I think it should be obvious to Deputies on every side of the House, including Deputy Tully, that so far from the introduction of this new means category being reprehensible, to be really equitable the idea should be further developed, according as more money becomes available, by introducing further categories for those whose incomes are between £26 and £39 a year—there is an obvious gap there and one that should be filled —for those whose means are below £13 and for those who have no means. The disparity which I have shown is between the incomes of those with the lower rates of pension and those with the maximum, in fact, in most cases, much more pronounced.
A large number of those with means also have the right of free maintenance and free lodging from relatives. This is assessed at the nominal value of 1/-a week. It is inconsistent that Deputies should urge that something should be done for persons with no means at all and who are living alone and that at the same time they should object to the fact that extra provision is being made for those whose need is greatest.
A terrifying picture has been presented of wholesale reinvestigation of the means of existing old age pensioners. There will be no reinvestigation of their means. The information on which to decide whether a person is entitled to an increase of 10/- a week or 5/- a week is available in the Department. I always thought that previous attacks by members of the Labour Party on the idea of a means test were merely thoughtless repetition of criticisms they had heard from people who never thoroughly examined the position. Now the Party have officially come out in favour of the abolition of the means test, that is, in favour of giving to the "haves" at the expense of the "have nots". I reject the idea, both in principle and from the point of view of practicability, that there should be no means test in connection with these services. To abolish the means test would be a gross inequity to those most in need. If I had sufficient money available, I would not use it in that way. I do, however, think it desirable that it should be possible for every citizen to qualify for an old age pension of some sort and I am investigating the possibility of making a voluntary contribution scheme available to all.
While the Opposition are against the means test where it applies at present, they apparently want to apply it to the only non-insurance service where it does not apply at present, to children's allowances. I am in complete disagreement with this idea. The provision of children's allowances without a means test is completely justifiable. Deputy Costello referred to the fact that there may be different standards of living among people in the same employment and with the same emoluments because one may have substantial family commitments and the other may be single or have no children.
The purpose of children's allowances without a means test is to help to adjust that position. This scheme performs a different function from the other social services which are designed to provide an income for a person when the normal income ceases or is reduced because a man has lost his employment, because he has become ill and is unable to work or because of old age or the loss of the breadwinner. Children's allowances are designed for a different purpose. They are designed to reduce the disparity in the standard of living to which Deputy Costello refers between the man with a family to support and the man with a similar income and no dependent children. The children's allowance scheme is complementary to the provision of tax free allowances under the income tax code. It is a more simple and more sensible thing to do to pay children's allowances without a means test rather than to apply an expensively administered means test and increase tax free allowances for income tax purposes.
The question of the proposed extension of the social insurance scheme to embrace workmen's compensation was mentioned. I do not think the delay in doing this has been all that excessive. The Commission took over six years to report. It was set up in December 1955 and reported in February 1962. That indicates that it was a complex problem. When the report was received, it had to be printed and circulated to all Government Departments. Their views had to be obtained. That, again, took some considerable time. From my own perusal of the document, I formed a personal opinion that a State scheme should be introduced but I waited for the views of other Departments and, of course, of my own Department.
I then took a decision to recommend to the Government that the majority report should be rejected and that we should have a State scheme instead. That was not a decision to be lightly taken. I had to be fully satisfied that I could stand over the recommendation and that I would be able to justify it to the Government. Deputies know that there was a certain procedure to be followed before I received a decision in principle from the Government. Then the whole scheme of a Bill had to be prepared and submitted to the Government. The drafting of the Bill is now in process. I intend to introduce the Bill this session and circulate it during the Recess.
A number of interesting suggestions were made but I do not think any of them were completely new. Many have been very much in my mind for some time and there are some I intend to put into operation at a suitable opportunity. There are others on which I have not yet completely made up my mind. The position is that implementation must await a further improvement of the capacity of the community to pay. One suggestion was that contributions and benefits should be linked to earnings. I am attracted to that idea. The question is whether or not we have reached the stage at which we can start to do that yet. It is hardly likely that a fully wage related scheme could be introduced all together. It seems more likely that any progress made will be gradual. Possibly a two-tiered scheme will be introduced first which will be developed into a multi-tiered scheme until we eventually arrive at a more or less complete wage-related scheme.
The present rate of unemployment benefit for a man, his wife and two children of £5 18s. 6d. represents 77.6 per cent of an £8 per week wage, allowing for the deduction of the contribution in respect of the stamp. For the lower rates of wages, therefore, the decrease in the standard of living and the burden of meeting the misfortune of unemployment or illness is not so severe. In the case of the higher rates of wages it is comparatively severe, except in the case of people with large families.
