As I was remarking last night, what is most needed in a policy of social welfare is to depart once and for all from the present hit and miss attitude.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Social Welfare (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £42,203,000 chun íochta an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1967, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh, le haghaidh Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin, le haghaidh íocaíochtaí leis an gCiste Árachais Shóisialaigh, agus le haghaidh Ildeontas.—(Minister for Social Welfare).
Mr. O'Leary
I cannot hear the Deputy.
Would Deputies please allow the Deputy who is on his feet to speak? I cannot hear him myself.
Mr. O'Leary
I was remarking last night that it appears to me that the only satisfactory way in which we can deal with social welfare is, once and for all, to depart from this hit or miss attitude to it. We should rescue the entire subject of social welfare from eve of poll messages and from the hurly-burly of politics and put it squarely as a priority of Government policy. To do that, it is essential to tabulate the problem in all its complexity, at first at any rate. Other countries have developed their policy fully in social welfare and framed their policies to deal with it on a comprehensive basis. Our policies do not correlate with each other and do not add up to a comprehensive system of social welfare.
It is only a few years since social welfare was discovered by our conservative Parties—who, up to then, had turned a very blind eye on it—to be a rich field for vote-catching. Our present social welfare arrangements are due much more to this vote-catching potential than to a social conscience on the part of the Government. Until some years ago, there was general agreement among the major political Parties in this House that the foundation of our social welfare system should chiefly be the concern of the family. In other words, the family was to be the unit most concerned with looking after the welfare of its members in old age or in childhood. For many years, we attacked that idea. We suggested that this attitude was fundamentally dishonest.
Let us consider a family of five or six children where the wage is £10 a week, or less. Such a family could not be expected to look after an aged grandfather or grandmother. We suggested that it was the State's job to look after its citizens who are in distress. We must map out at what point in his lifetime a citizen most needs State help. One point is old age and here we suggest that the present limit for old age pension purposes should be reduced. At 65 years, a person is as old from the point of view of earning his living as any civilised society would deem him to be.
We consider that there has not been sufficient examination of the life of the average family to graph the points at which such a family would need State help. Health is a factor which comes into this question of social welfare and the facilities the State should provide in that connection. I find that such a general examination of the points at which an average family needs State help has not yet been made in this country.
Sometimes one hears talk of the poverty that exists in our midst. Until we make a comprehensive examination of all factors of social welfare, we shall not be enabled to overcome these areas of poverty which exist in Dublin city and in other parts of the country. It is astonishing that some people still affect to be surprised when they come across people in our community who appear to be literally starving, who are going without the necessaries of life and who apparently die without the comfort of friends or unnoticed by their neighbours. Such events are still too common in our country. Until we mount a national campaign against poverty, it will remain the lot of many of our people.
One cannot take up a newspaper any day without reading a report, for example, of an old person who has died without any friends or concern as to his or her fate. That sort of thing can happen in a large country but it should not happen in a small country such as ours where we pride ourselves that the bonds of intimacy and of our rural background are not conducive to such a state of affairs. That such things can happen in a small country such as ours is a disgrace. We can understand the position in large industrialised societies which, by their very nature, are anonymous and in which citizens may not have the traditional good-neighbour policy towards one another, but it is quite astonishing that in a small, intimate country such as ours we should have this problem. It is astonishing that we do not know where these pockets of poverty occur in our community. I suggest that there is need for a real wind of change to blow through the corridors of Social Welfare. I suggest that there is need to develop a new attitude towards this problem in order to banish for all time the idea that social welfare carries with it the taint of relief.
Social welfare should be seen to be the citizen's right. Social welfare, properly understood, should connote a redistribution of the national wealth for the benefit of those most in need. Looking at it from that point of view, one sees it as an essential part of modern government policy but, until we co-ordinate all the bits and pieces of relief policy formed over the years, all the conglomeration of reliefs under the term social welfare, this problem will never be solved in a decisive fashion. I should like to see social welfare lifted out of Party politics and removed entirely from the arena of Party politics, changed completely from what it has been in the past—a staple diet for politicians needing election. It is sad to have to say that, but it is true that social welfare has been a rich vote—catching device; all the candidate has to do is to refer to social welfare services, to widows and to orphans.
I should prefer to see social welfare treated as a matter of serious Government policy. I should like to see those unfortunates in our community in need of State assistance listed in order of priority and I should like to see agreement reached that these are the people who need this kind of help. Other countries have done that. The communities we hope to join in the future have done it. It is an unhappy position for us to discover that the only country with which we can claim parity from the point of view of our social welfare system is Portugal and Salazar's Portugal is surely not the country with which we would like to see ourselves compared. At the moment it is the only one with which we can claim parity.
Many people have queried over the past year this incomprehensible discontent on the part of wage-earners and they have asked why they march and why they are involved in so many industrial disputes. One of the elements in all this discontent is the knowledge on the part of these wage-earners of what is happening to their fathers and mothers in their old age. These old people have to survive on social welfare benefits and it cannot be expected that wage-earners will have any great loyalty to the society in which they live when they see the way in which that society deals with the aged. There is a certain callousness in the present manner of administering social welfare. When the wage-earners see the aged and the young treated as political stratagems in order to gain votes at election time, they cannot be expected to have any great allegiance to such a society.
If we want to see the aged and those who are no longer engaged in productive work and the very young in receipt of their proper share—I have to use this much-abused term—of social assistance, some machinery will have to be devised whereby pensions and benefits will bear some relationship to the rate of increase granted to wage-earners and other pensioners. The Government talk about an incomes policy. If there is to be such a policy, it will have to permeate every stratum of our society and pensions will have to bear some relationship to the salaries and incomes of other sections in the community. The streets are full of marching men demonstrating about their incomes. The pensioners cannot march but that does not mean that we should not be aware of their plight and that we should not be engaged in evolving some solution to their problem. At the moment under the present system they are looked upon as second-class citizens whose need is to be measured by the need of the Government in power for votes.
I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but he understands that what falls for discussion relevantly on an Estimate is administration.
Mr. O'Leary
I am suggesting some of the elements——
I suggest the Deputy is going into the philosophy of the matter and that, I suggest, does not fall for discussion.
Mr. O'Leary
I am suggesting that, even with the present amount of money made available for social welfare, a change of attitude towards social welfare and a re-examination of the problem would mean that this money could be more profitably spent.
The Deputy knows, of course, that that can be raised relevantly in another way in the House.
Mr. O'Leary
True.
And it is quite irrelevant on the present Estimate.
Mr. O'Leary
I think the Ceann Comhairle will sympathise——
I cannot allow my sympathies to run riot.
Mr. O'Leary
I do not want to overstrain the Chair's sympathies, but I think the Minister could spend whatever money he has to better advantage if he had a change of heart and a change in his attitude towards social welfare. I do not single the Minister out.
If the Deputy will come to administration now, I shall be quite satisfied.
Mr. O'Leary
The Minister will surely come to administration with greater dedication if he has the right attitude. There are larger questions that impinge and there is need to bring larger issues into our administration. However well the present system is administered, it is not the answer to tackling the real problem. The way in which we have been tackling it is not satisfactory and will never provide a solution. I suggest there should be a global outlook at the problems, leading to a comprehensive policy, and perhaps more money being made available. If the Minister needs more money, if there is need for more taxation to provide more money for the Minister in order to enable him to help these particular people in our community, my Party will certainly not be reluctant to vote for such extra taxation. But we will never solve the problem until we carry out a real examination. The real objective should be an all-out war against poverty in our community.
Deputies T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) and Moore rose.
Deputy Moore.
(Cavan): With due respect, Sir, Deputy Dowling spoke before Deputy O'Leary and I offered to speak at the same time as Deputy O'Leary.
It does not have to be two Opposition speakers to one Government speaker surely?
I am interlarding the Deputies to the best of my ability. Deputy Fitzpatrick will get his turn.
(Cavan): With all due respect, Sir, I say my turn is now and that was intimated yesterday evening.
It was intimated to the Deputy he would be called. In that case I shall have to ask Deputy Moore to give way and allow Deputy Fitzpatrick to speak.
Surely there should be some kind of balance between the speakers on both sides?
I am trying to achieve that.
Does it have to be two Opposition speakers to one on the Government side?
It does not.
That seems to be what Deputy Fitzpatrick is demanding—a Labour speaker, a Fine Gael speaker, and a Fianna Fáil speaker.
We had the Minister, Deputy Ryan, Deputy James Tully, Deputy O'Hara, Deputy Lyons, Deputy Dowling, Deputy O'Leary.
I should like to point out, Sir, that that is exactly one speaker on this side of the House.
But speakers did not offer.
That is too big a proportion. Surely there should be two Fianna Fáil speakers?
With respect, Sir, I think it only just that Deputy Moore be allowed to continue.
I will not delay Deputy Fitzpatrick. Listening to Deputy O'Leary last night, I thought I would go along with him on many points. Like him and like most members of the House, I believe in the redistribution of national wealth in the fight against poverty until such time as we have abolished poverty. Deputy O'Leary admonished what he called the conservative Parties in this House for their inattention to the old age pensioners. I have no desire to make a political speech but I would remind Deputy O'Leary that his socialist Party gave the old age pensioners 2/6 in three years. If that is the Labour Party's idea of socialism, I would prefer the Fianna Fáil type of socialism any time. We have to realise that we have poverty and no matter what Party we are in, it is our duty to wage war on it until we have abolished it. We also have to appreciate what moneys are at our disposal and see how we can build up the economy so that we can pay adequate old age pensions to those who qualify for them.
Deputy Dowling said last night that non-contributory pensions should be paid at 65 and this would be a good start towards paying pensions at an earlier age. I would appeal to the Minister to consider this suggestion carefully. I hope that next year he will be able to tell us that he can do this. I want now to refute once and for all Deputy O'Leary's suggestion that the State can do everything in this matter. We know that the State cannot do everything. We are also reminded that in socialist countries the highest suicide rates are to be found among the more affluent groups of society. We have been told that this is also the case in England and that the higher suicide rates are not in the poorer sections.
Mr. O'Leary
Free ropes would be the best thing.
I do not follow the Deputy.
Mr. O'Leary
The Deputy was referring to socialism.
Is that the Labour Party's suggestion?
Mr. O'Leary
I am being absurd over the Deputy's suggestion.
(Interruptions.)
To get back to the point, in Ireland we have over 300,000 people living alone and again I must take the Deputy to task when he states that people in Dublin die alone. The Deputy does not understand the Dublin mind for it is the boast among the poorer classes that nobody dies alone. In the Deputy's own area, they would resent his remarks.
Mr. O'Leary
I know that it has happened.
It happened once when your colleague tried to make something out of it, but if he had investigated it as some of us did, he would have found that the person was not in possession of her full mental faculties. It was not because of uncharitableness on the part of the Dublin people——
Mr. O'Leary
I did not say it was.
It happens every day. You cannot take up your paper but you read about it.
Mr. O'Leary
That is what I said.
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputies allow Deputy Moore to speak?
I would ask the Minister to tackle the question of the non-contributory pension next year to see if he can give this pension earlier. I know that this pension, and the contributory pension, is pretty low and we look forward to this Party's tradition being maintained next year by an addition being granted. I agree with the Deputy that we must examine the whole structure of our social services to see if we are making the best use of the moneys available to us. About one-third of our Vote will go on administration and therefore the pensioners will be deprived of that amount. We profess and believe in the Christian philosophy and teaching and therefore the onus is on us to act in accordance with our beliefs.
I hope that we will never see the day when the State will take over all the social services. It can play a very vital part and can ensure that nobody will starve to death, but if we are to bring the true Christian spirit to bear, it must be left in large measure to the charitable societies which are doing such tremendous work. We must guard against the socialist tendency of regarding poor people as numbers on a Government file. Many of these people feel that they are not wanted and they take a very poor view of the society in which they live if that is allowed to happen. They should be made feel that they are wanted. As members either of this House or of the public, we have a duty.
Our first duty as Deputies is to explain to anybody in need what the State is prepared to give him. It has been stated that people in need of help do not know what they can qualify for. There is a booklet issued by the Department giving this information but Deputies who visit poorer areas know that these people do not read that booklet. I know that Deputies do explain to the people what they are entitled to.
What we have to realise is that the greatest need in our society is an expansion of our social services. If the State cannot do this, then we have all to shoulder our part of the burden and ensure that no person will want for food, housing or clothing. We should remember that we have made tremendous strides and we should go on to seek a solution to these problems, not in a socialist sense, which has not brought happiness to the people who live under it, but under a philosophy which we would carve out for ourselves and by which the individual would be treated as an individual and not as a number on a card.
I should like to mention a matter which was raised last night and which does not really come within the ambit of this debate, that is, the case to give old age pensioners subsidiary allowances such as free bus travel and so forth. Dublin Corporation pressed for free bus services for old age pensioners and blind pensioners a few years ago. I was on the deputation which went to the management of CIE about this matter and they said they could not do it. They suggested that higher pensions should be paid to the people and then they could afford to pay for their bus services. That may be one answer.
We have always felt that a man or woman who has reached the age of 70 probably served the country well and therefore deserved whatever comforts we can afford to provide. Whether we should give him higher pension in order that they can afford to pay for these services, or whether CIE should give them the free services and then be recouped by the taxpayer is not really the point. We say that they are entitled to these services and either the Department of Social Welfare or CIE should say: "All right; we recognise your right to this concession and we will give it". CIE would probably say that they would lose money and would look for an extra subvention, but I do not think that anybody would quibble at the extra, small subvention if it were being used to provide these people with free travel.
I did suggest to the Minister that through the use of good publicity he could ensure that the old age pensioners knew what they are entitled to. Any public representative spends all his time explaining to people what they are entitled to. Perhaps we are not the best people to do it but the Minister could by use of our charitable organisations and newspapers bring home to people what they are entitled to and let them know that there are extra benefits to be obtained apart from the pension itself, such as rent allowance. It would make the lot of our old people happier if we had those interim benefits before we get down to having a really comprehensive social policy for our old people.
I congratulate the Minister for the work he has done in the past in relation to recipients of social welfare. I hope that in his statement next year he will go outside the fields he has already been in and ensure that the benefits will at least allow old age pensioners and blind pensioners to live in frugal comfort.
(Cavan): Deputy Ryan, on behalf of this Party, dealt with the inadequacies of the present social welfare payments and put before the House our views and policy on social welfare. I intend to confine my remarks to endeavouring to help the Minister to improve the condition of the social welfare classes within the framework of the present legislation until such time as the desirable standard of social welfare payments advocated by Deputy Ryan are brought about.
I should like, in the first place, to deal with the question of old age pensioners and to put before the Minister some of the problems and difficulties which have come before me, both in my capacity as a Member of this House and in my professional capacity and to suggest to the Minister a relaxation in or a more sympathetic interpretation of the regulations under which the present scheme is operated. A short time ago it transpired, in reply to a Parliamentary Question here, that contributory old age pensioners are not entitled to collect their pensions once they leave this country.
They are, in Great Britain.
(Cavan): I thought the Minister said Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
(Cavan): They are not entitled to collect their social welfare benefits if they go to reside in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or Great Britain, properly so called. I was glad to hear the Minister admitting—“agreeing” is, perhaps, a kinder word—that this was an undesirable state of affairs and that he intended to look into this particular problem and remedy it. I hope he will alter the regulations in the immediate future to deal with that.
Having said that, I want to deal with non-contributory old age pensioners and non-contributory widow pensioners. It is a fact that a non-contributory pensioner or a person in receipt of a non-contributory widow's pension who leaves this country and goes to reside in England, or even Northern Ireland, immediately forfeits his or her right to a non-contributory pension. If we consider the implication of that for a moment we will come to the conclusion that it is unfair and we will come to the conclusion that the non-contributory old age pensioner or the widow in receipt of a non-contributory pension, in certain circumstances, and indeed in most circumstances, should continue to enjoy the pension if resident with relatives outside this country, in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
There are many old age pensioners in this country who have lived here all their lives. They have brought children into the world and reared those children. Those children have since emigrated to Great Britain through no fault of the parents and through no fault of their own to get a living. I am not saying that in any critical manner. I am putting it forward to the House as a fact that cannot be denied. Very often the children marry and settle down in Great Britain. Until they marry they come home frequently, a couple of times a year perhaps, but when they marry, settle down and rear families in England their visits home are few and far between. We very often have the widowed mother or father of such children as I speak of living at home in his or her declining years. That parent is perhaps living in an isolated part of the country. He or she would very much like to go to reside with those children in Great Britain where the parent would be regarded as a member of the family and would be treated accordingly.
Perhaps the Irish child is married to an English person. The father or mother certainly does not want to go there to become an object of charity or be treated out of charity by the child. The parent does not want to go there as a pauper. It would be only reasonable, in such circumstances, that the parent should continue to draw the non-contributory old age pension abroad, certainly until such time as he or she qualifies for an old age pension in the other country. I think it only requires an amendment of the regulations to make what I suggest possible.
This might, in the long run, effect a saving to the Exchequer here because in many cases, especially in the case of the old age pensioner, when such a person is left at home here there is nobody to look after him or her. That person becomes lonely and usually has to go into the county home becoming the responsibility of the local authority. That certainly costs the State much more than 47/6 a week. This is a point which should be looked into sympathetically, both from a Christian and from an economic point of view. I believe this problem about which I speak follows from the fact that there is considerable emigration from this country. There always has been and probably always will be. The proposal I speak of might not be so successfully advocated in the case of another country but it is something which, as I say, stems from emigration, and the fact that the old people are left at home is something that should be seriously considered and something done about it.
The next point I want to make also arises on old age pensions. According to the regulations as they stand at the moment, a right of residence, support and maintenance reserved in favour of a person who transfers his farm to his son is valued at the small sum of 1/- a week or 52/- a year. Admittedly, up to the present time, that was equivalent to placing no value on it. It did not deprive the transferred owner from being entitled to the old age pension at the maximum rate. But we know under the Social Welfare Act which the Minister put through the House this year, and which provides for a further increase for certain old age pensions, as from next month this 1/-a week will become very important. Small and all as it is, it will deprive the farmer or other person who transfers his property to his married son from receiving the additional 5/- a week provided by the recent Act. I think I am correct in that. The 5/- a week which will come into force next month will not do favour to any old age pensioner who has any income whatever. Therefore, it will deprive the farmer, or other person who transfers his property to his married son or daughter, from receiving this additional benefit.
I think that is undesirable, and for a few reasons. If it is only valued at £2 12s, it should be excluded altogether. But, old people being what they are, like to get the last penny that is coming to them, or what they think is coming to them under this Act. I fear that a right of residence, support and maintenance will deprive these old people of the maximum rates of old age pension and will encourage them not to reserve any such rights in their favour. That is undesirable because it will leave these old people at the complete mercy of a son and, let us face it, of the daughter-in-law. This is a very important and a very risky business. The probabilities are that they will not reserve any rights for themselves at all and will take the chance.
It is refreshing to find an old person coming in to transfer his farm to his son. You ask him is his son married and you are told he is. The next thing a prudent solicitor will ask is: "How are you getting on with the daughter-in-law?" It is very refreshing to be told everything in the garden is lovely, and in a great many cases everything in the garden is lovely. But in other cases it is not so and things do not go well. The person who has transferred to a son who is not married cannot prudently take the risk of not reserving a right of residence for himself. I think the Minister is encouraging him to take that risk under the present regulations. I would strongly appeal to the Minister from long experience of dealing with these matters to exclude this right of residence, support and maintenance from means altogether.
I do not ask the Minister to give the full rate of old age pension to people who have other incomes in the bank or in the post office, and so on. If they have not a right of residence, support and maintenance, they should get the full old age pension whether it be 47s 6d a week or 52s 6d a week, or whatever it is.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to what I will describe as the widows' one-third under existing law. In a great number of cases we find an applicant for a widow's pension or a widow applicant for old age pension granted a very small pension because her husband died intestate, because the title of the family farm has not been put in order, and because she is deemed in law to be entitled to one-third, although for all practical purposes, it is the son who is running the farm who reaps the benefit of income arising from the farm, who works the farm and who earns the income. Indeed, under the regulations as at present operated, we can find that not alone is the widow assessed with one-third of the farm to which she might be held to be technically and legally entitled, but in many cases I have come across cases where she is deemed to own one-half of the farm because the registered owner might have died leaving a widow and, say, four children. Three children may be in America and one boy and the mother are at home. According to the Social Welfare Act as at present operated, the mother and the son are in occupation of this farm and they are equally entitled to the earnings of the farm and to the income from it. That, of course, is not the case. If the son were to be treated like that, he too would join the rest of the family in America. The son is the man who is regarded as the owner.
Indeed, there are cases, as I know, where, unfortunately, the son at home and the mother are hardly on speaking terms. The mother has a very bad time and, still, for the purposes of these regulations, she is deemed to be in receipt of 50 per cent of the income of the farm whereas the world and his wife and the neighbours know she gets her meals out. That is another point the Minister might look into and operate less rigidly and with more sympathy.
The next point I want to come to also concerns the granting of old age pensions. Old people are like children. They are very impatient and it goes very hard on them to be kept out of something to which they consider they are entitled. This is understandable because they are living on borrowed time, as they say themselves, and their lives are running out and the matter of a few weeks or a few months is indeed a big consideration to them and is a substantial portion of the life that may be left to them. I think, therefore, that everything should be done to eliminate delays and to try to overlook technicalities for the purpose of doing so.
It used to be, I think, that when a deed from the father to the son was executed the pension was paid subject to checking in a reasonable time that the deed was stamped and I think in certain cases the Department did not insist on registration where there were practical difficulties in the way of registration. The Minister knows, and I am sure his advisers know, that the title to many farms in rural Ireland is in a mess, that it has not been dealt with, especially in the smaller farms. Perhaps in the wealthier counties like Tipperary, where farms are worth many thousands of pounds, more care is taken with the title, but in places like my constituency, where farms remain in the family for generations and where they are of little value, the titles have been neglected and to perfect them is both a tedious and an expensive procedure. At present the regulations, instead of being relaxed in this particular field, have been tightened up. Not alone will the pension not be paid now until the deed is stamped but there must be evidence that it has been lodged for registration. As the Minister knows, it cannot be lodged for registration until the title of the transferor is in order.
I think that when the deed is executed and produced to the social welfare officer the pension should become payable immediately and the social welfare officer should check up on the situation in, say, three months to see that the deed has been stamped. It does take a little time to stamp deeds and get them through the Valuation Office and that sort of thing. If, in three months, the deed is not stamped, then there might be a case for suspending the pension until such time as it is stamped. I feel that if there is satisfactory evidence from a solicitor or such person that there is difficulty in the way of completing registration of the deed that requirement should not be insisted upon. I certainly cannot be accused now of advocating work for the legal profession. I do think that where there are difficulties or where it would lead to expense registration should not be insisted upon. Once the deed is stamped, the pension should be paid immediately, subject to revision after three months, if the deed is not stamped, and if there are difficulties in the way of registration, it should not be insisted on. I put that to the Minister as a reasonable proposition because it is pathetic to see old people behaving like children who are waiting for Christmas to get a top or behaving like children who are being deprived of something which they consider they should get.
I feel there are undue delays also, not due to officers in the Department but due to the regulations under which they are working, in the payment of disability benefit. The Minister has taken over portion of the workmen's compensation code. I know it has not come into force yet, but when it does, injured workmen and insured people, who are ill will be completely at the mercy of the Department of Social Welfare. We all come across cases where people are deprived of their social welfare benefit for seven, eight, nine or ten weeks and are forced to depend on the paltry home assistance they get from the county council, and then a cheque for £70 or £80 comes along. I had a case only this week where an injured workman who had been held not to be entitled to social welfare benefit received through me a cheque for £80. I submit to the Minister and to the House that that is evidence of undue delay.
I know it may mean some new machinery for dealing with these cases. I wonder whether wholetime officers, wholetime medical men in the Department are the best people to deal with these appeal cases. I feel that an arrangement could be made whereby the county surgeon or the neighbouring county surgeon would attend at a clinic over a couple of weeks and decide these matters. His certificate should be accepted. There will have to be something done about that to minimise these delays because they are not fair and can and do cause hardship. The case I have mentioned where the man got, I think, £80 odd in respect of a couple of months compensation is not good enough. It is too long to keep a man waiting and I suggest to the Minister for his consideration that these things should be decided by resident medical men in the locality, certainly in the county.
Perhaps I should have dealt with the matter of children's allowances being payable to families who emigrate when dealing with payment of old age pensions abroad. At present if a family who are in receipt of children's allowances emigrate because the head of the family finds that he cannot get work here, immediately they go to England or wherever they go, they find that the allowances are cut off. They do not qualify in England until they have been there six months. We should continue to pay the allowances until the family qualifies for children's allowances after six months abroad. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. It is something that arises from the problem of emigration which is peculiar to this country.
The final point I want to deal with unfortunately also relates to emigration. I do not think the responsibility of our Department of Social Welfare or our Minister for Social Welfare should end when our boys or girls get on a boat to go to England. Our responsibility to those people does not end there. It is possible for children of 15 or 16 years of age to buy a one-way sailing ticket, go to England and, as far as this country is concerned, we wash our hands of them. I am not saying that in any offensive way. Again, it is a cold fact which cannot be contradicted, but I do not think our responsibility to them ends there. I do not want to go on record as creating the impression that any considerable number of our emigrants go to the bad when they emigrate because I do not think they do. A big percentage, and the vast majority, of them make good abroad and are a credit to the country that reared them but there is the percentage who, principally because I suppose they did not get the proper upbringing at home for one reason or another and were not fit to emigate, fall by the wayside.
We have in England and in the city of London some Irish organisations doing a wonderful job of work looking after our emigrants who were not fitted to emigrate and who reclaim and rehabilitate those who fall by the wayside. I could refer particularly — it is only right that tribute be paid to it in this Assembly—to the Irish Centre in London which is being run by a couple of Irish priests and which could not fail to impress anybody who visited it. Although it may have its difficulties, our Department of Social Welfare should do something to look after the emigrants, first of all, the young emigrants who should not have been allowed to emigrate and, if we cannot prevent them from emigrating, we should keep in touch with them there at Government level, at Departmental level, or at official level. In my opinion, we should have, in the city of London and other large English cities where a great number of Irish people go to work, welfare officers attached to the Irish Embassy in London and to our consular offices in England. I do not think that is outside the responsibility or sphere of influence of the Minister for Social Welfare.
I have been in London and have had an opportunity of visiting the Irish Centre, about which I have spoken, and of speaking to people there. I know these charitable organisations in England would welcome assistance from the Minister's Department. The Minister should take up this question with the Irish Centre and with other charitable organisations in London and discuss with them how best he can help them. At the present time the only assistance the Minister will give, or, I suppose, can give, under the regulations to any boy or girl in England who falls by the wayside is to pay his or her fare back home. I understand he goes that far or, if the Minister's Department does not do it, some Department does it—perhaps it is the Department of External Affairs or some other Department. I understand there is some sort of regulation or arrangement to that effect.
I say we should establish welfare officers there to keep in touch with the young people who should not have been allowed to emigrate but who, in fact, did emigrate. In addition, he should keep in touch with the emigrants who fall by the wayside. It is not any answer to say there are probation officers in England, that there are probation officers supplied by one Department of State or another in England, because these people, kindly as they may be, cannot be expected to understand the Irish temperament or, indeed, to have a great lot of sympathy for people whom they might regard as having gone over there to get a living and then break the laws of the country. They cannot be expected to have a lot of sympathy for them. I should like to finish on that note and strongly urge the Minister to do something about it.
It is generally agreed in the House that the Social Welfare Estimate is one of the most important which comes up for discussion. Much ground has been covered by the different speakers in this debate and much play has been made with the difficulties which confront the people who mainly benefit under this Estimate, the weaker or unfortunate sections of the community.
I must say at the outset, so far as regulations go—whilst I do not agree with them—there is good co-operation between the Department, Members of this House and the public at large who have reason to make representations and who have reason to complain about one question or another so far as their applications are concerned. Dealing with the question of old age pensions first, non-contributory and, indeed, contributory as well, it is now some 56 years since pensions for such people were introduced. It seems very peculiar to me that over that long period, even though standards have improved very much in the meantime, the age limit for old age pensions has not changed. I know it is a difficult question. It needs a good deal of money to bring about a change but surely the time is at hand, in the year 1966, for the Government of the day and, particularly, for the Minister——
The Deputy is now advocating legislation.
Yes, Sir; it has been mentioned by previous speakers, and I think rightly so, that the age limit for old age pensions——
Acting Chairman
That would require legislation and, therefore, is out of order.
You will appreciate that many sections of our people who do not have to work in the wind and weather throughout their lives—as most of our old age pensioners do—get comfortable pensions when they reach 65 years, and get golden handshakes of, in some cases, close to five figures.
The Deputy will remember that it was his Party in Coalition with Fine Gael who introduced this scheme.
No, sir.
Very much so, sir.
We have a duty to treat our citizens equitably. I cannot see why those people who are fortunate enough, through brains, or pull, or influence, or for some other reason, to have good employment throughout their lives in public office, and even in private office—
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is going out of his way to deal with a matter which is out of order.
It is not my intention to get into conflict with the rules of the House, but that is a question which the Minister should bear in mind when he is formulating legislation to deal with it in the future. He should consider changing the age limit. I do not intend to labour the point but I am well aware that this would cost money. It is quite all right to say that we must do this or that. Everyone appreciates that such a change would need a big annual Estimate to discharge the cost, but I think a case is there for it. These people should be treated the same as those who enjoy golden handshakes or gratuities—call them what you will—at 65 years. The Minister is a reasonable man and I think he would be only too anxious to do this if he could convince his colleagues and the public to agree to such a proposal and make additional taxation available to implement it.
The regulations governing applications for non-contributory old age pensions leave much to be desired. They certainly do not measure up to my requirements or to the requirements of many Members of the House. At present, except in a straightforward case where there are no means or where there is little need for an investigation, a peculiar position obtains in the investigation of these claims. Unfortunately—and I emphasise the word "unfortunately"—the social welfare officers in making their investigations assume that every applicant is dishonest, untruthful, unreliable and trying to get money by fraudulent means. That is the first assumption made by the social welfare officers. There are also cases where applicants who had some money when they reached the age of 70 and handed it over to members of the family, had their applications held against by the pensions officer. They rejected the assertion that they were genuine transfers and claimed they were for the purpose of getting an old age pension. They recommended against the applicants and their recommendations were upheld invariably by the appeals officers.
I intend to deal with this in a more elaborate way. The Act was amended 17 or 18 years ago and to a great extent that met our requirements so far as farmers and landowners were concerned. On the assigning of a holding, that income was not held against an applicant. There was no question about the holding being assigned in order to get a pension to which the applicant might not be entitled. But if a man saves a few thousand pounds during his lifetime and hands it over to his daughter Mary, his son Jimmy and his son Jack, the pension officers claim that he is giving the money to his family in order to get a pension.
Surely we try to get these people in the winter of their lives to hand this money over to their families even earlier to help them. Many members of the family are married and have children who have grown up and reached secondary school age and they need the additional money. This type of thing could very well lead to some of our old people holding on to their money until they die. I think that is undesirable. This works very smoothly so far as the assigning of farms is concerned and it is pleasant to note the change that has taken place since that legislation was implemented 17 years ago. Nowadays almost all farmers are quite willing and anxious to hand over their farms when they reach the age of 70. That was not the position some years back.
What applies to farmers assigning their holdings should apply to people who assign money, and it should also apply to the assigning of business premises. There are a number of small shopkeepers, and if they assign their shop or their premises to an unmarried member of the family, the pension officer holds against them and recommends that they should not get a pension. He takes into account the income from the shop as if they still owned it. If a small shopkeeper on reaching the age of 70, assigns his business to a member of the family, the income from that business should not be taken into account just because the son or the daughter who got it was unmarried. The law should be changed and the same regulations should apply to anyone handing over a small business premises as apply in the case of farmers. The best way to illustrate this is to mention a case in point in which I think the decision of the Department was completely unfair and unjust.
In my constituency there is a family with little means. The father who was getting a pension unexpectedly got a legacy of some thousands of pounds. There are nine members of the family, eight of whom are married. When he got the legacy, he deemed it fair and just to divide it among the members of his family. He lost his pension. The pension officer from the Department said he had got this legacy, that it was in his name, there was no mention of the family, and that now that he had assigned the money to his family, he must do without his pension. He said the man had assigned the money in order to circumvent the pension law and to hold on to the pension. That was grossly unfair. That man should be commended because of the fact that when he got this money unexpectedly, he transferred it to his large family to enable them to help their own young children. Surely instead of being penalised and losing his pension of £2 7s 6d a week, that man should have been commended for passing over the money, particularly having regard to the fact that he was almost 80 years of age?
Surely regulations like that should not exist? I am also saying that there should be a complete change in the regulations having regard to the role which Deputies play in making representations about non-contributory old age pensions. Why should not the same regulations apply as applied when I became a Member of this House? Then any aggrieved old age pensioner or pension applicant could approach any Member of the House, give the facts of his case, and we were able to meet the appeals officer deciding the case and bring factors to his notice that might not have been mentioned in the social welfare officer's report. We could discuss the matter with him and get a decision. That has been changed: Deputies are denied the right to approach the appeals officer. Surely in such cases Deputies were acting in a capacity similar to that of solicitors in the courts of justice? Why should they be denied that right? There is no justification. Years ago I pointed this out here and objected strongly to the change. When we had the right to approach the appeals officers, the situation was much more satisfactory. We could put up various facts relevant to the case and we could get a decision there and then. Now our only way of making representations is through correspondence and what could be called a contact man. This is completely out of place and should not be tolerated by Members of the House.
The present Minister did not make the change, as it was brought in before he became Minister for Social Welfare, but he should look again at this regulation and have it wiped out and give Deputies the right of approach they had in the past. I remember that at that time social welfare officers' recommendations were varied in at least 50 per cent of cases but there is little variation today. It is assumed the officer's recommendation is correct and should stand. If that were carried to its logical conclusion there would be no need for appeals officers.
I want to put it strongly and forcefully that we should revert to the previous position as regards making representation about non-contributory old age pensions. I hope that when the Minister is replying he will comment on this matter. I think there is no defence for the change of regulations made some years ago. In appeals concerning unemployment and disability payments and unemployment assistance, Deputies have the right to go along with the applicant and others to see the appeals officer. If it is lawful and right in those cases, why should this right be denied in another case? The number of cases may not be great but there are several old aged persons not getting any pension at present or getting only part of a pension, who, if this regulation did not exist, would be getting either a full pension or part pension as appropriate. I know of them in my constituency and I am sure one can find them throughout the country. Deputies are elected, just as the Minister is, and why should they be deprived of the right of making representations to an official of the Department? I do not blame the officers of the Department because a previous Minister, for some reason, changed the regulations. This is going beyond what should happen in a democratic country.
We have been told by various speakers—and quite rightly—that old age pensions are inadequate but in saying that one must realise there are different types of recipients. We have a man depending entirely on his pension, with no other income. You have another who is living with his family on a farm or in a business house and who has other sources of income in that the family provide for him or for his wife. Such people may not be dependent entirely on pensions and possibly an amount such as is given at present is reasonable in their cases, but I think the day has come when, no matter how difficult it may be, we must make distinctions. We must help the old people entirely dependent on pensions for their livelihood.
The City and County Managers' Association made an order which is being implemented by every health authority that old age pensioners should not qualify for any part of the disablement allowance. It is the Minister's duty to address himself to this. When this ruling was questioned in County Cork, a legal report was that local authorities are empowered, in accordance with legislation passed here to grant disablement allowances to needy old age pensioners who qualify for them. It is entirely wrong that legislation enacted here to benefit sections of the people should be side-stepped by county and city managers. No Government could stand for that. Why should such people cut across the legislation of this House? I asked the Minister to consider this question as I am sure he will agree that many of these old people would qualify for such allowances, if they were available. The answer of the managers' association is that they can get home assistance in exceptional cases if badly off, but many people do not like in the last years of their lives applying for home assistance. The name does not appeal to them and we should not impose on them the obligation of applying for assistance but we should give them the allowance which was provided by this House for disabled persons who qualify for it.
We have a number of old age pension committees throughout the country.
They are all Fianna Fáil cumainn.
They are a mixture.
See-saw in favour of one.
Their recommendations carry no weight with the appeals officers. There should be some amendment of the law as to the recommendations of old age pensions committees which at the moment carry no weight.
The Deputy would carry weight.
Does the Deputy know anything about him?
Perhaps I know a lot more than the Deputy.
Some of the committees give written reasons why they recommend variation of the welfare officers' decisions. I want to know from the Minister, for the last available period, how many applications were varied on appeal. I feel sure the number is very small. I now come to the question of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. I stated here during the years that here, with such a limited population and so many essential schemes to be carried out, such as road work, drainage, land reclamation and afforestation, there is scarcely need to pay such benefits. What is needed is an inter-departmental committee which would be responsible for providing employment and which, through co-operation with local councils, would provide work locally when redundancies become imminent as a result of local schemes being completed.
I feel sure that the workers of South West Cork are no different from those in other parts of the country and that 99 per cent of them would much prefer to have employment, to be out doing work of a productive nature, to running along to the labour exchange or to the Garda station signing for benefit or for assistance.
Small farmers are now included.
We should set up some such committee to promote schemes of a productive nature which would absorb local labour in cases where the schemes reached completion. Such work could be subsidised by the Department of Social Welfare. Then we would be getting value for the money spent. At the present time the regulations provide that if a person does any work he is to be punished for it by being deprived of unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance. It is undesirable that in order to quality for such benefits a person must lay off work completely.
He must become completely indolent, like the Minister for Social Welfare.
That is a most unfair thing to say.
Leave the Deputies to argue between them.
The Minister has provided £10 million——
He has almost doubled the 1965 amount.
What does a pound buy in 1966? Would the Deputy go back to Cashel?
I am not dealing with money.
Let the two Labour Deputies go on speaking together.
The indolence of the Minister for Social Welfare.
My contention is that this money could be put through a different channel, providing payment for work done instead of unemployment benefit and assistance. Is the Minister sneering? What does he see wrong with that suggestion? Is it not our aim to have all our men and women gainfully employed? Is it not our aim to have all our people dependent on public employment for their livelihood, employed continuously? Surely the Minister for Social Welfare, the man responsible, should get together with his colleagues in the Department of Local Government and in the Forestry Division to promote schemes which would give gainful employment. What he is doing now is subsidising unemployment. Is that not quite clear?
On the question of unemployment benefit, we have this infamous clause in the Act which precludes a person in receipt of £2 a week. Such a person is deemed to be gainfully employed. As a result, we have small farmers and small shopkeepers and others engaged in limited self-employment denied the benefits of the Act. The Minister will say that because a man earns a few pounds a week he is employed within the meaning of the Act. What will a couple of pounds a week do for a man living with a wife and family on a small holding? That man is deprived of benefit under the Act. I ask the Minister earnestly to review that regulation. I asked him a few years ago and because of that he made some variation in respect of licensed vintners who, until then, had been excluded from benefit. We all know that many small publicans in the country have very little.
It does not apply in Cashel.
We wish him well.
Thank you kindly.
I do not see why such people should be deprived of benefit. In the case of publicans and small shopkeepers, the wives run the businesses and the husbands are available for any periodic employment that may offer. The same applies in the case of small farmers: the wives can do the necessary jobs around the place for most of the year and even in season the husband could still manage to take occasional employment outside the farm. If he does so now he is precluded from unemployment benefit. I agree that there should be some means test but disagree that it should apply in this way.
I shall take the Berehaven Peninsula as an instance. There, the incomes of small farmers are very low and we have a number of people denied the benefits to which they are entitled because the Act precludes them. Until we have fuller employment and more money available for schemes in such districts the people in them need unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. Without such benefits the people in such districts cannot live. Therefore, I hope the Minister will bear in mind the need to very the clause in the Act which precludes such people from benefit.
On the question of disability allowances, I cannot see why the Department insists on applicants producing weekly certificates. If the medical officer is satisfied that an applicant is likely to be incapacitated for a minimum period of three months, why not give him the certification covering the three monthly periods instead of imposing on him or on a member of his family the weekly obligation of going along for this medical certification? Where circumstances warrant it, the Minister should review that regulation.
I am particularly interested in the assessment of means in the case of applicants for non-contributory widows' pensions. Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to some of the regulations governing the assessment of means for this pension as it affects farmers. Take a farmer's wife with four or five young children who is residing on a holding carrying 11 or 12 cows. She would not have a hope of getting a pension under the existing regulations. When application is made for such a pension, the social welfare officer assesses the income for the previous year, forgetting, to my mind, that there is a complete change so far as that holding is concerned. In the previous year, the husband may have been in perfect health. He was running the farm and transacting the farm business at fairs and marts. On his death, that is gone by the board, particularly when it is a man in middle age who dies and, in many cases, dies unexpectedly. The wife must make changes or, alternatively, she must employ labour to carry out the work formerly done by her husband. That is not taken into account or is not taken into account sufficiently by social welfare officers.
Most of the farmers' wives who apply to the Department of Social Welfare for a widow's non-contributory pension fail in their application. It is all right for widows with a family whose ages are more than 21, where, on the assignment of the farm to a member of the family, she qualifies automatically and the farm income will not be held against her. However, in many cases where the children are young and helpless and where the farm could not be assigned to them, the full assessment of the farm is held against the widow and the children combined. I should like that aspect of the assessment of means to be reviewed.
Another matter I want to mention is this new system which came into operation a few years ago for assessing means for widows' pensions and old age pensions. Now there is a variation in the assessment and it can happen that a widow could qualify for a pension of, we shall say, 35/-weekly and on reaching 70 years of age, by virtue of a change in the system of assessment, the widow with some money could have that pension reduced by as much as 15/- weekly. I have one case in West Cork where a lady on reaching the age of 70 had a social welfare officer re-investigate her means. He found it was similar to that for the non-contributory widow's pension but, in view of the investigation, had to reduce her pension by 12/6d. I raised this question here but the Minister did not seem to think there was much wrong with it. Surely the Minister will agree it is unfair that a widow who is in receipt of a non-contributory pension can, on reaching 70 years of age, lose as much as 15/- weekly? I would ask the Minister to review such cases.
The Minister should be as liberal as possible in regard to making provision for the different recipients of benefits. We often hear credit being claimed that one side gave 5/- and another gave only 2s 6d. However, there seems to be general agreement on all sides of the House that the rates of these benefits, particularly old age pensions and widows' pensions, are too low. We know that to increase them money must be found and, as pointed out here by Deputy O'Leary from these benches, we in the Labour Party have always supported the provision of additional taxation to meet the funds required to grant such increases. Therefore, I hope that next year, whoever will be here, there will be a change in some of the regulations, the most important being that in relation to the age limit, although I know this is a dangerous year in view of the shortage of funds in which to mention a scheme such as that which would cost a great deal of money.
I hope the role which we Deputies play in our capacity as public representatives, making representations on behalf of these people, will change also and that we shall have full freedom to go along to the deciding officer and discuss with him any case that is brought to our notice and on which we are asked to make representations.
I appreciate very much that the Department of Social Welfare is one Department that sends along to the applicant a detailed statement of his application. Where an application is rejected a detailed statement is given of the reasons for its rejection. That is very helpful. In other Departments where an application is rejected there is just a formal notification that the application is rejected and no reason is given. The Department of Social Welfare is to be complimented for giving detailed reasons why applications are rejected. If the Minister would now change the regulations that hamper the administration of the Department so much he would be doing a very good day's work. He would have a brighter statement to make here and would find more general agreement in the House when his Estimate arises again in 12 months' time.
I should like to preface my remarks with congratulatory words to the Minister on having introduced into this House the largest Estimate for Social Welfare since the foundation of the State, £42,203,000. It certainly is a colossal sum of money and it shows, beyond yea or nay, the endeavour, the interest and the responsibility of the present incumbent of the office of Minister for Social Welfare, that he has secured slightly in excess of one-sixth of the total Budget for those in the less well-off income group and those people who are depending on the State to supplement their means of living.
When we consider that social services and social welfare particularly are services that can be very effective in bringing about the proper atmosphere by which the economy of the country can go forward, we realise the worth, not merely in cash terms but in real value as well, of those moneys, having regard to the way they will be distributed to the weaker sections of the community. Forty years ago when this State came into being, we had only three schemes of social welfare services, the first of which is now 58 years old, the non-contributory old age pension. There was the national health benefit service of 1911. There was a very meagre skeleton on which to build the services we desire and which future development must surely bring about.
It is to the credit of various Governments in that period that the social welfare services were developed. The introduction in 1924 of the Blind Pensions Act; in 1933, of the Unemployment Assistance Act; in 1935, of widows' and orphans' pensions and, in 1944, of children's allowances and, last but not least, in 1960, of contributory pensions, reflected the keenness of various Ministers.
You have said nothing about the free beef.
These measures showed an awareness of the problems which faced the country and the ability to go forward.
You have not mentioned free beef.
Limerick Junction Races are on tomorrow and I would advise the Deputy to go there. He knows more about them.
There is no mention of free beef.
Order.
Heretofore, social welfare services have emanated as a result of various pressures and political responsibility.
Pressure.
From now on, in a calmer atmosphere, we will be able to plan our social welfare services so that they will be more in line with what will emerge in a Europe in which we will be involved. We must plan our social services to dovetail with those of the EEC countries and bring our standards and rates of benefit up so that they will be in line with those available in these countries. If we are to play an ever-increasing role in the years to come, economically, socially and politically, our social welfare services must be given a wider scope than has heretofore been possible.
In this sphere, the Minister has shown great awareness which is particularly demonstrated by the Industrial Injuries Compensation Bill which will come before the House shortly and which will replace the Workmen's Compensation Act. The new Bill will provide many benefits, particularly for those in employment of a dangerous nature. Heretofore, contributions and benefits were matters solely for the employer and the employee. Under the new Bill there will be a broader scheme which will cover, not merely industrial injuries, but occupational diseases also. This is of paramount importance to me because quite a number of my constituents are engaged in the hazardous occupation of coal-mining. Up to now pneumoconiosis was outside the scope of industrial diseases and when a case arose it meant a common law case which involved severe financial strain for the employer and sometimes could not be undertaken by the employee, no matter how just or how right his case might be. Regrettably, it was made a pawn in the game of legalities and legal representation. Many people who had just claims were forced to commit themselves to accepting a percentage of the award given. This will no longer be the case and that is something I welcome.
They are all your pals.
Thank God.
The miners and the mining interests and the milking interests, if you know what I am talking about.
If the Deputy wishes to make a speech, I am sure the Chair will give him an opportunity. If he wants nothing more than to interrupt, I would be grateful for his silence.
You will be educated and you will learn.
If I am to be educated, I think I will go elsewhere. There is one aspect of social welfare benefits that seems to escape attention in the debate here. It is that there is an abnormal proportion of people depending on the State. I refer to those under 15 and over 65. This is a result of emigration. It means that those workers who remain in the State support a much higher proportion of persons than would be expected of them in a normal society where emigration is not so high. Therefore, the payments fall heavily on those in employment in this country, much more heavily than is the case in most other countries.
The State pays over one-third of the total amount of social welfare benefits of one type or another, which is a very high proportion. This brings to mind what the Taoiseach said as recently as last June regarding social welfare finance, which is a matter which will have to be considered in the future. The Taoiseach said:
In this country a much higher proportion of the cost of social welfare services is carried by the Central Exchequer than is the practice in other countries. This has meant that examination of possibilities of improvement of these services has normally been undertaken in connection with the preparation of the Budget and has been limited by a Budgetary consideration. We think that the time is coming when, in the interest of the further development of these services, the method of their financing should be re-examined in a fundamental way. If we had to decide that the rate of improvement of these services should be limited by normal revenue buoyancy, this would necessitate the fulfilment of our expansion plans over a longer period of time, longer indeed than we would consider to be appropriate or than the people generally would desire. It must be accepted therefore that the maintenance of a reasonable rate of progress in these social services, to the extent that they continue to be financed by the Budget, is likely to involve taxation measures to provide money for them at a more substantial rate than normal buoyancy of revenue might reasonably be expected to provide.
One thing clearly emerges from this, that everyone who advocates an increase in social welfare benefits of one sort or another must realise that if we are to improve social welfare benefits we must be prepared to pay for them. Níl aon dul as. That is a common and cold fact. It is very easy to advocate in this House that the Minister should double or treble every social welfare benefit payable by his Department without reference to the fact that, in the first instance and in the final analysis, the money must come from the people. If we are prepared to vote for extra benefits, we must be prepared to vote for the extra taxation to supply those benefits. There is only one method that can be exploited in relation to benefits, namely, the employment of a graded benefits scheme whereby persons in employment would pay according to their wage-earning capacity and, in times of unemployment or sickness, would be entitled to a graded scale of benefits. If such a scheme were implemented, it would ease the problem in relation to finance and persons earning higher rates of wages and who have higher commitments would be in a better position to finance those commitments and to maintain their families in the normal standard of comfort to which they are entitled should they become unemployed or ill.
That is our policy.
You have not the prerogative, I can assure you.
I am only telling you that six years ago we formulated that policy.
And we have been implementing it for a long time. You never did.
I was referring to the graded system of payments and benefits.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.