Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Mar 1991

Vol. 406 No. 5

Social Welfare Bill, 1991: Second Stage.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I move:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill provides for further significant improvements in our social welfare services and continues the Government's policy of care and support for those who depend on social welfare. It provides for the increases in social welfare announced in the budget; the extension of social insurance benefits to part-time workers; the introduction of pro-rata pensions for people affected by mixed insurance; and other provisions to improve schemes and administration.

Developments in social welfare in recent years have been broadly in line with the framework outlined by the Commission on Social Welfare. Substantial progress has been made under each of the main headings identified by the Commission namely: improving basic payments, improving child income support, broadening the social insurance base, and improving the delivery of services.

Despite constraints in public expenditure, extra resources have been provided for social welfare. These have been used mainly to improve rates of payment. All payments have kept ahead of inflation. Special increases have been given to those on the lowest payments and groups with special needs, in particular families and the long term unemployed. A number of new schemes have been introduced for groups with special needs for example the carer's allowance, lone parent's allowance, and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. This year again, particular attention has been given to workers on low incomes with families through further improvements in the family income supplement scheme and family tax exemptions.

The new Programme for Economic and Social Progress has set the agenda for social welfare during the nineties. It sets out to meet the needs identified by the Commission on Social Welfare. Over the term of the programme, the Government are committed to improving the level of payments to the tune of £400 million in 1990 terms as the resources of the economy grow. I am delighted that the first steps towards implementing the Social Welfare commitments in the programme have been taken in this year's Bill. Much has been said about whether one is better off at work. Those representatives in Fine Gael should make their minds up now about whether they want to give increases to those who are unemployed and others dependent on social welfare. They should not at the start of business complain about taxation and social welfare and then say during a debate on the Social Welfare Bill that they want increasing social welfare payments.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): You always did it.

Dr. Woods

The Deputies should make up their minds as to what they want. I want to set the record straight on a number of misleading headlines in the media recently. I am sorry that Deputies Mitchell and Bruton are not here to hear this, because they keep going on like an old gramaphone record saying the same thing again and again——

Mr. Connaughton

It hurt, obviously.

Dr. Woods

——without relating it to the facts of the case. I will give some of the facts and the Deputies can consider them and go back to their Leader and tell him the facts and ask him not to make an ass of himself so frequently in the House.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Connaughton

You took £3 million out of the Department of Labour, Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister without interruption.

Dr. Woods

It has been suggested that there are no incentives for the unemployed to go back to work. That is patently untrue. While unemployment has increased substantially since 1987, by 28 per cent in real terms, we have also ensured that people are better off working than on the dole — up to 40 per cent better off. This was achieved by boosting the family income supplement and by introducing family tax exemptions for lower paid workers to the tune of £16.5 million. That is a substantial increment for those at work on low pay.

A number of hypothetical models have been used in recent media speculation. But let us look at the situation of real people. A family at work with four children and earning £160 a week gross will now end up with £175.20 a week cash. This is £44.20 a week more than if they were receiving unemployment benefit. A family at work with four children and earning £180 a week gross will end up with £168.45 a week cash. They are £35.08 a week better off than if they were receiving unemployment benefit with pay related benefit. A young person getting a job at £115 a week is still some £36.00 a week better off than on the dole. That is after taking into consideration all PRSI, tax and other deductions.

Through our progressive social policy over the last three years we have raised the real standard of living of both the unemployed and those families at work on low pay. We have reached the Commission on Social Welfare's priority rates while increasing the incentive to work. A four child family earning £160 per week in 1987 were only £22 better off at work than on the dole. I would ask Deputy Bruton to note the fact that in 1991 that incentive to work has doubled to £44.20 a week.

The question of loss of extra benefits for families if they go back to work has also been spoken about in a misleading way. I want to put this into perspective as there is no point picking an odd case here and there and claiming this is true for all social welfare recipients. I repeat, families on family income supplement do not lose the medical card and I ask Deputies to please convey that fact to those producing these hypothetical models so that they get their facts straight once and for all. I am aware that they did lose the medical card during the term of office of the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition but they do not lose it now.

Mr. Connaughton

Many of them still do.

Dr. Woods

Surveys have shown that only 5 per cent of unemployment benefit claimaints live in local authority houses. It is, therefore grossly misleading to suggest that a rise in differential rents is a major disincentive for all unemployed people. The Commission on Social Welfare report, indicated that almost half of those on unemployment payments have no rent or mortgage. Indeed, the much quoted four child family, the one Deputy Mitchell keeps talking about — I am so sorry he is not here listening to me — represents only 4 per cent of the total number of recipients of unemployment payments. I appeal to the Deputies not to come back to the House again and again quoting hypothetical models and grossly misrepresenting the facts. Let us stick to the facts and talk about the real needs of social welfare recipients. It is a gross misrepresentation to use such an example to illustrate these so-called disincentives. The facts are that people are much better off at work than on the dole. There are, of course, many psychological reasons people are much better off at work than on the dole and I think most Deputies recognise this.

Not only are we including in the Bill the incentive I have spoken about, but we are introducing a new incentive to take up work. This should appeal to Deputies on the other side of the House as well as to my own backbenchers who mentioned it to me. Deputies will be aware that there are many seasonal jobs or short term work opportunities available for three, six or nine months, particularly in the tourism, fishing and farming industries. Many long term unemployed people may be reluctant to take up these jobs because they lose the extra benefits associated with their long term unemployed status if they work for more than 20 weeks. I am removing this disincentive in the Bill. Unemployed people can now take up these jobs for up to a year and return to their long term payment without any fuss or loss of extra benefits. This is an important additional incentive and I hope it will be welcomed by the House.

The social welfare package in this Bill will cost £164 million in a full year and £71 million this year. The gross expenditure on social welfare is now over £3 billion a year. Following this Bill after three years of consistent progress all long term social welfare payments will reach or exceed the commission's priority rate of £54.60 for 1991; in other words, the lowest long term rate is now £55 while others stand at over £60. This year's 11 per cent increase for those on short term payments is a major step towards achieving the commission's priority rate for all social welfare recipients by 1993.

The main improvements in rates are a 4 per cent general increase in all social welfare and health board payments; special increases of up to 11 per cent for those on the lowest payments; a significant improvement in child income support for families on social welfare and those at work on low pay; a new minimum child dependant allowance of £12 a week to those on social welfare; and the number of child dependant rates have been streamlined and reduced to three rates whereas four years ago — please note the significance of this — there were 36.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The world began four years ago.

Dr. Woods

I ask the Deputies to recognise this progress because if they do not others will. In addition, the higher rate of child benefit, £22.90, will be paid from the fourth child onwards. Child dependant increases will be paid up to age 21 for school going children of long term recipients and the allowance will continue throughout the summer months where the child is not receiving that payment in his or her right. I repeat this because no one seems to have noticed it to date: the allowance will continue throughout the summer months where the child is not receiving that payment in his or her own right; in other words it will not be stopped during the summer and restarted from September which has been the tradition.

The family income supplement paid to people at work has been substantially improved. A family with two children on £140 a week will get an extra £7 a week in addition to improvements under the child tax exemption limits. School going children up to age 21 can now be included and the restriction on the amount of payment based on family size is gone. This is a further new benefit.

The maximum personal rate for the carer's allowance is being increased from £45 to £50.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Woods

As someone who never introduced such an allowance, I do not think the Deputy should shout too much about that.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): We will.

Dr. Woods

I know that the Deputy is under instructions to shout and roar one way or the other, so we will just wait to hear what he has to say later.

A new minimum adult dependant payment of £33 a week is being introduced for all unemployment payments and disability benefit, an increase of 6.5 per cent, and widowed people and parents will continue to receive adult dependant or child dependant allowances for six weeks after the death of a spouse or child. Again, I hope the House will warmly welcome this. Spouses and parents go through a very difficult period at that time and this benefit will be of considerable help to them.

We now have the lowest inflation rate in the EC,2.7 per cent. Against his background, the general increase of 4 per cent provided for in this Bill will clearly keep those on social welfare ahead of inflation. This increase alone costs £104 million in a full year and £45 million this year. It more than meets the Government's commitment to the social partners to protect all payments against inflation.

But we are doing more than this. Again this year, we are giving special increases of up to 11 per cent to those on the lowest payments. This is the fourth year in a row in which extra resources have been provided to raise the standards for the lowest paid. The personal rate of supplementary welfare allowance and short term unemployment assistance will be increased by over 11 per cent from July. Families on these payments will receive increases of over 9 per cent. As a result, some 100,000 people will benefit from these special increases. Families of those on unemployment benefit and disability benefit are also getting special increases ranging up to 7 per cent.

Let us see the effect of the increases during the past four years. In 1986, the personal rate of long term unemployment assistance was £36.70 a week. From next July, it will be £55, an increase of £18.30 or just under 50 per cent. A married man with four children has received an increase of £38.85, or 40 per cent in the same period. An old age pensioner couple received £91.50 in 1986. They will now get £110, an increase of £8.50 or just over 20 per cent.

The following examples illustrate the increases we will pay from July next. A couple with two children on long term-term unemployment assistance will receive £112 a week, an increase of £7, while a couple with 4 children will get an extra £9 bringing their payment to £136 a week. A couple with four children on short term unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare allowance will receive £131.00, an increase of £11.00, and a couple with six children will get an extra £13.00, and a total payment of £155.00 each week.

It is quite extraordinary to listen to people opposite telling the media that we are doing nothing for children or for families. The facts show clearly that we have placed the weight of the money on families. We have given the bulk of our support to families in hard cash terms. That is what our Social Welfare Bills have been about over the past three years. Large numbers of people benefit from the increases we are giving under this Bill.

A lone parent under 66 with three children on an asistance payment will receive an additional £3.50, giving a total weekly payment of £97. A widow or deserted wife on a contributory payment with four children will receive £120.60 which is an increase of £4.60. An old age pensioner with an adult dependant on a non-contributory pension will get an extra £3, giving them a payment of £82.50 a week. A couple both over 66 and under 80, on a contributory old age pension will get £110 a week.

Some reference has been made to old age pension levels and the fact that they have been increased by the lower percentage. It is well ahead of inflation and our purpose is to bring everybody up to the commission's rates. Everybody in this House declared this was what we were to do. We have kept everybody ahead of inflation and given extra increases to old age pensioners, widows, deserted wives and others on assistance levels, since these were the lower rates. Very special increases have been given to those on the lowest rates of unemployment allowance and supplementary welfare allowance. That is where the greatest special increases have been given. The various bodies involved agreed this was the right way to go.

We had to bring up the payments of those on the lowest levels. That gives them more money in their pockets. It may be said that if they had less money there would be more incentive to work. I make no apology for giving real increases to people on the lowest payments. It was right to do it and I stand by it. If people at work are not being paid enough, that is another day's work. We have boosted their position through the family income supplement scheme and the child related tax exemptions. That has been most helpful.

Three years ago, in 1988, we extended social insurance to the self-employed. This was an historic development in social security provision. I recently signed regulations bringing almost 21,000 part-time workers into the protection of the social welfare system from 6 April next in line with a commitment given in the new programme.

These workers will now have access to social welfare benefits and pensions. For the first time they will be able to claim weekly payments from the Department of Social Welfare when they are unable to work because of illness, maternity or unemployment. They will also be entitled to a pension on retirement.

Part-time workers are the last remaining significant group to be brought into the protection of the social insurance system. They are usually women working in traditionally low paid and often insecure employment. I am very pleased to include these workers in the social welfare system in line with the commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.

Many families who are living on low incomes rely heavily on the income from part-time work. It is of vital importance therefore that these women have the security of the social welfare system to fall back on at times when they cannot work and in the longer term for their own pensions. The regulations which I have made specified an earnings threshold of £40 per week for inclusion in the system. There has been some speculation that this threshold is open to manipulation by employers who want to evade their obligations to their employees. The £40 threshold was set to strike a reasonable balance which would ensure that those who need them have reasonable access to benefits while at the same time minimising the cost for employers. The weekly cost of full social insurance coverage to an employer at the threshold is £4.50 per employee per week.

For that small sum an employee gets all cover. Is there anyone who does not want to give that cover? Are there employers who feel they cannot provide £4.50 per week for each worker in those circumstances? If so, let them come forward. I want everybody to know them. I assure the House that I will not hesitate to review the threshold if employers reduce hours or wages to exclude these vulnerable employees who are mainly women.

The new arrangements for part-time workers are: social insurance cover is being provided for all private sector employees earning £40 or more a week; the condition under which employees are insurable if working for 18 hours or more has been abolished and the arrangement whereby employers had to establish whether or not an employee was mainly dependent on earnings from that employment has also been abolished; the overall PRSI structure is being simplified by the abolition of certain minor PRSI classes and this is an opportunity to standardise the classes; part-time workers will have access to the full range of social insurance payments — unemployment and sickness benefits will be payable on a pro-rata basis to insured people earning below £70 a week and other benefits such as old age and retirement pensions will be paid at the full rate; part-time workers will be required to pay the Class A contribution of 5.5 per cent, except where their income falls below £60 a week. Employers will contribute at a rate of 12.2 per cent in respect of each employee. They are also contributing 0.5 per cent, so, effectively, the rate is less than 12.2 per cent. In certain sectors the majority of employees earn less than £60 per week and they will not have to pay the 5.5 per cent because of the exemption that applies.

Sections 18, 19 and 20 enable me to make regulations to set out the details of social insurance entitlements for part-time workers.

I am delighted to tell the House that we are solving once and for all, the problems of people with a mixed insurance record. Pro-rata pensions for persons who failed to qualify for old age, contributory, and retirement pensions because of their mixed insurance records are provided for in sections 23 to 27. This initiative will be of great benefit to some workers, such as employees in CIE who previously lost out on a social welfare pension when they retired.

The rate of pro-rata pension payable to the people concerned will be in proportion to the period of insurance they have completed at class A. These arrangements are similar to those which apply under EC regulations to persons with a mixture of insurance in a number of different EC member states. I am sure a number of Deputies will welcome this because several Deputies have made the case for these workers over the years.

Section 7 provides for improvements in the family income supplement. Section 8 provides for the extension of the carer's allowance to carers of recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance and carers of people getting a pension from an EC member state or from a country with whom Ireland has a bilateral social security agreement. This extension will take place from July.

Again, Deputies have raised the case of people from other member states and they will be covered now by this improvement.

Section 11 provides for the introduction of a new minimum weekly payment of £5 for young people with an unemployment assistance entitlement whose only means are derived from board and lodgings in the family home. Such a minimum payment has been sought by Deputies on both sides of the House for many years.

Section 41 provides for the exemption of income arising from casual employment as a home help and from the Haemophilia HIV Trust Fund for the purposes of the means-tested social assistance schemes.

Sections 3 to 5 provide for the increases from July next in the various payments. Section 6 provides for extending the age limits for payment of child dependant increases with certain long term social welfare payments from 20 to 21 years where the child is in full time education. This measure will take effect from September. This section also provides that family income supplement will continue to be paid where the child is between 18 and 21 years and is in full-time education.

Section 7 increases the amount of family income below which FIS is payable and also provides for the abolition of the maximum payments which were related to family size. The new arrangements will take effect from 25 July next.

Section 9 provides for the first time for the payment of an adult or child dependant allowance to be continued for six weeks after the death of a spouse or child. This recognises the burden which parents and widowed people have to endure following the sad loss of a child or spouse. It is intended to ease the adjustment in the early stages of bereavement.

Section 10 makes provision for the abolition of the condition for entitlement to the full duration of 390 days of unemployment benefit at the maximum rate. Up to now a claimant must have had a yearly average of 40 PRSI contributions in the seven years preceding the claim. This year's increase in the rate of short term unemployment assistance has rendered this condition unnecessary. We are going a bit further than that. The section reduces the importance of that condition and we have agreement to remove it altogether. Section 11 provides for improvements in the means test for young people which I mentioned earlier.

Sections 12 to 15 relate to PRSI contributions generally. The headlines in this morning's papers stress the increases in the ceiling for PRSI contributions. I want to point out that this increase is the normal annual increase related to the movement of wages which keeps the social insurance fund functioning. If this normal increase did not take place, the social insurance fund would gradually go out of existence. The increase in the PRSI ceiling is the normal increase related to the movement in wages during the year.

Sections 12 and 13 provides for the customary increase in the earnings ceilings up to which social insurance contributions are payable. Again this year, I am glad to say that the rate of contribution is not being increased. Section 12 provides for the increase in the ceiling for employers and employees. The increase in respect of the self-employed is provided for in section 13. Section 14 provides for a new minimum contribution for certain self-employed persons while section 15 provides for a new minimum contribution for voluntary self-employed contributors. These changes will take effect from 6 April 1991.

Section 16 provides for a new "floor" for pay related benefit purposes. Section 17 provides for the easing of the contribution conditions for the receipt of unemployment and disability benefits. The current condition requires at least 48 contributions paid or credited in the governing contribution year to receive benefit at the maximum rate. This is now being reduced to 39. Please note that the contribution requirement is being reduced to 39.

Sections 18 to 20 provide for the new conditions for receipt of disability benefit, unemployment benefit and invalidity pension for part-time workers. I have already outlined the arrangements which will apply. The PRSI contributions, which will be payable by part-time workers from 6 April 1991, will become effective for benefit entitlement in January 1993.

Section 21 provides for the standardisation of maternity provisions from a date to be prescribed. This will coincide with the introduction of legislation extending maternity leave under the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, to all women working more than eight hours rather than 18 as at present and will involve the discontinuance of the old maternity allowance scheme.

Under legislation which has recently been introduced by the Minister for Labour, the number of hours required to be worked in a week in order to qualify for maternity leave under the Maternity Protection of Employees Act, 1981, is being reduced from 18 to eight. This will mean that all women in employment except certain workers in short term contracts, will be covered by the maternity allowance scheme of women in employment. The necessary commencement order will coincide with the effective date of changes to the labour legislation.

Section 22 removes the category of outworkers and manager of an employment office from the list of excepted employment for PRSI purposes. They will in future be covered by full social insurance or self-employed contributions, as appropriate. Sections 23 to 27 contain the necessary legislative changes to provide for the introduction of pro-rata pensions for those people affected by the mixed insurance anomaly. Sections 28 to 38 provide for various technical provisions to tighten up in the area of control of fraud and abuse.

The Government are committed to the elimination of fraud and abuse in the social welfare system and to reducing the effect of the black economy. A sum of £20 million of taxpayers money will be saved this year in a major new crackdown on PRSI related fraud. The crackdown will involve overhauling the PRSI registration system; ensuring that employers comply with their PRSI obligations for their employees; and the recruitment of additional staff costing £1 million to investigate firms and detect defaulting employers. Highly successful anti-fraud measures compelling employers in the construction, forestry, cleaning and security industries to notify my Department about new employees will now be extended to other sectors as a matter of priority.

Inspectors of my Department have carried out surveys on almost 2,400 firms to ensure that employers are complying with the new measures introduced in 1989. So far these surveys have shown that almost 325 employers and 180 sub-contractors have failed to comply with the notification requirements. In addition, there were 1,061 cases involving irregularities, such as employees working while they were receiving social welfare payments or employers paying the wrong rate of PRSI contribution. The question of legal proceedings has arisen in the case of 100 employers and 500 employees.

I have now increased the number of investigations. At least 15,000 investigations a year will be carried out when all the new staff are in place. The new arrangements will be widely publicised so that employers are well informed of their obligations. My Department will take over from the Revenue Commissioners responsibility for allocating RSI numbers from 6 April next. We are automatically giving an RSI number to everyone at age 16. This will take the form of a plastic card with the bearer's signature. It will lead to a more co-ordinated approach to the registration of new employees and better administration of people's benefits and entitlements which are based on the RSI number.

Last week I announced an amnesty for employers as part of this PRSI-related fraud crackdown. The amnesty will last for six months. I will not take legal action against employers who do not meet their obligations under the PRSI system on condition that, they make arrangements to bring their PRSI payments up-to-date; they keep proper and accurate records in relation to the earnings of employees and the duration of their employment; and they co-operate fully with inspectors from my Department. Any employers who do not get their affairs in order during this amnesty will be liable to prosecution. Unscrupulous employers and subcontractors who attempt to cheat the taxpayer, competitors, employees and their families will face stiff penalties. I am also including employees in the new amnesty. I will not take legal action against people who are fraudulently in receipt of any social welfare payment on condition that they report this to my Department and they make arrangements to repay the moneys received.

Sections 39 and 40 provide for the abolition of separate employers occupational injuries and redundancy contributions from 6 April 1991. This follows from the integration last year of the occupational injuries fund and the redundancy fund into the social insurance fund. It does not, however, entail any increase in the overall employers PRSI contribution.

Sections 41 to 59 provide for a range of miscellaneous provisions. For example, section 41 provides for the exemption of income arising from casual employment as a home help and from the haemophilia HIV trust fund, for the purposes of the means-tested social assistance payments. Section 42 provides for the standardisation of "waiting days" as between disability benefit and occupational injuries benefit. Section 43 gives statutory effect to the provisions regarding concurrent payments which are currently contained in regulations. Section 44 brings the recoupment arrangements for supplementary welfare allowance into line with those for other payments. This will simplify accounting arrangements.

Sections 45 to 47 remove provisions in existing legislation in relation to the payment of supplementary welfare allowance, family income supplement and disabled persons's maintenance allowance. The new measures provide for a nondiscriminatory method of dealing with these payments. They arise from a decision of the Supreme Court which held that certain provisions in social welfare legislation were unconstitutional in that they resulted in cohabiting couples being treated move favourably than married couples. This will mean that the needs and means of a cohabiting couple will be aggregated in the same way as a married couple and that they will receive the same rate of payment as a married couple in similar circumstances. They will now be able to benefit under the family income supplement scheme from which they were previously excluded. Section 48 provides for a consequential new definition of a spouse.

Section 49 provides that a claimant to unemployment benefit who has exhausted his 390 days entitlement cannot requalify until he has paid 13 contributions following the exhaustion of his entitlement.

Sections 50 and 51 provide for modifications in the signing arrangements for payment of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance and changes in the means calculation for unemployment assistance. This will mean that present signing arrangements will be eased and the number of rates of unemployment assistance reduced in order to facilitate the introduction of alternative payment methods. Section 52 provides for a change in the definition of continuous period of unemployment for unemployment assistance purposes. It extends from 20 weeks to 52 weeks the period within which a previously unemployed person may resume signing without loss of their long term unemployed status and the extra benefits associated with that.

Section 53 relates to the manner of notification of means for old age pensions purposes.

Section 54 provides that, with the consent of the recipient, the Minister may withhold from any social welfare payment an amount to be agreed and the amount may then be paid to a body or organisation as designated by the recipient. This provision can be used, for example, to have a person's ESB bill or local authority rent paid directly by the Department to the relevant body. These measures will be provided for in regulations.

Section 55 provides for a technical improvement designed to reduce the administrative burden involved in deciding claims to disability benefit. It will benefit claimants by reducing from six to three years the period over which a current claim may link with a previous claim. Section 56 provides for an adjustment to the means assessment provisions for certain pensions so as to ensure that certain non-cash benefits and other income can be taken into account in the assessment. The existing legislation is unclear on this issue hence the need for this new provision. Sections 57 to 59 provide for technical matters such as the sanction of the Minister for Finance for the making of certain regulations and the repeal of obsolete provisions.

Sections 60 to 64 provide for various technical amendments to the Pensions Act, 1990. For example, section 60 gives powers to the Pensions Board to borrow money for the purposes of its expenditure. At present, the board's expenses are being funded through the Social Welfare Vote. It is now proposed that the Pensions Board should operate their accounts and financial affairs independently of the Social Welfare Vote. Section 61 provides for a technical amendment to the Pensions Act relating to the preservation of benefit to a member of an occupational pension scheme.

Sections 62 and 63 provide for the clarification of provisions in sections 55 and 56 of the Pensions Act relating to the requirement of trustees of pension schemes to provide annual reports. Section 64 provides for the clarification of provision in the Third Schedule to the Pensions Act relating to funding standards of pensions schemes.

This Bill is a very important piece of legislation. It continues the progress we have made in the past four years in improving payments and modernising the social welfare system. There are a few disadvantages here and there but when standardising the system must be evened out overall. Broadly speaking, there are many extra benefits and advantages both in the technical measures and in the major amounts of money being allocated. Our overriding objective is to safeguard and improve the position of those dependent on social welfare. I am satisfied that we are achieving that objective through progressively raising and improving the standard of living of people dependent on us and through introducing new provisions to meet the changing needs of society.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Connaughton

The Bill before the House today is seriously flawed and ignores the real problems of people who must depend entirely on social welfare. Despite what the Minister has said, it does nothing to come to grips with the proverty traps with which it would appear the system is absolutely riddled. Above all, it does nothing to further the cause for the elderly. Rather it is a collection of minor proposals which, when taken together, will have little effect.

First, I want to bring the attention of the House to the overall economic position following on this year's budget, which is that the budget of the Department of Social Welfare appears to be in tatters. In the recent Programme for Economic and Social Progress, negotiated with the social partners, it was estimated that in this year there would be an average of 228,000 people out of work for which the Department of Social Welfare budgeted. That programme was not 24 hours old when there was a huge increase in the numbers of unemployed, now standing at over 240,000. All the indications are that this figure will continue to rise. In view of that I want to know whether it will be necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare. Obviously their budget is out of kilter already.

Dr. Woods

I can answer that immediately. As the Deputy said, the 228,000 is an average. Normally it reflects high levels at this stage and lower levels later; it depends on what happens later in the year.

Mr. Connaughton

With all due respects to the Minister, my view on this is as important as his because nobody can predict what will happen for the remainder of the year.

Dr. Woods

I intervened because the Deputy had asked me a question.

Mr. Connaughton

I am sure we will revert to this matter at length.

The Social Welfare Bill begins its Second Reading in the House today under the cloud of the decision of the European Court which nobody will deny was a great victory for the two women concerned. The background to the case is on record. I do not have to repeat it. Nonetheless I want to place on record that I consider it most important that there be equality of opportunity in respect of benefits and opportunity in respect of all sections of the community. The decision in that case raises huge question marks for the Government. I should like to know whether the Government feel bound by that decision. The Minister must also inform the House from where the money is likely to emanate if he is bound by that decision; he must inform the House what will be the overall figures involved. According to the press it would cost £200 million, in which case a supplementary budget will have to be introduced.

Dr. Woods

Since this case is sub judice I am precluded from commenting on it and I do not think it wise for the Deputy to do so.

Mr. Connaughton

Obviously it will not be sub judice for very long because the Minister knows as well as I do that it involves a rubber stamp operation on the part of the Supreme Court.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy could prejudice the outcome of the case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps Deputy Connaughton would address the Minister through the Chair——

Mr. Allen

The Minister is interrupting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Allen, when we want your advice we will ask for it. Would the Deputy please restrain himself——

Mr. Allen

It is the Minister who is interrupting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I had not finished before Deputy Allen interrupted. Would the Deputy please not do so. I am calling on Deputy Connaughton to continue without interruption. If the Deputy addresses his remarks through the Chair I can guarantee he will not be interrupted by anybody.

Mr. Connaughton

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if I may say so, that is your normal style.

I sincerely hope that the decision in the case to which I was referring will establish once and for all that all types of inequality in Irish society — but particularly those relating to women — must be abolished once and for all. I think everybody would agree with that. In passing I should like to compliment the Free Legal Aid Centre on the manner in which they highlighted this matter, an aspect of Irish life which has been brought to the European Court and which has very serious consequences for the finances of the Department of Social Welfare.

A most controversial aspect of the Bill before the House today centres on the decision to change the interpretation of the word "spouse". I do not disagree with the Minister in this respect because I understand the problems that had obtained. The new definition is to the effect that men and women who are not married to each other but who are cohabiting will be treated as man and wife. I understand the reasoning behind that changed definition because to date, in certain circumstances, people who had been cohabiting were claiming single benefits which had the effect of their aggregated incomes, as single people, being higher than those of married couples. Few people will disagree with that. Nonetheless there could be downstream, significant aspects of this about which the Minister may not have thought. I am not a lawyer but I should like the Minister, for example, to address the question of inheritance rights. If this type of semilegal status is afforded people who are unmarried — who are now regarded, at least in social welfare terms, as being married — then I should like to ascertain what are the inheritance rights as between both partners and the partners and their offspring. Perhaps this is a matter for the Attorney General. It would be my hope that there would not arise another precedent leading to another trip to the European Court which could have enormous significance in future years. I put it on record because it is worthy of mention.

The Bill before us does nothing to instil confidence among people now in receipt of social welfare benefits but who are most anxious to gain admittance to or participate in social employment schemes. This is where I disagree totally with the Minister's opening remarks. I must admit to being an advocate of the concept of the social employment schemes for the unemployed. I contend they are a great idea and have brought great personal satisfaction to many people. The challenge of having to work for the money is something many are only too willing to do if given the chance. This Government, in one of the greatest policy U-turns, not widely known, actually raided the Department of Labour Estimates immediately before budget day and subtracted £3 million from that subhead. That is a fact. Naturally this will have the effect of there being fewer places available on those schemes this year, now acknowledged by the Department. Because of that direct Government policy there will be fewer people participating in social employment schemes this year than there were last year and, by definition, more drawing social welfare benefits. I consider that to be a mortal sin——

Dr. Woods

It is not a matter for social welfare, the Deputy knows that.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

——and the financial advantages.

Mr. Connaughton

This cannot be taken in isolation because the Minister is partially responsible for these social employment schemes. There must be an integrated, co-ordinated approach, something on which the Minister is always lecturing us.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Connaughton is anxious to indulge in this dialogue with the Minister it will be difficult for me to give him protection.

Mr. Allen

The Chair should chastise the Minister because he is interrupting.

Mr. Connaughton

Anyway, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, we will not waste valuable time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputy Connaughton please not address any question directly to the Minister but rather through the Chair?

Mr. Connaughton

Contrary to what the Minister said, the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare have not been implemented. It would appear that the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare in regard to the many short term unemployed will not be implemented even within the next five years.

There are the pious platitudes expressed in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress such as those contained in paragraph II of Section IV which I quote:

The Government now commit themselves under this Programme to the following:

(a) to continue to protect social welfare rates against inflation,

(b) to move by 1993 to the priority level of rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare involving an estimated additional full year expenditure of £65 million (on the assumption of an annual 3 per cent inflation rate) and

(c) thereafter, to increase social welfare rates further and progressively, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare, as the resources of the economy grow.

Those last words are the most important in that quotation. It is true that the poor must always wait, and they will certainly wait in those circumstances, too. This means that if the Government continue to fund social welfare for those categories at the same rate as at present, those pious platitudes contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress will be as far away as ever in five years time.

At this stage I would like to make a point so far as my attitude to social welfare generally is concerned. I want to create jobs; I believe most Deputies want jobs created. It is very important that 95 per cent of people want to be usefully employed in sustainable jobs. The massive publicity surrounding the proverty trap, which is so glaringly obvious in our taxation laws, comes as no surprise to me, and should not come as a surprise to anybody who takes a close look at how taxation is devised here. We need a new imaginative approach to ensure that people who are able and who want to go to work five mornings a week are better off working than they are on the dole, and that is how people perceive it. The perception people have is most important. Irrespective of what the Minister said about Deputy Bruton, Deputy Mitchell, myself or anybody else, there is a perception in every corner of Ireland that people in receipt of unemployment benefit are better off than if they were working. I want to qualify that.

I know more people who are poor than who are rich. I do not know whether that is good for me personally. I have never yet seen anybody living in the lap of luxury who was in receipt of unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. It is not so much the financial rewards that are important but the incentives to create the jobs. That is something this Government obviously have not done because for a variety of reasons, our unemployment figures are rising very steeply. This is a matter of grave concern. It affects the national work ethic because there is nothing more soul destroying than an unhappy workforce or a workforce that, on the toss of a coin, could decide to stay at home or go to work. We are too near that line at present. I sincerely hope the Minister and his colleagues in Government will devise methods to ensure that the choice is much less clearcut.

Our taxation laws are a laugh and irrespective of what the Minister for Finance says over the past number of years there has been no new imaginative thinking so far as the elimination of the poverty traps are concerned. It is imperative that jobs are created to try to break the vicious cycle of long term unemployment.

The social employment schemes are, by no stretch of the imagination secure employment nor were they ever intended to be. They were basically training models where people's skills could be developed over a period, thereby enabling them to rejoin the workforce in another capacity. However, in the interim, there is no doubt that the social employment scheme on a week-on week-off basis, as currently organised in both town and country, is far preferable than paying people on the dole. Many people who were on these schemes have confided to me that it will be breaking their hearts when their 12 month stint is over and they have to go back on the dole. Many of them take great pride in the community projects in which they are involved. It is a crying shame and an indictment of this Government that their talents are not being used for the good of the community.

Today I am speaking a great deal about discrimination. I believe this Bill is guilty on another count. There is no real commitment to help people who are charged with the responsibility of looking after the elderly. I refer, of course, to the so-called carer's allowance. I should like to put it on record that there are few schemes in the social welfare code that have the same potential to do good as the carer's allowance scheme. However, it is almost fraudulent the way the Minister announced the benefits of this carer's allowance to the public over the last six or eight months. Expectations were built up to a level and people were bitterly disappointed when the facts were pointed out to them. As I have already said there are few schems that have such potential to help the elderly. It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of elderly people would prefer to live their lives in the security of their own home, but this can cause a certain amount of inconvenience as every family who has gone through the trauma of looking after their elderly relatives is aware.

Irish life is peppered with examples of what I can only describe as dedication beyond the call of duty, in many cases by people who are no blood relation of the elderly being looked after. How many thousands of elderly invalids are being cared for this very day by their daughter-in-law, a person who is no blood relation? Let us look for a moment at what we are speaking about. We are speaking about care: care for every one of the 24 hours in a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, and in many cases for several years. How many people have given up their jobs to look after their aging parents? How many families have reorganised their lifestyle? From a family point of view that is no credit to these sons and daughters who show their love and affection for their aging parents by willingly accepting this responsibility. If they do not do that, what would be the alternative?

There is a great need for both public and private geriatric homes. There is no problem for people who have been in professional or self employment over the years and who managed to organise a retirement fund and genuinely would like the benefit of living in a retirement home or complex, but it is important that society would see that those facilities are made available. This is to be highly recommended if people want that level of service and are prepared to pay for it. There is a problem, and this is where my interest lies: my thoughts this morning are for the people who have nothing but the old age non-contributory pension of £52 to £55 per week, and whose families are not much better off. If the thousands of people of whom I speak shirked their responsibilities, there would be unbearable pressure on the various health boards and geriatric services to the point where they could not cope. Indeed, they can barely cope at present.

In effect, a family who look after their elderly are worth almost £300 a week to the Exchequer because that is the cost of a bed in a nursing home. Is it not time the Minister and the Government woke up to this fact, or do we want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg? It is surprising the independence a small weekly payment would give those carers. This vital area has sadly been neglected by the Government. Having heard what the Minister had to say about the carer's allowance, unfortunately, I do not think there is any great hope for the future. I am not advocating blanket coverage of all carers as I know the Exchequer could not afford this at present. The Exchequer would not be in a position to write such a cheque for everybody. However, I should like ordinary people on low incomes to be entitled to receive a carer's allowance in addition to the social welfare payments they receive at present. What we now have is direct substitution; there may be some small extra payment in certain conditions but there is no real difference between the old prescribed relative's allowance the new carer's allowance. When the carer's allowance was introduced everyone thought it was a great idea but it has been a big let down.

Dr. Woods

There are many differences. I am sorry, I find it hard to contain myself.

Mr. Connaughton

The Minister should contain himself as I speak for thousands of people——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will have to contain his enthusiasm and his emotions.

Dr. Woods

It is very hard.

Mr. Connaughton

The Minister will hear the same comments a thousand times before this year is over.

Dr. Woods

I do not mind the truth.

Mr. Connaughton

The Minister heard the truth today.

Mr. Woods

It was not the truth.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will have the opportunity when he is replying to Second Stage to correct all the points he believes are not in accordance——

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): If he is able to.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will have to employ his own stenographer but he cannot interrupt Deputy Connaughton.

Mr. Connaughton

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

If a family has an income of more than £90 per week they will be debarred from receiving the carer's allowance. That is a fact and I have several submissions on my desk at present to prove this. I defy contradiction on this point. Obviously, this raises the question: how can families who earn only £90 per week look after themselves and their elderly relatives?

Dr. Woods

The figure is not £90 for a family.

Mr. Connaughton

I will refer to several examples on Committee Stage. I want to refer to a serious omission from this year's Social Welfare Bill. I cannot understand why adoptive parents are not entitled to receive a maternity grant when they get custody of their child. Why was this not provided for years ago? After all adoptive mothers have as much trouble with their babies as natural mothers have. They face the same costs, sleepless nights, disruption of family life and pressures. For the life of me I cannot understand why these parents are discriminated against. Even though there is no reference to this in the Bill I ask the Minister to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage which will allow payment to be made to adoptive parents. From a financial point of view, this would not cost much because numerically speaking the number of cases will be very small. The extension of this payment to adoptive parents would be a great gesture on the part of the Minister.

I should like to refer to another serious omission from the Bill, the treatment currently being meted out to participants on the social employment scheme. As the House is aware, the Government introduced legislation two or three years ago which made it obligatory for the self-employed, the majority of whom are farmers, to be included in the PRSI scheme. It was decided that there should be a minimum contribution period of ten years. Therefore, the self-employed, irrespective of who they are, must be 56 years of age or under on entry into the scheme before they are entitled to receive an old age contributory pension when they reach 66 years. However, as is the case in all new schemes, problems have arisen in regard to this scheme.

It is now estimated that approximately 14,000 farmers, through no fault of their own, will be debarred from the scheme even though they will have paid their contributions up to the age of 66 years. Farmers who were 58, 59, 60 and 61 years when they commenced paying their contributions, unfortunately, will not receive a pension when they reach 66 years as they will not have ten years' contribution stamps. This is highly unjust. The scheme was ill-conceived in so far as it did not foresee this problem. The Minister must show some compassion and commitment to this vital section of the self-employed. Not only does this affect farmers, it also affects many other self-employed people.

I do not want these people to be given any preferential treatment. As I have said before in this House, contributors should be allowed to continue their payments for a full ten year period at which stage the old age contributory pension should be paid to them. This would mean that some self-employed people, including farmers, would not be eligible to receive a pension until they are 68 or 70 years of age. From a financial point of view another benefit of this would be that this category of people would be expected to draw on the Exchequer to a lesser degree than anyone who was included in the scheme three, four or five years before them. The present system discriminates against a certain sector of the community. This problem should be addressed and I will put down an amendment on Committee Stage to deal with it and I sincerely hope the Minister will be able to accept it.

The Government are unsympathetic to the self-employed. I thoroughly agree with the concept of the family income supplement scheme. However, this aid which could help overcome the poverty trap has not been used to the full extent by the Minister to make it more attractive for people to work than stay on the dole. Sufficient use has not been made of this vital mechanism. The scheme is clearly cost-effective in that it is possible to target precisely the people who should receive this benefit. There will be no major change in the scheme despite the fact that there has been a small relaxation in the eligibility rules. However, self-employed people, be they shopkeepers, carpenters or farmers, who fall on hard times have to work under very difficult conditions. I see no reason why the family income supplement scheme should not be extended under certain conditions to this category of people. I accept that safeguards will have to be built into the scheme but, provided their income is verified by the Revenue Commissioners, there is no valid reason why such people should not be entitled to receive family income supplement. A small bit of imagination, together with the necessary commitment, would alleviate the grave problems experienced by the self-employed.

It is also very important that the family income scheme is extended to FÁS workers on social employment schemes. I was shocked to learn that cumulative earnings of a poorly paid job plus a family income supplement would be greater than the pay a FÁS worker receives under the social employment scheme. Obviously, this anomaly should be rectified immediately.

I want to refer to a very important section of the community who have genuine cause for concern, small farmers on farmer's dole. I understand that approximately 14,000 farmers are in receipt of unemployment assistance or, as we call it, the small farmer's dole. As the Minister, and his Department, are aware, every day of the week applications for assistance are made by farmers who have never had anything to do with social welfare. I am not happy with the method of assessment of the means of small farmers. There is not a consistent assessment procedure. In other words, there is no consistent method of calculating a farmer's means and the amount of his disposable income. I hear of cases every day of the week, not alone in the west but all over Ireland, of small farmers who should come under this category but for some reason they are deemed ineligible for farmer's dole. In fairness to the Minister the scheme has been streamlined to a certain degree in recent years.

There is a mentality among some social welfare officers that because a person has a certain number of animals irrespective of their value, be they sheep or cattle, he has to be reasonably well off. Two technical matters have to be addressed. Because a farmer may look reasonably well off, has a reasonably kept house and farm and has an above average number of stock on the farm it should not be taken that this farming family are well off financially. In some cases when social welfare officers arrive at a farmer's gate they have already decided whether the farmer will receive dole, and that is not reasonable.

Many farmers find it difficult to produce receipts and that is a negative factor as far as they are concerned. I want to make it clear that several thousand farmers who have applied or are about to apply for farmer's dole will not receive it, not because they are outside the ambit of the scheme but because of this preconceived notion that they are big farmers if they have a certain number of livestock. This matter will raise its head right across rural Ireland in 1991 — I will not dwell on that today because it is not relevant to the Bill — due to the implications of the GATT negotiations and the Common Agricultural Policy reform programme. Thousands of extra farmers will apply for dole before this year is out.

There appears to be what I would regard as a degree of averaging as regards the number and the value of stock a farmer has for sale. Heretofore, the Department of Social Welfare believed the price of cattle was below average and they gave the balance of the doubt to the claimant, but the Department now believe that farmers are getting more for cattle and sheep than is the case. I ask the Minister to consider that matter closely.

I would also like to ask the Minister how he intends to distribute the £1 million announced in the budget for smallholders. I assume the Department of Agriculture and Food are working in conjunction with the Department of Social Welfare in this regard. I hope this money will be distributed as soon as possible. It is, of course, a pittance, but everybody wants to know how it will be distributed and to whom.

There is quite a delay between the time an applicant applies for farmer's dole and when the actual decision is made. That is the case not alone with farmer's dole but with many other forms of benefit. In some cases claimants have to wait five to seven months before a decision is made. Surely in this age of technology there is no reason for that. I have been led to believe that the community welfare officers of the health boards are about to come under the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare. If this is the case the Minister should consider transferring some of the workload in this area to them.

I wish to refer to one matter which regrettably is not mentioned in the Bill. I understood the Bill would include procedures to be adopted in the implementation of the integrated approach to the unemployed in black spot areas. This was mentioned in the budget and I am very curious to know what the proposals are or how this integration will take place. When will the House get a chance to have a debate on the areas that will be highlighted? How will they be identified? What will be the criteria and, more importantly, who will the major players be? What input will the unemployed people have? Will the scheme be connected with local schools, employment offices and Manpower agencies? The questions are endless. There is a good future for the scheme if it is handled properly. It should not be just another talking shop.

I wish to refer to section 41 which deals with assistance schemes and means test exemptions. I compliment the Minister on his proposal to disregard "any income arising from employment of a casual nature by a health board as a home help". That is a very important aspect in the sense that many people who would be only too willing to give a few hours of their time to helping people locally and get a few pounds for doing so, heretofore would have had to pay tax on that income and did not think it was worth their while. This exemption is to be highly recommended.

In general I agree with the measures to combat abuse. The section dealing with failure to keep records places a grave responsibility on employers to ensure that they return all documents relevant to their employees.

There are two or three other aspects of this Bill I would like to mention in passing. The Minister said that nobody referred to the fact that we have a good social welfare system for the elderly, particularly for old age pensioners. I have no doubt that some countries pay less to the elderly by way of old age pensions than we do. It could be said that people here receive a reasonable old age pension, but there is one sad factor missing in this regard. There is an attack at present by other agencies of Government on recipients of old age pensions. For instance, Telecom Éireann have proposed to meter local telephone calls. It takes elderly people a lot longer to convey a message on a telephone than is the case with a younger person. If the calls are metered at three or five minutes obviously this will cause huge problems for the elderly. Only two days ago I met a man of 80 years of age in a provincial town who said his life changed dramatically for the better six months ago when he got a telephone. He feels more secure and has greater communication with the outside world.

As the Minister is aware there is a free telephone rental scheme, but people have to pay for calls. If Telecom Eireann go through with this proposal the Minister will have to seriously consider paying for phone calls up to a certain level, as is the case with electricity. There is no doubt that communication for the elderly is vital. No other section of the community depend so much on other people. The free travel scheme is excellent. It gives elderly people the opportunity of travelling all over Ireland and they are able to develop new interests after retirement. As the years go by and they are no longer able to avail of free transport, that is when the telephone will be very important.

There is also an attack on security arrangements, particularly in rural Ireland. I know a woman who lives not 20 miles from this city who prays every night for daybreak, in case someone would break in and rob her during the night.

Many facilities are being phased out; the decision to close rural post offices will make life extremely difficult for old age pensioners. It is horrifying to think of an elderly couple having to hire a car to go eight or nine miles to collect their pensions. Of course, for political reasons, it will not happen until after 27 June but many small rural post offices will be closed before the end of the year or early in 1992.

It is very important to treat everybody — particularly the unemployed — with great dignity. In several existing employment exchanges which lack facilities people are treated as numbers, not as human beings. They must go up to a counter with maybe 30 people standing behind them and give all their personal details. Nobody should be subjected to that sort of treatment and, while I know that interview rooms are included in new buildings, surely something could be done in this regard in the old buildings? People have to tell the most intimate details of their financial position and everybody in the room can hear them. People in receipt of unemployment benefit should not be subjected to that kind of treatment.

Unfortunately, the Social Welfare Bill is just a lot of hot air and does not further the elimination of the poverty trap; it does nothing to get people back to work. By the time many social welfare recipients receive the extra £3 or £4 they will be no better off on 1 August 1991 than they were on 1 August 1990.

Mr. O'Shea

When you consider that the Department of Social Welfare were set up in 1947 with the objective of bringing under one roof the insurance and welfare schemes which operated at the time—and we see the complex legislation before us today — you wonder whether the time has come for a review of the whole operation of social welfare because it has come to mean payment. There has been very little innovation in that area and the enormous problem of 250,000 people unemployed must be addressed with imagination and innovation. The elements for tackling the problem are contained in a number of Departments and there is a need for coordination in developing the types of policies needed.

The Social Welfare Bill, which gives effect to the provisions of the budget, contains little or nothing constructive or innovative to deal with the continuing crisis of poverty. The Labour Party believe that the social welfare provisions of the budget represent a failed opportunity and are totally inadequate in the context of assisting thousands of people already living on an inadequate income. Over the last four years the Government reduced Exchequer spending on social welfare by over 15 per cent in real terms. Indeed, in 1990, the gross current income——

Dr. Woods

The Deputy should not confuse the social insurance fund with total expenditure.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Minister, ná bí ag cur isteach.

Mr. Connaughton

There are things which the Minister does not like to hear.

Mr. O'Shea

May I proceed?

Dr. Woods

Do.

Mr. O'Shea

In 1990, 27.9 per cent of gross current Government expenditure was on social welfare; in 1991 that will only be 27.4 per cent, which is a reduction in an overall context, when the forecasts are that there will be about 12,000 more people unemployed this year.

Dr. Woods

I will give the facts to the Deputy later.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Minister, please allow the Deputy to continue without interruption.

Mr. O'Shea

It means that over 30 per cent of households live below the poverty line; all social welfare payments are below those recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare in relation to minimum levels of income; 30 per cent of all employees receive a gross weekly wage of less than £130 per week and nearly 45,000 children live in households which are below the poverty line. This is the grim record of Fianna Fáil in office.

Mr. Byrne

What about the Progressive Democrats?

Mr. O'Shea

Indeed. Social welfare increases are poor, they are at the level of 4 per cent when inflation is forecast at 3 per cent. There has already been a rent increase for the very people about whom we are talking, the increased payments will not be made until the middle of the year and there will be VAT increases on ESB and telephone bills.

Deputy Connaughton dealt at some length with peripheral increases in costs which will affect social welfare recipients. One which can easily be forgotten is the cost of cable television which increased this year in terms of royalties to performers, and VAT is also applied to that increase. The small comforts which people have are becoming more expensive and, in real terms, the increases are small in bringing any improvement to those people.

The Minister does not have a great record in relation to child benefit. In every year — except one — it has been frozen. This year the increase relates to the fourth child which means that, if there are four children in the family, there is an increase of 40p per child. In a family of six children, the increase amounts to 27p per child. The Government have done nothing for mothers and children in this context and these changes will do very little to end the poverty trap.

The Minister's sleight of hand was alluded to earlier in terms of cohabiting couples and the result of Supreme Court Hyland case in 1988. The Minister's answer is not in the spirit of the finding of the Supreme Court. Married people in this context and, indeed, people who were cohabiting were treated shabbily. We will be opposing that on Committee Stage.

The Minister's colleague brought the part-time workers' Bill before the Dáil and it is now going on to the Seanad. The Labour Party welcome this legislation, although we have problems with it. We welcome also the consequent extension of the social welfare schemes to part-time workers but, as I said here last week, to the Minister for Labour, in order that this scheme works properly and people get the full and proper benefit from the social welfare provisions, there is an absolute need to introduce a minimum wage. In the debate last week a number of Government backbenchers spoke strongly on that matter. The Labour Party have advocated a minimum wage of £3.50 per hour. It is very important for part-time workers that it is an hourly wage rather than a weekly wage. A great number of people are involved in part-time work. The 1987 labour force survey revealed that there were 65,000 regular part-time workers in this country of whom 72 per cent were female, 70 per cent of those being married.

This brings us to another problem in our welfare system relating to the income limit for spouses in terms of their being considered a dependants spouse and also to child benefit being paid at the full rate. If a spouse — usually a wife — earns more than £55 per week in part-time employment, her husband is not paid for his wife as a dependant and in respect of child benefit is paid at only half the full rate. If this Government are serious about the part-time workers' Bill and about extending social welfare entitlements to this group, this income limit must be increased dramatically.

Poverty has to be considered in a very particular context. The Presidential election and the campaign leading up to it has a bearing here. Mary Robinson's nomination for the Presidency came from the Labour Party but I am not claiming her election was in any way an indication of a major move to the Left in Irish politics.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I might advise the Deputy that ordinarily we are very careful that we do not introduce the President into any of our deliberations here, so I ask the Deputy to treat whatever point he is making having due regard for the Office of the President.

Mr. O'Shea

I thank you for your guidance and I wish to refer to the period before the President was elected. I think that is legitimate and I will be making no comment about the President in any sense.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would ask the Deputy to be mindful of the desirability that we do not involve our esteemed President in any of our deliberations here. Maybe with the capacity he has for words, the Deputy can make his case without referring to the President.

Mr. O'Shea

I will be guided by you, Sir, and I will follow your advice. In a certain election in this country before Christmas the fact that the successful candidate represented something new is something the whole political establishment needs to take cognisance of. I believe a desire for change, a protest against the underlying status quo was demonstrated. More importantly, many people out there who live lives pervaded by hopelessness found during that time a reason for reaching out of that despair, maybe for a brief moment realising there are better ways and wanting to take charge of their own lives. In this country we have in real terms over a quarter of a million people unemployed.

I welcome the reduction in the age, from 60 to 58, in respect of the special pre-retirement allowance for long term unemployed. It must be pointed out, though, that the group of about 7,000 who last year availed of that provision were not included on the live register. Therefore, that age limit reduction will, if I am correct, have the effect of artificially reducing the live register once again. An ESRI survey published in January demonstrated that 100,000 of the quarter of a million at present unemployed have been unemployed for more than 12 months and people who are unemployed are five times more likely to suffer from stress than the rest of the population. According to that report, people in employment or on training schemes are five times less likely to be stressed than if they are unemployed. We need to bear that in mind because the bottom line with people in the poverty trap is dignity. I am sure the Minister finds from his work in his constituency that in the initial stages of unemployment people take up hobbies or go for long walks but gradually abandon those pastimes, stay at home and become less involved with the community. There we see the whole grinding process of the reduction of self image.

The Labour Party in their pre-budget submission asked the Government to extend the employment incentive scheme so that employers would be paid increased subsidies when they took on people who were long term unemployed. I put it to the Minister that he and the Government have a duty to address themselves to the special problems of that group. We are bitterly disappointed that the Minister let this chance go by without making any gesture which would make it more attractive for employers to take on long term unemployed.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has introduced a new incentive to take up work for the seasonally employed be it in fishing, tourism or whatever, but in the overall context I put it to the Minister that it is minimal and in no way discriminates in terms of those who are long term unemployed——

Dr. Woods

The other incentive schemes are under the Department of Labour so they cannot come under this Bill.

Mr. O'Shea

We are asking that the Government address that problem and it brings us back to the point I made earlier, that the fact that the schemes and various backup services are spread over a number of Departments causes much unnecessary duplication and causes a situation in which the taxpayer in the first instance is not getting value for the services provided. Most importantly, the recipients are not getting the full and efficient benefit they could get from a streamlined service.

Deputy Connaughton spoke in terms of extending the family income supplement to those who are taking part in social employment schemes. I have had quite a number of representations on this issue over the past year. People on these schemes no longer get free fuel, the Christmas bonus or free beef. I had a letter from a woman whose husband was on a social employment scheme. They had five children and their local authority rent had increased from £8 to £16. It is one of those quirks of the system where there are income limits and fractions involved in the rent scheme. In general, the social employment scheme is fraught with injustice and problems that need to be addressed by the Minister and his colleague in the Department of Labour.

I welcome the fact that people can avail of training schemes in the context of what I said earlier, that people who are working on training schemes are five times less likely to suffer from stress. That argument alone would justify these schemes, but the schemes are causing bitterness and frustration among the people working on them. These problems need to be addressed.

I welcome the minimal move of allowing £5 income to 18 years olds and older people living at home. However, there is a fundamental question of civil rights which must be addressed. An 18 year old can join the Defence Forces and be killed in the service of country. An 18 year old can marry, buy a house and, in the context of the recent debate generated by Fianna Fáil, legally acquire condoms. However an 18 year old living at home whose parents have a reasonable income is treated as a non-person without any income in terms of the means test carried out on board and lodgings. The £5 is welcome but it is minimal and raises the question of how unemployed people can retain their pride and dignity. I know young people whose confidence is being undermined because they must spend their lives with their hand out by reason of their parents having a reasonable income thus providing the State with an excuse for not giving them anything. Much more is required in this area.

I will not criticise the small issues that have been dealt with in the budget. I had occasion in the other House to welcome innovations introduced by the Minister. I would ask the Minister to address himself to the three waiting days for unemployment benefit. I had a case recently of a person who had been on unemployment benefit and then got three weeks work at Christmas. When this person returned to unemployment benefit, three waiting days were required and those three days were lost. When somebody gets work for such a short period the three waiting days should not apply; indeed it should not apply in any situation.

A problem in rural Ireland which has been there for many years and which has worsened somewhat recently, depending on what part of the country a person lives in, relates to telephoning social welfare departments in Dublin, Sligo or Letterkenny. People in the capital have always had the facility to contact the Department on a local call and the Department have arranged that calls can be relayed from Dublin to Sligo, but I am not sure if that facility has been provided yet for calls to Letterkenny. This is a perk for the people living in the capital.

It is important that the Department of Social Welfare be made a lot more proximate to people. People spend a lot of money on calls to social welfare offices, because they are paying the full rate at peak time. The day has long since gone when this anomaly should have been rectified. This deep injustice should be rectified. Technology has greatly improved in this area. It is a question of whether the Minister is prepared to pay to give a service to the rest of Ireland that his constituents in Dublin and people in the urban areas generally have. Problems arising in relation to social welfare can be difficult to resolve and people may have to make long telephone calls to resolve them. With all the services being lost to people in rural Ireland, the Minister should urgently attack this problem.

I would like the Minister to address another problem which does not affect many people, but which affects a number of my constituents. Because of materials used in a particular employment someone may develop skin ailments. Dermatitis is one that comes to mind. A person so affected cannot continue in that employment and must go out on disability benefit, but immediately he is removed from the source of the irritation he is restored to full health and when he goes before a medical referee he is found capable of work. In some cases the company doctor or the person's doctor will not allow the person back to work. In my experience companies make every effort to find alternative employment within the company for such people, removing them from the offending agent, but the problem arises when short-time working is introduced. Because of the period during which the person was found capable of work, but would not be allowed to return to work by the medical officer of the company or by his own doctor, he has no credited contributions for that period and cannot qualify for unemployment benefit when short-time working is introduced. This problem affects a small number of workers but I would ask the Minister to address the problem. Perhaps it could be rectified by way of regulation rather than legislation. It is an injustice to a small group and the Minister immediately should do what he can to resolve it.

A growing problem relates to mortgages. Last year we were told that in the UK one in five mortgages were in bad trouble. In my area I see a problem with mortgages particularly when people go on social welfare payments or on short-time work. The higher the income tax rate a person pays, the more tax relief he gets on his mortgage. A person working and paying a mortgage gets relief from the State, but when he becomes unemployed or goes on short-time working, there is no relief from the State. The health boards can make money available by way of a subsidy for a mortgage, but this is confined to people on social welfare.

This Government, like their predecessors, have an appalling record on housing. The much vaunted social housing programme was launched last week and the aspiration is to have 1,500 new starts this year but this compares very badly with the number of houses built, 5,000 to 6,000, by Labour Ministers in the mid-eighties. Therefore, the position is not getting any better. As a result, a problem which I have come across in my own area, and I am sure this is true in many other areas also, the price of private accommodation is increasing because of the increasing demand. In the absence of any State help to get them over temporary difficulties, some people have had their houses repossessed as they could not meet their repayments. I am talking here about people on short-time work who may lose their houses and become a liability, in terms of the state having to provide them with local authority housing, whereas a small investment at the right time to see them through their difficulties could relieve the problem.

The carer's allowance was introduced last year with a fanfare but it has turned out be a damp squib. However I welcome the improvements made. I wish to instance the case, in my own area, of a husband and wife where he was confined to bed and was in receipt of invalidity pension with her as a dependant, while she was in receipt of a supplementary welfare allowance at the rate of £5 per week from the health board. She applied for and was granted the carer's allowance but, in real terms, this represented an increase of only £5 per week as her husband could no longer claim for her as a dependant. As well as this she lost the extra £5 that she had been getting from the health board each week with the result that, because there are children involved, she has ended up with four social welfare books and the same payment. I have also come across cases of women looking after both parents, who would otherwise need to be hospitalised, and in receipt of no help because of a very low income threshold. Sufficient imagination was not shown in designing the scheme and the scope of caring has not been sufficiently examined under the scheme — the Minister may grin——

Dr. Woods

Eight million pounds has been made available for those on the lowest incomes and this represents a good start. We will build on this figure as we go on.

Mr. O'Shea

The Minister would need to build on this figure much quicker because many people, who are making great sacrifices in looking after relatives or, indeed, as Deputy Connaughton pointed out, someone who is not a blood relative in the good old Irish tradition of neighbourliness and decency——

Dr. Woods

They do not have to be blood relations.

Mr. O'Shea

I am aware of that but the point I am making is that the income limits are too low and this is of no help to those who have been providing a great social service for many years at no cost to the Exchequer.

I regularly receive complaints about medical referees who assess people for disability benefit. Generally women tend to feel more aggrieved than men. The pattern seems to be that people are called in every so often and found to be capable of work to see if they will appeal, following which the payment is restored. Therefore there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the medical referee system.

In relation to part-time work, I ask the Minister to address two specific problems in the area of social welfare. In certain types of employment, a person works for two or three days a week, starts at 11 p.m. and works until 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. While this is only a three or four hour stint, it is considered employment on two separate days for social welfare purposes. Therefore people in this category may be precluded from signing on three days a week while others who work a greater number of hours can do so.

Another problem is that people who work for one hour a day do not qualify for unemployment assistance as they are not available for work during the day. I am also disappointed that no provision has been made for 16 to 18 year olds living at home and not in full-time education.

I would now like to turn to the question of regionalisation and decentralisation of the Department. I believe that too many of our administrative structures are based in Dublin and that a sufficient slice of the national cake has not been given to areas throughout the country. I would like the Minister to expand on his proposals for regionalisation and decentralisation.

My main criticism of the Bill is that it does not reach out to people or send them any message of hope. It only deals with payments. As I said in my opening remarks, many of our social problems have to be tackled on a co-ordinated basis. On a number of occasions I have raised the question of discipline in our schools with the Minister for Education. This problem occurs particularly in urban areas. No sanctions are applied nowadays and the question of whether this is a good thing is a matter for another day. We are all glad that corporal punishment is gone but nonetheless sanctions are important.

Family problems cannot be solved in the context of the school alone. I have put it to the Minister for Education that in each VEC area there should be a school welfare officer who would have the responsibility of co-ordinating the work of the various agencies, be they statutory or voluntary, who offer support to families. One of the problems that I see is that there are many agencies but there is no one there to pull them all together.

I welcome the Minister's proposal under section 54 that deductions be made from social welfare payments and passed on to the ESB or local authority to cover bills. People in receipt of social welfare benefits find it extremely difficult to put together monthly instalments for things like mortgage payments. Now they can deal with it on a weekly budgetary basis. This innovation will be very useful.

I am concerned about families which have all sorts of financial and health problems, but especially the families where the parents see no joy or hope. They are robbed of the joy of seeing their children aspire to a life better than their own. That is what the poverty trap is about. Those who are educated are much more likely to find employment. The number of manual jobs is retracting. Unless the problem of poverty and unemployment is tackled we will not make progress.

I will not be ungracious about the improvements the Minister is introducing and I welcome the technical amendments to the social welfare code, but our major concern is that the Minister is failing to introduce the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare. We live in a society where 250,000 people are unemployed, 100,000 of whom have been out of work for more than 12 months. Almost 8,000 people between the ages of 60 and 65 are on pre-retirement courses. The reduction of the age limit for these courses from 60 to 58 is a tacit admission by the Government that older people in society who have lost their jobs have virtually no prospect of re-employment.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy's party asked me to cut the age to 55 years.

Mr. O'Shea

I welcome the fact that people do not have to sign on when they are doing these pre-retirement courses, but I reiterate the Government's admission that people between the ages of 58 and 65 will not get employment.

Dr. Woods

Only some. It is an option.

Mr. O'Shea

That remains to be seen.

Dr. Woods

Some might not be very well.

Mr. O'Shea

I would hope that people who are not well would be in receipt of disability benefit.

Dr. Woods

They were not on unemployment assistance. Some are small holders and were never counted in the register.

Mr. Connaughton

They appear not to be be counted anywhere.

Mr. O'Shea

This is not the type of Bill the Labour Party would have introduced. The despair and hopelessness of so many will not be removed while the policies of this Government consolidate the two-tier society. The Government have shown no flair or imagination in dealing with the huge problem of unemployment and consequent emigration. This is consistent with their rejection last night of the Labour Party Bill to extend the vote to people who have been forced to leave our shores.

Mr. Byrne

This is a good week for recipients of social welfare benefits. It should be recorded that it is a good week for married women, not as a result of any action by the Minister for Social Welfare but because of the European Court of Justice and FLAC.

Dr. Woods

And the Fine Gael/Labour Coalition from 1984 to 1986.

Mr. Connaughton

They changed matters before they went out of Government.

Dr. Woods

They did not do it when it should have been done.

Mr. Connaughton

What did the Minister do about it?

Dr. Woods

It has been in the courts ever since.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Doyle)

Deputy Byrne, without interruption.

Mr. Byrne

I agree that the problem has to a large degree been foisted upon the Minister. I protest at the disgraceful manner in which we were presented yesterday morning with this comprehensive and all-encompassing document comprising in excess of 43 pages which we are expected to assess without the benefit of research officers, typists and academics. This is disgracefully short notice and I want to put on record my disappointment and that of my party at the lack of time to prepare adequately for this debate.

Dr. Woods

It is not much different in any year with this Bill. The Deputy knows it must be taken before 6 April.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister will be aware that I asked the Taoiseach on a number of occasions last week when it would be introduced and I was given a commitment to which the Government did not live up. I was conscious of what was going on in Europe and that decisions were about to be taken by the European Court of Justice. I was living in hope that the delay was partially due to the Minister's desire to incorporate in the Bill something to accommodate the 44,000 married women who were so shoddily treated by the previous Government but also by this Government who failed to take steps to rectify the problem. It is imperative that we should congratulate FLAC on the excellence of their representations on behalf of so many married women. It has been a long struggle.

Acting Chairman

I have allowed a passing reference to that issue. It is a matter which is still sub judice. I would ask the Deputy to refer to the Bill.

Mr. Byrne

I will be very brief in this reference. It is worthy of congratulation and we should be allowed to congratulate FLAC.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy could prejudice the case.

Acting Chairman

The case has come back before our own courts. I have given some latitude in allowing you to make a passing reference. I would ask you not to make any further reference to the case.

Mr. Byrne

We are dealing with social welfare entitlements. There are a lot of entitlements under equality legislation to which our citizens are entitled. Many Irish women will place far more trust in the voluntary agencies like FLAC and the European Court of Justice than in the Minister and the Government. That is a sad reflection.

Dr. Woods

That happened between 1984 and 1986.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister has had every opportunity. This is the second occasion on which the case——

Acting Chairman

We cannot debate this matter.

Dr. Woods

Not while it is in the courts. I, too, am bound by the courts.

Acting Chairman

I have made that point and asked Deputy Byrne to continue with his speech.

Mr. Byrne

Poverty cannot be tackled by social welfare alone. The combined resources of Government Departments are required to deal with it. The Department of Labour, in particular, have responsibility for creating jobs which is the real solution to poverty. The Department of Education have responsibility for training a skilled workforce. The Department of Finance have to collect the necessary funding to redistribute to the various Government Departments which can do something about poverty.

The Social Welfare Bill effectively is like one leg of a three legged stool in providing a solution for poverty. It is, of course, tremendously important particularly in society today where there are tremendous divisions not just between rich and poor but between those who are in work and those who are without work. We have an Irish style apartheid in the social segregation of housing.

The debate on the Social Welfare Bill gives us an opportunity annually to discuss the way the Government are going to redistribute some of the nation's wealth by distributing the taxes that have been collected. It also gives the Minister an opportunity to outline improvements for insured workers, their spouses and families. We will be accounting to the hundreds of thousands of workers who pay PRSI and tax at source and for whom we act as a type of banking agency. This is the annual event which gives us the opportunity to account to the insured workers how their insurance policies are being looked after and to let the unemployed workers know how we are going to redistribute the money collected in taxes. As we deduct social insurance compulsorily from workers, they are entitled to sufficient benefits.

First, I would like to address the inadequate response by Government to workers whose PRSI is deducted at source. The Minister did not refer to the problems with the extension of benefits to the spouses of insured workers, for example, the dental services scheme. It was agreed in 1988 that spouses of insured workers would be entitled to the same dental benefit as the insured worker. A row with the dentists on the provision of dental treatment has gone unnoticed except by insured workers and their spouses and there has been no solution to date. If we are taking insurance contributions from workers, we owe them the services for which they are paying dearly. It is not good enough that the spouse of an insured worker can be refused dental treatment or asked to pay for it. This runs completely counter to the legislation. I was very disappointed that there was no reference to this in the Bill.

I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the policy that insured workers are now only entitled to £50 per week under disability benefit and unemployment benefit which is what a person on supplementary welfare is getting. The Minister will get an opportunity in due course to answer and I would like him to give a thoughtful answer, perhaps in written form. If workers are paying dearly under the PRSI system for insurance cover, they should be entitled to a service. I cannot understand that people who are on unemployment benefit under the social insurance scheme will for the first time get only £50 per week as will those who are on disability benefit, which equals what those on unemployment assistance get, in other words, people who have no insurance and are in receipt of assistance from the State. When one goes a step further and sees that people in receipt of long term unemployment assistance will get £55 per week, I can imagine that workers paying PRSI will be angry and ask what is the point of paying PRSI if the State is capable of giving uninsured workers £5 a week more than they would be entitled to if they were in receipt of unemployment benefit.

Dr. Woods

I will answer that later.

Mr. Byrne

I am very interested in the Minister's answer. I will wait with bated breath for the Minister's reply.

Dr. Woods

Do not forget pay related benefit, Deputy.

Mr. Byrne

I have not forgotten pay related benefit. You only qualify for pay related benefit if you contribute under the PRSI system. It is an insurance policy. I am arguing that if you insure yourself for the eventuality of unemployment, you are entitled to benefits. If people go to the trouble of insuring themselves at the end of the day they should have some benefits in excess of the amount paid to people who have not contributed to the scheme.

Unfortunately there are a great many people living in poverty in this country and we have to ask where the resources to solve this problem will come from. I am sure the Minister will outline his reasons for not giving a basic minimum income to all above the age of 18 years and why he gave no increases under the child benefit scheme for the first, second and third child but increased the rate only for the fourth child. No doubt he will tell us about the fiscal restraints and the state of the economy.

Dr. Woods

The money went on child related tax exemptions.

Mr. Byrne

The fact is there have been no increases in a great many areas. The first, second and third child did not receive a brass farthing under the child benefit scheme. This blows the myth that this budget was good for the family, and that the Minister is so concerned about the family and in particular about children, that he is injecting money into families. The stark reality is that the Minister has increased the payment only for the fourth child. The Minister will probably recite the reasons for the inadequacies in the Bill, the state of the economy, fiscal restraints and the fact that the country is up to its neck in debt.

In excess of one million workers marched for more equity in the tax collection system and for a broader tax base. Notwithstanding that huge expression of feeling by the workers in general, the situation has not changed much. The Government said that they had no money to do anything in certain areas. We cast our minds back to the arguments we used at the time of those marches and remember that we were laughed at by various political and economic groups. We said there was a huge sum of money out there in uncollected taxes. The Government declared an amnesty which the Revenue Commissioners and, by implication, the Minister for Finance, reckoned would bring in approximately £25 million. We said at the time that that was ridiculous, but it was not very long before we saw these white collared gentlemen, who were so good at cheating and evading their taxes, queueing up with sums in excess of £1 million in their suit cases and handing it over because of the amnesty. In fact, the amnesty brought in £500 million in uncollected taxes.

Notwithstanding all that went on because of staff shortages in the Revenue Commissioners, tax dodgers face very little risk of detection. This has meant that only 694 audits of returns from over 205,000 self-employed individuals took place. The audits yielded £6.8 million in undeclared liabilities or an average of £9,800 per person. It is the third year of self-assessment brought in by this Government as the solution to the problem of tax evasion. Now there is the continuing scandal that if the present rate of audits continues, it would take 290 years to audit every case and the odds are 300 to 1 against being caught.

In this Bill we are dealing with those who are in a poverty trap; we are dealing with the poor of the nation. We have a very bad public health service. We are faced with non-co-operation by the Irish Dental Association in extending the scheme to the spouses of insured workers. I am sick to the teeth hearing that the reason for the inadequacies in the service is that we are up to our neck in debt, that there is no more money out there, despite the fact that we are squeezing everybody for taxes. The method of collecting taxes has not changed and these taxes are badly needed for our health and social welfare services. That stands as an absolute condemnation of the attitude of the present Government.

I would like to remind those gentlemen who are so adept at avoiding taxes——

Acting Chairman

The collection of outstanding taxes is not the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare. The Deputy has made his point in relation to that and how it affects the amount of money available to the Government to help people on social welfare.

Mr. Byrne

I have to disagree. This Bill is brought in as a result of the budget and there are ramifications for social welfare. I am arguing that there are uncollected taxes that could be brought in.

Acting Chairman

What the Deputy is saying now would be more suited to the Finance Act.

Mr. Byrne

I take the point. The type of activity these white collar gentlemen are engaged in is really on a par with that of the inner city handbag snatcher. Every penny of tax evaded hurts some unfortunate recipient of social welfare who should have a better standard of living than that being afforded at the moment.

This year we saw the incredible hosting of a conference in Galway by the Minister——

Dr. Woods

I am glad the Deputy brought that up. I am looking forward to this.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister could have spent as much as £140,000 and with £80,000 coming from the European Community, that makes approximately £220,000. The Chair will be familiar with the incredible social deprivation that exists particularly in Dublin's inner city. We see in the programme the recognition of the rights of voluntary organisations to do some work in their communities. I would, therefore, argue that that money was badly spent. My feedback from that conference is that people were embarrassed at the way money was spent on a poverty conference. It is ironic that so many people who are involved at the coal face in their communities should feel so embarrassed by the seemingly endless sources of funds on that occasion. I would argue that that money would have been far better spent on community programmes in inner city communities with which the Chair is familiar.

Dr. Woods

I cannot wait to reply to that. The Deputy is a hyprocrite, a total hyprocrite.

Mr. Byrne

Who is?

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is.

Mr. Byrne

I am a hyprocrite? I did not spend the money. The Minister is the hyprocrite. He is the Minister for Social Welfare who squandered £140,000 of taxpayers' money.

Dr. Woods

We had the most ordinary meals one could get in a hotel run by CERT, and the Deputy has been bleating about it ever since.

Mr. Byrne

I can assure the Minister that spending £140,000 has proved to be a major embarrassment not to me but to the Government and it deeply embarrassed many of the participants. That was money that would have been far better spent in a community like St. Teresa's Gardens.

Dr. Woods

Read them out.

Mr. Byrne

Read them out and let the Minister isolate them from any further funding in the future? Not at all. That is not the way we behave. I certainly will not read them out for the Minister. The Minister knows there is very good reason not to read them out.

Dr. Woods

There is only one person, and I know that person.

Acting Chairman

We cannot have this kind of discussion. Deputy, will you speak to what is relevant in the Bill?

Mr. Byrne

I would like you, Sir, to prevent the Minister interrupting me.

There are communities in St. Teresa's Gardens, Oliver Bond House, Fatima Mansions, and all over the inner city to whom a tiny proportion of that money would have meant so much. They are surviving, and the largest flat complex, Oliver Bond House, has not got even a community hall.

The Minister says he will tackle all the social welfare problems. We have the incredible number of 244,000 people unemployed. Emigration is still unacceptably high. I would like to ask the Minister about this economic miracle. If we have an economic miracle, why is poverty still rampant? Why are there so many people unemployed? Why is there such child poverty? In this city in which there is so much poverty the average price of a new house last year was £67,334 and that of a second-hand house £59,903. I mentioned the social segregation in housing and the inability of Government to inject capital to abolish that segregation. This city alone consists of 28 per cent of the population, with 31 per cent of the labour force located here, and 33 per cent of the national unemployment figure. It should be remembered that 18 per cent of the national workforce are unemployed.

It is not correct that anybody should endeavour to achieve a solution to the poverty problem through the provisions of this Bill because, in themselves, they cannot do so. Jobs, and their creation, constitute the only real solution. Clearly the Department of Education can help in endeavouring to break down the poverty cycle. While the provisions of the Bill may keep many people's heads floating above water, prevent them sinking into homelessness and dire poverty the stark reality is that there are 74,000 people unemployed in Dublin alone. Since 1985 a mere 3,000 net new jobs have been created annually; in other words 750 new jobs have been created annually since 1985. Is the Minister aware — in any endeavour to combat poverty — that in Dublin City alone by the year 1996 the Government would need to create 7,500 jobs per annum? What sort of a long, dark tunnel are we looking into when we talk about poverty? The stark reality is that there is no solution for many long term unemployed today, at least none forthcoming from the Government. When one views life from the overall perspective of poverty, unemployment and emigration — and the sickening claims of economic miracles and successes on the part of Government — one clearly realises that we have now a two-tier society whose problems are not being addressed by the provisions of this Bill. That is a tragic indictment of the Government.

On the Social Welfare Bill last year I spoke of the plight of 44,000 Irish women who had resorted to the European Court to seek redress vis-à-vis the chaotic implementation of the EC Directive on equal treatment of men and women in matters of social welfare, which directive was introduced around the year 1978 or 1979. The record will demonstrate that it was a live issue last year. Will the Minister tell the House what he intends doing about the non-payment to 44,000 women entitled to payments since that EC Directive was introduced around 1978?

Dr. Woods

The Deputy can forget about it because I am not going to tell him anything; I am precluded from doing so.

Acting Chairman

May I have the Deputy's attention? I allowed the Deputy to make a passing reference to this matter earlier. This matter has not been decided, it has to come back to our courts. When the Deputy mentioned it last year the matter was not sub judice. It is now sub judice and I would ask him not to refer to it again.

Mr. Byrne

I ask you to bear with me, Sir, I will not make undue reference to it. I ask you to explain to me how it is that this sub judice rule gags me as a parliamentarian, prevents me from opening my mouth in this Chamber to represent my constituents who have been on the telephone continuously since the good news was announced, who are asking me to make representations on their behalf here.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy knows why; he is seeking cheap publicity. The Deputy knows the rules.

Mr. Byrne

The national media can comment on it without there being any reference to the matter being sub judice.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy must accept the ruling of the Chair in this matter. This decision of the European Court must come back to our Supreme Court and, until then, it cannot be debated in this House. I ask the Deputy to understand and accept that. That is the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Byrne

I am asking the Chair to explain to me——

Acting Chairman

I have explained to the Deputy.

Mr. Byrne

I am asking you to explain to me how the Council for the Status of Women, FLAC, RTE, Century Radio and everybody else can talk about the issue — the women in the streets are talking about it — but we cannot mention it here. What kind of logic is that?

Acting Chairman

Please, the Deputy is being unfair to the Chair. The Chair has allowed a very generous passing reference to the issue. I ask the Deputy to revert to what is or is not contained in the Bill before the House.

Mr. Byrne

I certainly do not want to provoke the Chair. I was really seeking your guidance and assistance in asking you to explain to me — so that I can explain to my constituents — why I cannot talk about this issue here when everybody else can do so. That is my only request. Can the Chair give me an answer to that?

Acting Chairman

I have explained the position to the Deputy.

Mr. Byrne

It is a position I do not accept; I am not going to challenge the Chair but I do not accept the ruling. It is a farce and scandal that we should be gagged when everybody else can talk about it. It defies logic.

Acting Chairman

There is a standing precedent in this House that we do not discuss matters that are before our courts. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Byrne

I want to ask the Minister why there is no commitment to a basic minimum income for all persons above the age of 18. I know that in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress the Government rejected the notion of a minimum wage. I do not see any reason why there should not be included in the provisions of this Bill a minimum income for all persons over the age of 18. Many speakers have said already that in our society there are many young adults, men and women, ineligible for unemployment assistance merely because they live at home and are assumed to have a standard of living not requiring any assistance from the State. However, I accept that those eligible for unemployment assistance under the provisions of this Bill will now be eligible for a minimum payment of £5 on which I congratulate the Minister. Nonetheless I do not accept that young adults should be given the choice of remaining at home or leaving in order to establish some type of independent existence. Because of this incredible board and lodgings regulation the reality of life for many young persons is that they leave the family home in order to create an independent existence. It is not good that, in order to render themselves eligible for a minimum income, they must leave home. It is not good for them or their families. The fact is that those young people ineligible for unemployment assistance must leave their homes, move into a flat in, say, Rathmines, sign on and receive unemployment assistance, rent allowance — I am not quite sure what else they may be entitled to — with the resultant interruption in the family life and structure. Will the Minister give the matter of board and lodgings which is causing such annoyance to members of all parties due consideration? It is something that is becoming more and more outmoded and needs to be removed.

There is a reference in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress under the heading: Treatment of Households which reads:

A review of the treatment of households within the social welfare code has been completed by a special Household Review Group. The report of this Group will be discussed with appropriate interests.

Given that that is in our policy also, can the Minister tell us if the appropriate interests include Members of the Dáil? Besides being gagged by certain regulations it appears that we do not constitute the appropriate interested groups. The report continues:

Developments at EC level in relation to equal treatment on matters of social security will be fully taken into account in the context of the future development of the system.

I should like to ask, if and when, the Minister will produce that report. I believe this report arises because of the difficulties resulting from the Hyland case. Where couples are concerned, if each partner is qualified to receive a social welfare payment in his or her own right, it should be paid at the appropriate rate. It is also our position that where one partner so qualifies, and the other does not, the latter should receive 70 per cent of the appropriate payment and that it should be paid directly to that partner unless he or she decides otherwise. In the longer term all adults should receive an individual living income as their own right; for example, the 70 per cent payment should be steadily increased over a period to 100 per cent; for dependent children the payment of 40 per cent of the adult social welfare rate, or the lowest social welfare rate in the case of a non-welfare recipient, should be payable in respect of those under 15; for young people aged 15 to 18 years the proportion should be 55 per cent.

The Minister mentioned his commitment to the report of the Commission on Social Welfare and claimed that he was on target. I do not accept that the Minister is on target because according to my figures the updated equivalent of the Commission on Social Welfare's 1986 recommendations at today's rate would be £63. The Minister's minimum rates, so far as I can see, are £50-£55 so, therefore, we are not on target.

Dr. Woods

The priority rates and the full rates are two different rates.

Mr. Byrne

The trick term is that they were the priority rates. I would like to look closer at some of the items on offer since the budget was announced, to be critical of some of them and praise those that are deserving of praise. The majority of old age pensioners will receive only a £2 per week increase. Inflation will be running at 3 per cent or 4 per cent by the time this increase is due in July and this, together with the increases in the cost of electricity, clothing, footwear and so on as well as the increase applied annually in respect of local authority rents, means it is likely that instead of being better off, the poor, in many cases will be poorer.

Where is the Minister's commitment to a statutory minimum income? The fact is that this budget, instead of narrowing the gap between people at work and those without work, has actually widened it. There is a commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to a 4 per cent increase for workers over the next year but that, too, is the rate of increase that is to apply to social welfare recipients who, because of their much lower basic rate, will find that the gap between them and those in employment will widen. We in The Workers' Party do not want a two-tier society with widespread social divisions. That is why in 1983 we welcomed the establishment of a Commission on Social Welfare to review and report on the social welfare system and related social services and to make recommendations for its development having regard to the needs of modern Irish society. In 1986 the commission made their famous recommendations which were to lead us into this modern Irish society. Since that time successive Governments were to have implemented the recommendations of £62 or £63 per week — not £50 — as the minimum payment for a single person and £100 for a couple instead of £83 as proposed in this Bill. I hope the Minister knows the difference that £12 per week can mean to a person in receipt of social welfare and what it would mean to their standard of living. The recommendation to move by 1993 to the priority level of rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare — and now as proposed by the Programme for Economic and Social Progress— is insufficient and is virtually meaningless as most people on social welfare would, in any event, almost have reached the levels as promised in 1993. The Minister ignores the fact that the commission recommended that a differential of the order of 10 per cent should be maintained between insurance and assistance payments. That brings me back to the question of the insured worker on benefit and his counterpart who is in receipt of assistance.

As I have said, we are now allowing an unemployed single worker with full insurance benefits only £50 per week. This is the same amount as for people in receipt of unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare allowances. The Minister is now penalising insured workers who must be asking: "What is the point of paying social insurance if the insurance is at the same level as applies to unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance"?

With all the concern expressed in the Minister's speech of self praise, nothing, as I have said already, has been given in respect of the children's allowance or child benefit except so far as the fourth child is concerned, that increase will not be paid until October which is a long way down the line.

Under the new carer's allowance provided for last year, the Minister said that in excess of 8,000 carers would benefit. It is, therefore, disgraceful that at least 12,000 applicants have been refused the allowance and instead of the projected 8,000 only 3,500 people are receiving the allowance. That figure represents 55 per cent less than anticipated by the Minister. Perhaps the Minister would tell us at some stage how he got his figures so wrong.

Dr. Woods

That is by the end of this year.

Mr. Byrne

I would like to add my voice to what we heard earlier from other party spokespersons about the incredible sadness caused to the vast bulk of carers in our society because of the strict means testing being applied by the Minister. We can all cite cases of people we know who, from the goodness of their heart, go to extreme lengths caring for aged people. The savings to the State are incredible when one considers the involvement of so many people, particularly women, who take on the role of caring for a family member or an ageing parent. It is outrageous that the State does not reciprocate and make a financial contribution to these unfortunate people — many of whom sacrifice career prospects and, in some cases relationships and marriage, in order to take care of a sick or ailing relative. Thousands of these people will not be getting one penny as a result of the Bill before us because the allowance is means tested. Is it any wonder, then, that so many of them believe the Government see their contribution as worthless? Clearly, the Opposition parties have adopted a similar approach to these issues.

I want to refer to the reduction in the age limit from 60 to 58 years for the pre-retirement special allowances. This reduction in the age limit seems to indicate that the Government believe people are too old to work at 58 years and that they should take the special allowances. I appreciate that this is a voluntary scheme, but I regard it as a con job because it will articially reduce the numbers on the live register. The introduction of the pre-retirement allowance scheme for persons over 60 years of age on long term unemployment assistance artifically reduce the number on the live register by approximately 5,000. The reduction in the qualifying age to 58 years is not only an indication of political sleight-of-hand and dishonesty on the part of the Government, but it also indicates their inability to create jobs.

When the scheme began in March 1990, 4,731 people transferred from unemployment assistance to the pre-retirement allowance scheme. The total number of people now in receipt of this pension is 6,104. The projected increase in the number of people who will qualify for this pension as a result of the age reduction from 60 to 58 years is 1,000 for those aged 58 years and 1,000 for those aged 59 years. This will bring the number of people in receipt of pre-retirement allowances to 8,104. I am not a cynic, but I have no doubt that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Labour will stand up here when the unemployment figures are issued, as they do every month, and refer to the great job they are doing and the 8,104 people they have taken off the live register. However, all that will have happened is that these people who qualified for pre-retirement allowances who are not recorded, will have been taken off the live register. The Government should not engage in these cynical exercises. It is very sad that people of 58 years who are basically still young are regarded as too old to work. This is a stark indication of the direction in which this country is going and the prospects for employment——

Dr. Woods

The entire House, including the Deputy's party, called for that improvement and welcomed it.

Mr. Byrne

I will have to check that with my party. Perhaps the Minister would give me the statements made by The Workers' Party which called for the introduction of pre-retirement allowances.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy should find the statements himself.

Mr. Byrne

If the Minister finds those statements, perhaps he will send them to my office.

I want to refer to sections 45, 46 and 47. Like other speakers, I want to congratulate the Minister for providing that cohabiting couples shall be regarded as spouses. This is a step in the right direction; it is a social democratic move on the part of Fianna Fáil. However, when one considers that there is no divorce in this country, this provision could be turned on its head. While couples are legally allowed to separate, they cannot be divorced. By recognising that many relationships have failed and that people have entered into second relationships, the Minister is, in a sense, ahead of divorce legislation. I congratulate him on providing that cohabiting couples shall be regarded as spouses to each other.

It is unfortunate that the Minister, having given them this new title, will financially penalise these people. This is an unacceptable sting in the tail. Cohabiting couples, for example, on supplementary welfare allowance, will receive less than they did when they were individually assessed. As individuals, they would be entitled to £50 a week, a total of £100, but now that they will be regarded as spouses, they will only receive £83, a reduction of £17. This is not a good move given the fact that very often people whose marriages have broken down are very vulnerable and make up one of the poorest sections in our society. Marriage breakdown is a traumatic experience and very often these people do not have any social insurance. It is not fair that they should be penalised in this way by the Minister.

The Government and the Minister for Social Welfare have treated this House in a contemptuous way so far as this Bill is concerned. We were handed this Bill — 43 pages, 64 sections, and deals with an incredibly complex area of social welfare — less than 24 hours ago and expected to come in here this morning with a prepared and researched response. This is not good enough. The provisions in this Bill were made in advance of the budget but the legislation was not published for a further six weeks. The needs of people on social welfare, and the legislative needs of this House would be far better served if the Minister spent less time promoting his Department and himself in public relations exercises and more time ensuring that legislation is circulated in time.

Dr. Woods

Did the Deputy ever hear of parliamentary draftsmen?

Mr. Byrne

I have heard of parliamentary draftsmen. If the Minister for Finance could produce his budget six weeks ago I cannot understand, with the number of draftsmen available to both the Minister for Finance and this Minister, why this Bill was circulated only 24 hours ago.

I am concerned at the provisions which will reduce the income of some unmarried couples who are cohabiting. This decision will simply further impoverish people who already receive inadequate incomes. The Workers' Party are strongly opposed to these provisions. We fully support the principle that all couples, whether or not they are married, should be treated equally in the social welfare code. Unfortunately, once again, the Government have decided to equalise downwards, not upwards. This move may be in breach of the spirit of the EC directive on social welfare equalisation. We have enough trouble with this directive without further complicating the issue.

When the Government made a similar decision in 1989 to reduce the unemployment assistance payable to unmarried couples, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the Hyland case, they established a special review group to consider payments to households. While that report has been produced it has not been published, almost two year later. I call on the Minister to publish that report and to allow a full and thorough debate, to take place on its recommendations.

Dr. Woods

I have not received the report.

Mr. Byrne

I do not know how central Government operate if all Departments do not pull together. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress quite clearly states that the report has been completed.

Dr. Woods

It has not been presented to me. There are matters to be checked in it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will have to terminate this Government-The Workers' Party tete à tete. We cannot have tete à tete when we should have a contribution from the Deputy. Perhaps the Deputy would address the Chair and not be inviting interruptions.

Mr. Byrne

I am almost finished my contribution. I understand that the report has been published and as soon as the Minister receives it perhaps we may all see it. This Bill creates a significant anomaly in our legal system. While the State will continue to refuse to allow couples whose marriages have broken up to remarry, our social welfare system will treat two spouses from different marriages who live together as a married couple. In general terms the Bill is disappointing. It fails to deal with the extent or level of poverty. Increases in line with inflation could only be considered adequate if the basic rates of social welfare were adequate, but this is clearly not the case.

I welcome the decision of the European Court of Justice announced yesterday, which I better not mention because I got into trouble for mentioning it earlier.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not allowed discuss that matter because it is sub judice.

Mr. Byrne

For historical reasons it is important to point out that the whole process of social welfare equalisation has been botched here. Most of the responsibility for the mess must rest with the former Minister for Social Welfare, Barry Desmond, who introduced the original Bill in 1985. Having delayed in implementing the EC directive for almost two years the then Coalition Government introduced the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1985, which sought to implement the equality principle in a narrow and restrictive way, with the purpose of saving money at the expense of people who had long been discriminated against by our social welfare system. I, therefore, congratulate Cotter and McDermott and FLAC. I hope the Government will provide a speedy solution to the problem.

Mr. Dennehy

I, like previous speakers, am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this Bill. I compliment the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, for the exceptional progress he has made in improving the position of people who depend on social welfare. It should come as no surprise to anybody that he has adopted this approach over the past three or four years. He has a very good track record. Previously he provided increases of 25 per cent for the less well off when times were supposed to be tough. Again, the significant increases provided this year are in part related to his commitment to the more deprived sections of the community. The increases being implemented in this Bill concentrate on the needs of the family and those on low welfare payments, and that is as it should be.

I will refer to some of the comments of previous speakers. Deputy Connaughton was the first Opposition spokesperson to contribute. He referred to a number of issues that need to be addressed, one of which his party leader, Deputy Bruton, floated, that people in receipt of carer's allowance, a very innovative allowance, would lose their medical card. It must be put on the record of the House that that is totally incorrect. In the Southern Health Board region the decision not to take away the medical card was taken when the scheme was introduced. The Minister then directed that all health boards apply the same rule. People should be aware of that position.

On the question of inequality, and the case we are not allowed to mention, Deputy Connaughton was the person who raised that matter, but he was very careful to avoid mentioning that it refers back to the period 1984 to 1986. Perhaps he was here at the time and, possibly, had some responsibility for it. Therefore, it ill behoves him to refer in a crowing fashion to that judgment. On the question of inequality it should be remembered that there are inequalities for male as well as female workers. In the five or six years the Deputy had an opportunity to do something in this regard he and his colleagues — this applies also to the Labour benches — totally ignored the plight of the people who are now getting benefits under the pro rata pension scheme. The Deputy avoided mentioning the sorting out that was done on mixed pensions last year. There is a perception that all inequalities relate to female workers, but that is not correct. The Minister has dealt with this issue at a major cost. The Government, and the previous Government, supported him by providing the necessary money. I quote those as examples of what he has achieved.

Deputy Connaughton also referred in a sneering fashion to the cliché, the poor must wait. The performance of the previous Coalition Government can be seen from the records of this House, and the public are aware of it. The Deputy said there is a public perception that people are better off on the dole. I will deal with that later, but it was Deputy Bruton, and Deputy Connaughton, who tried to create that perception.

Deputy O'Shea was very gracious about the improvements in the Bill but he said, as did Deputy Byrne, that there are no great increases in child benefit. Again, this is incorrect. One thing that must be considered when talking about increases in child benefit is the position in 1987 when Deputy Woods took office. At that time there were 36 different levels of child benefit and practically all have been equalised. Enormous improvements have been made in this area. Reference was made earlier to benefit for the fourth child. There has also been an improvement in that regard. There was a lot of administration involved, but the bottom line is that the parent is getting the benefit of the equalisation of rates. As the Minister mentioned in retaliation — it is seldom he retaliates in the House — there are child related tax allowances, as some people seem to forget.

Mention has been made of the part-time workers' legislation that is more appropriate to the Labour Estimate. Deputy O'Shea said it is a matter of civil rights that children in the home should receive some benefit. Perhaps that is the case, but I ask him, was it a civil rights matter in the period 1982-87? If so, why did he and his party not talk about it then? Whey leave it to the present Minister to deal with?

Deputy O'Shea referred to the carer's allowance. He and Deputy Connaughton — Deputy Byrne also mentioned this — painted an amazing picture of the difficulties faced by people looking after the elderly. I respectfully suggest that exactly the same conditions existed in 1982-87 and there was no thought put into possibly creating a scheme culminating in a carer's allowance. I am sure there are anomalies but I have no doubt that the position will be improved. Last year we called for the extension to recipients of the disabled person's allowance and that has been included this year. This is a major change and will alleviate Deputy Byrne's worries. A sum of £8 million is available for the scheme this year so it is incorrect to say that nobody will benefit.

As I said, the same conditions existed in 1982-87, the same people were making the same sacrifices, but Deputy Connaughton, Deputy O'Shea and their colleagues accepted the situation without doing anything to rectify it. I am glad that our caring Minister, Deputy Woods, with the support of the Department of Finance, is working in that area. If I hear of shortcomings in my area through the health boards or my constituency clinic, I will not be slow to point them out. I sit on a committee with the Minister and he is always receptive to issues or anomalies which arise.

Deputy Byrne assured the House that he was not a cynic and, despite evidence to the contrary, I believe him. He complained about the short notice in relation to the Bill. I am not an expert on draftsmanship but former Ministers have always pointed out that there are delays in that area. I am sure the Minister is telling the truth. There was a sneering remark that the Minister would solve all the existing difficulties and problems. The Minister will certainly attempt to do so, and his record since 1987 is proof of his commitment. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, pointed out yesterday that there had been many changes since the early eighties. I accept that but there is a consistent thread running through our party of caring for all the population. The record of the different parties speak for themselves.

This Bill is the largest legislation in the area of social welfare to be introduced in the House since the Minister, Deputy Woods, introduced in 1981 the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act. The Bill which we are discussing has eight Parts and 64 sections, obviously it is a complex Bill which deals with a wide range of social welfare matters and addresses very important issues. This has been accepted by previous speakers. Since the Minister took office this is his seventh major Social Welfare Bill; there have been in excess of 500 amendments and new sections introduced to our social welfare law. Will the Minister now consider the possibility of introducing a new Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill because a lot has happened since 1981? When I was elected to the House I read the Bill introduced in 1981 which, as the Minister said, would probably have a lifespan of ten or 12 years.

There has been recent media publicity, to which I referred earlier, in relation to disincentives to work which has given the impression that more can be obtained by being unemployed than at work. In this context, it must be said that there are still people who resent the increases paid to the unemployed. This resentment often comes from the "I'm all right Jack" brigade, many of whom have inherited their wealth or come from privileged sections of society. We often hear people saying contemptuously that these people are better off on the dole than if they were working; the implication is that they are worthless individuals whose unemployment benefits should be reduced so that they will be forced to go out to work. Many of these critics are employers whose notion of a fair wage means that their employees would certainly be better off on the dole.

Deputy Bruton and Deputy Connaughton probably had an ulterior motive in trying to give that impression over the last couple of weeks. It is amazing to see the balancing act they are trying to perform between giving that impression to those at work and to avoid announcing that there have been major changes and improvements in the benefits under social welfare. Deputy Connaughton and his leader must admit that there have been major changes in social welfare.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy is not doing too badly himself.

Mr. Dennehy

My party have a proud record in the area of social welfare and we have invariably given increases higher than the rate of inflation, even in times of economic difficulty. In the Bill the Minister is increasing rates in some categories by as much as four times the inflation rate. The anomalies have been brought about by a combination of factors, one is our tax system and the second is the exploitation of low paid workers by many employers. Those anomalies need to be addressed under these headings instead of restricting social welfare payments.

The Government are proceeding with the reform of the tax system, and it is not just a simple case of reducing tax rates. Their programme must continue to make progress in the effort to exclude more of our lower paid workers from the tax net. It is up to the employers to get the second side of the equation right but it is up to us, as legislators, to compel them to do so. There has been widespread fraud and abuse of the social welfare system in the past, some of the recipients were involved in fraud but, very often, it was brought about by unscrupulous employers who would take on workers on condition that they would continue to sign for social welfare. In this way they were saved the expense of PRSI, etc., and, at the same time, they paid low wages. In the past four years the Minister has gone a long way towards eliminating abuse where recipients were concerned and in this Bill he has, thankfully, put in provisions which will deal very effectively with rogue employers. Every right-thinking person in the House will agree that abuse of the social welfare system should be eliminated where possible.

It goes without saying that the vast majority of social welfare recipients are honest in their dealings with the Department and receive only their rightful entitlements under the legislation. However, there are people who defraud the system and I welcome the provisions of Part V which is aimed at combating those abuses. The measures are geared towards employers who collude with employees and fail to inform the Department when they take on new people, fail to keep records and, in many cases, do not deduct PRSI and tax contributions. Any measure introduced to the House to eliminate social welfare fraud will have my full support. However, we must talk about it rationally and put it in its proper context because it only involves 1 per cent of total payments of £300 million.

I welcome the provisions of section 7 which relate to the family income supplement; it is the right way to approach the whole question of balancing take home pay vis-à-vis social welfare payments. This has been improved, as the Minister outlined. It will give added payment to people in low paid employment and will continue to be an important supplement to their income.

As I said, the extension of the carer's allowance in section 8 is welcome. Its extension to many categories of social welfare recipients will make a major contribution to community care. It is totally consistent in helping health executives to achieve their objective in caring for the elderly population in the comfort of their own homes for as long as possible. I also ask the Minister to consider one section of our society which seems to have been forgotten by many of us. I refer to the religious communities who gave such a great service over the years. At present the religious communities who look after their elderly members are not allowed to claim the carer's allowance. I ask the Minister to examine the circumstances of priests, nuns and monks involved because many face hardship.

The extension of payments to surviving spouses in section 9 is welcome. This morning many of us were worried about the provision in section 210 of the Principal Act whereby benefit and privilege were taken into account in assessing the means of the younger person applying for benefit. That was a critical area. People will say £5 is too little, but under this provision people could be assessed and as a result given as little as 1p benefit. The Minister has taken action on that. The old provision created friction in the home and many young people left so that the rent allowance and full social welfare entitlements could be availed of. That was unsatisfactory and I welcome what the Minister is doing in this respect. It is a step in the right direction and will give at least a small amount of pocket money to some young people.

Section 54 enables the Minister to make regulations to withhold from welfare payments an agreed amount which can in turn be paid out to an agreed organisation or any named person. This is important. We have worked in this area with the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the credit unions. I know there are good and bad managers, but the people who need to be most prudent with money are social welfare recipients. I welcome the provision. I ask the Minister to accept that since many people find it difficult to manage on their welfare payments, he might consider going a step further and making some kind of arrangement with the local health boards so that these people could be given individual conselling in their own homes, perhaps through the community care network in each health board. I appreciate the contributions the Minister has given to voluntary bodies like the St. Vincent de Paul Society but I remind him that many people find it difficult to go to a local group session and admit they do not know how to handle money or their debts. I ask him to approach this problem on a one to one basis. If this cannot be done through the health boards, he might consider asking the St. Vincent de Paul Society and others to look at that area. That change is also a step in the right direction and is long overdue.

Each year I find one or two anomalies which I try to remedy. Last year it was the DOAPs — the deprived old age pensioners — and the Minister has handled that, and another group are adoptive parents who do not get the breaks and concessions natural parents get in maternity benefit, time off, etc. I ask the Minister if it is within his realm to see if we can provide some kind of benefit for adoptive parents. They deserve it. They are a great group of people and I would like to see them helped out in some way.

This Bill is not being and cannot be taken in isolation. As I said on the budget debate, we cannot take one budget in isolation. This is part of the Minister's programme for the past four years. He set himself targets and is working to achieve them. This is knitted into the budget and into the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. It is good that we can have that combination and a forward thrust on all these fronts. That commitment, support and common thinking are most welcome.

Again I congratulate the Minister and thank him for his attention to the areas I and other Deputies raised last year and the previous year in regard to pensions and so on. I ask him to continue the good work, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá áthas orm a beith anseo a mbliana arís chun labhairt ar an mBille seo agus faoi mar a tharla an bhliain seo caite bhí an tAire agus an Teachta Dennehy díreach romham nuair a d'éirigh mé anseo. Bhí bolscaireacht — agus sin PR ar eagla na heagla nach dtuighfidh éinne é — bhí bolscaireacht cheart ar siúl anuraidh agus tá freisin i mbliana agus is dócha go gcaithfidh mé cúpla focal a rá faoi sin ach i ndáiríre——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Cheap mé go raibh tú chun a rá, "go mbeirimid beo ar an am seo arís"?

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá sé sin an-tábhachtach ar fad ach muna mbeimíd is cuma ach tá súil agam go mbeimid so léir anseo agus go mbeimid ag labhairt arís. Caithfidh mé a adhmáil i ndáiríre go bhfuil an-mheas agam ar an Aire seo. Bhí sé ag éisteacht liom. Dúirt an Teachta Dennehy go raibh sé ag éisteacht leis freisin agus ó tháinig mé isteach sa Teach tá athrú ag teacht sa Roinn Leasa Sóisiailaigh, an áit a bhfuil a lán oibre le déanamh. Tuigim go bhfuil sé deacair agus nílimid in Utopia, is dócha; caithfimid bheith ciallmhar ach ní hé sin le rá go bhfuil mé ag glacadh le gach rud atá le déanamh ag an Aire.

First, I want to deny vehemently that the world started in 1987 and want to put on record that we did not get our freedom in 1987 nor did we have our first Government in 1987. I want to come to the defence of the great founder of Fianna Fáil, Éamon de Valera, who I am now sure is enjoying celestial happiness, and to apologise to him for the fact that his party's great 16 years from 1932 to 1948 and the period from 1954 to 1973, another long unbroken stint, are completely scrubbed in the history of the Fianna Fáil people who represent him at the moment. They can only go back to 1987. I just cannot understand why.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. D. Wallace

Ask him to deal with 1984. He did not want to be embarrassed——

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am delighted now. I have the right defence here. I am delighted the Deputy mentioned the period 1984-87 because I have to remind him again of the role Fianna Fáil played in probably the most reckless Opposition of all time, the Deputy reminded me of it and I cannot help reminding him of what they did. I find it awful that I am reminded of the terrible things that happened in the time of the Opposition as they were at that stage. I feel sorry for the people who now see emigration for what it is and I remember seeing posters of people queueing to get their visas. That happened back in the bad old days I am reminded of. Think of the irresponsibility of it. Let me remind the House that in those days inflation was at 21 per cent. Imagine a Government dealing with problems that stem from an inflation rate of 21 per cent and bringing in the requisite increases for pensioners and the unemployed at that rate. Mind you, they did quite well. I want to accept a compliment on the family income supplement. It is very nice that we are being complimented for work done before 1987. Only in this great year, 1987, did things begin to move, and I suppose I had better move on as well.

I mentioned inflation at 21 per cent; perhaps an increase of 4 per cent is not over exciting, even taking it that Fianna Fáil were handed an inflation under control, down to almost 4 per cent. One of the key compliments they pay themselves still is that they have inflation under control, which, of course, is not true. It was brought under control after they had sent it absolutely bananas in the period 1977-81, years we do not want to remember.

Before I come to the main part of my speech I want to thank the Deputies opposite for making me feel proud to belong to Fine Gael. The Minister and Deputy Dennehy could not help talking about Deputy Bruton. Is it not marvellous that at long last here we are, Fine Gael, with a leader who can get Fianna Fáil on their toes every day in the Dáil? I hope the next Fianna Fáil speakers can resist mentioning what a wonderful job Deputy Bruton is doing for Fine Gael at the moment.

Mr. Dennehy

You cannot get the people on their toes.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Do not worry, there are local elections coming up and you will all be on your toes. At that stage you will see the fruits of the propaganda and it will not hold. On behalf of Deputy Bruton I thank the Deputies for the compliment they have paid him.

Social welfare is related to the awful scourge of unemployment. Unemployment has been painted with a PR brush in an unbelievable manner. I get shivers when I see Ministers appearing on television discussing unemployment. One Minister explained that the unemployment figures had gone up because students did not emigrate as they used to and another said it was because emigrants did not leave again after Christmas. Is not that some propaganda? While people were emigrating it was all right to claim that unemployment was under control. Nothing is further from the truth and we must face reality.

FÁS schemes are taking people off the unemployment register. When a married woman goes into an employment exchange she gets a terrible grilling. I know of a woman who came out in tears and would not go back although I did my best to get her to appeal. Married women are supposed to be unavailable for work or are not looking for work. Every effort is being made to discourage married women from being on the unemployment register. If they were included the figure would be different.

Employment creation is the job of the Minister for Labour whereas the Minister for Social Welfare must cater for those who are unemployed. If we were in Utopia we could pay more. I have come across people who feel sick at the thought of having to sign on the unemployment register. There is a perception at large that most unemployed people do not want to work and would not work to warm themselves. That may hold for some, but the vast majority would do anything rather than sign at the employment exchange.

I hope next year the Minister will be able to increase social welfare payments because of the wonderful, blooming economy we have under what is supposed to be the best Government ever.

Dr. Woods

One of the best.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is the best, according to the Minister's Leader, and I do not always believe the gospel according to St. Charles, although sometimes I have to listen to it here.

I can accept that there is a limit to the Minister's purse as well, but perhaps next year he will be able to give more. Since I have the responsibility to speak for the aged, I must admit that I am disappointed the Minister was not magnanimous enough to admit that it was my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, who put down the amendment to the Social Welfare Bill to introduce a carer's allowance. The Minister asked him to withdraw the amendment and said the Government would amend the Bill to the same effect. The Deputy acceded to the Minister's request, and today the Minister went out of his way to denigrate the Fine Gael Party who have done nothing about a carer's allowance. The Minister should have stayed neutral at least.

Dr. Woods

That was when they were in Government, then they did nothing.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It was not considered until Deputy Jim O'Keeffe put down the amendment.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputy Dennehy can stick out his chest as much as he likes, but it makes no difference; we have to give credit where credit is due. There was no mention of it until Deputy O'Keeffe put down an amendment. The Minister is too big by nature to have fallen into that trap and perhaps he will acknowledge it when summing up and will compliment Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on what he did for carers.

I do not know how the Minister could let anyone advise him to give an allowance of £2 to carers before starting to deduct money from them. When a young lad who has just made his confirmation knocks on the door, one can hardly give him less than £2, and here we have a new scheme, at the instigation of Fine Gael, under which a person can earn £2 and then the Minister will start deducting £2 for every £2 earned. This is a shambles. The carer's allowance has turned out to be a damp squib that had all the glamour and appeal of something great but it has not worked out in reality.

This £2 allowance must have been proposed when someone came out of the archives in some deep cave in the Department of Social Welfare, someone who knew that £2 was a lot of money in the time of Brian Boru. Will the Minister please deal with this and with the idea that people on social welfare can earn this money without being affected? We are only juggling with the money. Women getting this allowance are simply taking it from the husbands. Yesterday I talked to a woman who was so indignant when she found that all she was doing was taking the money from her husband's unemployment assistance, that she said she would send back the book and would not use it, out of a sense of loyalty to her husband who always shared his money with her. It turned out that she would get £8 more than before, so I advised her to take the £8 rather than send back the book.

The Minister came on CKR, the leading local radio in the country, covering Kildare, Carlow, Wicklow and places like that, and explained how wonderful was this carer's allowance. The interviewer suggested that there were many happy people listening to the Minister and the Minister assured the interviewer that there were certainly thousands of people who were very happy with this carer's allowance. The Minister slept peacefully that night following that propaganda. As a public representative I felt I should go on the radio the following day to do my duty. I acknowledged that the Minister is a grand man, that he is nice and that he had introduced this scheme, but I said I would not spend a fortune in anticipation of the money we would get from this scheme which did not get off the ground. It started this time last year. We talked about it and complimented the Minister and we were worn out during the summer making inquiries about it. It was October before the claim forms came out, a whole year was used for propaganda exercises. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the advertisements cost in case the proportion has gone out of balance altogether. I have an idea that the advertisements must have cost a lot in relation to the overall cost of the scheme.

Dr. Woods

The overall cost is £8 million and the advertisements cost a few thousand pounds.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I hope the Minister will not be embarrassed any more with this kind of carer's allowance. This allowance is only the basis of something. If the Minister cannot improve on £2 as the income allowed to a person to claim a carer's allowance, it is a complete and utter farce.

I welcome the six weeks allowance for widows and parents. Nothing should be put in the way of people at a time of sadness and tragedy. The procedure for paying allowances should be simplified as much as possible. I also welcome the section dealing with measures to combat fraud. It should be borne in mind, and I have taken this matter up with the Minister for Finance, that employers sometimes have difficulty in obtaining payments.

Debate adjourned.