(Wexford): Last night I welcomed the fact that the Minister had introduced a number of changes into the Social Welfare Bill. I welcomed the fact that he had introduced a clothing allowance for social welfare recipients which will come into effect next September.
Social Welfare Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, on Tuesday, 21 March, 1990:
That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1.
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because:—
(a) it fails to fundamentally reform the Social Welfare system,
(b) it leaves the bulk of the low-paid in the PRSI net,
(c) it retains substantial anomalies and multiple means-testing based on gross rather than net incomes,
(d) it makes only a token gesture towards anti-poverty measures, and
(e) it totally fails to develop adequate educational opportunities and voluntary work options for the quarter of a million unemployed and their dependants
—(Deputy Flaherty.)
It is difficult to hear the Deputy in possession. Ciúnas le d'thoil.
(Wexford): This allowance is welcome. There is a particular difficulty for people in receipt of social welfare in September because of the enormous cost of clothing, school uniforms and school books. In many cases this creates hardship for those concerned. I am glad that the Minister has seen the need to remedy this situation. I hope that the means test will not be severe and that it will not be full of bureaucracy and red tape. Over the last few years when people have approached their local community welfare officers, there have been severe problems in obtaining the allowance for uniforms etc., some people get the allowance, some do not. I would hope that all people in receipt of unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit, invalidity pension etc., will automatically be entitled to this allowance without being subjected to harassment or means testing. I welcome the fact that the Minister has made improvements in the free schemes and in particular the provision under the free travel scheme whereby a companion will be enabled to travel free with a person on disabled persons maintenance allowance. That is a welcome change because many people who had this allowance were not able to travel on their own. Under the old system they could not bring anybody with them other than a wife or husband. That will be a major benefit to those concerned.
The carers' allowance is a major change and one that must be welcomed on all sides of the House. The general thrust of the policy of the last Government and of this Government is to keep senior citizens at home in the community with their sons, daughters, nieces or nephews, as the case may be. This represents large savings for the Department because the figures being bandied about indicate that it costs in the region of £500 or £600 to keep an old peron in hospital. Under this scheme by paying the carers' allowance many of those people can now remain in the community of which they have been part and parcel for so long. The Minister has also decided that the son, daughter, niece or nephew, or a person outside the family can claim the allowance for looking after old people. This represents a significant development in the social welfare services and the Minister should be complimented on introducing it. For the first time it gives official recognition to the role of the carer and it is one that has received a broad welcome across the community.
The lone parents allowance is also one that will be welcome, it will apply to unmarried mothers, deserted wives, deserted husbands and unmarried fathers. This is an area that has caused much confusion. My only grudge is that it is very expensive to the taxpayer. Since I came into this House I could be regarded as a champion of this area because I have advocated that deserted wives and unmarried mothers get a fair deal, are looked after properly and should not have to suffer because of the situation in which they find themselves.
The time has come to look at the situation of the unmarried father. He should not be allowed walk scot free. This is an area where there must be a link up between the Department of Justice and the Department of Social Welfare. If the unmarried father or mother is in a position to look after the child financially, they should be asked to do so and there should be some legislation to enable the Department of Social Welfare to claim back if the parent or parents are in a position to pay. Certainly there are those who would not be in a position to pay but there are people who could and should be made to pay certain amounts of money and should not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities.
There are abuses in the system where unmarried mothers live with their boyfriends. It pays them not to get married and that is a bad situation. Financially they are better off if they live together rather than getting married because the unmarried mother's allowance and the unemployment assistance added together is greater than would be the case if they married and the husband was claiming unemployment assistance. I do not know how we will get over this difficult problem but it is one which should be looked at. The unmarried mothers' allowance is means tested. They are not supposed to get benefit if they live with their boyfriends but in many cases this is happening. It is an abuse of the system. All abuses have an effect down the line in that they leave less money available for other people who should be getting it. It is up to all of us to play our part in the stamping out of abuse.
The deserted fathers' allowance was introduced by the Minister last year. There appears to be some problems with it and there are delays in payment. The attitude adopted by some of the social welfare officers is not in the best interests of the people applying. I know a deserted father who applied for the allowance and provided evidence that he was deserted — he went so far as to produce evidence which showed that his marriage has been annulled — but the social welfare inspector insisted that he should produce his marriage certificate. Because he had not been married in the county in which he was making the application for the deserted father's allowance, it proved difficult for him to get his marriage certificate — the priest who had married them had left the parish — and it took two months to process his application. I believe that once he had produced evidence that the marriage had been annulled this should have been satisfactory evidence. However, because of bureaucracy and red tape he had to produce his marriage certificate even though all the other evidence proved he had been married originally and the marriage had been annulled. This is a classic example of where some social welfare officers are carrying their duties a little too far.
I welcome the setting up of an appeals office. The present appeals system has caused severe problems for people who make the appeals and for politicians who spend more time making representations about appeals than any other area of social welfare. Some recipients of disability benefit can be cut off from receiving their allowance by medical referees even though such recipients may be able to prove they are going into hospital the week after or they have a severe ailment. When a recipient appeals this decision more often than not he will be called before another medical referee who will probably uphold the decision made by the first medical referee. If the recipient makes a final appeal some guy will visit the local hotel or social services office where he will sit in judgment and more often than not decide that the person should be cut off from receiving his allowance. This can happen even though the person's doctor may insist he is not fit for work and he should be entitled to disability benefit.
I welcome the setting up of this independent appeals office which I hope will give a fair deal to people who make appeals right across the whole social welfare area. The appeals system which has operated up to now has not been satisfactory. I hope enough staff will be made available in this office to deal with appeals. It can take a very long time to process appeals. In County Wexford it can take up to 20 to 25 weeks to process unemployment assistance appeals. This is far too long for a person who needs unemployment assistance. It is strange that if I put down a parliamentary question about an unemployment assistance appeal, which may take 20 weeks to decide on, I will be able to get an answer in a day or two. This is unfair to the Minister and should not happen.
The Minister should question why appeals are taking so long to process. It seems to take longer to process appeals in some counties than in other. When I ring the social welfare office in any town I am usually told that the file is on the desk, the social welfare officer dealing with it is out of the office and when he comes back in he will be given the message. He is given the message and will deal with the appeal eventually, but this is no good to the person who is waiting to receive the money. Some people may argue that this person will receive a supplementary welfare allowance while he is waiting for his unemployment benefit, but sometimes this may only be 25 to 30 per cent of the unemployment assistance he would receive. This is causing severe hardship for many people.
The Minister has done a very good day's work in setting up this appeals office and appointing a chief appeals officer who will deal with all aspects of appeals. I thank the Minister for taking this initiative. When I referred to the long delays in the processing of appeals I was not being critical of the Minister; I was being critical of some of the social welfare officers out in the field who are not carrying out their job in the proper manner and who have no regard whatsoever for the people and the hardship they are being caused.
The Minister introduced the scheme for contributions from the self-employed a few years ago. From April of this year the contribution rate for the self-employed will be 5 per cent. It is only right that the self-employed should make a substantial contribution to the PRSI pensions scheme. Income from the scheme for this year will be £62 million, which is some 30 per cent ahead of the original target set down by the Minister.
I should like the Minister to look at one aspect of this scheme. People have to pay into this scheme for ten years before they will be entitled to receive any benefit. Even though a person may have only six years to work before he reaches pension age he must still pay into the scheme for these six years. I ask the Minister to look at the position of people who are over 60 years of age who will have to pay into the scheme for six years even though it will be of no benefit to them. The Minister should look at the position of people who have only five or six years left to work — he can decide on the cutoff point — and allow them to buy the remaining four or five years in order that they can claim contributory pensions. I do not know how feasible this would be, but it is very unfair for people to have to pay into this scheme for up to nine years and not receive any benefits because they do not have the magical ten years contributions.
I know self-employed people who would be prepared to pay for those extra four or five years, even at a higher rate, so that they can get into the system. I ask the Minister to seriously consider this proposal. People have asked me why they should have to pay money into the scheme for up to nine years when they will not get any benefit because they do not have ten years' contributions. They believe they would be better off paying their money into some other pension. I believe the Minister has room to manoeuvre and should allow people to buy the other four or five years' contributions. I know that the Minister has taken on board different proposals which have been made to him by politicians over the years in order to help the people who will benefit from them and I hope he will do the same in this instance.
I am glad the Minister has again increased the long-term unemployment payments substantially. This area needs to be looked at continuously and payments increased on a regular basis. It is sad that people can remain unemployed on a long-term basis but because of the lack of jobs they do not have many other choices. The Government have a duty to care for those people and provide an adequate standard of living for them. Families on long-term unemployment assistance who have children in primary, second level or third level schools suffer severe hardship and it is only right that the Minister gives a greater increase to these families. It is essential that these increases are kept in line with inflation. I believe these increases are welcomed by Members on all sides of the House.
Part-time workers are the most abused and forgotten people in the country. Because of the shortage of jobs and the huge numbers unemployed, managers of multi-national supermarkets, petrol stations and other shops are exploiting part-time workers. Supermarkets in particular are ensuring that most of their staff are part-time, working less than 19 hours a week, which allows the employers out of the system of paying full PRSI for holiday, sick pay and maternity entitlements etc. while at the same time paying a pittance in wages to the workers — in some cases as low as £1.27 per hour in supermarkets in my own county. That is an absolute disgrace. It is an abuse that the Government and Members on all sides of the House must look at seriously.
It is estimated that there are over 30,000 part-time workers, two-thirds of them women, working less than 19 hours a week. The full PRSI rate is not for those people. They are not entitled to claim disability, unemployment or any other social insurance payment. I suggest to the Minister here today that he have discussions with the Minister for Labour with a view to introducing legislation to ensure that part-time workers would be entitled to the full social welfare payments that other people are entitled to. The supermarkets, petrol stations and so on should not be allowed to abuse this system because there is a multitude of workers and a shortage of jobs. What is happening at present is a national disgrace. It must be tackled. I will be very disappointed if our Ministers for Social Welfare and Labour do not tackle it over the next few months to ensure fair play for part-time workers.
Generally, the Bill is a good one which will benefit the less well off in our community. I hope the Minister will take on board the suggestions I put forward last night and again this morning. I thank the Minister for the way he has listened to politicians from the different parties and for introducing some of the changes that he did over the past year. I hope he can take on board some of the suggestions that were put forward yesterday and today, aimed at ensuring that the less well off, the weaker sections and the older people in our community will continue to get a fair deal.
My party, Fine Gael, are second to nobody in their concern about social matters. We have a proud record in our concern for the old, the sick and the unemployed. We are concerned for the underprivileged in our society. It does not matter to me what tag others put on us because of this concern. If this concern means that we are a party of the Left, so be it. If being concerned about hospital beds, about old people being discharged too soon from hospitals means we are of the Left, so be it. If our concern about ten or 12 year waiting lists for essential orthodontist treatment for our children, about the homeless in our society and about the non-provision of finance for the provision of local authority houses for people who cannot provide for themselves means we are of the Left, so be it.
You are gone very far left now.
If that is the interpretation the Minister of State wishes to put on it, if that is what being concerned means, I will not duck from that. I would further put it to the Minister of State that if being concerned about the 232,500 people on unemloyment assistance, about the 40,000 people who emigrated last year, about the 2,700 people waiting for hip operations, about the 800 people waiting for heart by-pass operations and about the 18,000 children waiting ten or 12 years for essential orthodontic treatment because orthodontic surgeons are not appointed in the Western Health Board area means that we are of the Left, so be it. I am not ashamed to be concerned about those matters and I am pleased to speak about those matters here today.
The Minister has taken on board some of the constructive suggestions made by speakers in the budget debate. Some of the matters I concentrated on in the budget debate have been altered since, but I am looking for further clarification. I accept that the Minister is going in the right direction with the changes but they are not spelled out clearly enough.
The Minister spoke about the carer's allowance, a matter that has caught the attention of the public. It is a very good move, but I want clarification in regard to a number of matters related to it. In the budget debate I indicated that the Minister was making great play of the increase from £28 to £45, but this is no good if people cannot qualify for it. Fewer than 2,000 people in the country could qualify for that allowance, called then the prescribed relative's allowance. The Minister tells us now that 8,000 people will qualify for the new carer's allowance. There is still much to be clarified and before this Bill is adopted I or our spokesperson, Deputy Flaherty, will be putting down amendments and looking for clarification of certain matters before deciding whether to support this Bill in its present form. The Minister stated that for the first time in our legislation we were giving official recognition to the role of carers who provide full-time care for elderly people in our community. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say about this in the budget debate and last night, but he has still not spelt out clearly what he means by full-time carers.
The Minister praised the wonderful work which carers are doing. Of course, I agree. Those caring for old people in their homes are providing a wonderful service. Age structures are now different, people are living longer and the age structure in the family has changed. Probably both spouses are working. I am not satisfied with regard to conditions governing the payment of the full time carer's allowance. A farmer or his wife could be looking after an aged relative in the home. Let us suppose that the carer has to go out during the day to look after five or ten cattle. Will that provide an opportunity for some conscientious social welfare officer to disqualify that person from the carer's allowance on the basis that he or she would not be deemed to be a full-time carer, despite the fact that no income would be received this year from looking after those cattle? It appears from the Minister's speech that the allowance will be payable only to full-time carers and I do not want technicalities to be brought into the operation of the scheme.
The carer's allowance is to be payable subject to a means test. Does that mean that small farmers or a person in receipt of social welfare payments could be disqualified? If the same means test applies in this case as that which applies to smallholders applying for a medical card, people would be disqualified who genuinely have no income. Smallholders have no income this year. In the western region in 1988, 89 per cent of people depending on cattle farming had a family income of less than £5,000. That was in 1988 when there was at least some income from such farming, but in 1989 and 1990 they will have no income whatsoever. Yet when such people apply for a medical card they are asked the number of cattle they had at the last test and the social welfare officer tells the smallholder that he is disqualified because his income puts him above the guidelines. There is no point in putting down the number of livestock and multiplying it by a magical figure to achieve an imaginary means tested income. I want the means test to be a genuine one under which real incomes will be taken into account rather than imaginary incomes. The whole system must be reviewed.
To care for a person in an institution costs between £350 and £500 per week, depending on the type of care. It is a very small concession to allow somebody a maximum of £45 to care for such a person. An income of £45 a week is very slight when one considers the responsibility involved and also the benefit to the old person who can continue to live at home. A realistic allowance would be about £100 a week. Such an allowance would make it viable for some people to give up gainful employment to care for a relative or neighbour, thereby releasing a job for somebody else. I want to ensure that people caring for a relative are not adjudged to have a fictional income which would disqualify them from the allowance. Neither should they be adjudged not to be full-time carers if, for instance, they have to care for a few cattle on the land. These are matters which concern me and I would ask the Minister for clarification.
The Minister is taking a step forward in looking for the first time in a serious way at a carer's allowance. It was almost impossible to qualify for the prescribed relative's allowance because there were far too many exclusions. A person who was in receipt of unemployment assistance could not qualify, but that payment was greater than the prescribed relative's allowance. The whole system was a farce and the Minister has gone some way towards eliminating it. I want to see the new allowance implemented in practice. I do not accept that a maximum of 8,000 people should qualify for the carer's allowance. I am sure there are 20,000 or 30,000 such cases throughout the country where relatives are genuinely caring for old people and keeping them out of institutions. Those people should qualify for the carer's allowance. It should be extended far beyond the scope envisaged by the Minister. By keeping people out of institutional care, beds are made available in hospitals and institutions for people who do not have others to care for them. I am asking that the £45 be genuinely made available to carers and that it be regarded as a pilot scheme. There is vast potential for good in this type of allowance.
A press report last week referred to £5 million extra and an additional 8,000 people to be paid £45 per week. That is misleading. It says nothing about the means test or being a full-time carer.
Will the Deputy please give the reference?
The Irish Independent of last Thursday. I wonder where that £5 million is. I hope the Minister will spell that out for me.
The Minister made some play about the level of spending on social welfare. Praising himself and his Department, he said that the level of spending on social welfare is the highest in the history of the State and demonstrates once again his continued determination to protect and improve the position of those people. I submit that the level of spending on social welfare is indeed the highest ever because this Government's policies have put almost 250,000 people on the unemployment register—
We inherited them.
——not to speak of nearly 200,000 people who have been forced to emigrate during this Government's term of office.
The Minister spoke about the child benefit and gave himself credit again. I referred to this matter in my budget contribution and I thought I might be corrected on it. Lo and behold, it turned up again in the Minister's speech last night. He made a big thing about the fact that a family with four children will receive an increase of £3 a month. In my simple arithmetic that amounts to an allowance of 75p per child per month. Is that a realistic increase in child benefit? It is a sick joke. The child would want to go very easy spreading jam on his bread to make the 75p last the month because I am afraid that after two weeks of spreading the jam — or after a week if he was spreading it thickly — the 75p would run out. That inclusion in the Social Welfare Bill is nothing to be proud of.
I had better be positive about some things in the Bill. The Minister said the free travel scheme is being extended to allow recipients of DPMA who cannot travel alone to bring a companion when availing of free travel. That is very welcome, but that occasion should be extended to other recipients of free travel. An old age pensioner not in receipt of DPMA and several other categories might need a companion to travel with them because they might be unable to get on or off buses or other public transport. The scheme should be extended to companions of certain persons qualified for free travel.
The Minister referred to pensioners over 80 years of age being allowed to retain their entitlement to free electricity when somebody comes to live with them. That again is welcome. However, some elderly people who have not reached 80 years need someone to live with them because they are incapable of living alone. Particularly they might need someone to stay with them at night and that would disqualify them from the free electricity allowance because they would not then be classified as living alone, even though they would be living alone in the day. A realistic adjustment would be to extend this scheme to people of 70 years of age.
The free fuel scheme is another matter I dealt with at length in my contribution to the budget debate. At that time it was being extended to long term recipients of unemployment assistance living alone. I questioned that at the time and said that that allowance should be extended to smallholders. I instanced a family on long term unemployment assistance, a smallholder with five, six or seven children coming in from school at different times of the day and the women would have to have hot meals ready and fires lighting to dry clothes, etc. According to the Minister for Finance's Budget Statement that category would not qualify for the free fuel allowance. I think the Minister has heeded my contribution and the contributions of other people in that regard because he has gone some way towards meeting this, but I want the matter spelled out much more thoroughly.
I made certain inquiries about this since the budget. An article in the Farming Independent of 6 March headed “Smallholders to Get Free Fuel Allowance” stated that the free fuel allowance scheme worth £5 per week was to be extended to farmers on smallholders' assistance and that this was announced by the IFA after a meeting with the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods. I rang the Department of Social Welfare and the Minister's office and found it very difficult to get any clarification of that article. A number of people had contacted me about my contribution to the budget debate, wondering if the Minister had taken heed of it and when I read that article I wondered if the Minister had taken heed of what I said.
On telephoning the Department of Social Welfare I was assured that the article was correct, smallholders were to get this allowance, application forms would be available at social welfare offices and post offices and the scheme would apply from last October. I got that information initially on 6 March. Subsequently a number of people who had called to social welfare offices and the post offices contacted me and said that nobody knew anything about application forms for smallholders to qualify for the free fuel allowance from last March. I contacted the Department of Social Welfare last week and they informed me it would apply from next October.
I was assured then that "living alone" as stated in the Bill and in the Minister's press release did not actually mean living alone, it meant something else. The Minister said last night: "We are extending the national free fuel scheme to householders where a long term social welfare recipient lives with someone on short-term unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare allowance, and to smallholders receiving long term unemployment assistance who are living alone." The magic words "living alone" were in the Minister's speech last night. I want clarification of this here in the Dáil. I am not going to bother ringing the Department of Social Welfare or the Minister's office again about the matter. Does this free fuel scheme apply to smallholders on long term unemployment assistance if they are not living alone?
I do not want to hear any more contradictory statements about it. Will a smallholder on long-term unemployment assistance with five or more children get the free fuel allowance? It is usually the wife of the smallholder who has to face five or six children coming wet and hungry from school at different times of the day. The mother has to have a fire going all day and if she does not qualify for the free fuel allowance the publicity surrounding it is inaccurate and not in accordance with assurances I got from the Department of Social Welfare.
I have been assured by officials in the Department of Social Welfare that "living alone" need not be taken literally as it means that a family can be included. However, I want the matter clarified so that I can have accurate information for the people who come to me with problems in this regard.
I should also like to refer to the lack of finance for local authority housing. It is related to social welfare because I did research in County Galway and found that 450 people had been approved for local authority housing, 275 in the borough area and the remainder in the county. Most of those people are on some kind of social welfare assistance and unable to provide housing for themselves. However, nothing is being done for them because moneys are not being provided for necessary housing.
That is a matter for another Minister, Deputy, it is not the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare.
The corporation and county council should put up a sign asking people not to apply for housing because they do not have any money to provide it. There is no point in leading people on when houses cannot be provided.
I also wish to refer to eligibility for medical cards. Deputy Browne referred to the red tape attached to the qualification for any benefits. I recognise that there have to be checks and cross-checks but sometimes they go too far. Smallholders with ten or 20 cattle do not have an income and the departmental officials know this. However, they have to refer to previous figures and take them into account. The Minister of State knows that this is so because, like me, he came from the grass roots. The Department are obliged to follow the criterion set down in relation to these matters and to multiply the number of animals by a figure given to them——
I understand that the means test governing medical cards is operated by the health board under the aegis of the Minister for Health.
Medical cards are a matter for social welfare officers so——
The Deputy may be under a misapprehension in that regard.
The guidelines in this matter should be changed to realistically take account of false incomes. The same applies to other matters I have dealt with arising from the budget, including the living alone allowance and qualification for the free fuel scheme. If the guidelines are not changed loopholes will be found to disqualify people who are genuinely entitled to benefits. There is no point in having flashy headlines about increases in social welfare if people cannot qualify for them.
I will be anxiously awaiting the reply of the Minister for Social Welfare to the debate and I will interrupt him if he does not spell out clearly the situation in relation to the qualifications for the carer's allowance vis-à-vis the carer and the means test. He should also spell out the qualifications for the free fuel scheme.
I welcome the Bill and I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for Social Welfare who has done more since 1987 than any of his predecessors in seeking to rationalise the number of payments and to simplify the social welfare system generally. He is making a very sincere effort to create a workable structure which should be welcomed and encouraged by all sides of the House.
Before I speak on the main provisions of the Bill it is important to emphasise what my party and I have been advocating for some considerable time. The manner in which social welfare issues are dealt with by the Oireachtas is totally unsatisfactory. There are only two general debates each year on matters relating to social welfare: the first is on the Social Welfare Bill which gives legislative effect to the changes introduced in the budget and the second is on the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare which usually lasts for two hours and deals with the allocation of money for various social welfare schemes. This leaves a lot to be desired, given that the Department of Social Welfare will spend £2,766 million this year.
We in the Progressive Democrats favour the setting up of an all-party committee of the Oireachtas to examine the entire social welfare code. We recommend that the Economic and Social Research Institute work with that committee, acting in the first instance as a research group to the committee and secondly as an outside independent group working on a consultative basis with members of the committee. The committee should receive submissions from people working with social welfare recipients and other deprived groups in our society. Many of these groups put a lot of time and money into preparing detailed and worthwhile submissions, but unfortunately they do not get very far. The all-party committee on social welfare should be asked to report to Dáil Éireann within nine to 12 months and the findings should be fully debated and implemented by the Government.
This is not just another Bill to come before the House. It will affect 36.8 per cent of the population. The expenditure of the Department of Social Welfare represents 12.6 per cent of the gross national product. I do not believe the time given to debate this Bill, or indeed social welfare matters generally, is adequate and I would sincerely ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the establishment of such a committee. I recall last year I made an appeal to the Minister to set up an all-party committee to examine the Commission on Social Welfare and, in fairness to him, he said he was considering that report at the time and that he would consider the setting up of the committee but so far this has not happened. I am not casting any reflection on the Minister in this respect because, as I said already, I know of his dedication in trying to establish a workable structure.
There are many disadvantaged groups in our community and social justice demands that they be given the best support and protection that the community can afford, along with opportunities to develop their potential and play a fuller role in the life of the community. The Progressive Democrats are committed to protecting the living standards of those dependent on social welfare and to creating the maximum opportunities for their involvement. What the vast majority of social recipients want most of all is the opportunity to work, to enjoy the dignity and self-esteem of having a job and to be able to look after their families by using their own skills. In the absence of full employment, the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil are committed to providing social welfare increases for the long-term unemployed over and above the level of inflation and will continue to do so as resources permit. In particular we are committed to reducing the instance of poverty. Special increases will be given to families with dependent children and special account will be taken of the needs of small farmer households.
There should be an overall strategy to tackle poverty, particularly in areas where there is a concentration of many complex social problems. Increased private sector support for local community development should be encouraged by introducing tax relief and by giving capital donations for anti-poverty work. I know there are thousands of local groups throughout the country who seek and obtain assistance from the regional health boards under section 65 of the Health Act, 1970, but the vast majority of these groups who get assistance for worthwhile community development frequently complain that they cannot properly plan or develop their activities with these payments which they rely on each year. In the past number of years the regional health boards have been finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet and a substantial number of these groups have had reductions in their allocations. As a result, some of them have had to give up their activities while others have had to reduce substantially their activities. I know the Department of Social Welfare have given substantial grants to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for home management courses and also to other groups, but the time is now opportune for all of the section 65 grants to be taken over by the Department of Social Welfare. They should deal with the organisations involved in anti-poverty work and particularly with groups working in areas where there is a concentration of social problems.
Likewise, there should be a fundamental review of the entire social work service. I want to place some emphasis on this matter. The vast majority of social workers at present employed by the regional health boards confine their work to dealing with problems related to children under 16 years of age. There are no social work services available to families who find it difficult to make ends meet, not necessarily because of the inadequacy of the payments but, sadly, in many instances because of their own personal inadequacies.
I do not believe the entire number of social workers in this country should be employed by the regional health boards. This is an area in which the Department of Social Welfare should get involved, especially in the years ahead. I would like to see the Department of Social Welfare directly employ social workers. These people should work hand in hand with the local community welfare officers, who have first-hand experience of the families and their problems. This is of vital importance. Perhaps this would be something new for the Department of Social Welfare, but I strongly suggest to the Minister that he discuss this matter with his colleague, the Minister for Health, in the hope that social workers would be employed by the Department of Social Welfare.
In the agreed Programme for Government the Progressive Democrats are anxious that a special social welfare appeals officer would be appointed in order to ensure that not alone is the social welfare appeals system fair but that it is also perceived as such. I welcome sections 9 and 20 to this Bill which give legislative effect to the setting up of such an office. Section 19 (b) amends section 298 (4) of the Principal Act and allows the Minister to direct the chief appeals officer to determine appeals by way of oral hearing. This is a significant provision in the Bill and I hope the Minister will exercise the authority he is giving himself in this provision.
I know only too well that a substantial number of social welfare recipients are not in a position to articulate their position when requested to do so in writing. Many of them, through no fault of their own, are poorly educated and find it difficult to correspond with the Department in such a manner. While the system would be much slower, at least people should be given the opportunity of speaking directly to the chief appeals officer or indeed bringing a representative with them who would be able to articulate the position to the appeals officer. This should make a substantial improvement to the way in which the whole system works and should certainly reduce the number of complaints, particularly the increased number of complaints that have been made to the Ombudsman's office.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to a very serious matter which has developed since the beginning of this year in relation to rent subsidies. Section 209 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, empowers health boards to pay subsidies to persons in receipt of social welfare payments who have difficulty in paying their rent or mortgages. Guildelines issued by the Department in 1988 stated specifically that rent subsidies should not be paid to people in local authority houses who are assessed on the differential rent system. In my own area of Cork, Cork County Council recently reviewed all people who are on the differential rent system and, I regret to say, as a result of this review thousands of families have had substantial increases in their local authority rents.
I will give an example of a man with a wife and four dependent children who is in receipt of unemployment assistance of £117 a week. He is now expected to pay a differential rent of £16.50 under the normal calculation for supplementary welfare allowance purposes. This man would normally be entitled to a rent subsidy of £5.20 per week. Similarly a married man with six children receiving unemployment assistance of £137 per week would normally be entitled to a rent subsidy of £57.70 per week, but all of these people are being debarred from receiving supplementary welfare allowance under section 209 of the principal Act because of internal guidelines which the Minister is aware of, but which have no legal basis. The original intention was that local authorities would not impose rents that would have the effect of bringing people below the supplementary social welfare allowance rate. I ask the Minister to look into this matter because the anomaly needs to be rectified.
Local authorities are finding it difficult to make ends meet and are trying to find ways and means of increasing their revenue through the differential rents system. Families are being put in an intolerable situation and many of them can no longer afford to pay the full rents. Subsequently they are accruing substantial arrears with the local authorities. I know there is nothing to prevent the local community welfare officer from making payments under section 212, where there are exceptional circumstances of hardship. However, I believe that the health boards are not prepared to make these payments because they claim that, in cases of arrears where families are finding it difficult to make ends meet, the county managers have the authority to write off the arrears. This circle goes on because the county managers are not prepared to write off these arrears as the revenue is badly needed. I ask the Minister to give me some assurance that guidelines on rent subsidies under section 209 of the Act will be extended to people paying differential rents to the local authorities.
I would now like to deal with Part VII of the Bill and in particular sections 34 and 35 which deal with the assessment of means. I welcome section 34, which exempts from assessment of means for the purposes of various non-contributory means tested payments under the Social Welfare Acts, persons living in the Gaeltacht areas who accommodate students who wish to improve their fluency in Irish. The Minister is to be commended for introducing this section. From my understanding of section 35 regulations are to be introduced which empower the Department to exempt income from the sale of pensioners' residences from the assessment of means in certain circumstances. Too often old age pensioners go into private nursing homes in order to obtain private nursing care which is badly needed. Because of the high charges in these nursing homes, they are frequently forced to sell their own homes to cover the costs. Once their home is sold the Department have no alternative, under the present regulations, but to hold as means the income derived from the sale, thus reducing their non-contributory pensions substantially. I welcome this move, particularly in the light of the Department of Health's policy in relation to the care of the elderly. I want to emphasise this because the Minister was aware of the views of many Members of this House on this point and he has facilitated our demands.
It is time we looked at the whole area of means testing. The Progressive Democrats believe that one comprehensive means test should be carried out which could be used by all agencies. At present means tests are used by the Department of Social Welfare, for a substantial number of income maintenance schemes; by the Department of Health in relation to medical card and other income maintenance schemes such as the disabled person's maintenance allowance, the infectious disease maintenance allowance, and blind welfare. The Department of the Environment have their own means testing system for housing grants and local authorities have another system for means testing those on differential rents. The Department of Education have a means test for deciding eligibility for third level grants. The Department of Justice have another set of means tests for deciding those entitled to free legal aid.
The scenario in respect of the person claiming unemployment assistance has been frequently outlined. The person is means tested by the social welfare officer and has to face a delay of several weeks until such time as the deciding officer has made their decision. In the meantime the claimant is forced to go to the local health board to apply for the supplementary welfare allowance, where again they have to undergo a means test. Shortly after receiving their supplementary welfare allowance they may apply for a medical card and have to undergo another means test. They may also apply to some other Government Department which would require a means test along the lines of those used by the health board and the Department of Social Welfare. This is a terrible waste of manpower. This duplication and indeed triplication could be done away with by having one separate means testing office. The person, having been assessed by the officer who would be knowledgeable of all the criteria for a wide range of services, would be given documentary evidence which they could take along to the health board and the Department of Social Welfare in order to obtain the allowances or services they require.
I believe it is possible to establish such a scheme and for that reason I ask the Minister to consider it as I know he is sincere in trying to make the social welfare code work. This is already happening in a limited way in community information centres. If you go along to them and explain your circumstances they will advise you on the range of services that you are likely to be entitled to, but you still have to go to each individual office and make a separate application. I believe the suggestion of a single means testing office is worthwhile exploring and I welcome the Minister's view on the matter.
Under the 1985 Social Welfare Act, which dealt with equality in social welfare matters, we introduced a threshold of £50 for a working spouse of a person claiming social welfare to retain full payments. If the working spouse was earning less than £50 per week, the spouse was allowed claim the full personal rate in addition to the full adult dependant rate and the full child allowance rate. However once the earnings of the other spouse went over the threshold of £50 per week, the spouse claiming social welfare payments had the adult dependant rate withdrawn and then only received half the child dependant allowance. It is now almost five years since the threshold was set and since then spouses have begun to get very small increases in their salary. However when they go over the £50 threshold some of their spouses stand to lose a substantial part of their social welfare benefit. I have taken this matter up privately with the Minister and it is not my intention to embarrass him in any way in raising it today. Instead, I wish to highlight the very serious consequences if no adjustment is made to the £50 threshold.
Let us take the case of a man on disability benefit with a wife and four dependent children. If his wife is working and earning £45 per week he will receive the full personal rate, the full adult dependant rate and the full child dependant rate. However, if his wife's earnings go over the threshold of £50 per week, he would lose the £29 adult dependant rate and half the child dependant rate for each of his four children, which amounts to about £20. The gross loss would amount to £49 per week. Similarly, in the case of a man on invalidity pension, if his wife earns more than £50 he stands to lose in the region of £54.10 per week. These losses will have disastrous consequences for families dependent on social welfare for their main source of income. I appeal to the Minister's sense of fair play and justice to ensure that the threshold is raised as soon as possible at least in line with inflation. While I am not in a position to give any indication as to the cost of this, the cost of doing nothing will be ten times worse.
Recently, I met a deputation of between 20 and 30 unfortunate women employed in the cleaning industry who informed me that they have been offered an increase of 10p an hour in salary. However, if they accept this increase they could lose anything up to £45 per week. I am aware that equality legislation was introduced by the previous Coalition Government but no provision was made at that time for an adjustment to this threshold. The Minister has promised that he will give this matter serious consideration and I hope he will raise the threshold well above £50 to ensure that families with young children in particular have an adequate income.
I welcome the provisions contained in section 9 which exempt employees with gross weekly earnings below a prescribed amount from paying the employee element of the social insurance contribution with effect from 6 April next. I have always advocated that the best way to raise the living standards of those in low paid employment is by exempting them from paying certain social insurance contributions.
In conclusion, I would like to state that the Programme for Government agreed between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats contains a number of important elements concerning social welfare. We agreed that a separate social welfare appeals officer should be appointed to ensure that not alone will the appeals system be seen to be fair but also seen to be fair and independent. We further agreed that we would continue to provide special increases for the long term unemployed over and above the rate of inflation throughout the life of the Government as resources permit. We also agreed to try to reduce the incidence of poverty by providing special increases to families with dependent children and taking special account of the needs of small farmer households. We further agreed that payment of an allowance to persons who need assistance in caring for elderly and handicapped relatives in their own homes should be considered and that the complex range of welfare payments should be further simplified with particular reference to the social assistance scheme for the unemployed and sick with the eventual aim of introducing a single payment for one parent families. All of these issues were to be addressed over a four year period.
I am very pleased that these issues are being tackled in this Bill and the Minister is to be congratulated for this. As I said at the outset, I am aware of his determination and dedication to establish once and for all a workable structure in the Department of Social Welfare. It is not unusual in a debate on social welfare for us to forget those working with the Minister and they are his officials. I, and anyone who I have been associated with who has done any business with the Department of Social Welfare, have always received tremendous co-operation and been received very kindly.
It was pointed out last night that no matter what amount of money is spent on social welfare we will never be satisfied. This is only natural because what we are aiming for in the working of the Department of Social Welfare is perfection. We also wish to ensure that the best deal is given to those living in poverty. Criticism is always welcome provided it is constructive. I hope all those who will contribute to this debate will understand fully — I have always advocated this and have sat on both the Government and Opposition benches — that irrespective of who is in power no one in the House, including the Minister, will ever be satisfied that we are doing enough. We can only work in accordance with our resources, but I want to say I am very proud of the efforts being made by the Minister, his officials and all concerned to ensure that once and for all we have a workable social welfare structure which is seen to be fair to everybody.
I wish to take up one of the points made by Deputy Wyse in his excellent contribution. I have come to the conclusion that it was in a somewhat different tone to the contribution he made when sitting to my left, but I suppose that is the difference between being in Opposition and being in Government. I wish him well in that regard. He indicated that people will never be satisfied when it comes to social welfare — and I agree with him — but they will never be satisfied because obviously they will never achieve the level of payment recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare.
Like many others in the House I strongly argue that it would be much better if we were talking about the creation of employment and the transfer of resources spent on social welfare to create meaningful employment, in particular for our young people. I doubt very much if anyone enjoys being out of work and in receipt of social welfare, except perhaps the elderly who have retired due to age or illness and for whom every community has to provide. Unfortunately, the amount of money spent on social welfare within the community is substantially higher than the amount paid out in any other country in Europe. This adds to the burden of taxation which must be secured from the working population.
As this is a very serious matter we should seek the transfer of resources spent on social welfare towards job creation schemes in an effort to get people off the dole. We are reaching the stage where thousands of young people have never actually worked and where social welfare is a fact of life. One simply goes down to the employment exchange to sign on and get paid and if the person is married they go shopping with their wife, if she is not working, and just goes through the motions of living. It is a very degrading way to have to go through life and we should try to move away from the view that there is no alternative to social welfare.
There are many welcome proposals in the Bill and it is no harm to point out that I have been pressing for them over the years as spokesperson for my party on Social Welfare. I have highlighted the need for a change in the appeals system and for that reason I welcome the Minister's decision to introduce a new appeals office. The whole question of appeals is chaotic. There is a problem in regard to how appeals are dealt with and the criteria for deciding appeals. Members will be aware that there are two types of appeals, appeals concerned with unemployment assistance and benefit and those concerned with disability benefit.
I assume that the new appeals office will deal with those schemes. Will the Minister say if the appeals office will deal with disability and invalidity benefits on the one hand and unemployment assistance and unemployment benefits on the other? It is important that he should spell out that because they are distinct benefits. Under the present system an appeals officer sits with an employer and trade union representative to deal with appeals and they are assisted by two assessors. The latter people can give an opinion but they are not involved in the decision. It is their duty to influence the appeals officer. I assume that that will continue to be the position under the new system. It is my view that appeals should be heard by a tribunal. Very often, particularly in rural areas, the worker representative, or the person representing employers, do not turn up for such hearings and it is left to the appeals officer to make a decision. That officer must arrive at that decision without the advantage of local knowledge and very often local knowledge is an important consideration in such cases. It is important that the appeals officer is made aware of whether it will be possible for an applicant to obtain employment locally.
Many appeals are based on the assumption that applicants are not seeking employment. It appears to me that a person who has qualified as an engineer is expected to seek employment as an office cleaner and that carpenters are expected to work in supermarkets. In other words, the training or educational qualifications of an individual are not taken into consideration. People are expected to take on employment irrespective of whether it is permanent or temporary or whether that person is suited, physically or mentally, for the work. The important thing is that people must seek employment.
In my view those who have educational qualifications or training in crafts should not be expected to take on other work. There is no point in people studying for educational qualifications or pursuing training courses if when they are unemployed they are expected to sweep the streets. The Minister should regularise that provision. He should set guidelines for the UB and UA appeals system.
There is no doubt that there is a need to clean up the medical appeals system. I receive complaints daily about that system, particularly from women. Women turn up for what are called medical examinations but they could not be described as such. If a woman has prenatal problems there is no point in asking a GP to decide an issue related to her condition. An examination of that person should be carried out by a gynaecologist. A medical referee cannot decide an issue that should be referred to an orthopaedic surgeon. Like other Members, I must deal with complaints along those lines daily. I have heard of women having their temperature taken by the medical referee when they should have been referred to a specialist. In many cases, after a cursory examination women have been told that they are fit for work. Those women, when they return to their own GP, are told that they will not be certified as fit for work for various reasons such as blood pressure or another illness that could not be detected by the medical referee. It is important that specialists are called in to deal with such appeals.
Another problem that the Minister should deal with in connection with appeals to medical referees relates to the cost of engaging the service of specialists. If a woman wants to engage the services of a gynaecologist for her appeal she will have to pay a huge fee to that specialist. I understand that the fee is in the region of £135 but the grant payment to that specialist is £30 which means that the applicant will have to pay the balance of £100 out of her own pocket. There is no doubt that consultants will not attend social welfare appeals for a fee of £30. The Minister, in establishing the appeals office, should take those points into consideration. I have no doubt that he has received many complaints about the existing scheme.
I welcome the decision to introduce a payment for lone parents. For many years I have been calling for the inclusion of many benefits under one heading. I am glad the Minister has done that. Like Deputy Wyse, I am concerned about means testing. Last year the Minister told us that he was examining that matter and I hope that when he is introducing the lone parent payment he will harmonise the means testing system. He should eliminate the wastage of manpower. If he does, he will save the Department and taxpayers a lot of money.
The Minister has decided to introduce a PRSI exemption for workers earning £60 or less in a week. On numerous occasions I commented on that. Originally, PRSI stood at 30 per cent of earnings and later it was reduced to 20 per cent. It now stands at 12 per cent, but the contribution has consistently increased since the PRSI system was introduced. It is my contention that PRSI is nothing more than an addition to the PAYE system. I have held that view for a long time and quite frankly for the amount of administration involved in the PRSI system, it would be much better to eliminate PRSI altogether. Even if one was to maintain the PRSI contribution and incorporate it into the basic social welfare payment one would eliminate an enormous amount of administration and delay because the system of PRSI does not operate for payment purposes for a period of five weeks after payment commences. Many workers never get it because they may be out only for four or five weeks. If they are out for six weeks they receive one payment for which they may have to wait eight or ten weeks. Very often they are told that because of the level of earnings that now operates with the PRSI system they do not qualify for payment.
I have held that the whole system of PRSI is illegal because money is taken out of workers' pay and a very substantial proportion of the workforce receive no payment in return for their contributions. I do not know any other system of contributions in any section of the community where people pay into something and receive nothing in return even if they qualify for it on the basis that they are out of work through illness. I would urge the Minister to seriously consider the elimination of the PRSI system. It has outlived its usefulness. It is no longer of any real benefit to the working class people and it would be better to incorporate it into the system and have one system of payment.
While I am on the subject of incorporating PRSI into the payment of disability or unemployment benefit, I would urge the Minister to give consideration to other forms of duplication. I do not see why there should be three forms of sickness benefit — in fact there are four: disability benefit, invalidity benefit, disablement benefit and injury benefit. Regulations governing all four are different. Each one has to be administered by a separate section and now some of the benefits have to be organised, paid for and administered from Sligo. Because of the shortage of staff and because of the setting up of the system there we expected that there would be delays, but it is chaotic. I want to convey to the Minister and to the officials of the Department that the service from Sligo is not as efficient as that which operated before the transfer. I am satisfied from inquiries I have made that the reason is that the number of staff who were to transfer to Sligo did not transfer and there is a severe shortage of skilled and experienced personnel. That is a matter that should be looked at. I am not suggesting that the people there have told me that, I have succeeded in finding that out from inquiries I have made.
In relation to duplication, I cannot understand why the one sickness benefit cannot cover the four systems. I can accept that there may be a case for injury benefit to be paid separately, but when a person is out sick, whether a man or woman, they should receive the same payment. I do not see why somebody in receipt of disability benefit for ten or 12 years, or in some cases 18 years, receives one benefit while after 52 weeks in receipt of disability benefit a person can qualify for invalidity benefit on a permanent unavailability basis. I do not understand the difference between somebody in receipt of disability benefit for ten or 15 years and somebody in receipt of invalidity benefit for ten or 15 years. Both are ill, both have been certified as unfit for work, yet the person on invalidity benefit receives a higher benefit of about £7 per week, plus a higher rate for dependants, free television, free ESB, free travel, free fuel and free telephone rental, but the person on disability benefit does not get the same perks. It does not make sense. I do not see why these benefits cannot be harmonised where the same rates of benefit and the same subsidiary benefits — whether it be free television, free ESB or free travel — would apply. Whatever applies to one person who is ill should apply to all categories of people who are ill. This would save the Department of Social Welfare millions of pounds in administration costs.
I will refer to another anomaly, which I mentioned previously. In relation to unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance, there is a reduced level of benefit based on contributions. There is long-term unemployment assistance benefit and short-term unemployment assistance. A person who is unemployed, who does not qualify for unemployment benefit, and who is in receipt of unemployment assistance for a period of not more than six months, is deemed to be on short-term unemployment assistance and, therefore, in receipt of a lower rate of benefit. As I understand it, after six months that person goes on to long-term benefit and now qualifies for other subsidiary benefits such as free fuel. What is the difference between a man with four children at school and who is out of work for five or six months and a man who is out of work for two years? Does it cost any more to maintain a family of three or four children and a husband and wife if he is unemployed for two or three months? The loaf of bread and the pint of milk cost the same, the ESB and fuel charges are the same, everything they buy in the supermarket costs the same. When two women go into the supermarket — one husband is in receipt of short-term benefit and the other's husband is in receipt of long term benefit — the manager of the supermarket will not ask which benefit they are in receipt of, and say that if her husband is on short term benefit and therefore on the lower benefit he will charge her less. I cannot understand the thinking behind this. That benefit should be harmonised. One of the reasons for the delays in paying unemployment assistance benefit is trying to decide whether the applicant is entitled to short term or long term benefit.
I come now to deal with the benefit about which I feel strongest and the one which discriminates against young people, particularly those who have left school and unfortunately are unable to secure employment either in the short term or in the long term. The Minister should listen to this because this is where the greatest problems are caused. I hope the officials of the Department are listening. At present because of the way the regulations are operating, if a young person over 18 signs on for unemployment assistance and his parents are working — whether in full-time or part-time employment, or one in full-time and one in part-time employment, or both in full-time employment — that young person will not qualify for any unemployment assistance payment. If one of the parents is working there is a chance that they may be paid £10 or £15, or perhaps £17 or £18. I know young people who have been asked to travel into my town to collect unemployment assistance of 50p. It costs them more than that to travel to town by bus. This has got to be put right.
I want to refer to the position of an 18 year old person who applies for unemployment assistance, whose parents are unemployed and whose father is receiving social welfare and is paid in respect of his wife. When that young person applies for unemployment assistance the income received by other members of his family is calculated as household income and used against him in assessing his entitlement. One brother may receive £42 or £47 in unemployment assistance, a younger brother may receive £20 but the third brother will receive nothing because the household income is used against him in that respect. I hope someone does not tell me that I am wrong. If they do, I will produce a file the length of my arm on numerous cases where this is happening. I am sure Deputy Wyse and other Deputies can certify that this is the case.
Household income is being used against these young people even if it is social welfare income. It is very degrading for a young person who has done his group, intermediate or leaving certificate and perhaps gone to a third level institution not to be able to get employment and to be told, after signing on for eight to ten weeks and waiting for a social welfare officer to come out to the home to ask him what he had for his breakfast or whatever, that he can be given nothing because of the level of the household income. That young person would have no alternative but to leave this country in disgust.
Recently I visited London where I met over 600 young people from my town. This is only half the number who could have turned up. It was the first time we had made an effort to get these young people together to find out how they are doing. Some of these people who have degrees or who may have got eight honours in their intermediate certificate examination are now working on building sites or in menial security jobs and paying £80 to £100 per week for one room accommodation. Many of these young people had to leave Ireland because the State did not pay them a reasonable level of income which would have given them time to find employment. Most of these young people are now living in London. I can assure the House that these young people do not count us or the Department of Social Welfare among their friends.
The Minister will have to do a number of things in this area. He will have to put more manpower into the relevant unit of the Department of Social Welfare. It is not good enough to leave young people waiting for eight weeks to be assessed for unemployment assistance and then to tell them they are not entitled to benefit. They should be entitled to a minimum payment at least. When they sign on for unemployment assistance for which they qualify on the basis that they have no employment they should automatically get a minimum payment. They should not be kept waiting for 15 weeks and then told they are entitled to nothing. They should at least be given an interim payment until they have been assessed. This would put the responsibility on the Department of Social Welfare to carry out the assessment as quickly as possible, if such an assessment is necessary. At present young people are going around like travellers begging their parents for a few bob.
I have referred on a number of occasions to old age pensioners who are forced to queue up for their pensions in post offices. A number of these pensioners are in receipt of payments which are changed only once a year in the budget. I cannot understand why these people cannot be paid their pensions by way of Banklink. I raised this point a few years ago. I cannot understand why the plastic card system cannot be used for paying pensions. If a pension for a married couple remains at £113 for a year I do not understand why they cannot be given a plastic card so that they can withdraw their money by way of Banklink. I do not know what the delay is in introducing such a system because it is not all that complicated. Banklink systems could be installed outside post offices so that elderly people would not have to queue in post offices from 8.30 a.m. or 9 a.m. on Thursdays and Fridays. They would only have to put their plastic card into the Banklink system, press their number and get their money. The plastic card could be changed at the end of the relevant period. Surely there is nothing complicated about the technology involved in that system. After all, men were going to the moon 20 years ago.
I want to refer to the position of single parents who are cohabiting. Obviously we are going to have to come to grips with this issue in terms of social welfare. I do not think we should encourage people not to get married. I am a family man and I believe in the institution of marriage. I do not believe that we should set up a system that would encourage people not to get married but by the same token we have to recognise that many people are cohabiting because they have no other choice, for example, people whose marriages have broken down. Unfortunately it is the children who always suffer in such instances.
The position of single parents must be examined very carefully. I do not think we should provide an incentive for people not to get married but we should take into consideration the people who may be forced to cohabit through no fault of their own. The Minister should set up a committee within his Department to look at this matter. This is a growing monster which will get larger and which will not go away until some form of divorce is introduced, and I do not think that will happen for a long time to come.
I want to refer to a minority group who are fairly substantial in numbers. This group would include some Members of this House, members of the professions and members of trade unions. I am referring in particular to people who have been in employment for 20 to 25 years and have paid A1 contributions. When these people leave their employment and come into the Dáil or take up work in any of the other professional organisations they will have to pay a J1 contribution. As a result they will lose any entitlement to social welfare benefit after two years. They could have been paying into the system for 30 years but once they change their employment they will not qualify for any benefit after a maximum of two years.
I suggested to the Minister that these people should have the right to voluntarily pay an A1 contribution. I thought that perhaps that could be done if, for example, the public service was being taken into the system; but it appears that the Minister has taken a step to the rear on that one for the time being. I suggest that that could be done very simply. In order to qualify now for social welfare benefit of any sort under the regulations one requires 260 qualifying stamps or credits or a combination of both. In this case, for qualification purposes it is 260 qualifying stamps. I do not see why somebody going into the Dáil or any State or semi-State body who has worked for a trade union or in a professional capacity and has paid 30 years of stamps should not qualify for payment. The qualification should be frozen, based on the last 260 stamps before they went into the new operation. If somebody has five years' full qualification of A1 stamps before they transfer to the professional job where they are not covered for A1 contribution, the position should be frozen, they should maintain their benefit and have the opportunity to pay the A1 contribution themselves on a continuing basis.
I have raised this on a number of occasions. There are a number of Deputies in this House, including myself, who are adversely affected by the present situation. I spent 30 years paying into the system and it is not worth a curse now. If I were out of work tomorrow I would not qualify for the dole. I am not arguing about that. I hope I will be here long enough to get a pension, but if I am not I would not even qualify for the dole.
I would like to compliment the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Dr. Woods, for the manner in which he has continued in this Social Welfare Bill to tackle this whole area. Major changes have taken place over the last few years and again in this Bill the Minister has endeavoured to target those most in need. Members of this House, whether in Government or in Opposition, will agree that this Minister has shown his deep concern for the elderly, the handicapped, the long term unemployed, low paid workers, lone parents and carers in our society, particularly those caring for the elderly. The Minister is concerned for the welfare of these people and has taken steps to improve their standard of living and to continue the work he has done in the last couple of years.
I do not understand why the Opposition are trying to find fault with this Social Welfare Bill. So many changes have taken place in three years under this Government as to put the Opposition to shame. I do not intend to be negative today, but I would like to refer to the contribution of The Workers' Party spokesman last night. The despicable, personalised campaign against Members of this House was unprecedented and had no relevance to the Social Welfare Bill. The Workers' Party should go back to their central committee, the people preparing their contributions, because the Member who was here last night had difficulty reading his contribution and certainly did not understand some of it. This was very evident to me in the short time I was in the House last night. This House wants contributions from the people who are representing the people and not from the faceless people we do not know in this House.
In regard to the Bill itself, let me first refer to equal treatment. I would like to call on the Minister to review the £50 dependancy limit. This figure comes into play when a person in receipt of unemployment payments has a spouse earning less than this figure. In this event the spouse is regarded as a dependant and the recipient is entitled to the adult dependant's allowance, which is now £31 a week. However, if the spouse gets an increase in wages — say, from £48 a week to £52 a week — the social welfare recipient loses the adult dependant's allowance. This limit of £50 has been in operation since 1986 and needs to be revised. I have had meetings with women who go out of their homes to work out of the need to support their families because their husbands are unemployed and in receipt of assistance. They have not been able to accept a rise in their wages because if they go over the limit their husbands would lose total benefit. There is a need for action to be taken and I call on the Minister to raise this figure to the 1990 equivalent of £50 in 1986. I have also had representations from the trade union movement expressing their concern on behalf of their members. We should remember that these families are possibly at the lowest level of the scale. For this reason the Minister should give them special attention. This sort of case speaks for itself. People cannot accept a rise of £5 from their employer because their husbands would stand to lose £31. The scheme is a good one, allowing people on low incomes to benefit, but it must be reviewed and I would strongly urge the Minister to do that.
The lone parents scheme is a new scheme. It is an historical development and part of the process of change and improvement adopted by the present Minister. Last year the Minister extended social assistance cover to widowers and deserted husbands with dependent children. This was the first time that people in this category were covered for social assistance. It was a welcome development and paved the way for the new lone parents scheme which is being introduced here today. It is important that this new scheme be extended to cover all single people with dependent children on the same basis. No longer will it be necessary to prove desertion or the fact that the other spouse is at fault. There have long been demands to move away from a fault based system to one based on need. This new scheme is a clear move in that direction.
The Bill provides for a new allowance for parents bringing up children on their own. The new scheme will streamline all existing social assistance payments for lone parents and incorporate the existing unmarried mothers allowance, widowers non-contributory pension and deserted husbands allowance. Women receiving widow's non-contributory pension, deserted wife's allowance and prisoners wife's allowance for those who have child dependants will also be brought into the new scheme.
This new allowance will for the first time provide a special means tested social welfare payment for certain lone parents such as separated spouses, unmarried fathers and prisoners' husbands. Up to now the only social welfare payment available to lone parents in these circumstances has been supplementary welfare allowance. I am sure we all agree that this is a very welcome development. It is intended that the new allowance will apply to lone parents who are bringing up at least one dependent child on their own — children can be regarded as dependent until they reach the age of 18, or 21 if they are in full time education — satisfy a means test, are not cohabitating with another person as husband or wife, and as separated persons have made reasonable efforts to get maintenance from his or her spouse. The social welfare code imposes a liability on a person to maintain his or her spouse and children and where a person fails to do so the Minister for Social Welfare will be able to require that this person contribute towards benefit or allowance payable to his or her family as a consequence. We welcome this.
Deserted wives have had the responsibility of proving that they cannot secure means from their husbands before they can qualify for deserted wife's allowance. We all know of wives who would not go within a thousand miles of their husbands because of violence in the home and the effect it had on the family. Many people who applied for deserted wife's allowance were refused because they could not adequately show that they were unable to get assistance from their husbands. The new weekly allowance will be made up of a personal rate for the claimant with extra amounts for dependent children. The amount of the allowance will depend on the number of dependent children and the claimant's weekly means. The maximum weekly rate that will apply will be a personal rate of £53 and £13.50 for each child per week.
The carer's allowance is a welcome development. There has been much anxiety about this matter. This is a major change which we have been seeking for a considerable time. We know of people who gave up jobs and went home to look after their parents. Because they were not available for employment they were not eligible for unemployment assistance. Last year the Minister transferred an allowance of £20 per week from the person being cared for to the carer. Now there is to be a new carer's allowance for people providing full-time care to pensioners. This scheme replaces the prescribed relative's allowance. The money is paid directly to the carer at the rate of £45 per week. The categories of people who can qualify as carers can be extended to include, among others, married women and people caring for non-relatives. To qualify for the allowance the carer must be living with and giving full-time care and attention to a social welfare pensioner satisfying a means test. The pensioner to whom the care is being given must be in receipt of an invalidity pension or a blind person's pension or must be aged 66 years or more and in receipt of social welfare payments. The person must be so incapacitated as to require full-time care and attention. The rate of pay will be £45 per week with increases for child dependants of the carer.
I am delighted the Minister has extended the scheme to cover married women and non-relatives. A married woman with children whose husband is receiving a social welfare payment will be able to claim the full carer's allowance herself and half the child dependant's allowance. A married woman whose husband is working will be assessed with half the joint means of the couple and will also be eligible for half the child dependant's allowance. That is very generous and accommodating. A carer with no other income — previously debarred because, for example, others were living in the house — will gain £45 per week. This gives such people an opportunity to have an income of their own.
Where a prescribed relative's allowance is being paid and the carer has no means the household will gain by £17, that is, the difference between £28 and £45. Where the pensioner or carer is already receiving a prescribed relative's allowance the means test will not reduce the payment below the rate of the prescribed relative's allowance. This is in line with the Minister's policy of protecting people who depend on social welfare, especially when any changes are made.
The disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme needs some consideration. This is an income scheme operated by the health boards instead of by the Department of Social Welfare and I believe it should be taken over by the Minister. There has been much discussion in recent years about the efficiency of the public service. We need to streamline further the administration of systems. The transfer of responsibility for the disabled person's maintenance allowance to the Department of Social Welfare would enable a more rational approach to be adopted. There appears to be a divergency of approach by the health boards. I am not one for centralisation, but when people apply for this allowance they are in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance for some time and it can take months in some health board areas for a decision to be made about the payment of disabled person's maintenance allowance. This is very unsatisfactory. The Minister could streamline the system and make it more efficient.
I welcome the setting up of a new central appeals office. This is an area which has caused much trauma. People are called before the medical referees and they find themselves in a "Catch 22" situation if they are found fit by the medical referee, but their own general practitioner will not sign a certificate stating that they are fit for work. I have had cases of people attending consultants for treatment who have been brought before the medical referees and found capable of work. We all know there are many people in the community who have been succeeding in fooling the system, but we must be conscious of the people who are genuinely unfit for work. Under the present system we have certainly cut people off unjustly. A bus driver came to me recently who had fractured his ankle and claimed social welfare benefit for the first time in almost 25 years. He went before the medical referee and was told to put away his crutch in order to strengthen his leg so that he would be fit for work. He was informed shortly afterwards that he was fit for work, although he was still attending a consultant in Cork. In no way was he fit for work. We must see what can be done for such people.
Major problems have been caused. People end up seeking supplementary welfare allowance. Because they are not fit for work they cannot sign on at the exchange. The medical referee tells them they are fit for work but their GP says otherwise. In many cases people have consultants' reports to back up their GPs advice. I ask the Minister to consider either having consultants appointed or certain categories of patients referred for a consultant's report. In fairness to the medical referees, when people claim to have certain illnesses — Deputy Bell referred to some of them — because of the non-availability of equipment for testing or whatever, the medical referees may decide that some of those people are fit for work. The person who suffers in the end is the patient. I know some people who have been taking the system for a ride but we must not penalise people who are out of work through no fault of their own. The one instance I give is of a person, 25 years at work, who for the first time applies for social welfare and sees people around him getting all sorts of benefits. He has made a major contribution for 25 years, paid his contributions, and he is a victim of the system I referred to. I ask the Minister to see if he can give some relief to such people who have found themselves in a "Catch 22" situation.
I welcome the concession given to people over 80 years of age. I have known social welfare officers call on people and inform them they were not entitled to some of the benefits they already had, such as free fuel and free electricity, because somebody was living with them. Two cases come to mind. A woman now over 80 years of age many years ago had taken a young boy who was not normal out of an institution in Cork. She reared him and he was in receipt of unemployment assistance. She had been in receipt of benefits for a number of years, then all of a sudden, we became so sophisticated in the Department of Social Welfare with computerisation, which I welcome, that it was discovered that many people were in receipt of benefits they were not entitled to. This woman's benefits were cut off. I made representations on her behalf. The social welfare officer was doing his job according to the rule book, but this woman suffered terribly. She was under medical care herself. She went through trauma because she lost the benefits she had had for a number of years. Therefore, I welcome the budget provision for the extension of benefits such as free travel and free electricity for certain pensioners.
Under the Bill a companion will be allowed to travel free with a pensioner in receipt of DPMA who is entitled to free travel. This will benefit particularly handicapped people, including those with a mental handicap. We have had representations from many people in this area where the handicapped person had a travel pass but could go nowhere unless travelling with someone who had to pay his or her fare. I am glad the Minister has seen fit to concede on this. The extension of the national fuel scheme is important and will benefit many people.
This Minister has listened to backbenchers and to representations from Opposition Deputies and he has acted on them and we see the result in this Bill. Generally he has tackled many areas.
Let me refer to local community based areas. The Minister has close contact with people in the community through the social welfare grants — such as the May-field group in Cork who get financial assistance. Here the Minister is showing his foresight in targeting the area in the community most in need. Long-term unemployed people in Cork who have endeavoured to do something for themselves were penalised because if they did a job in the parish, voluntarily or otherwise, they were classed as not being available for work and they were inhibited from doing that kind of work. In this Social Welfare Bill, the Minister has recognised such matters.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister and to appeal to the Opposition, particularly the main Opposition party, to withdraw their amendments. It is farcical. There is great benefit in this Social Welfare Bill but we got negative contributions from some of the people on the other side of the House. It is easy to smile. I feel sorry for them because there is so little they can say against this Bill. We are revolutionising the Department of Social Welfare and the changes can be seen right down to the lowest level of the community. There is still a great deal of work to be done. I appeal to the Opposition to be positive and to give credit where it is due, to the Minister, the Government and the Department for the changes that are taking place which are making life easier and better. We could do a great deal more if we had not inherited some of our problems such as the national debt, inflation, high borrowings, all the things the Opposition like to forget. There seems to be a blockage of minds on that side of the House regarding these matters. If we did not have the doubling of the national debt in a very short time, we would be able to do much more for the people to whom I have referred and we might be able to do some of the things the Opposition Deputies have been looking for.
This Government and this Minister have taken decisions that affect people in a positive way and the evidence is in this Social Welfare Bill. I compliment the Minister and the Government and look forward to working with the Minister as we have done in the last couple of years. I hope that at the end of the day the people will realise that there are Deputies here who have concern for them, and are not just expressing concern. The evidence of that is in the Social Welfare Bill.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá sé soiléir go bhfuil meascán sa Bhille seo. Tá rudaí ann gur féidir linn iad a mholadh, agus rudaí gur féidir linn gearán a dhéanamh fúthu agus, de réir mar a chuala mé anseo inniu agus ar an monitor, tá an meascán sin in órdáidí na gcainteoirí a d'imigh romham.
In having that mixture I suppose you have to have criticism and praise. For the second time in the Chamber I have followed a Cork Deputy and both finished on the same line. They both criticised the negative line the Opposition were taking and then proceeded to be grossly negative themselves. It is a new form of oxymoron.
(Interruptions.)
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is a new form of oxymoron that Cork Deputies tell us to be positive and go on being negative themselves. While I can be negative in certain things, it is part and parcel of it——
About the national debt.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): In fairness, if Deputy Wallace wants to go back to 1977 we can all go back to that time. I do not know why he suddenly picks out a few years.
Back to 1973?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): That is being negative. I suppose no industry has grown so much as the section that deals with social welfare. Unfortunately for many of the officials, they did not get the extra help they needed when the demand for extra services was coming. I compliment in particular the social welfare officers in the community welfare offices throughout the country. From my experience they have been excellent and the Minister has got great value from them. They are the last line of defence in many cases where people have been refused or delayed over unemployment assistance payments, separation payments and so on, and social welfare at community level had to come along and deal with problems.
Last week I decided what teachers should be; this week I will give two qualities that I think social welfare community officers have and need. They need the charity of St. Vincent de Paul and the wisdom of Solomon. In the long run they can never grow so callous that they will not see the human side of any story. At the same time, they have to realise that someone might try to pull the wool over their eyes. They have to be able to judge a situation. I have found they have rescued many people who were in difficulties.
There are long delays in cases which social welfare officers are investigating. Will the Minister consider whether this is because of shortage of staff or the system? Today I telephoned Sligo about a case and they told me that the social welfare officer had got the file on 17 January but that it had not been returned. All the social welfare officer does is to confirm that the person is separated and give details of the person's income. These delays are far too long when investigating allowances to which people are entitled. I cannot understand how our emigrants can go over to England and be fixed up within a week or so when it takes eight weeks here for a file to be sent back for a decision on a case. I hope the Minister will look into this matter?
We welcome all the increases given and quite a lot has been made of the fact that the 5 per cent is well above inflation. The Minister is forecasting an inflation rate of 3 per cent from mid-1990 to mid1991 and I hope he is right. The Taoiseach yesterday managed to double the number of hours we were discussing an Army Bill so I hope the figures in relation to inflation have not gone haywire.
I compliment the Minister on doing something about free travel for the disabled. We passed a motion in my health board area over two years ago and sent it to the Minister. When I arrived here last autumn my first question was in relation to free travel for disabled people. It was a gross injustice over the years and I am glad the Minister did something in this regard. The carer's allowance and the lone parent's allowance are new and welcome. However, I hope there is not a catch in relation to income assessment and that everyone will get the £45 allowance.
I also welcome the appeals office because I have very strong views in relation to medical referees. Indeed, I tabled a question in regard to their qualifications and I was flabbergasted to find that they had to have a minimum of six years' experience. I thought that most of them were anything but medical people because, as far as I am concerned, they are the Paul Daniels of the medical service. They can overrule everything that a specialist or surgeon said and, by looking at a person, decide that he or she is fit for work, which is incredible. The system should be abandoned or changed to make it more flexible. People have been told that they are fit for work although that is not the case.
I know of the case of a welder in heavy steel who had an operation for a hernia. He had not missed work for ten years but, five weeks after the operation, he was declared fit for work. His own doctor said he was not fit for work but the medical referee did not agree. I made inquiries and I was told he did not have to go back to the job he had been doing. I am sure he would have been able to turn a page of the Book of Kells in Trinity College or to lift milk bottles but, of course, that is absurd. Where do people find employment except where they have spent their life working? There is no such thing as special jobs for people recovering from an operation. I cannot accept that people are getting a fair crack of the whip from medical referees at present. People who have been in hospital are simply told they are fit for work. I do not know if the Minister will listen to this complaint but it is a very serious matter to expect people to go back to work when they are unable to do so.
There seems to be a standard answer to women looking for unemployment assistance, which is that they are not available for work. I know of a case where a woman worked all her life. Her five children are reared and have left home and she and her husband occupy the house. The firm for which she worked closed down and she signed for unemployment assistance. Lo and behold, they decided that she was unavailable for work even though, for the first time in her life, she did not have anybody to look after and was free to take up employment. The other answer women get is that they are not looking for work. How can anyone decide that when there are so few jobs? I accept that there must be a certain standard but when you know the people involved it is a different matter. We find it very difficult to accept the rulings given.
Another matter which regularly crops up is the question of people living at home with their families. They can be classed as having an income of £25 — or in one case £39 — which is absurd. It is unfair to the father who is working, paying his PRSI and income tax, to have to hand over £25 to a son or a daughter. If the son or daughter is assessed with means of £25 it is technically the father who has to provide it. Deputy Bell mentioned that the total income of the household is included when it comes to local charges. Sometimes a single unemployed person is receiving about £30 which means that the household is automatically over the limit for the waiver scheme. However, that has been mentioned by so many Deputies I will not go over it again.
I already tabled a question to the Minister about the Freefone system now that social welfare is being dealt with in Sligo. The Minister's answer was that if people ring the Dublin number they will be transferred, free of charge, to Sligo. That would be fine if everyone lived in Dublin but, unfortunately, if somebody rings from Carlow, Kerry, Cork or Donegal, they still have to pay the cost of the call to Dublin. Anyone who makes regular telephone calls knows that it can be very expensive to ring Sligo and to hold on while they look up files and so on. It is part and parcel of the system that there is a delay. The people who are telephoning about payments are those who are awaiting payments and they cannot afford to be in a telephone booth looking at their money disappearing into the telephone. The Minister said that he might consider telephoning people back and something like that will have to be done because people cannot afford the high cost of telephone calls.
I hope an amendment will be tabled to the section on PRSI for the self-employed and farmers. I ask the Minister to consider giving pro rata payments to those who do not have the full ten years as there is a difference of about £8 between the contributory and non-contributory pension. If somebody is short three years he should be cut by £3 and if he is only short one year he might get the full pension. It is indefensible that, as the Minister said in a reply some time ago, in the case of a non-contributory pension 50 per cent of the PRSI payment would not be returned. It is unfair that the farmers and the self-employed should have to contribute to a non-contributory pension. That is a contradiction in itself. It is something that the Minister could readily adjust if he so wishes. As I have said, I hope to put down an amendment on PRSI payments for those who have less than ten years' payments. These people have no choice at present other than to make these payments. They will get back 50 per cent of it and the rest will go towards a non-contributory pension which, as I said, is a contradiction.
Medical certificates get lost on a regular basis. I wonder would it be possible to have medical certificates presented at local offices. This would save a lot of red tape. When they are transferred from one place to the other some of them get lost. This is not an unusual occurrence. There should be a system whereby medical certificates could be supplied to the local office and the information could be conveyed by computer to Dublin. That would save a lot of hassle.
I want to make a special plea to the Minister on behalf of a group of people who are forgotten in Ireland, that is the deaf. Many young people suffer from this handicap but do not appear to be suffering. I was amazed to hear — I hope it was wrong information — that there is only one social worker dealing with the deaf in all of Ireland. I find that incredible considering the seriousness of this handicap. There are about 30 social workers dealing with the blind. I am not for one minute criticising that fact — I am sure that number is not half enough considering the handicap they have to deal with — but I would ask the Minister to take a serious look at the way the deaf in this country are treated.
Deaf people who go through second level education have certain facilities available to them. I have discovered that a third level student who until now has had the facility of what is known as a phonic ear — a disc with two earphones and a microphone which can pick up sound — is now deprived of that facility and has not the slightest idea of what is going on. That person has to read books at home in order to make up for what he is losing out at school. I would appeal to the Minister to make sure that third level institutions have a facility such as the phonic ear so that deaf people can continue with the standards to which they have become accustomed. They have handicap enough in life and they should not be further handicapped because they will get frustrated and may decide to leave school.
I know grants are given for phones for these people whereby they can tap out messages but many people do not know about them. It is very important that a number of social workers be appointed who could give these people information on grants which they can get from the health boards or the Department of Social Welfare. We can hear and speak but these people are cut off and it is important that they be provided with facilities, which may not cost very much. I believe there is a special alarm clock for the deaf which costs about £70. Perhaps that amount is beyond the means of a student attending classes in Dublin. The deaf are not being catered for and I would ask the Minister to consider this matter.
I will speak with the Minister for Health about that matter. The Deputy knows it comes under his responsibility. I have responsibility for the voluntary grants and I was able to give some assistance in that area but I will note what the Deputy has said in regard to clocks.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I accept that. Perhaps part of the responsibility comes under the Department of Education too but, however, I will leave the matter to the Minister. On the social welfare side, I welcome the education scheme that has been introduced. It is very important that people who are unemployed and who want to go back to school have the opportunity of doing so. I know a person in his thirties in my constituency who wanted to go back to do his leaving certificate but unfortunately Carlow was not earmarked as a place with special classes for these people.
It has been included since. Previously there were specific classes run by the Department of Education but we have now brought in a regulation which covers all second level schools.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I welcome that and I congratulate the Minister on it. We should do everything possible to encourage people to go back to school. They are brave people and we should give them a medal as well as providing facilities for them.
The question of fraud has been referred to. God knows I am not defending anyone who defrauds the system because they cause too many problems for the genuine people, but I notice that the cut-off point for payment to them is three months now instead of six months. I wonder is this the best way of punishing them. If they are depending on that money how will they survive for the three months that they are deprived of any payment? Perhaps they will commit crime in order to survive.
The delay in social welfare people coming out to check matters is a problem. There is too much red tape in this area. As I have said before, if you were lucky enough to wake up some morning and hear that every regulation in the Department of Social Welfare was burned in a fire, your life would probably start anew.
You would have to burn the House here as well and the TDs along with it because they make the regulations.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): If that does not happen, maybe the Taoiseach would consider giving the Minister a sabbatical for three months in order to do something about the matter. There are many anomalies in the system, as was pointed out before the Minister came in. I know of a person on supplementary allowance who has been accused of having £38,000 but everyone knows this person has not got the money. I went to the trouble of getting a photocopy of the person's savings account from the social welfare officer and sent it to Sligo on behalf of the person. The office in Sligo told me they had to send it back to the social welfare officer, even though he had already seen it. There are anomalies such as this in the system, as the Minister well knows, and if he could get rid of half of them it would be a great help.
Deputy Bell mentioned the use of plastic cards for pensioners and suggested it would be a very good system. If it was introduced I wonder would the Minister receive a mass of letters from people saying he had taken their money from them. Would old people accept plastic cards? It might be a very simple system but certainly it might——
I carried out a survey in that regard and found that the old people do not want those cards, but the younger people do.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Perhaps people getting the pension for the first time would get used to them but somebody in his eighties might think the Minister had taken away his money and given him a piece of plastic. I thank the Minister for what he has done. Go n-éirí leat in the future.
I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate on the Social Welfare Bill, 1990. The Bill is a comprehensive and detailed one. It proposes important alterations to our existing social welfare schemes and services. It is part of this Government's stepped care programme for continued improvements in social welfare. Since 1987 this Government, the previous Government and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, have shown the commitment to rationalise our social welfare system.
As I have said, the Bill is very comprehensive and it would be unfair of me to take up too much time, so I intend to focus on a number of sections of the Bill. Part II, sections 3 and 4, refer to increased payments for social welfare unemployment benefit and assistance recipients. I welcome the increase in the payments to the elderly, the disadvantaged and particularly for the long term unemployed. I firmly believe that we must keep other unemployment payments and benefits, such as the medical card, etc., under review. Surely it is unfair that individuals in the community and active in the work force, contributing by way of tax, PRSI and health and youth employment levies, can avail of few benefits and no allowances. I believe we must encourage more people into the workforce and we have to increase the differential between those on unemployment benefit or assistance and those who enjoy employment. If we take the example of a married man with two or three children who is in receipt of social welfare and availing of other benefits, such as a medical card, etc., he may find that he would lose all State benefits if we were to obtain employment. This must surely be addressed. We should have a graduated system before a social welfare recipient loses all benefits if he or she were to come off the live register.
However, there are a number of new initiatives in the Bill and it is appropriate that we give due recognition to them. The new carer's allowance is dealt with in sections 17 and 18 of the Bill. This is the first time we are putting in place legislation giving official recognition to carers. This allowance is, of course, a development of the prescribed relative's allowance and provides for an increase in payment and an extension of the categories who will qualify for it. The expert opinion is — and I believe it is recognised — that care in the home is providing a quality of life and a reliable source of care for incapacitated persons. I hope that the new carer's allowance of £45 weekly is just the start of the development of a structure that will encourage more care for incapacitated persons in the home. There are large amounts of money being spent on the care of incapacitated persons either by way of hospital services, welfare homes, subventions to nursing homes and the development of community care services in providing day care centres, ambulance services, day hospitals, taxi charges, home help, respite care, meals on wheels, grants to voluntary organisations and other such services. Taking the global expenditure on these services, we have great potential to develop the carer's allowance recognition of carers. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether a person in receipt of the new carer's allowance for caring for an incapacitated person will be affected if the incapacitated person receives day care services or respite care?
Section 12 deals with the lone parent's allowance, and this is indicative of the retionalisation of our system. We had a rather confusing and complicated array of allowances payable to the widows, widowers, separated, deserted, and unmarried persons. In the case of desertion, I have come across a number of situations where one side blames the other and you have difficulty in proving who deserted whom. This section removes the question of fault; the payments are based on need, ensuring that allowances are paid to one parent and the children in need. This is indeed very welcome. Recently we have seen more and more lone parents raising the family on their own. The lone parent's allowance normally recognises the right of all parents to bring up their children and for the first time provides payments for certain lone parents such as separated spouses and unmarried fathers.
Sections 19 to 22, inclusive, are very interesting and deal with appeals and the setting up of a separate appeals office in the Department. I look forward to the results of the challenges that face these new arrangements for social welfare appeals. In the past I have been advised that social welfare recipients had to undergo nightmarish interviews when appealing decisions. I therefore welcome these new arrangements for a new self-contained and precision made appeals office, which will include private rooms for the hearing of appeals, the appointment of the chief appeals officer and appeals officers and the measures being taken to separate clearly the appeals function from the Department of Social Welfare.
I would like the Minister to look at the following case. An individual who had contributed to the PRSI system for a number of years goes abroad, for example, to the UK, for a period and contributed to their system, when he returns home and cannot get employment he cannot avail of unemployment benefit as he needs one stamp from the time he comes back. I appreciate that he may be entitled to unemployment assistance, but I feel he should be entitled to unemployment benefit in his own right as he had contributed to the system. There are also a number of persons who have contributed to the PRSI over their working lives but for one reason or another they had come out of insurable employment during some period of their working lives. In the case of a CIE bus conductor who had been paying the A1 PRSI contribution who is promoted to the rank of inspector, who no longer pays the A1 contribution and does not avail of voluntary contibutions, he may not realise until he applies for an old age contributory pension that he is short a number of stamps. Indeed, quite recently a constituent of mine who had contributed for many years as a self-employed taxi driver and for a short period — I think the Minister is aware of the 1953 anomaly that exists — was out of insurable employment. When he eventually applied for a contributory old age pension he realised, when it was far too late, that he had not sufficient stamps. I believe this situation must be addressed.
There are many other matters which I wish to refer to in the Bill. The clothing allowance and the allocation of £3 million to assist social welfare recipients to provide school and winter clothing for the children are very welcome. The streamlining of the rates for children and adult dependants, particularly in section 6 of the Bill, which provides that long term social welfare recipients continue to receive child dependant payments for the children up to 20 years of age who remain in full time education, is welcomed. The increase of child benefit to £15.80 per month for the first four children and to £22.90 per month for the fifth child is also welcome. The extension of payment after the death of a spouse, the extension of the national fuel scheme and the fact that invalidity pensioners who transfer to retirement pension retain their entitlements for the free scheme, and that pensioners over 80 years of age can retain their entitlement to free electricity when someone comes to live with them — all of these have to be welcomed.
I welcome the extension of the free travel scheme to allow recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance who may require a guardian or parent to travel with them, to bring along a companion who can travel free of charge. I am aware of a number of cases where recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance were offered the opportunity to avail of sheltered working but because of the concerns expressed by their parents and the fact they would have had to travel to the place of employment by bus they were unable to avail of this opportunity. The extension of this scheme will open up new frontiers for the recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance.
Previous speakers have referred to various measures contained in the Bill. I have before me a copy of the amendment to the Bill tabled by the main Opposition party. Paragraph (a) of the amendment reads "it fails to fundamentally reform the Social Welfare system". It is my understanding that last year the PRSI scheme was extended to cover the self-employed and now we are introducing a carer's allowance and a lone parent's allowance, and flexibility in the social welfare system. For example, one will be able to undertake a course of education or part-time work while continuing to avail of social welfare payments. Given the fact that some attempts have been made to reform the system, I cannot understand why this amendment has been put down.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment reads "it leaves the bulk of the low-paid in the PRSI net". However I understand that this is the first such exemption to be granted. The Minister has stated that those earning £60 per week or less will be exempt from paying PRSI contributions. There are many arguments one could put forward about the way in which this could be implemented but this exemption is still to be welcomed. I am somewhat surprised that the Opposition have tabled this amendment, as not so long ago, as was pointed out by a speaker on this side of the House, they were in Government when they had the opportunity to introduce exemptions of this nature.
How many people are being paid less than £60 per week?
The Deputy's party had the opportunity to introduce such exemptions but they failed to take it. We should not forget that.
The Revenue Commissioners estimate that there are between 50,000 and 60,000. That is where the figures come from. They are not our figures.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment reads "it retains substantial anomalies and multiple means-testing based on gross rather than net incomes". It is our objective to improve payments and this Bill must be seen as part of an attempt to rationalise the system. Paragraph (d) of the amendment reads "it makes only a token gesture towards anti-poverty measures". During the past three years there have been sustained improvements in social welfare payments and this Bill must be seen as part of our care approach. The unemployed have received increases of just over 25 per cent during the past three years and this compares most favourably with the increases granted by the previous Government. Furthermore, it will cost £216 million to implement the measures announced in the budget, yet the Opposition say that it is only a token gesture.
Paragraph (e) of the amendment reads: "it totally fails to develop adequate educational opportunities and voluntary work options for the quarter of a million unemployed and their dependants". Once again they have got their figures wrong as there are not 250,000 unemployed; indeed, this figure is steadily being reduced. What is of more importance is that legislation has been introduced which allows the Minister for Education greater flexibility. This is another reason why I am somewhat surprised that the Opposition have put down this amendment, which I cannot support.
I congratulate the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, for bringing this Bill before the House. I referred to the opportunities the previous Government had but which they failed to take, while previous speakers highlighted the mess we inherited on coming into Government in 1987. It should be remembered that the Minister who introduced this Bill also introduced the Social Welfare Act, 1981. This Bill is an improvement on that Act and is substantial legislation. The fact that the Minister introduced that Act in 1981 and is now bringing this Bill before the House in 1990 shows his commitment in this area. As I said earlier, it is Government policy to make improvements in the social welfare system and I commend the Bill to the House.
There are a number of points I want to make on this major Bill but before doing so I would like to take up a number of the points made by Deputy Callely. The amendment put down by the Fine Gael Party highlights some of the anomalies in the system. In relation to the number of unemployed, 250,000 is a conservative estimate, because if we took into account the number unemployed and the number who have emigrated, the figure would be much greater. Unfortunately, those people had no option but to emigrate. It is not my intention to get involved in a political argument, as many homes throughout the country depend on the social welfare system for their main source of income. I want to be as positive as I can rather than negative and therefore would like to welcome some aspects of the Bill. For example, the lone parent's allowance, the carer's allowance, the increases in social welfare payments and the establishment of a social welfare appeals office are to be welcomed.
On becoming a public representative I was shocked to discover the number of queries from social welfare recipients. Many difficulties in the system have been highlighted to me. There is concern about the length of time it takes the Department to make a decision in regard to the payment of unemployment assistance. I wonder why it is necessary to have so many sections in a Department dealing with the various schemes. People have to go all over the place to find the relevant section and obtain a response to their queries. I wonder why there is a need for all the red tape in regard to the schemes.
I have no doubt that all public representatives have expressed their concern about the delays in the payment of unemployment assistance, disability benefit and so on. It is unacceptable that there should be long delays in reaching decisions with regard to such applications. We should bear in mind that the people involved may be in dire need of a social welfare benefit. It is up to the Department to expedite all applications and to have payments made promptly.
It is disgraceful that it should take so long for a person to receive unemployment assistance. A person who applies to a social welfare office for assistance will have to wait from five to 14 weeks for payment, but if that individual approaches their local health board they will be given a decision on an application for supplementary welfare allowance almost immediately. I cannot fathom how a health board official can make a decision on the spot and that the Department, with all the facilities at their disposal, can take up to five weeks to make a decision.
The Department are governed by legislation and that is the basic difference. However, I accept that there should not be delays.
The Minister has an opportunity to make radical changes in the system and he should do so. I cannot understand why it should take the Department so long and I should like the Minister to investigate that complaint.
I agree with the amendment tabled by Deputy Flaherty to the Bill. The first reason advanced by Deputy Flaherty for not supporting the Bill is that it retains substantial anomalies and multiple means-testing based on gross rather than net incomes. We must give that issue our serious attention. It is wrong to take gross income into consideration. Health boards and other agencies take the gross income into consideration when dealing with applications for medical cards and so on. That is unfair because it does not take account of the financial commitments of families. Under the existing means testing system it is not possible to ascertain if the family are finding it difficult to exist on their income. We must take into consideration the financial outgoings of a family and their net income. There are many families in need of social welfare, or other help such as medical cards, but they are debarred because gross incomes are taken into consideration. I appeal to the Minister to consider changing that provision.
Deputy Flaherty also stated that she is opposing the Bill because it totally fails to develop adequate educational opportunities and voluntary work options for the 250,000 unemployed and their dependants. I agree with that sentiment. I was glad to hear the Minister reassure my colleague, Deputy Browne, in regard to those attending second level schools but I wonder why the concession was not extended to those attending third level courses. Are those who pursue third level courses entitled to social welfare benefits? A person in Cork who was in receipt of social welfare benefit while at secondary school succeeded in obtaining the requisite number of points to gain entry to university. Unfortunately, once there was a threat to withdraw the social welfare benefit if he went to university he had to turn down the offer of a place at one of the college's faculties.
A pilot scheme along the lines suggested by the Deputy will be introduced shortly. The problem is a lot greater than the Deputy realises.
I appreciate that but individuals who do everything possible to gain educational qualifications should be encouraged, even if they decide to go on to third level education. I accept that money is always a problem as far as such schemes are concerned.
I welcome the introduction of the carer's allowance and the increase in the rate of benefits under other schemes. However, under the means testing system those on the borderline do not qualify for benefit. That is a big problem for many people, particularly those living in rural areas. The carer's allowance, which is an extension of the prescribed relative's allowance, discriminates against those living in rural Ireland. In my constituency agricultural holdings are small and the financial return from them is very low. It is unfortunate that under the new scheme those who get a return from an agricultural holding, irrespective of its size, do not qualify for the carer's allowance. I am referring to the people who look after the elderly and the handicapped, the dedicated people in our society. Those who take on that responsibility are dedicated whether they live in rural Ireland or in the cities. I accept that to extend the provisions of the scheme will cost more money but in the long term it will mean a saving to the State. We should do all in our power to keep those people at home. Most Irish families will keep their elderly and handicapped relatives at home if it is financially possible.
I would like to state an example where another anomaly lies, that is in the area of unemployment assistance for farmers and of the way in which the means test is carried out. If a farmer is seeking unemployment assistance he is means tested by the local social welfare officer. The price of cattle at 1987-88 prices is taken into consideration though, as everyone is aware, cattle prices have fallen dramatically in the past 12 to 18 months. It is unfair to means test an individual who cannot obtain the amounts of money provided for in the guidelines laid down by the Department of Social Welfare. This is a matter that should be looked at immediately. If the price of cattle increased in the next six or eight months there should be some means available, through legislation, whereby the means test could be varied.
I would like now to deal with social welfare fraud. Since the Minister took office much money has been saved in this grey area. I congratulate him on that achievement. However, the Department may have become obsessive in relation to fraud so far as social welfare is concerned. A special group was set up — whose name I cannot recall — to deal with this issue. I have constituents, and I would think this applies to every Deputy in the House, who have had the experience of these groups visiting local areas and speaking with ten or 15 people who were in receipt of unemployment assistance or disability benefit. This practice is nothing short of total and utter intimidation because these people were told that the Department were aware they were working. A number of constituents came to me very worried and very anxious because what was said to them was totally untrue. These bullyboy tactics in the long term will create problems rather than alleviate them. I would ask the Minister to examine the matter so that it does not continue on the scale on which it has occurred in the past and to ensure that if these people are going into an area they have their facts and do not behave in a threatening or intimidating manner.
Disability benefit has caused some problems. Most Deputies have dealt with this issue and with the question of medical referees deciding on whether a person is able to work. This is a difficult area to sort out properly. There are people who are genuinely unable to work but a medical referee may look at such a person and decide he or she is able to work and should go to work. I recall being in the House on the last day when social welfare questions were taken and the Minister stated that possibly the problem was one of mental attitude, that people might think they were not fit for work.
That was an example.
If that was an example I do not know what kind of people he should employ as medical referees, perhaps psychiatrists would be of some help. Unfortunately there are many people who are unable to work but by some psychic powers which medical referees have they state that such people should be working.
There is one example I would like to give the Minister and it relates to the whole area of bureaucracy and the frustration of social welfare recipients and public representatives in this regard. I congratulate the Minister on introducing the lone parent's allowance because it is putting together unmarried mothers and widowers in this respect and is getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy. I had a constituent who was called before a medical referee. On the date in question the person was ill and sent in a doctor's certificate. Because the doctor's certificate did not state the actual day and date the medical interview took place, the woman was requested to provide another one. She was ill and had to remain in bed for a further week. The Department of Social Welfare did not accept that and that woman had to forward three certificates all of the same date; even then they were not accepted. As a new Deputy I put down a parliamentary question on the matter and was told it had been investigated and that the Department would accept the certificate. I do not want to be totally negative but the person who had called the Department of Social Welfare on numerous occasions should have been entitled to the same answer as I got when I put down the parliamentary question. Until we do something positive we will still have those problems.
I compliment the Minister on the initiative he has taken. This is a very substantial Social Welfare Bill. It goes 25 per cent to 40 per cent of the way towards a total overhauling of the system. As a country we are not enticed towards changing too quickly but there are substantial changes that will have to be made in our social welfare system in the not too distant future. I hope the Minister will take them on board in the short term.
I join with the other speakers in paying tribute to the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, who has introduced in this Social Welfare Bill the largest amount of social welfare legislation introduced in any such Bill in over 40 years. In many ways this gives the lie to the many comments and analyses of Fianna Fáil Governments of recent years to the effect that we have somehow veered to the Right or are a party of the Right. The performance of the Minister in the Department of Social Welfare gives the lie to that impression because he has been extremely consistent in overhauling the social welfare system and in making it responsive to the real needs of the poorer sections of our society. We saw the Fine Gael Party at their recent Árd Fheis apparently moving to the Left but, as Hugh Munroe in a recent article in the Evening Press pointed out, that in many ways is a tribute to the Fianna Fáil Party because it is an indication that Fine Gael accept, as many others do, that for many years Fianna Fáil have had the overwhelming support of the working class people in our society. That is no accident. It is as a result of the party's own inherent philosophy, which is to care for the lesser sections of society and to create a society in which equality of opportunity is available to all.
That philosophy has been continued and implemented by this Government and by the previous Government during their period in office. It is very important to put this on the record. Fianna Fáil are very close to the people; they know what their needs are and they are very anxious to improve their living standards. I want to pay special tribute to the Minister for Social Welfare Deputy Woods, who has taken a number of initiatives in recent years and continues to take an innovative approach towards the social welfare system by trying to help the less well off in our society.
The general increases in this Bill more than match the rate of inflation. The Minister is to be praised for this. People have been impressed by many of the initiatives in the Bill, particularly the carer's allowance. The carer's allowance represents a major step in the evolution of the social welfare system and will help to bring the family back to the forefront in the care for the elderly. For the first time in our legislative history official recognition has been given to the role of the person who cares for the elderly in the community. I believe this measure will have major repercussions on the institutionalised care of the elderly. In time it should lead to a significant reduction in the number of old people who are very often prematurely sent into institutions. This in turn could result in savings in the health area, thereby releasing even greater resources for the care of the elderly in the community. I think the Minister said that the family must remain at centre stage in caring for the elderly and incapacitated, and that the family unit represents the best means for channelling State resources towards that end.
I suppose in many respects institutionalised care for the elderly started with the industrialised era. In pre-industrial societies the family catered for the elderly, the incapacitated, the mentally handicapped and so forth. There were simply no institutions to which elderly people could be sent. With the industrial revolution, the growth of cities and urbanisation, we witnessed a growth in health institutions and institutions for the mentally handicapped. The pendulum swung too far and people sent elderly relatives into institutions to get them out of the way, so to speak. In many respects the carer's allowance will redress the balance and give due recognition to the people who have cared for the elderly.
The new clothing allowance to help social welfare recipients provide for their children's school and winter clothing is a very practical response to the difficulties being faced by the poorer sections of our society. The months of September and October have often been the times of greatest financial hardship for the parents of large families who have to meet the enormous cost of preparing for the new school year. The allocation of £3 million should go a long way towards easing the burden on those people. I know the Minister received numerous representations from Deputies and various organisations dealing with welfare and poverty issues asking for some form of allowance to help large families when their need is greatest. The introduction of this allowance is a very practical response.
While welcoming the success of the vocational training opportunities scheme and the part-time educational initiative, much more still remains to be done in the educational area. We should move towards the stage where anyone coming out of second level schools who cannot immediately find employment should be automatically given an allowance as well as the opportunity to pursue some further education or training. I think regulations were introduced last September to facilitate long-term unemployed persons to participate in second level courses while receiving unemployment payments. This was a major step in the right direction.
I am delighted the Minister told the House that he intends to announce shortly details of a pilot scheme which will allow the long-term unemployed to pursue third level education in the future. The long-term unemployed should be entitled and encouraged to pursue third level education. I wish the Minister well in his initative. As a general principle, an unemployed person should be entitled to pursue educational opportunities at both second and third level without the welfare system putting obstacles in his or her way.
I know the Minister has made tremendous efforts in this regard but has come up against numerous bureaucratic obstacles within the Department of Education. Essentially this is a matter which has to be resolved between both Departments. With the expansion in the post-leaving certificate courses which we have witnessed in recent years, particularly in the vocational sector, many young people of 19 and 20 years who have completed their leaving certificate and are now entering vocational education programmes and various other schemes under the auspices of the Department of Education are receiving no allowance. In many ways the absence of a welfare payment is stopping people from taking the educational road and directing them elsewhere. This will have a negative impact on society as a whole. The welfare system should — I know the Minister is moving in this direction — encourage people to stay in education so that they can improve their capacity to gain employment in the future. The only way many lower skilled workers who have been on the long-term unemployment register would be able to gain fruitful employment in the future is to learn new skills and be given the opportunity to pursue further education and training. This will enable them to take up jobs and it will be possible to recruit them for many of the new job opportunities which arise from time to time.
I should like to draw the means testing of young people to the Minister's attention. This system of means testing should be reviewed because young people who choose to stay at home with their parents and families are being discriminated against in some ways. Means testing the family income often means that the young person who has applied for unemployment assistance receives a pittance, or nothing at all. The present system encourages young people to leave home and in the process this contributes to the creation of greater social problems in larger towns and cities. The Minister should review this entire situation. A young person who has left school and reached adulthood should be entitled to receive a basic social welfare payment, irrespective of the income of his or her parents, brothers and sisters. That should be an established principle. For far too long young people have been receiving £5 and £7 unemployment assistance because of the income of their parents, brothers and sisters.
Other areas of the Bill deserve commendation. I welcome in particular the rationalisation in the lone parent's allowance. Up until now there were six different payments in this area and the Minister has rationalised these into one lone parent's allowance. I congratulate him on doing this. I also welcome the move to allow the companions of a recipient of a disabled person's maintenance allowance a free travel pass. People have been calling for this measure for some time. I welcome this very charitable and decent response by the Minister.
The family income supplement scheme is one mechanism by which people on lower wages can top up their income, particularly if they have large families. It is regrettable that the take-up of this scheme is not as high as the Department of Social Welfare estimated. Some people who are entitled to benefit under this scheme have not applied for it. The word must go out loud and clear that people should apply for assistance under the family income supplement scheme so that their position will be improved. I welcome the recent moves made by the Minister in advertising the scheme more widely in order that more people may benefit from it.
I welcome the Bill and wish the Minister well in his endeavours to bring in further reforms in the social welfare code.
I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking on social welfare. The Minister said that massive amounts of money, £7.5 million per day, were being spent on social welfare. That is a figure of considerable magnitude, but it must be balanced against the numbers who are dependent on it — the 233,000 unemployed, people on disability benefit, old age pensioners and all the other categories. We have to look at what it means to the individual. Unemployment benefit has been increased from £45 to £48 per week; that is their lot from Irish society. Unemployment assistance goes up from £42 to £45. Society is not over-providing for these people. The increases are indeed small and inflation will cut deeply into them.
Any public representative will know of the frustration expressed by the recipients of a variety of services within social welfare, but no two areas cause as much frustration as the appeals structure for unemployment assistance and disability benefit. I appreciate that there are problems because of the substantial volume of payments. There is nothing more frustrating for a person, however, than a protracted wait for a decision. This might be alleviated by providing additional staff for certain areas. There is a particular problem in relation to decisions made by medical referees. It is not my intention to contest the decision of a professional person but many of their decisions seem amazing, with referrals to a second and third medical referee. There seems to be a total lack of recognition of the reports of consultants and others involved with the claimant. Decisions appear to be based exclusively on the certificate of the medical practitioner. The Minister would do well to have an in-depth examination of that whole procedure so that where a consultant is involved his evidence would be borne in mind. If this were done, there would not be the dissatisfaction that exists at the moment among people who feel they are being thrown off just to save money. I accept that is not the situation, but consultants' opinions are not receiving the emphasis they should.
Let me relate the position of a person who has been turned down by two medical referees and by a lay deciding officer and who will not be allowed back to employment by his employer's medical officer. This man has fallen between two stools and is suffering accordingly. Surely this sort of case should not arise if there was some co-ordination between the medical people in the Department of Social Welfare and those acting on behalf of the employer. In this case the person cannot go back to work, but at the same time he is denied the benefits for which he has contributed because the medical referees in the Department of Social Welfare have determined that he is capable of working. There should be a general ruling on such cases so that no insured worker can find himself entitled to neither disability benefit nor to resume employment.
There is a general welcome for the new carer's allowance and the fact that the existing tight strictures of the prescribed relatives allowance are being relaxed so that the housewife will for the first time be included. We would all acknowledge that in the main it is the housewife who has been carrying the burden of caring for her own parents or the parents of her spouse and doing an exceptionally good job. It is disappointing, however, that there will be a means test for this allowance. That is a pity at a time when there is so much need for this service in the community to obviate the necessity to place aged people in homes or institutions. The Minister should have opted for a wider discretionary base. There is no means test for child benefit; it is one allowance to which the housewife has automatic claim. I would suggest that this carer's allowance should be treated in the same way and should be given automatically to the housewife, generally in the younger age group, who is catering for a family and a spouse and at the same time carrying out tremendous humanitarian work caring for the aged within her house. If that is not done the number of people who will qualify will be exceptionally low. The Bill has merit but it needs to be capable of being utilised by the incapacitated and others in the community by widening the base of the means testing structure.
Debate adjourned.