The House will now hear two minute statements on matters appropriate to the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Justice. I propose to call the Deputies I have selected in the following order: Deputy Nealon, Deputy Bell and Deputy Deasy in respect of matters to the Minister for Social Welfare and, again, Deputy Deasy in respect of matters to the Minister for Justice. The House will now hear a two minute statement from Deputy Nealon.
Adjournment Debate. - Social Welfare and Justice Matters.
I am very glad of this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the Minister for Social Welfare what I regard as a monstrous anomaly in the social welfare code. The reason I am raising it in the House at this time is in direct response to a call for some sort of action by a constituent of mine who is a victim of this regulation. This is as much about principle as it is about money.
My constituent is now on maternity benefit, as she was almost two years or so ago. Now she finds she is getting less money than she did the last time even though she is on a higher salary. The reason is that she worked for only 38 weeks in the present reckonable tax year which happened to be the year of her previous maternity leave. If she had had her maternity leave a little earlier or a little later she would be getting 70 per cent of a full year's salary and not, as now, 70 per cent of 38 weeks' salary.
Surely there is something wrong with that kind of thinking, that a previous maternity leave should be a factor in the calculation of the benefit in a subsequent maternity leave just because of a confluence of timings. I understand that this kind of anomaly may be dealt with in a new EC Directive, but the Minister should not wait for Europe to tell us what to do in a matter such as this.
We all, I suppose, are familiar with the considerations and difficulties involved in family planning. Surely we should not be adding the reckonable tax year as a further calendar calculation that has to be done.
Maternity benefit is payable to women in employment, including women in employment under a contract for a fixed term and to women in part-time employment earning £25 or more per week, subject to certain PRSI contribution conditions. The weekly rate of social insurance maternity allowance payment is 70 per cent of the claimant's average reckonable weekly earnings in the relevant tax year, subject to a minimum payment of £60 per week and a maximum payment of £154 per week. The relevant tax year, for the purposes of calculating average reckonable weekly earnings, is the last complete income tax year before the beginning of the benefit, that is, the calendar year in which the first day of maternity leave occurs. Therefore, for a maternity benefit claim commencing during the benefit year January-December 1992, the relevant income tax year is 1990-91.
Maternity benefit is not treated as income for the purpose of determining avarage reckonable earnings. However, the minimum payment of £60 under the scheme ensures that recipients whose earnings in the relevant tax year are low do not have their entitlements reduced below the level of other analogous social welfare payments.
The scheme, therefore, guarantees a minimum payment for low income earners who would otherwise have received a significantly lower payment as a result of having been in receipt of maternity benefit in the reckonable tax year.
An EC Directive concerning the protection of pregnant workers is currently under consideration. It is expected that this Directive will be adopted before the end of 1992. The draft Directive lays down certain minima in terms of social security protection for pregnant workers, which are already exceeded by the entitlements applying to Irish workers. The maternity benefit scheme will be reviewed in the light of the Directive once it is adopted and the issue raised here will be considered in that context. However, any changes in the maternity benefit scheme would have to be considered in a budgetary context.
It was expected that we should now have a two-minute statement from Deputy Michael Bell. I do not observe the Deputy. I am proceeding, therefore, to call Deputy Austin Deasy to make his two-minute statement.
I raise this issue because it defies explanation. It arises as a result of the Social Welfare Act recently passed by this House. I regret that the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy McCreevy, is not in the House to hear the case I wish to make. I do not want him to answer the case as such but I want to request him to repeal the legislation.
This issue concerns a single man in my constituency of Waterford who has been working and stamping a card for the past 27 years. Since he became sick ten years ago he has been receiving a disability benefit of £50 per week. He told me that he thought he should be getting much more assistance. When I made inquiries at the local social welfare office I was informed that, as a result of the Social Welfare Act recently passed by this House, that was his maximum entitlement. I then contacted the TDs' complaints section in the Department of Social Welfare who merely confirmed what the local office had told me, that the maximum payment for a single man on disability benefit is £50.
I wish to refer to the anomaly in this case. If this man was unemployed and had never worked he would be entitled to receive £55 per week. However, having paid 27 years' stamps and worked hard all his life he is now being penalised to the extent of £5 per week; he is receiving less for having worked and stamped a card than if he had never worked at all. I cannot see the justice in that. I request the Minister to change the legislation so that this wrong can be corrected.
The Minister for Social Welfare would have liked to be present in the House but he is detained elsewhere on Government business. He has asked me to deputise for him. The Social Welfare improvements announced in the 1991 budget provided for a general 4 per cent increase in all weekly payments with effect from the end of July 1991. However, special increases of 11 per cent were given to those in receipt of short term unemployment assistance and 6 per cent to those getting the long term rate of unemployment assistance. The effect of those increases was to ensure a minimum personal rate of £50 for all short term payments and £55 for all long term payments.
As a result, since July 1991 the personal rates of all long term payments have reached or exceeded the priority rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare.The Programme for Economic and Social Progress contains a specific commitment to move by 1993 to the priority level of rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare.
A PRSI contributor who falls sick and claims disability benefit would, subject to satisfying the relevant conditions, receive a personal rate of £50 per week. The same person who loses his or her job and claims unemployment benefit would receive the same weekly rate of payment, subject to satisfying the relevant conditions. Where the person continues to be unemployed for more than 15 months, unemployment assistance at the long term rate of £55 per week becomes payable subject to satisfying a means test.
I accept the point made by the Deputy that an unemployed person with no means, who has never paid PRSI contributions and who is in receipt of the maximum rate of long term unemployment assistance is better off by £5 per week than the PRSI contributor who becomes sick and claims disability benefit. This differential of £5 per week is designed to recognise the special needs of the long term unemployed and is in line with the policy of providing higher payments to long term recipients in general.
I have to take issue with the point made by Deputy Deasy that no recognition has been given to the contributions made by the applicant. On reaching a certain age or becoming sick a person can draw either disability benefit, invalidity pension or contributory or retirement pension based on their contribution. Obviously, they are in a much better position at certain times——
That is if they reach the age.
They will certainly be in a much more advantageous position than a person who is unemployed on a long term basis.
It is an appalling wrong which has to be rectified.
The House will now hear a further two-minute statement from Deputy Deasy.
With a huge young population, many of whom are unemployed, there is a growing crime problem in this country. It has been obvious for some time that conventional policing is not sufficient to deal with growing vandalism, drug abuse and violent behaviour, particularly in urban areas. I suggest that the Garda Síochána be assisted in their duties by a reserve force, equal in number to the strength of the present force which is approximately 10,000. Special attention should be paid to obvious flashpoints such as pub closing times, social and sporting events and assisting in community work.
At present many crimes go unreported because the public believe the Garda will never have time to solve their problem or even investigate it. This complaint is continually made to me. I regard the alternative to my proposal as unacceptable. If present policing practices and presence are not improved vigilante groups will take the law into their own hands, thereby creating more problems than will be solved. I firmly believe there are enough civic-minded people available to constitute such a force. This force would not patrol or act at any time without being supervised by a regular member of the Garda.
The time has come to recognise that the present system is not adequate to deal with a worsening problem. We should face up to the fact that law and order has broken down and tackle the problem realistically. In other words, I am asking that a part-time civilian force be set up, as is the case in many other countries, to augment and assist the Garda in the performance of their duties.
It has always been the policy of successive Governments and the Garda authorities to encourage all law-abiding and responsible citizens to assist the Garda in law enforcement. The question of the establishment of a reserve police force has been examined from time to time. However, it is not clear that any possible advantage arising from the establishment of such a force would outweigh potential difficulties which could arise from it. For example, one would have to be concerned with the rights of individuals faced with a new law enforcement group who would initially lack the expertise and training of full-time police. With regard to the need for additional gardaí, recruitment of 1,000 gardaí over the next few years is already under way. In addition, 585 civilian clerical staff are employed in the Garda Síochána. This is a matter which the Minister is pursuing in consultation with the Garda authorities.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 July 1992.