £100,000.
While I hold nothing against developments in any part of the country, whether in the Phoenix Park or elsewhere, it is quite appalling to have certain Ministers — not the present Minister — seeking publicity for themselves and for the Government in programmes which have cost millions of pounds. Yet a small sum of £100,000 which is needed for the needy young in this city is not being provided. That is quite appalling. The Government's attitude to the closure of the Hope Hostel and the misery stemming from this decision reflects their attitude to the family unit as a whole. It certainly makes a mockery of the pledge in paragraph 5.55 of Building on Reality to provide adequately for the welfare of children in need. In the Budget Statement this year one of the most glaring wrongs of the year was the failure of the Government to grant any percentage increase for child dependants of social welfare recipients. This certainly has ensured that many families are living well below the poverty line. The child dependants have been ignored.
This Government's commitment to the family is certainly of very dubious veracity. In 1983 and 1985 they failed to increase the children's allowances. In 1984 they gave a miserly, tiny increase of 7 per cent from mid-August of that year. After all the rhetoric with regard to the child benefit scheme, its subsequent appearance was a total damp squib. It was but a pale imitation of the original idea expressed in Building on Reality in paragraph 5.58. I quote:
The restructured scheme will be carefully designed to channel available resources to those most in need and to provide a more significant independent income for mothers whose work is in the home.
It was envisaged that its introduction in 1986 would signal a rationalisation of the structure of child support payments which would give particular help to families of low paid workers. In this context the type of child benefit scheme announced in the budget was profoundly disappointing. It represented a vicious type of deception by the Government on top of their rhetoric about the need to support the family.
The Government claimed that a monthly increase from £12.05 to £15.05 per child was granted, a £3 per month increase or 75p per week. The Government failed to acknowledge that the removal of the £100 per child tax free allowance in the same budget effectively more than counterbalanced the value of the increase in the child benefit scheme. For example, those in the 35 per cent tax band received an actual increase of 8p per month, from £12.05 to £12.13. That is an absolute insult to the family unit. This tinkering with the administrative machinery is totally irrelevant and shameful. Families with children have a disproportionate and growing risk of poverty. The analysis by the National Economic and Social Council on child income supports in Ireland concluded:
As a group, families, in particular large families, are disadvantaged compared with single people and childless couples... the gap between families and other groups has been widening.
Families make up a very significant segment of our population. In 1984 almost 43 per cent of households consisted of a man and wife with one or more children under 16 years of age. The position of the family in the Constitution obliges legislators to recognise that the State has a very clear responsibility for the well-being of the children. The Government's hypocritical attitude ignores this obligation. Neither was the Government's performance in relation to the implementation of the European equality directive up to scratch. Equality treatment between men and women in matters of social security was originally to be implemented in 1985 after it passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas. We also have the failure of the Government to publish the long awaited blueprint for a national income related pension plan. This, again, reflects the Government's failure to act positively in the area of social welfare reform.
The Minister referred to the question of fraud in the social welfare system. The Government have been very adamant and precise in the figures they have given and suggest the approximate known rate of fraud in 1985 was something of the order of £4 million. While there has been massive media speculation on the question of fraud, I must say that I would have to agree with the Minister that there has been a considerable degree of sensationalism both by corresponsents, on the one hand, and in this House on the other. This has proved embarrassing for the huge number of people who are on various social welfare schemes.
The Deputy is now riding two horses.
The vast majority of those people would not in any way indulge in any type of fraudulent behaviour. If there is a tiny fraction of a percentage attempting to indulge in fraud, it is very wrong that the huge number of people who genuinely and honestly use the system should be stigmatised by——
Yourself.
——unworthy allegations. One quibble which I would have with the Minister and the Government is that these allegations were not clearly and unequivocally refuted and responded to in the media at the time. That is purely a personal viewpoint.
The Minister referred to the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. I welcome their report. We all recognise that the social welfare system has developed in an ad hoc and fragmentary fashion since its establishment. Schemes were introduced at different times for a wide variety of motives and in response to different pressures. Broadly, they encompassed three aims: the relief of poverty, the provision of a minimum standard of living for all and the equalisation of opportunity. The concern with inequality was expressed by the Commission on Social Welfare in 1973 when they recommended that the aims of social policy should be to remove gross inequalities in the community and to strengthen the bands of the community. This basic concern with inequality in society is central to the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. Their terms of reference included: to analyse the net redistribution of the resources between people in different income groups affected by Government in such fields as taxation, social welfare, education, health, housing etc. and to recommend such modifications as may be necessary in Government policies and programmes to ensure that the net efforts of such transfers, taken together, secure the objective of social equity and do not operate to facilitate the misuse of the system or create a disincentive to employment or investment.
It has generally been acknowledged for decades that a review of the social welfare system is long overdue. The social welfare system affects one-third of the population. Two-fifths of households contain recipients. One-sixth of all households, or about 17.5 per cent, are fully reliant on social welfare payments as their only source of income. This report is a long overdue analysis of the social welfare system which impinges increasingly on the lives of so many citizens. For example, in 1966 there were 566,442 beneficiaries of the system, or about 20 per cent of the population. By 1985 this had increased to 1,318,185, or about 37 per cent of the population. The lack of interest in the system is well nigh incredible when one considers that social welfare represents approximately 14 per cent of GNP. The level of State commitment and investment in social provision is naturally related to the economic resources of a country. During a period of growth in the economy it is easier to improve and expand social services while in a period of economic stagnation it becomes difficult to maintain or expand.
It is important to stress in the confused atmosphere surrounding the emergence of the commission's findings that their report is not unsympathetic to the plight of the Government in a period of economic difficulty. It points out that Ireland has a relatively advanced system of social security in relation to its modest level of economic development. It also stated that any review of the social welfare system must be based on a realistic and broad appreciation of the complex environment within which the system operates.
Therefore, the commission do take cognisance of our economic difficulties. However, the concern of the report was with the broader canvas. It seeks to trace the development of our social welfare system from its roots in the early 20th century and to provide a framework for its development as we approach the 21st century. I would regret deeply if the broader significance of the report were to be diminished by the apparent leaks surrounding its initial emergence over the past weekend or earlier this week, by the almost panic-stricken emphasis on the part of the present Government on its financial implications and by the dismissiveness associated with the Government's attitude towards its implications. While I agree that it may not be possible in the present economic climate to implement fully the commission's proposals, certain of their recommendations can be implemented at once which would help to streamline the system. The Government should move quickly in implementing those recommendations, on eliminating duplication, increasing the pace of computerisation and rationalising the machinery by which payments are made, which in many cases is very cumbersome and unwieldy.
I thank the Minister for having provided me with a copy of the report, but since last Tuesday it has not been possible to give it the detailed and exhaustive study it merits. We will get round to that in due course. Its discussion in the context of the present debate, therefore, can be preliminary only to a fuller debate in the future. In the interim, I would hope that when the report is printed public representatives and interested groups and organisations would encourage the general public to give due consideration to its contents. In that way the aim of the commission, as stated — to generate a debate on the social welfare system at a level hitherto unknown in this country— might be realised.
The Minister adverted to some public discontent in relation to how the report was published. Certainly, it was not done in a proper manner. This cannot have helped the process, especially public perception that the Government were immediately distancing themselves from the report. One daily newspaper went so far as to say on Tuesday morning last that the report had been partly turned down by the Government. If that was the attitude of the Government, it was negative and, in my view, constituted a wholly unjustified reaction by them that could only increase the sense of alienation and ostracisation which the report tells us is deeply felt by those dependent on the system of social welfare payments. The Government's curt press statement, issued by the Government Information Services, accompanying the report's submission to the Houses of the Oireachtas on 16 June will, I know, have dismayed even many of the present Government's supporters. The Taoiseach's silence on the findings of the commission will have surprised many people, given his muchvaunted commitment to equality in society.
At a public lecture at the Milltown Institute entitled "Ireland and Social Reform Today", on 14 November 1985 the Taoiseach said:
The temptation for any Government in the midst of a major international recession is to concentrate on economic measures and to postpone social reform until more prosperous times. I will never regard social reform as a luxury to be considered only when times are good.
He went on to say:
The very depth of the recession can intensify social problems and exacerbate inequality in our society. large scale unemployment creates a society where poverty, alienation, crime, drug abuse and marriage breakdown are likely to increase... so social reform becomes more not less urgent in harsh economic times.
The Taoiseach went on to comment that:
...future social welfare policy must continue to concentrate on increasing the standard of living of the long-term unemployed with families who remain very much at the lower end of the social welfare spectrum in terms of benefits levels.
The Taoiseach went on to state his view that, in seeking to rationalise the whole complex array of social welfare benefit payments and the different payments made to different categories of long-term recipients:
...it is important to note that long-duration unemployment assistance for a single person, at £35 per week, is £9 a week less than the basic personal rate of an old age non-contributory persion. Any real increase in spending on social welfare payments must, I believe, be concentrated on those whose incomes and standard of living are at bottom of the scale.
The Taoiseach referred to the whole structure of the social welfare system which, he said, needed radical reform. On that occasion the Taoiseach felt it appropriate to await the publication of the Report of the Commission on Social Welfare before initiating a debate on this question, commenting:
...That such a debate is overdue, however, is clear and I hope that the publication of the Commission's report will provide the occasion for a fundamental reassessment of our social welfare system which at present represents a fragmented part of a complex and incoherent system of income redistribution, the effects of which in our community are in many case cases perverse and regressive.
Given the opportunity which this vast, comprehensive report affords for debate, it is most regrettable that the Taoiseach and the Government have been in such a hurry to downgrade it.
The Minister herself commented — in the Seanad on 11 March 1986 on the Social Welfare Bill — on the need to reshape social welfare policy to meet the country's needs as we approach the end of the 20th century. In relation to the envisaged report of the Commission on Social Welfare she stressed the importance of informed debate on the future direction of social policy in the belief that the priority must be to secure a greater degree of equity in the distribution of the resources at our disposal.
So far it appears that the Government have dropped this report like a hot potato. They panicked at its financial implications, failing completely to avail of the opportunity to encourage calm and reasoned assessment of the document on its merits. It would have been much better had the report been laid before the House without comment, so that we might have had a reasoned and informed debate. It is yet another example of Government ineptitude and double-think to which, regrettably, we have become accustomed over the past four years.
The report — the first review of the social welfare system since its inception — will provide a useful benchmark against which Government policymakers and those working within the system can plan for its future development. For example, spending on the social welfare services escalated from £206 million in 1973 to over £2.25 billion in 1985. Almost certainly it will have to meet new demands in the remaining years of this century and be required to adjust to socio-economic changes. Therefore, reform and streamlining are necessary if the capacity of our social welfare system is to be strengthened in the face of changed socio-economic conditions.
The report argues for a rational, consistent approach to the definition and fixing of payments to replace the ad hoc approach which has prevailed to date, which has resulted in a wide range of different payments to the elderly, widows, the jobless and the sick. The report points out that there is no rationale for the difference in payments. It is undeniable that most people in receipt of social welfare payments have the same basic needs and it is indeed difficult to justify such a range of payments.
There are glaring anomalies in the system and it is pointless to pretend otherwise. The lack of consistency is reflected in the fact that there are some 36 rates of payment — from £5.80 to £13.80 — in the range of child dependent allowances paid to the jobless and widowed. There is very little rationale to this when one considers that children's basic needs are the same, whether their parents are ill, widowed or unemployed.
The lack of consistency in the approach to the development of the social welfare system was reflected most recently in the setting up of the family income supplement for low waged workers. The scheme — to boost the incomes of low waged workers according to the numbers of children and the level of wages — was originally to be introduced in November 1984. In October 1984, in Building on Reality the Government stated their intention of unifying the child dependency allowances. At the same time, they announced their intention to abolish the family income supplement before it was implemented. The take-up rate of the family income supplement, after it was finally introduced in a welter of confusion, was very disappointing. While it was projected that about 30,000 families would benefit, the take-up rate was somewhere in the region of 7,000 or 8,000 families, who received an average of a mere £7 a week.
It is hard to disagree with the Commission on Social Welfare's findings that this supplement added a layer of bureaucracy and complexity to child income support, and that it has made more difficult the long term evolution of proper child income support. It is hard to disagree with the report's conclusion that a proper child income support will be facilitated by more generous children's allowances payments and by preventing high marginal tax rates on low paid employees.
One area where action might readily be taken is in the area of streamlining the administration of supplementary welfare allowances. The report of the Commission on Social Welfare notes that under the present arrangement, discretion varies widely between and within the health boards, and that no attempt has been made to pull together all the guidelines for the community welfare officers. It is essential that discretion should be applied uniformly towards all clients, and it would seem that the commission's recommendation that the Department of Social Welfare be responsible for implementing supplementary welfare allowances would achieve the desired degree of uniformity.
The Government might move more quickly on this fairly painless reform. Computerisation would help to speed up the checking of applications for supplementary welfare allowances. At present long delays can occur while the Department of Social Welfare are assessing the cases of entitlement for supplementary welfare. This means people who are destitute and in real need do not receive their entitlements. Computerisation would expedite the processing of such applications and I urge the Minister to speed up the process.
I appeal to the Minister to do all in her power to attempt in other ways to streamline payments for social welfare recipients in all areas. Many of them still have to wait a considerable time in excess of what should be the norm. Appeals should also be expedited.
The size of this Estimate indicates more clearly than anything else could the hopeless performance of this Government. The sum of £2.5 billion has been provided for social welfare services, of which 28 per cent covers the unemployed. That 28 per cent represents approximately £700 million to be paid under various headings to those people in our society who are out of work. One thinks back to the halcyon days of the Programme for Government and the promises made to halt and reverse the growth in unemployment, but progress has been in the other direction during the four years in which this Government have presided in their hopelessly inefficient and inept way over the affairs of this country.
Deputy McCarthy mentioned the true unemployment figure as being in the region of 300,000. He is right, but that does not include the many emigrants, the young people who are leaving our towns, cities and countryside. In my region there are towns which can no longer field worthwhile hurling and football teams, simply because of emigration. We see queues of young people every day at the American Embassy seeking visas. The figure of 300,000 does not include those many young people. Still we pay out £700 million.
The Minister has given us the expenditure programmes. Services for the unemployed account for 28 per cent and, having covered all the other services, the balance of 4 per cent is spent on administration. I suggest that represents about £100 million in a total Estimate of £2.5 billion. I want to give the lie to those prophets around the country who are telling us that there is room for cutting public expenditure. They say it can be done easily, effectively and efficiently. I would ask those people to state specifically how that figure could be further reduced. The services in that Department are inadequate. Appeals are slow and there are excessive delays. In my opinion 4 per cent is a very low amount to spend on the administration of those services. Where is the room for cutting public expenditure?
I do not agree with much that the Minister said in her statement but I agree with what she said about fraud. I commend her on her reference to continued vigilance. There must be some fraud in relation to expenditure of that nature. Continued improvement of the supervising procedures and processes is called for. I also agree with the Minister that it would be ridiculous to think there could be a major saving in that respect. I do not believe the claim made by many commentators that there is an enormous saving to be made.
I must criticise the Minister and her advisers for the statement to the effect that the prospect for an all-round improvement in the economy in 1986 is better than it has been for many years. It is hard to equate that with a comment by the economics correspondent, Mr. Ken O'Brien, of The Irish Times as reported in this morning's issue of that newspaper. His article stated:
A disappointingly high inflation rate of 4.4 per cent was recorded for the year to mid May, pointing to the fact that consumers and Irish exporting companies are not reaping the full benefits of the sharp rise in the Irish pound's foreign exchange value over the past year.
The jobs of thousands of workers in exporting industries have come under severe pressure in recent months, because the gains from lower import prices have not been passed on.
The latest figures, which show a rise in consumer prices of 1.2 per cent in the quarter to May, are much higher than all forecasting agencies had predicted. There had been hopes that inflation would be under 3 per cent by now.
There are uncertainties as to where precisely the extra inflation is coming from, but, according to one source last night, "someone, somewhere is gaining from the drop in import prices, and it is not the consumer".
The latest figures for the United Kingdom show that the inflation rate there fell to 2.8 per cent...
Mr. O'Brien listed some of the reasons why the rate of inflation was 4.4 per cent and went on to state:
The abolition of food subsidies on milk and bread pushed up the overall level of prices by 0.23 per cent during the quarter. The rise in the VAT rate from 23 per cent to 25 per cent in the Budget, added a further 0.5 per centage points to the Consumer Price Index.
How can the Minister, or her advisers, come to the conclusion that there will be an improvement in the economy in 1986? Their views are in sharp contrast to those of that independent commentator. Is the Minister trying to convey that all is well and that there has been an improvement? I cannot see evidence of that. In my view one can completely discard the Minister's statement.
The Minister devoted a lot of her speech to telling us about the attitude we should adopt to unemployment. The words she used were very patronising. She said:
What about the negative attitude that is held by many people about people who have to resort to claiming social welfare payment when unemployed?
What else can an unemployed person do? The vast majority of those who are unemployed are anxious to get work. Those of us who hold clinics regularly are well aware that people genuinely desire to get work. I often become depressed at clinics in Cork city and county at the high level of unemployment due to the closure of major industries in recent years.
Those people have passed from pay-related benefits to the low level of unemployment benefit or assistance. It is depressing to listen to them making a case for a job, not for themselves because they have thrown in the towel, but for their sons and daughters. The Government stand indicted more than any of their predecessors for abandoning the unemployed and offering them no hope for the future. I was appalled and amazed that Deputies from my region voted against the Fianna Fáil motion on Wednesday and that others abstained. Voting against or abstension represents a betrayal of those people and shows a lack of concern for the people of my city and county.
I had expected that the Minister would explain what is involved in the pilot schemes for the unemployed. Will the Minister tell the House the new pilot schemes that are envisaged? Why have those schemes been taken over by the Department of Social Welfare? Is there tension between herself and her colleague in the Department of Labour? It is well known that there were tensions between the Minister, when she was in charge of the Department of Education, and the Minister for Labour in regard to who should run the various schemes. The gap between them was very wide and there was competition between the Ministers as to who should be responsible for the schemes. Are we now witnessing another effort by her to wrest from the Minister for Labour responsibilities for those schemes? The Minister may smile but she knows that I am aware of the wide gap that existed between her as Minister for Education and the Minister for Labour. There were many smiles in both Departments when a new Minister was appointed to Education to try to close the gap. I hope that gap is not opening again between Social Welfare and Labour.
I understand that all parties in the House, with the exception of the party I am proud to belong to, are in favour of the divorce referendum. I accept that some Fine Gael Members have distanced themselves from the position adopted by their party. Marriage breakdown is a major problem but economic circumstances, poverty, inadequate compensation for unemployment, bad housing and so on contribute to it. However, job creation and the need to change our taxation system are more important.
The Taoiseach saw fit on Monday to visit my city, a city devastated by job losses, to discuss divorce. It was an affront to the people of Cork that the Taoiseach should single out one issue and ignore a problem that is affecting every home, every boy and girl, especially those who are now sitting examinations. They are hoping for better things in the future but the prospects are bleak.
The lack of commitment by the Government in the area of job creation is a mistake that they will be judged on in the near future. Cork has been devastated more than any other region by the Government. I have been fair to the Government by saying that they could not have prevented some of the job losses, but they failed to fulfil a promise to compensate the workers adequately. As a result we have long queues at our employment exchanges, delays in payments of benefits and appeals dragging on and on. I am satisfied that some aspects of the social welfare system have become more streamlined but in other areas grave hardship is caused. I support every effort by the Minister and the Department to eliminate fraud, but often in efforts to eliminate it innocent people are victimised. There may be a suspicion about people who are not able to prove that their claims are genuine but the Minister should try to ensure that such people do not suffer any hardship. Many such cases have been brought to my notice at clinics.
The elderly, the handicapped and deprived children have been adequately dealt with by Deputy McCarthy. I should like to refer to the pressure on voluntary organisations. There are groups of people, men and women, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude. St. Vincent de Paul and many other such organisations have been doing great work throughout the years. They are now troubled about their finances at a time when there is a growing dependence on help by families living below the poverty line who are not getting enough in social welfare benefits or supplementary benefits. We all must be concerned about that. At budget time great stress was laid on the increases given to such people and we were told they were far ahead of the inflation rate. Today we are told that inflation is 50 per cent higher than the figure forecast then. That should be taken into consideration.
I should like to refer briefly to the great work being done by community associations. In my constituency the Cork Enterprise Board deserve our gratitude for the efforts they are making. I hope those efforts will ultimately mean savings to the Department of Social Welfare, that that board will be able to develop entrepreneurial skills. Unfortunately, I have not the time to go into this in detail.
I am concerned about the cost of social welfare contributions to small firms, in particular. The burden on such firms was already heavy and it is being increased because of our taxation and social policies. This could mean the loss of jobs which, in turn, would create more problems for the Department. Now, because of the strength of the punt and the stabilisation of oil prices, the Government should be in a position to relieve the small firms of their tax burden.
I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the setting up of a liaison between the Department and the national social services. That is a good idea. I hope it will not be just adding another layer of bureaucracy, duplicating the duplication that is already there.
When the Youth Employment Agency was set up I said that no worthwhile consideration had been given to it. In a leading article in one of our national newspapers we learned that the YEA has not been fulfilling the function that was promised for it. That newspaper supported the idea when we on these benches were warning against it.
I had not intended to speak on this Estimate because in recent meetings with the Minister I have been impressed by her commitment to the Department in which she is still in her honeymoon period. It is a difficult Department and the office came upon her suddenly. Her entry coincided with certain allegations of fraud in relation to social welfare payments. These have been trenchantly denied by the Department. The Minister has said she does not accept the allegations and I, of course, accept that. However, she has the determination to get these allegations examined where they exist.
We have been listening to emotive language from the two Deputies who have spoken so far. Deputy McCarthy used the word "destitution" and Deputy Gene Fitzgerald spoke of poverty. I do not believe there is real poverty in Ireland, unless it is self-inflicted. There are people who, no matter how sophisticated our social welfare system becomes, will still be in the poverty trap because of gambling and, particularly, drinking. In a country where we spend £3 million a day on drink we cannot suggest that there is dire poverty. Of course it is a lovely subject for parties in Opposition to shed crocodile tears about. They want more and more social welfare benefits but fail to identify how they will be paid, where the money will come from. This morning I shed tears for the PAYE worker who is carrying three or four people on his back. Fianna Fáil Deputies are asking for more and more social welfare payments while in the same breath they ask for tax relief for PAYE workers. That is like having your cake and eating it.
As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts I have a special concern for the possible existence of fraud. The Minister's statement in regard to this is contradictory. On the one hand it claims that the levels of fraud are very small but it accepts that there are areas in respect of which the Minister is not happy. Recently, a report was commissioned by the Department on Border regions and it contained horrific data on a major fraud involving £250,000 in one area in one year. The officers who conducted that inquiry put a year's work into it and did a remarkable job of uncovering not only the people concerned in the fraud but their actual addresses in Northern Ireland and their accommodation addresses here. In their report they instanced ways and means of stopping that method of pilfering money so badly needed in this part of the country. For years that report lay in the Department but nothing was done about it. They had suggested ways of eliminating that malpractice but nothing was done until the matter was leaked to the Sunday Independent.
There are many other areas of abuse and fraud in the social welfare system. There has been an ambivalence towards this kind of fraud since the foundation of the State. The attitude has been that if one can get away with it, it is par for the course. I believe massive fraud is taking place and that belief was confirmed by the recent "Today Tonight" programme where the claims made were substantiated by two of the Civil Service unions involved. In fact, their figure was greater than the one I gave: it was suggested that the area of fraud could be as high as £250 million. I do not know the real figure, but my objective in raising the matter with the Committee of Public Accounts and repeating it here is to get the matter examined in order to close down the areas of fraud.
Emotive language was used earlier about people being destitute and being in the poverty trap. I wonder to whom are the Fianna Fáil speakers referring? Are they referring to people on social welfare who have many benefits available to them or are they referring to hapless workers in low paid employment? I have no doubt that many people refuse work because of the benefits available to them on social welfare. People have come to me and have told me they were thinking of giving up their job because they were in low paid work. They did not have medical cards and they considered they would be better off on social welfare. It is a frightening scenario. I must conclude that in many cases social welfare is a disincentive to work.
In the past few months I have been in America and in Taiwan. In both of those countries there are no social welfare benefits. America has the best economy in the world and Taiwan has the sixth best economy. The latter is an island comparable in size to Ireland with a population of 19 million. There is virtually no social welfare and there is no unemployment. I think there is something to be learned from that. Social welfare payments here have escalated to such an extent that the PAYE worker and the taxpayer can no longer carry people on their backs.
I understand the Minister has been to America and has looked at systems operating there, providing work for young people in return for social welfare. I would welcome that here. No young fit person should be given social welfare for nothing. The country is literally falling down around us. Young people should be made to work for social welfare. One has only to look at the extent of decay in Dublin to realise what could be done by young people. If one walks along the quays, a few yards from O'Connell Street, one finds it difficult to understand the extent of decay in that area. Young people could be given shovels and sent out to do work that would be useful to the community but I do not think the necessary liaison exists between the various authorities. Local authorities do not appear anxious to take on young people. The Department and the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Labour, should examine the possibility of sending young people to work and perhaps to undo the dreadful damage caused by vandalism.
The Minister has stated she is looking at the possibility of getting consultants to examine the social welfare system and I understand she is considering the possibility of engaging international consultants. Would it not be possible to employ an Irish firm to do this work? I heard a suggestion that we were looking towards Sweden to do this work. I ask: what would a Swedish or other international firm of consultants know about the Irish social welfare system? What experience and knowledge have they of the Irish people and of the Irish scene? If they are engaged, to whom will they talk? Will they talk to people in the Department or will they talk to people working in the front line, namely, the social welfare officers who carry out investigations? Basically, these people are not consulted by the Department. Measures taken during the years have been proposed by desk-bound people from Dublin without any reference at all to the men who are aware of the grave abuses of fraud in the system.
There is a lack of liaison between health board officers and social welfare officers and the Minister should give consideration to this matter. I should like to pay a tribute to health board assistance officers for the help they give to people whose claims have not been processed and who are awaiting payment. In my short experience of public life I have always found them willing to help genuine social welfare recipients. They have never turned away anyone genuinely in need. They do an excellent job but this is not often acknowledged by the Department. Some kind of liaison between the various officials is necessary if we are to eliminate fraud.
A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since claims were made in relation to the level of social welfare fraud. During the years the Department have been reluctant to address this problem. They kept the lid on the problem because they were unaware of the extent of social welfare abuse and were afraid they would unearth a can of worms. That is why the recent exposure by the Committee of Public Accounts focused in on what I believe is a terrible abuse.
I believe the Minister is sincere in her desire to find a way to prevent abuses and possibly to unravel the whole area of social welfare abuse. I appreciate that social welfare is needed for people who are unable to obtain employment; I do not begrudge any money given to genuine social welfare recipients. Many people, particularly in my own area, an economically deprived area, have been made redundant over the past few years and are unable to get jobs and there are no jobs available in my region because of the neglect by successive Governments. As I said, I do not begrudge any money given to families in need but I begrudge money being given to people who are working and signing. Measures should be taken to prevent that and the courts should deal very severely with people who are making false claims, inventing fictitious families and attempting to sign on in several towns.
I believe the Minister will close these doors and will continue the work she started to ensure that the social welfare area does not become a freebie for people who are not entitled to it.
I was very interested to hear what Deputy McGahon had to say. I have the greatest regard for him but I am afraid I do not share his views on the social services. He is of the opinion that we have an army of ne'er-do-wells, people who refuse to work but are very anxious to live in the lap of luxury on the social welfare services. I am afraid he is very much out of touch with reality with the 17.6 per cent of the population who are living on social welfare and in poverty. I am saddened by what he had to say because he truly believed it. I would like him to see some of the cases I meet.
Last night I met a woman and a 12 year old girl who have to live on £58.60 a week. A 12 year old girl is almost an adult and to expect two people to exist on that sum is an indictment of our social welfare service. It is a reflection on us that we are not able to provide a social welfare service for people in need. The majority of the 250,000 people who are unemployed are not unemployed from choice. When I was coming here today a man stopped me at the gate and told me his 20 year old son had never had a job and knows nothing about work. He is in receipt of half rate social assistance benefit and he feels degraded and humiliated by that. He said his son had lost his dignity and was willing to take any kind of work. You cannot just give people a shovel. They must be directed. The Government are not living up to their responsibility. We must provide work for these people but there must be the political will to do so. This Government are just limping along. I feel very frustrated that we cannot tell these people there are jobs available. I felt very badly because I could not give that man any hope for his son. That is wrong. We must have the political leadership to do something about jobs. Deputy McGahon was right when he said we must create more jobs, but where will they come from? The army of unemployed are not Tony O'Reilly. They need jobs, they need direction and they need support.
In a Christian society we must provide for these people. People on social welfare find it very difficult to meet their bills — electricity bills, rent and so on — and many families have bread and tea for their main meal. Try to live on that and see what it is like and see what can be bought on social welfare payments at today's prices. This is very serious. The Irish people are the most caring in the world but we are not providing the social services these people need. We are not living up to our obligations. What are we doing? We are operating a bureaucratic system which is making the lives of these people hell.
We hear a lot of talk about fraud. The amount of fraud in the social welfare system is minimal. The first thing a society or a Government do when they go right wing is to talk about social welfare fraud. The Government contribution to the social insurance fund is very small. Over 72 per cent is contributed by employers and employees. It is very nice for some people to be able to latch on to the word "fraud". That is a great excuse and cover-up for our reluctance to provide a proper standard of living for our people in need. People are entitled to a proper standard of living. Irish people have a conscience about people in need as we have shown with Live Aid. The Irish are the most Christian and charitable people in the world and they deserve great credit for their wonderful response to cries for help. As a nation we can hold up our heads, but the Government are not following the example set by the people. We want everyone to have a proper standard of living but the Government are falling down on that.
What makes me ashamed is that the socialist component in the Coalition refused to face up to their obligations in this regard. I can understand Fine Gael because they are right wing and they think like that. This is no reflection on Deputy McGahon, but it is a reflection on the Labour element because they purport to be the champions of the poor, the needy, the neglected and the handicapped.
The Deputy was a champion at one time.
Of course I was and I always will champion these people, but not in that party because they cannot hold up their heads. They have disgraced themselves. That party were the kingmakers. There would be no Coalition Government without the Labour Party but they reneged on the people they purport to serve. That is sad, and a terrible indictment of that party. They had an opportunity. They were the kingmakers. Fine Gael could not be in Government without the Labour Party and the Labour Party did not use their political muscle to bring about the necessary reforms and a proper social service that the people in need required.
There are people very much in need. We have the handicapped, the disabled, the man who puts on a hat and a scarf in an attempt to disguise himself when he goes into a labour exchange. Ask the people who go to the labour exchanges what it is like. They do not like it. It is a depressing, embarrassing experience. A man feels he has lost his dignity. He has lost everything when he has to go there. I know people who feel terrible at having to go in there. I say this not against Deputy McGahon, but think of the other side of it. We cannot stand up as a nation who feel genuinely concerned about it if the Government do not give the leadership.
A very important report is there which the Government rejected completely almost before it was published. They did not give it a chance. Why could they not initiate a debate on it? Why could they not look at that report? I mention this because what it asks for is not too much. I have read it and I agree with the greater part of its recommendations. I proposed these before the report issued and my statements in that regard can be seen on the record of this House. I will refer to some of the recommendations because it is very important to see what is happening.
The report recommends the introduction of a basic welfare payment based on a minimum income. If we could establish a minimum income for every household we could then decide that people will not have to live far below this terrible poverty line. We could at least ensure that we establish a minimum income. It has been done in the US and in Germany with success. The report asks for improved welfare support for families, and none of us would find fault with that. We must see that these children are protected. There is no doubt about it that the children of the impoverished are not able to avail of the education or the benefits which are there. The report recommends a broadening of the social insurance base and the last recommendation is to improve the facilities and equipment of the Department of Social Welfare. Every official in the Department of Social Welfare would agree with me that the equipment and facilities in that Department need to be improved.
Implementing these four proposals in one year would cost £250 million, which might seem a large sum, but a Government should not be frightened off by figures. One suggestion is that widening PRSI to include the self-employed would raise £104 million in a year if PRSI was charged at 5.5 per cent of income or £10 a week. Charging the full rate of PRSI to civil servants would bring in £60 million. Here we would have £164 million immediately. If we abolish the income ceiling for PRSI we would take in another £63 million, so now we have £227 million which could implement those recommendations. What would be wrong with everyone paying PRSI? The ceiling changes every year. This is anomalous. The more you earn over £14,700 the less PRSI you pay as a proportion of income in relation to those on lower income. In Europe everyone pays PRSI, self-employed, farmers, civil servants, everyone. Why should we not broaden the base for PRSI? It is a benefit. Self-employed are often thrown on the slagheap of unemployment and are dependent on assistance, which is degrading. PRSI is a form of insurance and the self-employed man should benefit from it when he is in need. The farmer, too, comes upon hard times. Why should he have to grovel looking for assistance? The criteria for establishing entitlement to assistance are most demeaning.
What benefit will it be to civil servants? Will they come on hard times?
Why should we discriminate? Why should everyone not pay PRSI? Why should civil servants not pay like everyone else? They have had certain concessions and these old rules applied when civil servants had to be protected. It is time now to consider seriously bringing everyone in on this. After all, the manual workers were deprived of a right some years ago. When they had their insurance number what their income was did not matter, they were entitled to the full health and hospital service. That was taken from them. They should have challenged that in the court because they had that right established. However, they did not take the matter to court and they were prepared to forego that right. Civil servants should be brought in on this, let them pay and all round we could get in more money. Those who suffer and who fall on hard times should avail of it, farmers, self-employed or any workers. Let us not look at PRSI as a tax. It is a form of insurance and if we all paid it we could implement that first set of proposals in the first year. We would establish a minimum income per household. We would extend the family's social services, broaden the social insurance base and improve the facilities and equipment of the Department of Social Welfare which every official working there will tell you is vital if that system is to work.
A proper system would eliminate fraud or any abuse. Now the officials are caught in trying to cope with something without the necessary facilities. That would not arise if my proposal is accepted. You would have the one number for tax and for insurance and you could check on everything. Therefore, it would be an investment in the social services and we would have a proper streamlined system. It would be a good investment.
Why did the Government reject that report out of hand before it was published? I doubt if many members of the Cabinet read it. It is a very big report, in a number of parts, and it is worth reading. We must examine the social welfare service. People using it are in dire straits. The majority of people on social welfare services are living below the poverty line and, as a Christian, charitable country, we should not tolerate that. Please do not let this question of abuses distort our judgment or make us callous in regard to the needy. There are many wrongs in our society. There is the young man of 18 years living at home, unemployed through no fault of his own. He cannot get unemployment assistance if his father is earning a normal, living wage. That is degrading to a young man of 18. He can vote, he can marry, but he cannot get assistance. This is wrong. In his own right he should be entitled to it and no State which cannot provide for this is worth its salt. I have seen the American system. I tell Deputy McGahon that I lived in America. I was a doctor out there for a number of years.
It is not as good as this country.
It is a very uncaring society and I saw patients who were very worried and were thrown out of hospital because they did not have the money to pay for treatment. One man told me that he did not want to have an operation because he could not afford it. He said his wife had an operation 25 years ago and that they were still paying for it. I am not exaggerating the position in America. I should not like to think that our medical services would get like those in America——
The Deputy should be back on this side of the House.
No, but I hope to bring the Members over there round to my way of thinking. I ask the Minister present, for whom I have the greatest regard, to use his influence to have the report implemented.
I was disappointed to hear Deputy Bell say that the Labour Party support the report but that he did not know how their four Cabinet Ministers felt because they did not tell them. Those Ministers should be taking their orders from the Parliamentary Labour Party and, therefore, there is no excuse for not knowing how they feel.
The Labour Party is a dog with no tail.
The parliamentary party must tell those Ministers how to vote to ensure that the document is implemented by this House.
The social welfare budget is enormous. The total number of people and their dependants who receive each week social welfare payments of one kind or another is about 1.3 million or 37 per cent of our total population. Overall spending this year, taking account of the new rates of payments in the Bill, will amount to almost £2.5 billion pounds of which the Exchequer will contribute £1.6 billion. This overall level of spending is equivalent to expenditure of about £7 million pounds per day for each day of the year. It represents the largest single bloc of current Government expenditure. Over the last ten years an increasing share of the country's output has been devoted to social welfare services and these services now represent almost 15 per cent of gross national product.
When considering the totality of the social welfare system in society as a whole, however, we must also take account of the activities of voluntary and community organisations and local groups. The Department of Social Welfare already provide support to this sort of activity in a number of ways. Over the coming years there will be a need for continuing involvement and development of this aspect of social provision and for closer links between the activities of such groups and the statutory social welfare services in order to ensure that there are adequate mechanisms for identifying areas of need and tackling them in an effective way. Since 1983, £1.68 million has been provided for grants to various voluntary organisations. The grants are mainly for once-off projects and are payable in addition to any grants made by health boards. This year, I am glad to say, an increased sum of £750,000 is being made available.
I would like to refer also to the poverty programme and the establishment of the Combat Poverty Agency as this is a matter with which I have been directly concerned. The legislation to establish the new agency has now been enacted and I hope that it will be possible to set up the agency in the very near future. We had a long debate during the passage of the Bill through this House. All sides were in general agreement with the setting up of the agency and this shows the widespread concern with poverty which exists. I hope that the agency when it is in operation will receive similar widespread support and I have no doubt that it will. This support will be necessary to enable the agency to carry on its activities successfully.
Some reservations were expressed about the efficiency of an agency of this type in reducing or eliminating poverty. There is no doubt that the task of the new agency will be an extremely difficult and demanding one. However, it will be assured of the full support of this Government in the work it has to do. This Government and previous Coalition Governments have already made concrete demonstrations of their genuine concern with this problem, and, what is more, made genuine efforts to deal with it effectively.
The inclusion of a poverty programme in the EC Social Action Programme in the early seventies was the result of a sustained and determined effort by the Irish Government of the time and it is a matter of great credit to the members of that Government that their efforts eventually met with success and that a Community programme was established and administered in the other member states.
That Government of course did not rely solely on the EC for an anti-poverty programme. Before that programme was adopted the combat poverty committee was set up and anti-poverty action was initiated here at home. A large number of projects were organised or sponsored around this country and largely on the experience of that programme the recent legislation was prepared.
There will be no censorship or influence exerted on the agency to prevent criticism of this Government or advocacy of unpopular measures. I think the record of the previous combat poverty committee is sufficient to dispose of any such criticism. That committee ruffled many feathers and did not mince their words in commenting on many aspects of public life. In this they received the full encouragement of the Coalition Government. It was the succeeding Fianna Fáil Government who, in 1980, abolished the committee and did nothing to implement the experience of the first combat poverty programme.
The Government are committed to an anti-poverty programme and are determined that the new agency will be supported fully. The Government are also conscious of the impact of their own policies, positively or negatively, on poverty. It is not always easy to determine the effects of such policies precisely. This is a matter which the agency will concern itself with. It is clear that there is need for co-ordination of policies in a number of areas, such as social welfare, taxation, education, health, etc. —indeed, in practically every aspect of State activity. In future the Government will, through the work of the new agency, have this expertise available to advise on the impact of Government policies in so far as the reduction or possible exacerbation of poverty is concerned.
I do not claim, nor do the Government, that the agency can eliminate poverty. It will, however, assist positively in devising policies which reduce or alleviate poverty. It can also, on a more local level, test projects of a community development or self-help nature which may assist poorer people to learn how much they can do, with positive guidance and counselling, to take a more active part in matters affecting their lives and in the decisions taken on such matters. The agency will be active, therefore, in combating poverty both at the macro and the micro levels.
It has been implied that economic conditions are solely responsible for poverty. There is no doubt that poverty is intensified by unemployment and overall financial stringency. Poverty, however, is a more complex matter. Poverty of a hitherto unsuspected extent was discovered both here and in other EC countries in the early seventies, at a time of unprecedented economic progress. Poverty, as the former combat poverty committee found, is multi-factorial and the impact of all these factors, financial, educational, environmental etc., merits examination. There is certainly already a vast literature on the subject but the lessons learnt have to be applied specifically to particular situations. This will be one of the tasks of the new agency.
Another immediate task for the new agency will be to be responsible for the Irish element of the new EC poverty programme. This programme was launched last year after a considerable amount of discussion at Commission level. The programme is directed at particular issues which the Commission identified as being of particular importance.
Obviously, unemployment has become the major problem facing all member states since the time of the first programme and long term and youth unemployment in particular. The particular needs of old people, particularly old people living alone, were also identified as one of the areas of concern for member states and also the needs of one parent families, homeless people and certain other groups. The Commission was especially in favour, however, of projects which would look at the overall needs of particular geographical areas, both urban and rural, which may have an accumulation of problems needing a co-ordinated response on behalf of all the different sections of the community. In urban areas it might be a case of large populations living in an area, with high levels of unemployment and other social problems. In rural areas the problems would be different but just as large in their own way — falling populations, unemployment, rural isolation and so on.
The Council of Ministers accepted the conclusions of the Commission and gave the go-ahead for a four year programme for the Community, the main part of which would consist of action-research projects throughout the Community which would be part-funded by the EC. The programme is quite a small one in terms of the overall funds made available — around £17.5 million over four years for the Community as a whole. It was clear from the outset, therefore, that only a small number of projects would be funded and also that those projects would have to be of a very high quality. There was a tremendous response in this country to the request for applications with over 150 projects being submitted for consideration and many of those projects were of a very high standard indeed.
Initially eight Irish projects were selected for the programme and a wide variety of projects are included in this initial selection. The projects are briefly as follows: the setting up of a resource centre in west Tallaght as a focus and resource for community activity; the co-ordination of voluntary and statutory activities in the Inishowen peninsula and the establishment of a resource centre; the organisation of a community resource unit in west Connemara to strengthen development in this area and meet the needs of groups such as the elderly; the uniting of three community councils in the Louisburgh area to provide an integrated approach to development, co-ordinate work of voluntary bodies and establish a resource centre for the district; the establishment of a resource centre in Dublin's south inner city to enable people to tackle the problems facing them and to provide a network of local community support systems; the provision of a drop-in centre for young unemployed in Sligo, with counselling and personal development work for deprived youth; and the establishment of a resource centre and support services for unemployed people in the Darndale-Belcamp area of Dublin.
The essential feature about all of these projects is that they are essentially run by local groups themselves who were responsible for determining the goals of the projects and for the operation of the projects from day one. Subsequent to the initial selection of projects a project on homeless people organised by the Simon Community was selected for funding under the programme, making a total of nine Irish projects altogether.
The Irish projects are being financed to the extent of 55 per cent by the Community, the remaining 45 per cent being met largely by the Government with, in some cases, a contribution by the projects themselves. Over the four years of the programme the total amount of Community funding to the Irish projects will be approximately £1.7 million, while the Irish Government will provide approximately £1 million.
I have dwelt at some length on the poverty programme at both the Irish and the European levels because I believe this programme has the potential to be of major value and significance for the fight against poverty both in Ireland and in the Community. With the setting up of the new agency here, I hope we will be able to focus on efforts much more effectively in order to achieve concrete results in this area.
One of the proposals set out in the Government White Paper, Serving the Country Better, was for the setting up of executive offices in cases where Departments, such as the Department of Social Welfare, have a sufficiently large volume of purely executive work and the introduction of legislation to give a statutory basis to this. Following the White Paper and in anticipation of legislation, there has been a major reorganisation of the Department of Social Welfare which involves the setting up of the Social Welfare Services Office separate from the Department. The new office is responsible for the day-to-day running of the schemes and services of the Department. This office is headed by director with the rank of deputy secretary.
The Social Welfare Services Office is concerned solely with the operation of the various social welfare schemes, while policy matters will be handled by the Department. This will enable the officials responsible for the delivery of services to concentrate more fully on effective management and the provision of an efficient and speedy delivery of services A central feature of the new arrangements will be the setting up of formal management systems and the use of the latest computer technology. The Department are very much a front runner in the field of the information technology and I see great potential for further improving the quality of service to the public.
Computers were first introduced into the Department of Social Welfare in 1973. Over the years a number of major computer developments have taken place with the result that at present many areas of the Department have computerised facilities. The Department's objective is to develop an integrated computer-telecommunications network covering all of their services. It is planned to do this in a progressive manner over the next number of years.
The main computerised applications are: General benefit including pay-related benefit and cheque reconciliation; treatment benefits; central records; children's allowances; pensions; employment exchanges and information system.
Computers were introduced into the general benefits area in 1973 to assist with the payment of disability benefit, occupational injury benefit, maternity allowance and pay-related benefit. It is also used to assist with the calculation of pay-related benefit for unemployment benefit purposes. The computer system has been expanded since then and some 80,000 cheques are issued each week using this system. A cheque reconciliation system was developed to assist with the reconciliation of these cheques. While some of the computers used to process the payments have been replaced by more modern and sophisticated computers, the basic design of the system remains the same and this is being overhauled at present.
In 1975 a computer system was introduced to assist with the payment of opticians and dentists for services in connection with the treatment benefits scheme. This system is no longer adequate to cater for existing demands and work has commenced on the development of a replacement system.
Following the introduction of the PRSI system in April 1979 a computer system was developed during 1979 and 1980 for the central records section of the Department for the storage and retrieval of employment details, for example, contributions, earnings, supplied by the Revenue Commissioners. Additional computers were purchased at the time and a second computer site was opened. Claims to insurance based schemes since January 1981 have been processed through these computers. Contribution and claim information in respect of 1.5 million insured persons is stored on these computers. Each year the Revenue Commissioners supply the Department with end of tax year employment details in respect of each employee. The existing system is nearing capacity and it is proposed to redevelop it within the next couple of years. Preliminary work on this will commence this year.
In 1984 computerised facilities were introduced to assist with the processing of children's allowance claims and the issue of allowances books. All claims to children's allowances are recorded on computer and the computer assists with the issue of the allowance books. Each year some 450,000 books are issued with computer assistance. In 1984 a separate computer system was developed to assist with the calculation and the payment of family income supplement.
The pensions computer system, introduced in autumn 1984, assist with the processing of claims and the issue of pension books to approximately 370,000 pensioners. The system has now been extended to most of the pension areas in the Department and it is planned to convert the remaining sections this year. There are 13 different types of pension administered by the Department. Those on computer are old age pension, 130,000, retirement pension, 35,000, old age, contributory, pension, 70,000, widow's and orphan's contributory and non contributory pensions, 90,000. The remaining two pension types—invalidity pension, 25,000, and single woman's allowance, 3,000, will be converted in 1986.
Limited computer facilities exist for the miscellaneous schemes area, such as free travel, and it is proposed to commence work on the expansion of the pension system to cater for free schemes claims as soon as the remaining pension sections are transferred to the computer. Some preliminary work has already been done in this area.
A pilot computerisation scheme to pay unemployment assistance claims was introduced into two Dublin exchanges early in 1984. For a number of reasons progress has been slower than had been expected. Difficulties were experienced with the banks in relation to the encashment of cheques with the result that a different approach had to be adopted. Difficulties were also experienced with the staff union involved. These latter difficulties have been resolved and work has now resumed on installing the system. It is intended to install the system into the other Dublin exchanges during 1986.
The expansion and further development of computerised facilities in employment exchanges is one of the major tasks facing the Department over the coming years. With the growing number of persons unemployed there has been increasing pressure on the systems in operation and on the staff working in exchanges. There are over 40 employment exchanges and 80 branch offices throughout the country administering the unemployment payments schemes and it will take some time before computerised facilities can be provided in all offices with the current level of resources.
A computerised information system which provides information regarding benefit and pension claims at the public offices of the Department throughout the country has been developed and is being expanded. The system also provides access to the central records system for inquiry purposes. Visual display units have been installed in the major public offices in Dublin and in a number of information offices outside Dublin. They will be installed in the remaining information offices as the necessary telephones etc. become available. There are terminals in 22 locations outside Dublin.
Since March 1985 the Department have their own technical development staff. Previously, they relied for their computer development on the services of the Central Data Processing Service of the Department of the Public Service, which was disbanded following the implementation of the recommendations of the review body on computerisation.
The number of visual display units, VDUs, has grown from less than 50 in 1980 to about 500 and this represents a ratio of about one VDU to every four staff in the Dublin offices of the Department. The Department introduced word processing facilities and other office automation facilities a number of years ago. These facilities are constantly being extended and developed. The Department now have three computer sites in Dublin with a total of 12 computers. The third site was opened recently to cater for the increasing number of computers. The three sites are connected with telecommunications links, so that information can be transferred from one site to another.
The Department have plans to extend their existing computerised facilities and to introduce computerisation into other areas of their activities. The main developments over the next few years will be: (a) The extension of the computerised facilities for employment exchanges; (b) Extension of the computerised claim processing and payment system to other pensions and allowances schemes administered by the Department; (c) Further development of computerised information network; (d) Integration of systems.
We are debating these Estimates against an increasingly depressing background of rising unemployment, growing child abuse and neglect of the most vulnerable of all groups in our community, the elderly. It saddens me that in 1986 people are forced to call on the social welfare system and are still faced with dealing with a system which is becoming more bureaucratic day by day. Year after year we hear Ministers promise in earnest tones to humanise Departments dealing with the sick and the needy. Instead, those who are claiming often find themselves treated with suspicion and are sometimes caused stress and strain because they are claiming their rights. The "them and us" mentality is still very prevalent and many of those working in these areas still regard themselves as doing a favour for those seeking services. I notice that the Department recently signed a major computer contract and hope that this installation will not provide further excuses for delays and poor services.
It saddened me on reading the recent Ombudman's report that, of all the complaints which he received against Civil Service Departments, over 50 per cent related to the Department of Social Welfare alone. Nobody in this House could be happy with that situation, least of all the Minister. When one considers the cost of administering such a social welfare scheme, I seriously ask if the Minister is really and honestly prepared to accept that this is a good service and that the taxpayers are getting value for their money.
The Minister's attention should be drawn to a number of areas where reform of the system is most necessary. Equal treatment for men and women in social security was supposed to come into effect in December 1984; it did not. The legislation necessary to implement it was passed during 1985, but it has not yet been put into effect. I notice that only some of this legislation will be implemented by the Social Welfare Act of 1986. Another area where women are discriminated against is through the failure to extend the dental and optical services to the spouses of insured employees. The cost of care in these areas has risen substantially over the last few years and it seems that the extension to pregnant women only, while commendable in itself, falls very short of what is required.
There are a number of areas relating to the elderly which ought to receive the attention of the Minister and her officials. One of the major anomalies affecting the elderly is the position in relation to those who have paid into social insurance schemes for a long number of years but find themselves, because of the situation prior to 1974, with insufficient average contributions to qualify for an old age contributory pension. This anomaly demonstrates more clearly than any other that those who are well off enough to have been totally excluded from the social insurance scheme prior to 1984 fare much better than those who are on low middle incomes who were in and out of the system up to 1974. This is one area where the Minister should try to resolve the problem this year.
Another anomaly is the position of those who may not have known of their entitlement to a pension and who because of a late application are excluded from the scheme. I fail to understand why the Department cannot notify people of their likely entitlement to a pension when they are nearing the age of 66 years. There is never any problem letting people know that payments are expected of them, but when it comes to payments due to people it seems to be beyond the State's resources to provide the necessary information.
The whole question of interest on payments which had been wrongly withheld from people should be examined by the Minister. There is a growing number of cases where the Department have wrongly informed people of their entitlements and the error has been discovered only after a number of years. A refund, of course, is made to those people but that does not include interest, thereby depriving the person of moneys which he or she would have been entitled to had the allowance been paid on time.
Other areas to which I feel attention should be given in the forthcoming year are the anomalies created through having a range of different means tests for testing eligibility for various schemes and the range of different payments available in respect of child dependants. We are, after all, a small country and our social welfare system should reflect the fact that we are dealing with fewer numbers than are many of our European counterparts. Yet our system seems to reflect some of the worst failings of our neighbours.
I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to some aspects of unemployment assistance. I have mentioned this on many occasions and hope that in the commission report something will be done in this regard, particularly in view of the appalling unemployment rate among young people. Those who are prepared to take up part time education are deprived of unemployment assistance. I have repeated this on three or four occasions over the last few years. It is of vital importance that those young people who are on long term unemployment and are prepared to take up part time education be entitled to unemployment assistance. I ask the Minister again to give this matter very careful consideration. I understand that it is being recommended in the commission report, but that is not official. I hope that serious consideration will be given to it.
Means assessment for unemployment assistance should not include board and lodgings. This had led to many single young adults over 18 years of age leaving home to get some social assistance while at the same time maintaining their independence. It is sad that a young person should have to make a sacrifice and leave his home and family in order to get social assistance. I appeal to the Minister to have this matter rectified and to ensure that board and lodgings are not included in the assessment of means.
I would like to make one suggestion regarding the appeals system. This whole system will have to be restructured. The delay is too long in processing the appeals. I suggest that two appeals officers, one medical and one lay person, be appointed to each county and all appeals lodged dealt with on an ongoing basis. This would eliminate the poverty trap. Cuts in public services and things of that kind were mentioned this morning by a colleague of mine.
When a person applies to the local employment exchange for unemployment assistance he is told his case will be investigated. That could take a month, six weeks, two months or often three or four months. In the meantime an assessment is made by the local community welfare officer. He makes an assessment and pays social assistance until such time as he receives notification from the Department of Social Welfare that he is about to receive his unemployment assistance. There is much correspondence. Two assessments are made by different officers, one by an official from the Department of Health and the other by an official from the Department of Social Welfare. If this is not overlapping of services and a waste of money and manpower I do not know what is. A local social assistance officer should be the qualifying person for those who make application for unemployment assistance.
One area which is causing untold hardship to individuals and families is that of social welfare disability benefit. At present approximately 95,000 medical certificates are being sent to the Department on a weekly basis. These are from people who because of illness are unfit for work and are not able to sign. The Department, in processing these certificates, issue social welfare disability benefit cheques to people. These cheques are normally paid weekly. This system of payment has completely broken down. Thousands of families are forced to go to the community welfare officers every week to seek supplementary welfare allowance because they are destitute. They are destitute because the cheque upon which they are so badly dependent does not arrive because of a delay in the post or whatever. I suggest that, where they have been in receipt of the allowance for a continuous period of three months, and where it is certified by their medical practitioners that it is likely that their illness will continue for a further three months, the Department should devise a new system whereby this money can be paid from their account directly to the accounts of those people in their savings bank or post office. This would cut out much waste of manpower in the Department of Social Welfare.
I hope the Minister and her officials will give much attention to the recent report of the Commission on Social Welfare. I have been advocating for a number of years an overhauling of the whole structure of social welfare. With the publication of this report we now have an opportunity to look at all aspects of social welfare and to try to eliminate many of the anomalies that exist especially in regard to the abuse of social welfare which is going on at a very high rate at present. I do not know what procedure the Minister hopes to adopt. I have no doubt that many of us will be asked to make contributions to the Minister on the commission's report. I hope we will have a full discussion on it in this House. It is of vital importance that once and for all we overhaul the whole structure of social welfare.
As Deputy Wyse has just said, we are contributing to this debate on the Social Welfare Estimate at a particularly important time. We are looking with new eyes on the whole area of social welfare: how effectively and how well it serves the community; and how cost effective it is in regard to the very large slice of the national cake allocated to it. Above everything else — and I am sure everybody involved in the Department will agree with this — we must strive constantly to ensue that the money allocated to social welfare goes in the most productive, caring and effective way towards the recipients who are justly eligible for it. I know that all the thrust and motivation within the Department will be towards that end. The Minister for Social Welfare pointed this out this morning. I will comment on that aspect later.
I want to go quickly through the Minister's speech and pick out some of the areas that she highlighted. This is such a fundamental and important part of our whole society, the shape and the justice of our society, the way it is managed, perceived and supported by the taxpayers, that this is but one small contribution to the whole debate today. Like others, I look forward to the fuller debate on the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. Many Deputies here were members of committees or groups who made submissions to that commission. We shall be very interested to see in what way they have been able to take on board the various proposals and initiatives suggested by us.
One of the areas highlighted by the Minister was the expenditure programme and the percentages and proportions which were diverted to the different sections in our community. Each of them would in turn ask us to spend time and consideration in reforming and planning, above everything else, the various sections of the social welfare system. For example, the Minister pointed out that services for the elderly account for 27 per cent of the expenditure, while services for the sick account for 14 per cent. Taking those two figures quickly, and addressing the principle of what we should be attempting, projections have been made which show that by the year 2000 the elderly as a proportion of the population will be a larger group than they are now. We have to start planning for that now. We are aware also that a much larger proportion of our elderly will be living in urban areas. We are aware also that with regard to the treatment and care of the elderly and the sick there is a thrust and motivation by the Minister for Health and his Department that by the year 2000 we will be into a situation of positive preventive medicine and community, as opposed to institutional health services. This is tied up with how social welfare is planned for and distributed. These are markers we have to put down. We as legislators, but particularly the Department of Social Welfare in co-operation with the Department of Health, must take projected planning along. As I have said in debate after debate, it is only when we take social planning alongside economic planning, not just for the next one or three years but for the next ten years, that we will get the balanced and planned society we all aspire to.
One of the most depressing figures, because of its social implications, which the Minister spelt out in her speech, is that 28 per cent of the total of social welfare expenditure goes towards the unemployed. That is not alone an unacceptable figure but a very depressing and sad one. Because of the way work and employment have been defined over the years a stigma has attached to people who through no fault of their own find themselves in the social welfare system as recipients. What I would like to see is, that through good planning and co-operation, taking those figures into consideration, we ensure that if that 27 per cent figure for the elderly expands, as we believe it will, the necessary planning will be done in the most caring and supportive way. We must plan so that services to the sick will decline by way of the use of positive preventive programmes rather than addressing the problem after it occurs. Most important of all, we must be able to reduce the 28 per cent in respect of the unemployed and ensure that people are valuably and viably employed, not just in the context of what is considered gainful employment but in the redefinition of employment. We should administer values or status to people depending on that definition. Unfortunately, because we have defined it in a very outdated and discriminatory way people who come within the social welfare system find themselves at the bottom of the pile.
Looking at those figures and at the level of care to which we aspire, there is no way we can continue to allow a stigma to be attached to those who may find themselves for either short or long periods part of the social welfare system. Of all the primary tasks we have ahead of us with regard to reform, the reforming of attitudes towards recipients of social welfare is the one we have to attack with the greatest urgency and energy. I welcome the Minister's concern and thinking on how we will have to reorganise our thinking and values to cope with what is now and probably will continue to be a totally changing concept of employment and unemployment. The Minister said, while talking about the psychologically and sociologically damaging effects that protracted unemployment can have on people because of their considering themselves so redundant, not just in the job situation but as human beings, that what needs to be done is to give opportunities to people to participate again in the community. We have to look at this very seriously.
I learned recently of a British statistic in a book entitled The Future of Work by Charles Handy. Some of the most important work in our community is termed informal work but Handy estimated, on the basis of other statistics and research done, that 40 per cent of the work within our community is made up of informal work. In giving opportunities to people to participate in the community we must look at the concept of formal and informal work and set up a different definition and concept, based not just on the narrow definition of gainful employment, and, indeed of reward for such, with its damaging effects of excluding people from what we value as gainful employment. We must turn that around to ensure that through education training and the differing structures of work that informal work will be seen as at least as valuable and rewarding for people. Even for those involved in it now it is much more satisfying and far more productive with regard to the community at large than some of our more rigidly defined jobs.
This is a huge area. I welcome the Minister's addressing the question of the changing of concepts and definitions and realising that social welfare as it is at present defined will not in the future satisfy any of the psychological, sociological or employment needs and changes which we will have to bring about. Within the continuing debate on social welfare and also on education and labour I welcome that that concept will be continued, carried on and integrated into every one of those Departments and into the thinking and planning of Government programmes.
That concept is to be welcomed also in regard to the effective administration of the services of the Department of Social Welfare. The reforms now being introduced will define two areas and have their problems addressed, the first being policy, and all of what I have been saying so far will fall into that category. The second reform, that of the administration of the services, probably affects people more immediately as recipients. I welcome, as I am sure do all Members of the House, the fact that this area is being given autonomy, that its technology is being updated, because this will lead to the most efficient and effective method of delivering the services to the people concerned.
Much has been and will continue to be said about abuses of the social welfare system. We must not lose sight of the fact that the large majority of social welfare recipients are genuine. Sometimes there is a tendency to exaggerate things being done by a minority and to use that as a stick with which to beat the majority. The Minister referred to the psychological and dependency problems which can be wrought on social welfare recipients without adding to them unnecessarily and uncaringly. I know the Minister and her Department will be addressing themselves to identifying abuses of the system and eliminating them. All of that will be done with the clear motivation that the elimination of such abuses would enable the payment of increased benefits to the real beneficiaries, the people who really need this kind of help. But let us not forget that the majority of people may be hurt and humiliated, may feel even more isolated in our society, if we apply that criticism to all. Therefore, I welcome the urgency with which the Minister and her Department are addressing themselves to that problem so that we ensure that we get rid of some of the myths and mad exaggerations that have been circulating in regard to such abuses. Indeed, I might ask the people who talk loudest about fraud, who demand instant, almost draconian measures to be taken against the perpetrators of such abuses, to please pay attention also to employers and others who abuse the system, for instance, by withholding payment of employees' PRSI contributions. I would plead that there be a balance maintained in this respect. When we talk of abuses of the taxation or social welfare systems we might also remember or make reference to the higher levels of tax evasion and social welfare abuses, which probably, comparatively speaking in regard to culpability, may be much more serious and immoral than the abuses usually attacked.
I also welcome the Minister's proposals to ensure implementation of the directive to bring married women, wives of the self-employed and of the farming community, within the system of contributions and eligibility. I know this is a problem being examined and that it is being debated in Europe. I would hope that the Minister, in helping to solve those problems, would work towards the attainment of that aim. Indeed, I would hope that it would not take as long to implement the provisions of that directive as it did those of the previous one relating to equality of social security for men and women. I know that the Minister will be motivated towards achieving balance and equality, bringing about the radical reforms so much needed and on which the future administration of the system must be based. I know that history will record with favour the radical, fundamental and equalising proposals and reforms the Minister effected in the Department of Education. I am sure she will achieve the same objective within her sphere of responsibilities in the Department of Social Welfare. I am sure she will have the same record of reform, equality and compassion in the whole area of social welfare.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on her first time introducing an Estimate on behalf of the Department of Social Welfare. The amounts of money involved are huge. From an observer's viewpoint one must note that there is tremendous work being done in the field of social welfare. Representing the constituency of Dublin South-West, taking in the areas of Tallaght and Clondalkin, I would have to pose the question: what has created the need for such a huge Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare? Possibly I represent the worst constituency, perhaps with the exception of the city centre, in the whole country when it comes to unemployment.
Some years ago Tallaght was designated as one of three new towns in County Dublin. There are now over 10,000 people unofficially unemployed in the Tallaght area, with a huge number in the Clondalkin area as well. As one public representative from that constituency, I feel strongly that the Government should be doing much more to create productive employment, particularly in the Tallaght area. There have been a number of schemes devised by the Government, through the Youth Employment Agency and so on, which are subsidised. The real problem for the whole country is the fact that there are no new productive jobs being created which is where the real problem of social welfare arises. In turn, this has led to the need for such a huge Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare. There was much talk about planning in earlier contributions but I should like to ask what is being done to create productive and gainful employment. That is our real problem.
There is no doubt that this is a huge Estimate and that a great deal is being done by the Department of Social Welfare. The need is there. I heard Deputy McGahon say there are no real poor in this country. I now invite Deputy McGahon and the Minister to visit Tallaght, particularly west Tallaght, on some suitable occasion. Today for the first time since this Government took office I heard a reference in this House to west Tallaght, made by the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Pattison. I appreciate that the Minister herself has been present for this debate and it is obvious that she is taking a keen interest in it. It is a different matter to go outside this House and see the problems being faced by the people of Tallaght and Clondalkin.
There is no doubt that the problems have been brought about by the policies pursued by this Government. The Government may well be doing much in field of social welfare, but nothing has been done to create new productive employment. I lay the blame on the Government, with particular reference to Tallaght and Clondalkin. I have represented that constituency for many years and the conditions there are the worst in the country. The problems are unbelievable. Deputies may say there are no real poor. That may well be the case in their constituencies or in areas which are mainly rural. People moving out from the city centre to newly built-up areas face a very bleak future because there is no employment. It is little wonder that we have so many problems in our area.
Deputy McCarthy referred to the national plan Building on Reality. Shortly after the publication of that document the Taoiseach attended a function in Tallaght to present awards to the Tallaght People of the Year. He spoke in glowing terms about this plan and what it would achieve and told the people of Tallaght that the Government were thinking about them and always had their interests at heart. He claimed they were a caring Government. Since then the problems have continued to grow and new problems have been created. I ask the Minister what is to be done by the Government to alleviate these problems. I would welcome any increase in social welfare payments but it would be far better if something could be done to create employment.
I was particularly interested in the new pilot schemes mentioned by the Minister and also by Deputy Gene Fitzgerald. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on what she has in mind. Anything that would relieve the unemployment problem would be welcome.
Recently I attended a meeting of the Comtech Association. It may have been organised through the Department of Labour and I should like to know if the Department of Social Welfare are involved. I should like to hear something about it.
Recently I received a letter from the Minister's Department dealing with the situation in Clondalkin. Part of the letter related to the problems of people signing on in the Garda station for payment through the post office. We were told that a new employment exchange would be set up shortly in the Clondalkin area. I was hoping that some reference to this matter would be included in the report. The letter is dated 26 May and it is possible that something has happened in the past few days. Perhaps the Minister could let me know.
It is sad that young people have to leave their homes for the sake of getting unemployment assistance. Consideration should be given to the whole question of taking board and lodging into account and I hope the commission's report will deal with this matter.
Much has been said about abuses in the system. It must be accepted that there will be abuses while the unemployment rate is so high. It is very difficult to deal with such problems. The Minister indicated that it was her intention to create new procedures in regard to this and, while they are welcome, we must bear in mind that with such a high level of unemployment it is difficult to prevent abuse.
The Minister should introduce procedures to speed up the appeals procedure. Many people who genuinely lose their employment or suffer as a result of a mixup in regard to their benefits must wait six to seven weeks for their appeals to be heard. I should like to urge the Minister to speed up the appeal process.
I represent the constituency of Dublin South-West and, while I appreciate that the debate on this Estimate is not timed to conclude until 4 p.m., I had hoped that Deputy Harney, from the same constituency, would have outlined the policies of the Progressive Democrats in regard to taxing social welfare payments. The Minister should examine the facilities in the Tallaght area for signing on and the paying of benefits. In that constituency benefits are paid through post offices. A new post office was opened in the shopping complex in Tallaght but the facilities in it are not very good. I urge the Minister to do all in her power to improve those facilities. The social welfare budget is very high because of the huge number of people who are drawing unemployment benefit. If the Government did more in the area of job creation that Estimate could be reduced substantially.
I should like to make a number of comments on the Estimate. Many people depend on social welfare and in a debate like this we must look at the unemployment position in the country in conjunction with the policies of the Department. I accept that we cannot do everything, but there is a tendency by the long term unemployed to seek better services and increased social welfare payments and give up the thought of ever working full time again. The Government must balance that with their job creation programmes and they should not make it more attractive to be unemployed than to be employed.
There is a lot of pressure on the Department, particularly in regard to supplementary benefits. Those pressures arise because of the cost of services and the high cost of energy. For example, many people on social welfare who have a number of children are inclined to depend on supplementary benefits to help them pay their bills. The number of people who cannot pay their ESB bills, their gas bills, cannot afford to clothe or feed their children properly or pay their bus fares to school, is increasing weekly. Unfortunately, those people are inclined to depend on the Department of Social Welfare to pay such bills. Will the Minister have a look at this matter. The ESB, which is not by any stretch of the imagination an efficient organisation, is a monopoly. It is a very powerful body in that it can cut off electricity supply to a house and leave the occupiers without cooking facilities, light or heat. It is easy to identify the house where the electricity supply has been cut off. I have visited many families with six or seven children where the supply was cut off.
It is easy to run up high bills for electricity because of the high charges of the ESB. One may find oneself in the only house in an estate without electricity supply. In that event it is easy for one's neighbours to be aware that one does not have cooking facilities, light or heat. I do not think anybody on social welfare, or those in receipt of supplementary benefits, can afford to pay such bills. Very few people in the lower income bracket have savings accounts or are in the habit of saving and since the foundation of the State most people in that category have lived from day to day. People on social welfare are being asked to do the impossible by being asked to save for one month or two months to pay a bill in the region of £100 out of a total income of between £70 or £80 per week. We are all aware that such an amount is totally inadequate to clothe, feed and house a family and it is not surprising that such people spend every penny they get on such items. Those people could not pay a bill if they had to save for it.
There are two things one can say about ESB bills. The first is that the charges are too high, probably the highest in Europe, and the second is that the ESB cannot expect people to pay bills in lump sums. I accept that they are trying to push schemes under which people can pay a certain amount each week by buying stamps. The people in the category I am referring to cannot handle that. They cannot handle gas bills or any twomonthly or quarterly bills. One could say that because such people never formed the saving habit they will never be able to pay such bills. If a different system was devised the amount of supplementary help they would require would be greatly reduced. We must develop another system.
I hope the Minister explains, today or by way of circular, how the new technology in her Department is being used. We are dealing with an area where there is much human misery, most of it caused by unemployment and broken marriages. I was glad to hear that following the referendum, win or lose, the protective measures for families in the form of social welfare payments will be increased to help the victims of broken marriages.
Such people are handicapped and I know from my experience in Dublin west that in such cases unnecessary visits to Departments are necessitated because officials request that forms should be filled in and proofs given in the case of cheques not arriving or in the case of children being born. We should try to provide booths in every district with computers, in the same way as in banks, so that information would be readily available and officials could make quick decisions. The official who has the worst job of all is the supplementary welfare officer. Even if he or she was a Solomon he or she could not satisfy the demands made by everybody. Many demands are to meet emergencies, but many are regular cases which for one reason or another cannot be handled.
I suggest that there should be some system whereby the ESB and other organisations could give some credits to householders so that the usual form of billing could be eliminated. In the case of the ESB, a standard number of units could be allowed to less well off householders. In the case of the ESB, because of the high overheads they have, though they might forego some profits they would not be losing out. That organisation are already top heavy because of the numbers employed and the lumbering way the ESB carry out their mandate.
Though I was delighted to see the initiative of the Minister for the Envrionment recently when he made provision for the cleaning up of Dublin at a cost of £10 million, and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance providing a little less to clean up the parks, in response to a question I tabled in regard to dental benefits I was told that the estimated amount to provide them would be £7 million; and though I should love to see the Phoenix Park restored to its past glory and the city rid of plastic and junk, all the housewives in Ireland would much prefer to have good sets of teeth. Our priorities should be changed, or perhaps there could be a combination. In 1981 the Government had such a policy in mind but, because of the state of the public finances, they were unable to do much about it. I know the difficulty there is in finding the £20 million being provided for the clean up of the city and the parks. It would be a welcome move if the Minister could persuade the Government to fulfil the promises we made.
We spend too much time talking about fraud and I will not continue with it now: I referred to it in my speech on the Combat Poverty Bill. I understood we were spending £2.7 million to investigate fraud, but the amount of fraud of which there is evidence was something like £3 million or £4 million, so small that it was not worth while. There was a fantastic outcry around the country which was ridiculous, and I hope it is not the intention to set up a big Department to investigate fraud because there are natural checks and balances. Allegations about widespread fraud are unfounded but they have led to many people on social welfare being stigmatised.
There are too many people unemployed but, because of the efforts of the Government, social welfare benefits and assistance have kept pace with inflation. Because benefits crept up closer to the basic wage at one time, there has been a tendency for people of the dosser type, work-shy people, to say: "If it is anything near what you get for working, then do not work. Stay at home". The price people pay for being unemployed is the suffering they endure in their mental and physical health. That, in turn, is followed by a complaining attitude and we have a huge body of people who do nothing else but complain about the amount and the extent of the handouts they are entitled to. Such people do not regard themselves as being able to help themselves. It seems to me to be a disease, like an addiction, like alcoholism or smoking.
The more facilities we can provide like night courses, etc., the healthier the community will be. In my relatively short life I have seen — and I was delighted to see it — a change from the baser sort of instincts of the Irish people in the matter of enjoyment from gambling and drinking to things such as quiz games. There are pub quizzes, of course — with people getting together for reasons other than drink. People are beginning to use their minds and to challenge each other. There is set dancing and people get together in halls and enjoy themselves and have a cup of tea and a chat and go home. They are challenging the pub and the gambling mentality.
We have been inclined to lean too heavily on the Department of Social Welfare and to ask too much from them. I ask the Minister to concentrate on streamlining the Department's facilities so that it will become easier to pay out the entitlements to people and to keep the public informed either through talks and courses or through the community information centres. Explaining to people the facilities available and their entitlements would be of considerable advantage. I cannot keep track of the number of projects and employment courses set up by the Government in recent years. By getting that information to people we could do something to reduce the number dependent on social welfare. Single parents living on the outskirts of the city and with the burden of bringing up their children alone should be helped by the Department. Many of them have long distances to travel to the city and the Department should discriminate in their favour.
Even though we hear of considerable criticism of the Department, it may be that 99 per cent of social welfare recipients are happy with the service they get from the authorities. In the short time available to me it is not possible to discuss every aspect of the Estimate but I ask the Minister to take note of the points I have raised.
Before I call on the Minister to conclude the debate on the Estimate, under the new Standing Order relating to debates on Estimates, Members are entitled to intervene for a period not greater than five minutes, with the Minister to respond for a similar length of time. If Deputies wish to make interventions before I call on the Minister, I ask them to do so now.
There are three points on which I should like further information. In relation to pilot schemes for the long-term unemployed, the Minister suggested she was impressed with programmes such as "job search" in the United States and the jobs clubs system operating in the United Kingdom. I should like to know what immediate plans she has to introduce this concept here, either through her Department, the Department of Labour or in conjunction with both Departments. When are we likely to see developments in that area?
As I said earlier, I do not wish to go into detail on the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. I shall deal with that matter in much greater detail in due course when we have considered the report more fully. It is detailed, long and complex and it would not be possible for us at short notice to examine the proposals thoroughly. Some 36 different types of assistance are payable in respect of child dependents of social welfare recipients. As I said earlier, a child dependent is a child dependent, irrespective of whether the parents are unemployed, sick or widowed. It is obvious that such a wide discrepancy in payments is unnecessary and does not fulfil any useful purpose. Does the Minister in the foreseeable short term intend to equalise these payments?
My third point relates to the child benefit scheme. The Government's document, Building on Reality, stressed that this would provide family income support but as it now operates it is a sham and a charade. This year there has been a socalled increase from £12.03 to £15.03, which works out at 75p per week or £3.03 per month for non-taxpayers but people on the lower band of 35 per cent will get an increase of only 7p per month which is quite disgraceful. When does the Minister intend to introduce a proper child benefit scheme or renew the children's allowance scheme which many people would prefer? It would give adequate support for families and would help the family structure. Perhaps the Minister will clarify those points.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, I was very appreciative of the co-operation of Deputy McCarthy in agreeing to take the token Supplementary Estimate. I discussed it with him and I pointed out it was under the general heading of "Pilot Schemes for the Unemployed". That seems to have caused a little surprise on the other side. Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, in particular, envisaged a scenario of a tug-of-war between myself and the Minister for Labour.
In the course of my speech today I mentioned some schemes I came across in the United States. They contain very interesting ideas that might find a place in our system as well as the excellent schemes we have already. They have done much to give the unemployed a new start in the community and have enabled them to sharpen their skills. The Deputy referred to the concept of job clubs to which I referred in my speech. That is the kind of initiative that could be undertaken in co-operation between the Departments of Social Welfare and Labour. I am sorry to disappoint Deputy Fitzgerald but both the Minister for Labour and I are motivated by a mutual concern for the unemployed. Our Departments work closely together to co-ordinate schemes in order to assist them. The job search concept is something I am examining in some detail.
A more difficult concept but something that should also be examined is the question of barriers to people engaging in part time activity and the problem of their unemployment payments being stopped for certain days. As the Deputy is aware, these are not simple issues. If applied nationwide they would have implications that would need to be teased out carefully. I am working on initiatives in those areas. As Minister for Education and now as Minister for Social Welfare, I have always believed that we must make progress towards helping people who have been unemployed for some time, providing not only retraining courses but also an opportunity to get them involved somehow in the educational system.
These are the type of areas I am examining and in order to allow myself some leeway, I needed this morning's Supplementary Estimate. I am grateful to Deputies for their co-operation, but I have to refute the criticism laid at the door of the child benefit scheme. To aim at a scheme which will greatly benefit the less well off — how much they benefit from the scheme will depend on whether they are working—is something to be applauded. To progress towards the implementation of the full child benefit scheme is painstakingly slow because of the ramifications of contributions of different groups in society, but I believe it is the right approach.
As I said earlier, the Commission on Social Welfare made statements about different types of child dependency payments, and the Deputy is right to draw our attention to them. Those child dependency rates are reflected in different kinds of support rates for adults doing the same work or having the same problems. I believe we should make progress towards rationalisation of these schemes but I cannot say how soon because they fit in with the general increases in the schemes.
I now call on the Minister for Social Welfare to conclude the debate.
I have a thick sheaf of notes. I will not have enough time to go through them but I will do my best to cover as many points as possible. First, I thank all Deputies who contributed to this debate. This is my first time to take a Social Welfare Estimate and I am most grateful for Deputies' concern. I hope some of my remarks will not sound contentious but I will have to take up some of the points made earlier.
I take exception to the description of the queues at the Passport Office as an indication of widespread despair and despondency. I do not remember any June when there were not queues outside the Passport Office. Some time ago when I was taking the summer flight to work abroad there were long queues outside the Passport Office. Queues at the Passport Office, like swallows, are an annual event. I do not agree with the dirge I have been hearing today. I waved goodbye to my two daughters going abroad to work, but their hearts were not heavy. They went away with a great sense of curiosity and adventure and I am sure many young people feel the same. Travel is a broadening experience for them. It is good for them and it is good for the country. It is everyone's wish that the experience they gain abroad and their view of a different kind of life will be to their benefit and to the benefit of this country.
I will deal now with some of the other points raised, although not in strict order. I understand the concern Deputy Walsh expressed about the unemployment problems in his constituency but I would like to refer him to my remarks about the unemployment situation and the various initiatives the Government have taken to create a climate for more investment in job creation, to allow firms to be more competitive, to bring down interest rates and to stabilise inflation which is not as low as we would like but which nevertheless is running at something like a quarter of what it was when Fianna Fáil left office. We must get our financial climate right before we will see job creation spiralling upwards. This is accepted in every country with unemployment problems. We must be constantly concerned about the creation of jobs. However, I deprecate the constant assertion that it is the Government's responsibility to create jobs. That is not being accurate. The Government must encourage people to create jobs. I do not believe any country has a wider range of incentives than we have.
Some of the methods used by Fianna Fáil in the late seventies would not be of help today. For example, to employ more people in the public sector, thereby increasing the tax burden on the rest of the population and leading to job losses in the private sector, is not the answer to unemployment. Every worker in the public sector, including politicians, depends on the taxes of a population working outside the public sector, or on Government borrowing. That must be kept in mind when we are grappling with the serious unemployment problems.
I do not wish to interrupt the Minister, but without Dublin County Council the unemployment situation in Tallaght would be a lot worse.
I did not interrupt the Deputy. I found Deputy Skelly's remarks very interesting. I want to assure him that I am very impressed by the excellent progress being made in the computerisation of the Department of Social Welfare. I am happy that this computerisation has happened as quickly as it has because this has meant a dramatic improvement in the delivery of many services in recent years. I will give the number of computerised claims which are handled every year: disability benefit, 80,000, child benefit, 450,000, pensions, 350,000, treatment benefits, 300,000, unemployment payments, 16,000 — that figure is very low because we are engaged in pilot projects which are bringing us towards full computerisation of the unemployment benefit area — and family income supplement, 5,000. The central records office is also computerised. This section holds the records for almost 1 million of the insured population. The quiet and unspectacular way the Department have gone about their business in this matter is to be commended.
I have taken a very strong interest in seeking how we can speed progress towards full computerisation of the unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance areas; I see that as a way to deal with fraud. Obviously the new checking and machinery concepts for all forms, vouchers and so on will play a very important part in checking, counter checking and dealing with fraud, apart from the undoubted benefits of computerisation in dealing speedily with people in need. We must find every way to speed up delivery of services to these people.
Deputy Skelly mentioned the extension of treatment benefit to the spouses of insured workers. Those remarks were of particular interest to me and I do not think the Deputy is unaware of my intense personal interest in this area. He explained a certain sense of priorities about where money can be spent and drew an analogy between the amount of money to be spent on the Phoenix Park and the amount of money that was not being spent on extensions of treatment benefit. I may well share that sense of priorities, but we are talking about two different kinds of money. We are talking about capital expenditure already in a Department's budget which is to be spent over a certain number of years in terms of the Phoenix Park and in the other matter we are talking about considerable current expenditure to be engaged in every year. That is the difference.
I do not share his optimism that ordinary people, even housewives who might wish devoutly to have this treatment benefit extended to them, have the logical view that we should stop that kind of expenditure in order to have this kind of expenditure. Unfortunately, most politicians, particularly those in Government, will find that people do not make those logical choices. They want all the kinds of expenditure simultaneously. However, I assure Depties that that area is of intense interest to me and I am investigating it with some thoroughness. Some other points have been raised and I will be as brief as I can in replying to them.
The Minister has five minutes.
Regarding the equal treatment directive for men and women in matters of social security, we discussed some aspects of it in this House previously on social welfare matters and in particular on the Social Welfare Bill this year. It was made clear that my predecessor in this Office had some difficulty in implementing the equal treatment directive when it was wished to do so because there were some problems with one of the unions involved which were subsequently resolved, and phase 1 of equal treatment was implemented in May this year. It is intended that phase 2 will be implemented in the autumn this year and that will mean married women will be admitted to the unemployment assistance scheme which is at present not open to them and the same conditions will apply to both men and women in the matter of increases for adult child dependants. Obviously it would have been much more desirable to have had all of this equal treatment directive enforced much sooner but the Department ran into some difficulties which took a little time to resolve. I intend that full implementation of phase 2 will take place later this year.
Deputy McCarthy referred to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. He feels the administration of the scheme lacks uniformity. The trouble about that scheme and the lack of uniformity is that the scheme was brought in to give maximum flexibility and to respond quickly to a situation where people were in need, and so it must give a wide discretion in the range of payments which the health boards can make under it. We worry about and have been reviewing the guidelines for the payment of supplementary welfare. We are trying to see what we can do in terms of achieving greater uniformity between the health boards. As the Deputy rightly points out, queries arise in people's minds as to why there should be such a difficulty. The Commission on Social Welfare recommended that the supplementary welfare allowance scheme should be changed radically. We must examine that carefully because a certain level of dissatisfaction obtains with the way that scheme operates.
Deputy Walsh referred to his constituency. He noted the fact that one of the projects being funded under the EC poverty programme by the EC and the Irish Government jointly is the setting up of a resource centre in west Tallaght as a focus for community activity. I understand that the project is being organised by the Tallaght Welfare Society. I am told the Tallaght areas has excellent community groups. I assure Deputy Walsh that, as he probably knows, in my capacity as Minister for Education I paid many visits to the Tallaght area and was very impressed by the strong community spirit there. I was happy that in the education field we had been able to provide excellent facilities right across the board for the Tallaght area. I share the Deputy's concerns and I hope that some of the new ideas which we may be coming up with to help the unemployed will be apt for that area.
Deputy Wyse and Deputy Walsh were concerned about the unemployment payments for young people and the assessment of the value of board and lodging in the case of young people living at home. The problem about that is that the means test must have regard to the situation of applicants. If a young person has not the expense of board and lodging, that has a large bearing on how much money he or she will receive.
I regret that I must draw the Minister's attention to the fact that her time is up.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I am sorry I have not been able to reply fully to every point raised, but if Deputies wish to pursue any of those matters I will be delighted to communicate with them.
Is Vote No. 48 agreed?
The increases are inadequate.
