Vol. 161 No. 4
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £316,500 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.
The Estimates for the Department of Social Welfare for 1957-58 which I am now submitting to Dáil Éireann are three in number. They are as follows: No. 60—Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, £474,700; No. 61—Social Insurance, £3,655,000; No. 62—Social Assistance, £18,539,000.
These estimates total £22,668,700. This is £132,500 less than the total provision made for the previous year, including the large Supplementary Estimate for Social Insurance which was taken in this House on the 26th of last month. This Supplementary Estimate was not completed in time for inclusion in the Book of Estimates for 1957-58. The Estimate for Vote 61, Social Insurance, for 1957-58 is accordingly compared in the printed volume with the original Estimate for 1956-57. When compared with the total Estimate for that year (including the Supplementary Estimate) the Estimate for Vote 61 for 1957-58 shows a decrease of £72,000.
The amounts of the Estimates for Social Insurance (£3,655,000) and for Social Assistance (£18,539,000) do not give an immediate reflection of the relative size of the expenditures on the two main types of social welfare services. This is because the Social Insurance Vote provides only for the State subvention to the social insurance scheme established under the Social Welfare Act of 1952. This subvention is paid into the Social Insurance Fund, out of which are paid the benefits provided under the Act and the cost of administration of these benefits. The Vote for Social Assistance, on the other hand, covers the actual cost of the benefits provided by way of old age and widows' and orphans' pensions, children's allowances, etc., under the schemes of social assistance.
With regard to the Estimate for Social Insurance, the estimated expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund on insurance benefits and their administration in 1957-58 is approximately £10,469,000. This amount is made up as follows:—
|
£ |
|
|
Disability Benefit |
3,770,000 |
|
Unemployment Benefit |
3,140,000 |
|
Widows' and Orphans' (Contributory) Pensions |
1,897,000 |
|
Treatment Benefit |
230,000 |
|
Maternity Benefits |
112,000 |
|
Marriage Grant |
76,000 |
|
Administration Costs |
1,244,000 |
|
Total |
10,469,000 |
On the income side of the fund, receipts are estimated at £6,851,000 made up of £6,286,000 in employment contributions by insured workers and their employers and £565,000 in income from the investments of the Social Insurance Fund.
The difference between the expenditure of £10,469,000 and the income of £6,851,000, that is, £3,618,000, is the amount that has to be made good by the Exchequer in respect of fund transactions in 1957-58. To this sum is added a small adjustment of £2,000 due from the Exchequer in respect of late payments under the former National Health Insurance Scheme. The total sum to be provided by the State in accordance with Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, to cover the deficit in the Social Insurance Fund for 1957-58 is accordingly £3,620,000 and this is the sum provided in sub-head A of the Estimate.
In general, the estimates for expenditure and income of the Social Insurance Fund are higher than in the preceding year. They include provision for a whole year for the higher rates of contributions and benefits introduced in September last under the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1956, while the corresponding provision in 1956-57 was for only seven months. The provision for unemployment benefit is, however, an exception to this, being lower by £188,000 than the amount provided for 1956-57. This is due to the fact that some improvement in the employment position is looked for in the current year.
As regards the Social Assistance Vote, there is a decrease of £100,000 in the provision for old age pensions. This is mainly attributable to the fact that the number of pensions provided for in 1956-57 proved to be too great. The full amount voted for that year was not expended and it is accordingly expected that the amount required in 1957-58 for old age and blind pensions will be less than the amount provided in the previous year.
The Estimate for widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions is less by £72,000 than the provision for last year. This follows the normal trend in connection with widows' and orphans' pensions. Each year expenditure on the non-contributory pensions normally falls while the cost of contributory pensions increases.
As regards unemployment assistance, the provision for 1957-58 is higher by £131,000 than the previous year's Estimate. The reason for this increase is not that the number of persons unployed is expected to be greater in 1957-58 than it was in the previous year but that the number in receipt of unemployment assistance is expected to be greater owing to the interval which occurs between increased unemployment and its impact on expenditure on unemployment assistance. The interval arises from the fact that an unemployed worker who is normally entitled to unemployment benefit must first exhaust that right before becoming eligible for unemployment assistance. The effect of this factor on last year's expenditure was to throw the main burden of the cost of increased unemployment on the benefit scheme, while leaving expenditure on the unemployment assistance scheme not much higher than originally provided for.
In the current year, however, a large number of persons who drew unemployment benefit in 1956-57 may be expected to have exhausted their right to that benefit and accordingly to require unemployment assistance. For this reason, expenditure on unemployment assistance in 1957-58 may be considerably higher than in 1956-57 without any comparable worsening in the unemployment situation.
The only other significant change in this Estimate on which I need comment is an increase of £60,000 in the provision for children's allowances. This is due to a rise in the number of qualified children which is a normal feature of this service for several years past.
This being the Estimate prepared by the previous Government, I do not think there is much necessity or much use in my speaking at length on it. When a Minister pays tribute to the staff which works under him, Deputies are inclined to be suspicious and the Minister gives the impression sometimes that he is being put on the defensive. I should like to place on record my appreciation of the tremendous assistance that was given to me during my short term as Minister for Social Welfare by the secretary, the assistants and every other member of the staff. Too often our civil servants are subjected to criticism and, I should say, as one who presided over a Department, in the main, unfair criticism.
In this Department, the Department of Social Welfare, the secretary and the staff are called upon to deal with very intricate personal problems of which I think the ordinary public do not seem to have an appreciation and which they do, not once a day but thousands of times a day in their dealings with many hundreds of thousands of the public. I want to say that during my short term as Minister for Social Welfare they did their work excellently. In that respect, I might say that many people are under the impression that, if we cut away from the Department of Social Welfare a lot of the staff, we could increase the benefits to a very great extent. I pointed out in the last three years, and Ministers for Social Welfare before me pointed out, the relatively small costs of administration in the Department of Social Welfare, which is spending this year a total of something like £22,000,000.
Some of the criticising public do not seem to realise that the administrative expenses are indeed extremely small when one has regard to the total expenditure of over £22,000,000. I stand to be corrected, but I think the administrative expenses would amount to something like 5 per cent. of the total cost, representing in money something a little over £1,000,000. I do not think that is bad at all for, as I say, a Department which has to deal with so many hundreds of thousands of problems in respect of the individual, day after day, month after month and throughout the whole year. Invariably because the Department deals with so many individuals, there will be criticisms about delays and about mistakes which are inevitable, but again I would say that in my experience— and the Parliamentary Secretary knows this from past experience—the percentage of errors and delays is very small.
One thing I noticed particularly in the general election speeches—I am referring to them because in the general election campaign we are supposed to get some indication as to the general attitude of Parties in respect of different things— there was a remarkable absence of comment from the now Government Party about social welfare. It will be no reply to me to say: "Well, the Fianna Fail Party were the Party who initiated this scheme, that scheme and the other scheme. We were the Party who introduced the comprehensive scheme of social insurance in 1952." Granted they did a tremendous amount in that respect, that they did introduce the comprehensive code of social insurance in 1952, that is not sufficient. I agree that is the basis of social insurance, social welfare and social assistance generally in this country, but there is a demand and naturally will be a demand for increases to be kept in step with the cost of living.
Many Ministers for Social Welfare and other Ministers indeed have had occasion to complain about the way they were treated by the Government, through the Minister for Finance. Let me say, as a member of the Labour Party, that in the three years during which I was Minister for Social Welfare, I was not treated ungenerously and practically every single section which was dependent on social welfare benefits or social assistance benefited in some way. The old age pensioners benefited; those who were sick, those who were unemployed, those who were in receipt of widows' contributory pensions and non-contributory pensions, benefited. I think it would be true to say that in every Budget that was introduced in the three years during which we had an inter-Party Government, there was an improvement made in the social welfare and social assistance services, and I trust that will be repeated.
The first task was to give the old age pensioners an increase, and that was done. It was a small increase, but it cost £1,000,000. I do not feel it is appropriate that we should discuss a Department like the Department of Social Welfare before the Budget. I assume the present Minister for Social Welfare and the Parliamentary Secretary are endeavouring to get from the Government or from the Minister for Finance some more assistance for people who, most of the country believe, deserve it, that is, the old age pensioners. Of course, it is all very well for Deputies and for members of the public to talk about the old age pensioners. If we want to do something for the old age pensioners, we should also be prepared to pay what-ever increase in taxation is necessary for the benefit of those people.
I think I mentioned during my term as Minister that I thought it might be desirable if there were to be a special section in the Budget for these people who are dependent on social assistance, and I stress social assistance recipients. I am not thinking about those who are unemployed, those in receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance or sickness benefit, or widows' and orphans' contributory pensions. I am speaking about these people about whom it is established that they cannot fend for themselves, people who have no income whatsoever, old age pensioners, people who are on the dole and those in receipt of widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. If there is a special section in the Budget to raise money for these classes then people clamouring for an increase for old age pensioners will pay the increase in taxation in the knowledge that it will be applied to old age pensioners, widows and orphans and to the unfortunate man who has neither stamps nor benefit and is dependent on unemployment assistance.
People talk about a big increase for old age pensioners. Some say the pension should be 30/–, 35/– or £2. One must realise, and I know that Deputies do realise, that the miserable 2/6d. costs £1,000,000 and that that represents something like 6d. in the £ on income-tax and a substantial increase—I think 6d.—in the price of the packet of cigarettes. I mention that to give people an appreciation of what it means to give even a miserable 2/6d. to the old age pensioners. There has been, I think, a deliberate campaign by some Deputies in this House and by a lot of people in the country to carry out an unfair campaign against unemployed people. They would give the impression that the tens of thousands of unemployed are wasters who would not work if they got work. My experience is that in the registered number of unemployed we have a hard core who are not alone unemployed but unemployable. They are people who believe they can work but who would not be accepted by employers. They are not sick, but they may be mentally sick, I do not mean to say they are insane. They have not worked for years and as a result they are unemployable. In my opinion there are something like 20,000 of these people. The vast majority of the rest are people who are genuinely seeking work and who want to work.
I would say also that there is a certain number of people who are just robbing the Social Insurance Fund, robbing the taxpayer by getting dole under false pretences. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should, and I know they will, with the co-operation of the officials, see that those people will not get away with the loot from either the Social Insurance Fund or the money contributed by the taxpayer that is paid out in unemployment assistance. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to answer certain matters which I have raised but I would ask him to try to ensure that the free fuel scheme and the free footwear scheme will be retained. I fully appreciate that these schemes were introduced as emergency schemes but they have now come to be regarded as essential services for certain families who look forward, in October and November, to the granting of one, two or three pairs of shoes or boots to their families. They are people who are not in a position to pay for the footwear themselves. The free fuel scheme for old age pensioners and widows and orphans has also come to be regarded as a scheme which automatically comes into operation in November. It was, as I say, also an emergency scheme but is now part and parcel of the economy of these people who are not in a good financial position.
In conclusion, may I wish the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary well in their offices and ask them to continue the improvements which I believe took place in the last three years. There are many things we did not get around to doing. There is the question of retirement pensions and I know that it occupies the attention of many officers in the Department. I trust it will not be lost sight of. I think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would find that the introduction of such a scheme would, in a reasonably short time, have the effect of reducing the bill for the payment of old age pensions which is a tremendous sum of money at present and amounts to £10,000,000 or £11,000,000. The rehabilitation of the blind and the provision of work for people at present in institutions for the blind have also progressed to a certain point. I see from certain reports in the newspapers that the Minister has more or less decided to carry on and further the initial moves that have been made, in order to provide work for, and rehabilitate these people. That is all I want to say at the moment because I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary's introductory speech is purely a factual account of the Estimates now before us.
So far as the Fine Gael Party is concerned I wish to say we are in no way opposed to these Estimates.
Deputy Corish has referred to abuses that are well known in regard to stamping of cards in order to get unemployment assistance. He also referred to the work being done in the Department to try to put an end to that. There have always been certain abuses in insurance and they were very often experienced in national health services in the old days. To eradicate them completely is a very difficult matter. We want, in addition to officials doing their best in this matter, the co-operation of the public. The employers also have a responsibility in handing up cards and seeing that a person produces his card when he goes for employment. It is very necessary, therefore, for everyone to help to create a public opinion to put an end to the abuses. When Deputy Corish was Minister, I made a representation in this matter and he was very helpful, but I think it is felt on all sides of the House that unless we create a public opinion to fight these abuses that the help of the officials and the Guards will not eradicate such abuses. It is in everybody's interest, that of the contributors, the employers and the State to do this.
Another point which I wish to make is that to stand for economy in this State does not mean that one is against public officials. We know the value of the Irish Civil Service and of the very high standard that they have brought to bear, and bring to bear, on public administration, but if a Government stands for economy—and we stand for economy—it does not mean that we do not appreciate the work done by the Civil Service. We have to take into account the interests of the people who elected us here and who have to pay for the services and their capacity to pay for them. Comparative figures for business firms in regard to the cost of administration do not bear on the subject at all. If we can have these services administered at 2½ per cent. or 2 per cent. we shall do so. Under a previous Minister for Social Welfare, under whom I served and who introduced one of the most generous forms of legislation in the whole of Europe, we carried out substantial economies and a good investigation into the Department of Social Welfare. The effects of these investigations and of these economies and of the work done at that time are being felt this year. If the Minister and the Government find that more economies can be made without hurting anybody, then we shall make them.
As regards the other point about the increase in social benefits, we have to take into account the capacity of the community to bear the burden. We have to cut the cloth according to our measure. That will be our criterion in any approach to this matter. As the members of the former Government know, the economic position is not a healthy one.
I think we have a code of social welfare laws as good as any country in Europe. We were pioneers in many things before they were known on the other side of the water. Such things as widows' and orphans' pensions came to Britain only in later years, but I shall not go into that now.
