Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 19 Jul 1963

Vol. 204 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1963—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Corish

In the course of his remarks last night, Deputy Cunningham, in what appeared to be a boastful way, said this Bill for social welfare increases was one of the results of the turnover tax, thereby trying to create the impression that the turnover tax was introduced in order to finance certain social welfare increases. He sought to give the impression that this was one of the benefits that flowed from the introduction of the turnover tax. It would not be wrong, I think, to say that that is somewhat inaccurate since it has been admitted by the various Government spokesmen that this Bill has been introduced because the turnover tax was introduced in the Finance Bill.

It should be made clear once again that this is not a Bill which improves the payments made under the social welfare code. It is merely a partial compensation for the increases that must occur in the cost of living—it is admitted will occur—when the turnover tax comes into operation. As has been said by members of the Government Party, this is not, in fact, full compensation; it is only partial compensation. Each year, in the past five or six years, and even before that, various Ministers for Social Welfare have given some increases, but these were increases introduced to compensate for any increase in the cost of living and, in some cases, the increases were a little over and beyond any increases that had taken place in the cost of living.

This year, however, the introduction of this Bill does not represent in any degree a gratuity or an improvement to those who are in receipt of social welfare benefits. It is merely a partial compensation for the increases in the prices of commodities that must necessarily occur when the turnover tax comes into operation. Evidence of that can be found in the Minister's own statement. The Minister said: "The effect of these increased payments"— he is referring to children's allowances—"can perhaps best be illustrated by a few examples. The monthly allowance for a family with three children will go up from £1 17 6 to £2 12 0 per month". I think that three children may be the average family in Ireland. I may be wrong in that, but let us take the example of a family of three children.

The increase which will be given to such a family under children's allowances will be 3/4d per week. We must remember that these increases, in the insurance groups particularly, necessitate the payment of an increase for the insurance stamp, to the tune of 8d per week. That means that for the family of three the increase will not be 3/4 a week but 2/8 a week. Surely therefore, it cannot be suggested that 2/8 a week would compensate a man with a wife and three children who had £8, £9 or £10 a week? Therefore, whilst none of us object to these increases, it cannot be said that the increase in children's allowances in respect of that particular family will compensate for the increase that will undoubtedly occur.

On the Finance Bill, the Minister for Industry and Commerce intervened— I have not got the exact quotation— but he admitted that the increase in children's allowances would not in all cases compensate for the increase that must take place in the cost of living. Therefore, this Bill had to be brought in. I have an appreciation of the mind of the Minister for Social Welfare in respect of necessary social changes. Even in this Bill he has continued the good work in a lot of tidying up, but in this case there was no option but to bring it in because there would have been a greater outcry about the turnover tax if the people did not get some compensation by way of social welfare improvements.

I do not think the Government are treating the Minister properly. I do not believe he is getting a fair share of the increased taxation proposed to be raised under the Finance Bill. I remember occasions when the surplus, so to speak, after the imposition of taxes, etc., in a Budget amounted to £2 million, £3 million or £4 million a year and this Minister and other Ministers for Social Welfare received a much higher percentage of it. It is not a great tribute to the Government or to the House that in a budget in which we propose to raise an extra £15 million or £16 million we should at the same time give the usual 2/6 to the old age pensioners, the blind persons, and the widows in receipt of a non-contributory pension. It is not a wonderful thing to spend only £4 million of that sum to increase the social welfare payments.

The general trend of the speeches from the Government side has been to challenge the Opposition that they would not give the money. That is not entirely correct. As far as we are concerned for 1963/64, in regard to social welfare payments, we cast a positive vote with the Government for the raising of over £4 million—in respect of corporation profits tax, amounting to £3 million, in respect of tax evasion proposals, to the extent of £700,000 and in respect of the increase in the tax on profits from rents, to the tune of £600,000. I do not want to go over the arguments of the last few months about the introduction of the turnover tax, especially as it affects the price of foodstuffs. As I said, the Government speakers have said: "You would not give us the money." There is no particular merit in saying that that is how Oppositions have behaved in the past.

I remember one occasion when the prices of cigarettes, tobacco and drink were taxed by the Government of which I was a member and practically all the money thus to be derived it was stated by the Minister for Finance, would be devoted to social welfare improvements. Fianna Fáil, however, had no hesitation in voting against all those proposals which involved a few million pounds. I am not going to make a point about that but if we are to be twitted by members of the Government Party, we can point out that Fianna Fáil behaved like that, and always did in every Budget that was introduced when I was a member of the Government. I have not got the figures to hand but Fianna Fáil could well have been accused of being in favour of social welfare increases but were not prepared to give the money. We are prepared to give much more than the Government want to give so far as social welfare increases are concerned. We were not prepared to do that merely by default but our members walked into the Division Lobby with Fianna Fáil in respect of the taxes I have mentioned.

What we are concerned with, amongst other things, in the raising of taxation is how the money is to be spent. We would have been much more enthusiastic about the various Budgets and proposals by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare in the past five or six years, if more tax revenue had been devoted to social welfare recipients. In recent years, the tendency has been, as far as the figures available to me are concerned, to devote a smaller percentage of the tax revenue towards social welfare. It is a bad trend and whilst it may be said: "When you were Minister for Social Welfare, you gave only 2/6 and you did not do anything about this category or that category," I can say that when I was Minister for Social Welfare, when there was an inter-Party Government, a far bigger percentage of tax revenue was devoted to social welfare than has been devoted in the past five or six years.

Our concern should be the present and the future. There is nothing I deplore as much as going back even one year, let alone ten years, 15 years or 40 years. My concern and that of my Party is the present and the future and, in this case, the present as far as these people are concerned and what the future may hold for them. I would ask the Minister and the members of his Party, especially those who are not Ministers, to try to ensure that out of the money paid by the taxpayers, a reasonable proportion is devoted to the unemployed, the sick, widows and those who have not sufficient on which to live by reason of old age.

There is nothing much that we in this House can oppose in respect of this Bill. However, out of an increase in taxation of £15 million or £16 million, all we can devote is the sum of £4 million per annum and, in this financial year, something like £1¾ million.

Maybe I have chided too much. I wanted to congratulate the Minister on the tidying up he has done in this Bill and which he has done since he became Minister. Deputies come up against very irritating aspects of social welfare from time to time. There are hundreds and thousands of cases with which the Minister could not expect to cope within a short 12 months or even within many years but to his credit, I would say that even in this Bill, which is concerned with monetary improvement, he has cut out a lot of what people describe as red tape and irritants that seem to be attached to the social welfare code.

The Minister is to be applauded, too, for the changes he has made in respect of the old age pension means test. It is not the ideal means test and so long as we have means tests, there will never be an ideal one. However, he has raised the amounts and made certain changes with regard to investments or capital which widows or old age pensioners may have when they apply for these pensions. Last night, Deputy Tully mentioned all these things and, as I am doing now, he congratulated the Minister on these very excellent improvements.

An example of an irritant as far as my experience goes was the payment of the total amount of the contributory old age pension to a man who had been separated from his wife for some reason or another. That is corrected in this Bill. As far as I can gather from the Minister's speech and from what Deputy Tully said last night, it means that in certain cases separate payments may be made.

There are many other changes which I cannot now remember but I noted them last night when I read the Minister's speech and the Minister is to be complimented on them. He will have our wholehearted support in any monetary or other improvements as far as the social welfare code is concerned. We get into a mess when we talk about raising the money to do all these things but it is not just a question of voting for the money and for the increases as well. There are many other complications, as was demonstrated in the discussion we had on the turnover tax.

We believe that to improve the social welfare code moneys should be got other than by taxing what we regard and what we describe as the necessaries of life. We have demonstrated for years that we will support taxation when we are convinced as members of a political Party that these taxes are raised from the people who can best afford them. That could lead to a long discussion which I do not want to pursue on this Bill.

Last night, the Minister referred to something that is not in the Bill, namely, the improvements in the wet time payments and of course the consequent increases in contributions. I do not want to be narky or anything like that but the Minister may have misled the House to some extent. There was some sort of consultation with the trade union movement but not consultation in such a way that there was agreement between the two bodies— between the Minister and the Congress of Trade Unions — before the final figures were published.

I know it is not for any outside body, and rightly so, to direct the Minister as to what payments should be made in respect of wet time or what the contributions should be. However, I think it ought to be made clear that there was no consultation in the manner of there being an actual agreement between the Minister and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I would not say they are entirely dissatisfied with the results. I do not think these new rates and contributions are in the hands of the officers or the members of the Executive of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as was inferred last night. These were communicated, I am informed, by telephone to a member of the trade union movement, not necessarily a member of the Executive. I do not want to make a strong point about that. These new rates seem to be reasonable and the increases proposed by the Minister do not appear to be unreasonable, either.

A practice has been followed in respect of new contributions that those who would have no wages would not be asked to contribute as much as those who might be regarded as being in a higher wage bracket. I notice from the proposals here, in respect of the wage that is paid, the increase in the insurance stamp is the same all round—an increase of 8d. per week. It may be only pennies but we should make an effort to preserve the principle of charging an increase for the social welfare benefits somewhat in proportion—I will not say strictly— to the wage a man earns.

Under this Bill, the agricultural workers will have to pay an increase of 8d. per week and the wage earner or salary earner who is insurable and who earns twice or three times what the agricultural worker earns has to pay 8d. as well. As far as I remember, in the past when these new rates were proposed, it was not a flat increase. Some consideration was given to those who could be regarded as being in the lower income group.

Mr. Boland

The benefits are the same.

Mr. Corish

I agree. They always were. However, I wonder if the Minister has given consideration to the position of the employer in this? The principle, which in general is not a bad principle, that one-third would be borne by the employee, one-third by the employer and one-third by the State, has generally been accepted in this House and seems to be reasonably satisfactory. However, the Minister might consider, in any future cases, asking the employer to pay a little more than the worker.

After all, there are many countries where the employer carries a very big share of the cost of social insurance. In this country, it cannot be said that there is an unusually heavy burden on them in carrying one-third of the cost. Apart altogether from legal considerations, I think the employer has a moral responsibility for his workers, especially those who have served him for a long time, in times of sickness, unemployment and old age.

That is as much as I have to say except again to say that the Minister is to be congratulated on many of the small improvements he has made in our very complicated social insurance code.

Mr. Geoghegan

It is my intention to delay the House for only a few minutes but there are a few words I would like to say on this Bill. First, I would like to say that we welcome this Bill. It will increase the benefits for existing recipients all round. Last year the Minister made some amendment in the means test which had the effect of bringing more people into the scheme, particularly small farmers of the west. That is a good thing but the reason I have intervened in the debate is to ask the Minister if it is at all possible for him to investigate the whole question and try to devise a more suitable scheme that will not have the effect of discouraging production amongst the small farmers of the west in general. If he could investigate the matter and, as a result of these investigations, bring some measure into the House to achieve that effect, he would be doing a good day's work.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

In discussing this Bill, it is right for us to take into account the entire budgetary proposals of the Government. Everyone in the House will agree that an increase in social welfare benefits is necessary. No one will gainsay the fact that even if we did not have the budgetary proposals of the Government, it would still be necessary to increase the social welfare benefits. I cannot help feeling that they are not adequate to meet the existing circumstances of the people who receive them, even without waiting for the impact of the Budget increases.

It is an accepted fact that the cost of food is going to go up in every detail under the Budget. I have been making inquiries amongst those in a position to know what these prices will be and I think it is accepted that the price of butter, one of the most essential food commodities for old and young people, is to increase by 3d. a 1b. That is only one staple article of diet necessary for nutrition and health. Can one accept that these proposals are adequate to offset the impact of the burden these people will have to bear in the immediate future? If these proposals go through, as I assume they will, and if the tax is successfully collected, the Government will have a sizeable sum of money at their disposal.

Does the Minister consider that he is being equitably treated in the amount of money being placed at his disposal, not only to offset the tax impositions but also the gradual and steady rise in the cost of living? Apart altogether from the Budget, the cost of living is gradually, inexorably and steadily going up. We welcome this Bill and while we welcome the increases, we feel they are not adequate. I do not suppose that is the fault of the Minister for Social Welfare. He had to argue his corner in the Cabinet and somebody else was arguing his corner there as well. Yesterday another Minister was in this House looking for money to save a dockyard and I expect the Minister for Social Welfare had to be satisfied with what he got because it was as much as he could get in the circumstances.

Having said that, I now want to raise a few points in regard to the Bill and to social welfare as a whole. Every Deputy gets larger correspondence and more requisitions relating to social welfare than to any other subject. We are dealing with the less protected members of the community and we all do our best to meet these individuals and to see that they secure the benefits to which they are entitled. There are certain sections in this Bill which propose to ease the position in relation to payment of non-contributory pensions and pensions to the old, blind and widows. This is a matter that needs considerable clarification by the Minister.

Legislation of this kind carries a rule that a person is entitled to a pension, or a certain percentage of that pension, if he has a certain income. I find it hard to imagine that that rule can be applied unless very radical concessions are given. I should not like to feel that those who are administering these Acts are entirely tied by rule to fixed lines of income. I think the Minister should give some clarification to the House as to how the income is assessed.

I want to pass on to him one or two cases that have come to my notice. Recently, I had a case of a man and his wife who were drawing an old age pension. They were both on a small farm which was in the benefit of the elder son to whom it had been transferred. The husband, a thrifty type of person, had saved a certain amount of money. He also was thrifty in the sense that he insured his wife. His wife predeceased him by about nine months. When the man himself died, it was found that, as a result of the insurance and any small savings he had, he had something in the region of £500, which he divided equally among his family. Then somebody disclosed that fact—maybe some very efficient official in the district—and a claim was made on the relatives for back payment of the pension.

I should like the Minister to give the House clarification. I know in this case the man had £500, or so I am informed. What is the rate of income attributable to £500? There must be a fairly high rate of annual return attributable to that sum in the light of the sum the relatives were asked to restore in payment. As I know the position, not being a financier myself, if you invest £500 at the very best return you can get—say, six per cent— you get £30 per year. If a man has £500 invested and is getting on that a return of £30 a year, does that entitle the Department to ask the relatives to pay back the arrears? Both these people were receiving the full pension.

The reason I cite this case to the House is in an endeavour to put before the House a practical example of what has come to my notice. I would ask the Minister to clarify what the capital charges are. How many other cases have come to light? I do not suppose my correspondence is any more voluminous than that of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. At the moment, I should imagine, it is rather lighter than the many letters they are receiving on different subjects. I am constantly getting letters about back claims, about the question of farms and so on, about what happens when somebody comes down and values the stock. Here we have a hard and fast line. If it is above a certain income, the person is entitled to so much. How is that line arrived at? In fairness to Deputies, they should have a full and unequivocal statement from the Minister as to how it is arrived at in relation to money generally and also in relation to the valuation of land. That would place us all in a very much easier position to advise people generally.

I should like to know from the Minister if he has discretion in the matter. There are cases where the money may possibly be available, where it may be ground out of the individual concerned or the representatives thereof, but it may involve undue hardship to pay that money. The Department never follow a case where they know they have no chance of getting it. You cannot get blood out of a stone. But there are cases where they find they can get this money by the sale of stock. There is a widow, maybe, with a small farm who is forced to sell the stock or portion of the land to meet the commitment for back pension. Has the Minister discretion to say in this case: "I feel it would be a question of undue hardship for any money to be repaid." If so, would the Minister give sympathetic hearing to the many such cases that come before him?

There seems to be another principle involved in regard to the old age pension. It is largely tied up with the question of capital assessment. The thrifty, hardworking person who saves all his life, who may very well rear a family and after that save for the rest of his life, is not eligible for a pension when he comes to 70. As far as I can make out from my investigations into the non-contributory old age pension, anybody who has any money available in the bank does not seem to get sympathetic consideration. In fact, under existing legislation, I do not think the Department are allowed to give such a person an old age pension.

I know of another case of a person who owned a small amount of property. He owned a house valued at £200, a fishing boat, which somebody valued at £500 but which I think was worth more like £50, and he had a small amount of money in the bank. He was not eligible for the pension. I know this man was suffering considerable hardship. He was gradually eating into his savings and was getting worried. It was having a bad effect on his health generally. Because he had been thrifty and had saved a bit of money, he did not appear to be entitled to any pension. The best information I could get from the Department was that, when his savings were absorbed, he would be entitled to a pension.

I do not think that is the sort of legislation we should introduce in this country. If we have that sort of legislation, the Minister should have full discretion to tell the House, as I hope he will be able to tell the House, that he will give more sympathetic consideration to such cases. The reason I mention these cases and expand on them is that I feel legislation passed here has to be administered by the civil servants. It is not their fault. They are given certain legislation and they have to administer it. But when you are dealing with social welfare or medical benefits, anything that covers the wide range of social services, the personal element enters into it. If the Minister has discretion, he should use it with all the power he has.

There is another matter with which I have found a good deal of dissatisfaction—the matter of the reciprocal arrangements we have with the United Kingdom with reference to benefits here. Some sort of reciprocal agreement has been hammered out. I am told it is the best terms we could get here. I find in many cases of benefits due that people who have been in England have considerable difficulty and delay in getting these benefits. The Department of Social Services in the United Kingdom has to be written to. Very often it is about two months before they reply. Then the matter has to be referred back and everything has to be checked up. It is very often found that the information sent is inadequate because the person concerned may have worked in several places.

As we have so many of these cases, would it not be possible for the Minister to approach at political level— because it is only at political level anything can be done rapidly—his opposite number in the United Kingdom? Unfortunately, there are thousands of Irish workers in the United Kingdom. Some of them come back and get further employment here. When they get back they find they may have a few months' benefit here. That has to be checked on the other side. Would it not be possible for the Minister to set up a liaison by direct representation to his opposite number in the United Kingdom to ensure that these cases will be cleared as quickly as possible? I think it will be found to be a great saving of time for his officials if there is some direct contact through his Department where I presume there is some section dealing with this—and probably with a lot of other things. There are sufficient cases of this type to make it worth while to see that the money is paid as quickly as possible.

It is not right that a person who has had to go to work in England and who comes back here, gets a job and is subsequently laid up should have to wait ten, 11 or 12 weeks before getting a penny from anybody. He must go on outdoor relief to maintain himself, something which such people do not like. If they are paying insurance and entitled to benefit, they should be able to get it. My experience is that anything on a political level with goodwill on both sides can be agreed. I do not think there is any use in letter-writing: it is well worth a trip by the Minister to meet his opposite number in the United Kingdom to see if he can settle things to everyone's satisfaction.

I know the Minister has no jurisdiction over workmen's compensation but I want to mention this vis-à-vis social benefits. It often happens that a man meets with an accident and is paid a compensatory sum of a few hundred pounds. There is usually commutation of the sum concerned. He goes back to work with a different employer. This is a case of which I heard only this morning. The man was regularly insured and his insurance paid. He met with another accident and was duly paid workmen's compensation for a short period. Then the matter was re-examined and the doctors discovered that he was not a case for workmen's compensation but national health insurance. His employer made a claim for national health insurance and was told this man had received a compensatory sum as a result of an accident—not the same accident. I appreciate it was a mistake in the Department and that they thought it was the same. This man actually got £200 and he appeared not to be entitled to national health insurance. Would the Minister clarify the position regarding these situations which constantly occur? I get them quite often.

If a man gets a compensatory sum, how is that set off against national health insurance benefit? If he receives £200, must he wait until the amount he would have received in health insurance to cover the sum he has had for compensation is paid, before he is entitled to any other benefit? These are everyday points and I do not know if the Minister has authority to deal with such cases.

I should like to pay tribute to the Department of Social Welfare. I seem to have an unusual amount of work with that Department and an unusual number of complicated cases. I have always found that they meet me in every possible way but there are some cases where they are hidebound by restrictions in laws that we pass in Dáil Éireann. I suggest the Minister should use any powers he has to the fullest extent wherever it is possible for him to intervene to mitigate cases of undue hardship.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Taking up the point mentioned by the previous speaker, the Bill provides for certain changes in the method of calculating means for old age pension purposes and also for widows' and orphans' pension purposes. The present method of calculation is to exclude the first £25 of the capital involved, to take 5 per cent of the next £300 and 10 per cent of any remaining capital. This Bill proposes to exclude £100——

Mr. Boland

Only for widows and orphans.

Mr. S. Flanagan

There is one side-effect to that which I would like to mention. Under the present system where old age pensioners are concerned, the £25 exclusion is maintained. I should hope that in time the Minister will be able to increase that figure at least to the amount which will exclude the cost of a decent Christian burial.

The point mentioned by Deputy Corish and others in regard to the compensatory aspect of the Bill is one I should deal with at least briefly. It is a question of fact as to whether those people who are entitled to social benefit will be better or worse off as a result of the combined effect of the turnover tax and this Bill. Deputy Corish is on record with others as saying that this Bill will not compensate social recipients in full. That is not so. If Deputy Corish and others were right, it would mean that an old age pensioner spends in cash over the counter more than £5 per week. I do not believe that is so. It should not be necessary to waste time on statements or allegations here which are capable of being examined factually. So far as social recipients are concerned, this Bill will more than compensate them.

In reply to Deputy Dillon whose woolly and derisive speech was the only blemish on this debate, I say without fear of contradiction that the small farmers are certainly compensated by this Bill. I have always had misgivings in connection with old age pensions on the score that 35/- per week has differing values, depending on the background of the person who receives it. If I appear to be speaking against people who live in the country, I do not intend it. I am merely expressing what I believe is the truth. An old age pensioner and his wife living in the country are usually entitled to a right of residence, a right of support, clothing and maintenance in the farm dwelling. Their counterparts in the town are not usually in that position. People living in the country have free turf, free milk, free vegetables and free food generally, whereas those in urban areas very often must pay for these items. Thirty-five shillings to them does not represent nearly as much in benefit as it does to their counterparts in the country. For that reason, I would approve of the suggestion made by Deputy Tully here last night that, in certain cases anyway, home assistance should not be taken away from old age pensioners automatically on becoming 70. This should apply particularly to people in urban areas and towns who have not the benefit of the rights and privileges I have mentioned already.

With regard to the farming community generally, I have some proposals, which I hope are constructive, to offer to the Minister, here again, in contrast to the sneering and unconstructive approach of the shadow Minister for Social Welfare who spoke last night. It seems to me that Deputy Geoghegan was right when he said that the object of the Department of Social Welfare ought to be not to discourage social progress on the land. Take, for instance, a person with five or six children who is living on a holding with a valuation under £4. If that man either purchases or is given by the Land Commission extra land which takes his valuation over £4, then he automatically becomes disqualified from receiving unemployment assistance during a certain portion of the year, and that irrespective of whether he is single or married or, if married, has no children or very many.

I believe the Minister will agree that in time some alteration must be made in this system. Of course, our object should be ultimately to wipe out unemployment assistance altogether by removing the necessity for it, but, as the law stands, no distinction is made between a person who is single and the person who has a number of children. Take, for instance, a single person who is just under the means test ceiling and, therefore, qualifies for dole vis-à-vis a married man with six children whose means are just over the ceiling. The Minister is not empowered to make any allowance for the fact that this man has a large family.

Mr. Boland

That was changed last year.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I was not aware it was changed. To come back to the point I mentioned about the local authority valuation, which still certainly applies, a man may be anxious to improve his position in life and to provide for his wife and family to the best of his ability. He is placed in a fearful dilemma because, if he takes this extra piece of land, then he cuts himself off from unemployment assistance during the summer months and he simply cannot get on without it. It is no use pretending that because a person's valuation increases from £3 15s. to £4 5s., he has ceased to be poor and becomes able to support his large family. I hope, therefore, some method will be found of taking this situation into account. I believe that is what Deputy Geoghegan had in mind when he said that nothing in the social welfare code should operate to become a barrier to increased production on the land.

In regard to the administrative machinery which has been mentioned by previous speakers, I wish to join with them in congratulating the Minister on his achievements since he took up office in this regard. There are still a number of improvements which can be effected. One of them would require a change in the law and is, therefore, at present outside the Minister's power, that is, the recovery of overpayments from people or from their estates when they are dead.

At present the Minister is under a statutory obligation, pursuant to a law now over 50 years old, to go after and recover these overpayments. My personal belief is that in the process, the Department of Social Welfare is not gaining money but is losing it. I have no figures for that and I am hazarding a guess, but I believe that if it were examined, it would be found that the recovery of these overpayments is, in fact, an uneconomic proposition but, that aside, it seems to me to be wrong that the Minister should be under a statutory obligation, no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the merits of the case, to recover these moneys.

I would, therefore, urge the Minister to include as soon as possible a provision in the law which will no longer make that obligatory on him and which will leave it at the Minister's discretion as to whether or not action should be taken. There are, of course, certain cases of deliberate fraud but these are few enough. The Minister certainly should have the power in such cases to recover any money obtained from the State by such fraud.

In regard to the transfer of land by older people to their sons, there is still the provision that enables the Department to exclude people who transfer their land for the sole purpose of qualifying for the old age pension. That is wrong. Very many people do transfer their lands for the purpose of qualifying for the old age pension and do qualify for it. I find it difficult to know how the Department can distinguish between them and decide that a particular person has transferred his land to his son for the purpose of qualifying for the old age pension and how can they separate one from the other. It is highly desirable from a social point of view that land should be transferred by elderly people to their sons. It is an encouragement to their sons and daughters to marry and stay on the land. The time has come when old people should be encouraged, with the social objects I have mentioned, to transfer their land, while, at the same time, being assured that there is no danger of their being disqualified from receiving the old age pension.

With regard to the non-contributory old age pension, there seems to be a good deal of confusion. I do not suggest this is the fault of the Department, but one has come across cases where two people, who worked side by side all their lives, applied for contributory old age pensions, and one received it and the other was turned down, or given a lesser amount. In many of these cases, it seems to me that the records available to the Department are not complete. As things stand, I do not think there is much the Minister can do about it.

In Britain, when a person is some distance short of the necessary contributions, the Ministry of Pensions advise him that on payment of a lump sum, which will make up the difference, he will qualify for a contributory pension. I recommend to the Minister that some such system should be introduced here so that applicants a little short of the level for a contributory old age pension will be enabled to qualify on payment of a lump sum. In Britain, too, the information to which I have referred is volunteered to the prospective applicant. He does not have to go searching for it, or looking for somebody to find out for him; he is merely told that on payment of a certain amount of money, his contribution record will be complete and will enable him to qualify for a full pension.

With regard again to contributory old age pensions, I should hope that the Minister will be as lenient as possible where he is satisfied that the records, for some reason, are incomplete, either through the negligence of the employer or, in some cases, of the applicant himself. In rare cases, it seems to me that some records which should be available in the Department are not, in fact, there. Knowing the Minister, I feel sure he will take all these factors into account.

I am very pleased with the changes made in this Bill to alleviate the means test, to make provision for an allowance for the first child, to provide for increased social insurance benefits, and all the other very laudable alterations in the Bill. I feel that this is only a first instalment and that the Minister will, in time, not merely increase all these benefits still further but alter the entire structure of social assistance schemes for the benefit of the rural community in particular.

None of us is happy about the present level of social welfare benefits. Everyone of us would like deserving people to receive more. It is the object of this Party to give them more as the national income expands. It is rather unfair of Deputy Corish to suggest that more could be given at the present time. I do not believe more could be given when one takes into account all the increased payments that have to be met by the Exchequer —increases that everybody asks for, the Garda, who are entitled to their increase, and everybody else in the community. While we are not satisfied, I think it cannot be said that we are not doing our best. Certainly it cannot be said that the Minister is not doing his best since he took up office in the Department.

Mr. Leneghan

I congratulate the Minister on this Bill. It is one of very great importance and it contains some very commendable provisions. With regard to social welfare generally, there is one rather extraordinary feature. If a man in my constituency goes over to England, to earn any amount of money in complete safety, returning here at some later date, he can avail of all the social welfare benefits available under this Bill, particularly unemployment assistance. If, however, a man stays at home, instead of going to England, and takes a currach out into the treacherous seas around my constituency, he is immediately deprived of unemployment assistance. That, in my opinion, should not happen. It is something the Minister should remedy because it is grossly unfair that such a man should be penalised for his industry here. I appeal to the Minister to adopt a sensible approach in such cases. All his next door neighbour has to do is to report him, to say whether he was out or not, and then a young brat of an investigating officer can come along and have that man's unemployment assistance stopped. It is very unfair.

The Minister is aware that during the past few months I have asked a number of questions about the unemployment assistance problem in my county. The Minister has not gone even one perch along the road. Surely I put it into his mouth by asking these questions that there is something wrong. I do not ask questions lightly. There is something radically wrong. It was decided to remove a certain number of investigating officers and we had hoped that the Minister was doing a good day's work, but what is happening now? Another set of these young men have come along. They have decided that they are going to let the Minister and his Department know that they are very important people. The only way they can do that is by going around and inflating poor people's means and thereby reducing their unemployment assistance. This is a grave injustice to people where no work is available. I would ask the Minister to look carefully into this matter which requires investigation.

With regard to insurance, if a man goes out and works one hour with the county council, the Board of Works, or the Land Commission, the insurance stamp is affixed for that week and he reaps very substantial benefits as a result. But let us take the man who sets out in the currach, the frail type of boat which operates off Mayo. He is a share fisherman, or a part-time fisherman, and he gets no stamp at all. That is wrong. I am aware of the fact that a share fisherman can affix a stamp but I am also aware of the poor benefit he obtains as a result. Once it is known that a man has genuinely gone out as a share fisherman, or a seasonal or part-time fisherman, he should be able to have stamps affixed and should be in at least as good a position as the man who works in the county council quarry or along the road for a few hours one day a week and draws substantial benefits as a result.

I know it is probably difficult to introduce fishing into a matter dealing with social welfare but the fact remains that we have one Minister trying to develop fishing and we have another Minister making it almost impossible for him to carry out that development because there is no social justice in this. I want to bring this to the Minister's notice so that he will take steps to have the matter remedied. He has already informed me that the matter is being investigated but it is time some conclusion was arrived at. I would suggest that when the final decision is reached, it should be on the side of the man who risks his life in the Atlantic to make his living instead of leaving the country.

It may appear to many people in the midlands or in the east that the people in the west of Ireland get social welfare payments which do not appear to be just, but I live in an area where workers are migratory and go to England. Are we to put them in the position in which they will remain permanently in England or keep them as migratory workers? We would be doing a grave injustice if we left them in the position they are in. Many of them are married men who return to their homes and it is only fair that they should be paid unemployment assistance when they return. It is a very good incentive to them to return. The present system of going into their means should come to an end.

If a man goes to England in April or May and returns at the end of the year, not only does he bring back a substantial amount of money but while he is away, he sends back substantial amounts also. That is a great contribution to the State. That man should not be penalised for doing that. If he had to live in the State, he would have to be maintained at Government expense. If he comes back now and brings back a second-hand television set, or a radio, and if his neighbour does not like him and reports him, then this investigating officer — who probably never got enough to eat himself — calls on him and the man is deprived of unemployment assistance. It is a shocking state of affairs.

I asked the Minister if he intended to continue accepting anonymous letters as a method of operating his Department and to my amazement, he said yes, that he was still going to give credence to anonymous letters. Surely in a Catholic and Christian country it is a shocking state of affairs that the Minister, or even the lowest official in his Department, is going to be influenced by anonymous letters. I have one way of dealing with anonymous letters — and goodness knows, I got enough of them in the past few weeks. What I do is put the letter into an envelope and sent it without a stamp to the man who is reported in it and when he gets it, he will very soon find out who reported him. It is the right way to deal with such letters. I would ask the Minister to put an end to the status of the anonymous writer. It is unfortunately this Minister's Department which receives most of the anonymous letters. He should realise that practically all these letters about people are written for spite and as long as they are effective and the people know they are effective, they will be written. I would ask the Minister to be big enough to give a directive to the people within his Department to throw anonymous letters into the wastepaper basket.

With regard to the contributory old age pension, which is certainly a very significant step in the social welfare advance, I want to say there is something wrong. The Act under which it is operated is very liberal, but, on the other hand, up to 1947 or 1948, the records of insurance contributions, on which that Act is based, are not substantial and are of a very doubtful type. I know the Minister has been quite liberal in his dealing with applicants for contributory old age pensions. On the other hand, I am also aware that many people perfectly entitled to a pension are not getting it because the records are missing. In the past, we had a whole conglomeration of national health insurance societies operating in this country. A very peculiar thing happened. People did not regard an insurance stamp as worth a penny, not to mind fourpence which is what it was worth in Ireland in 1932. Consequently, they did not bother their heads about whether or not they handed in an insurance card.

What happened with people who worked for county councils, the Land Commission or the Office of Public Works was that they did not bother handing in an insurance card. When pay-day came in these offices, somebody was sent out to the local post office where the insurance cards were then available. That person collected the cards, wrote the name of the person concerned on the card and stuck a stamp on it but there was no insurance number. Eventually, these cards found themselves in the Custom House. Today, nobody can trace the names of the people concerned or the cards or the numbers as there were no numbers on them. That is causing very grave concern in many parts of this country.

The local national health insurance agent of that day probably did not bother his head at all. A man came into him to join the society. He was not known even to exist. It was only when the point was reached that it was known that the national health agent was paid on the basis of the number of his clients that he became active. Some of them did not become active at all: some did. When they became active, they went out to the workers and found out who were working but, where it was an old man or somebody like that, the agent did not bother his head at all. In many cases he was probably a shopkeeper or something like that. As a result, and as these records are not available, many people today are not obtaining a contributory old age pension. It might not be much to an ordinary single man but take a fellow of 70 years who is married to a young lassie of 50, as happens in my part of the country. The widow is suffering there. She is not as valuable as she should be and he is not as valuable to her as he should be. This is very serious. I would ask the Minister to make known to us publicly what steps we can now take to rectify that very obvious wrong. I am sure we can find a way out of it. Any money he spends on old age pensioners and on keeping a bit of harmony in the house is money well spent.

Another matter also causing a great deal of concern to many people in many areas with regard to unemployment assistance and verification of evidence of unemployment is that the very same system is operated in the wilds of Erris and on the bogs of Donegal as is operated in Dublin city. Surely that is crazy. Surely a man living in Dublin who is unemployed is doing nothing and probably the bit of exercise in walking daily to the employment exchange or elsewhere to give evidence of unemployment is good exercise and does him no harm.

But, out in the country, the ordinary farmer with a small little farm with a valuation of less than £4 is entitled, if he is married, to avail himself of unemployment assistance the whole year round if he cannot get employment. If that man is living within roughly two miles of the employment exchange he must walk into the town, because such offices are only in towns, every day of the week. I know a fellow who walks that distance every day of the week for one shilling. That means that he makes six visits in the week for a rate of 2d. per day. He has a bit of land. If he remained at home and only dug the weeds out of his land I am sure he would do himself more justice than to go into the town every day for the sake of one shilling a week. But, if he does not do so, when he reaches the age for the contributory old age pension he will be out—therefore he has to keep coming in. He is caught every way.

It does not matter whether it is one shilling or 20 shillings, the thing is a cod anyway. If he lived, say, six miles from the employment exchange the position would be completely different. The Gardaí would be sent out to accept his signature just one day in the week for the same benefit or perhaps an increased benefit or, if that did not happen, he would be permitted to sign evidence of unemployment on the day of the week when he came in to collect the money.

This is so absurd that I do not believe the Minister knows about it. Indeed, if he did he would surely do something about it. When a man comes into town he meets a few friends and he spends his day there. His day is wasted. He cannot cut his turf. But his neighbour a few miles away, who is not subject to this rule, goes in probably one or two days a week, or not at all, and can use the rest of his time in improving his farm, as he should.

We have reached a position, according to this, that the man near the employment exchange is regarded as a crook and must come in every day and sign that he is unemployed while the man living five or six miles away from the employment exchange — he is a decent man, I have no doubt—does not have to come in at all because the Gardaí go out. That is an extraordinary position.

I brought this matter to the notice of the Leader of the Labour Party. I pointed out to him that he was representing these people and that it might be thought that I was trying to make political capital out of the situation and so I told him that he is the man who should raise the matter. I am raising it now. I am not pressing the case to make anything out of it but I would ask the Minister to look into this absurd position. It makes no difference to me what the people of Dublin or any other city may do. I do not have to answer to those people but I have to answer to the people in my constituency. Surely it is an absurdity?

When saying all this, I am speaking against myself because I live in a town. When I say people should not come in every day, I do myself a bad turn because I keep a publichouse. The oftener they come in, the better for me. However, I would not be honest or fair or just if I did not say that a grave injustice is being imposed on these poor people. It is an absolute absurdity that they should have to come in every day for a few shillings. During the recess, the Minister should go around country areas similar to the one from which I come and make inquiries. He will find out that what I am saying is absolutely correct.

I am glad the turnover tax has gone through because I believe it is definitely going to improve our social welfare services. Unfortunately, we are now reaching the position in which the social welfare services will become the prerogative of the rich man, if we are not very careful. We are now reaching the point at which we are overlooking the very poor man and it seems that, at a time at which the national economy is expanding, and many people are making plenty of money and getting away with murder, the poor man is likely to be overlooked.

Instead of worrying too much about unemployment benefit, disability benefit and all the other benefits under which a few shillings a week are paid, we should think of the fellow who has to live on unemployment assistance. Instead of sending out a crowd of little blackguards who probably never had enough to eat themselves to inflate the means of these people, we should send out some commonsense people to investigate their means or, rather, to ignore their means. We should be more realistic in our approach to these applicants for unemployment assistance. These people are the worst off elements of our community and it is time, at this stage, that the Minister succeeded in getting a different approach to them.

They are not well off. They have very little means. If an investigation officer from Tipperary is sent to Mayo and if he values the Mayo man's cow at the same value as the Tipperary man's cow, he is not being just to these people. I would ask the Minister to look into this matter as soon as he can.

Mr. Treacy

Listening to the Deputy who has just concluded remark that he welcomes the turnover tax and, at the same time, reveal such defects in the social welfare code is rather farcical. The increase in social welfare benefits under this Bill follows the pattern of previous years, a pattern of a half a crown a week for old age pensioners, the unemployed and the sick. The innovation is the 5/- increase for the first child in the family in the children's allowances. These are the increases we have been used to in the past.

One would have expected that, having regard to the intention of the Government to impose a tax on foodstuffs, a turnover tax that will bring in at least £11 million a year, and having regard to the colossal burden this turnover tax will involve in increased costs of the essentials of life, food, fuel and clothing, the Government would have done something more to ease this burden which will be out of all proportion to the additional benefits that are being offered.

It is true to say that already there has been an increase in the cost of living this year to the extent of about six points. Surely an increase of 2/6 a week is not adequate to compensate for that increase in the cost of living? Added to that we have the genuine fears of stiff increases in prices stemming from the turnover tax. The Government hope that the shopkeepers will absorb this tax and that, if they cannot do that, they will increase commodity prices by only 6d. in the £. It is the belief of the Labour Party that this tax on foodstuffs is giving unbridled licence to the profiteers of this country to increase their prices.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are now discussing social welfare. The Deputy seems to be dealing with a measure that has already passed through this House.

Mr. Treacy

I am relating, as other Deputies have done, the cost of living to social welfare benefits. I am entitled to advert to the fact that the cost of living, instead of being increased by 2½ per cent will be increased by five per cent or seven per cent. To suggest that social welfare beneficiaries are adequately compensated in these circumstances is absurd. It is not merely absurd; it is perpetuating a fraud on the most underprivileged section of our community. The 2/6 a week for our old aged, for our sick and unemployed, has already been absorbed by the increase in the cost of living and the standard of life of those people must be reduced still further, down to a bare subsistence level by reason of the new impositions in the Finance Bill.

Even the family which can now look forward to the 10/- for the first child must realise that the 10/- they are being given by the Government, on the one hand is being taken from them on the other, by the known fact that on 1st Novermber there will be an increase in the prices of food, fuel and clothing, and of every essential of life they must buy.

There are certain defects in the social welfare code which are greatly to be deplored. The Minister consulted with the employers' federation and the trade unions on the question of wet time. Has the Minister taken cognisance of the appeals from the Congress of Irish Unions, trades councils and so on for a substantial increase in social welfare benefits? A halfcrown is worthless in these times. It is a miserable pittance to offer anyone. Can anyone name any essential of life that can be purchased nowadays for half a crown? Having regard to the depreciation in money which has taken place since 1939, the £1 to-day is worth approximately 11/8d. It has been truly said that the increases which the various Governments have given to the social welfare beneficiaries over the past 30 years have amounted in all to 1/3d. or, at most, 1/6d.

There does not seem to be a genuine understanding of the needs of these people. When we compare these benefits with the benefits given to the sick, the unemployed, the widowed and the orphaned in other countries, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves as a Christian State. Those of us who have communed with our fellow-countrymen across the Border are deeply conscious and proud of the manner in which those sections of the community are cared for by the Government under which they are now forced to live. Their position is far superior to that of their counterparts in the Twenty-Six Counties. That they are well cared for is reflected in the number of homes for the aged and special cheap entertainment and other facilities, which indicate that such countries as England and the continental countries have a real understanding of how the aged should be treated. We in this young nation have a particular responsibility to look after our aged. The people now forced to exist on 32/6d. a week are the men and women who made possible the freedom we enjoy today and our right to speak in our own Parliament. Many of those people are living alone in abject poverty. Many more have been forced to flee into county homes, which are full to the doors. I cannot get an additional bed in the county home in my constituency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Social Welfare has no responsibility for county homes.

Mr. Treacy

If we were to join the Common Market, the people we now seek to help would be helped out of all proportion to what is being done for them now. They would be given a dignity, status and remuneration by the State comparable with that of their counterparts living in the EEC countries. Apart from the economic effects of the Common Market, we look forward with hope and enthusiasm to the great uplift it will bring to the social welfare classes.

There are certain penal clauses in the social welfare code which I greatly deplore. We have appealed to the Minister on many occasions to make the old age pension available at the age of 65. We know of no good reason why he should not accede to that request. It may be true that people are living longer nowadays, but the rigours of life are such that many are forced to retire at 65. I appeal to the Minister to heed the appeal of the Congress of Irish Unions speaking for such a large percentage of the people and to seriously consider making the old age pension available at 65. He may well find that the cost to the Exchequer would not be as considerable as many people suggest.

Those of us who have acted on old age pension committees down the country realise that the means test as applied to non-contributory old age pensions is unfair, inequitable and unjust in every sense. It is infuriating to see an extensive farmer, possibly with a valuation of £100 and many more thousands in the bank, being awarded a non-contributory old age pension, when a person who finds it extremely difficult to exist fails to get the pension. The code ordains that if a farmer purports to hand over his farm to his son or some other relative, he is automatically entitled to the old age pension. We do not object to the transfer of his property, which is a laudable thing, but the inference is that he is being turned out of his home and that he has to fend for himself on 32/6 a week. Of course, the contrary is true. He continues to live, and rightly so, in the luxury of that farm and to be maintained by his children. On the other hand, it is a most infuriating experience for us to see ordinary people, whose sufferings and hardship are intimately known to us, turned down on the basis of the means test because they are £1 or £2 over the stipulated amount.

I do not know why the Minister continues to have regard to income emanating from outside the country. I have particularly in mind the case of an ex-British soldier in my town. Because he got a small increase in his British Army pension which brought him above the statutory limit under the means test, he lost his old age pension. Is that fair or just? On the other hand, we see people with property, farmers or those with a considerable amount of money invested, receiving old age pensions. That system is unfair, inequitable and unjust. We are grateful to see the day when social welfare contributors can claim an old age pension as a fundamental right irrespective of means. The Labour Benches welcome that. The Minister should liberalise the means test and see that there is not this cheeseparing in the manner of assessing means which now exists and which has been responsible for many people being refused pensions, having them reduced or losing them through having a few shillings over and above the stipulated amount.

I have always felt that the ramification of the whole system in regard to unemployment benefits is directed against the applicants. The social welfare code makes it extremely difficult for applicants to obtain benefit. If a person is dismissed, although it may be a wrong dismissal—perhaps due to an overbearing attitude of a boss or foreman—that person is penalised for six weeks. He must appeal against that decision and go through the ignominy of a special court set up for that purpose—the appeals court. Whatever reasons there may be for losing his job he is denied benefit until the Minister's Department are satisfied that the reasons for his dismissal were good in their opinion. If a man leaves employment, as many of us are forced to do because of bad conditions or wages or tyrannical superiors, he also is penalised and will not receive benefit for six weeks.

What are these people expected to do for six weeks? If they are married it involves great hardship and mental torment in regard to getting the wherewithal to live for themselves and their families. When the appeal is heard you either get benefit or you do not or you get part of the benefit claimed. It is particularly deplorable that emigrants who return perhaps with the possibility of getting a job here or to visit a sick relative, even though they have stamped cards in this country for 20 or 30 years are debarred at employment exchanges in this country. Their appearance is resented. I feel the code is so arranged as to make it extremely difficult for the applicant to get benefit and that the primary purpose and ulterior motive behind it is to keep down to the minimum the number of persons registered as unemployed at any given time. Those who return from England and seek what they are legitimately entitled to are told: "Nothing here for you—go away. You can appeal against it." They get no benefit. They sign on interminably and many of them are forced in the end to borrow their fare back to England. That, it seems, is what is desired: that they should not be given any opportunity of replacing their roots in their home town and looking for a job there. I know this is a fact. Many of my colleagues who come back for genuine reasons are so frustrated in the employment exchanges that they could not remain, due to hunger and hardship and affront that they never expected from a Christian State and had to return to the welfare state in Britain where they are well cared for.

We know no good reason why there should be a three-day waiting period. It was a good social welfare Minister who reduced the period from six to three: it would be a very good Minister who would eliminate it altogether. It is particularly injurious to short-time workers on three or four days a week and people in haphazard employment. They suffer greatly as a result of this stipulation. Because of the magnificent machinery of the Department for the payment of claims, by and large— and I must pay tribute to that—claims are attended to with speed and efficiency. The difficulty of securing benefit has been largely eliminated once a genuine claim is made. That being so, it is high time to eliminate the three-day waiting period altogether and pay those people for any days on which they are obliged to sign as unemployed.

Deputies Corish and Tully will have adverted to the fact that increases in social welfare of this kind are looked forward to with some joy by these recipients, particularly the most destitute element in our society, those who must call on home assistance to sustain them in addition to any social benefits they may be entitled to. Having conceded the 2/6 increase to a widow and to an unemployed man, I appeal to the Minister to make clear by public statement that it is not intended that these recipients of home assistance should have their allowance reduced or interfered with in any way as a result of the increases given in this Bill. Otherwise, these increases will be undone by the home assistance officers withdrawing the assistance. What happened in the past is likely to happen this time unless the Minister intervenes. It is not enough for the Minister to say that it is a matter for the local authority or for the county managers. The county managers are waiting for their cue from the Minister and, unless the Minister makes a statement, I know that whatever the Minister gives in this respect will be taken from them by the home assistance officers.

Likewise it was a very sad revelation to us to learn that, by reason of the manner in which those people in our county homes are paid for, whatever benefits they may have by way of pension are, in the main, taken over by the local authority.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling very wide.

Mr. Treacy

I am making an appeal to the Minister——

Mr. Boland

I have no control over what the Deputy is referring to.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have let the Deputy travel very wide.

Mr. Treacy

The appeal I am making is in relation to those social welfare beneficiaries in our county homes who will not get any benefit from these increases. That is an appalling state of affairs.

An Ceann Comhairle

Many of the Deputy's remarks have not been at all related to the measure.

Mr. Treacy

Surely it is wrong, if an old age pensioner gets an increase of 5/- or half a crown, that it should be taken from him by the local authority?

An Ceann Comhairle

That cannot be altered by this measure.

Mr. Tully

It can be altered by the Minister.

Mr. Treacy

Yes.

Mr. Boland

I have nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister is responsible for the social welfare activities of local bodies.

An Ceann Comhairle

What the Deputy is referring to is not in this provision.

Mr. Tully

Surely he is entitled to suggest a change in legislation?

An Ceann Comhairle

The legislation can only be changed in accordance with the Bill introduced. This is an amending Bill, not an originating Bill. Further, the county homes are under the control of the Minister for Local Government, not under the control of the Minister.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Social assistance?

Mr. Boland

He has finished talking about home assistance. I did not say anything about the matter to which the Deputy is referring.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I thought the Minister was referring to what the Deputy was saying about home assistance.

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Treacy

I accept the direction of the Chair but I thought I was entitled to deal with it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling over the whole field and I allowed him to travel, but now he is going beyond what I could with any reason allow.

Mr. Treacy

Have I the permission of the Chair to continue?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have not interfered with the Deputy's right to speak so long as he speaks relevantly, within the rules of order.

Mr. Treacy

Another defect in respect of recipients of unemployment benefit is a flagrant one which I am sure has been brought to the Minister's attention on many occasions, that is, that those people who because they are indirectly involved in a strike are denied unemployment benefit. It is perhaps understandable enough, if one is legitimately on strike and in receipt of strike pay, that one should not be conceded unemployment benefit in these circumstances. However, it is wrong that other groups of workers, men who are locked out as a result of a strike, who are indirectly involved, have no responsibility for the strike, or perhaps do not condone it, should be victimised under the social welfare code. We believe these people, having been locked out of a job, are entitled to unemployment benefit. It is an antiworking class piece of legislation, an anti-working class bias, which lays down that these people who are locked out as a result of a strike, however far they may be removed from it, should be denied benefit. That is something to which the Labour Party take complete exception and on which they will agitate until the Minister realises his responsibility to such people.

It has been alleged from the Government benches that the Labour Party voted against increases in social welfare benefits. That allegation is completely unfounded and is an attempt to slander this Party, as has been done in the past. The measure which we opposed with all the vigour and determination at our disposal was the turnover tax and the whole country understands fully our reasons for that action. Let me say in passing that we also supported the Government's proposals in many other respects, particularly in relation to corporation profits tax and other such measures in the Finance Bill which more than provided for the amount of social welfare money required to implement these increases this year.

It is to be regretted from our side of the House that, when there has been all this vain boasting and pretence from the Government Party that they and they alone are the people who are concerned about social welfare beneficiaries and that they and they alone are the people who have given any worthwhile increases to them, the plain facts are that the amount of money from the national Exchequer being expended on social welfare is falling annually. The Government are becoming less and less generous in the manner in which they deal with these categories of persons. That is evidenced by the fact that these persons are getting less and less of the national cake.

We as the Labour Party say that in the priority of things, these are the people who should be helped most, who should get a greater share of the national estate which they helped to create in younger life, which they helped to create and are now old, which they helped to create and are perhaps thrown on the unemployment scrapheap or are now ill, which can happen to any of us. In those circumstances, it is deplorable that less and less money is being allocated from Government sources to these beneficiaries. The 5/- increase for family people and the 2/6 increase for others is inadequate when the cost of living has been increased out of all proportion by the recent piece of legislation in this House.

If the Government were really sincere in their determination to assist these people, knowing that they were going to increase the cost of living as a result of the Budget proposals, they should have provided in this Social Welfare Bill an increase of at least 10/- for the aged, the widowed and the unemployed and increased children's allowances substantially. The proposals before us here today are totally inadequate to compensate all these categories of persons, first, for the increase in the cost of living which has already taken place and, secondly, for the colossal increase in the cost of living which is bound to result from the turnover tax when it is implemented on the 1st November.

Mr. Medlar

I, like other Deputies, welcome the increases in the various social welfare benefits outlined in this measure. The previous speaker made a Border-Partition speech. He went to great lengths to point out that the social welfare benefits paid over the Border were superior to ours. Benefits are generally paid in accordance with capacity of those who have to pay them. This is an agricultural country, producing, we are told, 80 per cent of the national wealth. The Deputy should have compared the prices obtaining for agricultural commodities here with those obtaining across the Border. He should have given us the other side of the picture.

The real purpose of my intervention in this debate is to appeal to the Minister on behalf of a very small section of the community. I refer to the child dependants of the non-contributory old age pensioner. I understand that the children of all other beneficiaries under the social welfare code get benefits but the children of the non-contributory old age pensioner do not. I would ask the Minister in equity to give their case sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Tully

And also the contributory.

Mr. Medlar

In many of these cases, the wives of the non-contributory old age pensioners have young families and are constrained to work on neighbouring farms in order to supplement the family income. Those earnings are taken into consideration by the investigation officer when making his report. This is a matter that should be remedied.

The previous speaker accused the Government of being insincere. He told us that the two per cent turnover tax——

Mr. Tully

2½ per cent.

Mr. Medlar

——plus the general increase in the cost of living would amount to six per cent. On my calculation, the 2/6 increase on the 32/6 per week pension represents an increase of 7½ per cent. Finally, I appeal to the Minister to give the cases I have mentioned sympathetic consideration.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

This Bill has been introduced by the Minister by reason of the recent attack by the Government on the living costs of the very poor. It is because the Government in their Budget and consequential financial legislation decided to tax the food of those in receipt of State assistance that this measure has had to be introduced here. It would be a better thing if a measure of this kind had been introduced by reason of the recognition by the Government of the principle of social justice and the social need of those who have to depend on assistance from the State for their continued existence.

It is true to say that, if the Government in their Budget and their financial legislation had not decided to tax the food of the poor, this miserable measure we are discussing now would never have seen the light of day. It is brought in by the Minister on behalf of the Government, by a Minister who is somewhat ashamed of what has been done to the living costs of the very poor in recent weeks. It is intended to alleviate in some measure the injustice that has been done. As an individual Deputy, so far as I can see, it does not appear that this measure is either adequate or sufficient for the purpose for which it is presumably designed.

We are put in the situation in this House now that we cannot as individual Deputies amend this measure in such manner as to impose any additional burden on the Central Fund and we have either to accept what is proposed now or reject it. To a person in need, I suppose half a loaf is better than no bread, and what is proposed here must be accepted; but I should like to join with Deputy Treacy in the point he made in relation to the position that will undoubtedly arise in regard to those at present in receipt of home assistance, disablement allowances, and various other benefits administered by local authorities under the aegis of the Minister for Social Welfare.

If this measure passes in its present form, there can be little doubt that any increase granted will be set aside by a corresponding reduction in the level of home assistance. That is contrary to the professed object of this Bill, which is alleged to alleviate the increase in living costs likely to be caused by the proposed taxation on food. If we are to pass this measure, I believe we should pass it in such a way that, contained in the Bill itself, will be a prohibition on permitting any of these increases herein proposed to be used of themselves as a reason for reducing the level of home assistance or disablement allowance paid to any recipient.

There is no doubt that the very poorest section, those who at the moment are recognised by the local authority as sufficiently necessitous to qualify for some measure of home assistance and who are, therefore, amongst the very poorest of the poor, will gain no advantage under this measure unless we provide specifically in this Bill for that prohibition. Perhaps their old age pensions will increase, or their social welfare payments will increase but by the degree to which those payments are increased, the measure of home assistance provided for them will be reduced. I know that I am probably saying what has been the frustrating experience of Deputies on all sides in relation to the social welfare increases granted by legislation from time to time in the past.

We find that because there is an increase in an old age pension, contributory or non-contributory, or in social welfare, or whatever it may be, the person in receipt of a special allowance under the Army Pensions Acts, or some other branch of State assistance, finds the payment he had is reduced by the amount of the increase granted by the legislation passed by this House. In those circumstances, a category of person who is generally amongst the most necessitous finds that in fact he gets no increase whatever and has to face the rise in the cost of living which was the cause of the legislation.

I am going to suggest to the Minister, while it is not the intention, and it would not be the desire of the House, to hamper or slow down this legislation in any way, that when we reach the next Stage, the Minister should accept a verbal amendment from me. This would be to the effect that the Bill would incorporate a provision which perhaps might be moved by the Minister in the Seanad, which would be a prohibition against local authorities deciding that the increases provided here should of themselves affect any payment by way of home assistance or disability allowance being received at the moment by any person. If that were enshrined in the Bill, it would ensure that the benefit of the alleviation would be enjoyed by the most necessitous of the groups we intend to benefit. Without such a provision, the Bill is not satisfactory and accordingly an amendment of that kind should be incorporated.

Mr. Timmons

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the improvements he has outlined in this Bill. Listening to some other speakers, I thought that it was a continuation of the long and tedious discussions which we had in relation to the controversial turnover tax. The suggestion the Opposition are making, that this will increase the cost of living to an alarming extent, is purely propaganda and part of the campaign directed against Fianna Fáil for their courageous stand in bringing in such a measure to enable not alone the general economy to develop, but in its train, to provide additional social welfare benefits for the community. The measures outlined by the Minister are in line with the progressive thought in the legislation brought in by Fianna Fáil since they became a Government many years ago.

Reference was made to various measures for old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions. These measures in the main were introduced by Fianna Fáil and have been improved consistently down the years as the economy of the country developed. The previous speaker denigrated our efforts in that respect. He has not shaken off the mantle of conservativism of Fine Gael's outlook in regard to social welfare. They never outlived the taunt that for economic reasons, they took a shilling off the old age pensioners.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Was the Deputy alive in those days?

Mr. Timmons

As long as that is on record, we can have no faith or confidence in the speeches of the Opposition, particularly Fine Gael, in regard to social welfare measures. Having said that, I should like to express disappointment that the Minister did not take the opportunity of reducing the limit for compulsory insurance for non-manual workers from £800 a year, a figure which was fixed as far back as 1958. In spite of what the Opposition say, salaries and wages have gone up by some 30 per cent to 40 per cent in most cases, and there is a strong case for a revision of that ceiling. Workers have gone out of insurance and have forfeited rights which they enjoyed under social welfare legislation. These, as we know, are the rights to old age pensions, perhaps a pension for a widow, not to mention disability benefits. They are also deprived of the benefits of the Health Acts. I hope that the Select Committee at present considering the Health Services will consider that matter.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Consider what?

Mr. Timmons

Consider that aspect of the non-manual workers who are no longer insured workers and who should be brought in under the benefit of the health legislation.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

They are not losing much if they cannot qualify at the moment.

Mr. Timmons

They should not be deprived of these benefits.

Mr. Tully

It is a good job the Deputy is not Deputy Treacy or the Minister would be protesting.

Mr. Timmons

There should be a revision every two years.

Mr. Boland

I did not protest. The Chair brought the Deputy to order.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Timmons

I wanted to mention those two points. I should also like to refer to a matter which a colleague mentioned yesterday, which perhaps does not come within the scope of this Bill, the question of workmen's compensation. I am glad to see that the Minister is to bring the scope of workmen's compensation within the ambit of his Department. It will be a marked advance and will bring many benefits to workers generally.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

In spite of the carping and querulous nature of many of the speeches from the Opposition benches, I do not think the debate on this Bill has disclosed any great need for a long reply. As I said at the outset, the Bill is concerned mainly with the provision of substantial increases in all of these social welfare schemes.

I think all Deputies who spoke, even those who spoke illogically, irresponsibly and recklessly such as Deputy Dillon and Deputy Treacy—even they —all expressed themselves as at least being in agreement with the increases. In fact, some of those who are so noted for their generosity in these matters when they are out of office expressed the opinion that even greater amounts might be desirable. Therefore, in spite of the complaining nature of some of the speeches, I think the overall picture presented was of a House that was unanimously anxious to facilitate the Government in improving social welfare generally. As I think Deputy Cunningham remarked, the atmosphere was different from that which prevailed last week and in previous weeks but of course it was a bogus atmosphere.

Mr. Tully

Which was?

Mr. Boland

The atmosphere that prevailed here on this Bill.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

If the Minister wants the measure through the House today——

Mr. Tully

——he will have to be more helpful.

Mr. Boland

I shall not yield to any threats. If you want to oppose this Bill, oppose it. That is your right. I shall deal with the debate here in the manner in which I see fit—you do what you like——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Do not lead with your nose if you want the Bill.

Mr. Boland

——and not in the manner in which Deputy O'Higgins or anybody else on the Opposition benches sees fit.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You are a foolish man.

Mr. Boland

Oppose it if you like. The Division Lobbies are there. You have already opposed it.

Mr. Tully

That is not true.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister.

Mr. Boland

Normally, it would be gratifying to a Minister that the proposals he brought before the House should meet with little or no opposition but when, as in this case, one is aware that the implementation of these proposals has already been bitterly opposed in a last ditch stand in which even the so-called Labour representatives embattled themselves alongside vested interests concerned only with the preservation of their own profits in an effort to defeat the Bill, then the type of speech we have heard here, instead of being gratifying, can be described only as nauseating hypocrisy.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Tully

May I point out that we are the Labour Party, not the so-called Labour Party.

Mr. Boland

I said the so-called Labour representatives. The only real criticisms of the Bill were expressions of opinion that even greater increases were desirable and the only suggestions made were for further easements on the social assistance side. That would be encouraging to a Minister for Social Welfare who is anxious, as I am, to improve the standard of our social services, if it were not already a known fact that each of the Opposition Deputies who termed these increases inadequate and who advocated further liberalisation of the social welfare code had already bitterly opposed the Government's efforts——

Mr. Dillon

To put taxes on food.

Mr. Boland

——to raise the money to take the step forward that is being taken in this Social Welfare Bill. I like a peaceful passage through the House as well as everybody else but I am sick and tired listening to the patently sham sentiments expressed, particularly from the Fine Gael benches on these matters and of the crocodile tears shed on behalf of people who depend on social welfare and people from whom the combined Opposition Parties and those Independent Deputies who supported them have fought tooth and nail to withhold the improvements being granted in this Bill.

Despite anything that has been said by Deputies on the other side of the House, the fact of the matter is that this Social Welfare Bill which effects a real improvement in the position of every recipient of social welfare benefit, male or female, single or married, with or without children, is being enacted in the teeth of the most bitter and persistent resistance of every element of the former Coalition. In fact, the unanimity of approach to the question and the concerted nature of the attack make it clear, I think, that the Coalition are in the process of trying to reform their ranks in the hope of being able to foist on the country again another Government of the type that brought economic disaster and chaos on two previous occasions.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Would the Minister now have regard to the poor people?

Mr. Boland

The Opposition have already used every possible means to prevent the Government from allocating to those people in need their due share of the increased national income that Government policy has produced. They have even resorted to cooperating, as I said, with organised vested interests in an attempt to use blackmail and coerce Independent Deputies into voting against the dictates of their own consciences.

Mr. Sweetman

Entirely irrelevant.

Mr. Boland

It is relevant to what has gone on here. Deputy Sweetman has no interest in social welfare matters and he was not here. It is relevant to his leader's speech and to other speeches from the Fine Gael and Labour benches.

Mr. Tully

That is untrue.

Mr. S. Flanagan

It is not.

Mr. Tully

You were not here.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Every single moment.

Mr. Sweetman

That is not true. Deputy S. Flanagan was where I was.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Tully was not here either when Deputy Treacy was speaking.

Mr. Tully

I was here. The Minister must be getting bad sight.

Mr. Boland

This is entirely relevant to the type of speech we heard from Deputy Dillon, Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Treacy. I am replying to the debate in the manner I see fit to do so.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Tully

Yes, if he behaves himself.

Mr. Sweetman

He can get the next Stage only by agreement.

Mr. Boland

Time is long as far as I am concerned.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister does not mind.

Mr. Boland

If you want to break the arrangement, break it—that is a matter for you. I shall reply to the speeches here—that is a matter for me.

It is the object of this Government to continue the present pattern of a continuously expanding economy, with a consequent continuing improvement in the living standards of the people. Unfortunately, the system here is not so perfect that all sections of the community benefit automatically from increased production. Just as trade unions have to see that workers get their due share, I regard it as my function to see to it that the social welfare classes, if I may so describe them, do not lag behind either. That means that I think it my duty to ensure, if it should be necessary to do so, that my colleague, the Minister for Finance, does not forget to collect from the economically productive sections of the community some of what they gain so that it may be re-distributed to those who need it.

The Opposition like to talk unctuously about the old age pensions and Deputy Dillon now seems to have become aware for the first time that there are some other types of social service. He never showed any awareness of that fact before. He likes to talk about these things but he hates to talk of taxation.

Mr. Dillon

I have been talking about nothing else for the past two months.

Mr. Boland

But you like to keep them in watertight compartments. I will make sure, while I am Minister for Social Welfare that whenever improvements in social welfare are considered, the collection of the money will not be forgotten. Social welfare is a praiseworthy activity that cannot be carried on without taxation. They are two things which must go together. The Opposition would like to give the impression that they are in favour of improvements in social welfare but they are against taxation. Whenever improvements in social services are being discussed, I will insist that the collection of the money will also be adverted to. That money can be got only through taxation. I consider it an essential function of mine to make arrangements, as the national income increases, for the distribution of some of that money to those in need. You cannot be in favour of increased social services and against increased taxation. You must be for both or against both.

Some Deputies referred to improvements that could be made in the different schemes. I also see room for improvement there. I find it hard to imagine a stage ever being reached in this country when there will not be room for improvement in social welfare. Last year, and again this year, in addition to the increases given in the Budget, we made further arrangements to extend the different schemes so that they would embrace more people in need of assistance. Deputies can see other desirable things to do and so can I, but I must take account of the fact that it would be foolish to try to go ahead of the economy in these things, that all improvements and the prospect of further improvements depend on continued expansion so that the taxation measures necessary to effect these improvements must take due account of the over-all consideration that economic progress must be maintained.

We have also to recognise the fact that we must virtually go it alone in this matter and that every effort we make will be vigorously resisted by the Opposition using every method, both fair and foul. The combined effect of last year's Budget and Social Welfare Bill was to transfer £4.35 million to the recipients of social welfare from other sections of the community. This year the sum being so transferred is £6.4 million. That total of almost £11 million is being transferred to the social welfare classes despite the combined efforts of all the Opposition parties.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You are a very absurd man.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Dillon criticised the provisions made in this Bill to increase children's allowances.

Mr. Dillon

What about the real value of the old age pensions?

Mr. Boland

I dealt with that matter adequately in the debate on the Budget and I have no intention of going over it again.

Mr. Dillon

I did not think you would.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Dillon seized on the fact that £1,870,000 is the cost of the provision for the first children in the increased children's allowances. From that, he argued that it was wrong to provide such a big proportion of the total money for the first children. The fact that that is the cost of the provision in respect of first children does not mean that it is all going to people with small families. In my opening statement, I mentioned that 84,000 families will come into the scheme for the first time. That means that 84,000 one-child families only will benefit from this provision. It is not difficult to work out from that that only £504,000 goes to families coming in for the first time. The remainder of the £1,870,000 will be spread over families that are already drawing children's allowances. That argument of Deputy Dillon's is typical of the superficial approach to this question of the Fine Gael Party in general.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You are not only absurd; you are a very bitter man, too.

Mr. Boland

The total provision for children's allowances is £2.88 million and only half a million of that goes to the smaller families. I think it is not unreasonable at this stage that we should decide to give some allowance to people starting off in life in that way.

Another matter raised by Deputy Tully was the question of people who have been paying insurance contributions for some time and who then get promotion in their jobs, and become minor officers of local authorities, and thus lose all they had paid towards a contributory old age pension. The position of such persons is that, if the period of full insurance is long enough, that is, if they only get this promotion to a pensionable post towards the concluding stages of their careers, they should be in a good position to satisfy the average test for contributory old age pension on reaching 70, at least at the partial rate if not the full rate. They will also qualify for some pension from the local authority. On the other hand, if they have only been paying the insurance contribution for a comparatively short period, that is, if they get this promotion at a comparatively early stage of their career, then they will have more pensionable service and qualify for a greater pension from the local authority.

Mr. Tully

Will the Minister take my word for it there is something in it and have a look at the situation?

Mr. Boland

I appreciate that in the future when this happens, that is, when people have actually been paying contributions for a contributory old age pension for a considerable number of years, they will feel they are losing something to which they have contributed and should at least be given the option of continuing their contributions and, therefore, continuing to hold the entitlement they acquired. I do not know whether it will be feasible to do anything in that regard or not. They are not in the same position as people who move out of compulsory insurance. These people still continue to be compulsorily insurable for widows' and orphans' pensions. A person who ceases to be compulsorily insurable can become a voluntary contributor. Whether it is possible to arrange that these people could become voluntary contributors for old age pensions purposes while they are compulsorily insured, for widows' and orphans' pensions, I do not know, but I shall look into the question.

The question of the percentage the State contributes to the social insurance fund was raised. As Deputies know, in theory, it should be one-third, and that is what is aimed at. There was a suggestion that the tendency was to reduce this amount. In fact, it is considerably over 33? per cent at the moment. The percentages over the last ten years or so may be of interest to Deputies. In 1954, the percentage of the State contribution was 36.14 per cent; in 1955, 29.90 per cent; in 1956, 29.12 per cent; in 1957, 38.19 per cent; in 1958, 41.20 per cent; in 1959, 40.26 per cent; in 1960, 36.88 per cent; and in 1961, 37.09 per cent. If the percentage of the State contribution in any particular year is to be taken as a measure of the Government's interest in this matter and of their consideration for the recipients of social welfare benefits, the figures show that this Government would come well out of it. The percentage ranges from 29.12 per cent to 41.20 per cent—29.12 per cent when Deputy Corish was Minister for Social Welfare and 41.20 per cent when the Tánaiste, Deputy MacEntee, was Minister for Social Welfare.

There was an insinuation that the State was not being as generous in this regard as in Great Britain. Actually, the comparison is the other way round. The average contributed to the national insurance fund in Northern Ireland over the same period was 12.24 per cent; in Great Britain it was 14.9 per cent, whereas here the average was 36.28 per cent. I do not think the State can be faulted in that respect.

A number of Deputies raised the question of unemployment assistance as applied to small farms, particularly in the west, and had certain criticisms of it, particularly its effect on production from those farms. Various suggestions were made as to what should be done to remedy this situation, but I do not think any of the suggestions made were really acceptable. This is an unemployment assistance scheme. It is designed to deal with a different problem entirely from the problem of western farmers on small valuations. It is only by a radical change that this disincentive effect, which it undoubtedly has, can be remedied. I am examining the possibility of devising some such scheme, and I hope eventually it will be possible to introduce it. Of course, when I do, it will cost money; and I know what that will mean.

Deputy Seán Flanagan pointed out that 35/- means more to the average rural old age pensioner than to the average urban old age pensioner. Generally speaking, I suppose this is so. But the tendency has been to get away from differentials between town and country rates. I think that tendency should be maintained. It would be a mistake to go back to the idea of separate rates for town and country. The general pattern in that regard may not apply in individual cases, and if you had different rates you would meet cases of hardship.

Deputy Seán Flanagan also referred to the position that formerly existed where there was an overriding means limit for recipients of unemployment assistance. That meant on occasions that a person who was in receipt of quite a substantial sum because he had a large family was cut off from unemployment assistance altogether if his means increased and put him outside the overriding limit. Since the Social Welfare Bill of last year that position has been changed and there is now a means limit which is automatically adjusted in accordance with the number of children a person has.

Deputy Flanagan also suggested that it might be a good idea, in the case of people who have not sufficient contributions to entitle them to a full contributory old age pension, to have an arrangement whereby the person could pay a lump sum to make up the arrears, as it were. At present we are in a transitional period in respect of this and the bulk of the contributory pensions being paid now had no contributions paid in respect of them and it would not be possible at this stage to allow persons who do not qualify under the liberal conditions that apply, to buy pensions at a higher rate by paying lump sums. But when the scheme is fully operating and a big number of those getting the pensions have paid contributions to them, it may then be possible to consider a suggestion such as this which I find interesting.

I have made it clear that home assistance should not be reduced as a result of the increases in social benefits. I have told all local authorities these increases should not be taken into account in assessing means for home assistance. Since a number of Deputies referred to the matter I presume this must have happened in some cases and I shall have no objection to issuing a further circular in regard to it.

Deputy Leneghan raised the question of share fishermen and fishermen generally and their difficulty in qualifying for home assistance and also the fact that share fishermen are not insurable. The question of the insurability of such fishermen and those with intermittent earnings in general is under examination. I realise this is a difficulty affecting the development of the fishing industry and I hope to be able to do something about it in the near future.

Deputy Timmons spoke of the need to raise the limit for compulsory insurance for non-manual workers which has developed because of the upward movement of wages and salaries in recent years. The limit has been adjusted periodically and I am satisfied that the time has come to consider a further adjustment. This is being considered in the Department but a decision was not possible in time for this Bill. The Deputy said that non-manual workers whose salaries had increased above the present limit for compulsory insurance had forfeited rights which they had acquired and paid for, such as the contributory old age and widows' pensions. I suppose that is true in a number of cases, but anybody who moves out of compulsory insurance altogether can become a voluntary contributor. I think these rights are worth preserving and the voluntary insurance scheme is one that Deputies should recommend to people who find themselves in that position so that they will continue paying as voluntary contributors and so maintain their rights.

Non-manual workers whose salaries have risen over £800 have lost entitlement to employment and disability benefits but when the limit is raised this situation will be remedied. It was also said that they had also lost entitlement to certain services under the Health Act. I want to correct a misapprehension there. There is no element in the insurance stamp contribution covering the cost of any of these services so that nobody acquires a right to services under the Health Act by virtue of the fact that he is a contributor to the social insurance scheme. But in defining the categories of people entitled to health services one category was described as those insured under the social insurance scheme. That had the effect that when a non-manual worker moves out of compulsory insurance, he loses benefits previously enjoyed under the Health Acts. As things are at the moment, he would automatically become entitled to these services, if the income limits were raised. I think that is not a problem for my Department. It is only a complication arising because entitlement in the case of that category was put on the basis that people were insured under the social insurance scheme.

Deputy Medlar referred to the fact that non-contributory—Deputy Tully reminded him it applied also to the contributory scheme—pensions were the only social benefits in which there were no allowances in respect of children. The extension of the old age pension schemes to bring them into line with social services generally is one of the improvements I have in mind. I do not think there would be a big percentage of old age pensioners involved——

Mr. Tully

You would be surprised.

Mr. Boland

I admit I have come across some cases of hardship due to the absence of this provision and I am advised that the cost would be quite considerable. I think it is a logical development however and I hope to introduce it at some stage. Like everything connected with social welfare this will cost money and I must advert to the fact that when it is proposed to raise that money the proposal will contribute to unleashing the combined fury of Labour and Fine Gael.

Mr. Tully

Does the Minister intend to carry out his promise last night to give me the new wet-time rates which he said should be in my possession as they had been supplied to the trade union movement but which have not in fact been given to them yet?

Mr. Boland

I understand they were given. When I said that last night, I meant that I would send them to the Deputy. They are not really relevant here.

Mr. Tully

I think they should be on the records of the House. I should like the contributory rates and the benefit rates.

Mr. Boland

The new rate in respect of skilled workers will be 2/10, 1/5 each; unskilled workers, 2/6, and young persons, 8d. Those are the new rates of contribution. The new rate of compensation will be 3/4 per hour for skilled workers, 2/10 for unskilled workers and 1/- for young persons. Is that all the Deputy wants to know?

Mr. Tully

I just wanted it to be clear because last night I was accused of not having the rates when I should have them. I could not have them because they had not been confirmed to the trade union movement.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy was not really accused of that.

Mr. Tully

The Minister said I should have them.

Mr. Boland

The trade unions had them.

Mr. Tully

They had not.

Mr. Boland

My information was that they had.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.