Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1964—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. Deputies will no doubt recall that in his Budget Statement on 14th April last, the Minister for Finance announced increases in the rates of non-contributory old age and blind pensions, widows' pensions and unemployment assistance. This Bill is designed to give legislative effect to these increases and also to bring about some further extensions and improvements of both the Social Insurance and the Social Assistance schemes.

I shall deal first with the Budget increases in Social Assistance, which it is intended will come into effect on 1st August next, and with the consequential extensions in the Social Assistance scheme.

The increase proposed in the rates of non-contributory old age and blind pensions is 2/6 a week, which will bring the new rates of these pensions to 37/6d, 32/6d, 27/6d, 22/6d, 17/6d, 12/6d, and 7/6d, according to the means of the pensioner as set out in the table in section 2.

The increase proposed in rates of unemployment assistance, which is dealt with in section 3, is also 2/6 a week, but this applies to both the personal rate of assistance and to the allowance payable in respect of an adult dependant. Thus the maximum rate of unemployment assistance for a married man with a dependent wife will be increased from 47/6d a week to 52/6d a week in an urban area, and from 39/6d a week to 44/6d a week in a rural area. The increase in the maximum rates of unemployment assistance automatically increases the means limit for assistance purposes and will thus bring within the scope of the scheme persons who at present fail to qualify for assistance because their means are slightly in excess of the limit.

As regards widows' non-contributory pensions the increase proposed is again 2/6d a week for the widow herself. As a result, the rates of pension for a widow with no dependent children would range from 36/- a week at the maximum by steps of 5/- down to 11/- a week according to the means of the widow. A widow whose means were just outside the limit for 11/-pension would, however, get no pension even though the margin by which her means exceeded the limit might be considerably less than 11/- a week. To obviate this and to follow the line adopted in previous years when a similar situation obtained in relation to either old age pensions or widows' non-contributory pensions, it has been decided to extend the scale of means and rates of widows' non-contributory pensions this year, so as to add a new rate of pension of 6/- at the minimum. This new rate is included in the table in section 4. The introduction of this new rate will also save some widows whose means increase from losing more by way of pension than their increase of means. For instance, a widow with two children whose means go up from £3 10s. a week to £3 15s. a week will not lose her 11/- pension altogether but will have it reduced to 6/- instead.

As I have already mentioned, this Bill, in addition to providing for the Budget increases, includes provisions for further improvements and extensions of the social welfare schemes which it has been found desirable and possible to make this year. The first of these represents a completely new development in this country in relation to old age pensions, both contributory and non-contributory, in that it will enable allowances to be paid as part of pension for qualified children. These proposals are dealt with in sections 5, 8, 9 and 10. I have felt for some time and, no doubt, all Deputies will agree with me, that it is anomalous that a person approaching the age of 70 could be in receipt of disability benefit or unemployment benefit, which included an allowance for children, but that immediately on reaching that age and becoming entitled only to an old age contributory pension, no allowance could be paid in respect of the children apart, of course, from any children's allowances under the general children's allowances scheme.

A similar anomaly arises in the case of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance or widow's non-contributory pension who qualify for non-contributory old age pension at the age of 70. To remove these anomalies, the Bill proposes to provide for the payment of allowances to old age (contributory) pensioners for qualified children at the same rates as are paid in respect of persons in receipt of disability benefit, unemployment benefit or widow's (contributory) pension, that is, 13/- for each of the first two qualified children and 8/- for each additional qualified child, and for the payment in respect of qualified children of non-contributory old age pensioners of allowances at the same rate as those which are paid with widow's (non-contributory) pension and unemployment assistance, i.e. 10/-for each of the first two qualified children and 5/- for each additional qualified child.

In addition to extending the scale of means and rates of pension on the non-contributory side section 5 will enable £39 to be disregarded in assessing means for pension purposes in respect of each qualified child. The following example will illustrate the effects of this concession. A pensioner with a wife and two young children, could, if he had no other assessable means, earn up to £3 10s a week and still receive the maximum pension payable in his case, £2 17s. 6d. a week as against £1 a week at present. If his earnings did not exceed £9 a week, he could still receive a pension of the minimum rate of 7s. 6d. a week. It is estimated that these proposals will cost some £73,000 in a full year on the contributory old age pension side, while on the non-contributory side it is estimated that the cost will be some £158,000 in a full year. Children's allowances under the general scheme will, of course, already be in payment in respect of the children involved, and the same qualification conditions will obtain in respect of the allowances granted as part of pension as obtain for the general children's allowances scheme and as obtain in respect of children under the other forms of social welfare benefits.

These are, briefly, that the child is under the age of 16 years, is ordinarily resident in the State and is not detained in a reformatory or industrial school. For a pensioner to be entitled to the proposed allowance in respect of a qualified child, the child must, of course, be normally resident with him or her and questions as to the normal residence of the child will be decided under the rules already made in relation to the general children's allowances scheme. Deputies will observe that provision is made in sections 5 and 8 for the making of an order bringing these allowances into force. For administrative reasons it would not be possible to bring them into payment concurrently with the Budget increases, but it is anticipated that my Department would be in a position to commence payment at the beginning of November next.

This Bill provides for two amendments of the social insurance scheme. The first of these relates to the insurability of pensionable teachers in the training colleges for national teachers. These teachers are at present compulsorily insurable for all benefits under the Social Insurance scheme and pay contributions at the full rate where their remuneration is within the insurability limit. Their position is, however, in reality no different from that of pensionable teachers in national secondary or vocational schools or domestic science training colleges for whom contributions at reduced rates, which reckon only for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes, are payable. Section 6 of the Bill, therefore, makes provision to enable the Minister to make regulations treating these teachers for insurance purposes in exactly the same way as pensionable national, secondary and vocational teachers and teachers in domestic science training colleges.

The other amendment in relation to the social insurance scheme refers to the amount which may be paid by way of treatment benefit in any financial year and is dealt with in section 7. At the present there is an overriding limit of half a million pounds on the amount which may be paid each year in treatment benefits. Treatment benefit is now limited to dental benefit, optical benefit and medical and surgical appliances benefit, the appliances in question being, contact lenses and hearing aids. These services are, in fact, provided under the Social Welfare Acts as a temporary measure pending the full implementation of the Health Act, and the amount which may be paid is agreed between the Minister for Finance and myself each year subject to the overriding limit. Expenditure on treatment benefit is increasing and it is feared that unless the overriding limit is removed the scheme might have to be terminated or suspended during the course of a financial year for lack of money. Section 7 proposes, therefore, to remove the overriding limit and leave the amount to be spent in any year to be agreed upon between the Minister for Finance and myself, the amount involved being, of course, approved by the Dáil as part of the year's estimates.

I now come to two sections aimed at effecting improvements in the unemployment assistance scheme. The first of these, dealt with in section 11, is intended to remove a cause of grievance arising from the existing provisions regarding the operative date of revised decisions or decisions on appeals concerning qualification certificates under the Unemployment Assistance Acts. Its general effect will be to enable persons applying for unemployment assistance to be paid retrospectively or to be paid at a higher rate retrospectively where favourable decisions revising earlier decisions have been given. This will ensure that the time taken to deal with cases and to follow unavoidable administrative procedures will not detrimentally affect the amount payable to the applicant where his application or appeal is successful. The amendment will also help to clarify the law in so far as it relates to overpayments of unemployment assistance arising in the converse situation where a revised decision results in a reduction of the unemployment assistance payable, and there has been fraudulent concealment of means. It is estimated that the annual cost of this improvement will be about £5,000.

The second of these improvements, dealt with in section 12, is intended to give some relief to the persons who are employed seasonally as fishermen either working on their own account or on a share basis. This matter has been the subject of a great deal of representations over the years. Earnings from employment under a contract of service are not regarded as means for the purpose of unemployment assistance. A fisherman working on his own account or on a share basis is not normally employed under a contract of service and, accordingly, any income which he derives from his fishing is treated as means. He may thus be unable to obtain a qualification certificate without which he cannot get unemployment assistance, or his means may be assessed on such a level as to reduce the rate of unemployment assistance payable to him. It has been represented to me repeatedly that this bears unfairly on these seasonal fishermen. The provisions of the section are designed to allow a proportion, up to an overriding limit of £80 a year, of the income derived from seasonal fishing to be disregarded in assessing a person's means for unemployment assistance purposes and this would have the effect of considerably reducing the impact of such earnings on title to unemployment assistance.

And finally on the Social Assistance side, in section 13, I come to an improvement which I have had in mind for some time. This relates to the minimum age limits for widow's non-contributory pension. Up to two years ago a widow could not qualify for a non-contributory pension if she was less than 48 years of age unless she had a qualified child or children. If a widow with a qualified child or children had not attained the age of 48 years within six months after her last or only qualified child ceased to be qualified, she lost her pension.

Deputies will recall that in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1962, the minimum age in the latter type of case was reduced to 40. Since then I had the matter further examined and I feel that both of these minimum age limits can operate rather harshly. The only real argument for them is that a widow without children should be in a position to provide for herself by working. If she can so provide and in fact does so, the means test would ensure that her pension is terminated or reduced appropriately in accordance with her means. Circumstances can arise, however, to prevent such a widow from working, for example, incapacity for work, lack of suitable employment locally, domestic circumstances, which the minimum age limit cannot allow for.

Section 13, therefore, proposes to remove the minimum age limits completely, thus leaving the question of title to a widow's non-contributory pension to be determined on the basis of the widow's need as measured by the means test and not on a minimum age limit fixed somewhat arbitrarily, which does not permit account to be taken of the widow's capacity for work or her financial or domestic circumstances. The cost of this concession is estimated to be of the order of £27,000 a year. The maximum age limit for receipt of a widow's non-contributory pension will remain at 70, at which age the question of title to an old age pension, either non-contributory or contributory, arises.

To conclude it might be helpful to Deputies if I were to summarise the cost to the Exchequer of the various proposals which I have outlined above. On the Social Assistance side, the total costs are estimated to amount to £1,290,000 in a full year. All of this expenditure will fall on the Exchequer. The annual cost of the proposal for payment of allowances in respect of children of old age (contributory) pensioners which will for the present all fall on the Exchequer, is estimated at £73,000. The overall cost to the Exchequer will, therefore, be £1,363,000 in a full year.

I have much pleasure in recommending this measure to Dáil Éireann as a further step in the evolution of social welfare schemes which will meet the needs of our people and I would ask for expeditious and favourable consideration of it.

Mr. Cosgrave

The increases being granted under this Bill apply to a number of social welfare recipients. It seems to me that the general approach to pensioners, not only social welfare recipients but also State pensioners, is different from the approach adopted in relation to wage and salary earners under the State.

The increases granted in respect of social welfare recipients, which the Bill proposes to implement, and which, as the Minister has said, were announced in the Budget, and the pension increases which have been granted under the auspices of the Minister for Finance, have all been implemented for a later date this year, either August, in some cases, or later in others. It seems to me that that decision operates harshly in so far as wage and salary adjustments have all taken effect from last February.

It may be said that over the years it has been the practice, for administrative purposes, to apply social welfare increases generally from August or maybe, in some cases, from an even later date. That may have been reasonable enough where the increases were granted on the basis of a Budget decision which was announced as policy in the month of April or May but in this year circumstances appear to me to have been different. The turnover tax came into effect in November last and started a very substantial rise in the cost of living. In fact, the cost of living index figure for mid-May, which was recently published, shows that between mid-May, 1963 and mid-May, 1964 there was a rise in the cost of living index figure of 12 points, which is a substantial rise, and that even since mid-February the rise was five or six points.

The wage and salary increases which were decided earlier this year, as I have said, applied both to private employment and State personnel in the case of the Garda, the Army, teachers, Post Office staff and others as well as civil servants. These increases applied from February. That decision, making the increases applicable as from February, obviously was taken because of the increases in the cost of living which had occurred from November. Since then, certain further increases in taxes have been applied in the Budget but, at least, it was agreed, not merely by private employers but by the State, that increases in wages and salaries should apply from February. In other words, they applied from the earliest date subsequent to the negotiations, and these increases were designed to compensate for the rise in costs due to the increases in clothes, food, footwear, and so on, and other increases arising out of the turnover tax which came into effect in November.

On many occasions I have expressed the view that we should evolve here a system which, I understand, is in operation in certain countries in Europe, whereby pensions, whether contributory pensions in the form of State pensions or pensions or benefits under the social welfare code, should automatically rise on the basis of variation in the cost of living figure. Over many years we have accepted as part of a wage and salary policy that when the cost of living rises wage and salary adjustments are made. These adjustments have been made on the basis of applications to the Labour Court in certain cases or by means of the conciliation and arbitration machinery for civil servants, teachers and State personnel, or whatever machinery is applicable to the particular category, but, by and large, the pattern is the same, that whatever increase in wages and salaries is applicable to one section, generally applies right across the board or, certainly, applies to similar categories in the public or private sector, with the exception of pensioners.

No section of the community has been more adversely affected by rises in the cost of living than pensioners in all categories. In most cases pensioners or persons in receipt of social welfare benefits are incapable of earning much. Perhaps some of them can earn a small amount but by and large they are people who are outside the normal categories in a position to earn an income for themselves. Therefore they are unable to get the compensation which other sections can get. They have a limited bargaining power because they have no trade union or other association or organisation to negotiate on their behalf. For these reasons, it is generally recognised that pensioners, whether they are under the social welfare code, or are receiving pensions from State or semi-State concerns, or from private firms have not received adequate treatment. We will have to evolve some system which would enable increases to be granted because if the cost of living rises for wage earners, it also rises for pensioners and it is generally recognised that the increases which have taken place in the cost of living, particularly in the cost of essentials, justify increases in wages and salaries. Therefore the Government should have another look at this matter, and this applies not only to the services administered by the Minister for Social Welfare but to the general State attitude to this matter.

In the past, a different approach was perhaps reasonable. Prior to the last war, the approach was that pensions of one sort or another were paid on the basis of a proportion of the salary or wages at retirement date. That was reasonable enough when the cost of living was constant and the value of money remained stable, but the effects of the war, the rises in prices since then, and the general inflationary tendency which has taken place, and which appears to continue without interruption, make it more and more difficult for pensioners to exist.

This Bill deals with a number of matters such as old age pensions, unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions and the Social Welfare Act of 1962 which deals with sickness benefit. One of the difficulties which arise when considering a Bill such as this is that it involves a great deal of research into previous enactments. Deputies and others are often consulted about the rights of people under these Acts and short of being a skilled lawyer with access to the various statutes involved, it is difficult to say what the position is, say, in respect to the means test for a widow's non-contributory pension.

The Minister endeavoured in his speech to explain the changes which are being made. One change which would be an improvement would be to incorporate in the latest Social Welfare Bill the precise terms applicable to the different categories of pensioners. Take, for example, section 4 of this Bill which applies to non-contributory pensions and increases the means an applicant may have before being disqualified for a pension. The section being amended is section 20 of the 1935 Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. That section was amended by section 105 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952 which was subsequently amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1962, so that there are four enactments, as far as I can see, involved instead of the position being restated in a single section which would make it clear what precise terms were applicable to an applicant at a particular time.

The decision to end the minimum age limit in respect of a widow's non-contributory pension is one that commends itself to everyone. This has been the subject of criticism for a long time and seemed to have no valid basis, and it operated harshly in a number of cases. The Minister mentioned the figure of £73,000 so I gather that there cannot be a great number involved. Certainly the change is in the right direction. Another change is in respect of national teachers. This is dealt with in the explanatory memorandum. As I understand the position, section 12 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952 provides that regulations may modify the Social Welfare Act in its application to persons employed as teachers in national schools under the rules and regulations of national schools. Section 6 of this Bill proposes to bring under section 12 the professional staff of the training colleges who train national school teachers. I take it this amendment is made at the request of the teachers in order to reduce the amount of their contribution. This exemption so far as I am aware also applies to civil servants, members of the Defence Forces and of certain authorities.

Another change is in respect of treatment benefit and is to remove the ceiling of £500,000. The Minister mentioned that pending the full implementation of the Health Act, this was being introduced as a temporary measure. We would be interested to hear from the Minister what is intended in regard to the full implementation of the Health Act and if the full implementation depends on the consideration being given at present to the health services generally by the Special Committee.

Mr. Tully

We in the Labour Party naturally welcome any improvement in social welfare benefits or assistance and for that reason we give our wholehearted support to the Bill before the House. I suppose it would be too much to hope we are going in the direction in which we should be going, that is, towards social welfare benefits without a means test.

The Minister has suggested that in the Bill he is easing the means test but unfortunately the sections in respect of which he is easing it will not give very much relief. For instance, I do not believe that, with present money values, it matters very much to somebody who has a couple of hundred pounds per year if he is allowed another 6/- per week. The Minister may disagree with me there and may feel something big is being done when he is allowing somebody a pension of 6/-per week. A sum of 6/- in 1964 is an extremely small amount and I fear the Minister is putting too much value on this concession.

I notice the Minister has agreed to remove completely the age limit for qualification for non-contributory widows' pensions. Because it is already covered under existing legislation by the means test, the age limit applies only to a very small number of people and usually people in the hardship category. Therefore we are glad to see that this limit has been taken away. I would again appeal to the Minister, however, to see to it that the inspectors who go out to interview those people applying for non-contributory benefits stop the horrible habit they have of putting a value on very small quantities of vegetables or a small piece of land owned by some of these people. Again recently I have had cause to draw to the Minister's attention a case where somebody who applied for a non-contributory widow's pension was ruled out because she was alleged to have an income of £12 over the amount allowed, and £10 of that was the value put on a useless piece of land attached to the House. Can the Minister imagine anything meaner than that? The person who put that value on the land must have known that by so doing he was ruling out this unfortunate creature from benefit to which she was justly entitled.

Would the Minister have a look at that matter again and have this practice stopped because anybody who goes out the country and looks at a derelict garden attached to a house and says the yearly value of that is £10 or £12 is talking through his hat. It is absolutely no value to the person living in the house. I have on numerous occasions paid tribute to the Minister and his officials for the excellent and humane way in which they are carrying out their duties. Let us not have a continuation of this one blot, because it is one thing which is bringing the Department into disrepute. I do not want to have to refer to this again. This is at least the fourth occasion on which I have had to raise it on Estimates or otherwise. I shall be glad if the Minister will now deal with it so that it will not arise in this context again.

I am delighted the Minister has acceded to the request made by myself and other members of the Labour Party over the past 12 or 18 months to have children's allowances granted to old age pensioners who so qualify. The Minister was kind enough to say here on one occasion in reply to a question that as a result of the representations made, he was considering the matter. I am glad to see he has now done something about it, and even if he does not throw any bouquets in the way of the Labour Party for suggesting it to him, we welcome the inclusion of this provision. It is rather a pity when the decision was taken that it could not be put into operation earlier than 1st November. That date is a long way off and it means that people who are depending on this allowance must wait several months before they benefit by it.

This, of course, also applies to the widows and other people who will benefit as a result of the means test being relaxed. Perhaps there is some reason we do not understand why it should take months and months to decide this matter and then several months before it can be operated. There must be a good reason for it or this long delay would not occur but it is rather a pity that the thing should be spoiled by people having to wait so long. The amount of money involved is relatively small. There are not so many people over 70 years of age who have young children. There are unfortunately enough individual cases of hardship in this respect, of people who were drawing unemployment benefit or disability benefit and getting benefit for their children, but who found when they reached 70 years of age, that the only benefit they could get was for themselves and their wives. This is a worthwhile provision and the Minister should get credit for putting it into operation.

The fact that this also applies to contributory old age pensions is only right. I previously paid tribute to the Government for introducing the contributory old age pensions. I repeat that is an excellent piece of social legislation and we could go a long way on that road. One of the things missing in this Bill is provision for the social welfare benefits section. Apart from the old age pension, no increase is being given to the benefit section. I cannot understand the thinking of the present administration on this point because last year when the increase of 2/6 was given to the social assistance section, I distinctly remember the Taoiseach, in answer to an intervention by me about the benefit section, saying that if the assistance section are entitled to 2/6, then the benefit section are entitled to twice that amount. That is fair enough. They got 5/-, although it was a couple of months later.

Is it not an extraordinary thing that what was all right 12 months ago is not all right now, that when it is deemed the assistance section require 2/6 to compensate them for an increase in the cost of living of ten to 12 points— I think that is the reason it is being given to them; it puts a very low value on a point increase—the benefit section do not get anything at all? I know the argument has been made that every increase in the benefits paid to the benefit section means a consequent increase in the cost of stamps to the insured person and to the employer. I am a trade union official and I have never yet heard a working man or woman object to a reasonable increase in the cost of their stamps, if they knew it would be applied to the improvement of the conditions of their less well-off brethren. If it goes to relieve people who are sick or unemployed, there is and has not been any complaint. Even if the Minister felt he had to do what might be an unpopular thing—to increase the cost of stamps in order to increase benefits —I think he should do so because I honestly believe that the benefit section are worse off as a result of the last Budget and what went before it than any other section of the community.

As Deputy Cosgrave said, the person who was in a job was able to recover what he needed, or portion of it, in order to live; the assistance section get a halfcrown in August to pay for increases that have occurred since last November; but the unfortunate person in the benefit section gets nothing at all. The Minister has slipped up badly in this section and I ask him to have another look at it, if at all possible, before the Bill becomes law because a very definite error has been made and it should be dealt with now.

As regards giving the allowances for children to those with old age pensions —the non-contributory people—and qualifying them for benefit, I assume it is something on the same lines as what is at present given to those drawing non-contributory pensions. It will follow the same pattern, but while that is so, I believe it would be far better if the whole rotten system of means examination were removed. Although fantastic figures have been quoted from time to time as to what it would cost to give no-means test social benefits, I think the Minister will agree that the cost of administering the present system is extremely high.

The Minister has also introduced something with which I entirely agree. A person who applies for a qualification certificate under existing legislation cannot get any benefit until the certificate is granted, even though the investigation may take months. He suggests there should be retrospective effect in this respect and that assistance should be paid from the date of application. Can the Minister do anything about the present system of investigating claims, because while it may be all right that somebody who applies for a qualification certificate eventually gets it and will now get whatever assistance he was entitled to from the date of application, he has to live in the meantime. The same applies to people who are applying for disability benefit and who for some reason have been disqualified from receiving it. Where there is an appeal, I do not know what is going wrong but the Minister is aware because of questions addressed to him in the House and from his experience in his Department that month after month passes and the matter is still under active consideration. I do not know where the mistake is being made or who is responsible but the Minister must carry the can here for it. He should do something about it, and if there are not sufficient investigating officers to have matters dealt with quickly, he should have extra officers appointed.

It does not matter if he is a single man living on his own, who might possibly struggle along on 6/8d. a day, or a married man with eleven children, as in a case I brought to the Minister's notice a couple of weeks ago, who is also supposed to exist on that sum. Surely there is something wrong there and it is time the Minister did something about it.

The second matter concerns the man who is deemed to be working for a relative. We have cases of people who work for hire where they can get it and they stamp their insurance cards while working. When they are fortunate enough to be employed by a relative, whether a brother or a brother-in-law, or somebody more distant, some nosey-parker from the Department goes along to investigate and decides they were not employed in the normal way, were not entitled to stamp cards and not entitled to benefit when dismissed. The Minister must do something about this, because if he does not, it means that people over the years who have been stamping cards are being deliberately robbed of benefit to which they are legally entitled. It is all right for someone to hold an investigation and decide that Benny Smith is working with Tom Ryan who is his brother-in-law but Benny Smith has been stamping cards with somebody else for the past 30 years, perhaps, and if he gets another job, he will be working and stamping cards with somebody else later on, but, because he has been working with his brother-in-law in between, he is ruled ineligible to draw unemployment benefit.

This is a very serious matter and there are many cases of it. If the matter were investigated immediately and a decision given, possibly something might be done about it, but I have given one instance where the case was reported in December and the investigation officer has yet to investigate it, although it is now coming up to the month of July. The man involved has five or six small children. I do not know how he is expected to live. Perhaps it is a way of getting the unemployed out of the country because on the last occasion I spoke to this man, he said that if he could get his fare together to go to England he would do so.

Apart from this I think the Minister is dealing with his Department in an excellent way and we consider this Bill to be a step in the right direction, although a very small step.

Mr. Kyne

Like my colleague, Deputy Tully, I welcome the improvements in the social welfare code announced in this Bill. The Minister made his own case pretty well when the drew attention to the fact that up to now contributory and non-contributory old age pensioners very often found their position worsened when they reached the qualifying age for a pension because prior to that they were on disablement benefit or unemployment benefit and they received the allowances for qualified children. It is certainly against all principles of respect and consideration for advancing age if, when you reach the age of 70, you worsen the position rather than improve it. I should like to congratulate the Minister on taking that point of view in framing this legislation.

There is the question of changing the age for the non-contributory widow's pension, the reduction from 48 to 40 and now wiping it out completely. It is an advance on the right line. Our old type of legislation, whatever the reason for it, which imposed an age limit in the case of a widow was very wrong. The Minister pointed out the reasons why it was wrong: that there were certain other factors, apart from children, that a widow without any child had obligations perhaps to relatives because of certain circumstances in which she lived which involved hardship for her by virtue of the clause which forbade her to get her pension until such time as she reached a certain age.

Again, the agreement between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare whereby additional benefits are made for hospital treatment, appliances and dental treatment —the fact that additional money can be spent on these and that there will be no limitation of £500,000—is an advance. I have always felt that social welfare benefits and our health services should be combined. In fact, one is completely dependent on the other, and, as I said on the Estimate for Health only a short time ago, I believe one must work with the other because of the fact when a man is ill, he is inclined to hurry back to work, with consequent loss to his health because our sickness benefits are so low.

There is another point I should like to put to the Minister in connection with the non-contributory widow's pension. The qualifying figure under the Act at present is, to my mind, so small that it tends to induce non-contributory widows to remain idle rather than accept a job. It roughly works out that you can earn about £1 a week and draw the full pension. There is very little work which qualifies for £1 a week payment. Quite recently, I heard of a widow capable and willing to work who took up employment. When she did so, she was completely deprived of her pension. Her employment only barely equalled what she would qualify to draw as a widow with two qualified children. There is, to my mind, a very clear case of inducement to idleness in such cases. It is ridiculous to expect a person to work for a week to receive the same amount of payment as she would get by remaining at home.

When we consider all the improvements the Minister is now making in the social welfare code, we must think back on all the hardships which must have been inflicted over the years since 1932 when the different systems granting benefits were amalgamated together and particularly since the system were brought under the Minister's Department. In years past, all these various difficulties and hindrances by regulations were brought to the attention of various Ministers for Social Welfare by Labour Deputies. They did so because of the fact that they are working amongst the people and come in more contact with them, possibly, as trade union officials or as Labour councillors in county areas. They are more likely to be approached in connection with these matters of health and social welfare than others.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on this advance in ironing out some of the many difficulties and objections there are to the social welfare code. I should like to join with Deputy Cosgrave in suggesting that the Minister consider seriously a consolidating of the various Social Welfare Acts. They should be incorporated in one Act, as nearly as possible, in order to give us at a glance the various provisions that now remain. They have been changed so often over a number of years—practically every year there is a change—that it is almost impossible to follow the various alterations and benefits.

I welcome the practice of the Minister's Department in issuing a booklet which in fact gives a complete report on the various qualifications necessary and the various benefits to be obtained from the different Acts. I consider that booklet a wonderful help to Deputies and to anyone interested in giving correct information on behalf of the Department of Social Welfare. I suggest to the Minister that it should be immediately brought up to date by the inclusion, possibly in manuscript form, of a leaflet setting out the various benefits in relation to the alterations now proposed.

As I said at the start, we welcome this improvement because we believe it is an advance along the road to acceptance of the principle advocated by the Labour Party for years past and will be advocated over future years, that is, a general amalgamation of social welfare and health contributions by the workers, the employers and the State, without any means test. Anybody who has any experience of non-contributory old age pensions knows that the means test is the biggest problem. It conduces to idleness or to spending everything during lifetime because of the fact that if a person saves, a penalty is imposed. If a person does not do either of these, he is induced to commit fraud and to hide what he has. Everybody knows it is not looked upon as a crime if you defraud the State of the benefits that you believe you are entitled to.

Whether it is a moral question of fraud in the sense of being morally responsible for doing something which is wrong, certainly it is a legal fraud. If you are found out you suffer the penalty for it. Those who administer justice in these cases know in their heart there is no justification for the means test because the penalties are really of a very nominal nature and more of repayment of the benefits wrongly got. This is usually done by the Department refusing to grant any further benefits until a sufficient period elapses to make up for the benefits that were wrongly obtained.

If the Minister continues with his amending of the various sections of the social welfare code, as he is doing at the moment, he will in a very short time arrive at the stage where the means test, or that portion of it that is operated under the various regulations, will be so much reduced as to make the continued activities of the investigation officers unjustified. It would then be more costly to enforce the regulations and to see that no fraud is committed than it would be to wipe out completely the means test. In fact, I feel we have pretty nearly arrived at the stage where investigation of any old age pension cases will possibly cost almost as much in the long run as if the pension were granted and the State got back, if the person had means, the money in income tax or death duties. When a person dies, the State could recover by some method, if that person had private means above a certain amount, the amount given in pension.

In support of that, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the contributory old age pension group, because of increased employment in the country, will gradually reduce the number of those who qualify for non-contributory old age pensions. At some time in the future, the non-contributory old age pension section will be reduced to so small a number that to give them a pension without a means test would not be as costly as it has been in years past.

I hope the Minister will endeavour to ensure that local authorities, or health authorities, will not now take away from those people by way of reductions in either disability allowance or home assistance the extra money they receive under this Bill. We have found in local authorities that immediately any improvements were granted in old age pensions, widows' benefits or contributory benefits, or any other type of benefit where additional money was given by health authorities under the social welfare code, these were immediately taken away by reductions enforced by relieving officers on the direction, I presume, of county managers.

It was an ideal way to reduce rates somewhat, but reducing rates at the cost of the most needy people is not something that should be followed up or recommended by anybody. I do not know whether the Minister has power in this matter but if he has not the Government have. If the Minister has power, he should issue an instruction that the increase now received under this Bill should not be regarded as means to deprive people of additional benefits they are getting from the county councils or local authorities.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on this advance, and hope that he will in the future see eye to eye with the Labour Party in their belief that we should finally, and in the very near future, provide a social welfare code linked with the health services when all Parties will contribute and where we will finish with this odious means test.

Mr. Donegan

I did not intend to intervene in this debate at all this morning. However, when I hear words of praise in relation to the legislation now introduced, all the hair I have left stands on end. The only praise I can see which might be tendered to the Minister is on his speech which was circulated this morning, because of the fact that he has come back to realism. He decided, as we in the House know so little Irish as a group, to discontinue his practice of making a long "spake" in Irish. He made his speech in the language we normally use in this country. I shall have a chat with the Minister on this question any time he likes. I should like to see the language promoted in a cultural way and not in the manner usual with the Minister here.

Has this Parliament gone completely insane? Are we praising a Minister? Certainly, Deputy Cosgrave did not praise him. I was amazed at the Labour Party praising the Minister for an increase of 2/6 for the old age pensioners in a year when the Taoiseach arranged a 12 per cent increase in salaries, wages and emoluments generally. Here we have people who, in my view, are the most needy in the whole State, and for whom, if you have a political heart at all, it must bleed. I did not intend to intervene but I feel realism demands that I should. Why should we congratulate a Minister who has given an increase of 2/6d on a non-contributory old age pension of 37/6 per week? We gave ourselves £500 and we gave 12 per cent to civil servants, the gardaí and to people in all salary groups up to £1,500 a year and over £1,500 an agreed figure.

Are we completely happy about the present legislation in this country? I do not want to be difficult or awkward but when I think of old age pensioners in Drogheda and Dundalk and how these people are treated, my mind goes back to an old remark current in the County Louth: "May you or yours never know the coldness of charity." It is true. Charity is cold. He is a very bountiful man, a man of religious charity, who can give this charity and at the same time not do it in a condescending way. We gave the 2/6, and we have taken a salary increase ourselves, with which I agree. At the same time, we have given 12 per cent increase to the entire Civil Service and have arranged it for everybody in industry. This leaves me completely cold. I should like to tell two stories in relation to the implementation of this legislation.

I knew an old lady, God rest her soul. The local convent used to give her lunch every day. The job they gave her was to look after the girls and see that they did not throw buns at one another. In my view, that was charity. An inspector from the Department came down and that lady was disqualified because the Reverend Mother could not say this was a charity. Her conscience, shall we say, told her that she was morally bound not to say what I would say because my conscience was more elastic than hers.

Mr. Boland

That never happened.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister will get a note on this case within 24 hours. The next time he speaks on legislation in this House he will tell me, when I ask him, that what I said was true. It is not so many years since a few unemployed men went out to Mullaghcurry racecourse and got 10/- each to stand at the jumps so that the children could not run out and be killed. I shall send the Minister personally particulars in regard to the case about which I am speaking within 24 hours.

My reaction to this legislation is one of protest because, in fact, people who only have 35/- a week did not get their 12 per cent. That is my view and I do not think there is any answer to that view. If the Taoiseach goes out, and as a point of general policy, produces roughly one-eighth increase in salary for everybody and if this is adhered to by everybody involved, we are entitled to give at least as much, if not more, to improve the lot of these people. Here this morning we hear words of praise for this 2/6d. Perhaps I have introduced a spirit of realism into the debate. That was my hope and my desire. The Minister will have my information within 24 hours in respect of the cases which he says never happened. I shall not bandy about in this House the names of people who are dead now.

The Minister did not mention in his brief a matter that was earlier discussed between himself and Deputy Colley, namely, the taking over by the State of workmen's compensation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Bill. It requires separate legislation.

Mr. Donegan

One would have thought some reference might have been made to it. However, on the matters dealt with in the Bill, my view is that we have not done half enough for these people and I shall support any future movement to improve their position.

The Chair's charges are without any foundation. I am sorry the Chair found it necessary to interrupt me. I shall depart to the last item I have in mind to raise on this measure, that is, the feeling throughout the country that old age pensions should be paid at age 65. I know that that would be a very costly measure. We have questions here in the Dáil occasionally as to the cost of paying pensions at 65 years. There are two sides to the story. We were told at one time that it would be in or around £12 million. That would be the debit side of the matter.

Most employees of public bodies and, in some cases, of private companies are pensioned off at 65. Every State employee is assured of his pension at 65 years, the Garda Síochána at 63 years. County council employees get their pension at 60 years. I cannot see any reason why the man who has to work out in the wind and the weather, on the road or in the field, or those who have to take off their coats to earn their livelihood, must continue until 70 years before qualifying for a pension, whereas people in much more sheltered positions are assured of their pension at an age not later than 65 years. Surely the people who do the spade work in this country, so to speak, should be treated in the same way as the other people?

This Minister or this Government or some Government in the very near future must review the position. We have some 50,000 unemployed. If pensions are paid to people at 65 years, then those people retiring from active employment would make room for younger folk to take over. Farmers and shopkeepers, and workers in classifications benefiting under the scheme, would make room for younger men and in the case of farmers' sons and daughters, it would promote earlier marriages, which is a desirable development in this country. We all feel that the age of marriage is far too high. Such a step would have many widespread benefits. A reasonable percentage of the money would find its way back to the Exchequer through the consumption of taxable goods.

I know that the granting of pensions at 65 years is a difficult matter. It cannot be carried out without coming to this House for additional contributions from the taxpaying public. However, the advantages of such a scheme would far outweigh the cost and it would be only fair and just. Why should the people concerned have to wait until 70 years of age? They do not have to do it in the immediate neighbouring countries and I do not see why they should have to continue to do it in Ireland.

We should give the pension at 65 years when the pensioner is better able to enjoy it than at 70 years of age, when, in many cases, people are not able to enjoy the few years of retirement left to them, due to incapacity of one kind or another. If the Minister grants pensions at 65 years, he will establish himself in a big way in the minds and hearts of our people.

Mr. Barrett

I do not suppose the Minister expects anybody over here or down the country to enthuse overmuch about the rather meagre allowances given by him. Beyond saying that, I shall not comment on that aspect of the Bill.

This is very important. The people in receipt of the benefits for which this Bill legislates are the most necessitous section of the community. They are the least of our brethren. The Minister should do his very best to ensure that there will be no delay in dealing with any applications which come to his Department in respect of any benefits or assistances. I know that there are a very large number of such applications and that most of them are dealt with expeditiously, but in quite a number of cases there are unwarranted delays. The Minister knows that himself. Some of these delays I made the subject of Parliamentary Questions when the Minister very generously admitted that there were faults on his side.

If the Minister could only realise the importance of these benefits which he distributes to people, he would make sure, no matter what extra staff he might have to engage to perform the work, that these delays would not take place. I know the hardships involved as a result of delays in Dublin in dealing with such cases. Consider a man with a family who has no money. He can get no home assistance whilst his claim is outstanding. He finds himself in great difficulties with local shops.

I want to underline the importance of ensuring that no one case is overlooked, and that if a case is overlooked, it will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible when the matter is brought to the Minister's attention.

Mr. Dillon

This Bill is an illustration of the tragedy of inflation. Inflation always means that the rich grow richer and the poor poorer. In the past 12 months, the cost of living in this country has gone up 12 points, as we foretold it would. That increase of 12 points in the cost of living relates very largely to the essential food, fuel and clothing of the people. These are the things on which the old age pensioner depends for his existence. We propose to meet that, in respect of the old age pensioner, by an increase of 2/6d per week. In the same Budget in which we make that proposal, we levy on cigarettes and beer a tax, avowedly for the purpose of restricting consumption by raising the cost of those commodities. I know old age pensioners can live without cigarettes and beer, but what it comes down to is that we are giving the old age pensioners an illusory 2/6d, and at the same time, laying the soothing unction to our souls that we are improving the social services. In fact, when all is said and done, the old age pensioner is no better off now than he was ten or 15 years ago, because he is poor, and growing poorer as a consequence of inflation.

It is really a very tragic spectacle in our social services that in regard to our aged poor, we give them 2/6d and expect them to be grateful, and in regard to our young and able poor, we ship them out of the country as emigrants and forget them, and avow in this House that they are no concern of ours, that if they come back, we will look after them, but so long as they seek their living abroad, they must look after themselves. From the point of view of the Government, that may be a comfortable attitude to adopt, but it is a tragic comment on the policy pursued by this Government of callously raising the cost of living, inflating the economy, and letting the poor bear the consequences.

I often wonder if we are not allowing our arbitrary definition of the duties of the Minister for Social Welfare to restrict us unduly in the requisitions we make upon him. I never believed the Minister for Social Welfare in this Republic was confined to the task of paying out social benefits provided by statute. I have always felt the Minister ought to concern himself with poverty and adversity. I do not think the Minister is entitled to sit in Arus Mhic Dhiarmada and say: "Let the poor people look for what they want." I believe his duty is conscientiously to look for the poor, to find out why people are hungry, why people are losing their homes through poverty, why old age pensioners are shifted into the South Dublin Union, and what he can do to remedy their adversity.

Anyone who is familiar with conditions in the city of Dublin, or Cork, or any large city in the country, knows of numerous old people, and, indeed, relatively young widows and other persons, who qualify for assistance from the community to meet the adversity that has come upon them, but who do not know how to go about getting the social benefits to which they are entitled if they knew how to bespeak them. As I understand the code of social welfare, it provides that there shall be an old age pension, or a widow's pension, or a statutory pension, and if it is inadequate to provide the recipient with a modest standard of comfort, he is entitled to look to the municipal authority of the area in which he lives for whatever will bridge the gap between what he requires and what he actually receives under the statutory pension and benefit schemes enacted by the House.

I have always felt it is an obligation on the Minister for Social Welfare to concern himself to see that there shall not be destitution among our people, and that anyone who is so afflicted should be sought out, the cause of the destitution ascertained, and effective measures taken to remedy it. I was appalled to learn that in the past month over 100 old age pensioners in this city have been cleared out of their rooms and relegated to the South Dublin Union. So far as I know, none of them has any prospects of getting out of the South Dublin Union again. Is the Minister for Social Welfare, who is primarily responsible for the poor and afflicted, to shrug his shoulders and say: "It is no concern of mine"? Is he to say it is the responsibility of another Minister? I do not think it is. I know the Minister for Local Government has a general supervisory function in relation to the local authorities who provide housing. I recognise that matters of housing fall within his ambit. If a situation arises in which 100 old age pensioners are cleared out of their rooms, and shovelled into the South Dublin Union —and the Minister knows that those people are faced with the situation in which they have no prospects of ever getting out of the South Dublin Union for the rest of their lives—does he discharge his duties by saying: "They are getting their pensions and that is all I care."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the only responsibility with which the House has charged him.

Mr. Dillon

I have argued very strenuously that it is not. I used to say, and I still say, that if I were Minister for Social Welfare, I would not rest easy in bed if I believed people were hungry, or poor, or cold, and if I did not send someone to find out why they were hungry, or poor, or cold. It might transpire that they had some mental deficiency, that they were not equal to the strain of living in the world and needed help and assistance to live comfortably. It might be that they had no suitable rooms to live in, and that they were old, and poor, and lonely. I have always argued that the Minister for Social Welfare should provide himself with some kind of investigatory staff to look into those questions and bring to his attention difficulties of that kind, whereupon he could charge his Department to consider the existing code to see if there were means of relieving those forms of distress. If not, he could go to the Government and say: "With all the statutory powers I have, here is a schedule of cases of which I can give the fullest details and which I have no power to help."

Does it not seem that for the Minister to discharge his function, he must concern himself not only with those for whom provision is made under the existing law, but more especially with those who he discovers are not catered for by the existing law? I am thinking more and more of who is responsible for the hundreds of old age pensioners who have been shoved into the South Dublin Union with no prospect of ever getting out of that institution again in their lifetime.

That is so grim a tragedy that I find it hard to accept and it appals me that in Dáil Éireann we should find ourselves philosophically shaking our heads and asking ourselves what can we do. Mind you, I do not think that kind of problem arises in rural Ireland. If an old person's home fell down, neighbours would rally round and would provide some accommodation until the rest of the neighbours could repair the house, could do something to get those old people back into their homes instead of into the county home.

Here in Dublin it can happen and nobody seems to care. As far as I understand it, the Minister's approach to this is: "They are not my responsibility. They get their pensions and if they are in the South Dublin Union, that is a matter for the local authority and I am not concerned". I do not agree with that view. The point I wish especially to emphasise is that the result of a rising cost of living is that those who are organised, powerful, can in some measure protect themselves, that the rich who have capital on which to operate can largely offset the consequences of a rising cost of living. It is the poor who grow poorer.

Let us be clear on this. In regard to the aged, their standard of living falls; in regard to the young, a quarter of a million have fled from poverty in the past seven years. We have this enormous army of old age pensioners whose standard of living is falling and who, in some cases, are being forced into public institutions because they have no homes to go to or at least no accommodation available for which they can afford to pay.

I wish to raise a specific point which has been mentioned in the House before respecting a relatively small body of people who seem to have got caught in one of these legislative log-jams that sometimes arise through parallel pension schemes, leaving a gap which requires to be filled. When the social insurance scheme was first formulated, for some reason best known to the Oireachtas the Garda Síochána were not required to stamp cards. They have their own pension schemes unto themselves and there is a pension scheme for widows. Now you have the strange situation that where a garda dies a relatively young man in his 40s or 50s and leaves a young widow, she is not entitled to a contributory pension under the social services. She is entitled to a pension under the Garda Síochána pension scheme and it is just sufficient to disqualify her for a non-contributory widow's pension.

If the Garda Síochána stamped cards, that woman would be entitled not only to the Garda pension under the Garda pension scheme but also to draw her non-contributory widow's pension. I suggest to the Minister that either of two things should be done: one, the Garda should be included in the ordinary social welfare code by having stamps put on their cards for them by the Garda authorities, or two, it should be provided that a Garda widow's pension under the Garda Síochána code should not be taken account of in assessing means for a non-contributory widow's pension. I have had a number of cases of this kind brought to my attention in my time and I have never mentioned them in the House without evoking sympathetic reaction but nothing ever seems to be done. I put it to the Minister that there is an obvious gap here in the social welfare code, one that he might very properly remedy by either of the devices I suggest. If he has some better idea, I should be very glad to hear of it.

I am, of course, glad that some part of the burden which has been thrown on the old age pensioner, the unemployed, the widows and orphans, is being met by the provisions of this Bill. However, the fact remains they are being called on to pay out a very substantial part of the burden and as a result we witness the fact that by Government policy, the poor grow poorer while the rich grow richer, and that I most emphatically deplore.

Mr. Boland

I do not have very much to complain about in the manner in which this Bill has been dealt with by the House. I agree with Deputy Murphy it was rather unfair of Deputy Donegan in placing the interpretation he did on the contributions of the two previous speakers from the Labour benches. I do not think any Deputy is satisfied with the present rates of assistance services. I am not by any means complacent about them.

As I pointed out on a number of occasions, this Government have in fact been doing considerably more over the years than keeping these payments in line with increases in the cost of living. We have been implementing a policy of ensuring that social welfare recipients share in the increasing prosperity of the country. It has been shown time and time again that increases given have in fact effected a slight, I agree, but nevertheless a relative improvement in the position of social welfare recipients vis-á-vis the cost of living.

Deputy Cosgrave made the case that unlike the wage increases given in the ninth round, the social welfare increases being granted here have been granted from a date subsequent to the date of the Budget to which the increases were provided for. He made the case that some of the increases in the cost of living resulting from the turnover tax developed from November last and pointed out these payments in social benefits do not come into effect until 1st August.

The fact is, of course, that increases were given in all social welfare schemes last year which in themselves more than compensated for increases in the cost of living due to the turnover tax. The effect of the increases on the social assistance side which are being given in this Bill is to establish the position that since the imposition of the turnover tax, every grade of social welfare recipient has in fact got an increase of more than the 12 per cent which has been obtained by employed people. As I pointed out in the debate on the Budget last year, with one exception, that of the contributory old age pensioners where the percentage is 11 per cent, which is slightly less than the 12 per cent obtained by workers generally, the increases given to social welfare recipients are greater than 12 per cent and considerably in excess of the increase in the cost of liv-living. The increase in the cost of living since mid-February of 1963 is 6.875 per cent and the lowest increase given under any social welfare scheme is the 11 per cent in the case of a contributory old age pension.

I fully realise that everybody in the House would like to see larger increases given but we on this side of the House have to face up to the problem of providing the money for these benefits. We have been implementing a consistent policy of ensuring that the social welfare recipients get a due proportion of the increase in the national income. That is a more advantageous principle from the point of view of the recipients than the one advocated by Deputy Cosgrave in this debate of ensuring that their allowances increase in proportion to the increase in the cost of living.

With regard to the improvements being carried out in some of the schemes this year, Deputy Tully referred to the fact that in my opening statement, I did not give any bouquets to the Labour Party, the members of which have suggested some of these improvements from time to time. That is true. In replying to the debate on my Estimate last year, I did mention the fact that many improvements had been suggested to my mind by the contributions made from all sides of the House and I think that most of the improvements made on this occasion have been advocated from different sides of the House over the years.

Deputies generally will admit, as the Labour Deputies did, that in addition to the gradual increase in the rates of payments under these different services, a gradual improvement is also being effected in the schemes themselves. There have been improvements in each of the past three years, and just as Deputies can see further improvements that could be made, I can see them also. I am sure we have not reached the end of social welfare legislation in this country and I hope it will be possible to bring in further improvements from time to time. The individual improvements may be only of limited application but the sum total of them is that we are gradually evolving a better and more comprehensive system of social welfare.

Deputy Tully referred to the question of the new 6/- per week rate of widow's pension which is being introduced and he criticised it. I wish to say that we are not attaching any great importance to that but that what it does is to equalise the position of the widow who would otherwise receive no payment with the position of the widow who qualifies for a pension. In that case an obvious anomaly would arise. This provision avoids that anomaly. It does no more than and is not represented as doing any more than that. My policy is to continue expanding the means scale in that way as the rates of benefit are increased, thus bringing in more people at the upper end for marginal rates and thus ensuring that those who qualify for the pension and those whose means put them just outside the means limit will have proportionately the same income. If we did not do that, anomalies would arise.

I am amazed at the demand from a number of the Labour Deputies that the means test should be abolished and I should like to know if it is the considered policy of the Labour Party that the means test should be done away with. I find it hard to believe that if they really considered the question, they would find it a desirable thing to do. It has been mentioned that to abolish the means test would cost a considerable amount of money but the money does not matter to me so much. If I had sufficient money available for the abolition of the means test, I would not use it in that way.

The abolition of the means test would cost a considerable amount of money. In the case of old age pensions alone, it would cost £4 million. It was mentioned by Deputy Tully that fantastic figures have been quoted in regard to the cost of removing the means test. They are large figures but they are not fantastic. They are realistic figures and it is not true to say that the cost of the administration of the means test represents a considerable proportion of what it would cost to do away with it. The total cost of the administration of the Department is under £2 million and the abolition of the means test for old age pensions alone would cost £4 million.

If I had this £4 million available and decided to use it in this way, to use it to abolish the means test, it would mean giving all that money to people who at present do not qualify for an old age pension at all or who, because they have some means, qualify for a pension at a reduced rate. It would mean a decision on my part to use £4 million for the benefit of people who are better off than those who qualify for the maximum at present. If Deputy Murphy reads his contribution to the debate, he will see that he made a case for not doing this. He emphasised the fact that there are some people who have no other means than the social assistance payments and they have to try to exist on them. The abolition of the means test would mean utilisation of whatever money was available for people other than those to whom Deputy Murphy referred. As I said, even if I had this money available, I would not use it in that way. I do not think it would be the most equitable way in which to use it.

There are a number of other points which were raised and, as I have said, the whole question of improvement of the social welfare system is continuously under review in my Department. The three Social Welfare Bills that have been introduced in the last three years show that we are gradually improving the system as a whole. I acknowledge that many of the things that have been done have been adverted to on a number of occasions by various Deputies in the House, by the Labour Party and by Deputies on this side of the House and on the Fine Gael side.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Would the Minister hold out any hope that the qualifying age for old age pensioners might be reduced? It is a big question, I know.

Mr. Boland

That is something that may happen in the future. As Deputy Murphy remarked, it would cost a great deal of money. All these improvements depend on the financial situation.

I was saying that I appreciate the points that are raised by Deputies in the House. In fact, one of the items in this Bill which was not referred to in this debate was mentioned in the debate on my Estimate by Deputy O'Donnell, that is——

Mr. Dillon

The fishermen.

Mr. Boland

The share fishermen. A step in the direction that Deputy O'Donnell and other Deputies have been advocating for a considerable time is being taken in this Bill. Deputies will realise that preparation for the implementation of this improvement was being made before Deputy O'Donnell spoke on the Estimate but I have no doubt that he referred to it before and I distinctly remember the late Deputy Dan Moloney referring to it year after year here and I am quite sure that many others also referred to it.

Other points that have been raised and other improvements that have been advocated are very much in my mind also. In regard to the question of the Garda widows, I agree that if the pensions that are provided by the Department of Justice for Garda widows are lower than the contributory widow's pension, something should be done through the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of Justice to rectify that situation. If it can be more conveniently done by the Department of Social Welfare I shall endeavour to do it.

There are, of course, many cases of hardship which are not covered by any of the existing social welfare schemes. If Deputies will examine the individual cases that come to their notice they will see, generally speaking, that they are cases of a type that it just would not be possible to cover in a statutory scheme which has to be of general application but there is a continuous effort in my Department to make the social welfare services more comprehensive and, as I say, I appreciate that criticisms made here are helpful generally in that regard.

Deputy Kyne referred to the booklet produced by the Department of Social Welfare. That will be brought up to date as soon as possible. In that respect also, I would recommend Deputies who are interested in social welfare to get a book which was published by the Institute of Public Administration lately dealing with the social assistance and social insurance services and which gives a fairly comprehensive review of the system as it is at the moment. Perhaps a study of that book will help Deputies to make further suggestions as to improvements that are desirable.

I thank the House for dealing so expeditiously with the Bill and I would ask them to agree to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Colley)

Committee Stage?

Mr. Boland

The Bill does not seem to be contentious and, if the House will agree, I should like to have it taken now.

Mr. Dillon

We are prepared to give the Minister the Committee Stage.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

There is only one question, that is, whether an amendment could be brought in on Committee Stage dealing with the disqualification of applicants for unemployment benefit whose means exceed £2 a week. That matter has been referred to in the House on a number of occasions and I think, for that reason, it would be advisable to leave the Committee Stage over until next week as we would like to have an opportunity of examining the various sections to ascertain whether or not a suitable amendment could be put down.

Mr. Dillon

We have examined the sections and we cannot put down an amendment which will put a charge on the Exchequer because Standing Orders prohibit such an amendment from any source except the Minister.

Mr. Boland

I may say that I have mentioned in reply to questions that the question of whether or not the amount of 6/8d. per day should be increased is under consideration. If a decision is made to increase it, that will be done by regulation. It is not necessary to have legislation.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

On that score, we will agree to the Committee Stage being taken.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 24 Jun 1964

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1964—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1964