Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Mar 1967

Vol. 227 No. 4

Supplementary Estimates, 1966-67. - Vote 47—Social Welfare.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,107,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain Services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for Sundry Grants.

This Supplementary Estimate provides for increased expenditure in all three Sections of the Social Welfare Vote for the current year. Under the head of Administration — Subheads A and C — £203,000 extra is required. Under Social Insurance—Subheads E and F — the additional sum sought is £1,068,000. For Social Assistance— Subhead I—the supplementary provision is £166,000. The gross total comes to £1,437,000, but as there are estimated savings on other Subheads amounting to £217,000 and surplus Appropriations in Aid, estimated at £113,000, the net additional requirement from the Exchequer is £1,107,000.

Of the £203,000 extra now sought for administration expenses, £194,000 arises on the salaries subhead. This is required to meet the cost of pay revisions, including the tenth round wage increase, for certain grades, which was not included in the original Estimate. The gross additional amount required is £234,000 but this is partially offset by expected savings of £40,000 on the original provision of £1,726,000. An adjustment of an underclaim by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in the previous year is mainly responsible for the increase of £9,000 under Subhead C—Post Office Services.

As regards social insurance, provision is made for increasing the Exchequer contribution to the Social Insurance Fund under Subhead E by £1,063,000 bringing the estimated total for the year to £13,513,000. As Deputies are aware, provision is made under this subhead for payment into the Social Insurance Fund of the amount by which the expenditure of the Fund exceeds its income in any year.

The revised expenditure of the Fund in the current year is now estimated at £33,810,000, an increase of £1,106,000 on the original provision. Revised income is now estimated at £20,159,000, a decrease of £95,000 on the sum originally estimated.

The main increases in Fund expenditure are in respect of unemployment benefit £643,000, disability benefit £406,000 and administration costs £129,000. As an offset against these increases, there is an estimated saving on old age (contributory) pensions of £130,000. On the income side, the decrease is entirely attributable to an expected shortfall of £100,000 in the yield from employment contributions.

Apart from the variations, as now estimated, in the expenditure and income of the Fund—and I have just mentioned the main ones — there is a further factor which must be taken into account in arriving at the revised Exchequer contribution for the current year. This is the overdraw by the Fund from the Vote in respect of the year ended 31st March, 1966. As Deputies will readily appreciate, final draws must be made each year on an estimated basis because actual figures for expenditure and income are not available until after the close of the year. The actual outturn on the Fund for 1965-66 indicated that a sum of approximately £138,000 had been overdrawn from the Exchequer as at 31st March, 1966; accordingly, the revised Exchequer contribution for the current year, as now estimated under Subhead E, is being reduced by that amount.

As regards social assistance, an increased provision of £166,000 for unemployment assistance is included under Subhead I. This is almost entirely due to the additional cost of the increase varying from 3/- to 10/- a week, which were granted from 1st November, 1966, to recipients of unemployment assistance under the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1966.

In the case of the final Subhead— L. Appropriations in Aid—the estimated increase of £113,000 in the current year falls under Subdivision I— Receipt from the Social Insurance Fund under section 40 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. This relates to administration costs incurred by my Department in the operation of the social insurance scheme. The increase of £113,000 in estimated receipts from the Fund arises out of the recovery of the insurance portion of the additional net expenditure of £196,000 required for the administration subheads A and C.

I have now covered the principal matters affecting this Supplementary Estimate. I shall be glad, however, to furnish any further information which Deputies may require.

Mr. Ryan

I am glad the Minister ended by saying he would furnish further information if required because the significant thing about the Minister's introductory statement is that he explains some matters and does not explain others. He will, therefore, forgive me if I furnish the explanations that appear to be reasonable, in the absence of information from the Minister.

We are informed that the expenditure of the Social Insurance Fund will exceed income in the current year and, accordingly, the State's contribution to the Fund is to be increased by £1,063,000. We are told that the main increase in the Fund expenditure is in respect of unemployment benefit, £643,000. From what we see of the unemployment figures, this would appear to be a reflection of the increase in unemployment, something in the region of 6,000 people per week compared with this time last year. Why has the Minister not stated as much in his statement? Why has he not been man enough to say that we would, of course, have to pay more unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance because we have 6,000 more people unemployed now than this time last year? Why has he not been man enough to say that the income of the Fund would be lower because we had 6,000 fewer insurable workers contributing to the Fund compared with this time last year?

If the Minister had furnished no explanation at all in relation to any figure in the Supplementary Estimate, we would then say that he did not make a practice of furnishing explanations but we find in the very next paragraph, after failing to give any reason for the increase in unemployment benefit, he then goes to considerable length to explain why £138,000 was being reduced in respect of the Exchequer contribution under Subhead E. He goes into not a little detail explaining the system of operation under which overdraws by the Fund are made upon estimated figures and it is only after the conclusion of the financial year we know whether the estimate was right or wrong, and if there is a surplus the Exchequer benefits and if enough has not been drawn, the Exchequer loses. Why we must have that explanation of a matter which occurs every year and which is routine and is as simple as adding one and one or subtracting one from two, I do not know.

The fact that the Minister has gone to all that trouble in relation to a figure we understand and has avoided giving any explanation in relation to other figures indicates the Minister's embarrassment and the embarrassment of the Government that the increased figure is primarily due to the growing unemployment. It is not proper that where the Minister is seeking another £1 million he should endeavour to conceal that the real reason for looking for this money is the present sad plight of the economy.

I should like also an explanation from the Minister as to why there is an estimated saving of £130,00 on old age (contributory) pensions. Is this due to the earlier demise than anticipated of contributory old age pensioners or is it that a more stringent test is being applied and that a number of people who formerly had these pensions have been declared to be ineligible? Either of these explanations is possible. There may be others. It is a pity the Minister did not explain why there is such a variation of £130,000.

Again we are told that on the income side the decrease is entirely attributable to an expected shortfall of £100,000 in the yield from employment contributions. That I take it is a direct reflection of the 6,000 additional unemployed people this year. Why does the Minister not say so explicitly when he goes to so much trouble to explain other matters in the Estimate?

So far as money is necessary to provide the life blood of our social services, we in Fine Gael are prepared to vote that money at any time. We do not think that we, as a society, are providing enough for the less privileged in our community. Last week, without meaning to reflect at all upon the contributions made to the debate on the Road Traffic Bill, and particularly by my distinguished colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick, I was struck by the interest and emotion that has developed in this House concerning the rights of the individual, the rights of the driver of the motor car. We can sometimes wax eloquent and indignant about the fundamental rights of individuals, the right of freedom of speech, freedom of choice and the rights to fundamental freedom and the duty the State has not to interfere with these freedoms of the individual but I think we do not concern ourselves sufficiently with the equally important social rights, the fundamental rights of the 20th century.

We are concerned all right with the ideas that developed in the course of the 18th and 19th centuries when people were creating and moulding political institutions. Their prime concern was to create institutions which would protect fundamental rights and would allow the fundamental rights of the individual to be respected and to develop. In this 20th century the democracies which gave life to those political institutions are far ahead of us in recognising the social right, the right which an individual has to command the society of which he is a member to make it possible for him to develop the fundamental rights, not merely to allow them to exist but to promote their actual existence. That is why I say that the question of the rights of a driver of a motor car to prove his personal integrity are meaningless to people who have not sufficient to keep body and soul together, who have not sufficient to provide them with proper diet, sufficient to provide them with adequate homes, with adequate clothing and with adequate heating, all of which are as fundamental in our society as are the rights of bodily integrity because without these things, we allow society, by economic conditions, to interfere more with the freedom of the individual than the occasional and rare interruption there might be when a police officer might stop a motorist proceeding on his way in order to take a breathaliser test.

I say these things with the greatest of respect to everyone who contributed to the debate on the Road Traffic Bill.

I say them in order to emphasise the obligation we all should feel to ensure that in our society the fundamental rights of the individual are respected, not merely in theory, not merely in the abstract, not merely on the rare occasion when there might be excessive use by the executive of executive powers but day in day out by freeing unfortunate individuals from the terrible restrictions which inadequate income and social conditions can inflict upon them.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister has referred to the provision of £166,000 for unemployment assistance included under Subhead I. He goes on to say that this is almost entirely due to the additional cost of the increases varying from 3/- to 10/- a week, which were granted from 1st November, 1966. Is the Minister satisfied with action in this regard last year? These increases were granted at a time when costs of essential commodities had already gone up, and at a time when a few who were in position to secure compensation for increases in commodities had secured this increase. The recipients of social welfare were left lagging behind. Since that time the cost of living and costs of essential goods have continued to rise.

Is the Minister satisfied that this provision which represents a sum of £166,000 was adequate? I do not think it was and I doubt if any Deputy, or anybody who has knowledge outside the House, would be satisfied in the light of experience that it was. Is the Minister aware that in the Dublin area, for instance, during the past 12 months there has been a greater call on public bodies — the local authorities and the various charitable organisations—for public assistance and for the provision of meals for people who are actually in need of meals?

The situation has been that during this last year—and I think for a second year, at least, in succession — more of the citizens have had to have recourse to public authorities or to charitable organisations in order to be supplied with a meal once a day. Of course, this can only be a reflection on the standard of assistance these individuals are given by the State. Nobody will look for a meal unless he or she is in need of a meal. Those who have the wherewithal to provide meals for themselves gladly do so, and certainly they do not want to go through the undignified process, in many cases, of begging in order to get a meal to sustain them.

Deputy Ryan refers to savings, or rather a decrease on the income side, and it is no harm to pinpoint it again. The Minister mentions a shortfall in the yield from unemployment contributions. This as mentioned is a clear indication of the Government's failure to deal with the economic problems of the country. If in this year to March, 1967, we have a situation that because of increased unemployment there are fewer workers in work and fewer stamps being stamped, then the economic situation, so far as work is concerned, is becoming parlous indeed. The lack of effort on the part of the Government in this regard can be the only thing responsible for the present situation.

The phrase used by the Minister is a nice one — a shortfall of £100,000 in the yield from unemployment contributions. Of course that phrase means that there are so many people—I think Deputy Ryan mentioned 6,000—fewer in a position to pay their contributions. There are 6,000 more signing on to draw benefit, looking for assistance or considering again whether their only hope of employment is outside this country. That is what is covered by this simple phrase.

I am not quite sure what is meant by paragraph 2 of the Minister's statement:

The gross additional amount required is £234,000 but this is partially offset by expected savings of £40,000 on the original provision of £1,726,000.

Perhaps the Minister would say if that was in respect of savings or is it purely that expenditure included in the Estimate has not been realised. What is the explanation here?

We in the Labour Party have always supported the provision of the necessary finance for social welfare purposes. We have done so even at times when, to provide the finance to assist the less well off citizens in the community and those in need of assistance, we were faced with increased taxation, if that were necessary, to provide the money. We again support this Supplementary Estimate.

In this regard, I should like to say, in conclusion, that the underestimation, if I might describe it as such, shown in the earlier Estimate of the Department of Social Welfare arises to a great extent because the Minister in introducing his Estimate originally failed to give sufficient attention to the needs of those who required assistance from the State.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

There is not very much further I have to add to what I have already said in relation to this Supplementary Estimate, which is increased by my Department each year. It is necessarily impossible to produce an actual Estimate, and I think the Supplementary Estimate which falls at this time is an annual occurrence which is inevitable. I do not think I am called on to give any explanation of the very detailed figures I have already given under the different subheads of the Vote. One must be particularly aware that at this time of year in dealing with these things, we are coming dangerously near Budget time and all sorts of political capital is usually made out of expectations and what should be done.

Mr. Ryan

Who is in danger?

Mr. J. Brennan

I am very satisfied that the two speakers on the Supplementary Estimate did not press the debate unduly in that direction. I know that this Estimate, above all others, is one on which people can be faced with temptations to make political capital. One must always face the fact that it is easy to arouse sympathy for the less well off, the infirm, the aged and the unemployed. No matter what amount is given to them, they will always be a subject for the arousing of sympathy by people who wish to do that. I am not saying that the Deputies opposite overplayed their hand in doing that: I shall not delve into it now.

New payments came into effect on 1st November last under the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1966, and this necessarily entailed a Supplementary Estimate before the end of 1967. That is the main reason we are here tonight with this Supplementary Estimate.

I do not want to make any comment in regard to the tenth round wage increase.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote reported and agreed to.

Votes 48, 37 and 43 reported and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15th March, 1967.