Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Oct 1966

Vol. 224 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Social Welfare (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £42,203,000 chun íoctha 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).

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

Deputy Tully again criticised the attitude of social welfare officers when investigating means for various forms of social assistance. I made it clear on previous occasions that I have really no reason to believe these charges and no Deputy has brought any specific case to my notice. Social welfare officers have a difficult but essential task and, as I said, it is a vital task in ensuring the equitable administration of social assistance. I am certain that the vast majority, at any rate, approach their task in the proper manner and in the realisation that they are an important part in the machinery maintained by the State for the elimination, in so far as possible, of hardship arising from any of the contingencies covered by the social welfare schemes. Certainly I have done everything possible to satisfy myself that every social welfare officer appreciates that it is his job to ensure that if the State has provided benefit for a particular contingency, the person properly claiming this benefit gets it as a right established by legislation and without any compliment to the social welfare officer, the old age pension committee, or anybody else.

I have made it clear that the attitude of social welfare officers should at all times be helpful to applicants and I believe this is generally the position. In the case of assistance services, it is necessary to ascertain the means of applicants and, as I said before, not to do so would be rank injustice to the people who are in need. However, the ascertaining of the means is a delicate job in which tact and courtesy must be combined with thoroughness. There is a requirement, and again this is an essential one in the interests of equity and the distribution of the limited amount of money available, that increases in means be reported and so reassessments of means are occasionally necessary. I must say, however, that when I see a file in which the social welfare officer solemnly asserts that a widow, or worse still, an old age pensioner, actually succeeded in increasing the income from an uneconomic and understocked farm, I react in much the same way as Deputy Tully. How a social welfare officer, who is probably urban born and bred, can convince himself that he can assess all the imponderables associated with a year's agricultural operations so accurately and definitely as to decide that a recipient of social assistance should be moved from one means category to another, passes my comprehension.

Mr. James Tully

It is done very often.

Mr. Boland

I do not think it is. An assessment of means must be made in the first instance. I think that is a fundamental, but any normal man, in my opinion, should assume that the farming efficiency of the widow or the old age pensioner is likely to decrease rather than increase with the passage of time. I should also say it is beyond the capacity of any ordinary person, taking account of good years with bad years, to say that a man's assessment of £25 should be raised to £35. Certainly I would not like to take the responsibility of making a decision like that and I do not think anybody can really make such a decision with confidence that he is right.

It is, of course, necessary to find out if there has been an increase of income from any other source, such as the payment of a legacy or a pension, but, in my opinion, once the income from a farm to an old age pensioner or a widow has been decided on in the first instance, it should be left alone in the future. As I said, I am satisfied that most social welfare officers appreciate their function in ensuring that social welfare is provided in accordance with the law. I must admit I have come across one case which appeared to be a case of a new broom sweeping clean. It was the case of a new social welfare officer in an area embarking on a systematic revision of cases decided on the basis of his predecessor's reports. I have made it clear in such cases that it should be borne in mind by social welfare officers, deciding officers and appeals officers that the previous man probably had long experience of the area and was, in all probability, just as conscientious as his successor.

I am satisfied, as I said, that in the vast majority of cases the social welfare officers appreciate that it is just as much their function to ensure that a person gets what the law intends him to get as it is to ensure that people do not get more than they are entitled to. I am also satisfied that they appreciate in the main—I have no instance of any case where this is not appreciated—the necessity for tact and courtesy in carrying out their very difficult task.

Mr. James Tully

Some of them never heard the word.

Mr. Boland

If Deputy Tully knows of any such case, I would appreciate it if he brought it to my notice.

Mr. James Tully

Is the Minister serious when he says he wants those cases brought to his notice?

Mr. Boland

Yes. If there is substantiated evidence shown that there have been such cases, I should like them brought to my notice.

Mr. James Tully

I will bring such cases to the Minister.

Mr. Boland

As I said last year, the Social Welfare officer should assume that by reaching the age of 70, or by becoming a widow, as the case may be, a person has already fulfilled one of the conditions for the receipt of the pension for which he or she is applying and that it is the job of the welfare officer to find out in an objective way, and with courtesy and tact, whether the other conditions laid down by the law are fulfilled by the applicant.

Deputy Tully mentioned a disability assistance scheme and I have already dealt with that. He also mentioned the case of employers who do not stamp their cards for employees with the result that employees are ineligible for benefit when they apply for it. The position is that the employer then owes as a debt to the employees whatever amount of benefit they have lost. My Department will always give every possible assistance to a person who wants to claim for the recovery of such money. Deputy Tully suggested that as a matter of course the Department should undertake this for those people. I would be very sympathetic to that idea. The Department are not, of course, an interested party in this matter and I do not know whether it would be possible to do it without possibly being appointed as agent for the individual concerned. Nevertheless, I agree that it is probably true that some people do not, themselves, take the steps necessary to recover this lost benefit. I am, in fact, considering whether or not it would be possible for the Department to do this.

Deputy Tully also raised the question of people who make late claims for disability benefit. There is a provision that if there is good cause for the delay, payment will be made from the fourth day of illness, but it is obviously necessary to have this regulation that the claim should be made at the first available opportunity in order to prevent abuses.

Mr. James Tully

What abuses could occur?

Mr. Boland

Deputy Tully knows as well as I do what abuses there are.

Mr. James Tully

Somebody in hospital for six or seven weeks could not claim.

Mr. Boland

I said "good cause". Certainly if a person were in hospital, and not in a position to apply for disability benefit, that would obviously be very good cause.

Mr. James Tully

Such a case has been refused by the Minister's Department.

Mr. Boland

I hope Deputy Tully will bring that to my notice.

Mr. James Tully

I certainly shall.

Mr. Boland

A person who is eligible for disability benefit and who is in hospital can, of course, always nominate an agent to draw his disability benefit.

With regard to the provisions in this year's Social Welfare Act, under which unemployment benefit for the first time is made available to a woman in domestic employment, I think Deputy Tully is a bit unreasonable in his attitude. As he said himself, the original assumption was that there was no real unemployment in this type of employment. I decided, after some experience in the Department, that I had sufficient evidence to show me that this assumption was not correct and I decided to make this change. We could have decided that unemployment benefit would be paid in the normal way and contributed to at the normal full rate but it appeared to me and my Department that unemployment in this particular type of employment, in the main, arose only in the case of a person who had been in the same employment for a considerable number of years and found it difficult to adjust herself to the ways of a new employer or just was not adaptable to new employment. It was not from any motives of meanness, which have been imputed to me by Deputy Tully, that this provision was put in. It was put in purely because it did not seem to be necessary to impose the full rate of contribution in order to give a benefit which would probably be needed only in the cases that are in fact provided for. The matter can always be reviewed and I would welcome Deputy Tully's assistance in keeping this under review in an objective way.

Deputy O'Hara and Deputy Lyons mainly dealt with reductions in non-contributory pensions due to increases in British pensions. I have already dealt with this matter. Deputy Dowling referred to the fact that children's allowances are paid without a means test. Some other Deputies also referred to this. This does not apply to Deputy Dowling in particular but some other Deputies who objected to children's allowances being paid without a means test at the same time were critical of the fact that a means test did apply to the other social assistance schemes. If we look at children's allowances purely as social assistance, a means test would be proper but children's allowances perform another function, apart from the social assistance function. They perform the function of helping to lessen the disparity in the standard of living of people in similar occupations who have different family commitments. That may not be so obviously a social welfare purpose but it is a function they perform and I think it is a desirable one. This could be done of course in another way, by increasing income tax allowances for dependants, but it appears to me to be just as well to do it this way and avoid the administrative expenses in applying a means test to children's allowances.

Deputy Dowling referred to the fact that we pay these children's allowances to millionaires but I do not know whether there are any millionaires at present receiving children's allowances.

Mr. James Tully

They will not become millionaires as a result of all the children's allowances they get anyway.

Mr. Boland

If there are, they are few in number, and I prefer to leave it as it is and press the Minister for Finance to deal with millionaires in another way and get back more than they get in children's allowances but Deputy Tully thinks this would not be a great imposition on the millionaires. Deputy Dowling was another of the Deputies who advocated the payment of old age pensions at 65. Some Deputy said this would be done at some time. I agree, but I cannot say when. Deputy Dowling is wrong when he says it could be done at no cost to the Exchequer. It would be a considerable cost to the Exchequer, and to employers and employees by way of social insurance stamps, and this is one of the many things that are in competition with the continuing need to improve the rates of payment in the schemes as they stand for the limited amount of money it is possible to provide.

I think I have already given some facts which should disprove Deputy O'Leary's contention that social welfare is only discovered by what he calls the conservative Parties at election time. I have given some facts which should disprove that. The progress of the rates of payment of the different social welfare schemes in regard to increases in the cost of living, as I demonstrated, has been continuing over the period since 1957 with a stepping up of the rate of progress last year and there have been only two elections in that period. It would be difficult to relate all the increases that have been granted to these two elections. I think I will resist the temptation to contrast our record in this regard with the record of the two Labour Ministers for Social Welfare which we have had. It is difficult to resist that. Indeed, when Deputy Tully makes reference to children's allowances which have never been touched by any other Government but Fianna Fáil——

Mr. James Tully

The only reference I made is that nobody will become a millionaire as a result, and if the Minister is annoyed, he is welcome to it.

Mr. Boland

This question of the contributory old age pension not being payable outside the country or outside Great Britain was raised here and I intend to look at that to see if it is possible to remedy the situation. The fact is the case that was raised by Deputy Belton I think is the only case that has come to my notice and I hope to be able to deal with it.

Mr. L. Belton

It will not be retrospective for this person?

Mr. Boland

It is unlikely to be retrospective. Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) referred to the fact that reservation of the right of residence and maintenance by a landowner over his farm will deprive the person concerned of the extra 5/- which is being granted from the 1st November this year. That is a fact, but I have heard pleas here on a number of occasions that there should be more consideration for the most destitute people. In the difficult budgetary situation that existed this year, I think I was quite justified in view of the pleas that have been made over the years here, in utilising the comparatively small amount of money to provide something extra for those people who have no means. Surely it will be agreed that a person who has a right of residence, and maintenance while not well off because of that, is substantially better off than a person who is completely destitute and who has to provide himself or herself with whatever accommodation it is possible to provide.

I think it was a move in the right direction to provide something extra for people in that position and, in fact, if Deputies would look at the means scale given in the handbook on the social welfare services they will see there are still some gaps that should be filled before we can be reasonably certain that we are distributing this money equitably between all the applicants for it.

Deputy M.P. Murphy went further than Deputy Dowling in requesting that not only contributory pensioners but non-contributory pensioners should be made eligible at 65 and called on me to ask my colleagues to make the money available to do this. Unfortunately there is more to it than that. This particular proposal would involve a really large sum of money, particularly if you associate it with the request that was also made to abolish the means test. If we take it that the percentage of people between 65 and 70 who would qualify by means for the old age pension would be similar to those over 70 who qualify for it, it would be easy to make an estimate of what this would cost. The problem would be not just to convince my colleagues to give me this money but, first of all, so to expand the economy sufficiently that it could provide me with the money. We are all agreed that the rates for those who qualify already, those who are over 70, are too low so we have the need to increase those rates. Then we have the demand to reduce the age to 65. Here, again, even if this large amount of money did become available the choice would have to be made between improving the rates of pension at present payable to an adequate amount or using the money to make pensions available at 65. Personally, I think we should try to bring the present old age pension, the pension as at present payable, up to a satisfactory rate before we reduce the age.

With regard to the question of Deputies not being entitled to approach deciding officers and appeals officers raised by Deputy M.P. Murphy, I do not know anything of an alleged change in the position here. I understand that the position is that at an oral appeal a Deputy will be allowed to attend on behalf of an applicant. If an oral hearing is claimed, then the Deputy can appear. It was also suggested by Deputy M.P. Murphy that the percentage of cases varied in the applican't favour on appeal was very low. I do not think this is so. I have only got figures for social assistance claims, excluding old age pensions, and the percentage of such cases which are varied in the applicant's favour on appeal is 34.5 per cent which, I think, is quite a substantial amount. I have not got the figures for non-contributory old age pensions due to the fact that these are decided in the first place by old age pension committees. The appeal is generally by the social welfare officer rather than by the person claiming the old age pension.

Mr. Jones

I wonder if the Minister would, at this stage, say in regard to the point he mentioned of the Deputies attending an oral hearing whether the applicant must request the oral hearing so as to enable the Deputy to be present to represent him?

Mr. Boland

Yes, I think it would be the exception for the appeals officer to decide himself to hold an oral appeal though I think it does happen occasionally. Normally it would only be on request.

Mr. Jones

Would it be held locally?

Mr. Boland

Yes, oral hearings are usually arranged to suit the person concerned.

Deputy Murphy also raised the question of people with other occupations who are debarred from receipt of unemployment benefit because of the fact that they have this other occupation. I have gone a long way towards remedying this or meeting the case that has been put forward here before by Deputy Murphy and other Deputies. In the first place, I raised the amount of income from the second occupation which would disqualify a person from unemployment benefit and the disqualifying income is now higher here than in Britain. In addition to that, I changed the regulations so that this rule does not apply at all to a person whose insurance record shows that he has been consistently working for wages. If a person has 78 paid contributions over a period of three years, then this income rule on the secondary occupation does not arise. I also removed the overriding disqualification which applied to licensees of public houses.

I fully agree with Deputy Murphy that it is unrealistic to assess the means of a widow claiming a non-contributory old age pension on the income derived from a smallholding while her husband was alive. Obviously, a widow, particularly with a young family, could not hope to extract the same income from a farm as her husband could when in full health. Adequate allowance for the reduced efficiency of the widow, as compared with her husband, or for paid labour, should be made in those cases and I believe that it is made. Deputies should remember, in this regard, the recent change which we made in the Social Welfare Acts last year whereby £39 is deducted from the assessment of means in respect of each dependent child and also, in the case of intestacy, the amount of a child's share which is taken into account in the assessment of means is limited to £26. Both those amendments have been of considerable advantage to a number of widows in those circumstances.

Deputy Jones raised the question of the areas scheduled for the application of the amendment to the unemployment assistance scheme in regard to the assessment of means of smallholders. He said it was hard to understand how these areas were decided on. I dare say in many areas this is so, but I adopted the widest existing definition of the congested areas, that which is used by the Department of Agriculture. I do not think it would be reasonable to expect me to embark on the task of drawing up a definition of my own for congested areas.

Deputy Carter raised the question of the making of employment period orders and gave the reasons which had been given in the past to justify these. I have said here before that I cannot bring myself to put forward those reasons as justification. The only reason that I can give for having to make employment period orders is that I have never had sufficient money available to me to abolish them. This is one of the many improvements which could be made in our social welfare code but I cannot say when it will be possible to make it.

I do not think it should be necessary for me to refer to a ridiculous allegation such as Deputy Treacy made, that social assistance recipients did not benefit at all from the extra expenditure provided for in this Estimate. That is probably too ridiculous to mention but the facts are that the payments of social assistance provided for in this Estimate are £3 million more than last year.

Mr. Harte

The Minister will agree that it is a lesser percentage than it had been.

Mr. Boland

No; I shall come to that. I see that I have a note of some of the adjectives used by Deputy Treacy with regard to the means test—"odious", "despicable" and so on— but I think I have dealt with that already. I entirely disagree with his views and I must say, if they are the views of the Labour Party, it certainly astonishes me that such a Party can claim to have the interests of the less well-off in the community at heart. If we were to dispense with a means test, it would mean the disposal of a limited sum of money without regard to the need of the person for it and, in such circumstances, the people who have little or no means would come off worst.

Deputy Treacy also alleged that, in the assessment of means, charitable donations are taken into account. That only shows his ignorance of the subject. There are many disregards, and charitable donations are one of them. Up to last year charitable donations in excess of £1 per week were taken into account but now they are not taken into account at all. I am sure Deputy James Tully knew that but he was not here at the time, or possibly he might have corrected his colleague.

Mr. James Tully

I was here, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Boland

I am surprised, if Deputy James Tully was here, he did not correct him.

Mr. James Tully

Well, the Minister objected to my correcting him earlier. I did not like to disturb the Minister.

Mr. Boland

A number of Deputies referred to the cheap fuel scheme and Deputy Treacy, in particular, said he could see no reason why this should exist in certain towns only. There is no reason I know of now, but this scheme, as Deputy Treacy said, was instituted first during the emergency days, when fuel of all kinds was in short supply. This scheme was introduced as a special form of assistance in a number of towns which were scheduled as non-turf areas and where the procuring of turf—which was the only fuel available at the time—was difficult for anybody, but especially difficult for recipients of social assistance. That scheme was introduced then and, with the return to different circumstance, it was never changed. There is now no reason I can see why there should be this differential between these and other towns. I think it is a wasteful way of spending money; it would be much better to take the cost of the scheme and give it to the recipients. The only sensible thing I can see to do now is to replace this cheap fuel scheme by a cash payment and provide this payment in all areas. But, here again—as in all social welfare matters—it is a question of the availability of money and of a choice as to how whatever money is available will be expended.

I think I dealt before with the question of the disqualification of people for unemployment benefit, due to an industrial dispute at their place of employment. I am glad to say that discussions on the matter are now proceeding with the Congress of Trade Unions.

Mr. James Tully

So Deputy Molloy does not know as much as he thinks he does.

Mr. Boland

As far as I can gather the point Deputy Molloy was making was that, in reply to a question here some time ago, I stated the position was that these discussions had been taking place and that my Department were awaiting submission of a memorandum from the Congress of Trade Unions. At the time—I think this was in reply to a question by Deputy James Tully; he certainly asked supplementaries on it—this was not challenged and it was not until six months afterwards it was made apparent that the Congress had not the same understanding as my Department as to the belief that they had agreed to submit a memorandum on the subject.

Mr. James Tully

In fact, they were not asked for one and, therefore, they did not know but Deputy Molloy, 12 months afterwards, tried to introduce it into a debate which had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Boland

I am satisfied that the trade union representatives genuinely went away from the last meeting with a different impression from that of the officials of my Department. But I think what Deputy Molloy was trying to point out was the lack of liaison between Deputy James Tully and Congress, in that this misunderstanding was not cleared up until he, Deputy Molloy, put down a further question on the matter.

Mr. James Tully

But Deputy Molloy apparently did not know the matter had been cleared up, and the lack of liaison between the Minister and Deputy Molloy was very evident.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Molloy did know it was cleared up, all right, but he knows that the difficulty has not yet been solved.

Mr. Harte

Would the Deputy think he was badly briefed?

Mr. Boland

I want to go on to Deputy M.E. Dockrell who made a very contradictory contribution to the debate. He started off by attacking me for what he alleged was cashing in by the Fianna Fáil Party on the increases which were, after all, provided by a Fianna Fáil Government——

Mr. James Tully

I thought the taxpayers provided them.

Mr. Boland

——in reference to this advertisement.

Mr. Harte

Surely if the Minister for Social Welfare takes credit for increases, the Minister for Agriculture will take responsibility for the state of the country at the moment?

Mr. Boland

There is no comparison whatever. The Fianna Fáil Government, in difficult circumstances, made this money available for social welfare. I saw this advertisement for the first time today; I did not even see it yesterday because I was here and did not see it in the evening papers. It seems to me to be purely factual: there is no mention of the Fianna Fáil Government in it; it is purely an advertisement, placing at the disposal of the public, information in regard to changes in different social welfare benefits. In my opinion, it is information very necessary to circulate but the peculiar thing about Deputy Dockrell is that he went on to complain of what he described as the lack of information in regard to social welfare matters and returned then again to charge me, as Minister for Social Welfare, with utilising the taxpayers' money on public advertisements in the newspapers, in this connection, and utilising the radio and television services for the same purpose. I do not know what other way I could publicise these things, except through the newspapers and by the circulation of press releases, which were utilised by the newspapers, radio and television.

Deputy Luke Belton later referred to the statement made on television and said that nobody at the meeting of the Dublin Old Age Pensions Committee knew that the increases in non-contributory old age and widows' pensions were available only to those who had no assessed means. I am sure that Deputy Belton, as an attentive member of Dáil Éireann, meant that no one except he knew it, because as an attentive member of Dáil Éireann, he of course knows what is provided in the legislation which we passed immediately before the Recess.

Mr. L. Belton

Members got the impression from the announcement that it was not so.

Mr. Boland

I am sure it was only those who have not the advantage Deputy Belton has of being a member of this House who were not aware of that. The advertisement and the press release which were circulated by my Department were very specific in saying that this increase of 5/- a week was for pensioners who had no assessed means, and if the people responsible on radio or television did not appreciate what "no assessed means" meant, and that it was an integral part of the press release, I cannot be held responsible for that.

Mr. James Tully

Deputy Molloy still does not know that these things are being discussed between the Minister and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Mr. Molloy

I know the Minister has received the memorandum but the matter has not been concluded yet and that is what I want.

Mr. Boland

We have now reached the position where we are again awaiting a communication from Congress.

Mr. James Tully

How long are you waiting?

Mr. Boland

A very short time.

Mr. James Tully

A couple of days.

Mr. Boland

I am sure we will get it in the near future.

Mr. James Tully

The day after tomorrow.

Mr. Boland

I hope so.

Mr. James Tully

Does the Minister admit that a mistake was made?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should allow the Minister to conclude.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Molloy

I have nothing political to gain.

Mr. James Tully

The Deputy can say that again.

Mr. Molloy

I am not paid by Congress.

Mr. James Tully

Neither am I.

Mr. Boland

To go on to Deputy Harte's allegation that a smaller percentage of the national cake is being devoted to social welfare as compared with ten years ago, the facts are the opposite of course. The percentage of the gross national product comprised by the gross expenditure on social welfare is this year higher than it has ever been. It is 5.9 per cent. Ten years ago it was 5.3 per cent. Whether you take it as a percentage of the gross national product or the national income, this year the highest percentage ever is being allocated for this purpose.

Mr. Harte

Is the Minister bulking contributory and non-contributory in the 5.9?

Mr. Boland

Yes. I am dealing with expenditure on the social welfare services administered by my Department which is what is relevant.

Mr. Harte

The Minister is grouping contributory and non-contributory pensions in the 5.9 per cent?

Mr. Boland

That is right.

Mr. Harte

In 1956, there was no contributory pension.

Mr. Boland

That is right. Does Deputy Harte want to draw attention to the well-known fact that there was no advance in social welfare benefits during the periods of the Coalition Government?

Mr. Harte

The people who are——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Harte should allow the Minister to conclude.

Mr. Boland

The people provide all the money for social welfare. None of it grows on trees. All of it has to be collected.

Mr. Harte

The Minister says a greater percentage is being paid to recipients of social welfare benefits than was paid in 1956.

Mr. Boland

That is right. The proportion of the gross national product devoted to social welfare is at the highest level ever this year.

Mr. Harte

On the Minister's figures. I submit that the Minister is grouping contributory and non-contributory pensions.

Mr. Boland

I am dealing with social welfare. Surely we should not go back to the position that existed under the Coalition Government?

Mr. Harte

We are talking about percentages.

Mr. Boland

It is because we have made advances that we have a better record to show. It is because we have made advances that our position in regard to social welfare is not, to the dismay of the Fine Gael Party, as bad as they would like it to be.

Mr. Harte

On a point of information——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not in order. The Minister is concluding. This debate cannot go on forever.

Mr. Boland

I want to deal now with Deputy Ryan's continued insistence on regarding the figures published by international organisations as being reliable comparisons between the state of social welfare in the different countries. I think Deputy Cluskey also referred to these figures as indicating that social welfare here was on a lower scale than it is in other countries.

A number of these international organisations such as the OECD and the ILO have published figures giving for various countries the expenditure on social security by relationship to the gross national product. Not only during this debate but on other occasions we have had these figures bandied about as if they formed a realistic and absolute basis for comparison between the different countries concerned, and as if they provided a clear indication of the state of social welfare in the different countries concerned.

In fact, these comparisons must be judged in the light of the warnings given in the various reports as to the comparability of the data. It is quite clear that in comparing the percentage figures of the gross national product given in these reports we are not comparing like with like. Deputy Ryan appeared to accept this at first. He certainly did not dispute it, but he proceeded to ignore it and spoke of these figures as if they were an authentic measure of the level of social welfare in the different countries. These organisations made it clear that they have not succeeded in overcoming the difficulties involved in arriving at a position in which the figures would give a true comparison as between one country and another.

For instance, in the introduction to the Statistics of National Accounts 1950-61 published by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development in 1964, there is a paragraph devoted to explaining the difficulties of making true comparisons between the accounts for various member countries. In addition to that, there are general observations on the comparative tables which include this statement:

The percentage structures shown in tables 5 to 9 generally refer to the two years 1950 and 1960. These percentages are more appropriate for comparing changes in structure as between the two years in any one country rather than for making structural comparisons as between countries. In making comparisons as between countries the limitations to the comparability of the data which were outlined in the introduction have to be borne in mind.

The International Labour Office publication "The Cost of Social Security" has similar warnings. On page 2 it says:

As the definitions of the terms and methods used as Social Security Statistics vary greatly from scheme to scheme and from country to country, and as there is generally a high degree of duplication (persons covered by or drawing benefit from two or more schemes) it is difficult to achieve a basis of international comparison in this field.

Again on page 7 it warns in regard to the calculation of the gross national product, and I quote:

Furthermore, it should be stressed that even if the figures in principle are calculated according to the United Nations' Systems of National Account there are great variations between the countries regarding the quality of the basic data, methods of estimating the various elements entering into the calculations, etc.

Then, with particular reference to the figures in Table 3 of this publication, which were the figures Deputy Ryan used here before, it says that the figures in this table should therefore be interpreted with caution. Caution is the one thing that has not been used in interpreting these figures here. Instead, we had the greatest enthusiasm in using them for a purpose for which the reader was specifically warned they were not suitable.

To give one example, in a number of countries, compensation for war victims forms a considerable proportion of expenditure on social security. This item is not included in the figures supplied for Ireland. If the percentage figures of the gross national product in the ILO publication "The Cost of Security" were adjusted to exclude compensation for war victims the figures for a number of countries would show a smaller disparity as compared with ours. The figure of 9.4 per cent given for Ireland remains unchanged while Austria's 14 per cent becomes 13.2. Belguim's 14.2 per cent is changed to 13.74; Denmark's 11.1 is only slightly reduced to 11.07; France's 13.9 becomes 12.85; and the Federal Republic of Germany's 16.1 becomes 14.77; Italy's 12.7 is changed to 11.65; Norway's 10.3 becomes 10.18; and the figure for the United Kingdom of 11 per cent becomes 10.32.

Apart from this, many other items are included which are not normally classified as social security payments such as pensions for public employees. It is also known that some countries have included fringe benefits which are available to workers such as payments for periods of sickness by employers and private pension schemes administered by employers. We know that some of these things exist to a certain extent here but no attempt has been made to evaluate them and include them in the expenditure on social security.

Also, in a number of countries part of what is taken as expenditure on social security is by way of family allowances which are paid by employers as an integral part of the wage structure.

Here instead of having, as these particular countries have, a basic wage plus family allowances paid by employers, the wage structure is a flat rate system irrespective of family commitments. These family allowances, although they are part of the wage structure and not even administered by the State, are counted as social security expenditure. Presumably, organised workers here, if they so desired, could move to change over to this system of payment whereby there would be a smaller basic wage with family allowances but they have not done so and I will certainly not suggest that they have been unwise in that. Particularly when you have not full employment the other system contains an obvious incentive to employers to employ unmarried people in preference to married men. If the flat wage system were altered here to a structure somewhat like they have in other countries these allowances would be counted as social security payments and this would change the comparative picture.

It is fairly certain then that the percentage of the gross national product in Ireland which is devoted to social security is not as much out of line with other European countries as might appear at first glance from these figures. Even if the figures which I have adjusted to exclude compensation for war victims represented the full picture—which they do not—the apparent deficiency between our percentage and that of other countries is not all attributable to the services administered by the Department of Social Welfare, as Deputies are inclined to make it appear. The cost of the health services in these countries is also included in these figures and when the apparent disparity is distributed over these two fields of health and social welfare the actual disparity in either is less. It does not mean that the Irish social assistance and social insurance schemes which come under my Department need to be increased by the difference in the percentages of the gross national product which appears in these tables in order to achieve parity. In other words, it is not necessary to increase our expenditure on these services by .92 per cent of the gross national product in order to achieve parity with the United Kingdom but an increase of .92 per cent of the gross national product in expenditure on social welfare and health combined would bring us into line.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

What is our figure? I did not catch it at the beginning.

Mr. Boland

It is 9.4 per cent, or at least it was, on the date to which the ILO figures refer.

As I pointed out, we have been improving since. At the same time there is no point in ignoring—and I certainly do not ignore—that at our stage of development it is in the interests of everyone, and particularly those dependent on my Department, that as great a proportion as possible of our national income should be invested in increasing production. I say that although at the same time it is our policy, and we have been implementing it, to devote an increasing proportion of our resources to social welfare.

There are many other factors which should also be taken into account in making comparisons in the broadest sense. For instance a relevant factor is the size of the State contribution to the social security scheme. This is something we must bear in mind in making efforts to make progress towards adequate social security. In Table 10 in the "Cost of Social Security 1958-60" published by the ILO, percentages are given for State participation in the distribution of receipts of social insurance and family allowances schemes according to sources. The percentage figures in regard to the West European countries are: Ireland, 73; Austria, 13.2; Belgium, 26.2; Denmark, 52.5; France, 6.6; Federal Republic of Germany, 16.5; Italy, 17.3; Norway, 15.2 and the United Kingdom 27.7.

When you take that table of the percentage contributions by the State to the cost of social insurance in conjunction with figures showing the percentages of workers' wages which are taken in contributions towards the cost of social security, it would seem to indicate that future improvements must involve relatively greater increases in contributions both by workers and employers. The figures for the proportions of wages taken by way of workers' contributions were given in a document published by the Economic Research Institute, as being, in 1963, for Ireland, 2.3 per cent; Belgium 9; France 6.1; Germany 12.5; Italy 5.8; Netherlands 11.1; and the United Kingdom 5.3.

Mr. James Tully

Surely they are not comparable?

Mr. Boland

Of course they are. They represent the percentage of the average worker's wages represented by his contribution to the social insurance scheme.

Mr. James Tully

For what? Not for what they get out of it.

Mr. Boland

If one takes the total percentage, the percentage represented by the total contributions of both employers and workers, Ireland's figure was 4.6 per cent; Belgium's 18 per cent; France's 21.6 per cent; Germany's 25 per cent; Italy's 29.8 per cent; the Netherlands' 17.6 per cent; and the UK's 9.9 per cent. Therefore, it appears reasonable to suggest that in further improvements there should be a relatively greater increase in contributions particularly because the scope for increased taxation here is so limited.

The fact that a greater percentage of workers' wages is left at their own disposal here undoubtedly means that some of those savings are used to provide extra security through private insurance and this is not included in our figure for social security. Another factor affecting these figures is the percentage of the people of working age in the total population. The figure for 1960, in respect of Ireland shows that 59 per cent were in the working age of between 15 and 64 years inclusive. In Austria, a country with which we have been compared here, the percentage was 66. I know many people have continued to work after the age of 65 but I do not think there is much doubt that the majority retire on pension or disability benefit between the age of 65 and 70. The figures show that we have about 40 per cent depending on the earnings of the workers. The figure for workers in Austria is 66 per cent, leaving only 34 per cent in the dependent age group. In other words, each group of three people here in the working age group have to support two in the dependent group, while in Austria the comparable figure is two for every one.

This means that the burden to be carried by those of working age here to give the same degree of support to those dependent because of age is greater and this makes the task of providing adequate benefits more difficult. In view of our circumstances, the provision we make for social security, though I fully admit it requires to be improved and it is one of our fundamental tasks to do so, is not nearly as bad as Opposition speakers would like us to believe. The important thing is that we are increasing the proportion of the gross national product spent on social security as the economy improves and we intend to continue that policy.

Obviously, the primary essential thing to do in everybody's interest is to ensure a continuous increase in production. This, in turn, requires investment and, therefore, limits the amount which can safely be taken for social purposes. I fully agree that as the national income increases it is necessary that the Government should keep a close watch to ensure that an increasing proportion of the rising resources of the community is appropriated by the State to raise the standard of social welfare benefits. In other words, I accept it is the Government's job to ensure that there is a relatively greater improvement in the standard of living of those who must depend on social welfare than in other sections of the community because there is a considerable leeway to be made up. It is, in my opinion, quite justifiable to expect a government to show that they have done this. We have always been able to show that we have done this in the past and I have no doubt we shall be able to show the same thing in the future.

Vote put and agreed to.