I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
There are three main elements of the Bill being discussed this evening — measures to counteract employer fraud and abuse, changes in contribution conditions and entitlements and trade dispute provisions.
First, I am introducing a number of measures to tighten up the present legislation in regard to the abuse of social welfare. These measures are directed at employers who are abusing the system or who collude in social welfare abuse by their employees. We have made significant progress in tackling abuse this year and the new powers which I am seeking will close loopholes in the existing legislation. Sections 2 to 7 of the Bill contain these measures.
Second, the Bill gives effect to certain of the measures which were announced at the time of publication of the 1988 Estimates and which have been provided for in those Estimates. These involve mainly adjustments in the conditions for payments for long term disability and in the old maternity allowance scheme. They also include an improvement for disabled old age pensioners in exempting the mobility allowance from the means test. These measures are contained in sections 8 to 11 of the Bill, the second part of section 16 and in section 18.
Thirdly, the Bill provides for a significant improvement in the conditions for entitlement to unemployment payments during trade disputes by providing that only persons who are participating in or directly interested in the dispute will be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit or assistance. The Bill also includes a provision which will enable workers to have their case reviewed by the Social Welfare Tribunal in the light of new facts or evidence. These provisions are included in sections 13 and 14.
The remaining sections of the Bill contain a number of provisions designed to rationalise and improve other aspects of the social welfare system.
At the outset I should like to say a few words about social welfare fraud and to put this issue into context. Total expenditure in the social welfare area in the current year is over £2.6 billion, the equivalent of £7 million for each day of the year. Each month, almost three million payment transactions are made. The number of persons in receipt of unemployment payments each week is in the region of 230,000. Seventy-three thousand persons receive disability benefit payments, 238,000 persons receive old age or retirement pensions and almost 100,000 receive widow's pensions.
There is conclusive evidence that a certain amount of fraudulent claiming exists. Invariably, however, when action is taken to combat these abuses there are those who will suggest that those in need are being harassed or even discouraged from claiming their legitimate entitlements. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of claimants have a legitimate entitlement to their payment. I am very conscious of my responsibilities, as Minister for Social Welfare, to ensure that such claimants receive an efficient and a courteous service. I am equally conscious, however, of my responsibilities to taxpayers generally to ensure that any abuses of the system are rooted out and dealt with.
Estimates of the true level of abuse vary, but our indicators suggest that between 5 and 10 per cent of claimants to unemployment and disability benefit payments abuse the system at some stage of their claim. This is not, of course, the same as saying that 5-10 per cent of expenditure on those benefits is defrauded but refers to the number of claimants who engage in abuse at some stage in their claim. This year, for instance, we are well on target to achieve savings in excess of £36 million within my Department through a series of measures, including some to eliminate fraud and abuse and others to achieve more effective use of resources, for example, by providing opportunities for the longterm unemployed.
I am committed to continuing this work to reduce abuse to the greatest extent possible and I am satisfied that this can be done without adversely affecting in any way the quality of service provided to legitimate claimants. In fact, it must be said that it is to the advantage of legitimate claimants that this be done as the elimination of fraud and abuse will serve to maximise the resources available to those genuinely in need.
In this connection I was glad to be able to announce earlier this afternoon that the alleviating payments being paid to those affected by the introduction of the new dependency arrangements in November 1986 — which the Government has already extended to the end of 1987 — are being further extended to the end of March next at a cost of approximately £5 million. The eventual phasing out of these payments will be considered in the context of the budget.
When I addressed the House in October during the debate on the 1988 Estimates I made known that the Government had decided to pursue an intensive campaign against fraud and abuse. A great deal of work has already been done in this area particularly in dealing with abuse of the unemployment and disability benefit payment schemes.
One of the most successful measures taken was the establishment of the Department's external control unit. The principal activity of this unit, which now has a complement of 19 staff, is that of reviewing claims to unemployment payments, usually by way of interviewing claimants. Because of the very close liaison between this unit and other divisions of my Department, claimants are interviewed where, in the light of the specific information obtained, there is reason to believe that the person may not have a legitimate entitlement. In this way, legitimate claimants are not affected and, at the same time, the activities of the unit are much more productive. Of 8,329 claimants called for interview by this unit in the current year to review their entitlement to unemployment payments, 1,255 ceased claiming, of which 915 did so voluntarily. The overall savings in 1987 arising from the activities of this unit are estimated at £2.7 million.
There is also a special investigation unit within my Department assigned the specific task of the investigation of allegations of concurrent working and signing. This unit has been strengthened considerably in recent years and now consists of 42 staff. Of 4,558 claims to unemployment payments investigated by the unit up to August of this year, 1,227 were disallowed. The savings in 1987 arising from the overall activities of the special investigation unit are estimated at £4 million.
One of the other significant measures taken in this area during the past year was the strengthening of my Department's internal audit unit. This unit reviews on an ongoing basis the systems of internal control in the various branches of my Department so as to ensure that they are both adequate and functioning effectively. Where such reviews bring deficiencies to light remedial action is taken. The continuing activities of the internal audit section are designed to bring about an overall improvement in the level of efficiency of the administration of the various schemes.
In any organisation as big as my Department it is necessary to constantly review the internal control procedures in order to ensure that the scope for mistakes or deliberate fraud is minimised. There is always the danger that basic control procedures may be allowed to falter in the continuing effort to ensure that clients are paid as quickly as possible. The possibility of internal fraud must also be recognised and measures taken to prevent it. There have been a small number of instances of internal fraud in the Department. All such cases are dealt with in the same way as for external fraud, including prosecution.
During recent years there has been a massive and rapid programme of computerisation within my Department which has given rise to significant benefits. In July this year I signed a contract for £2.6 million worth of additional computers for the Department, mainly for the employment exchanges and to implement my plans for more localised delivery of services to claimants. Computerisation in the area of unemployment payments and the greater integration of data across the schemes, which computerisation facilitates, will lead to improved control measures to prevent abuses such as duplicate claiming. At this stage the preparation and calculation of all unemployment assistance claims in the Dublin area is computerised and work is proceeding on unemployment benefit claims. This will be completed by mid1988. At the same time computerisation is being extended to a number of centres outside Dublin, notably Cork, where unemployment assistance claims will shortly be going on computer. It is my intention to have a telecommunications network linking all the Department's local offices over the next four years. This ongoing programme of computerisation will ultimately facilitate the cross-checking of applicants for all schemes administered by my Department.
In the disability benefit scheme, the transfer of the operation of the system from the central computing service of the former Department of Public Service to my Department's computers has resulted in greater flexibility of operational control and development of the system. It has also enabled the computerisation of the medical referral system. This has allowed greater selectivity in the referral of claimants to medical referees. The manual system of processing referrals was slow and cumbersome and, as a result, it was not possible to refer many short-duration cases for examination. In addition to the improved efficiency achieved through the computerisation of the system, the number of medical referees has been increased from 18 to 22 and computerisation of the system has allowed greater selectivity in the referral of claimants to medical referees. Of 88,000 claimants referred to a medical referee this year, 19,000 were found to be capable of work and 3,000 ceased to claim benefit. A further 19,000 persons failed to attend for examination and, except in a small number of cases where there was good reason for their failure to attend, they were liable to a nine week disqualification and a second referral.
These control measures have helped to bring about a significant reduction in the number of people claiming disability benefit this year. The numbers claiming each week have in fact gone down from almost 82,000 early in the year, February, to 72,500 in December, a drop of over 9,000 a week. There has been a saving of around £8.6 million on disability and invalidity payments this year.
Further measures in the campaign against abuse of the system will be taken in the light of the final report of the independent consultants who have examined the whole range of controls and administrative practices applied to areas where we are most at risk. The reports of the consultants highlight a number of policy issues which need to be addressed and contain specific recommendations relating to organisation and procedural matters. Work on a detailed plan on foot of the consultants' findings has already commenced and the services of the consultants are being utilised in this work.
My Department have made and will continue to make a determined effort to achieve the maximum deterrent effect by following a vigorous programme of pursuit of fraud cases through to prosecution. In the case of disability benefit for instance, 125 cases have already been referred to the Chief State Solicitor's Office for prosecution this year as against 37 in all of 1986. Of the 45 cases finalised in court this year, there were 12 suspended prison sentences and 17 prison sentences in total. In one case a sentence of 12 months was imposed and in the other cases the sentences ranged from three to seven months.
I am concerned to ensure that unscrupulous employers who abuse the social welfare system will be pursued through to prosecution with the same vigour as are fraudulent claimants. While the majority of employers do not engage in such practices, there are others who do. For example, we know that some unscrupulous employers collude with employees to facilitate fraudulent claiming of unemployment and disability benefit payments. Certain cases have even come to light where the employer provided transport for employees to the local employment exchange. In other instances, employers refuse to co-operate with or they may even obstruct social welfare officers in carrying out their investigations, for example, by delaying the inspector's examination of records of employees and their social insurance contributions. My Department already have powers to take prosecutions in cases of collusion or obstruction and there are existing penalties of fines up to £1,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction and fines up to £3,000 and/or two years imprisonment on conviction on indictment for employers who are found guilty of these offences. However, only a limited number of such prosecutions have been taken against employers in the past. I intend to ensure that these powers will now be used to the greatest possible extent to prevent abuse.
Similarily, I am determined that effective action be taken against employers who withhold or delay payment of PRSI contributions. While the primary responsibility for the collection of contributions rests with the Revenue Commissioners I plan to ensure that the inspectorate of my Department will have a sufficiently active role in this area. The investigation branch of my Department already carry out periodic surveys of employer's records so as to ensure compliance with the PRSI provisions. In the current year to end-November underpayments by over 2,250 employers, totalling some £3.4 million have been detected and reported to the Revenue Commissioners. Certain changes in administrative practices made in recent times will result in additional resources becoming available for this purpose. Recently also a joint inspection unit drawn from the Revenue and Social Welfare inspectorates was set up on a pilot basis to investigate enterprises which are known to have a high incidence of tax and social welfare fraud. The pilot scheme is being evaluated at present to see how this type of joint action can be developed next year. Furthermore the ongoing programme of computerisation to which I have referred will significantly increase the effectiveness of the inspection branch in detecting instances of abuse by enabling much more comprehensive information relating to the employer to be compiled in advance of the survey. This will help to ensure better targeting of resources in this area.
A number of areas have been identified however, in which existing powers to pursue employers who abuse the system are inadequate and need to be strengthened. Sections 2 to 7 inclusive of this Bill are designed to meet these requirements.
In many cases where fraud comes to light the employer and the employee collude to reduce substantially the period of overclaiming. For example, the working and claiming may have been going on for several years before it is detected but both parties may represent that the employment is only of recent origin. In some instances, employers take on new employees on the specific understanding that the person concerned will continue to draw unemployment payments. The employee gains or perhaps more correctly, the Exchequer loses, through the non-payment of tax and social insurance contributions while the employer benefits through payment of reduced wages and often undercuts his legitimate competitors as a result. This has to stop.
Section 2 of the Bill is designed to discourage such collusion by enabling the Minister to make regulations requiring employers to notify the Department of the commencement of employment for each new employee. It is not intended that employers will be required to notify the Department of the commencement of employment in every case. The circumstances in which notification shall be required and the manner of notification is to be prescribed in regulations. As this provision is designed to counter the activities of unscrupulous employers every effort will be made in drafting the regulations to avoid placing any unnecessary burden on employers generally. For example, it is not envisaged that notification will be required in the case of employees changing employment where the employee produces the appropriate documentation provided by his previous employer. The introduction of this requirement in the case of persons who, prior to taking up employment, were in receipt of unemployment payments will be an effective weapon in the elimination of collusion between employers and employees in fraudulently claiming unemployment payments.
The co-operation of employees is essential if abuse of the system is to be effectively dealt with. It is important that employers satisfy themselves that employees they engage are not at the same time claiming social welfare benefits. This is essentially what section 2 of the Bill is designed to achieve. Another time at which co-operation by employers is necessary is when employees claim benefits under the system. The Department regularly ask employers to confirm details of periods of employment or absence from work through illness so as to verify claims to benefit or assistance. In the case of disability benefit claims for instance, random checks of this nature have proved to be extremely effective in the detection of abuse. For example of 14,000 inquiries sent out to employers to check on persons claiming disability benefit 1,100 cases of possible abuse were revealed and overpayments of £460,000 have been detected to date. This year we have introduced a more effective system of following up these random checks by targeting particular industries. For example, in one major recent fraud investigation where a claimant was in employment during the period in which he was claiming disability benefit, a check of other employees with the same employer established that 22 of them were also working and claiming. Following on this a check on two other employers in the same industry in the same region brought to light a further 155 cases or fraudulent claiming, 177 altogether. A number of successful prosecutions have already been taken and further court cases arising from these investigations are pending. The issue of medical certificates in these cases is also being investigated. This resulted from the new approach adopted.
Most employers co-operate with requests for information to facilitate these random checks and I wish to record my appreciation for the level of co-operation which exists. However, some employers do not co-operate and sanctions are required against those employers who consistently fail to assist in these investigations. Section 3 of the Bill provides for sanctions which can be applied in the case of employers who fail to assist in investigations of claims to insurance based payments and section 4 provides for a similar measure in the case of claims for assistance.
Another aspect of co-operation with employers is in the area of inspection of employer records. Under existing provisions, employers may be required to furnish such information and documents as may reasonably be required by a social welfare inspector for the purpose of investigation of claims. Sometimes it happens that employers delay inspectors in their examination of the required records by claiming that they are held by accountants or solicitors, who, in turn may say that they only hold a portion of the records. Section 5 is designed to counter evasive actions of this nature by imposing an obligation on employers to produce the required records at the employer's registered address or his principal place of business.
Under existing provisions, employers are required to keep such records in relation to the earnings of persons employed by them and the periods of employment. There is no provision in existing legislation, however, specifying the time at which these details should be recorded. While most reputable employers make the necessary entries in their records at regular intervals, some employers fail to maintain any records at all, or perhaps do so long after the event. Where this happens, it proves impossible to determine the true position in relation to such matters as the number of persons employed, the periods of employment, whether correct deductions of social insurance have been made and whether any other aspects of the social insurance scheme are being neglected or abused by the employer, or any of his employees. It also serves to prevent the detection of cases of employees who may also be concurrently signing for unemployment payments.
Failure to record the prescribed particulars on time can mean that if and when the records are eventually compiled, they may not reflect the true position. This can be done for a variety of reasons, such as to thwart an inquiry, to lessen the employer's liability, or to cloak irregularities either by the employer or his employees. Section 6 is designed to overcome these problems by providing that details of earnings and the periods to which they refer must be recorded at or before the time of payment of wages.
Section 7 provides for an amendment so as to empower social welfare inspectors, for unemployment benefit purposes, to enter premises where self-employed persons are, or were, engaged in their occupations. The existing provisions refer only to premises where records relating to persons in insurable employment are kept. In recent years there has been a significant move towards contracting out work which up until now was performed by the employer's own employees, for instance, milk deliveries and the distribution of home fuels. The powers contained in section 7 of the Bill are necessary to help counter abuses such as employees being represented as sub-contractors so as to avoid payment of social insurance provisions in respect of their employees, concurrent working and signing by sub-contractors and failure by sub-contractors to comply with the social insurance provisions in respect of their employees. This amendment will bring the unemployment benefit provisions into line with those for unemployment assistance.
I would emphasise that the additional powers which are being provided in this Bill are directed at unscrupulous employers and not at those who are running their business in an honest and legitimate way. I value the operation of the system and I would appeal to those employers to maintain this level of co-operation in the future. I want to appeal especially in this regard to those honest employers in industries and sectors in which abuse is known to be prevalent, because only in this way will we together be able to root out abuse effectively.
In regard to changes in contribution conditions the second main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to certain changes in social welfare schemes which were provided for in the Estimates. These include minor adjustments in contribution conditions for certain schemes and a number of changes in the old maternity allowance scheme. In general, these measures are designed to help achieve better targeting of resources. In adopting these measures, the Government were conscious of the need to ensure that existing claimants are not adversely affected and consequently the changes being made will apply to new claimants only.
Sections 8 and 9 of the Bill provide for changes in the contribution conditions for entitlement to certain insurance based benefits. Section 8 provides that entitlement to extended duration of disability benefit, that is, beyond 12 months, for all new claimants from 4 January 1988 onwards, will require 260 paid contributions. These contributions entitle the claimant to disability benefit for as long as he is incapable of work and is under pensionable age. This benefit can continue for some long term claimants for as long as 40 years. Section 9 provides that entitlement to invalidity pension for new claimants after 4 January 1988 will also require 260 paid contributions. Under existing provisions. 208 paid contributions are required for both of these payments.
These measures are designed to achieve more realistic contribution conditions for entitlement to these long term payments by requiring that claimants have a reasonable history of paid contributions. The increased contributions for extended duration of disability benefit and invalidity pension will apply to new claimants only. Persons who make repeat claims on or after 4 July 1988 in the same period of interruption of employment, however, will have to satisfy the increased contribution conditions. A number of changes in this area have been made in recent years and, in fact, the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Bill were included in the 1987 budget proposals of the previous Government.
A further change to the disability benefit scheme is contained in Section 16 of the Bill which provides for the introduction of three waiting days from April 1988 onwards for claimants to disability benefit transferring directly from maternity allowance to disability benefit. All new claimants for disability benefit at present must serve three waiting days and this provision merely extends this requirement to cases where people transfer directly to disability benefit, having been in receipt of maternity allowance.
A number of changes are being made to the old general scheme of maternity allowance. There are two schemes of maternity allowance. The old maternity allowance scheme which was introduced under the National Insurance Act, 1911, provided for a payment to insured women for a period of 12 weeks, subject to certain contribution conditions being met. The second scheme, the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment, was introduced by me as Minister for Social Welfare in April, 1981. This scheme, which provides for a period of 14 weeks' payment is available to women who are on maternity leave from work under the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, 1981 and who are entitled to resume work with the same employer at the end of the period of maternity leave. This scheme effectively superseded the old maternity scheme for women in employment. In order to eliminate any confusion which may exist, I would emphasise that entitlements under the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment remain in full and are not affected in any way by the provisions of this Bill.
Section 10 provides that entitlement to maternity allowance under the old general maternity allowance scheme for new claims from 4 January 1988 will be restricted to claimants who have at least 13 paid contributions in the governing contribution year. Under existing provisions, a claimant may qualify for the allowance on the basis of only credited contributions in that year. Section 10 also provides that from January next onwards, only contributions in the governing contribution year will be taken into account in determining eligibility for the allowance, as is already the case with unemployment benefit and disability benefit entitlement.
Under existing provisions, entitlement to the allowance may be established on the basis of 39 paid or credited contributions in the last complete contribution year before the beginning of the benefit year in which the claim is made, referred to as the governing contribution year, or in a subsequent complete contribution year, if any, before the allowance is due to commence. For example, the governing contribution year in the case of a claim made in December, 1987 would be the income tax year ended 5 April 1986. If the claimant is unable to satisfy the contribution conditions in this year, however, she may still qualify for the allowance on the basis of contributions in the contribution year, that is, the year ended 5 April 1987. Section 10 provides that from January next onwards, the requirement that the claimant have 39 paid or credited contributions must be satisfied in the governing contribution year.
Section 11 of the Bill provides for the abolition of entitlement to pay-related benefit in the case of all new claims for the old maternity allowance scheme which commence on or after 4 April, 1988. This will not affect the level of benefit payable under the new maternity allowance scheme, which will continue to be related to earnings.
The changes which are being made to the old general scheme of maternity allowance are designed to ensure that only women with a recent attachment to the workforce will qualify for the allowance. Many of the claimants under the old scheme have been signing the register for credits only and claim on the basis of these credits and they have no real attachment to the workforce. The need for the old scheme has, to a large extent, been superseded by the introduction of the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment and I expect that henceforth the needs of women in this area will be met by this scheme.
The Bill also contains a technical amendment relating to the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment. Under existing provisions the maximum amount of the allowance payable is equal to 70 per cent of the claimant's weekly earnings up to the earnings limit prescribed for pay releated benefit purposes, currently £11,000 per year. Interpretation of existing provisions has been questioned however and the purpose of section 12 is to clarify the definition of "reckonable weekly earnings" applied in the calculation of the allowances. I emphasise however that this is a technical amendment which does not affect in any way entitlements under the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment.
Section 13 of the Bill provides for an amendment to the trade dispute provisions, under which persons who have lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work, may be disqualified for receiving unemployment payments or supplementary welfare allowance. This amendment is being made as under existing provisions persons who do not stand to gain materially from a strike by fellow workers may be prevented from obtaining unemployment benefit or assistance and supplementary welfare allowance if they are, for example, regarded as being members of the same trade or class of workers engaged in the dispute. Section 13 provides that persons will no longer be automatically disqualified from receiving unemployment payments or supplementary welfare allowance on such grounds. The only circumstances in which the trade disputes disqualification will apply in future is where the person concerned is participating in or directly interested in the dispute.
Section 14 of the Bill provides for an amendment of the powers of the Social Welfare Tribunal which I established in 1982 as a result of a number of disputes in which a large number of workers were refused unemployment payments. Representations have been made to the effect that it can happen at the time the tribunal is sitting, which often occurs during the actual course of a stoppage, that all the detailed facts and information surrounding the dispute may not be readily to hand. In these circumstances it is felt that the tribunal should have power to review its decision. This amendment is designed to allow the tribunal review its decision where new evidence or new facts are brought to its attention subsequent to the date of the original decision. Under existing provisions the tribunal is only empowered to review an earlier decision where it is satisfied that a material change has occurred in the circumstances of the stoppage of work or the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work. This amendment will bring the tribunal's powers of review generally into line with those of appeals officers.
The Bill also contains a number of other miscellaneous provisions designed to rationalise and improve aspects of the social welfare system. The provisions of section 15 arise from the introduction of the new dependency arrangements in November 1986, as part of the implementation of the EC Equality Directive, and provide for an amendment of the definition of "adult dependant", so as to preclude certain cateogories of person from qualifying as adult dependants. The categories involved are persons who are disqualified from receiving unemployment payments in their own right, by virtue of their involvement in a trade dispute, and participants of certain fulltime AnCO non-craft training courses.
Under existing provisions, persons disqualified from receiving unemployment payments, by virtue of their involvement in a trade dispute, may still qualify as adult dependants. The payment of adult dependant allowances in respect of such persons breaches an accepted and long standing principal that the social welfare code should remain neutral in trade disputes. This problem did not effectively arise prior to the introduction of the new dependency arrangements in November 1986 as up until then women could only receive increases in respect of their husbands in very exceptional circumstances. At the same time, as women qualified as dependants of their husbands regardless of whether they were in employment, an adult dependant allowance payable in respect of a woman involved in a trade dispute would have been payable prior to the commencement of the dispute.
The amendment affecting participants of certain full time AnCO non-craft training courses also arises as a consequence of the Equal Treatment Directive. As a general rule, persons in receipt of an income maintenance payment in their own right may not be regarded as dependants. The payment of increases in respect of participants of certain AnCO courses conflicts with the provision. As the rate of payment to participants of such courses was linked to the rate of unemployment benefit payments, it was necessary, following implementation of the Directive, to restructure payments made to participants of these courses to reflect the revised social welfare dependency arrangements. As a result of these changes, a family in which one spouse is in receipt of a social welfare payment and the other is participating in a full time non-craft training course may, through the combination of social welfare and AnCO payments, receive the equivalent of two personal rates of payment together with the adult dependant allowance and one and a half times the child dependant allowance. The effect of this amendment will be to prevent this double payment.
The changes contained in section 17 of the Bill are also related to the EC Directive on equal treatment. The existing provisions provide that, on the death of a person who is in receipt of benefit, the spouse is entitled to payment of that benefit for a period of six weeks after death. While after death payments are regarded as a survivor's benefit and are therefore technically outside of the scope of the EC Directive on Equal Treatment, these provisions are nonetheless affected by the new dependency arrangements introduced in November 1986. The purpose of section 17 is to apply the principle of equal treatment between men and women to the after death provisions by providing that such payments will in future be made where at the date of death the deceased was in receipt of an increase in respect of an adult dependant, whether that dependant was a man or a woman.
Finally, the Bill makes provision for two minor but significant improvements in the social welfare code, one affecting claims to disability benefit and the other relating to old age pensioners. Under existing provisions, a claimant is not entitled to disability benefit in respect of any period of paid holiday leave. This causes a break in the claim where an insured person is on sick leave immediately before a period of paid holiday leave and, as a consequence, the claimant is obliged to serve a further three waiting days at the end of the holiday period. Section 16 (1) (a) is designed to relieve claimants of this obligation.
Section 18 provides that income received by way of mobility allowance payable under the Health Act, 1970 will be disregarded in the assessment of means for the non-contributory old age pension. This allowance which was introduced in 1979 under the Health Act, 1970 applies to severely handicapped persons over age 16 who are unable to walk and who would benefit from occasional trips away from home. An earnings disregard of £6 per week is applied in the assessment of means for non-contributory pension. The amount of the mobility allowance when it was introduced was £150 per year and where there were no other means the allowance did not affect the rate of pension because of the £6 per week disregard. This is no longer the case however as the allowance has since been increased to £320 per year. This amendment provides that money received by way of the allowance will no longer be taken into account in the assessment for old age pension. Income from other allowances payable under the Health Acts, such as the disabled person's maintenance allowance and the infectious diseases maintenance allowance, is already disregarded.
The changes I am putting forward in this Bill are designed to improve in a number of respects the operation of the present social welfare system and the control mechanisms which operate. I am also engaged in extending social insurance to the self-employed as well as in the introduction of statutory sick pay. The proposals in this Bill will bring about needed improvements in the present system and will help to achieve a more effective use of our resources. It is extremely important that while these changes are being drawn up, we constantly try to improve and develop the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of existing services. I commend the Bill to the House and I will be very glad to hear and to take into consideration the comments of Deputies.
