asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the report entitled Poverty and the Social Welfare System in Ireland prepared by the ESRI on behalf of the Combat Poverty Agency; is so, the action he intends to take to deal with the high level of poverty in this country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The initial results of a major survey on poverty, income distribution and the usage of State services which is being carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute at the request of the Department of Social Welfare are contained in the report Poverty and the Social Welfare System in Ireland which was presented to me recently by the Combat Poverty Agency. The main value of this very comprehensive report is that it highlights those people who are most at risk of poverty and indicates what the major concerns of social policy should be, and where particular attention should be focused.

The report also indicates that a lot of progress has been made in recent years in certain areas. For example, the elderly generally are now in what is called a "low risk category". The report also refers to the improvements which have been made in the delivery of the social welfare services. This is an area in which I hope to make further significant progress in the future.

The improvement of the position of the less well-off in our society is central to our Programme for National Recovery, under which the Government are committed to “maintaining the overall value of social welfare benefits and within the resources available, to consider special provision for greater increases for those receiving the lowest payments”. All social welfare recipients received a general increase of 3 per cent from last July and this has more than protected the real value of payments given that the increase in the cost of living this year is expected to be just over 2 per cent. The report is based on incomes in 1986 and early 1987. Since then, and before publication of the report, the Government had already transferred extra resources to those in greatest need from mid-July.

The special problems of persons on the lower rates of social welfare payments were recognised by the Government this year when special increases of 11 per cent in the personal rate of payments and 6 per cent in the child dependant payments were granted to recipients of unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance. These special increases costing an extra £30 million in a full year have significantly improved the position of those at greatest risk, namely families headed by an unemployed person, particularly large families. Further assistance had been provided to the long term unemployed through the extension of the free fuel scheme and this has benefited some 30,000 people.

Another group identified in the report as being at risk are those in employment but with a low level of earnings. The family income supplement scheme is specifically aimed at families with low income from employment. Since taking office the Government have made major improvements in this scheme. I have also arranged for a comprehensive and independent review of the scheme to be carried out. The results of this review, which are currently being examined, will form an integral part of future policy developments.

We have made very significant progress in raising the lowest levels of social welfare payments. The 11 per cent increase we gave this year means that a family on unemployment assistance with three children now receive a payment of £98.80 per week representing an increase of £6.20. A family with six children receive £124 representing an increase of £11.70. I am hopeful that we will be able to make further progress in this regard. In doing so it will be necessary to keep in mind the relationship between social welfare payments and earnings and this is where the review of the family income supplement scheme is so important. It is interesting to note, for example, that at present the unemployment assistance payment of £124 to which I referred compares with take-home pay of £166 for a man on the average industrial earnings.

Low income farming households have also been identified as being at risk of poverty. In line with other social welfare recipients on the lower levels of payment, smallholders in receipt of unemployment assistance also benefited from the special increase of 11 per cent in the personal rate and 6 per cent in the child dependant rates brought into effect from July last. The problems of farming families are also being tackled through the Government's integrated rural development programme which is designed to improve the employment, earning capacity and social situation of 11 pilot rural areas in different parts of the country. The pilot phase of this programme will provide essential experience for its wider application at a later stage.

The ESRI report clearly shows that the policies which have been adopted by this Government are properly directed at those in greatest need. The significant progress made in tackling the problems of poverty in the short period of just over 19 months since this Government took office illustrate the Government's determination to improve the position of the less well off members of our community.

Does the Minister accept as accurate the report's finding that one-third of the population are living in dire poverty and that 41 per cent of the poor are children? Secondly, would the Minister speak to his colleagues in Government to ensure that all public moneys available to the Government, particularly national lottery moneys, for allocation to different projects, instead of going to golf clubs and private hotels for the provision of tennis courts, would be targeted at those living in dire poverty?

As the Deputy is aware, a review of the national lottery is to take place in the near future and I am sure that the Deputy, through her party, will have an opportunity to suggest where the money should go. As Minister for Social Welfare, I would of course be very happy if a larger proportion of the money was allocated to the Department of Social Welfare as, needless to say, we could make great use of that money. In regard to the report itself, its principal value is that it indicates the trends in relation to poverty, and those who lost out between 1973 and 1980 and between 1980 and early 1987. Households at greatest risk include single adult households with children and two adult households with three or more children, a much larger group.

The report clearly indicates that it is children who are at particular risk, especially in households with three or more children. This applies equally in the case of a person on low earnings as well as to those in receipt of social welfare payments. The position of children was highlighted very prominently in the report.

Does the Minister accept the findings as accurate?

I accept that the work is accurate. The report has to be considered in conjunction with the NESC report which also covered the non-cash benefits. This report only covers direct cash benefits. The two reports taken together provide a comprehensive picture. As I said, the main value of the report is that it indicates the trends which are very clear.

Does the Minister seriously expect us to accept that the Government have an interest in the alleviation of poverty when in the Estimates for 1989 out of a cut of £118 million on the current side some £80 million fell on the Department of Social Welfare? Would the Minister accept that the key finding of that report is that there is an incontrovertible link between unemployment and poverty and that its first recommendation is that changes in the tax structure to include RSI are absolutely essential in providing incentives for the creation of employment?

First and foremost, the Deputy erroneously suggested that there are cuts in the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare for 1989. If the Deputy would like to discuss them later — we do not have the time to go into them in detail here — I would only be too happy to discuss them with him.

The Minister is ducking. The Estimate has been reduced.

I am not ducking——

The figures speak for themselves.

——because the reduction in expenditure is due principally to two features, the first of which——

Is emigration. What is the second?

Let us hear the Minister's reply.

There will be 17,000 fewer on the unemployment register next year, due to a number of factors — greater employment being one and more defaulters leaving the register being a second reason. Incidentally, as a matter of interest to those who are seriously considering the question of emigration, the present prediction is that the rate of emigration is expected to be lower next year. There will be no cuts. Everyone will receive their benefits and the increases to be provided are catered for in the Estimate for next year.

All with mirrors.

There are no mirrors. As a matter of fact, there is another parliamentary question today which shows that the cost of disability benefit will be £25 million lower than in February 1987, at the time when the Coalition Government left office. Therefore, I do not know what they were doing. They may not have been minding the house very well or keeping the systems under reasonable control. Control and management are what is required.

Listening to the Minister's initial reply I thought for a brief moment that I was caught in a time warp and that the Minister had abolished poverty. Can the Minister inform the House as to what in his opinion would be the minimum income required by a person living alone in order to provide a decent standard of living?

That seems to be a separate question, Deputy.

It is pertinent.

Perhaps the Deputy would table a question along those lines.

In order to keep things somewhat in perspective, I would like to point out to the Deputy that the personal rate of payment for an old age pensioner here at present, even allowing for the sterling differential, is 17 per cent higher than the rate payable in Northern Ireland. In tackling the problem of poverty I think the Government took a major step this year. Under the Programme for National Recovery the Government are committed to protect all beneficiaries——

The Minister is ignoring the big problem.

——and to direct extra resources to those in greatest need. The Deputies can be assured that that is what the Government will be doing.

Is the Minister aware that there are many families on small farms living below the poverty line as a result of social welfare officers not being qualified to assess their means, that they are being assessed as having incomes which are not realisable and that their stock is being assessed at a value which is not realisable at the mart? Will the Minister take some action to improve their position? Children of those households are going to school with no food.

If the Deputy provides me with information on particular cases I will be very happy to follow them up.

I regularly furnish that kind of information to the Minister.

I am now proceeding to deal with questions nominated for priority.

It would have been very interesting to hear the Minister tell the House——

Deputy Sherlock will not divert the Chair.

——the number of people from whom free electricity was withdrawn during the past year. I am very surprised that the question took ten minutes and that the Minister was allowed to make a speech——

It is a very broad question.

The Minister should tell the House the number of people from whom free electricity has been withdrawn.

Please, Deputy Sherlock.

The answer is there for the Deputy.

The Deputy will get that reply.

A number of people have died and when the Deputy gets the results he will see that.

Question No. 39, please.